On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:30:57 GMT
n
competition"?

Ghost is nothing but patient and nice, regarding you. Nothing like me.


No, I'm just trying to annoy you. :-) As it is, your experiment
has many problems; a far simpler experiment would be to conduct
a three-way experiment between Cassini and Hugyes, as follows:

2
/|
/ |
/ |
1 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
||
||
3

1 = Cassini
2 = Hugyes
3 = Earth

1 shoots a signal to 2 and 3 simultaneously. 2 receives
the signal and sends a signal to 1 and 3 simultaneously.
1 receives this signal and returns it to 3. All this time
3 is computing the "proper" position for the orbits of
1 and 2.

I don't think Huygen's transmitter is strong enough. I could be wrong,
though.
It doesn't actually matter because the only reason that the "c+v"
theory is being pushed is because you are an idiot, Henri.

I thought it was Maxwell's idea.
"Light moves at c relative to its source".

After all, it seems to work.

Light moves at c relative to *all observers* (source included).
That's the basic assumption of SR (well, one of them, anyway).






No Ghost, that's not the same. I must have a reflection fom a mirror because
incident velocity has to equal reflected velocity.

In my experiment, that cannot be true if the reflected light moves at c
according to observer O. A will not see both speeds as being equal.

Tell me how fast the light reflected from A's mirror appears to move, as seen
by O?

c

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. His clock 1
lightsecond away will record the same travel times for this light, in both
directions. This is where the synching process is important. If A's two clocks
are E-synched, the remote clock will register a directional difference in
travel times for different speeds of A. If it is absolutely synched, (ie, by
synching with A's adjacent clock and then placing into position), it will not
give the same time readings at all.











Should give reasonably good data, if done right.

My experiment is feasible (on the moon would be best).

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.

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.





There are several sensitive ways to check whether the pulses
arrive together or if one arrives after the other.
If the wheel spins at say, 100 rps, a very sharp but observeable
pulse would be seen at a detector maybe 3000 metres away.

'...several sensitive ways...', 'say, 100 rps...', 'mabey 3000 meteres
away.'

Handwave, handwave, and handwave.

How do you know the required velocities and distances? Show the
calculations.

I have done the calculations, They are easy.

Travel time is about 10 microsecs.
For a wheel of 3 metres circumference, the difference in light
speed of the two reflected beams is 2 parts in 10^6

The gap in arrival times at the observer 3000m away is 2E-12 secs.

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.



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.




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?


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.

that is the crux of the experiment.


[.sigsnip]


HW.

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

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.

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

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.

HW.

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

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

Point me to 3 places outside this newsgroup and the websites of the
people who inhabit it, who have your '2 famous questions' posted with
your name attributed to them.

Oh, you can't. But they are still famous?


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

What if that question can't be answered? Expecting a philosophically
deep answer to a 'why' question regarding theories isn't that smart.
You can get an answer to 'why' only so far, then you stop. The 'why'
ends at the postulates of SR, bounus points if you can guess which
one.

It is nice that you finally accepted SR though. Now that the SR horse
has been beaten to death, are you now going to argue something about
quantum that you will understand even less than you did SR?

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

In which reference frame?


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.

What if you do have reason to believe something? The defining thing is
the experiment that shows your idea to be true.

When are you going to do an experiment, Henri? You refuse to believe
references handed to you, your only choice is to do an experiment. But
you don't do experiments...

[signip]

On 13 Oct 2004 06:39:16 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

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

Point me to 3 places outside this newsgroup and the websites of the
people who inhabit it, who have your '2 famous questions' posted with
your name attributed to them.

Oh, you can't. But they are still famous?

Anything that brings down Einstein is famous, surely.



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

What if that question can't be answered? Expecting a philosophically
deep answer to a 'why' question regarding theories isn't that smart.
You can get an answer to 'why' only so far, then you stop. The 'why'
ends at the postulates of SR, bounus points if you can guess which
one.

It is nice that you finally accepted SR though. Now that the SR horse
has been beaten to death, are you now going to argue something about
quantum that you will understand even less than you did SR?

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

In which reference frame?

Ahahahahah!

You can actually see the problem eh Geese?
very good, you're improving!


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.

What if you do have reason to believe something? The defining thing is
the experiment that shows your idea to be true.

When are you going to do an experiment, Henri? You refuse to believe
references handed to you, your only choice is to do an experiment. But
you don't do experiments...

I propose them.

Some bright young PhD aspirant can do them for me.
Trouble is, they will be kicked out of physics if they get the right result.



[signip]


HW.

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

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Tue, 12 Oct 2004 00:17:01 GMT
:
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 07:00:08 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
H@.
wrote
on Sun, 10 Oct 2004 21:30:57 GMT
n
competition"?

Ghost is nothing but patient and nice, regarding you. Nothing like me.


No, I'm just trying to annoy you. :-) As it is, your experiment
has many problems; a far simpler experiment would be to conduct
a three-way experiment between Cassini and Hugyes, as follows:

2
/|
/ |
/ |
1 |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
||
||
3

1 = Cassini
2 = Hugyes
3 = Earth

1 shoots a signal to 2 and 3 simultaneously. 2 receives
the signal and sends a signal to 1 and 3 simultaneously.
1 receives this signal and returns it to 3. All this time
3 is computing the "proper" position for the orbits of
1 and 2.

I don't think Huygen's transmitter is strong enough. I could be wrong,
though.
It doesn't actually matter because the only reason that the "c+v"
theory is being pushed is because you are an idiot, Henri.

I thought it was Maxwell's idea.
"Light moves at c relative to its source".

After all, it seems to work.

Light moves at c relative to *all observers* (source included).
That's the basic assumption of SR (well, one of them, anyway).






No Ghost, that's not the same. I must have a reflection fom a mirror because
incident velocity has to equal reflected velocity.

In my experiment, that cannot be true if the reflected light moves at c
according to observer O. A will not see both speeds as being equal.

Tell me how fast the light reflected from A's mirror appears to move, as seen
by O?

c

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.

His clock 1 lightsecond away will record the same travel times
for this light, in both directions. This is where the synching
process is important. If A's two clocks are E-synched, the remote
clock will register a directional difference in travel times for
different speeds of A. If it is absolutely synched, (ie, by
synching with A's adjacent clock and then placing into position),
it will not give the same time readings at all.











Should give reasonably good data, if done right.

My experiment is feasible (on the moon would be best).

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...)


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.

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).






There are several sensitive ways to check whether the pulses
arrive together or if one arrives after the other.
If the wheel spins at say, 100 rps, a very sharp but observeable
pulse would be seen at a detector maybe 3000 metres away.

'...several sensitive ways...', 'say, 100 rps...', 'mabey 3000 meteres
away.'

Handwave, handwave, and handwave.

How do you know the required velocities and distances? Show the
calculations.

I have done the calculations, They are easy.

Travel time is about 10 microsecs.
For a wheel of 3 metres circumference, the difference in light
speed of the two reflected beams is 2 parts in 10^6

The gap in arrival times at the observer 3000m away is 2E-12 secs.

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.




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.





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.



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.


that is the crux of the experiment.


[.sigsnip]


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 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.


HW.

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


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

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 13 Oct 2004 06:39:16 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

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

Point me to 3 places outside this newsgroup and the websites of the
people who inhabit it, who have your '2 famous questions' posted with
your name attributed to them.

Oh, you can't. But they are still famous?

Anything that brings down Einstein is famous, surely.

I am impressed by the large list of places that cite your questions.

Fantasy == Reality, for you. There is no difference in your mind.




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

What if that question can't be answered? Expecting a philosophically
deep answer to a 'why' question regarding theories isn't that smart.
You can get an answer to 'why' only so far, then you stop. The 'why'
ends at the postulates of SR, bounus points if you can guess which
one.

It is nice that you finally accepted SR though. Now that the SR horse
has been beaten to death, are you now going to argue something about
quantum that you will understand even less than you did SR?

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

In which reference frame?

Ahahahahah!

You can actually see the problem eh Geese?
very good, you're improving!


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.

What if you do have reason to believe something? The defining thing is
the experiment that shows your idea to be true.

When are you going to do an experiment, Henri? You refuse to believe
references handed to you, your only choice is to do an experiment. But
you don't do experiments...

I propose them.

Why don't you actually do one?

If they are so goddamn easy to do, why won't you do one?


Some bright young PhD aspirant can do them for me.
Trouble is, they will be kicked out of physics if they get the right result.

What a goddamn copout. You won't do the experiments because you merely
propose them, and nobody will do them because they will be 'kicked out
of physics' if they get the result you expect.

Why do you think SR and GR were eventually accepted? Why is it you
think 2 very counter-intuitive theories were put in place over the
common-sense newtonian dynamics?

For the life of me, I just cannot understand how you are capable of
compartmentalizing your mind the way you have it.

When was the last time you were in a classroom environment, Henri? The
things that I am doing right now have been done to death over the last
150 years in one form or another. The theorems we use have been
proven, the formulae that are used we can derive from other principles
and can be shown to be consistant with what is known.

The caveats are explicitly stated ie: Regarding Gauss' law: "This is
absolutely wrong in quantum mechanics", or "This part of mechanics is
only true in the nonrelatvistic limit". The pitfalls and curiosities
are well-known "Why does Gaussian eliminiation w/ partial pivoting
work in floating point math?".

On 13 Oct 2004 23:49:20 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 13 Oct 2004 06:39:16 -0700, (Eric Gisse) wrote:

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

Point me to 3 places outside this newsgroup and the websites of the
people who inhabit it, who have your '2 famous questions' posted with
your name attributed to them.

Oh, you can't. But they are still famous?

Anything that brings down Einstein is famous, surely.

I am impressed by the large list of places that cite your questions.

Fantasy == Reality, for you. There is no difference in your mind.




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

What if that question can't be answered? Expecting a philosophically
deep answer to a 'why' question regarding theories isn't that smart.
You can get an answer to 'why' only so far, then you stop. The 'why'
ends at the postulates of SR, bounus points if you can guess which
one.

It is nice that you finally accepted SR though. Now that the SR horse
has been beaten to death, are you now going to argue something about
quantum that you will understand even less than you did SR?

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

In which reference frame?

Ahahahahah!

You can actually see the problem eh Geese?
very good, you're improving!


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.

What if you do have reason to believe something? The defining thing is
the experiment that shows your idea to be true.

When are you going to do an experiment, Henri? You refuse to believe
references handed to you, your only choice is to do an experiment. But
you don't do experiments...

I propose them.

Why don't you actually do one?

If they are so goddamn easy to do, why won't you do one?


Some bright young PhD aspirant can do them for me.
Trouble is, they will be kicked out of physics if they get the right result.

What a goddamn copout. You won't do the experiments because you merely
propose them, and nobody will do them because they will be 'kicked out
of physics' if they get the result you expect.

Why do you think SR and GR were eventually accepted? Why is it you
think 2 very counter-intuitive theories were put in place over the
common-sense newtonian dynamics?

For the life of me, I just cannot understand how you are capable of
compartmentalizing your mind the way you have it.

When was the last time you were in a classroom environment, Henri? The
things that I am doing right now have been done to death over the last
150 years in one form or another. The theorems we use have been
proven, the formulae that are used we can derive from other principles
and can be shown to be consistant with what is known.

The caveats are explicitly stated ie: Regarding Gauss' law: "This is
absolutely wrong in quantum mechanics", or "This part of mechanics is
only true in the nonrelatvistic limit". The pitfalls and curiosities
are well-known "Why does Gaussian eliminiation w/ partial pivoting
work in floating point math?".

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

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

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

HW.

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

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?


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

...and you have evidence of this ghost?


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?



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.



HW.

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


HW.

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