Speed of Light: A universal Constant?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
Next: GOD=G_uv Measure your IQ in 30 seconds
From: Henri Wilson on 11 Jul 2005 03:20 On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 8 Jul 2005 04:41:53 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >Any idea of the experimental error of measuring c over a distance >> >of the earth' diameter with a source speed of 50,000 kmh? >> >> The time difference you would have to resolve is in the order of 10^-12 secs. >> Knowing the exact positions is the biggest problem. > >Thanks Henri: so it is not possible to tell, for us earthpersons. >Maybe it does not make the slightest difference. Fortunately it doesn't in most practical situations. >> >> > >> >Will it show, and if it does not show then how can anyone >> >claim SRT is proven because NASA calculations are based on them? >> >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable >> light speed. >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth >considering in >the current area of space flight? they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically anyway...except the two Mars probes that crashed and the pioneer10 anomalous redshift. while NASA continue to assume constant light speed from moving space capsules, they will have similar problems. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: G on 11 Jul 2005 23:47 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 8 Jul 2005 04:41:53 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >> >Any idea of the experimental error of measuring c over a distance > >> >of the earth' diameter with a source speed of 50,000 kmh? > >> > >> The time difference you would have to resolve is in the order of 10^-12 secs. > >> Knowing the exact positions is the biggest problem. > > > >Thanks Henri: so it is not possible to tell, for us earthpersons. > >Maybe it does not make the slightest difference. > > Fortunately it doesn't in most practical situations. > > >> > >> > > >> >Will it show, and if it does not show then how can anyone > >> >claim SRT is proven because NASA calculations are based on them? > >> > >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable > >> light speed. > >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? > >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth > >considering in > >the current area of space flight? > > they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically Henri Need reference for this. In any case the DHR's will be asking in their minds so might as well. Just a comment, that all this hoopla about relativity when it is too small to have an effect. Maybe the world needed to embrace Relativity as its philosphy because it served well to justify its moral conscience that says that there are no abolutes, maybe the effect of two world wars and the failure of religion. If Einstein did not exist it would have been necessary to invent him. Any plans to write a book? You can be sure it will be good if you let the SRians edit it and fix all the errors > anyway...except the two Mars probes that crashed and the pioneer10 anomalous > redshift. > > while NASA continue to assume constant light speed from moving space capsules, > they will have similar problems. > > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 12 Jul 2005 19:38 On 11 Jul 2005 20:47:02 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: >> >> > >> >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable >> >> light speed. >> >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? >> >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth >> >considering in >> >the current area of space flight? >> >> they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically > >Henri > > Need reference for this. In any case the DHR's will be asking >in their minds so might as well. > >Just a comment, that all this hoopla about relativity when >it is too small to have an effect. Maybe the world needed >to embrace Relativity as its philosphy because >it served well to justify its moral conscience that says that >there are no abolutes, maybe the effect of two world wars >and the failure of religion. Relativity is here to stay....it is the Einsteinian version that is wrong. > >If Einstein did not exist it would have been necessary to >invent him. > >Any plans to write a book? You can be sure it will be >good if you let the SRians edit it and fix all the errors It would also be completely useless if they ever got their hands on it. > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: G on 14 Jul 2005 23:13 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 11 Jul 2005 20:47:02 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable > >> >> light speed. > >> >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? > >> >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth > >> >considering in > >> >the current area of space flight? > >> > >> they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically > > > >Henri > > > > Need reference for this. In any case the DHR's will be asking > >in their minds so might as well. > > > >Just a comment, that all this hoopla about relativity when > >it is too small to have an effect. Maybe the world needed > >to embrace Relativity as its philosphy because > >it served well to justify its moral conscience that says that > >there are no abolutes, maybe the effect of two world wars > >and the failure of religion. > > Relativity is here to stay....it is the Einsteinian version that is wrong. > > > > >If Einstein did not exist it would have been necessary to > >invent him. > > > >Any plans to write a book? You can be sure it will be > >good if you let the SRians edit it and fix all the errors > > It would also be completely useless if they ever got their hands on it. > WHOOOOHOOOHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA > > > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: G on 17 Jul 2005 23:31
Henri Wilson wrote: > On 11 Jul 2005 20:47:02 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > > > > > > >Henri Wilson wrote: > >> On 10 Jul 2005 22:37:30 -0700, "G" <gehan(a)dialog.lk> wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> >> NASA would put it down to a slight orbit error rather than accept variable > >> >> light speed. > >> >Is this measurable with current instrumenation? > >> >Or are any case SRT effects are negligible and really not worth > >> >considering in > >> >the current area of space flight? > >> > >> they are too small to hve an effect. Everything is corrected empirically > > > >Henri > > > > Need reference for this. In any case the DHR's will be asking > >in their minds so might as well. > > > >Just a comment, that all this hoopla about relativity when > >it is too small to have an effect. Maybe the world needed > >to embrace Relativity as its philosphy because > >it served well to justify its moral conscience that says that > >there are no abolutes, maybe the effect of two world wars > >and the failure of religion. > > Relativity is here to stay....it is the Einsteinian version that is wrong. > > > > >If Einstein did not exist it would have been necessary to > >invent him. > > > >Any plans to write a book? You can be sure it will be > >good if you let the SRians edit it and fix all the errors > > It would also be completely useless if they ever got their hands on it. > > > Some interesting links "... All sorts of experiments have already been conducted in space. But the few experiments which might have truly tested the perhaps most fundamental and controversial hypotheses in twentieth century physics- Einstein's postulates - have curiously not been done." (NB: Only Extra-terrestrial measurements can test the Ether-Drag hypothesis; .. . . . the M/M experiment (1887): measuring light-speed along Earth surface is insufficient) - Bryan G.Wallace : "The Farce of Physics" http://home.iae.nl/users/benschop/links.htm > > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. > The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |