On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:14:03 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:51:17 GMT
:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.
The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as 'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.
And what, precisely, is wrong with diffraction gratings?
nBaT: Newtonian ballistic theory. This theory models light as
a more or less thrown ball in an absolute spacetime system.
x' = x-vt, t' = t.
Why call it 'spacetime' Ghost.
It is 'space' and 'time' , two entirely separate dimensions.
SR: Standard Special Relativity/Lorentz Transformation.
m1nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the wavelength.
m2nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the frequency.
BaTh: ?
nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1
SR: f/f0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), c/c0 = 1,
w/w0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
m1nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1/(1-v/c)
m2nBaT: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1 -- Immobile!
BaTh: f/f0 = ?, c/c0 = ?, w/w0 = ?
Note that in all cases c = f*w, c0 = f0*w0, and therefore
c/c0 = (f/f0) * (w/w0) -- regardless of whether one believes in SR,
nBaT, "tick fairies", or LGMs with UFOs.
That is now known to be wrong.
When a photon changes speed during travel (for instance on entering the Earth's
atmoshere), its wavelength also changes....so gratings are still sensitive to
relative source speed.
All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong
except maybe in that local EM control frames exist around
large masses and cause some of LET's predictions to appear
to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.
Of course Einstein is completely wrong. That's why SR and
GR are still in use more than 100 years after SR's "birth".
(Spot the flaw.)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.