"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:02:40 GMT
: :
:
: "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
: ...
: : 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?
:
: They can't measure frequency and velocity simultaneously.
: However, since frequency is invariant, the relative velocity is directly
: proportional to sin(theta).
: A common error is to assume velocity is invariant, which is of course
: absurd.
:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif
:
:
: I see. So frequency is invariant, velocity changes, therefore
: wavelength changes?
Yes, well done.
: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1 - v/c
Yes, well done.
: Interesting hypothesis.
"I frame no hypotheses." -- Sir Isaac Newton.
Nowadays the meter (a unit of length) is DEFINED in terms of speed *
frequency.
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
(t = 1/f)
Naturally this is only possible if frequency is invariant, it would not do
to
have metres proportional to a changing frequency. Care must be taken
to ensure the velocity is relative to the source or you'll have an incorrect
meter. Fortunately it always is in such measurerments. After all, you'd be a
fool
to use blue or red shifted light to graduate your yardstick.
It is amusing that you would consider standard practice to be an
"interesting hypothesis".
So... if you get a changed angle from a diffraction grating you'll
now know that you have a changed speed of light, it doesn't take
a genius to work it out. You tin god Einstein himself said "but the ray
moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary
system, with the velocity c-v" before he tried to invent his exotic time
machine math
he borrowed from HG Wells.
Real physics is rather mundane, really, nothing exciting about it for
you get hypertension over.