Re: Proposed Experiment to Detect Absolute Motion

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 07/15/04 

Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:27:16 -0400

"Bjoern Feuerbacher" <feuerbac@thphys.uni-heidelberg.de> wrote in message
news:cd68ip$ero$1@news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de...
> 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.

NO...I have been answering your questions for weeks. You have not
answer my questions.
>
>
>
> >>>>>>>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.)

It doesn't matter. You will get a pulse of x-ray od specific lrngth and that

length is measured by a clock after the shutter.
>
>
> > 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?

Are you really that stupid??
>
>
>
> >>>>>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.

No you were making assertions without any support.
>
>
> > 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.

Indeed, evasion 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.

But the number of waves arriving per unit time is reduced and that's
 what gives the so call red shift.
It is not my fault that you have comprehension problem.
>
>
> [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.

Indeed...evasion noted.

Ken Seto

Loading