Re: EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE RELATIVITY


"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:au0r45-skd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
: <HW@>
: wrote
: on Tue, 01 Jan 2008 20:56:55 GMT
: <ta8ln35ep2u3eqqnjgd9b50mqhhmu6q5al@xxxxxxx>:
: > On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:52:30 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
: > <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: >
: >>In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
: >><HW@>
: >
: >>>>function of, among other things, position, time, source
: >>>>velocity, and destination velocity, perhaps relative to
: >>>>something, perhaps simply relative to each other.
: >>>
: >>> I don't agree Ghost. You seem to be using the symbol 'c' to mean any
OW speed
: >>> of light.
: >>
: >>That is correct.
: >>
: >>> I say c is a universal constant
: >>
: >>Not correct, in non-SR theories. Of course initial light speed is going
: >>to be c_0 in any reasonable ballistic theory.
: >>
: >>> and is also the initial speed of light relative
: >>> to its source. The speed of light relative to an object moving wrt the
source
: >>> is written as 'c+v'.
: >>
: >>Only if the theory does not introduce a decay factor of
: >>some sort. A pushed boat will slow down absent a power
: >>source in a river, for example.
: >
: > Why do you always have to introduce irrelevancies Ghost??
: > I'll bet you drove your parents mad when you were a kid....
: > ...always asking "why this?...why that?"
:
: c is the name of the formula c_0 + v, if you like. Of course one has a
: little problem in that c_0 is a scalar, not a vector; adding a scalar
: and a vector doesn't work. That's why I introduced d; however, there
: are other factors such as gaseous emissions from the starlight that may
: come into play, in some theories. These gaseous emissions have a
: refractive index very slightly greater than 1, and may affect
: lightspeed.
:
: Of course, that's only an ad-hoc hypothesis, but the sad truth of the
: matter is that c is not a constant, and never was, in my world...unless
: I explicitly stipulate SR. Since SR works,

Bright green flying elephants do fly, you know.

: I'm not that rigorous about
: it, but it is clear that SR doesn't always work for all people in this
: newsgroup -- and I frankly have no idea how to prove that it does.

You cannot. Despite your claim, SR does not "work".



: No
: one can prove SR works, but we do have a large body of information that
: stipulates that it works well enough.

There is a large body of information that Jesus walked on water
and fed 5000 fish sandwiches from Long John Silver's to a crowd
who were too stupid to bring their own lunch in a brown bag.
It must be true, it's in wackypedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feeding_the_multitude
In general, the larger the body of information the less reliable it is,
large bodies of information are copies of a small body of rumour.



:
: >
: >>> (I would however not rule out the possibility that the actual emission
speed of
: >>> EM wrt its source might be slightly frequency dependent. ...something
like:
: >>> Emission speed = c + k.nu. This might explain the claimed premature
arrival of
: >>> gamma rays from SN).
: >>
: >>I think you're confusing gamma rays with neutrinos. However, I'd have
: >>to study the issue.
: >
: > Well, anyway, we must not rule out the possibility that EM does not
initially
: > move at exactly c wrt its source. Rather it moves at [c+ (some kind of
function
: > of energy)].
:
: EM *always* moves at c wrt its source, by *definition*.
: The catch is that c isn't constant in all theories, but
: c is by definition lightspeed as measured at a point.
:
: In classical aether theory, c = c_0 * d + v, where d is
: a unit vector (where the light is pointing, basically),

What a horribly confusing term for a unit vector. Unit directional
vectors are termed x, y or z, never d, at least by convention among
mathematicians.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/VectorSpace.html


: v is the velocity of the source with respect to the
: rigid aether.
In the X-direction.

u is the velocity of the source with respect to the
rigid aether in the Y-direction.

w is the velocity of the source with respect to the
rigid aether in the Z-direction.

Being rigid, massive bodies cannot move in aether and
these terms are therefore redundant.

Conventional aether is a gas, and Lorentz proposed that
the aether would somehow apply pressure to one side
of the moving Earth and the Earth would be flattened
much like a bullet striking armour. This is the mechanism
of the famous "Lorentz contraction". Why the Earth has not
slowed and fallen into the Sun long ago is a mystery for
theoretical physicists to solve, the rest of us merely state
that Lorentz was a lunatic.

c is position-independent.
:
: In SR, norm(c) = c_0.

A search reveals the terms norm(c) and c_0 do not exist
in Einstein's SR. You must mean TGITM's SR.
Apparently all theoretical physicists have their own flavour,
something like Bertie Bott's many flavoured beans used
as currency by Harry Potter.


: In SR c is treated as a scalar; it really shouldn't be. I don't know
: what your BaTh does but I would guess that some theories might
: allow for
:
: c(p) = c_0 * d + v * exp(-k * norm(p - o))
:
: for some k, where o is the light's origin and p the point
: under consideration. A more comprehensive theory would
: allow for local space curvature as well, which might
: change d to d(p) or just parameterize the whole thing
: using a scalar path parameter s.

His BaTh does anything he dreams up in his wine stupor, he's a
theoretical physicist.



: >
: >>>
: >>>>(At least, in non-SR theories. SR ignores the issue, after
: >>>>asserting c = c_0 everywhere. All measurements of c are
: >>>>sufficiently close to c_0 to agree with this hypothesis,
: >>>>at least as far as I know.)
: >>>
: >>> Any decent inertial TW light speed experiment should produce the same
precise
: >>> value of c.
: >>
: >>If one has a reflective mirror, one has a little problem in reconciling
: >>c+v (and its counterpart, c-v). The best way I can put it is thusly:
: >>
: >>Incident ray speed: c+v
: >>Reflected ray speed: c-v
: >>Time of incident ray: d/(c+v)
: >>Time of reflected ray: d/(c-v)
: >>Total time: 2dc/(c^2-v^2)
: >>Average TWLS velocity: (c-v^2/c)
: >
: > Ghost, in any TWLS experiment, the mirror is normally at rest wrt the
source.
:
: I believe there was an MMX variant that used starlight. However, I'd
: have to look.
:
If the mirror were not resting normal to the source the reflected
ray could not return to the source.

: In any event, gratings allow for measurement of wavelengths.

No, no, gratings allow for measurement of angles.




:
: >
: > Emitted light speed: c
: > Incident ray speed: c
: > Reflected ray speed: c
: > Time of incident ray: d/c
: > Time of reflected ray: d/c
: > Total time: 2d/c
: > Average TWLS velocity: c
:
: So far, so good, for stationary sources. What about moving ones?
:
: >
: >>This is one reason MMX was so puzzling to researchers.
: >
: > It isn't the slightest bit puzzling.
:
: It was back then, before absolute aether theory was replaced with a
: variant of BaTh, then with SR.


Should have stopped with emission fact, but Einstein wanted a
time machine after H. G. Wells suggested it in a novel when Einstein
was a teenager pulling his ***, a common occurrence in young
healthy apes. It made him go blind to common sense.


:
: >
: >>One can, of course, postulate that the mirror changes a ray going at c+v
: >>to something other than c-v, yielding the following:
: >>
: >>Incident ray speed: c+v
: >>Time of incident ray: d/(c+v)
: >>Average TWLS velocity: c
: >>Total time: 2d/c
: >>Time of reflected ray: 2d/c - d/(c+v) = (2d(c+v)-dc)/(c(c+v))
: >> = d(1+2v/c) / (c+v)
: >>Reflected ray speed: (c+v) / (1+2v/c)
: >>
: >>I for one consider this an ad hoc solution, though it
: >>works after a fashion.
: >
: > Ghost, you are just an old fashioned aetherist.
: > Like Androcles (in diguise)
:
: Well, if you wish, you can describe exactly how the light behaves as it
: leaves the source. Include mathematical details. I want a
: specification of the vector function c given d (the initial direction),
: c_0, and whatever other parameters are appropriate.
:
Good Luck!



: >>> It does.....again verifying BaTh. This also provides a way to test
: >>> whether or not the emission speed is frequency dependent. The result
using IR
: >>> should be very slightly smaller than that using UV.
: >>
: >>How much smaller?
: >
: > How would I know?
: > No data is available.
: >
: >>> Unfortunately it is there
: >>> is no obvious way to reflect gamma particles.
: >>
: >>Then use X-rays, which are readily reflected, presumably by using a
: >>polished silver mirror much like light rays.
: >
: > ...I'm not sure about reflecting Xrays. I know they diffract easily
enough but
: > am not sure what happens during a reflection.
:
: And why would X-rays be different from any other electromagnetic
: radiation?

Well, they do penetrate... "why" is physics, not theoretical physics.



:
: >
: >>>>Of course, many today are cheating a bit, since they are
: >>>>not defining c_0, but are *assuming* it; the meter in
: >>>>particular is 1/c_0 of the distance light travels in a
: >>>>second, which means the meter can shrink with the speed
: >>>>of light if one can find an alternative length that can
: >>>>be carried around and used with sufficient accuracy.
: >>>>
: >>>>Not that it makes that much difference, really; turns
: >>>>out a metal ruler is inherently electromagnetic, too.
: >>>>After all, it's held together with chemical bonds --
: >>>>specifically metallic.
: >>>
: >>> For a ruler to physically change with speed there would have to be an
absolute
: >>> spatial reference frame. There is no evidence of one.
: >>
: >>I don't see how that follows.
: >
: > Do I have to do this again?
: >
: > A----------------------|rod|->0.1c-------------------B ->0.2c
: >
: > A and B are two observers. B is moving at 0.2c away from A.
:
: OK, v_BA = +0.2c.
:
: > A rod lies between them moving at 0.1c wrt A.
:
: OK, v_RA = + 0.1c.
:
: > According to SR, the rod is moving wrt both A and B and is therefore
shorter in
: > both their frames.
:
: Incorrect. The rod is shorter, yes, but not by the same amount.

It gets shorter by impacting Lorentz's aether which doesn't slow it down.

:
: v_RB^E is negative, and it turns out that
:
: v_RB^E = -0.1 / ( 1 - 0.02) = -5/49 c
:
: if one uses SR theory. (The ^E stands for Einstein.)
:
: > If the rod's speed is increased to 0.2c, according to SR it will become
even
: > shorter in A's frame but longer in B's.
:
: Not at all. The rod shrinks in both frames. In B's frame the rod is
: measured to shrink by sqrt(1 - (5/49)^2) = 0.994780213.
: In A's frame the shrinkage is sqrt(1 - (0.1)^2) = 0.9949874371 .
:
Ah, but norm(c)^TGITM = c_0^TGITM



: >
: > Obviously it cannot simultaneously become physically longer and shorter.
:
: Simultaneity is an illusion, even in Newtonian space. If one stands
: between two blinking lights, and one has a mirror arrangement, one might
: see them blinking simultaneously on a locus between the two lights. (If
: done correctly the locus is the perpendicular bisector.)


: However, off that locus they do not blink simultaneously; one's light
: gets to you earlier than the other's.


Simultaneity means when A meets B, B meets A.
In SR^E, the twin paradox is: B meets A at a different time to
A meeting B. This is, of course, an illusion.

This pencil is simultaneously broken and whole:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg
We know it is whole, we can see it is broken.
Objective versus subjective.



: >
: > If, however, an absolute reference frame existed and the above speeds
were
: > absolute, B's own measuring rod would be physically shorter than both
A's and
: > the moving one. Applying the LTs would make the moving rod appear
initially
: > LONGER in B's frame....So when its absolute speed increased to 0.2c, it
would
: > become PHYSICALLY shorter and APPEAR SHORTER in BOTH frames.
: >
: > Get it?
:
: That's exactly what it does, without the need of an absolute
: reference frame.
:
: >
: >>>>Many predictions of SR have been borne out, but that is
: >>>>not a proof any more than small spot illuminations of a
: >>>>gigantic flag can be used to derive the picture of the
: >>>>entire flag.
: >>>
: >>> Ghost there has never been any direct support for ANY aspect of SR.
: >>
: >>Direct support is impossible anyway. The best we can do is try to
: >>reconcile measurements with what the theory predits.
: >>
: >>The experiments are consistent with SR predictions.
: >
: > The (mis)interpretations of some experiments performed by DHR, who knew
full
: > well the answers they wanted, have been put forward as evidence that
Einstein's
: > 'variation on an aether theme' has some kind of credibility....
:
: This is true. So...how should we reinterpret the experiments?
:
: Be specific. Include the following:
:
: MMX (this is a gimme)
: Ives-Stilwell
: Sagnac
:
: >
: >>>
: >>> You will never answer any such questions while you continue along the
: >>> Einsteinian path.
: >>>
: >>
: >>There are several experiments BaTH must explain perfectly in order
: >>to be anywhere near acceptable as an SR replacement. You'll
: >>not only have to explain them, but also provide rigorous mathematical
: >>proof consistent with your handwaving.
: >
: > I have explained them all.
: >
:
: Oh, OK. Do you have a webpage? I'd like to see the explanations.
: I'll bookmark and analyze it. Clearly, the SR hocus-pocus has been
: going on far too long and you and Androcles are the only ones who
: can explain it to the intelligent laymen.
:
"Dr." Sheep Shagger Wilson cannot do the math. He'll just poo-poo
SR as he has in the past. Nowhere in all of his rantings will you find
any analysis whatsoever.
If you have a specific question I'll be happy to answer it.


.

Loading