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

From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2005 21:28:30 GMT

On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:01:34 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:

>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 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. :-)

But you know as well as I do Ghost, nobody has measured OWLS from a moving
source...and that's what we are talking about.

>
>>> That measn it moves at some oyther velocity wrt an observer
>>> moving wrt the source.
>
>Not at all a foregone conclusion.

Good enough for me.

>
>>> 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.)

Obvious enough for me!

>
>[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 The H&K has already been withdrawn.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aware of the results being withdrawn, however, although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.
>

>>>
>>> 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.

Ghost, TWLS is dead constant because of the ballistic theory.
OWLS is isotropic between two objects MASR because of the ballistic theory.

Light curves from variable stars have the same periods as the star orbits. No
chaotic gas diffusion process could possibly result in such dead constant
periods.

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

"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush

Quantcast