Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:01:34 GMT

In sci.physics, Tom Capizzi
<tom.capizzi@verizon.net>
 wrote
on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 05:12:08 GMT
<I8oEd.2570$4b.287@trndny08>:
>
> "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
> news:7mu3u0h6vkh99bf8onkf7go0rgurffheu6@4ax.com...

[snip]

>> Time dilation has never been convincingly proved in clocks anywhere.
>>
>
> Liar.

No, he is correct, within a certain scope; time dilation has
never been convincingly proved *to him* in clocks anywhere.

Of course I for one consider NST-2 and certain muon and
electron-positron experiments very good evidence for
time dialation. There are also issues with supernovae.

>
>> I suppose you believe jesus christ cured blind men too.
>
> Silly and irrelevant.
>
>>
>>>>>also need
>>>>>to know what fraction are still superluminal at ground level, since
>>>>>according to you
>>>>>they are not detected. And while you're at it, tell us how to detect a
>>>>>superluminal
>>>>>muon so we can repeat your experiment and confirm your results.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>I asked for hard data, not fairy tales. How much faster than light are you
>>>claiming, exactly? And what experiment can we try to confirm your claim?
>>
>> Light moves at c relative to its source.

And to anyone else who cares to measure it. :-)

>> That measn it moves at some oyther velocity wrt an observer
>> moving wrt the source.

Not at all a foregone conclusion.

>> That is obvious.

Not as obvious as one might think. For example, it was once
"obvious" that monsters inhabit the deep blue sea. (There
are some unusual creatures, but they're not considered
monsters anymore.)

[snip for brevity]

>>>Or in the real universe where one-way light speed is
>>>always equal to c even between all relatively moving
>>>bodies. Time dilation has been measured on real clocks
>>>in experiments that have been repeated and confirmed.
>>>Your statement is just plain false. You are not merely
>>>interpreting the experiment erroneously, but you are
>>>inventing your own rules of physics to do it.
>>>Rules that contradict the experimental evidence, to boot.
>>
>> The H&K has already been withdrawn.
>> Total bull***.
>>
>
> How fast are the muons? What fraction of them travel
> at that speed? Where are the numbers? What experiment
> confirms them? By the way, what does H&K stand for
> in Henri-speak?

Probably the 1971 results of Hafele and Keating. I am not
aware of the results being withdrawn, however, although
they did have some minor statistical problems with the
cesium-ion clocks that made things a bit messy.

The results, however, were still published, and stand
(AFAIK) to this day.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Actual flight time changes are insignificant, so the
>>>>>original probability of 0.3 per million remains. So
>>>>>how do we detect the millions of times more superluminal
>>>>>muons than subluminal muons?
>>>>
>>>> Most of them slow down in the lower atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why should most of the millions of times more superluminal muons slow
>>>down enough to be counted? Presumably they slow down by colliding with
>>>air molecules. Where is the evidence of all these events?
>>>
>>>It is now clear that you believe in fantasy physics.
>>>Any further discussion is pointless. In fact, it isn't
>>>worth the time to even read your posts anymore.
>>>You should stick to fiction - that would be more honest.
>>>
>>
>> Your SR is fantasy physics.
>> The ballistic theory is backed by every experiment.

The only experiment even remotely consistent with emission theory
is MMX, and that's only because MMX can't tell the difference.
And even then, it doesn't appear difficult to adapt MMX to
point to another planet (Venus being the most obvious
candidate), and watch it for awhile to detect interferometric
shifts as Venus moves in its orbit. The main issue is to
ensure the interferometer is sensitive enough -- and that might
be a minor problem. There's also the issue of guaranteeing
monochromatic light into the device; a filter, after all,
might slow down (or speed up!) the incoming light. A possibility
there is to put the filter in front of the detector, as opposed
to the entire device.

>>
>
> Let's see. SR works and you ignore all experiments where
> ballistic theory fails. You present no data or analysis,
> assert falsehoods and reject credible results from other
> scientists. Talking to a brick wall would be more productive.
>

It might not be quite as entertaining, though. :-) Then
again, there's a reason some people like to bang their heads
against such; it feels so good to stop... 

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