Re: Proposed Experiment to Detect Absolute Motion

From: Bjoern Feuerbacher (feuerbac_at_thphys.uni-heidelberg.de)
Date: 07/15/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 17:41:13 +0200

kenseto wrote:
> "Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
> news:cd3igm$52m$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
>
>>kenseto wrote:
>>
>>>"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in
>>>message
>>>news:cd2uvf$s9i$2@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...

[snip]

>>>>>It is NOT a measure of the change in wave length. It is a measure of
>>>>>the effect of absolute motion.
>>>>
>>>>You *still* have not explained to me how Bragg reflection could
>>>>measure anything else than the wave length.
>>
>>And yet again, you ignore this.
>
>
> I will tell you as soon as you tell me what is your prediction of
> my proposed experiment.

Since my question predates you, I estimate even by about two weeks,
I see no reason why *I* should answer first.

>>>>>>>That means that
>>>>>>>the length of the x-ray pulse in my proposed should
>>>>>>>be lengthened (t'> t).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>No, that does not imply that. Have you already forgotten what I told
>>>>>>you about Fourier analysis?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>So what is your prediction using Fourier analysis of my proposed
>>>>>experiment? Is it t'>t or t'=t or t'<t?
>>>>
>>>>Depends on the pulse shape and the angle of the detector to the
>>>>original beam.
>>>
>>>
>>>So do it with a continuous beam and give us the answer.
>>
>>If the beam is continuous, then there are no pulses, and your t and
>>t' above have no meaning.
>
>
> You can create a pulse by using the opening and closing of a shutter.

Then the pulse form depends on how exactly I open and close the shutter
(with which velocities etc.)

> t is the activation time of a clock at the source and t' is the activation
> time for a clock at the dectector's location.

Would you please tell me how you want to build a clock which begins
ticking at exactly the time when the pulse arrives?

>>>>>You told me to do the calculations and tell you the result.
>>>>
>>>>So, have you done them?
>>>
>>>
>>>This is a crock of ***. I gave you the MM prediction. Why don't you
>>
>> > give us the current physics prediction?
>>
>>Hint: if one proposes an alternative theory, one should first look
>>up what the current theory says. This is *your* job, not mine.
>
>
> Hint: you are trying to bull *** your way out of this.

No, I am simply telling you what standard scientific behaviour is.

> Give us your prediction
> of my proposed experiment. If you don't shut the *** up.

Evasion noted. Laziness noted. Arrogance noted. Inability to actually
answer my question and unwillingness to do basic research noted.

>>>I suspect that you don't know what the phrase non sequitur means.
>>
>>"does not follow".
>>
>>And "the wave length remains the same" does indeed not follow from
>>"t'=t" - since that is a statement about pulse lengths, not wave lengths.
>
>
> The wave length can remain the same whether t' is equal to t or not.

As I said - your original statement was a non sequitur. Nice that you
realize this now yourself.

[snip]

>>>>How does t'-t depend on this angle theta, according to MM?
>>>
>>>t'= t-dVsin(theta)/c^2
>>
>>How did you arrive at this formula?
>
>
> You tell me what is your prediction of my proposed experiment and I
> will give you the answer to your question.

Evasion noted. Laziness noted. Arrogance noted. Inability to actually
answer my question and unwillingness to do basic research noted.

Bye,
Bjoern

Quantcast