On Mar 26, 4:00*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 06:57:10 -0700 (PDT), Randy Poe
wrote:
In the general wave equation "speed = wavelength
times frequency", c is "speed of propagation
of wave". The symbol is commonly used to represent
speed of sound in such contexts also.

You are referring to waves in a medium. Speed, wavelength and frequency are
defined wrt the frame of the medium. This does NOT apply to light, which is
particulate.

Cretin:
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+inner+outter+size
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+sun+bird
http://google.com/groups?q=liht+not-a-thing

Is sound a mote? Is lotter or tealler (numer or litter) a mote? Is
money a mote?

Light speed...like all speeds...is relative to each source/observer situation.

Very good. A true statement.

Therefore light speed = c+v, wrt observer.

if light is nothing

And the measured value turns out to be 3*10^8 m/sec
in all experimental tests.

.......there have been no such experimental tests.

Would you like to be the first tester out in the deep vacvum?

Experiments where wavelength and frequency were
both measured, like he said. Such as this one:
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/sp958-lide/191-193.pdf

First done by Froome with microwaves in 1958.

It doesn't tell us what 'frequency of light ' actually is.

Frequency, illiterate apocopoietic muttishway for frequentia, a
nonfundamental derivature of wavestint, the intractional intertempo of
lihtwise chare, where liht is a shift in elèctronic states, where the
elèctròn as material quantum is the elèctric spatial, temporal, and
carical element of the univers.

Light initiallly move at c wrt its source, both on Earth and in the stars.

And this changes? But that's an effect that can't
be reproduced on Earth?

All experiments indicate that light moves at c wrt its source on earth.

Where c is variant with the scaloral mekanic energy of its medium.

http://google.com/groups?q=fotòn+plasmòn

The thing that allows you to listen to only one
radio station at a time.

Radio waves are made of variations in photon density.
A great many photons are involved, all moving at c wrt the source.
It is possible that their fields interact and become synched.

Where is all of the slow liht between .1c and .7c by universal
recession? The peak outputs of radio galaxies can be cohesivate in a
lihtpipe; by you, the farthest would be the slowest when this goes
against GR. The farthest are most repulsive, and thennes their
positive potential means a swifter-than-c apparent speed as the proper
span is smaller.

Where is all of the swift liht between 2c and 1000c by supversal
collision? There is no Zitterbewegung dropoff where gamma waves stop
growan in resolution for greatter speeds, either on Earth or by cosmic
rays. It's pretty easy to set up enfasic casicate collisions for
arbitrarily-great energies:

http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Wakefield_accelerator
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_acceleration

-Aut

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 20:55:24 -0700 (PDT), "Autymn D. C."
wrote:

On Mar 26, 4:00*pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
plonk


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe

wrote
on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
:
On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe

wrote
on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
:



On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
| On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that all
starlight
| DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?

Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.

Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
moving at a speed different from c?

Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.

Right. Or either one might have any speed at
all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.

c = lambda*f

If all you have is lambda, c might be any
(positive) value at all.

Of course other experiments are not consistent with
that result, and I was under the impression that rather
sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
frequency have precluded speed differences.

Correct again.

Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
hypotheses:

(1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
us how light from the stars behaves.

Pedant Point: within vacuo. Within air there's
the 1.0008 refractive index to consider. I'll
admit it's not all that much.

Since the average gas density is 1 atom per cubic
centimeter, it is possible to compute the
refractive index of interstellar space. The
result is as one might expect: negligible.


(2) No matter how many experiments we do on earth,
light from the stars obeys different rules which
can never be reproduced on earth.

Somehow, I think Sir William would lean toward #1.

Indeed.


Experiment shows us that when wavelength is
shifted, so is frequency. Androcles would claim
that Ockham's principle says: "yes, that's what
you always observe in the laboratory, but for
starlight it isn't true."

Experiment shows us that every direct measurement
of the speed of light results in c. Androcles
would claim that Ockham's principle says, "Light
from the stars moves at speeds different from c,
but that is due to magical principles that you
will never reproduce in the laboratory."

Also, if lightspeed is *not* c, what is it? Does it have
dependence on wavelength? Frequency? Such would not be
consistent with other experiments. If the difference
is wide enough one would also expect to see rather
interesting fringing effects while observing Saturn's
moons, for example.

And then there's the issue with supernovas. AIUI,
they are routinely observed in other galaxies. I rather
doubt supernovas can be consistently explained with giant
orbiting planets.

In this experimental measurement you have in
mind, what was the distance and the observed transit
time?

You do know there is no aether and Ockham's Razor applies, I trust?

You do know what "speed" means, and how it
is measured, right?

Speed is simply v = d/t in Androcles' world.

That's what I had in mind when I say direct
measurement. Measure a transit time over a measured
distance.

And that's where the problems start. One issue in
particular is how to keep the clocks in sync when g != g'
-- as in Boulder versus Paris. I'll admit I wish I
had data on this.

With a TWLS one doesn't have this problem, and B can
be doing anything at all...even moving. (If the mirror
is moving one would presumably get a wavelength shift.
The shift from a disc rotating 10,000 RPM of radius about
5 cm is only going to be on the order of 200 parts per
billion, but I would think that's at least detectable,
if one can work out the vibrational problems.)

Of course there's the issue that t_AB != t_BA. Einstein
assumes equality, but I do not (though acknowledge that
isotropy is covered by yet another set of experiments).


The
more sophisticated of us can use other expressions;
for example, v = sqrt(2 KE/m) might work in a Newtonian
universe, or
v = sqrt(g * r) if one knows one has a circular orbit,
v = nu * lambda for *any* wave (including light),
or
v = c * sqrt(1 - (lambda/lambda_0)^2) / sqrt(1 + (lambda/lambda_0)^2)
v = c * sqrt(1 - (nu_0/nu)^2) / sqrt(1 + (nu_0/nu)^2)
or v = c * sqrt(1 - 1/gamma^2) in an Einsteinian universe.

But these require additional assumptions and also
aren't useful for light.

However, Androcles did offer a useful alternative
to d/t, which was lambda*f. Unfortunately, he
thinks that it's still a "direct measurement" even
when you're just guessing at one of the quantities
in the equation.

One could even use v = sqrt(2gh), where g is the acceleration
of gravity and h the height of the ball.

Depends on what's known.

- Randy


--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
| :
| On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
| :
|
|
|
| On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that
all
| starlight
| | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
|
| Right. Or either one might have any speed at
| all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.
|
| c = lambda*f
|
| If all you have is lambda, c might be any
| (positive) value at all.
|
| Of course other experiments are not consistent with
| that result, and I was under the impression that rather
| sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
| frequency have precluded speed differences.
|
| Correct again.
|
| Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
| Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
| hypotheses:
|
| (1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
| us how light from the stars behaves.
|
| Pedant Point: within vacuo. Within air there's
| the 1.0008 refractive index to consider. I'll
| admit it's not all that much.

Doesn't affect Sagnac much. However you look at it though,
the rays are still c+v and c-v and still produce the requisite shift,
whether the velocities be source or target (observer) dependent.
That's what makes MMX important, it proves source dependency.



| Since the average gas density is 1 atom per cubic
| centimeter,

Pedant Point:
Prove it, crank.
[rest snipped by A for brevity]

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:19:36 GMT
:
On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:33:46 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe



That's what I had in mind when I say direct
measurement. Measure a transit time over a measured
distance.

And that's where the problems start. One issue in
particular is how to keep the clocks in sync when g != g'
-- as in Boulder versus Paris. I'll admit I wish I
had data on this.

With a TWLS one doesn't have this problem, and B can
be doing anything at all...even moving. (If the mirror
is moving one would presumably get a wavelength shift.
The shift from a disc rotating 10,000 RPM of radius about
5 cm is only going to be on the order of 200 parts per
billion, but I would think that's at least detectable,
if one can work out the vibrational problems.)

Of course there's the issue that t_AB != t_BA. Einstein
assumes equality, but I do not (though acknowledge that
isotropy is covered by yet another set of experiments).

Again Ghost, he didn't ASSUME it. He simply defined clocks as being in synch

Yes, he *did* assume it, it is not anywhere verifiable
except by indirect methods; it cannot be simply assumed
without such verification. While these indirect methods
lend strong credence to the hypothesis, there are alternate
explanations.

In a standard Newtonian theory, however, if tAB != tBA,
one gets a light speed less than nominal, because of the
"headwind" problem. This is probably its biggest flaw.

when they were adjusted so that tAB = tBA, when those times were measured with
those clocks.
Einstein actually assumed that, because of movement through the aether, tAB
!=tBA, so he concocted his definition to make the aether redundant.

The irony is that according to BaTh, tAB DOES EQUAL tBA.

Only if the light source is not moving with respect to the experiment.



Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....


--
#191,
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:05:54 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Tue, 25 Mar 2008 06:57:43 -0700 (PDT)
| :
| On Mar 25, 1:24 am, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:27:29 -0700 (PDT)
| :
|
|
|
| On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
|
...
| | On Mar 22, 11:04 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
| | If you are an astrophysicist you should wake up to the fact that
all
| starlight
| | DOES NOT move towards little planet Earth at precisely c.
| |
| | Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| | moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Of course. Blue shift/red shift is often observed.
|
| Can you point to an experimental measurement of light
| moving at a speed different from c?
|
| Androcles does have a point. Absent a more precise
| definition, a blue-shifted light beam might indeed be
| going faster than c, and a red-shifted light beam slower.
|
| Right. Or either one might have any speed at
| all, barring other knowledge gained from experiment.
|
| c = lambda*f
|
| If all you have is lambda, c might be any
| (positive) value at all.
|
| Of course other experiments are not consistent with
| that result, and I was under the impression that rather
| sensitive speed measurements getting both wavelength and
| frequency have precluded speed differences.
|
| Correct again.
|
| Androcles likes to pretend he's invoking Ockham's
| Razor. Let's apply Sir William's principle to two
| hypotheses:
|
| (1) Light is light. The way it acts on earth tells
| us how light from the stars behaves.
|
| Pedant Point: within vacuo. Within air there's
| the 1.0008 refractive index to consider. I'll
| admit it's not all that much.

Doesn't affect Sagnac much.

Doesn't affect it at all.

However you look at it though,
the rays are still c+v and c-v and still produce the requisite shift,
whether the velocities be source or target (observer) dependent.
That's what makes MMX important, it proves source dependency.

MMX proves nothing. All of nBat, BaTh and SR provide the
exact same results for MMX. SR of course is automatically
rejected because it's cuckoo.


| Since the average gas density is 1 atom per cubic
| centimeter,

Pedant Point:
Prove it, crank.
[rest snipped by A for brevity]


OK, assumed 1 atom per cubic centimeter. Did you have an alternate
density that you'd prefer?

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u 0) ... }

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:01:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:19:36 GMT

Of course there's the issue that t_AB != t_BA. Einstein
assumes equality, but I do not (though acknowledge that
isotropy is covered by yet another set of experiments).

Again Ghost, he didn't ASSUME it. He simply defined clocks as being in synch

Yes, he *did* assume it, it is not anywhere verifiable
except by indirect methods; it cannot be simply assumed
without such verification. While these indirect methods
lend strong credence to the hypothesis, there are alternate
explanations.

Ghost, you obviously haven't read his 1905 paper.

In a standard Newtonian theory, however, if tAB != tBA,
one gets a light speed less than nominal, because of the
"headwind" problem. This is probably its biggest flaw.

What bloody headwind?
Are you saying that Newton assumed an absolute aether?

when they were adjusted so that tAB = tBA, when those times were measured with
those clocks.
Einstein actually assumed that, because of movement through the aether, tAB
!=tBA, so he concocted his definition to make the aether redundant.

The irony is that according to BaTh, tAB DOES EQUAL tBA.

Only if the light source is not moving with respect to the experiment.

Correct...and in flat gravity without any 'solar EM wind'...otherwise there can
be a Shapiro delay..




Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:42 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:05:54 GMT


However you look at it though,
the rays are still c+v and c-v and still produce the requisite shift,
whether the velocities be source or target (observer) dependent.
That's what makes MMX important, it proves source dependency.

MMX proves nothing. All of nBat, BaTh and SR provide the
exact same results for MMX. SR of course is automatically
rejected because it's cuckoo.


| Since the average gas density is 1 atom per cubic
| centimeter,

Pedant Point:
Prove it, crank.
[rest snipped by A for brevity]


OK, assumed 1 atom per cubic centimeter. Did you have an alternate
density that you'd prefer?

Variable

....but much of space lies below the Wilson Density Threshold (WDT) where fields
become fragmented and holes of 'absolutely nothing' start to appear.


Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

.....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

On Mar 31, 12:20*am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 21:02:42 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine



wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sun, 30 Mar 2008 00:05:54 GMT

However you look at it though,
the rays are still c+v and c-v and still produce the requisite shift,
whether the velocities be source or target (observer) dependent.
That's what makes MMX important, it proves source dependency.

MMX proves nothing. *All of nBat, BaTh and SR provide the
exact same results for MMX. *SR of course is automatically
rejected because it's cuckoo.

| Since the average gas density is 1 atom per cubic
| centimeter,

Pedant Point:
Prove it, crank.
[rest snipped by A for brevity]

OK, assumed 1 atom per cubic centimeter. *Did you have an alternate
density that you'd prefer?

Variable

Which means whatever you want it to mean because if you are tied down
in making a specific prediction, it can be falsified. Can't have that.


...but much of space lies below the Wilson Density Threshold (WDT) where fields
become fragmented and holes of 'absolutely nothing' start to appear.

Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

....specialising in teaching physics to engineers and mathematicians....

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
| HW@
| wrote
| on Sat, 29 Mar 2008 20:19:36 GMT
| :
| On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 09:33:46 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
| wrote:
|
| In sci.physics.relativity, Randy Poe
|
|
|
| That's what I had in mind when I say direct
| measurement. Measure a transit time over a measured
| distance.
|
| And that's where the problems start. One issue in
| particular is how to keep the clocks in sync when g != g'
| -- as in Boulder versus Paris. I'll admit I wish I
| had data on this.
|
| With a TWLS one doesn't have this problem, and B can
| be doing anything at all...even moving. (If the mirror
| is moving one would presumably get a wavelength shift.
| The shift from a disc rotating 10,000 RPM of radius about
| 5 cm is only going to be on the order of 200 parts per
| billion, but I would think that's at least detectable,
| if one can work out the vibrational problems.)
|
| Of course there's the issue that t_AB != t_BA. Einstein
| assumes equality, but I do not (though acknowledge that
| isotropy is covered by yet another set of experiments).
|
| Again Ghost, he didn't ASSUME it. He simply defined clocks as being in
synch
|
| Yes, he *did* assume it,


He even said so.
" In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c
to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space."

What I'd like to know is what the experience is that he based his assumption
on so that "we" can be in agreement with it.

| it is not anywhere verifiable
| except by indirect methods; it cannot be simply assumed
| without such verification.

Well, come on then, verify 4 = 12 for me in this situation:

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...rt/tAB=tBA.gif

I'll go along with it for v = 0. I'm in complete agreement with gamma =
1/sqrt(1-0^2/oo^2)

where the velocity of light plays parts, physically, in Einstein's
pantomime.



| While these indirect methods
| lend strong credence to the hypothesis, there are alternate
| explanations.

You like waving your hands, don't you?


|
| In a standard Newtonian theory, however, if tAB != tBA,
| one gets a light speed less than nominal, because of the

| "headwind" problem. This is probably its biggest flaw.


What headwind problem?

"I do not know what the ether is. " - Newton.




| when they were adjusted so that tAB = tBA, when those times were
measured with
| those clocks.
| Einstein actually assumed that, because of movement through the aether,
tAB
| !=tBA, so he concocted his definition to make the aether redundant.
|
| The irony is that according to BaTh, tAB DOES EQUAL tBA.
|
| Only if the light source is not moving with respect to the experiment.


But Wilson is right, tAB DOES equal tBA if you accept the velocity of
the light is source dependent. That is where Einstein ****s up and reverses
frames.

1/2[tau(0,0,0,t+x/c -x/-c)] = tau(x,0,0, t+x/c) where x = AB or the
coordinate point (x,0,0)
depending on its position in the equation.

A) If you use c+v you can write:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img22.gif
(which is nonsense anyway.)

B) From that you can derive the cuckoo malformations:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img53.gif

C) From that you arrive at:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...ures/img76.gif

which says you cannot use c+v.

D) Goto A) (Catch 22).



Once you accept that Einstein was a mathematical cretin as his
schoolteachers
knew, it becomes very simple.

"Everything should be as simple as possible [so the velocity of light is
source dependent], but not simpler [so you have to model Kepler's
orbits carefully and not leave out pitch as Wilson did]" - Einstein.