Re: SR says, "The Earth is the Centre Of The Universe".

In <7oic1299repf35i5ibrmb0lno0gu545ej3@xxxxxxx>
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Gerald L. O'Barr" <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
. . .

<Deletes by O'Barr>

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
We ballisticians would not agree.
Light clearly moves at c wrt its source.
It has no other reference.

O'Barr wrote:
Thank you for your many good remarks. The
belief in the ballistic motion of light should be
very easy to test for and confirm.
Any perfect clock, one which we on earth can
continuously monitor its rate while it is in orbit
about the moon where it can orbit once an hour,
etc., where our line of sight is perpendicular to
the orbital axis, should provide a good test.
Certain places on earth should be able to note the
changes in
the clock rate as this clock orbited the moon. If
the signal was ether limited, then changes in the
clock rate would follow changes in the velocity of
this clock as it approached or moved away from the
earth. But if it were ballistic, then the changes
would be even greater. We would be able to
measure these effects, and with these effects
being repeated
over and over, an average should be sufficient to
provide the proof needed. Being as far away as
the moon would allow any slowing down caused by
the local atmosphere to be able to be ignored or
averaged out.
Note, you are not measuring velocity, as a
value, but the effects of differences in velocities
resulting in differences in received frequencies.

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
Unfortunately even at moon distance, the difference
between c-v and c+v is very small. Let's work it
out. Orbiting the moon in low orbit once per hour
requires a speed of about 3 kms/sec or 10^-5 c.

O'Barr comments:
First of all, I am not sure exactly what time is
really involved for a stable orbit around the moon.
I used one hour only because it is what is nearly
possible on the earth. I know the approximate size
of the moon, about 7,000 miles in circumference, or
11,000 km, and thus one hr., or 3600 seconds, would
make the velocity close to what you say.

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
. . . So the
speed difference between approching and receding
signals is around 2 parts in 10^5. The travel time
of light from the moon is around 1.3 secs so you
would have to know the exact time of emission to
within about 25 millisecs. That also requires a
very accurate knowledge of the source's orbit.
So it may be possible...but not easy.

O'Barr comments:
1.3 seconds is a reasonable value, and is
important to these calculations.
The above example certainly is able to establish
the lack of ballistic effects. And no exact
correlation is necessary with its orbit. The nature
of the changes in the frequency would be sufficient
to establish the effects desired, and changes in
frequency can be measured to a very high degree.
Ballistic effects would be very quickly noted in all
these distantly observed events.
But please be sure that I know that the points in
orbit where the maximum differences in acceleration
occurs (acceleration with components in the direction
of the earth) is one point that is critical for
ballistic effects. And there are different points in
the orbit where the maximum differences are in terms
of velocity (displacement) effects. Both effects are
present for ballistic transmissions. But one of
these effects has no over-all distance function,
while the other does. And so the distance between
the events and the observer can be important in
separating and confirming these effects.
This subject has to be approach very carefully.
In the ether limited situation, then the velocity of
the source towards or away from you makes a direct
difference in frequency. The actual change is a
function of the ratio between the velocity and c. If
c were infinite, no change in frequency would be
seen, etc.
With a ballistic light with an ejection velocity
of a finite c velocity, any change in position
between pulses will likewise show an apparent change
in frequency, just as in the ether based system. But
as the distances become large, the changes in the
velocity will dominate this effect. At large
distances, all kinds of silly things can occur.
We do not see or observe any of these kinds of
effects, and until you do, then the ballistic
approach is dead.

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote:
I think my 'moon relay' experiment is better than
this.
See: www.users.bigpond.com\hewn\moonrelay.jpg

O'Barr note:
Do you have the math for ballistic effects? That
is, the math for the changes in frequency as I am
doing it above? These changes in frequencies are
much more readily measured. And this
math does not have to be relativistic to be useable,
since ballistic effects do have first order effects.
And that is why it is not difficult to tell that
there are no ballistic effects that exist.
The motion of particles in an atom are very high,
and if we could observe these fast moving particles,
then they would also be appearing to do some crazy
things. Come to think of it, they are doing some
crazy things. Maybe you are right, and maybe some of
the crazy orbits seen in atoms are due to these
ballistic effects. Keep us informed!

Thanks for reading.
Gerald L. O'Barr <globarr...@xxxxxxxxx>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT? Why Doesnt the Moon Fall Down?
    ... The vid on the link shows that the moon is moving exactly the right ... M is the mass of the large item; the mass of the Earth is on the order of 6 x ... where G, M, and r are as above, and vsubo is the velocity the smaller item ... has in its orbit around the larger item. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: OT? Why Doesnt the Moon Fall Down?
    ... The vid on the link shows that the moon is moving exactly the right ... it is true that there is only one velocity of orbit that gives ... slightly lower, then the Moon's orbit would simply be a bit closer in, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Eotvos.
    ... >> If a gyroscope remains fixed in a circular orbit but undergoes precession ... I do not see the moon speeding up and slowing down as it orbits the earth. ... has to increase its velocity in order to over take the earth. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: SR says, "The Earth is the Centre Of The Universe".
    ... HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote: ... the clock rate as this clock orbited the moon. ... Note, you are not measuring velocity, as a value, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Re: OT? Why Doesnt the Moon Fall Down?
    ... The vid on the link shows that the moon is moving exactly the right ... M is the mass of the large item; the mass of the Earth is on the order of 6 x ... where G, M, and r are as above, and vsubo is the velocity the smaller item ... has in its orbit around the larger item. ...
    (talk.origins)