Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 20:56:10 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:22:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:34:39 GMT
>>>>>
>>>>>Fire a light beam from a moving A through a BC "gate". The beam,
>>>>>according to emission theory, will pass B at velocity c+v, and take
>>>>>time d/(c+v) to traverse the BC distance. At C it encounters a
>>>>>mirror, and takes time d/(c+v) to go back.
>>>>
>>>> No, d/(c+2v)
>>>> It bounces off the mirror at c+v but the mirror is moving
>>>> at v so you have to add another 'v'.
>>>
>>>Which gives either
>>>
>>>t = d/c + d/(c+2v) = 2d(c+v)/(c(c+2v)) != c
>>>
>>>or
>>>
>>>t = 2d/(c+v) != c
>>>
>>>depending on who's doing the measurement.
>>
>> that's correct. Why do you think it should be 'c'? Do you
>> have direct evidence?
>
>No direct evidence. I have plenty of indirect evidence, of
>course: peer-reviewed experiments, among them MMX.
Ghost, the MMX obviously was doomed because the main light beam moved at c
relative to the source.
It fully supports the ballistic theory.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or, if you prefer, it
>>>>>takes time d/(c-v), but IIRC you prefer constant momentum as
>>>>>opposed to rigid-aether.
>>>>
>>>> Here you go again, Ghost, unnecessarily complicating things.
>>>
>>>MMX initially assumed a rigid aether, with lightspeed constant
>>>thereto and the experiment moving therein.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Either way, the computed MTWLS is not c.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>So why has no one seen a non-c in vacuo light measurement?
>>
>> Because you know as well as I do how hard it is to measure
>> one way light speed. The means to do so are only just available.
>
>Hard? It's impossible, as far as I can tell (the usual central clock
>leads not to an OWLS, but a TWLS measurement). Of course a number
>of derived results (MMX among them) might help in interpreting OWLS,
>given a certain method of TWLS measurement.
>
>>
>> Also, hardly anything in the univere is traveling at anywhere
>> near c relative to anything else.
>
>Relativistic effects are seen in the fixed stars as the Earth
>moves in its orbit. I forget the name but the effect is
>rather like tiny ellipses.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>This experiment has been DONE. Moving pi mesons fly apart
>>>>>(into photon pairs), and the measurement, crude as it was
>>>>>(relative to a standard TWLS), nevertheless was more
>>>>>consistent with c than with c+v.
>>>>
>>>> Highly suspect at best.
>>>
>>>I can't say. I'm not a scientist.
>>
>> What are you then, Ghost?
>> How can you be interested in relativity if you aren't a scientist?
>
>How can one be interested in stamp collection if one isn't
>employed by the Post Office?
>
>>
>>>I barely know how the
>>>process works (one can render it "Interpret, Predict,
>>>Decide, Correct", which is a corruption of an old adage
>>>used in driving school :-) ).
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> OWLS is isotropic between two objects MASR because of
>>>>>> the ballistic theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, source-invariance will do that to a measurement.
>>>>>So will SR-all-invariance.
>>>>
>>>> SR does it by definition.
>>>
>>>Aye, that it does.
>>
>> and NO proof.
>
>Aye, there is no proof. Lots of indirect evidence, but no proof.
>
>>
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>"chaotic gas diffusion process"? Where did *that* come in?
>>>>
>>>> well, Ghost, Paul andersen seems to think that stars become
>>>> darker and brighter because of some kind of periodic mechanism.
>>>
>>>Some stars do. Look up "Cepheid variables". I'll admit to
>>>not being all that knowledgeable thereof, other than that
>>>they exist and are "calibrated", allowing fairly accurate
>>>measurement of the distance of distant galaxies.
>>
>> Cepheids have typical brightness variation curves predicted
>> by the ballistic theory.
>
>The ballistic theory does not include Cepheid variable convection.
>Even SR cannot make that claim.
>
>> You see, Ghost, the whole of astrophysics will be re-written
>> when they get it into their heads that light moves at c+v,
>> where v is our velocity relative to the source.
>
>Ah, a momentous discovery! I'm privileged to be here as you
>announce it.
>
>Erm, precisely how do supernovae work and how fast does the
>exploding shell expand, again?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Stars are gaseous or fluid. Any process of that nature will
>>>> not be perfectly regular. It will be random or chaotic.
>>>> Nearly all variable star brightness curves have dead constant
>>>> periods, which can only be explained by the fact that they
>>>> are occuring in harmony with the orbital period.
>>>
>>>I can't stay without more study. Of course any differentiable
>>>function will have "flat zones", if only for an instant,
>>>under certain conditions.
>>>
>>>[.sigsnip]
>>
>>
>> HW.
>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
>>
>> "If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush
- Next message: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Previous message: reany_at_asu.edu: "Re: Physics is simple...we complicate it"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Next in thread: Henri Wilson: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
