On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:17:01 GMT

Special relativity is nifty, it makes answering those questions easy.

Well go on then! Answer the questions.

How can both observers O and A agree that light reflects from A's
mirror at its incident speed?

By twisting time. You may scoff if you like, but both time and
space are affected, at least as far as an observer is concerned,
by velocity. To hypothesize that they're not would lose light's
speed-invariance; I would hope you've seen my posts (aided with
others) where I derive the Lorentz solely from the constancy of c
and an assumption which I might call a "quasi-linear tensor", or
some such -- Androcles has already disputed my logic (and has shown
the understanding of a turnip while doing so). No doubt you're next... :-)

Ghost, no matter what you do to A's clocks, you cannot change the
fact he will deem light to reflect from his mirror at its incident
speed.

Yes, and O will see the light beam come back at *its* speed, as well.
One of the more endearing quirks about SR.

But it doesn't work Ghost.

Like I said, A places a clock 1 light second in front of him.
Any 'contractions' assumed by relativity will work on both the forward and
reflected beam that strikes A's mirror.



Since when did we have a drive system capable of accelerating
*ANYTHING* macroscopic to even 2 parts per hundred of c? Much less
within the Earth-Moon distance...

Geese, the experiment can be performed at v=.000000002c if you like.

That's about the speed of a walking man (60 cm/s). You might
look up "Mo[e]ssbauer effect"; the iron block traveled rather
more slowly than that, and still showed a gamma resonance difference.

I am quite familiar with the Mossbauer effect Ghost.

Then you have a hypothesis other than time distortion that
accounts for the resonance difference? (Frequency is
measured in cycles per second. Tamper with the second,
and one gets a different frequency...)

Tamper with light speed and one gets a difference.



If the speed is slow the distance has to be increased, obviously.



I merely chose the nice simple figure of 0.2 because I thought three digit
numbers and higher might be too hard for the SRian mind to handle.

GP/Pari is a great help. :-P Besides, one can always play "symbolic
definition" (although overplay can result in the MEGO effect).

....but only during the beta phase.




You appear to have a hard time distinguishing between fantasy and
reality.


Set up a very rigid wheel with a small plane mirror on each side.
These mirrors are adjusted so that a laser beam pointed at the
(edge-on wheel) from a distance will be reflected back to a point
somewhere.

Mister flywheel embedded inside hard vacuum can handle your petty
task. You speak as if noone has *ever* looked at such things.


o----------|----------o -------------------Laser beam -------- observer.


The o's are two mirrors facing the same way. The wheel is rotated around the
vertical axis.

When the wheel spins, my theory says the reflected light will travel at
different speeds form the two mirrors because one is approaching and the other
receding.

Binary stars, redux onto the small.

Geese, I want to use mirrors.

So use them, already. Report back to us any interesting results. :-)
(Such results might include said mirrors flying off the centrifuge
and impacting something, though that's probably not directly relevant
to the experiment proper, unfortunately.)

That could be a problem. However quite large flywheels have been made to spin
up to 100000 rpm, I believe.




You may wish to read on the work by a guy named De Sitter. He had
something to say about this, I believe. Not that it matters, you would
argue the results ad-infinitum because they would disagree with your
belief.

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

he *observations*, of course, are totally wrong,
since they are somehow based on the *theory*.

Now you could quibble as to my *predictions* (if one assumes
c' = c+v, and inputs certain data, I for one draw certain
conclusions which do not fit with the observations recorded
by the ancients). Or one can quibble with the observations,
perhaps, if those making the observations were stoned,
drunk, malfunctioning, or dead.

Or all four at once..


My understanding is that those in 1054 who noted the
novae were none of the above at the time of the observation
(of course, they're all dead now).

well we cannot invite them to join this conversation.



That is measurable. (The rotating mirror technique, for instance).

I'm not entirely certain, as that's about 500 GHz. However, one can
try to either speed up the wheel or lengthen the distance.

It's easy enough to spin a shaft at 10,000 RPM -- many of the
higher-quality disk drives do it routinely in PCs. (The
plebian ones make do with 5,400 RPM.) I don't know the
tensile strength of iron/composites, though, so can't say if
a 3m diameter (radius?) disk can spin at that speed without
flying into pieces.

I should note that a car's flywheel holds together at 6,000 RPM;
presumably that's 50 cm in diameter but would have to look.
Of course that depends on the make of car, and there's no mirrors
attached to such a device -- which would make for a mildly
interesting balancing problem, not unlike rotating tires.

Steel would be OK. I gather the latest high speed ones are
carbon fibre. the mirrors have to both face the same way.
There is no great problem with speed except that the mirrors
might distort slightly and that could throw the experiment out
a bit. A 'perfect' vacuum is really essential.
The difficulty may lie in the detection of the two weak spots
of light as they flash past at maybe c.

I don't see any insuperable difficulties here. The main problem
is how to distinguish energy variance from frequency variance.

Uhu! You have been reading my other posts.





With a strong laser, the distance could be increased to at least
30000 metres and probably much more.

Lasers have been fired at the moon (through a telescope).
We get a few photons back.

The mirror on the wheel would have to be be much smaller than the one on the
moon...but no real problem there... just use a stronger laser beam.


Peripheral velocity could also be higher although we wouldn't
want the wheel to fly apart would we Geese.


What are some of the ways? Are you again presuming to know something
about astronomy and astrophysics? HA HA HA.

You do realise you might as well shut the **** up and stop posting? No
matter what you say, nothing physical will ever come out of it, other
than flipped bits in an archive somewhere.

Geese you obvouoiusly have no knowledge of experimental physics.

Doesn't he? He's at least done some. (My knowledge of experimental
physics might be at the "rubber-band ping-pong ball-thrower" level.
I think I still have the device, though I'm not sure what's become of
the actual trophy/slip of paper/award. I can't say I've done anything
at all with lasers.)

I haven't either. But it is obvous what they do.

Not as obvious as you might think. I'll admit I'm not sure of
the details, but I suspect holograms were probably discovered
by accident.

Possibly. They are an interesting offshoot of interference. In don't think
their 'philosophical importance' has been fully appreciated.






You will never do any experiments, because you already know the answer
- years of you arguing this 'theory' has convinced me of that.

You misrepresent and plain ol' deny astrophysical evidence to support
your cause.

You refuse to understand how GPS works, even through Myxo's amazing
attempts of explanation. I sure do hope he obtained some benefit from
it, because it was most certaintly lost upon you.

You will *never* do *anything* of note, and you know it.

Please continue wasting oxygen. Then again, there is no reason for me
to ask - you will do it anyway, because that is all you can do.

No Geese, let's get back to my "goodbye Albert" experiment.

Please explain how observers O and A can both agree that light
reflects of A's mirror at its incident speed.

Because O and A see time differently, that's how.

If v = 0.6 c, the gamma corrective factor is 1.25; this means
that, if O is listening to A's tick-clock, O will not see
A's ticks come in once per second. O will see A's ticks come
in every 1.25 second. Weird? You betcha.

That's what your theory says.
Why should I believe it?

Why indeed? Nobody can move a clock at 0.6 c; the best we can do
is shove around a decaying muon.

...and we know that muons travel faster than c wrt the Earth's surface, don't we
Ghost? That's why they reach the surface.




A, oddly enough, will also see O's ticks being "eaten" by the
"tick fairy" at exactly the same rate!

Irrelevant.


O and A will also be shrunken, in the direction of travel;

Irrelevant.

O will see A's meterstick to be 0.8 m, and vice versa.
(Assuming they can see the meterstick at all; there are a
few technical problems here. Even the timepulses would
decay fairly rapidly at this velocity, even were O and A to
both possess aimable communication lasers capable of a few
megawatts of power each.)

Scoff if you will, but that's what SR predicts, and many experiments
can be interpreted to validate SR, decaying muons and supernovae
among them.

Ghost, this DOES NOT explain how both A and O can BOTH come to
the conclusion that light reflects of A's mirror at its
incident velocity.

If you refuse to accept SR I cannot explain it to you. Even
with SR I'd have to work it out; I'm not entirely certain that
O will see equal angles here, either.

Ghost, there aren't any angles in this experiment. It is linear.
Go pour yourself another glass.



that is the crux of the experiment.


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:20 GMT
:
On 12 Oct 2004 01:32:47 -0700, (Titan Point) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
You may wish to read on the work by a guy named De Sitter. He had
something to say about this, I believe. Not that it matters, you would
argue the results ad-infinitum because they would disagree with your
belief.

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

Ah yes, the famous Wilson aversion to real measurement and real results.

Experimental result disproves Wilson's theory? It's Einsteiniana.

When is a SRian going to answer my two, now famous questions:

1) why should light from differently moving sources ever end up traveling at
the same speed through space?

Timetwist.

If O, A and B are three sources, where A is stationary with respect
to O, and B is moving away from O with a velocity V, then
every tick of O's clock will be faithfully mirrored to A, but
B's clock ticks will come not 1 second apart, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
seconds apart.

Also, if B sticks out a meter stick, O will think it too short.

2) If a force is applied to a clock for a short period, does
it physically slow down or speed up?

It slows down. I'd have to work out how much, but one could
in principle watch Einstein's Infamous Elevator, and a light
beam rising off its floor.


When you can answer these without resorting to LET, I will
have reason to believe that SR does not break down completely
when it tries to describe what light is doing when not being
observed.

Light does nothing when it is not observed. A photon is the ultimate
stealth weapon. Fortunately (?), the maximum size of a photon
is sqrt(h * c^3 / G) or 1.956 * 10^9 J -- about 1/2 ton of TNT.

"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:46:55 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:20 GMT
:
On 12 Oct 2004 01:32:47 -0700, (Titan Point) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
You may wish to read on the work by a guy named De Sitter. He had
something to say about this, I believe. Not that it matters, you would
argue the results ad-infinitum because they would disagree with your
belief.

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

Ah yes, the famous Wilson aversion to real measurement and real results.

Experimental result disproves Wilson's theory? It's Einsteiniana.

When is a SRian going to answer my two, now famous questions:

1) why should light from differently moving sources ever end up traveling at
the same speed through space?

Timetwist.

If O, A and B are three sources, where A is stationary with respect
to O, and B is moving away from O with a velocity V, then
every tick of O's clock will be faithfully mirrored to A, but
B's clock ticks will come not 1 second apart, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
seconds apart.

..and you have evidence of this ghost?

Not directly, no, but my understanding is that muon decay experiments
in the lab show this effect.



Also, if B sticks out a meter stick, O will think it too short.

..and you have evidence of this ghost?

MMX shows indirect evidence. I'm not sure if the aforementioned
muon decay experiments would show it directly.



2) If a force is applied to a clock for a short period, does
it physically slow down or speed up?

It slows down. I'd have to work out how much, but one could
in principle watch Einstein's Infamous Elevator, and a light
beam rising off its floor.

Oh? please give me the equation for that 'slowing' Ghost?

I'd have to work it out; perhaps now is good a time as any.

Let an elevator of height h be stationary and two observers
O and A be present at the origin. At time t = t' = 0, the
elevator starts to uniformly accelerate in the upward direction
with an acceleration g (in m/s/s, as usual). O continues to
observe from his local origin. A rides along in the elevator.
At the same time, a lightbeam is fired from the floor, striking
a detector in the ceiling.

O sees the beam always traveling at c, hitting the top of the
elevator. However, the top of the elevator is maddeningly
variable; at time t the velocity v_t = gt, and the length
of the elevator contracts in accordance with SR by
h * sqrt(1 - (gt)^2/c^2). Or one can try to use LET:

x' = (h + (gt)t) / sqrt(1 - (gt)^2/c^2)

However, I can't continue to use gt, as the time contraction
will cause A to notice anomalies in the acceleration. I'm
not sure what the right function v(t) is for this problem.
(Note that v(t) can never reach c, though it can get
asymptotically close.) The best I can do is note that

v(2*t) = 2 * v(t) / (1 - v(t)^2 / c^2)

and I'm a little stuck unless I can solve this equation.

I will note that, if we assume v(t) = exp(kt), for some k,
then v(2*t) = (v(t)^2). Clearly that's not quite the
right function.




When you can answer these without resorting to LET, I will
have reason to believe that SR does not break down completely
when it tries to describe what light is doing when not being
observed.

Light does nothing when it is not observed. A photon is the ultimate
stealth weapon. Fortunately (?), the maximum size of a photon
is sqrt(h * c^3 / G) or 1.956 * 10^9 J -- about 1/2 ton of TNT.

well we wont go into that, eh, Ghost.

No, but it makes for an interesting-looking weapon. :-)




HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:01 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:17:01 GMT

Special relativity is nifty, it makes answering those questions easy.

Well go on then! Answer the questions.

How can both observers O and A agree that light reflects from A's
mirror at its incident speed?

By twisting time. You may scoff if you like, but both time and
space are affected, at least as far as an observer is concerned,
by velocity. To hypothesize that they're not would lose light's
speed-invariance; I would hope you've seen my posts (aided with
others) where I derive the Lorentz solely from the constancy of c
and an assumption which I might call a "quasi-linear tensor", or
some such -- Androcles has already disputed my logic (and has shown
the understanding of a turnip while doing so). No doubt you're next... :-)

Ghost, no matter what you do to A's clocks, you cannot change the
fact he will deem light to reflect from his mirror at its incident
speed.

Yes, and O will see the light beam come back at *its* speed, as well.
One of the more endearing quirks about SR.

But it doesn't work Ghost.

Like I said, A places a clock 1 light second in front of him.
Any 'contractions' assumed by relativity will work on both the forward and
reflected beam that strikes A's mirror.

And they do, "adjusting" the speed back to c.




Since when did we have a drive system capable of accelerating
*ANYTHING* macroscopic to even 2 parts per hundred of c? Much less
within the Earth-Moon distance...

Geese, the experiment can be performed at v=.000000002c if you like.

That's about the speed of a walking man (60 cm/s). You might
look up "Mo[e]ssbauer effect"; the iron block traveled rather
more slowly than that, and still showed a gamma resonance difference.

I am quite familiar with the Mossbauer effect Ghost.

Then you have a hypothesis other than time distortion that
accounts for the resonance difference? (Frequency is
measured in cycles per second. Tamper with the second,
and one gets a different frequency...)

Tamper with light speed and one gets a difference.

Correct -- a difference in frequency.




If the speed is slow the distance has to be increased, obviously.



I merely chose the nice simple figure of 0.2 because I thought three digit
numbers and higher might be too hard for the SRian mind to handle.

GP/Pari is a great help. :-P Besides, one can always play "symbolic
definition" (although overplay can result in the MEGO effect).

....but only during the beta phase.




You appear to have a hard time distinguishing between fantasy and
reality.


Set up a very rigid wheel with a small plane mirror on each side.
These mirrors are adjusted so that a laser beam pointed at the
(edge-on wheel) from a distance will be reflected back to a point
somewhere.

Mister flywheel embedded inside hard vacuum can handle your petty
task. You speak as if noone has *ever* looked at such things.


o----------|----------o -------------------Laser beam -------- observer.


The o's are two mirrors facing the same way. The wheel is rotated around the
vertical axis.

When the wheel spins, my theory says the reflected light will travel at
different speeds form the two mirrors because one is approaching and the other
receding.

Binary stars, redux onto the small.

Geese, I want to use mirrors.

So use them, already. Report back to us any interesting results. :-)
(Such results might include said mirrors flying off the centrifuge
and impacting something, though that's probably not directly relevant
to the experiment proper, unfortunately.)

That could be a problem. However quite large flywheels have been made to spin
up to 100000 rpm, I believe.




You may wish to read on the work by a guy named De Sitter. He had
something to say about this, I believe. Not that it matters, you would
argue the results ad-infinitum because they would disagree with your
belief.

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

he *observations*, of course, are totally wrong,
since they are somehow based on the *theory*.

Now you could quibble as to my *predictions* (if one assumes
c' = c+v, and inputs certain data, I for one draw certain
conclusions which do not fit with the observations recorded
by the ancients). Or one can quibble with the observations,
perhaps, if those making the observations were stoned,
drunk, malfunctioning, or dead.

Or all four at once..


My understanding is that those in 1054 who noted the
novae were none of the above at the time of the observation
(of course, they're all dead now).

well we cannot invite them to join this conversation.

But I for one would think they left notes... :-)




That is measurable. (The rotating mirror technique, for instance).

I'm not entirely certain, as that's about 500 GHz. However, one can
try to either speed up the wheel or lengthen the distance.

It's easy enough to spin a shaft at 10,000 RPM -- many of the
higher-quality disk drives do it routinely in PCs. (The
plebian ones make do with 5,400 RPM.) I don't know the
tensile strength of iron/composites, though, so can't say if
a 3m diameter (radius?) disk can spin at that speed without
flying into pieces.

I should note that a car's flywheel holds together at 6,000 RPM;
presumably that's 50 cm in diameter but would have to look.
Of course that depends on the make of car, and there's no mirrors
attached to such a device -- which would make for a mildly
interesting balancing problem, not unlike rotating tires.

Steel would be OK. I gather the latest high speed ones are
carbon fibre. the mirrors have to both face the same way.
There is no great problem with speed except that the mirrors
might distort slightly and that could throw the experiment out
a bit. A 'perfect' vacuum is really essential.
The difficulty may lie in the detection of the two weak spots
of light as they flash past at maybe c.

I don't see any insuperable difficulties here. The main problem
is how to distinguish energy variance from frequency variance.

Uhu!

Ra!

You have been reading my other posts.

It's a logical problem. If one postulates c'=c+v the next question
is how to represent E = hf properly (E = hfv^2/c^2?). If one
postulates c'=c E=hv is left unchanged.

It presents a minor problem when attempting to measure differences
in speed as opposed to differences in frequency, when either the
light source or the light target is moving during the experiment.






With a strong laser, the distance could be increased to at least
30000 metres and probably much more.

Lasers have been fired at the moon (through a telescope).
We get a few photons back.

The mirror on the wheel would have to be be much smaller than the one on the
moon...but no real problem there... just use a stronger laser beam.


Peripheral velocity could also be higher although we wouldn't
want the wheel to fly apart would we Geese.


What are some of the ways? Are you again presuming to know something
about astronomy and astrophysics? HA HA HA.

You do realise you might as well shut the **** up and stop posting? No
matter what you say, nothing physical will ever come out of it, other
than flipped bits in an archive somewhere.

Geese you obvouoiusly have no knowledge of experimental physics.

Doesn't he? He's at least done some. (My knowledge of experimental
physics might be at the "rubber-band ping-pong ball-thrower" level.
I think I still have the device, though I'm not sure what's become of
the actual trophy/slip of paper/award. I can't say I've done anything
at all with lasers.)

I haven't either. But it is obvous what they do.

Not as obvious as you might think. I'll admit I'm not sure of
the details, but I suspect holograms were probably discovered
by accident.

Possibly. They are an interesting offshoot of interference. In don't think
their 'philosophical importance' has been fully appreciated.






You will never do any experiments, because you already know the answer
- years of you arguing this 'theory' has convinced me of that.

You misrepresent and plain ol' deny astrophysical evidence to support
your cause.

You refuse to understand how GPS works, even through Myxo's amazing
attempts of explanation. I sure do hope he obtained some benefit from
it, because it was most certaintly lost upon you.

You will *never* do *anything* of note, and you know it.

Please continue wasting oxygen. Then again, there is no reason for me
to ask - you will do it anyway, because that is all you can do.

No Geese, let's get back to my "goodbye Albert" experiment.

Please explain how observers O and A can both agree that light
reflects of A's mirror at its incident speed.

Because O and A see time differently, that's how.

If v = 0.6 c, the gamma corrective factor is 1.25; this means
that, if O is listening to A's tick-clock, O will not see
A's ticks come in once per second. O will see A's ticks come
in every 1.25 second. Weird? You betcha.

That's what your theory says.
Why should I believe it?

Why indeed? Nobody can move a clock at 0.6 c; the best we can do
is shove around a decaying muon.

..and we know that muons travel faster than c wrt the Earth's
surface, don't we Ghost? That's why they reach the surface.

They don't need to travel faster than light to reach the Earth's surface,
just fast enough so that they reach the surface before they decay
(as observed by us, they exhibit a considerable slowdown).

I can't say, however, to be knowledgeable about particle physics
so can't answer objections such as "well, they might have been
generated by an in-air collision", though.





A, oddly enough, will also see O's ticks being "eaten" by the
"tick fairy" at exactly the same rate!

Irrelevant.


O and A will also be shrunken, in the direction of travel;

Irrelevant.

O will see A's meterstick to be 0.8 m, and vice versa.
(Assuming they can see the meterstick at all; there are a
few technical problems here. Even the timepulses would
decay fairly rapidly at this velocity, even were O and A to
both possess aimable communication lasers capable of a few
megawatts of power each.)

Scoff if you will, but that's what SR predicts, and many experiments
can be interpreted to validate SR, decaying muons and supernovae
among them.

Ghost, this DOES NOT explain how both A and O can BOTH come to
the conclusion that light reflects of A's mirror at its
incident velocity.

If you refuse to accept SR I cannot explain it to you. Even
with SR I'd have to work it out; I'm not entirely certain that
O will see equal angles here, either.

Ghost, there aren't any angles in this experiment. It is linear.
Go pour yourself another glass.

Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection = 90 in that case, then.
You might want to restudy MMX to see why it has a null result.




that is the crux of the experiment.


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics.relativity, Titan Point

wrote
on 14 Oct 2004 05:48:27 -0700
:
The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 08:58:20 GMT
:
On 12 Oct 2004 01:32:47 -0700, (Titan Point) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
You may wish to read on the work by a guy named De Sitter. He had
something to say about this, I believe. Not that it matters, you would
argue the results ad-infinitum because they would disagree with your
belief.

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

Ah yes, the famous Wilson aversion to real measurement and real results.

Experimental result disproves Wilson's theory? It's Einsteiniana.

When is a SRian going to answer my two, now famous questions:

1) why should light from differently moving sources ever end up traveling at
the same speed through space?

Timetwist.

If O, A and B are three sources, where A is stationary with respect
to O, and B is moving away from O with a velocity V, then
every tick of O's clock will be faithfully mirrored to A, but
B's clock ticks will come not 1 second apart, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
seconds apart.

Also, if B sticks out a meter stick, O will think it too short.

2) If a force is applied to a clock for a short period, does
it physically slow down or speed up?

It slows down. I'd have to work out how much, but one could
in principle watch Einstein's Infamous Elevator, and a light
beam rising off its floor.


When you can answer these without resorting to LET, I will
have reason to believe that SR does not break down completely
when it tries to describe what light is doing when not being
observed.

Light does nothing when it is not observed. A photon is the ultimate
stealth weapon. Fortunately (?), the maximum size of a photon
is sqrt(h * c^3 / G) or 1.956 * 10^9 J -- about 1/2 ton of TNT.

"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.

Which is exactly what they are (AFAIK, anyway; some of them might
have been predicted by notables as the theory has evolved over
the decades); they are predictions of SR.

(Except for the Planck energy; I'm not sure where that comes from.)

This doesn't make them untrue, of course -- and AFAIK they've been
nicely validated by design and experiment: design because such
things as GPS and particle accelerators must deal with the quirks
of SR and GR, lest they not function to spec; experiment because
a large number of measurements of lightspeed have been done, and
they all read c (within measurement error).

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:06 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:46:55 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

Ah yes, the famous Wilson aversion to real measurement and real results.

Experimental result disproves Wilson's theory? It's Einsteiniana.

When is a SRian going to answer my two, now famous questions:

1) why should light from differently moving sources ever end up traveling at
the same speed through space?

Timetwist.

If O, A and B are three sources, where A is stationary with respect
to O, and B is moving away from O with a velocity V, then
every tick of O's clock will be faithfully mirrored to A, but
B's clock ticks will come not 1 second apart, but 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
seconds apart.

..and you have evidence of this ghost?

Not directly, no, but my understanding is that muon decay experiments
in the lab show this effect.

Oh yes of course, the famous muon experiments.

All they really prove is that muons travel faster than c.




Also, if B sticks out a meter stick, O will think it too short.

..and you have evidence of this ghost?

MMX shows indirect evidence. I'm not sure if the aforementioned
muon decay experiments would show it directly.

All the MMX proves is that light speed is source dependent.




2) If a force is applied to a clock for a short period, does
it physically slow down or speed up?

It slows down. I'd have to work out how much, but one could
in principle watch Einstein's Infamous Elevator, and a light
beam rising off its floor.

Oh? please give me the equation for that 'slowing' Ghost?

I'd have to work it out; perhaps now is good a time as any.

Let an elevator of height h be stationary and two observers
O and A be present at the origin. At time t = t' = 0, the
elevator starts to uniformly accelerate in the upward direction
with an acceleration g (in m/s/s, as usual). O continues to
observe from his local origin. A rides along in the elevator.
At the same time, a lightbeam is fired from the floor, striking
a detector in the ceiling.

O sees the beam always traveling at c, hitting the top of the
elevator. However, the top of the elevator is maddeningly
variable; at time t the velocity v_t = gt, and the length
of the elevator contracts in accordance with SR by
h * sqrt(1 - (gt)^2/c^2). Or one can try to use LET:

x' = (h + (gt)t) / sqrt(1 - (gt)^2/c^2)

However, I can't continue to use gt, as the time contraction
will cause A to notice anomalies in the acceleration. I'm
not sure what the right function v(t) is for this problem.
(Note that v(t) can never reach c, though it can get
asymptotically close.) The best I can do is note that

v(2*t) = 2 * v(t) / (1 - v(t)^2 / c^2)

and I'm a little stuck unless I can solve this equation.

I will note that, if we assume v(t) = exp(kt), for some k,
then v(2*t) = (v(t)^2). Clearly that's not quite the
right function.

Don't worry about it Ghost.

You have already used SR assumptions that will only demonstrate circular logic.

Yoiu haven't answered my question. I'll give you a clue.

If a force is applied to a clock does it accelerate or decelerate. Does its
rate therefore increase or decrease?





When you can answer these without resorting to LET, I will
have reason to believe that SR does not break down completely
when it tries to describe what light is doing when not being
observed.

Light does nothing when it is not observed. A photon is the ultimate
stealth weapon. Fortunately (?), the maximum size of a photon
is sqrt(h * c^3 / G) or 1.956 * 10^9 J -- about 1/2 ton of TNT.

well we wont go into that, eh, Ghost.

No, but it makes for an interesting-looking weapon. :-)



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Titan Point

wrote
on 14 Oct 2004 05:48:27 -0700


"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.

Which is exactly what they are (AFAIK, anyway; some of them might
have been predicted by notables as the theory has evolved over
the decades); they are predictions of SR.

(Except for the Planck energy; I'm not sure where that comes from.)

This doesn't make them untrue, of course -- and AFAIK they've been
nicely validated by design and experiment: design because such
things as GPS and particle accelerators must deal with the quirks
of SR and GR, lest they not function to spec; experiment because
a large number of measurements of lightspeed have been done, and
they all read c (within measurement error).

Ghost, all light speed measurements so far have been of the two way type. The
constancy of the result is fully supportive of the ballistic theory.



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:00:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:01 GMT
:
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:00:05 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:17:01 GMT

Special relativity is nifty, it makes answering those questions easy.

Well go on then! Answer the questions.

How can both observers O and A agree that light reflects from A's
mirror at its incident speed?

By twisting time. You may scoff if you like, but both time and
space are affected, at least as far as an observer is concerned,
by velocity. To hypothesize that they're not would lose light's
speed-invariance; I would hope you've seen my posts (aided with
others) where I derive the Lorentz solely from the constancy of c
and an assumption which I might call a "quasi-linear tensor", or
some such -- Androcles has already disputed my logic (and has shown
the understanding of a turnip while doing so). No doubt you're next... :-)

Ghost, no matter what you do to A's clocks, you cannot change the
fact he will deem light to reflect from his mirror at its incident
speed.

Yes, and O will see the light beam come back at *its* speed, as well.
One of the more endearing quirks about SR.

But it doesn't work Ghost.

Like I said, A places a clock 1 light second in front of him.
Any 'contractions' assumed by relativity will work on both the forward and
reflected beam that strikes A's mirror.

And they do, "adjusting" the speed back to c.

BUT THE ONE 'CONTRACTION' CANNOT TRANSFORM BOTH THE FORWARD AND REFLECTED
SPEEDS SO THAT THEY ARE BOTH EQUAL TO C.





Since when did we have a drive system capable of accelerating
*ANYTHING* macroscopic to even 2 parts per hundred of c? Much less
within the Earth-Moon distance...

Geese, the experiment can be performed at v=.000000002c if you like.

That's about the speed of a walking man (60 cm/s). You might
look up "Mo[e]ssbauer effect"; the iron block traveled rather
more slowly than that, and still showed a gamma resonance difference.

I am quite familiar with the Mossbauer effect Ghost.

Then you have a hypothesis other than time distortion that
accounts for the resonance difference? (Frequency is
measured in cycles per second. Tamper with the second,
and one gets a different frequency...)

Tamper with light speed and one gets a difference.

Correct -- a difference in frequency.


The Pound-rebka experiment uses the Mossbauer effect to show that light speed
increases when light falls down a gravity well.



If the speed is slow the distance has to be increased, obviously.



I merely chose the nice simple figure of 0.2 because I thought three digit
numbers and higher might be too hard for the SRian mind to handle.

GP/Pari is a great help. :-P Besides, one can always play "symbolic
definition" (although overplay can result in the MEGO effect).

Have you absorbed nothing over the years Geese.
DeSitter was wrong.

And the supernovae observations? Are they also wrong?

Probably. They are based on Einsteiniana.

he *observations*, of course, are totally wrong,
since they are somehow based on the *theory*.

Now you could quibble as to my *predictions* (if one assumes
c' = c+v, and inputs certain data, I for one draw certain
conclusions which do not fit with the observations recorded
by the ancients). Or one can quibble with the observations,
perhaps, if those making the observations were stoned,
drunk, malfunctioning, or dead.

Or all four at once..


My understanding is that those in 1054 who noted the
novae were none of the above at the time of the observation
(of course, they're all dead now).

well we cannot invite them to join this conversation.

But I for one would think they left notes... :-)




That is measurable. (The rotating mirror technique, for instance).

I'm not entirely certain, as that's about 500 GHz. However, one can
try to either speed up the wheel or lengthen the distance.

It's easy enough to spin a shaft at 10,000 RPM -- many of the
higher-quality disk drives do it routinely in PCs. (The
plebian ones make do with 5,400 RPM.) I don't know the
tensile strength of iron/composites, though, so can't say if
a 3m diameter (radius?) disk can spin at that speed without
flying into pieces.

I should note that a car's flywheel holds together at 6,000 RPM;
presumably that's 50 cm in diameter but would have to look.
Of course that depends on the make of car, and there's no mirrors
attached to such a device -- which would make for a mildly
interesting balancing problem, not unlike rotating tires.

Steel would be OK. I gather the latest high speed ones are
carbon fibre. the mirrors have to both face the same way.
There is no great problem with speed except that the mirrors
might distort slightly and that could throw the experiment out
a bit. A 'perfect' vacuum is really essential.
The difficulty may lie in the detection of the two weak spots
of light as they flash past at maybe c.

I don't see any insuperable difficulties here. The main problem
is how to distinguish energy variance from frequency variance.

Uhu!

Ra!

You have been reading my other posts.

It's a logical problem. If one postulates c'=c+v the next question
is how to represent E = hf properly (E = hfv^2/c^2?). If one
postulates c'=c E=hv is left unchanged.

It presents a minor problem when attempting to measure differences
in speed as opposed to differences in frequency, when either the
light source or the light target is moving during the experiment.

I suggest that E=h.nu and any other associated equation only applies in the
source frame.


Doesn't he? He's at least done some. (My knowledge of experimental
physics might be at the "rubber-band ping-pong ball-thrower" level.


That's what your theory says.
Why should I believe it?

Why indeed? Nobody can move a clock at 0.6 c; the best we can do
is shove around a decaying muon.

..and we know that muons travel faster than c wrt the Earth's
surface, don't we Ghost? That's why they reach the surface.

They don't need to travel faster than light to reach the Earth's surface,
just fast enough so that they reach the surface before they decay
(as observed by us, they exhibit a considerable slowdown).

I can't say, however, to be knowledgeable about particle physics
so can't answer objections such as "well, they might have been
generated by an in-air collision", though.

they are.



Ghost, this DOES NOT explain how both A and O can BOTH come to
the conclusion that light reflects of A's mirror at its
incident velocity.

If you refuse to accept SR I cannot explain it to you. Even
with SR I'd have to work it out; I'm not entirely certain that
O will see equal angles here, either.

Ghost, there aren't any angles in this experiment. It is linear.
Go pour yourself another glass.

Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection = 90 in that case, then.
You might want to restudy MMX to see why it has a null result.

I know the MMX backwards.

It obviously and conclusively proves that light speed is source dependent.



HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Geese, students have to 'BELIEVE' what they are taught.. or they fail.

The core of the matter. You actually think thats true!

You confuse belief with ability. My Mechanics teacher, Dr. Newman, by
his own words has said many times he does not believe quantum
mechanics is true - yet at one point in time or another he had to work
through a fair part of it to get his PhD.

I don't think QM *or* GR are true, there is an error somewhere. Guess
why I have a particular fascination with black holes? Why do you think
I watch Al's Eotvos experiment with a keen eye?


You are typical indoctinated non thinking moron of the type the physics
establishment just loves.

You have no idea about what kind of person I really am. None at all. I
speak from a vantage point that you do not have.


Geese, never try to be a physicist, You simply haven't got what it takes.

...and you do?

HA HA HA.

The nice thing is that I don't need approval of a senial austrailian
(read: you) to be able to get a degree in physics.


HW.

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The Ghost In The Machine wrote in message ...
[snip]


Light does nothing when it is not observed. A photon is the ultimate
stealth weapon. Fortunately (?), the maximum size of a photon
is sqrt(h * c^3 / G) or 1.956 * 10^9 J -- about 1/2 ton of TNT.

"...And you tell people that, and they'll never believe you"/Monty Python

Watch Henri Wilson ignore all of the above as Einsteiniana.


It is 'argue with the cranks inbetween homework' week. o_O

Which is exactly what they are (AFAIK, anyway; some of them might
have been predicted by notables as the theory has evolved over
the decades); they are predictions of SR.

(Except for the Planck energy; I'm not sure where that comes from.)

Dimensional analysis

Questionable use, but sets a nice scale!


This doesn't make them untrue, of course -- and AFAIK they've been
nicely validated by design and experiment: design because such
things as GPS and particle accelerators must deal with the quirks
of SR and GR, lest they not function to spec; experiment because
a large number of measurements of lightspeed have been done, and
they all read c (within measurement error).

As far as I know, GR isn't needed within accelerators - just SR. I
would be thrilled if gravitation could be tested at those scales.