Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity

From: Ballisticus (B_at_..(Ballisticus))
Date: 06/23/04 

Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2004 23:16:00 GMT

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 08:58:08 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote:

>Ballisticus wrote:
>> I know [OWLS] is c wrt its source.
>
>That method of "doing physics" went out with Aristotle. It does not
>work. The ONLY way that has been found to work is to perform experiments
>and apply the scientific method to their results.

Even you god, Einstein says light moves at 'c' relative to its source.

>
>
>> What other
>> reference does emitted light have?
>
>The local inertial structure of spacetime.

What bull*** terminology is this? Big words might impress YOU Tom but not me.

1)spacetime is not a physical thing.
2) nothing moves in a space/time representation of the entirely unrelated
dimensions 'space' and 'time' so how can anything be 'inertial' in one?

>At least that is how the best
>theory we have explains it. But this is not really a "reference"....
>
>To understand this, you'll have to STUDY and LEARN some modern physics,
>rather than just sitting on your duff and pontificating. Aristotle got
>away with that; you are not Aristotle.

So did Maxwell. He also showed that light moves at c relative to its source.
I thought you liked Maxwell, Tom.

>
>
>> I want to COMPARE the speed of light coming to me from differently moving
>> sources. For that experiment I need only one clock.
>
>Yes, assuming you can arrange distinguishable light signals from
>differently-moving sources to get through a single opening of a "remote
>light gate", and propagate along virtually-identical paths to two
>detectors (one for each signal) referenced to your single clock.

That is correct. It is theoretically sound and quite feasible with modern
technology.
Why doesn't someone perform this experiment?
 
>
>Look up the experiments of Alvaeger et al and of Sadeh et al [references
>in the FAQ]. Both can be interpreted this way, as they compare the speed
>of gammas from moving sources to signals in cables with known
>propagation speed (v/c ~0.5 for Sadeh, ~0.99 for Alvaeger). The speed of
>their sources is VASTLY larger than any reasonable orientation
>variations in their cables. Their results clearly and definitively
>refute your claims of "c wrt the source", by huge margins.

Tom, only an indoctrinated person would believe these experiments.
Faith is an amazing thing. Suicide bombers find evidence of Allah on every
street corner.

>
>
>> I can postulate a frame that moves from Sun to Earth in 4 minutes if I want to.
>> Just because practically nothing in the universe is moving anywhere near c
>> relative to anything else doesn't mean it cannot happen.
>
>Except that all atempts to accelerate anything faster than c have
>failed.

We know why that happens. It is impossible to accelerate a boat with a jet of
water to faster than the jet velocity.

As particles accelerate, back radiation tends to neutralize the applied
accelerating field.... A Wilsonian 'reverse field bubble' sets up around the
charge and becomes equal to the applied field, as v->c.

>This is so striking and so universal that it's difficult to
>believe it is not a fundamental aspect of our universe. And the theories
>that postulate it is indeed a fundamental aspect of the world have wide
>applicability and excellent agreement with measurements....

The energy required to accelerate anything to near c relative to anything else
is so large that it isn't going to happen naturally very often, if ever. Like I
said, the universe is like a giant volume of gas at 3K. What are the chances of
a molecule reaching c? ->->Nil

There are observed gas jets around distant supernovae that show doppler greater
than c.

>
>
>> the universe is like a gas at 3K. Its mean molecular velocity is pretty small.
>
>Not here on earth....

No we live in a local warm spot.

>
>
>> The chances of anything (micro- or macro-scopic approaching c wrt anything else
>> is pretty slim.
>
>Not in a particle accelerator.... Why do you think we build them???

For obvious reasons Tom. To achieve and control something that rarely happens
in nature.

>
>
>> What part of a photon carries this 'energy and momentum'?
>
>Photons don't have "parts". And it's a bit of a misnomer to claim
>photons "carry" energy and momentum; it is better to say that photons
>TRANSFER energy and momentum. But even that is an overly-simplistic
>description of a complex quantum phenomenon....

Why don't you admit the truth Tom. Nobody has the faintest idea of the basic
makeup of light.
The photon concept doesn't really tell us anything.

In fact, no 'particle' theory tell us much beyond a certain level.

For a particle to have identifying properties, it must have a structure that
distinguishes it from other particles.

Therefore it must be made of even smaller particles......which in turn must be
made of........

Where does it all end?

Fractals?

>
>
>Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Quantcast