"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org wrote:
|
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
| |
| | Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug
|
| Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug
|
| [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.
|
| |
| | Tom Roberts
|
| [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
| in them already.
| Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
| Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
| Androcles.
|
| ...such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal
one moving
| at c, in a moving frame.
| ...only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.
|
| You are supposing that a light beam is a *structure* like a girder. It
| is not. It is a *train* of objects.

Phuckwit Duck, Henri supposes no such thing. Google back to when
Henri was walking ant columns. You are a psychotic ineducable boring
spammer.
http://www.freefarts.com
Androcles.

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:13:15 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
.. .
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| ...
| | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
| |
| | Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug
|
| Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug
|
| [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.
|
| |
| | Tom Roberts
|
| [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
| in them already.
| Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
| Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
| Androcles.
|
| ...such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one
moving
| at c, in a moving frame.
| ...only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.

Roberts is a complete fool. Here is a map of the whole sky,
with RA (right anscension) and Dec (declination marked on it.
http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/con...rsa_Major.html
Hold the button down and move the mouse.
Nobody bothered to mark RA and Dec of the accretion disk near
the black hole that Roberts has OBSERVED.
Here's how to measure the speed of light, ONE way.
http://www.oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm

There are a couple of minor problems with that typical TWLS experiment.
One is that the experiment measures the speed of light reflected from the
moving mirror, c+v....where c is light speed wrt the source in air.
The second is that the beam has to pass through a glass window. It enters at
c+v. The emergent speed in vacuum might no be exactly c+v.

Who cares about the time at the far end anyway?
Ya gotta love the grin on Michaelson's face as he points the finger
at the embarrassed scruffy guy next to him unable to face the camera.
I remember when my grandfather had shirts with detachable collars.

One wouldn't buy a used car from such an obvious hoaxer.


Androcles.



HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

On 27 Oct 2005 07:21:06 -0700, "PD" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote:


"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
...
| Peri of Pera wrote:
| Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
|
| Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug

Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.

|
| Tom Roberts

[#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
in them already.
Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
Androcles.

...such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal one moving
at c, in a moving frame.
...only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.

You are supposing that a light beam is a *structure* like a girder. It
is not. It is a *train* of objects.

To see how a *train* of objects can change its orientation with respect
to reference frame, I'd like you to make three sketches of something
with a completely different physical basis (but which is nonetheless
illustrative).

Sketch A:
Draw a helicopter poised above the ground.
Draw several successive sound wave fronts from the helicopter. Note
that the *later* wavefronts will be smaller circles than the earlier
wavefronts, and all the circles will be concentric.
Draw a dot at the lowest elevation point for each wavefront.
Draw a line connecting these dots. Note the line is vertical.

rubbish. You said the circles are different diameters and concentric.
The plane is vertical, the line isn't.


Sketch B:
Draw a helicopter moving horizontally above the ground.
Draw several successive sound wave fronts from the helicopter. Note
that the later wavefronts will be smaller circles than the earlier
wavefronts, and all the circles will *not* be concentric.
Draw a dot at the lowest elevation point for each wavefront.
Draw a line connecting these dots. Note the line is *not* vertical.

The plane is vertical the line is more - or less - slanted than before,
depending whether you are refering to a point in front of or behind the
helicopter..

Sketch C:
Draw a helicopter poised above the ground, with the wind blowing
horizontally.
Draw several successive sound wave fronts from the helicopter. Note
that the later wavefronts will be smaller circles than the earlier
wavefronts, and all the circles will *not* be concentric.
Draw a dot at the lowest elevation point for each wavefront.
Draw a line connecting these dots. Note the line is *not* vertical.

I assume you mean a cross wind.
In that case neither the line nor the plane is vertical.


Now that it is recognized that a train of objects that is vertical in
one instance is not vertical in another instance, we can turn to what
happens in light's case.

You poor idiot. You are refering to the aether situation. There is no aether,
light does not behave like sound.




HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".


HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

"Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".

"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
...
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:13:15 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org
wrote:
|
|
| "Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message
| .. .
| | On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:29:44 GMT, "Androcles" Androcles@
MyPlace.org
| wrote:
| |
| |
| | "Tom Roberts" wrote in message
| | ...
| | | Peri of Pera wrote:
| | | Tom, MMX does not prove the ether nor does it disprove it.
| | |
| | | Of course. Physical theories are not subject to proof. shrug
| |
| | Just because you say it does not make it correct.shrug
| |
| | [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| | you claim. Some of them are bulletproof.
| |
| | |
| | | Tom Roberts
| |
| | [#] There are MANY alternative foundations for SR than what
| | you claim. NONE of them are bulletproof, most have huge holes
| | in them already.
| | Stand up your strawman, Roberts. I'll show you bullet proof.
| | Nah, you'll run and hide like the coward you are.
| | Androcles.
| |
| | ...such as the claim that a vertical light beam becomes a diagonal
one
| moving
| | at c, in a moving frame.
| | ...only a complete fool would not see the flaw in that argument.
|
| Roberts is a complete fool. Here is a map of the whole sky,
| with RA (right anscension) and Dec (declination marked on it.
| http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/con...rsa_Major.html
| Hold the button down and move the mouse.
| Nobody bothered to mark RA and Dec of the accretion disk near
| the black hole that Roberts has OBSERVED.
| Here's how to measure the speed of light, ONE way.
| http://www.oisc.net/Speed_of_Light.htm
|
| There are a couple of minor problems with that typical TWLS
experiment.
| One is that the experiment measures the speed of light reflected from
the
| moving mirror, c+v....where c is light speed wrt the source in air.
| The second is that the beam has to pass through a glass window. It
enters at
| c+v. The emergent speed in vacuum might no be exactly c+v.

I quite agree. Unfortunately when I pulled the paper from the library
the data had already been reduced, the faceted mirror was spun in
both directions with no indication of which direction was used for
which result. For a three month period the speed of light changed,
but nobody knows why, the final result is not that of Michaelson
who died before the experiment was completed.
I'd have had the spinning mirror INSIDE the vacuum tube and
to hell with any grease out-gassing. Oh well, too late now.



| Who cares about the time at the far end anyway?
| Ya gotta love the grin on Michaelson's face as he points the finger
| at the embarrassed scruffy guy next to him unable to face the camera.
| I remember when my grandfather had shirts with detachable collars.
|
| One wouldn't buy a used car from such an obvious hoaxer.
|
|
| Androcles.
|
|
|
| HW.
| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
| see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
|
| "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure.
| The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong".