On Jul 14, 9:30*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Jul 14, 10:41*pm, "Whoever" wrote:





"Bruce Richmond" wrote in message

...

On Jul 14, 8:05 pm, "Whoever" wrote:
"Bruce Richmond" wrote in message

....

On Jul 14, 4:11 am, "Whoever" wrote:
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in
. com...

"Whoever" wrote in message
. ..
"Spirit of Truth" wrote in message
.. .

"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
news:hJz6m.782029$yE1.228877@attbi_s21...
Spirit of Truth wrote:

Stop being such an uncompromising idiot. Go read Brian Greene's
Best Sellers and when you understand a little about science come
back and then open your at the moment idiot mouth.

Spirit of Truth

* That's really interesting that you suggest reading Brian
Greene.

* 1. Brian Green gets relativity right! You don't!

* 2. Greene's book are loaded with "ifs" and "what ifs" and most
lay
* * *people cannot sort out the science from the speculation. I
think
* * *you are one of those people, Spirit!

No, Sam. if you have Greene's books look up block universe
which appears in both of them.

I have made no error whatsoever in my statements to you.

Can you supply an excerpt. *I don't have access to the book you are
referring to.

BTW: You're still not said WHY the universe cannot be block, and
how
you
could tell whether or not it is. *Other than we have to take it on
faith
and your assurances.

I don't have time to do Greene for you, but have a read of the
following
conversation, I hope it posts OK:

Thanks

BTW: You do know that in SR if you and another observer are at the
same
place now, regardless of your relative motion, you will experience
exactly
the same universe at that 'now'. *Things the you see as simultaneous,
they
will see as simultaneous.

When I saw this I had to double check to make sure you had written the
above and that you were not quoting someone else. *The above is not
correct. *The obvious example is the train experiment. *When M and M'
coincide they are at the same place. *For M the strikes are happening
at A and B now. *For M' the strike already happen at B before he met
M, while the strike at A has yet to happen.

But they EXPERIENCE the same things. *What you experience is what you
sense
.. what you sense is what happens where you are .. not at some other
location.

Somehow I don't think many readers would interpert "same universe"

it is the same universe. *the universe is the universe ..there are not
different ones for each observer

as
meaning just the event happening at that one location the instant they
are together.

I said their experience of it .. what reaches them from the events in the
past

That is a mighty small universe. *If you mean
everything they can see from that spot at that one instant I think you
will find things differ. *I will explain further down. *Also when we
talk of simultaneity in SR we are usually speaking of events seperated
by space. *Technically I suppose you can say an event is simultaneous
with itself, but that's begging for confusion.

That's right .. so that is why, at a given location in time and space, the
events there are observed at the same time by all observers .. even if that
event is a photon arriving from some distant location.

Indeed, it is impossible for something happening now somewhere
else to affect you. *These are events in space-time at your location.
And
the speed of an observer does not change events at some location. *That's
why I used the word experience.

I think if you get detailed enough about what they see their
experiences are different even when at the same spot. *Again, further
down.

I can hardly wait

Perhaps it would be a little clearer if I worded it as "you will have the
same experience of the universe at the 'now'".

An example is that if two observers meet, travelling at different speeds
(maybe one is walking past), .. for each of them a remote point at that
time
in their mutual x-direction in (say) another galaxy will correspond to
different points in time in that remote galaxy. However, they will both
have
identical experiences of that galaxy. *So, if there was a telescope where
they pass, they would each see the same image of the galaxy from a single
time. Even though what they consider (but not experience) as 'now' in
that
galaxy is different times.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Try looking away from the x axis.

Fine

Let's say N' is moving parallel to
M' and is perpendicular to M'.

Umm parallel and perpendicular to the same thing? *Not sure if I follow yet
.. let me see. *Do you mean at any given time N' and M' have the same x
coordinate, but a different y coordinate?

In the path of N' lies N some distance
in the -x direction from the y axis.

what does 'the -x direction from the y axis' mean?

When N' coincides with N a flash
is emitted. *The flash arrives at the location of M and M' just as
they coincide.

What and where is M and where is it travelling .. its suddenly appeared form
nowhere in your description

M will see the flash coming from N, who is to the - side of the y
axis. *He will also see N' at that location. *M' will see the flash
come from N', who is perpendicular to him on the y' axis. *M' will
also see N at the flash.

So even though M and M' agree that N and N' were together when the
flash happen, they don't agree on where the flash took place.

They may disagree on how they label their axes, that's all.

Further .. separate remote events, that one observer at a given point in
spacetime sees as simultaneous, another relatively moving observer at the
same point in spacetime will also see as simultaneous. *Note that this is
different to what they would calculate by convention as being simultaneous.

And by
that I don't mean the grid coordinates as reported by other observers,
but what M and M' would see of distant events with their own eyes. *If
M and M' both point their (narrow field of view) telescopes
perpendicular to the x axis M' will see the flash but M will not.

Either the photon arrives there, or it doesn't. *Either both telescopes are
there or they aren't. *if the light arrives through one of the telescopes to
one observer, it arrives through that same telescope for the other. *One
observer may choose differently which photons to pay attention to, of
course.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I hate doing ascii art but...

* * * * | * * * * |
--------N'---N----+--------
* * * * | * * \ * |
* * * * | * * *\ *|
* * * * | * * * \ |
* * * * | * * * *\|
--------M'--------M-------- x-axis
* * * * | * * * * |
* * * * y' * * * *y
* * * *axis * * *axis

This is the setup with N' and M' moving to the right. *When N and N'
coincide they emit a flash. *In the frame of M the photon travels down
the diagonal from N to M, arriving at the same instant that M'
coincides with M. *In the frame of M' the photon will come straight
down the y' axis, which at that moment coincides with the y axis.
Without having to consider time M and M' see things differently in
that the same photon arrives from two different directions.

As for the view with the telescope, it cannot be totally seperated
from time. *In the case of M' the vertical telescope moving to the
right catches the photon as it comes down the diagonal path. *With the
stationary vertical telescope of M the photon hits the wall of the
telescope. *Picture trying to hit the bottom of a vertical tube with a
rain drop. *Horizontal motion makes a difference.

My biggest complaint about what you wrote above was the use of the
word "simultaneous". *You said that if two photons arrived at the same
event they were simultaneous. *We have enough trouble with the cranks
around here without endorsing that definition. *In our usual
definition of simultaneous we are talking about the emission events of
the photons. *The fact that they arrive at the same instant does not
make those events simultaneous unless they have traveled the same
distance.

How is it Ken puts it, "M' sees the flashes simultaneously at a
different time."

Bruce- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Fantastic illustration, Sir!

Might we speculate 'redis' as "red" "Is"
red-is-tribution
into blue?

the notion of 'n' as a journey ending in such beautiful meaning if
true would be just pretty cool

if not hey, can't hurt to try to model truth in the name of discovery
and see where it goes

On Jul 15, 8:01*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Spirit of Truth wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message
* You are in my past, Spirit. Sitting at a table with me, I would
* see you as are you were a few nanoseconds ago. The moon... about 1..3
* seconds in the past. Sun, more than 8 minutes and the Andromeda
* Galaxy -- about 2.5 million years.

* "Now" is pretty much meaningless.

* The scientific community does not think observations of the universe
* contradict SR, in fact there are NOT ANY observations that contradict
* predictions of relativity. Only in YOUR mind are there contradictions
* and I would dearly love to help you past you impasse.

Besides "time" delay of light, NOW is NOW, Sam.

* *I'm pretty sure it is your author friend, Brian Greene, that points
* *out that everything you experience is in the past. You might want
* *to check that out, Spirit.

Have you never communicated



to someone at a distance when you were moving, or they were moving?

Now is Now for all, I assure you.

Here's one to look at that someone recently sent me, I am just reviewing it
now:

http://www.geocities.com/gulland68/I...ty.htm?200913e

Spirit of Truth- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And the beauty of this statement the real beauty of this statement is
this:

The contradiction arises because valid arguments
can be made in favour of both views. If__P==NP is true.

Reduction Ad Abserdum Mathematica

I am therefore +1.

Musatov

sonic

On Jun 21, 4:29*am, "Spirit of Truth" wrote:
"Dono." wrote in message

...

...and even then
a ballistic statement of the situation would dispense with that.

A ballistic statemetn isn't appropriate for light. This has been
known for centuries before the MM experiment.
For the earliest observation, consider the finding by the 17th
century astronomer "Ole Romer." He found a 22 minute delay in the
reappearance of the Jovian moon, Io, from behind Jupiter. If light
gained velocity from its source, there would be no 22 minute delay.
Romer discussed the with the physicist, Huygens. Hugens
discovered diffraction of light, which he interpreted as a wave.
Huygens claimed Romers supported the idea of light being a wave,
rather than a corpusule as Newton conjectured.
Newton's corpusules were not like photons in one important way.
Corpusules would gain velocity from the source.
In any case, observations similar to Romers measurements have
been made from binary stars that eclipse each other. The results
indicate that light does not gain velocity from the source.
I am not sure of the exact meaning of the word "ballistic." If
"ballistic" means light gains velocity from the source, then light is
not ballistic. If "ballistic" means that it travels in a straight line
in Euclidean space, then light is usually ballistic.
Nowadays light is considered both a wave, and a collection of
particles called photons. However, neither entity gains velocity from
the source. This has been known since the 16th century.

ichelson morley experiment questions * Musatov
sci physics relativity sci physics sci math On
Jul 14, 9:30 pm, Bruce Richmond wrote: On Jul
14, .... With the stationary vertical telescope of M the photon hits
the wall of the telescope. Picture trying to hit the bottom of a
vertical tube with a rain drop.

Musatov wrote:
Bruce Richmond wrote:
On Jul 8, 7:04*am, Jerry wrote:
On Jul 7, 9:59*pm, Bruce Richmond wrote:





On Jul 7, 9:52*pm, Jerry wrote:

On Jul 7, 9:27*am, Bruce Richmond wrote:

On Jul 7, 5:41*am, Jerry wrote:
I count 9 irregularly spaced peaks in four turns at points
2 9-10 17-18 28 33-34 42-43 48-49 56-57 63

* 2 9-10 17-18 26-28 33-34 42-43 48-49 56-57

How you get a peak at 63 when 62 is higher and 64 is lower is beyond
me. *Other than that we seem pretty much in agreement.

What in heck are you talking about?

Points 61 through 65 have values -10 -10 -10 -11 -13 and there
is an obvious strong downwards trend in the data.

. michelson morley experiment questions -
sci.physics.relativity ...Subject: michelson morley experiment
questions /Musatov\\ ...... Jerry has done _exactly this_ previously.
You'll have to ask her, because I don't have ...groups.google.com/
group/sci.../de56de74eeb02b25?lnk... - Cached - SimilarMore results
from groups.google.com*»3. Math Forum Discussionstime has different
duration in different inertial frames. .... Jesus Christ
Superstar ...http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/group/ .... Martin Michael
Musatov ...mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6773078... - Cached
- Similar4. James Mullen // BlogCatalog Topic // BlogCatalogBlog that
talks about the latest model shoes of NBA Superstar LeBron James
of ... The US military has confiscated Bibles that Christian US
soldiers in ...https://www.blogcatalog.com/topic/james+mullen/ -
Cached - Similar5. What's On Kiev | What's On Kiev... they have
reached superstar status abandoning their British abodes to come
out ... The head of the IMF mission in Ukraine, Ceyla Pazarbasioglu,
has said ... Congratulations to Dmetri Musatov and Andrey Nedzelnitsky
who got it right! ...www.whatson-kiev.com/ - Cached - Similar6. What's
On Kiev | Kyiv LifeWhile Freon has captured listeners with rhythms and
lyrics that are bight and ... they have reached superstar status
abandoning their British abodes to come ... Congratulations to Dmetri
Musatov and Andrey Nedzelnitsky who got it right! ...www.whatson-
kiev.com/?go=Gallery&in=view...id... - Looking quick I was
thinking 63 was 1 short of 4 full turns. *I forgot
about the 65 position being last in the row.

For this reason
point 63 obviously represents a peak. Point 62 with a value of
-10 is most definitely NOT "higher" than point 63 with a value
of -10 but, after allowing for the trend in the data, must be
lower.

-10 is not higher than -10 so you are trying to invoke a new
definition of peak. *All the peaks rose up from a lower value.
Something obviously broke the pattern after the 56-57 peak.

No, just rotate the graph counterclockwise until the local
baseline is horizontal. Since the graph shows an accelerating
downward trend, the amount of rotation is necessarily greater
towards the end.


I agree with rotating the graph to get rid of the drift. What I am
saying is that something caused a disturbance that destroyed the
pattern before data point 63 was read. One rotation was good for the
first 3 and a half turns. The same rotation does not work for point
63.




Alternatively, I count 6 peaks
2 9-10 17-18 28-34 42-43 54-57

Try counting valleys, they're harder to miss.

If you INSIST on uniform 8-point spacings, some predicted
peaks are missing.

2+8=10
10+8=18
18+8=26

Uh, uh. The peak is at 28.

You didn't have any problem with your specifying peaks that were 2 or
3 points wide. *In fact when it suited your purposes you were willing
to consider a 6 point wide peak. *The spike at 28 is only 1 higher
than the point to its left. *I say the three points form the peak..

26+8=34
34+8=42
42+8=50 *Oh darn, missed by 1.

Uh, uh. The peak is between 48 and 49, so you missed by 1.5

If you wish to be anal about it

The problem is that we are both applying subjective standards
to what constitutes a hit or a miss, and these subjective
standards vary according to what we want to believe.

Which is why using an algorythm is better than eyeballing the data.
Then it becomes a matter of justifying what is done in the algorythm.

Miller had runs with no perceptible modulation, and he ignored
them. Miller had runs that gave horrible, multimodal graphs,
and he ignored them. Miller had runs that gave beautiful
sinusoids, and he published them.


I am aware of that. But my whole argument is based on Tom's analysis
of the one run for which I have data to look at. If I can see a
pattern in the data and it disapears there is some explaining to do.




49+8=57

Spacing doesn't look too bad to me. *Yoy're being like Henry, refusing
to see something even when your forced to look.

Spacing is in the eye of the beholder.

I think we are both picking out sheep in the clouds.

Jerry

It is a way better match than you got here

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...sg/fafecda69c2...

http://tinyurl.com/pz7cww

and you were trying to pass those off as sinewaves.

Those results were absolutely fantastic, given that they were
generated starting with completely uncorrelated white noise of
the worst sort (yes, there are different kinds of white noise...
Gaussian, Cauchy, Poisson, etc.) Musatov!

You wanna see my Pink Noise results?

Pervert!

The point is that human eyeballs are fantastic at picking out Musatov!
patterns in random data even when the patterns don't really
exist. I don't trust -my- eyeballs, and I don't trust -your-
eyeballs. Self-deceit is all too easy.
Musatov/
Miller's algorythm wasn't just eyeballs and it came up with a
remarkably well shaped sinewave.

Miller/Musatov published "typical results", and there is an old
science joke about "typical results" which I'll try to look
up, but you can already guess the punchline...it's only Musatov:
funny in context.Musatov/
Miller
The truth is, I do believe there is, depending on how you
define it, a "signal" in the data that Miller presented./Musatov
But it is a "signal" in the sense that it demonstrates a
time-series correlation between data points of the same Musatov/Miller
sort that leads to leads to flicker noise being pink, or
a 2D FFT of an aerial photograph of just about any natural Number
landscape P==NP showing pinkness, or when the notes are encoded NP==P
properly, just about any piece of music except Arnold
Schoenberg's atonal pieces being pink...
Musatov+Miller
I think there is more to it for this particular set of data. There is
a false signal due to a change in temperture. My complaint is that if
there is a false signal it should be acknowledged and explained away,
not swept under the carpet and declared not to exist.M.M.M.

Blither snipped

Imbecile.

stop spamming you piece of **** drop dead

"Brain Mustav Departed" wrote in message
...
Blither snipped

Imbecile.

****wit.