Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson

Henri Wilson wrote: 
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:28:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 11:51:50 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



Henri Wilson wrote:


On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 23:28:33 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




Maxwell's equations depend on the values of two measured constants. There is no
reason to believe the measured values are not speed dependent....and it would
be impossible to know.


You are babbling.
If you have two different sources moving at different speed
in the chosen frame of reference, Maxwell predicts that the light

from both will propagate at the same speed. 

That is what sound does in a room full of air.




So you were wrong. 


No. Maxwell was wrong.
He believed light was identical to sound.


So you have finally got it.
Maxwell isn't compatible with the BaT.

So you were wrong when you said:
"The fact that light moves at c wrt its source according to Maxwell."



If the two constants are measured in the source frame, I presume Maxwell's
derivation of c holds.
I also presume that Maxwell thought some of the 'aether' was dragged by the
source.

Paul, when light is emitted during an electron transition, there is only one
reference for its speed of emission.

If you consider emission by two H atoms 1 billion LYs apart, can you make any
suggestion as to why the speed of the emitted light relative to each source
should be different?

Why should it not be c relative to the respective source, in both cases. 

Talking about something else doesn't change the fact
that if you have two different sources moving at different speed
in the chosen frame of reference, Maxwell predicts that the light

from both will propagate at the same speed. 

So you were wrong when you said:
"The fact that light moves at c wrt its source according to Maxwell."



I assume that Maxwell believed that the source was at rest in the medium.
Maxwell deduced the value of c on the basis that the two constants were
measured in the source frame.

However, I agree that according to standard aether theory, light should NOT
move at c wrt its source if the source in moving in that aether.


Hardly.
The difference wouldn't be measureable.


What kind of precision do you think it takes
to determine the distance to the Moon to the cm, Henri?



What is it?... about 38,000,000,000 cms?  (centre to centre?)

Light moving at c takes about 2.5 seconds for the round trip (76 billion cm).

For 1cm accuracy, time must be resolved to about 1 part in 3E10.

If the outgoing signal is sent at c plus say 300 ms/sec (1.000001c) and was
reflected off the moon at the same speed (WRT Earth) the time difference would
be about 1 part in 10^6.

So you are saying that if two radar signals were sent at the same instant from
a) the Earth's periphery and b) its nearest point to the moon, the time
difference would be easily observable.


The "radar signals" are laser pulses.

You don't have to do it simultaneously, of course. 


Well, the moon's movement must be taken into account too...so you need to send
both pulses at about the same instant...rather than hours apart.



The Earth is spinning. Don't you think it would be obvious if
the measured distance to the Moon changed periodically with a day period?


No, it would not be possible to correct for different atmospheric thickness. 

It is possible.
It is done.
Routinely.

But you are doing your best to evade the attention from the point.
The distance reflector - sender/receiver DO vary during the day.
The distance IS measured at different times of the day.
The radial speed sender/receiver - reflector IS different at different
times.
It's simple geometry to compensate for the positions of
the sender/receiver and reflector when the distance Moon Earth
is calculated.
If the sped of light were sources dependent (which is NOT accounted for),
the measured distance Moon- Earth would vary during the day.
It doesn't.

So the Lunar Ranging experiments falsifies the BaT. 


You are sprouting the latest of Andersen's fairytales.



Several problems:

Over what area of the moon is the beam reflected? 

There are four reflectors (corner reflectors) on the Moon. They are put there
by Apollo 11, 14 and 15 and by Luna 21 (unmanned Russian mission).
At different places. Which give additional information.



How do you know the exact timeing of the emission of the two signals?
How do you account for the exact difference in distance travelled by the two
beams (to within the required precision)? 

It is the distance that is measured, Henri.
We know the shape of the Earth and the Moon.
Geometry.



The signal from the Earth's edge travels through a lot more air than the
vertical one. Remember, you are trying for an accuracy of <<1us.


Which is routinely compensated for.


You cannot.
The experiment would not reveal anything.


The experiment has been continuously ongoing from a number of
observatories for 35 years, Henri.
It has revealed a lot.
It has ruled out most theories of gravity but GR.
Newton's theory was the first to go. :-)



This is funny.
Did anyone take into account the fact that the light slows considerably as it
escapes from Earth?
Of course not.

I will do the calculation for you when I get time. 

Quite.
I have seen the result.
You must be pretty stupid if you don't get the consequence! :-)


http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/dda.html
http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/apollo.html
http://alpha.fesg.tu-muenchen.de/fesg/llr.html
http://www.obs-azur.fr/cerga/laser/laslune/llr.htm



I gather they all use a constant 'c' for light speed.
They are therefore not worth the paper they are written on.


Of course they use constant c for the speed of light
(except when the light goes through the atmosphere).

You are not really so stupid that you don't understand that
if the measurements were wrong as you insist, they would
show inconsistencies which would be impossible to miss?



Not necessarily.
We are talking about 1.5 metres distance or errors in G or the Earth's mass of
around 1 part in 10^7



Or are you? :-) 


SRians are the stupid ones.
They cannot see that light leaving a remote star cannot simultaneously travel
at an infinite number of velocities.
That is what it would have to do if it traveled at c wrt every other body in
the universe. Do you not agree?


Anyway, I'm sure radar ranging would only be carried out when the moon was
directly vertically above.


I rather think that the ranging is never done when the Moon
is vertically above. (Because it never is at any of the observatories
in question.)



There would need to be a slight correction for aberration. 

Now they are talking about of a precision in the mm range
rather than cm. You don't get that without compensating for
atmospheric phenomena.



No you miss the point. The reflected light is given a  sideways velocity 'kick'
by the mirror.


You are missing the obvious point.
The orbit of the Moon is determined to cm precision.
If the measurements were wrong due to the phenomena
you describe, this orbit would show inconsistencies which
would be impossible to miss.
It doesn't.



How do you know?

The c+v error would cancel some of the observational errors.


And if the speed of light were source dependent, it would
be obvious even at rather small angles from zenith.



I don't see how. In such cases the difference between c and 'c+v' would be
extremely small.


Quite.
But even extremely small differences are obvious
when the precision is extreme.



How accurately is G known?


The Lunar Laser Ranging experiments falsifies the BaT.



SR breaks down to aether theory when it tries to answer the question I
frequently ask:

->vS1_____________________O
v<-S2

Two relativewly moving light sources emit a pulse of light when they are
adjacent.

What property of space causes the two to travel together towards O.

Please give me the SRian answer. 

Its geometry.
Null geodesic.


That, again, is an aether concept. 

If you - like Einstein - insist on calling
space time an "ether", it's fine with me.
But be aware that it has nothing with
the "luminiferous aether" of the 19. century to to.
"The idea of motion may not be applied to it."



Paul, there is NO space/time.
There is SPACE and there is TIME.


Quite.
Space AND time is space-time.
A "point" in space AND time is an "event".
There is space AND time and thus space-time and
events in Newtonian mechanics as well as in relativity.
Obviously.



One can plot a graph with space and time on different axes. One can imagine
this in 4D. In fact one doesn't have to imagine anything, that is how our minds
portray the universe we live in. (It is actually 6D because there could be no
movement in 4D)

..but space and time are not related. Spacetime is not a physical entity.


The difference is the geometry describing the relation
between the events in Newtonian space-time versus
relativistic space-time.



The relativistic presentation is based on the wrong assumption that light speed
is c relative to all objects.
Clearly, under such conditions, there cannot be ONE unique spacetime
configuration anywhere.


Maybe you can answer the question I asked Ghost.

When light is emitted by a remote star, how can it be that this light travels
at c wrt EVERY OTHER object in the universe?


It's due to the geometry of space-time.
Null geodesic.
That you don't understand it is no fault of GR.



Like I said above, that rules out any possibility of a unique configuration.



So why do you think GPS proper rates change due to speed?

They don't.


So you employ your fairies to gobble up the missing ticks, then. 

I think it is properly documented that you never will get it, Henri.
I think the simple explanation is that you are too dumb.
Or as non-indoctrinated as a neweborn baby.



Paul, either the clocks change physically wrt their original frames), or they
don't. Please make up your mind.



A steel rod that is a half metre long when standing vertically on Earth will
extend by about 4.465 in 10^10 if you SEND IT INTO ORBIT, (OR lie it down), 

And your point is?



Is that due to anything Einstein concocted? 

Is your point that Einstein never worked with
the elastic modulus of steel?
You are probably right about that.

Why do you find this relevant?


I find it quite amusing. A steel rod and a clock can change by the same amount in free fall but one is
caused by elasticity and the other by Einstein.
HaHa! 

Wilsonian logic at work again? :-)
If two unrelated effects are described by the same
number, their cause must be the same!



How do you know they are unrelated?


Does this work both ways?
If two effects are described by different numbers,
their cause must be different?



In SRian logic, that could be true.



Paul 



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

Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.


We are going in circles.
My previous posting can serve as a response to this one.
Read again.

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Farce that is Called Henri Wilson
    ... to determine the distance to the Moon to the cm, ... the sender/receiver and reflector when the distance Moon Earth ... If the measurements were wrong due to the phenomena ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: deformation monitoring
    ... said:> Only use distance measurements to prisms, reflectorless is ... Couldn't agree more with this - wouldn't be without our Trimble 5600 ...
    (sci.engr.surveying)
  • Re: OBarr: What is the real velocity of light in Frame A?
    ... Every SR frame can theoretically extend to every ... moon, to the sun, to every star that we see. ... These are 'measurements' in OUR FoR. ... going relative to the moon with a velocity of c. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... you measure the time and distance separately. ... The Fizeau and Foucault measurements ... Second, to measure the speed of light to 8 or 9 significant digits, ... using the direct method has not been confirmed. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GPS CLOCK PARADOX
    ... Assuming that Lorentz transformation can predict the time and distance ... Let v = velocity of the moving twin M ... the primed system is v w.r.t. the unprimed system ... Only valid for measurements of two sides of an object ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)