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

jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au
Date: 01/16/05 

Date: 16 Jan 2005 15:39:32 -0800

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
> <H@>
> wrote
> on Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:07:56 GMT
> <9p3bu0t7g2k9qrsd995erutki3sn4lqq7r@4ax.com>:
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:22:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> > <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>> I would suggest the following. A small pair of satellites
> is fired off a rocket that ultimately approaches the
> moon. The first satellite detaches, bounces on the moon
> (presumably one can set up a mechanism here similar to the
> Mars rovers), stops, deploys. This would ideally be on the
> "leeward" or "back" side of the Moon (relative, that is,
> to its orbital path -- not to Earth).
>
> The second satellite orbits the moon for a time, but at
> a certain point after the first satellite is determined
> to be operating correctly, the second satellite fires off
> the rest of its reactant, accelerating away from Earth in
> such a fashion as to allow both it and the first device
> to be observed using Earth radiotelescopes. All this
> time the second satellite is sending fixed timesignals,
> presumably through an onboard cesium-ion oscillator.
> The first device would pick up these signals and relay
> them using a known delay, on a different frequency (to
> avoid confusion).

Send the two satellites in opposite directions around the moon, synched
to pass each other as one is going away from earth, and one toward. As
they pass, they emit simultaneous signals, as checked by their onboard
clocks, and triggered by signal between the two craft, the delay of
which (for their separation and inbuilt computing) was previously
measured. Each half circuit, signal arrival time on earth will reverse;
A beats B, then on opposite side, B beats A
......because c'=c+v

Jim G

>
> This sounds like a reasonably doable experiment. Got a
> few hundred mil? :-)
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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.
> >
> > they are not relativistic. I think you are talking about
aberration.
> >
> >
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 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?
> >
> > Well throw away all your books are take notice of what I'm telling
you.
> > Einsteinian relativity is wrong.
>
> Of course it is. That's why pi mesons from an accelerator
> send gamma rays at c.
>
> Oh, wait...
>
> >
> >>>>>>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.
> >
> > Not even 'believeable' indirect eidence Ghost.
>
> Well, you don't have to believe it. :-)
>
> >
> >
> >>>>>>"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.
> >
> > The ballistic theory predicts the typical curves of cepheids.
> > Single orbiting stars with eccentricities about 1-2.
> > ('single' means their companion is dark.)
> >
> >>
> >>> 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?
> >
> > One cannot be sure because of extinction effects.
>
> Ballpark figures are sufficient.
>
> [.sigsnip]
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: food from space
    ... Earth, and at the very least move our commercial agriculture into LEO ... Each satellite has a rail gun and fires 2 meals per second - to people ... The mass of 2 meals per second is 1.47 kg per second. ... the asteroid belt earlier.. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • 600 metre frieze of planet Earth around UNESCO (Forwarded)
    ... 600 metre frieze of planet Earth around UNESCO ... A frieze depicting planet Earth -- made up of 1:1000000 scale satellite ... Planet initiative set up satellite programmes that are designed to enhance ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: Our future is now
    ... similar but negative bipolar reaction like nothing else on Earth. ... a few unlimited resources of clean and renewable energy, ... Three ETs put 225 tons into LEO. ... Each satellite acts as a communications router with 6 open ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: why not send old satellites out into space?
    ... To orbit the earth requires we impart a certain amount of energy to the ... Given the inefficiencies of rocket operation, ... satellite be accelerated to escape velocity - 11 km/sec. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Are there any civil anti-relativists?
    ... What on earth do you think the "principle of equivalence" ... satellite with its slower clock. ... to compute the orbit and velocity. ... function of reference frame. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading