Androcles wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: HW@
: wrote
: on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: :
: On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:
:
: Henri Wilson wrote:
: On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: wrote:
:
: In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
:
: wrote
: on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
:
: Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
:
: Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
:
: Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
place an
: upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in
10^8]
: All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: None is believable...
:
: Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
evidence!
:
: I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
:
: So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: suit who can float in the air. ;-)
:
:
: Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that
which
: supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that
do exactly
: the same..
:
:
: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
:
: Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.
:
: Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
: contradicts a prediction of relativity.
:
: No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
:
:
: OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?

Ok, Easy answer.
Ask Cassini the time.


: Include experimental method and expected results.

Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
Expected result according to relativity,
time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.

Test complete, relativity fails. Done.

Was this experiment actually done ?

Uwe Hayek.


You are correct, your question was dumb.

"Hayek" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
: ...
: : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: : HW@
: : wrote
: : on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: : :
: : On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley
: wrote:
: :
: : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: : wrote:
: :
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: :
: : wrote
: : on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: :
: : Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: :
: : Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583
(1965).
: :
: : Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: : Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
: place an
: : upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part
in
: 10^8]
: : All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: : None is believable...
: :
: : Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
: evidence!
: :
: : I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: : presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: : that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: : evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: :
: : So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: : difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: : a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: : suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: :
: :
: : Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only
that
: which
: : supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: : There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world
that
: do exactly
: : the same..
: :
: :
: : www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: :
: : Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
virgin
: mother.
: :
: : Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
observation
: that
: : contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: :
: : No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: :
: :
: : OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
:
: Ok, Easy answer.
: Ask Cassini the time.
:
:
: : Include experimental method and expected results.
:
: Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
: Expected result according to relativity,
: time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
:
: Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
:
: Was this experiment actually done?

Several times a day, every day, if you call a phone conversation or boiling
an egg an "experiment".

NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
for years.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
soon be noticed.
Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:10:14 GMT
:

"Hayek" wrote in message
...
: Androcles wrote:
: "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message
: ...
: : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: : HW@
: : wrote
: : on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: : :
: : On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley
: wrote:
: :
: : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: : wrote:
: :
: : In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: :
: : wrote
: : on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: :
: : Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: :
: : Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583
(1965).
: :
: : Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: : Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
: place an
: : upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part
in
: 10^8]
: : All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: : None is believable...
: :
: : Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
: evidence!
: :
: : I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: : presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: : that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: : evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: :
: : So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: : difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: : a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: : suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: :
: :
: : Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only
that
: which
: : supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: : There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world
that
: do exactly
: : the same..
: :
: :
: : www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: :
: : Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
virgin
: mother.
: :
: : Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
observation
: that
: : contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: :
: : No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: :
: :
: : OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
:
: Ok, Easy answer.
: Ask Cassini the time.
:
:
: : Include experimental method and expected results.
:
: Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
: Expected result according to relativity,
: time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
:
: Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
:
: Was this experiment actually done?

Several times a day, every day, if you call a phone conversation or boiling
an egg an "experiment".

Regrettably, the Huyguens probe is now dead; we could have asked it the
time as well.


NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
for years.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
soon be noticed.

Actually, it's a sine wave, and it would be very quickly noticed.

Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.



--
#191,
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.

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

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

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

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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.

No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.


OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.

The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as 'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.

There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.

All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong except maybe in that
local EM control frames exist around large masses and cause some of LET's
predictions to appear to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.




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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

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

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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.

Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.

No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.


OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.

The only prediction of relativity that matters

They all matter

is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as
'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.

Got a way we can accurately measure that?

There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from
differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness
curves
of variable stars.

And that suggests the the OWLS is c .. no c+v. One has to invent all sorts
of rationalisations and excuses and weird fields to make the results (that
are ALREADY compatible with SR) work with a non c speed for light. You've
got the results of evidence completely backwards.

All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong except maybe in
that
local EM control frames exist around large masses and cause some of LET's
predictions to appear to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.

What evidence .. do you mean that every experiment done is consistent with
SR predictions?

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:10:14 GMT
: :
:
: "Hayek" wrote in message
: ...
: : Androcles wrote:
: : "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
: message
: : ...
: : : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: : : HW@
: : : wrote
: : : on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: : : :
: : : On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley

: : wrote:
: : :
: : : Henri Wilson wrote:
: : : On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: : : wrote:
: : :
: : : In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: : :
: : : wrote
: : : on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: : :
: : : Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: : :
: : : Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583
: (1965).
: : :
: : : Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: : : Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector
to
: : place an
: : : upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one
part
: in
: : 10^8]
: : : All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: : : None is believable...
: : :
: : : Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance
of
: : evidence!
: : :
: : : I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: : : presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: : : that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: : : evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: : :
: : : So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: : : difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: : : a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: : : suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: : :
: : :
: : : Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only
: that
: : which
: : : supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: : : There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world
: that
: : do exactly
: : : the same..
: : :
: : :
: : : www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: : :
: : : Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
: virgin
: : mother.
: : :
: : : Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
: observation
: : that
: : : contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: : :
: : : No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: : :
: : :
: : : OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
: :
: : Ok, Easy answer.
: : Ask Cassini the time.
: :
: :
: : : Include experimental method and expected results.
: :
: : Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
: : Expected result according to relativity,
: : time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
: :
: : Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
: :
: : Was this experiment actually done?
:
: Several times a day, every day, if you call a phone conversation or
boiling
: an egg an "experiment".
:
: Regrettably, the Huyguens probe is now dead; we could have asked it the
: time as well.


Not that it would be particularly relevant, it is Saturn - Earth distance
and velocity that pertains here.

: NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
: for years.
: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
: Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
: Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
: at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
: soon be noticed.
:
: Actually, it's a sine wave, and it would be very quickly noticed.

Einstein's third postulate
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A"
is thus ****-canned along with all the ignorant self-serving crap that
follows from it. You can ****-can Hayek's aether along with it, too.


:
: Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
: then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:57:52 +1000, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

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

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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.

Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.

No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.


OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.

The only prediction of relativity that matters

They all matter

is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as
'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.

Got a way we can accurately measure that?

There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from
differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness
curves
of variable stars.

And that suggests the the OWLS is c .. no c+v. One has to invent all sorts
of rationalisations and excuses and weird fields to make the results (that
are ALREADY compatible with SR) work with a non c speed for light. You've
got the results of evidence completely backwards.

All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong except maybe in
that
local EM control frames exist around large masses and cause some of LET's
predictions to appear to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.

What evidence .. do you mean that every experiment done is consistent with
SR predictions?

poor fool...


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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:51:17 GMT
:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

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

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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.

No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.


OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.

The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as 'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.

There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.

And what, precisely, is wrong with diffraction gratings?

nBaT: Newtonian ballistic theory. This theory models light as
a more or less thrown ball in an absolute spacetime system.
x' = x-vt, t' = t.

SR: Standard Special Relativity/Lorentz Transformation.

m1nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the wavelength.
m2nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the frequency.
BaTh: ?

nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1
SR: f/f0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), c/c0 = 1,
w/w0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
m1nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1/(1-v/c)
m2nBaT: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1 -- Immobile!
BaTh: f/f0 = ?, c/c0 = ?, w/w0 = ?

Note that in all cases c = f*w, c0 = f0*w0, and therefore
c/c0 = (f/f0) * (w/w0) -- regardless of whether one believes in SR,
nBaT, "tick fairies", or LGMs with UFOs.


All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong
except maybe in that local EM control frames exist around
large masses and cause some of LET's predictions to appear
to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.

Of course Einstein is completely wrong. That's why SR and
GR are still in use more than 100 years after SR's "birth".

(Spot the flaw.)





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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.


--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).

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

On Jun 21, 11:14 pm, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:51:17 GMT
:



On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

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

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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.

No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.

OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.

The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as 'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.

There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.

And what, precisely, is wrong with diffraction gratings?

nBaT: Newtonian ballistic theory. This theory models light as
a more or less thrown ball in an absolute spacetime system.
x' = x-vt, t' = t.

SR: Standard Special Relativity/Lorentz Transformation.

m1nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the wavelength.
m2nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the frequency.
BaTh: ?

nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1
SR: f/f0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), c/c0 = 1,
w/w0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
m1nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1/(1-v/c)
m2nBaT: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1 -- Immobile!
BaTh: f/f0 = ?, c/c0 = ?, w/w0 = ?

Note that in all cases c = f*w, c0 = f0*w0, and therefore
c/c0 = (f/f0) * (w/w0) -- regardless of whether one believes in SR,
nBaT, "tick fairies", or LGMs with UFOs.



All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong
except maybe in that local EM control frames exist around
large masses and cause some of LET's predictions to appear
to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.

Of course Einstein is completely wrong. That's why SR and
GR are still in use more than 100 years after SR's "birth".

(Spot the flaw.)



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

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).

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

Round and round she goes,
when she stops, nobody knows.

"I do, professor, I do; I know when it stops."

"And when is that?"

"When all the people contributing to this ng die."

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: HW@
: wrote
: on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:51:17 GMT
: :
: On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: wrote:
:
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: HW@
:
: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
:
: Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
virgin mother.
:
: Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
observation that
: contradicts a prediction of relativity.
:
: No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
:
:
: OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
: Include experimental method and expected results.
:
: The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says
measured
: OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known
as 'c',
: irrespective of relative source speed.
:
: There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from
differently
: moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness
curves
: of variable stars.
:
: And what, precisely, is wrong with diffraction gratings?

They can't measure frequency and velocity simultaneously.
However, since frequency is invariant, the relative velocity is directly
proportional to sin(theta).
A common error is to assume velocity is invariant, which is of course
absurd.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...AC/doppler.gif