Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment.
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 12/19/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Why absolute motion?"
- Previous message: Lewis Mammel: "Shocking AJP article"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2004 07:41:06 GMT
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 03:01:22 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:25:10 GMT
><bbj8s0tk1fepc9etimar7iarh11c8rov6i@4ax.com>:
>
>[ diagram snipped]
>
>>
>> S is a distant space probe which is moving rapidly
>> away from Earth at velocity v. It sends regular
>> time signals back to Earth at a rate of say,
>> one every five minutes.
>
>OK, p = 300s.
>
>> A speed v=0.0001c should be achievable for a small
>> capsule that requires nothing much more than a
>> solar panel and transmitting dish.
>
>10^-4 c or 30 km/s, eh?
>
>If we assume a chemical rocket with exhaust velocity 5 km/s,
>a fuel:structure ratio of 97:3, we get
>
>v_f = v_i + v_e * ln(100/3) = 17532 km/s.
>
>Not quite enough.
It probably IS enough for this experiment.
The Rx/Tx could be circling a Jupiter moon rather than Mars, at three times the
distance.
>
>With an ion propulsion engine, one gets a v_e of 30 km/s, so with
>such an engine 10^-4 c is possible. However, current designs
>take a long while to accelerate as their fuel flow is rather low.
>
>>
>> M is another space probe in very slow orbit around a planet such as
>> Mars. It is equipped with a receiver pointed at the source and a
>> transmitter directed towards Earth. EM takes about 1000 seconds
>> to reach us from Mars.
>
>This is highly dependent on where Mars *is*, relative to Earth.
>If it's at opposition, for example, we'll be lucky to get
>anything at all, as the Sun is very efficient at raidating
>noise in many of the more interesting wavelengths. :-)
Ghost, Nasa is already receiving very clear signals from Mars. Where's the
problem?
>
>>
>> The experiment will test whether signals from S travel to
>> Earth at the same speed as those from M. Relativity claims
>> they do, the ballistic theory says one travels at c-v and
>> the other at about c (the radial speed of M wrt Earth is
>> assumed small during the experiment).
>
>I'm assuming "ballistic theory" == "frictionless luminiferous aether" here.
Frictionless aether? That's a new one. It certainly doesn't knock us over. Do
you mean zero viscosity?
But NO Ghost, the ballistic theory is not in any way related to 'frictionless
aether. It merely says light leaves its source at c and moves at c+v relative
to an observer moving at v relative to the source.
>
>>
>> For v=0.0001c, the ballistic theory predicts a difference
>> in travel times from M to Earth of about 0.1 seconds.
>
>And SR predicts a delta of exactly zero.
SR 'postulates' a dellta of zero Ghost...never proven.
That's why we want to verify it one way or the other.
>
>>
>> The experimental procedure is as follows:
>>
>> When S, M and Earth are fairly closely aligned, M detects
>> a time signals from S and after a very short and known
>> time delay, transmits a similar signal towards Earth.
>> The Earth receiver detects both the original pulse and
>> the relayed one from M and compares arrival times. After
>> the known delay in M's electronics is subtracted, it will
>> become decisively clear which lightspeed theory is correct.
>
>As if it's not already.
Relativity make absolutely NO sense at all. I know of no experiments that
directly support its postulates.
>
>>
>> There are several technical challenges associated with the
>> experiment. Firstly, the signal waveshape must be such
>> that its initial rise time is clearly detectable in far
>> less time than 0.1 second.
>
>This is hard? Earthly microprocessors can execute millions of
>instructions in a PC while that signal is figuring out what
>needs doing.
I cannot see any reason why the waveshape would change as the signal travels
from Mars to here. How about a few cycles of a square wave.. Why should it be
hard to establish the arrival time?
>
>> Secondly, the delay in M's Rx/Tx must be minimised and
>> pre-determined before launch.
>
>That should be easy enough, too.
No problem there, for sure.
>
>> Neither of these factors should present significant
>> problems however. Thirdly, the positions and
>> velocities of the two probes need to be reasonably
>> well known, although high accuracy is not crucial.
>
>High accuracy for the gamma ray velocity emitted by
>fast-moving decaying pi_0 mesons isn't needed, either.
Listen Ghost, even when the distance is from here to Mars, we are close to the
limits of experimental accuracy for comparing OWLS with c.
Do you realy think a lab experiment over a few mms can reveal anything?
>
>> Both electronic systems and pulse wavefroms should
>> be identical in case signal velocity is mildly
>> frequency dependent.
>>
>> This is a relatively simple and low cost experiment that appears perfectly
>> feasible using today's technology. I invite sensible comments prior to
>> submitting a formal paper.
>
>Define "low cost"; the lower limit for a rocket launch is $20M.
>It goes up from there.
I think it is well worh $100 million to expose the Einstein joke and put
physics back on the right track, don' you?
>
>[.sigsnip]
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Why absolute motion?"
- Previous message: Lewis Mammel: "Shocking AJP article"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: An Even Better OWLS Experiment."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
