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 21 Apr 2005 01:18 On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:21:55 GMT ><trua61hacub6blube26g1halciji3qs8hb(a)4ax.com>: >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:09:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>> >>>> Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. >>>> >>>> S________r________c----------------------------------------------A >>>> >>>> S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards >>>> Andromeda. >>>> >>>> S emits a light pulse towards A. >>>> >>>> Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It >>>> also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. >>> >>>All what can be read off clock c when the pulse is >>>intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >>>To find the travel time, you must read off the clock c >>>when the pulse is emitted. >>>Please specify exactly how that's done. >>>No hand-waving. >> >> Paul, I anticipated such a 'last resort' response from you. >> >> THE TRAVEL TIME IS QUITE UNIMPORTANT. >> >> What matters is that there is ONLY ONE TIME. > >Ah, but what does that reading represent? The clock, after all, >is in a different reference frame from the stars of Andromeda. >It conducts the measurement in that frame. Ghost, the pulse has ONE ONLY speed. It matters not what that speed is. If it has ONE speed wrt one object, (in this case its source), it cannot suddenly possess an infinite number of speeds. What was Einstein's first postulate again? > >> >> So I will ask again: how can the pulse be traveling at precisely c >> relative to every object in Andromeda, when the experiment >> conclusively shows it has only one speed? > >Yes. You don't understand the Lorentz. I don't recognize Lorentz. It is based on the existence of an aether. It is fundamentally flawed. (A similar law might hold for aspects of charged particles however) A vertical beam in one frame does not become a diagonal beam in another. It remains vertical. > >Let (x_O,y_O,z_O,t_O) be in space O, where >x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0. >Basically, this is a hypercone conic surface (or a lightcone surface, >if one prefers). An alternative interpretation is that it's >the locus of a photon which originated at the origin. > >The Lorentz transformation between coordinate systems A and O >is of course > >x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >y_A = y_O >z_A = z_O >t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) > >It turns out that, if > >x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0, then >x_A^2+y_A^2+z_A^2-c^2*t_A^2 = 0 as well. > >I'd have to find my post proving the above but it's not >that difficult to prove, mathematically. The corollary, >of course, is that lightspeed under this transform is >c everywhere. Is the Universe required to be Euclidean? :-) You are merely using circular maths. > >But the real proof is in the experimentation, which makes >this worth diddly-squat without at least some experimental >evidence to back it up. However, there's a number of >experiments that suggest that lightspeed *is* in fact >c everywhere, regardless of motion or gravitation. No there are not. Unless OWLS from a moving source is directly measured you cannot make such claims. > >Your dual-probe moon experiment might corroborate SR and GR, >but that's about it. It will prove them wrong. > >[snip for brevity] > >> Here are a few you might look at: >> >> R Aquilae >> R Andromedae >> R Arietis >> R Aur >> X Aur >> R Boo >> S Boo >> U Boo* >> V Boo* >> V CVn** >> R Cam >> V Cam" >> X Cam >> Z Cam >> R Cas* >> S Cas** >> t Cas** >> W Cas >> S Cep* >> T Cep* >> Omicron Ceti >> R Com >> R Crb*** >> S Crb >> V Crb >> W Crb >> R Cyg >> S Cyg >> V Cyg >> W Cyg >> AF Cyg*** >> CH Cyg----- >> Cyg---- >> Chi Cyg >> R Dra >> R Gem >> S Her* >> RU Her** >> SS Her >> AH her >> R Hya >> SU Lac >> X Oph >> U ori >> RU Peg--- >> GK Per--- >> R Scuti** >> R Ser >> V Tau >> R Uma >> S Uma >> T Uma >> CH Uma*** >> S Umi >> R Vul >> V Vul* >> > >What, precisely, are we looking for again? All these are are >luminosity vs. time curves, AFAICT. that is correct Ghost...and they are exactly the types of curves predicted by the ballistic theory. (not the ones with ----) > >[.sigsnip] 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 21 Apr 2005 01:32 On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 23:25:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >Henri Wilson wrote: >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:09:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >> >> >>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>> >>>>Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. >>>> >>>>S________r________c----------------------------------------------A >>>> >>>>S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards >>>>Andromeda. >>>> >>>>S emits a light pulse towards A. >>>> >>>>Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It >>>>also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. >>> >>>All what can be read off clock c when the pulse is >>>intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >>>To find the travel time, you must read off the clock c >>>when the pulse is emitted. >>>Please specify exactly how that's done. >>>No hand-waving. >> >> >> Paul, I anticipated such a 'last resort' response from you. >> >> THE TRAVEL TIME IS QUITE UNIMPORTANT. >> >> What matters is that there is ONLY ONE TIME. > >You mean that the fact that the clock c is showing >a specific number when the pulse is intercepted >is all that matters? > >Why is this obvious triviality so important? I should think its importance would be obvious to any intelligent being. ..even a 5yo gorilla maybe. If something possesses only one speed in one frame, then it can possess only one speed in any other frame. That is Einstein's first postulate after all. So there is no way the pulse can possess all the speeds necessary to make travel at c wrt every object in Andromeda. > >> So I will ask again: how can the pulse be traveling at precisely c relative to >> every object in Andromeda, when the experiment conclusively shows it has only >> one speed? > >How can you conclude anything about the speed of >anything with only one reading of a single clock? I don't want to give that speed a value. I just want to know that it is singular. > >What is your point? Ask any gorilla. > >>>Specify a method which actually is possible to use. > >You evaded this one, didn't you? >Without it, there is no way you can say >anything about the speed of the light. Paul, I have specified my experiment in the simplest of terms. Even a 5yo gorilla could understand it. > > >>>I think we can agree that c would measure the length (duration) >>>of the pulse to be the same as measured by a clock at S. >>> >>> >>>>How can you claim that the pulse is traveling at 'c' wrt all the moving objects >>>>in Andromeda? It clearly has only one speed, not an infinite number. >>> >>>So let's introduce a "moving object" - a second clock d. >>>Let's suppose that this clock is adjacent to c when the pulse >>>is intercepted by both clocks at the same instant. (Coinciding events.) >>> >>> d -> v >>>S________r________c >>> >>>All what can be read off clock d when the pulse is >>>intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >>>To find the travel time, you must read off the clock d >>>when the pulse is emitted. >>>Please specify exactly how that's done. >>>No hand-waving. >>>Specify a method which actually is possible to use. >> >> >> Paul, my experiment doesn't require any second clocks that are moving. It >> proves the point as it is. > >I can't imagine which point a single reading of >a single clock can prove. It proves that the pulse goes past only once. That is sufficient. Your confusion stems from the fact that you still believe in the aetherist concept that an observer's clocks and rods change with movement in such a way as to make any measured value of light speed always 'c'. This is quite irrelevant here. The light form the source moves at only one speed towards the whole of andromeda. The light form any other source also moves at one single speed towards the whole of andromeda. The light from the two sources does not move at the same single speed towards the whole of andromeda if the two sources are relatively moving. Why should it? > > >>>I think we can agree that d would measure the length (duration) >>>of the pulse to be different from what is measured by a clock at S. >> >> >> It would still get only one reading and prove that the pulse could NOT be >> traveling at c wrt every object in Andromeda. > >That's two readings. Paul, if I drive my car at 60 kmh wrt the road, is it traveling at 60 kmh wrt every other car on the planet? > >> The value of that reading is unimportant. > >You mean the duration is unimportant? >What is then your point? Ask that gorilla kid. > > >>>>Note: the ballistic theory, as applied to brightness curves, is in no way >>>>dependent on how the speed of light might be measured by any observers. >>>>As we know, the aether (and pseudo-aether) concept is that all observers will >>>>measure OWLS as being 'c' because their clocks and rods will miraculously >>>>change in order to make it so. Even if that were true, (haha) it would not >>>>affect the BaT's predictions concerning variable stars. >>> >>>You sure are right about the latter. :-) >>>Every time we - you and I - have checked what >>>the BaT predicts for concrete binaries, the predictions >>>have proven to be wrong. >> >> >> Here are a few you might look at: >> >> R Aquilae >> R Andromedae >> R Arietis >> R Aur >> X Aur >> R Boo >> S Boo >> U Boo* >> V Boo* >> V CVn** >> R Cam >> V Cam" >> X Cam >> Z Cam >> R Cas* >> S Cas** >> t Cas** >> W Cas >> S Cep* >> T Cep* >> Omicron Ceti >> R Com >> R Crb*** >> S Crb >> V Crb >> W Crb >> R Cyg >> S Cyg >> V Cyg >> W Cyg >> AF Cyg*** >> CH Cyg----- >> Cyg---- >> Chi Cyg >> R Dra >> R Gem >> S Her* >> RU Her** >> SS Her >> AH her >> R Hya >> SU Lac >> X Oph >> U ori >> RU Peg--- >> GK Per--- >> R Scuti** >> R Ser >> V Tau >> R Uma >> S Uma >> T Uma >> CH Uma*** >> S Umi >> R Vul >> V Vul* > >Yea, Right. :-) > >I won't bother to repeat what everybody knows. You will be forced to come around eventually. The evidence is stariung at you. > >Paul 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 21 Apr 2005 01:33 On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 22:39:51 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ikgd61966v4b9r1gd195nkr8ddk6vjllk3(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 19:21:21 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >> George, I am making progress. >> >> See: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/sagnac.exe >> >> It only goes half way round but already shows how the red line is going to >> reach the startpoint much earlier than the blue one. It represents your >> standard model. >> How am I going? Does it work on your computer? > >It works and gives me this at the >end of the first leg > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/henri_01.gif > >and this at the end of the second > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/henri_02.gif > >The breaks in the mirrors seem odd and >using shorter lengths would avoid the >overlaps. Clicking the "second leg" >button while the first leg is still >running is interesting. The broadened >left hand side is because the mirror >line is drawn continuously from when >the red beam hits until the blue beam >arrives. > >Assuming you have the angles right, >you are going in the right direction. >I don't have time tonight and will be >out tomorrow but I'll try to check on >Friday. I have a backlog of other >emails though. OK I'll keep going. > >George > 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: The Ghost In The Machine on 21 Apr 2005 03:00 In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) <H@> wrote on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:18:16 GMT <gede61pkm2go943qb09eh5oq4q85vjmp19(a)4ax.com>: > On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine > <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: > >>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >><H@> >> wrote >>on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:21:55 GMT >><trua61hacub6blube26g1halciji3qs8hb(a)4ax.com>: >>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:09:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>> >>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. >>>>> >>>>> S________r________c----------------------------------------------A >>>>> >>>>> S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards >>>>> Andromeda. >>>>> >>>>> S emits a light pulse towards A. >>>>> >>>>> Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It >>>>> also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. >>>> >>>>All what can be read off clock c when the pulse is >>>>intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >>>>To find the travel time, you must read off the clock c >>>>when the pulse is emitted. >>>>Please specify exactly how that's done. >>>>No hand-waving. >>> >>> Paul, I anticipated such a 'last resort' response from you. >>> >>> THE TRAVEL TIME IS QUITE UNIMPORTANT. >>> >>> What matters is that there is ONLY ONE TIME. >> >>Ah, but what does that reading represent? The clock, after all, >>is in a different reference frame from the stars of Andromeda. >>It conducts the measurement in that frame. > > Ghost, the pulse has ONE ONLY speed. Really? What speed would that be? In the BaT, depending on who's observing, that pulse has multiple speeds. In SR, spacetime twists in a hyperbolic but mathematically consistent fashion, to give everyone lightspeed c. > It matters not what that speed is. > If it has ONE speed wrt one object, (in this case its source), it cannot > suddenly possess an infinite number of speeds. So who says it does? > > What was Einstein's first postulate again? That lightspeed has only one speed: c, no matter who measures it, or how it's measured. SR twists time and space (through the Lorentz) to achieve this feat, and it's a strange twisting to those unused thereto -- but it is a consistent one. > >> >>> >>> So I will ask again: how can the pulse be traveling at precisely c >>> relative to every object in Andromeda, when the experiment >>> conclusively shows it has only one speed? >> >>Yes. You don't understand the Lorentz. > > I don't recognize Lorentz. It is based on the existence > of an aether. It is fundamentally flawed. (A similar law > might hold for aspects of charged particles however) > A vertical beam in one frame does not become a diagonal > beam in another. It remains vertical. Oh no? Using the Galilean transform, a vertical beam most certainly does not stay vertical. If we assume a tri-coordinate system (x,y,t) for the purposes of this problem and define a horizontal beam as a beam such that x_O = 0 (for all y and t), then, in A-space, we end up with x_A = x_O - v * t_O y_A = y_O t_A = t_O Is x_A constant? No. The beam is no longer vertical. SR predicts similar results so don't worry overly much about it. > >> >>Let (x_O,y_O,z_O,t_O) be in space O, where >>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0. >>Basically, this is a hypercone conic surface (or a lightcone surface, >>if one prefers). An alternative interpretation is that it's >>the locus of a photon which originated at the origin. >> >>The Lorentz transformation between coordinate systems A and O >>is of course >> >>x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>y_A = y_O >>z_A = z_O >>t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >> >>It turns out that, if >> >>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0, then >>x_A^2+y_A^2+z_A^2-c^2*t_A^2 = 0 as well. >> >>I'd have to find my post proving the above but it's not >>that difficult to prove, mathematically. The corollary, >>of course, is that lightspeed under this transform is >>c everywhere. Is the Universe required to be Euclidean? :-) > > You are merely using circular maths. Perhaps. They are, at least, consistent. > >> >>But the real proof is in the experimentation, which makes >>this worth diddly-squat without at least some experimental >>evidence to back it up. However, there's a number of >>experiments that suggest that lightspeed *is* in fact >>c everywhere, regardless of motion or gravitation. > > No there are not. Unless OWLS from a moving source is directly > measured you cannot make such claims. I said *suggest*. There *is no proof* that lightspeed is c everywhere -- merely suggestions. Very strong suggestions, though. > >> >>Your dual-probe moon experiment might corroborate SR and GR, >>but that's about it. > > It will prove them wrong. Sure it will. Care to put money behind it? Like maybe a few hundred million dollars worth? That's about what it would cost to launch two (or maybe several) spaceprobes with well-characterized repeaters. > >> >>[snip for brevity] >> >>> Here are a few you might look at: >>> >>> R Aquilae >>> R Andromedae >>> R Arietis >>> R Aur >>> X Aur >>> R Boo >>> S Boo >>> U Boo* >>> V Boo* >>> V CVn** >>> R Cam >>> V Cam" >>> X Cam >>> Z Cam >>> R Cas* >>> S Cas** >>> t Cas** >>> W Cas >>> S Cep* >>> T Cep* >>> Omicron Ceti >>> R Com >>> R Crb*** >>> S Crb >>> V Crb >>> W Crb >>> R Cyg >>> S Cyg >>> V Cyg >>> W Cyg >>> AF Cyg*** >>> CH Cyg----- >>> Cyg---- >>> Chi Cyg >>> R Dra >>> R Gem >>> S Her* >>> RU Her** >>> SS Her >>> AH her >>> R Hya >>> SU Lac >>> X Oph >>> U ori >>> RU Peg--- >>> GK Per--- >>> R Scuti** >>> R Ser >>> V Tau >>> R Uma >>> S Uma >>> T Uma >>> CH Uma*** >>> S Umi >>> R Vul >>> V Vul* >>> >> >>What, precisely, are we looking for again? All these are are >>luminosity vs. time curves, AFAICT. > > that is correct Ghost...and they are exactly the types of > curves predicted by the ballistic theory. (not the ones with ----) Ah yes. Now how about curves for more exotic objects? Highspeed X-ray-generating orbital binaries, for example? [.sigsnip] -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Henri Wilson on 21 Apr 2005 05:26
On Thu, 21 Apr 2005 07:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) ><H@> > wrote >on Thu, 21 Apr 2005 05:18:16 GMT ><gede61pkm2go943qb09eh5oq4q85vjmp19(a)4ax.com>: >> On Wed, 20 Apr 2005 15:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine >> <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson) >>><H@> >>> wrote >>>on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 22:21:55 GMT >>><trua61hacub6blube26g1halciji3qs8hb(a)4ax.com>: >>>> On Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:09:52 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" >>>> <paul.b.andersen(a)deletethishia.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Henri Wilson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Paul, here is a simple question, Please answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> S________r________c----------------------------------------------A >>>>>> >>>>>> S is a light source connected to a clock by a long rod r, which point towards >>>>>> Andromeda. >>>>>> >>>>>> S emits a light pulse towards A. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clock c intercepts the pulse and indicates ONE single travel time from S. It >>>>>> also observes that the length of the pulse is the same as when emitted by S. >>>>> >>>>>All what can be read off clock c when the pulse is >>>>>intercepted is the reading of the clock at that instant. >>>>>To find the travel time, you must read off the clock c >>>>>when the pulse is emitted. >>>>>Please specify exactly how that's done. >>>>>No hand-waving. >>>> >>>> Paul, I anticipated such a 'last resort' response from you. >>>> >>>> THE TRAVEL TIME IS QUITE UNIMPORTANT. >>>> >>>> What matters is that there is ONLY ONE TIME. >>> >>>Ah, but what does that reading represent? The clock, after all, >>>is in a different reference frame from the stars of Andromeda. >>>It conducts the measurement in that frame. >> >> Ghost, the pulse has ONE ONLY speed. > >Really? > >What speed would that be? Irrelevant > >In the BaT, depending on who's observing, that pulse has multiple >speeds. Ghost, no matter what theory you use, the pulse passes the clock only once...and at the same width as when emitted. Do you not agree? Yes or no please. > >In SR, spacetime twists in a hyperbolic but mathematically consistent >fashion, to give everyone lightspeed c. > >> It matters not what that speed is. >> If it has ONE speed wrt one object, (in this case its source), it cannot >> suddenly possess an infinite number of speeds. > >So who says it does? YOU PEOPLE. YOU SAY IT IS TRAVELING AT C WRT EVERY OTHER OBJECT IN TYHE UNIVERSE. YOU MUST BE RAVING MAD!!! > >> >> What was Einstein's first postulate again? > >That lightspeed has only one speed: c, >no matter who measures it, or how it's measured. No Ghost, learn your SR. That's the second postulate. > >SR twists time and space (through the Lorentz) to achieve this feat, >and it's a strange twisting to those unused thereto -- but it >is a consistent one. Time and space cannot be twisted by any stupid circular maths theory. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> So I will ask again: how can the pulse be traveling at precisely c >>>> relative to every object in Andromeda, when the experiment >>>> conclusively shows it has only one speed? >>> >>>Yes. You don't understand the Lorentz. >> >> I don't recognize Lorentz. It is based on the existence >> of an aether. It is fundamentally flawed. (A similar law >> might hold for aspects of charged particles however) >> A vertical beam in one frame does not become a diagonal >> beam in another. It remains vertical. > >Oh no? > >Using the Galilean transform, a vertical beam most certainly >does not stay vertical. If we assume a tri-coordinate >system (x,y,t) for the purposes of this problem and define >a horizontal beam as a beam such that x_O = 0 (for all y and t), >then, in A-space, we end up with > >x_A = x_O - v * t_O >y_A = y_O >t_A = t_O > >Is x_A constant? No. The beam is no longer vertical. > >SR predicts similar results so don't worry overly much about it. Ghost, you are showing your ignorance. Even Paul Andersen agrees that a vertical beam remains vertical in all frames. see my programs: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/vertical.exe and: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/movingframe.exe > >> >>> >>>Let (x_O,y_O,z_O,t_O) be in space O, where >>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0. >>>Basically, this is a hypercone conic surface (or a lightcone surface, >>>if one prefers). An alternative interpretation is that it's >>>the locus of a photon which originated at the origin. >>> >>>The Lorentz transformation between coordinate systems A and O >>>is of course >>> >>>x_A = (x_O - v * t_O) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>>y_A = y_O >>>z_A = z_O >>>t_A = (t_O - v * x_O/c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) >>> >>>It turns out that, if >>> >>>x_O^2+y_O^2+z_O^2-c^2*t_O^2 = 0, then >>>x_A^2+y_A^2+z_A^2-c^2*t_A^2 = 0 as well. >>> >>>I'd have to find my post proving the above but it's not >>>that difficult to prove, mathematically. The corollary, >>>of course, is that lightspeed under this transform is >>>c everywhere. Is the Universe required to be Euclidean? :-) >> >> You are merely using circular maths. > >Perhaps. They are, at least, consistent. Circular maths is always consistent. What does that prove? > >> >>> >>>But the real proof is in the experimentation, which makes >>>this worth diddly-squat without at least some experimental >>>evidence to back it up. However, there's a number of >>>experiments that suggest that lightspeed *is* in fact >>>c everywhere, regardless of motion or gravitation. >> >> No there are not. Unless OWLS from a moving source is directly >> measured you cannot make such claims. > >I said *suggest*. There *is no proof* that lightspeed is >c everywhere -- merely suggestions. Very strong suggestions, >though. Where? I have never seen any. > >> >>> >>>Your dual-probe moon experiment might corroborate SR and GR, >>>but that's about it. >> >> It will prove them wrong. > >Sure it will. Care to put money behind it? Like maybe a >few hundred million dollars worth? > >That's about what it would cost to launch two (or maybe several) >spaceprobes with well-characterized repeaters. It would cost very little if done in conjunction with other experiments. I'm sure the Chinese or Ruskies will perform this type of experiment soon. I don't doubt they watch NGs like this for good ideas like mine. > >> >>> >>>[snip for brevity] >>> >>>> Here are a few you might look at: >>>> >>>> R Aquilae >>>> R Andromedae >>>> R Arietis >>>> R Aur >>>> X Aur >>>> R Boo >>>> S Boo >>>> U Boo* >>>> V Boo* >>>> V CVn** >>>> R Cam >>>> V Cam" >>>> X Cam >>>> Z Cam >>>> R Cas* >>>> S Cas** >>>> t Cas** >>>> W Cas >>>> S Cep* >>>> T Cep* >>>> Omicron Ceti >>>> R Com >>>> R Crb*** >>>> S Crb >>>> V Crb >>>> W Crb >>>> R Cyg >>>> S Cyg >>>> V Cyg >>>> W Cyg >>>> AF Cyg*** >>>> CH Cyg----- >>>> Cyg---- >>>> Chi Cyg >>>> R Dra >>>> R Gem >>>> S Her* >>>> RU Her** >>>> SS Her >>>> AH her >>>> R Hya >>>> SU Lac >>>> X Oph >>>> U ori >>>> RU Peg--- >>>> GK Per--- >>>> R Scuti** >>>> R Ser >>>> V Tau >>>> R Uma >>>> S Uma >>>> T Uma >>>> CH Uma*** >>>> S Umi >>>> R Vul >>>> V Vul* >>>> >>> >>>What, precisely, are we looking for again? All these are are >>>luminosity vs. time curves, AFAICT. >> >> that is correct Ghost...and they are exactly the types of >> curves predicted by the ballistic theory. (not the ones with ----) > >Ah yes. Now how about curves for more exotic objects? > >Highspeed X-ray-generating orbital binaries, for example? No problems Ghost. > >[.sigsnip] 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. |