Re: The seven deadly sins of SR.

From: Eric Gisse (fsegg_at_!SPAMuaf.edu)
Date: 08/31/04 

Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:37:45 -0800

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 08:01:18 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

[snip]

>
>>
>> | it must be derivable from the theory.
>> | However, 7 is an *observation*.
>>
>> No experiment has ever been carried out to measure the
>> speed of light in a vacuum from a moving source.
>> Name one that has, and I'll tell you what is wrong with it.
>
>How about GPS satellite detuning? The first GPS satellite had
>a flip-switch; on it compensated for theoretical SR+GR effects.
>Off it didn't. They had to flip it.

The satelite was NTS-2. Launched in 1977.

I will now predict Androcles' rebuttal: BUT THE SATELITES ARE UPDATED
DAILY SO THAT PROVES NOTHING HURRR

[snip]

>> All I have is a very strong coincidence from distant stars,
>> cepheids, recurrent novae, flare stars and eclipsing binaries,
>> and I don't believe in coincidences.

So thats why he thinks a variable star disproves SR. He still knows
nothing of astophysics.

>
>There are many more observations that can be done with
>binary stars -- in fact, there's one at PSR J1518+4904
>that appears to have mildly relativistic characteristics.
>
>www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJL/v466n2/5241/5241.pdf

Mildly? WEAKNESS!

PSR 1913+16! This binary pulsar system is leaking gravitational
radiation - or something that mimics it exactly.

[snip]

>> This is about relativity according to Einstein, not relativity according to
>> "Ghost in the Machine".
>
>Actually, it's about relativity according to Galileo, AFAICT.

Actually this is a common arguing tactic by Androcles. You can take
any accepted modern interpretation or derivation and it will suddenly
be 'your' relativity and he will have nothing to do with it.

[snip]

>> you cannot. If you want to study Nature as a scientist should, take a step
>> back from what you think is known but only guessed at and start studying the
>> data, not the theory. Heck, you'd be studying Ptolemy and ignoring
>> Copernicus, still believing the Earth is the centre of the universe if you
>> lived 400 years ago. We can see the sun cross the sky every day, and the
>> moon every night. And you want us to believe the moon orbits the Earth as
>> we all know, but the Earth orbits the sun? How ridiculous! The evidence
>> clearly point to Ptolemy being right! It's obvious!" But of course it isn't
>> ridiculous at all. Ptolemy was hopelessly wrong.
>
>So is Einstein, apparently. But c'=c+v is easily verifiable in the
>lab, as well. All one needs is a good polished mirror, lots of
>patience, and an interferometer, apparently. You've already
>mentioned a light accelerator; a double-mirror system might
>very well do interesting things.

It is amazingly easy to verify in a lab.

>
>I'd point you to Eric Gisse (who's apparently done something along
>those lines) but apparently you two annoy each other. :-P

The one I did was painful and inaccurate. I like the spinning fiber
better. If light really is source/observer/whatever independant, there
would be interference effects from the split beam having differeing
velocities.