Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter
From: Henri Wilson (H_at_..(Henri)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: PD: "Re: Number of neutrons per proton?"
- Previous message: Tim Golden: "Re: On Planck's constant"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:07:56 GMT
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:22:46 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>In sci.physics, H@..(Henri Wilson)
><H@>
> wrote
>on Wed, 12 Jan 2005 08:34:39 GMT
><cam9u01t749dkeor91ae38pfnrifjnlha3@4ax.com>:
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Or, if you prefer, it
>>>>>takes time d/(c-v), but IIRC you prefer constant momentum as
>>>>>opposed to rigid-aether.
>>>>
>>>> Here you go again, Ghost, unnecessarily complicating things.
>>>
>>>MMX initially assumed a rigid aether, with lightspeed constant
>>>thereto and the experiment moving therein.
>>
>> Yes.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Either way, the computed MTWLS is not c.
>>>>
>>>> Correct.
>>>
>>>So why has no one seen a non-c in vacuo light measurement?
>>
>> Because you know as well as I do how hard it is to measure
>> one way light speed. The means to do so are only just available.
>
>Hard? It's impossible, as far as I can tell (the usual central clock
>leads not to an OWLS, but a TWLS measurement). Of course a number
>of derived results (MMX among them) might help in interpreting OWLS,
>given a certain method of TWLS measurement.
It isn't impossible with modern facilites. ..but it is very hard.
It is certainly possible to compare two light speeds from differently moving
sources. My moon EM relay device will do it.
>
>>
>> Also, hardly anything in the univere is traveling at anywhere
>> near c relative to anything else.
>
>Relativistic effects are seen in the fixed stars as the Earth
>moves in its orbit. I forget the name but the effect is
>rather like tiny ellipses.
they are not relativistic. I think you are talking about aberration.
>>>>
>>>> Highly suspect at best.
>>>
>>>I can't say. I'm not a scientist.
>>
>> What are you then, Ghost?
>> How can you be interested in relativity if you aren't a scientist?
>
>How can one be interested in stamp collection if one isn't
>employed by the Post Office?
Well throw away all your books are take notice of what I'm telling you.
Einsteinian relativity is wrong.
>>>>>Yes, source-invariance will do that to a measurement.
>>>>>So will SR-all-invariance.
>>>>
>>>> SR does it by definition.
>>>
>>>Aye, that it does.
>>
>> and NO proof.
>
>Aye, there is no proof. Lots of indirect evidence, but no proof.
Not even 'believeable' indirect eidence Ghost.
>>>>>"chaotic gas diffusion process"? Where did *that* come in?
>>>>
>>>> well, Ghost, Paul andersen seems to think that stars become
>>>> darker and brighter because of some kind of periodic mechanism.
>>>
>>>Some stars do. Look up "Cepheid variables". I'll admit to
>>>not being all that knowledgeable thereof, other than that
>>>they exist and are "calibrated", allowing fairly accurate
>>>measurement of the distance of distant galaxies.
>>
>> Cepheids have typical brightness variation curves predicted
>> by the ballistic theory.
>
>The ballistic theory does not include Cepheid variable convection.
>Even SR cannot make that claim.
The ballistic theory predicts the typical curves of cepheids. Single orbiting
stars with eccentricities about 1-2. ('single' means their companion is dark.)
>
>> You see, Ghost, the whole of astrophysics will be re-written
>> when they get it into their heads that light moves at c+v,
>> where v is our velocity relative to the source.
>
>Ah, a momentous discovery! I'm privileged to be here as you
>announce it.
>
>Erm, precisely how do supernovae work and how fast does the
>exploding shell expand, again?
One cannot be sure because of extinction effects.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
"If it's repeated often enough they'll eventually believe it" __Albert Bush
- Next message: PD: "Re: Number of neutrons per proton?"
- Previous message: Tim Golden: "Re: On Planck's constant"
- In reply to: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Next in thread: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Reply: The Ghost In The Machine: "Re: 1c+1c Closing Velocity of Light and Matter"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
