Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 12/10/04 

Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 03:00:15 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
 wrote
on Thu, 09 Dec 2004 15:45:35 GMT
<zq_td.58457$MG3.8871@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:nc4l82-7dl.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
>> <kenseto@erinet.com>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:53:31 GMT
>> <fkGtd.33033$CG4.7746@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
>> >
>> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>> > message news:vsgj82-22h.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
>> >> <kenseto@erinet.com>
>> >> wrote
>> >> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:54:42 GMT
>> >> <CIDtd.56801$MG3.51146@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
>> >> >
>> >> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote
> in
>> >> > message news:gnfi82-g48.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, JP
>> >> >> <jp@nospam.com>
>> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:15:11 +0000
>> >> >> <pan.2004.12.05.18.15.09.916871@nospam.com>:
>> >> >> > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:01:19 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine
> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
>> >> >> >> <H@.>
>> >> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> >> on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:13:07 GMT
>> >> >> >> <e2v4r0h49fjfb0fa1u0li7h2nn706j798f@4ax.com>:
>> >> >> >>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:40:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
>> > <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [crunch]
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>>Henri - comprehension is vital. You have shown none. My
> meaning
>> > is
>> >> > obvious
>> >> >> >>>>to anyone with a brain ie was the purpose of the other syncing
>> > methods
>> >> > also
>> >> >> >>>>to obviate the need for an aether?
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> But in your SRian stupidity, you are completely missing the
> point
>> > that
>> >> >> >>> E-synching is ABSOLUTE synching. That is becasue light speed is
>> > source
>> >> >> >>> dependent.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Somebody really should tell the decaying pi-mesons that.
> Apparently
>> >> >> >> they've not yet got the message.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v135/i4B/pB1071_1
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> [crunch]
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I'd love to see the full text of that article.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I wouldn't mind too much myself -- but I'm cheap. :-)
>> >> >> The general idea, however, looks straightforward enough, and
>> >> >> only one clock would be required -- the one doing the
>> >> >> actual lightspeed measurement.
>> >> >
>> >> > You can't measure OWLS with just one clock. You can measure TWLS with
>> > just
>> >> > one cl***.
>> >>
>> >> The OWLS in this case is from a moving source (the decaying mesons).
>> >> The c'=c+v theory predicts a massively different result. Gamma
>> >> rays from the moving mesons can simply be thrown through a straightline
>> >> pipe and two detectors (one at each end) and the time difference
>> >> measured.
>> >
>> > How do you get the time difference without two clocks??
>>
>> A "speed trap" should work.
>>
>> -->> A B
>> \ /
>> +-------C-------+
>>
>> A and B are stationary with respect to the lab. The light source
>> generates photons which go through A, then through B. Assuming
>> A and B are equidistant from C, there shouldn't be much of a problem.
>>
>> This is a TWLS measurement, but with an odd twist, as the light
>> paths are A-C and A-C-B-C instead of the more conventional
>> A and A-B-A.
>
> Ah...now you are saying that this is not an OWLS measurement but a TWLS
> measurement.. BTW, why do you need point A for this measurement? Why can't A
> be at C and thus the light goes from C to B and from B to C?

Because the light is going *through* the apparatus, starting at A;
A is not generating the light.

The control paths AC and CB must be equal in speed -- a problem if
one doesn't assume OWLS isotropy -- and that's why this is in fact
a true TWLS experiment. One modification that might work is to
slow down the AC and CB paths by making them out of flint glass or
electrical conducting wire. The light path, as always, proceeds
in pure vacuum.

One might calibrate the device by shooting a stationary laser from
A, and adjusting C until the desired TWLS result is obtained. The
light from the "foreign" source can then be introduced through A,
and the result measured. Ideally, the device would be movable
as well, allowing the direction of the ACB path to be changed,
and the device recalibrated.

>
> Ken Seto
> 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Quantcast