Re: OK, I'm Ready For the Patronizing Insults From the Resident Gurus!

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 10/11/04 

Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:58:21 GMT

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:24:50 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:

>
>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>news:6rcjm09eds6ob9rjoolsi7bv5ui0v1i2pu@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 20:55:08 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>>>news:c76jm0pcuh1k5s552q58ofnftekdhf51q3@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:23:19 GMT, "Androcles" <dummy@dummy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>>>>> Suppose *you* propose an experiment.
>>>>>
>>>>>Certainly. We have all we need.
>>>>>Computer.
>>>>>Laser.
>>>>>ISS.
>>>>>Mirror on the moon.
>>>>>Telescope.
>>>>>Accurate clock.
>>>>>Empty space.
>>>>>GPS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Point the laser at the moon from the ISS.
>>>>>Record the time and position automatically on the computer.
>>>>>Fire a pulse of light.
>>>>>Observe when/where the reflection is seen.
>>>>>Record the position and time on the computer. Repeat for 12 hours.
>>>>>Plot a chart.
>>>>>Calculate where/when the observations should occur according to
>>>>>1) Aether theory. ( speed of light is medium dependent)
>>>>>2) Relativity theory. (speed of light is observer dependent)
>>>>>3) Emission theory. (speed of light is source dependent)
>>>>>Plot charts for each.
>>>>>Determine which theory best fits the data.
>>>>>Done.
>>>>
>>>> Can't be done. No funding available from the establishment!
>>>
>>>I was only asked to propose the experiment. Obviously it is feasable.
>>>There is money available (or was) for schoolchildren to send mustard
>>>seeds into orbit to see how they grew under weightless conditions
>>>and millions to be saved on particle accelerators designed by relativists,
>>>but of course Roberts will argue that the same experiment should
>>>be conducted from the surface of the earth, which is rotating at 1000mph
>>>relative to the moon instead of the ISS moving at 17,000 mph, through
>>>the thickest part of the atmosphere where it will be far more difficult
>>>to observe the reflection, and all so that he can prolong relativity for
>>>the
>>>rest of his tenure, as will every other chicken with an axe to grind.
>>>Such people are the enemies of truth in science and slugs on the cabbage
>>>of life.
>>
>> The ideal emitter would be a geostationary one so that its position is
>> precisely known. (Is the ISS in that kind of orbit? I dunno)
>
>No, the ideal would be as close to atmosphere as possible to maximize
>velocity,
>and that is also the ideal for the ISS which will be carrying out geological
>studies
>anyway.
>Geostationary orbits are slower. It takes 90 minutes or so per orbit for the
>ISS
>and HST, 12 hours per orbit for GPS, 24 hours for communication sats and
>a whole month for the moon.
>
>>
>> Let's do the sums.
>> Travel time there and back = say 2.2 secs.
>> Velocity of source = about 16 kms/sec.
>>
>> Velocity difference on each side = 3.2 kms/sec.
>> travel time difference = about 1 part in 10^5.
>> So we would be looking at a difference of 22 microseconds.
>>
>> I can't see a problem. Can you?
>
>In principle, no, but your figures are for a 22 yard cricket pitch and I'm
>using a 100 yard football field.
>
> The Relativist calculation:
>Distance to moon: 238,000 miles.
>Value of c: 186,000 miles/sec
>Time one way: 1.279570
>Velocity of ISS: 17,000 mph.
>Distance ISS will move in 1.2 seconds : 6 miles.
>Distance to return: 12 miles more or 12 miles less.
>
> Return time:
>Approaching Receding
>(238000-12)/c = (238000+12)/c =
>1.279505 1.2796344
> Total round trip:
>2.559075 2.559204
>
>Difference in time, one side of the
>earth to the other: 120 microseconds.
>=============================
> The Ballistic calculation:
>Distance to moon: 238,000 miles.
>Velocity of ISS: 17,000 mph.
>Distance ISS will move in 1.2 seconds : 6 miles.
>
> Outbound time:
>Approaching: Receding:
>238000/186006 = 238000/185994 =
>1.279529 seconds 1.279611 seconds
> Return time:
>(238000-12)/186006 = 238006/185994 =
>1.279464 seconds 1.279643
>
> Total round trip:
>2.55899 seconds 2.559254
>Difference in time, one side of the
>earth to the other: 264 microseconds.
>===========================
>Difference between SR and NM:
>264 - 120 = 144 microseconds.
>
>
>Henri, that is six times larger than your figure,
>easily measurable, and HUGE.

True but you have the problem of ascertaining when the orbit is precisely over.
With a geostationary orbit, the positioning can be checked over many orbits to
ensure the satellite is in exactly the right place.

Yours only has to be out by a few
metres and there will be an error.

144 us represents 2.5 miles.

...and when are you going metric, A?

>
>>
>>
>> This experiment is indeed perfectly simple and feasible right now. However
>> there is no guarantee that it will show a positive result because of the
>> remote
>> possibility that a 'local EM frame of reference' exists. I know you don't
>> agree
>> with that and, even if such does exist I think the experiment would still
>> produce a positive result ...maybe not exactly as predicted.
>>
>
>It doesn't matter whether I agree with anyone's opinion or not. What is
>important here is why relativists are reluctant to see such an experiment
>carried out. A scientist would be interested in the result. A relativist
>wants
>to voice his lousy opinions and wave his stinking Lorentz Tranforms in
>the public's face, but does NOT want to risk being caught with his pants
>down.

Exactly.

>Michelson would jump at the idea if he were allive today.
>It's been over 100 years since his experiment has been misused in support
>of Einstein's garbage and I think it is time the people were told the truth,
>whichever way it goes.

They don't want us to know. Too many heads would roll. Including Andersen and
Roberts.

>As far as opinions go, I'd be very surprised if it did not produce the
>ballistic conclusion, but I'd have to accept the result and be mystified.

Len's local EM frame of reference provides the escape route.. That explains why
thermal velocities don't affect variable star brightness curves. I know you
don't like the idea but....

>I can already foresee the flak that the relativists would throw up, it would
>be a repeat of the aether-drag nonsense that followed MMX, but it
>would either open up the aether once again or put it to bed forever.
>My opinion doesn't count for ***, and neither does anyone else's.
>Results matter, opinions do not.

Well I have no contact in the physics field now, have you?

Maybe we should write a letter to an appropriate journal. They must be running
out of good ideas by now.

>
>
>> I sometimes suspect it has already been performed and the results hushed
>> up by
>> the physics Mafia, for obvious reasons.
>
>No no... That's the conspiracy theory that Andersen would accuse you of,
>and is unreasonable and paranoid. From a relativist's point of view, such an
>experiment is simply unnecessary, they already know the outcome. The point
>they are missing is that Michelson already knew the outcome of his
>experiment, and what he knew was wrong. That is the reason experiment is
>necessary.

The MMX was doomed because light speed is source dependent over short distances
even in air. I'm not sure if Michelson would have agreed with that. Maybe.

>>
>> Maybe the Chinese will carry out this experiment soon. They are not all
>> completely brainwashed..scientifically speaking at least.
>>
>Or the Russians, Indians, Japanese... and I happen to know a few Brits and
>Aussies that can think for themselves, too. Nationality doesn't really
>matter, though. Science is not the Olympic games with patriotic pride at
>stake. That is why we have an International Space Station. You don't walk
>into the USA and live there, then let you into NASA establishments under the nose of the INS,
>unless they want you, and then they make you welcome.

I just hope someone performs this experiment soon. I want to know the answer.

>
>Androcles.
>

HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Quantcast