On Mar 24, 11:27 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 11:09:49 -0700 (PDT), tici viracocha
wrote:



On Mar 24, 6:45 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message

...
| On Mar 24, 10:33 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
| ...
| | On Mar 24, 10:15 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| | "Randy Poe" wrote in message

Oh, well, you can't find speed without both distance and time, Poe.
You do know what "speed" means, and how it is measured, right?

| If you want to calculate wavelength*frequency empirically,
| you're going to need both a wavelength and a frequency.

Of course.
Fortunately the frequency is known from the "stationary system"
measurement, t = d/c (or f = c/wavelength), from which c' = d'/t.
Hence any change in wavelength has a directly proportional change in
speed.

only if you keep constant frequency, thanks

The absolute frequency of any oscillator is not affected by the movement of any
observer.

electron or em oscillator?

if you move fast they say that tha electron oscillate slower,
seen from outside

while for em thay say is unchanged but not dependent

im not sure is quite tha same


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, 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.

If air does affect Sagnac it is not noticable, but heat shimmers and mirages
are direct evidence that air affects light.



|
| 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.

MMX combined with Sagnac proves source dependency.
The reason is quite simple, a shift in wavelength is detected
and c' = lambda' * f. Sagnac is MMX in motion.

| All of nBat, BaTh and SR provide the
| exact same results for MMX.

"There is no doppler shift in BaTh." -- Wilson
http://tinyurl.com/2rk695

"In BaTh there is NO DOPPLER SHIFT AT THE OBSERVER" -- Wilson


"There is NO WAVELENGTH SHIFT at the observer."


"Light doesn't have a 'frequency'. It has a wavelength." --Wilson.
ups.com

"SPINNING OBJECTS HAVE A FREQUENCY, NOT A BLOODY WAVELENGTH." -- Wilson
news
So much for Wilson's theories.


| SR of course is automatically
| rejected because it's cuckoo.

Correct.

|
|
| | 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?
|
Yes.
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080323.html
As you can see (if you are not blind like Poe) stars are redder at the
edge of the cloud, so it is not of uniform density. That is consistent with
a) a red sunset.
b) a density gradient passing through your figure from zero to whatever
density completely blocks light and above.

For most of the universe I prefer a density of zero, but I'll go along with
one atom per cubic kiloparsec if it makes you happy.

On Mar 31, 12:06 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
Once you accept that Einstein was a mathematical cretin as his
schoolteachers
knew,

Wrong as usual.

http://www.amnh.org/learn/pd/physica...aeinstein.html

"Legend has it that Einstein was a poor student who
flunked out of school, but this was not the case.
He excelled at math and science, though he often got
only mediocre grades in other classes."

http://members.fortunecity.com/alber...tein_truth.htm
"Was Einstein a lousy student? The Washington Post
dissects a myth that is just plain untrue."

He wasn't great at the theoretical stuff that GR
needed, which is why he went to mathematicians for
help. But as far as school-age math, he was considered
a "wunderkind".

He didn't have great academic habits for subjects that
didn't interest him. This caused him to alienate the chair
of his department, which led to problems getting
an assistantship after graduation, which in turn led
to him taking the famous patent-clerk job.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Mar 31, 12:06 pm, "Androcles" wrote:
| Once you accept that Einstein was a mathematical cretin as his
| schoolteachers
| knew,
|
| Wrong as usual.

**** off, crank troll.

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:17:08 GMT
:
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.

I have, and it is an assumption. He couches it as a
definition, but it is an assumption all the same.

It turns out that subsequent experimental data
is consistent with this assumption, though, so it
is not without some merit.


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?

Unknown, but that's why the MMX caused such consternation.
The working assumption at the time was that there would
be a headwind of unknown direction, caused by an absolute
aether.

MMX disproved that. All three of SR, BaTH and nBat work
to explain MMX. SR and BaTH explain Sagnac. (nBat fails
for the simple reason that it predicts no delta-shift.)

SR has other problems, of course. For starters, it
precludes the discovery of the planet Androcles in the
Beta Persei system. ;-) (This may come as a shock to some.)

As for the headwind problem: let two objects be L apart
in calm aether. The time to do a TWLS between these objects
is of course t_0 = 2L/c_0, where c_0 is nominal lightspeed.

Now start the aether wind blowing at velocity v, towards
the mirror. Since lightspeed is c_0 relative to this aether
wind, the time to the mirror is L/(c_0+v), and the time
back is L/(c_0 - v). Total time is simply the sum of these
two:

t = L/(c_0 + v) + L/(c_0 - v) = 2Lc_0/(c_0^2 - v^2)

Since t t_0 the actual light speed measured will be less than c_0.

In actual fact this experiment isn't quite sensitive enough but that
was the beauty of the MMX, as it turns out a crabwind has a different
transit time, and the light paths end up in an interferometer, allowing
viewing of the light fringes. Each fringe is about 600 nm apart
(assuming yellow light), or a delta of 2 femtoseconds per fringe --
very sensitive indeed.

Yet MMX detected nothing...so there is no aether as such. This does
not, however, preclude BaTH in itself, just the 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....


--
#191,
/dev/signatu Resource temporarily unavailable

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:06:39 GMT
:

"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.

We are not 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?

See my post to H. Wilson for the details on that.


"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.

tAB is not equal to tBA. That has yet to be established.

Show me how you establish it.


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.


--
#191,
/dev/signatu Resource temporarily unavailable

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
| HW@
| wrote
| on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 08:17:08 GMT
| :
| 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.
|
| I have, and it is an assumption. He couches it as a
| definition, but it is an assumption all the same.
|
| It turns out that subsequent experimental data
| is consistent with this assumption, though, so it
| is not without some merit.

Lying ****.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
| In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
|
| wrote
| on Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:06:39 GMT
| :
|
| "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.
|
| We are not 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?
|
| See my post to H. Wilson for the details on that.
|
|
| "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.
|
| tAB is not equal to tBA. That has yet to be established.
|
| Show me how you establish it.

tAB = tBA -- MMX.
tAB tBA -- Sagnac.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm



|
|
| 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.
|
|
| --
| #191,
| /dev/signatu Resource temporarily unavailable
|
| --
| Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|

On Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:42:44 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson)
HW@

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.

I have, and it is an assumption. He couches it as a
definition, but it is an assumption all the same.

It turns out that subsequent experimental data
is consistent with this assumption, though, so it
is not without some merit.

That is because the assumption just happens to be correct for the simple reason
that light speed is source dependent.

I am becoming more and more convinced that Einstein suspected this to be true
but decided to stick with his relativity theory because of the fame and fortune
it produced.

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?

Unknown, but that's why the MMX caused such consternation.
The working assumption at the time was that there would
be a headwind of unknown direction, caused by an absolute
aether.

MMX disproved that. All three of SR, BaTH and nBat work
to explain MMX. SR and BaTH explain Sagnac. (nBat fails
for the simple reason that it predicts no delta-shift.)

SR has other problems, of course. For starters, it
precludes the discovery of the planet Androcles in the
Beta Persei system. ;-) (This may come as a shock to some.)

Whether or not Androcles happens to be right about Algol remains to be seen.
However there are many stars that exhibit variability due to ballistic bunching
simply because a large orbiting planet causes the star to orbit around a
barycentre at low speed.


As for the headwind problem: let two objects be L apart
in calm aether. The time to do a TWLS between these objects
is of course t_0 = 2L/c_0, where c_0 is nominal lightspeed.

Now start the aether wind blowing at velocity v, towards
the mirror. Since lightspeed is c_0 relative to this aether
wind, the time to the mirror is L/(c_0+v), and the time
back is L/(c_0 - v). Total time is simply the sum of these
two:

t = L/(c_0 + v) + L/(c_0 - v) = 2Lc_0/(c_0^2 - v^2)

Since t t_0 the actual light speed measured will be less than c_0.

In actual fact this experiment isn't quite sensitive enough but that
was the beauty of the MMX, as it turns out a crabwind has a different
transit time, and the light paths end up in an interferometer, allowing
viewing of the light fringes. Each fringe is about 600 nm apart
(assuming yellow light), or a delta of 2 femtoseconds per fringe --
very sensitive indeed.

Ghost, there is no aether so no headwind.

However, if you want teh MMX to produce a positive result, I suggest you set it
up outdoors on a very windy day.
The atmosphere will act like a very weak, moving local aether.

Yet MMX detected nothing...so there is no aether as such. This does
not, however, preclude BaTH in itself, just the absolute aether.

The MMX produces a null result for the simple reason that light moves at c wrt
the source and all the mirrors in the apparatus irrepective of orientation.
This is blatantly obvious....even SR agrees.




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

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

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 03:09:09 -0500, "William Hayes"

wrote:
Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a
parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.

...and what have you contributed other than lies and bull****, Ralph?

I personally like the "Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one
has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95."; for an
astrophysicist, I thought it was midly humorous.
For the rest of it, I'm still working on the part where using light to see
things go toward faster than light and beyond is .... 'smart' ?
GR be frack'd, full speed ahead... or something effulently relevent like
that.

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.

Yeah, stuff with gravity gets in the way. That'll slow a photon down a bit.
I'll pass on the VBASIC program, I'm still learning how to QWERTY.
I broke my slide rule the other day, they bought me another Laptop.
Gave me one of those Management to 'Crank' orders, use it or retire.
Usenet will never be the same.