In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:02:40 GMT
:

"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


I see. So frequency is invariant, velocity changes, therefore
wavelength changes?

f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1 - v/c

Interesting hypothesis.

--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }

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

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:26:54 GMT, "Androcles"
wrote:


"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

: 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.

Gord!! You're not still on about that!!!!

It's the only thing Einstein got right, even if for the wrong reasons..

....but you left out the condition that A, B and the source are mutually at
rest.

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

message rating: 4 bottles


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

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

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:55:28 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:


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.



Beg to differ, Henri.

Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").

The isotropy of OWLS is one of the principal features of the BaTh.

None of the above experiments compares OWLS from differently moving sources.

Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.

Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.

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]


According to BaTh OWLS is 100% isotropic in any single frame experiment


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

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

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:14:03 -0700, 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.

Why call it 'spacetime' Ghost.

It is 'space' and 'time' , two entirely separate dimensions.

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.

That is now known to be wrong.

When a photon changes speed during travel (for instance on entering the Earth's
atmoshere), its wavelength also changes....so gratings are still sensitive to
relative source speed.

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).



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 Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:28:14 GMT
:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:14:03 -0700, 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.

Why call it 'spacetime' Ghost.

It is 'space' and 'time' , two entirely separate dimensions.

And the reason the abstract concept doesn't work as a Cartesian cross
product is ... ?

If you're going to pick nits like that, you're in the wrong meadow.


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.

That is now known to be wrong.

No, that's been established throughout history. Water waves, sound
waves, light waves -- all are such that v = f * w. Since c is actual
light speed and c0 nominal light speed, the notation generally works.


When a photon changes speed during travel (for instance on entering the Earth's
atmoshere), its wavelength also changes....so gratings are still sensitive to
relative source speed.

OK, so can I put you down for:

BaTh: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1 - v/c

then?

Or would you prefer

BaTh: f/f0 = sqrt(1 - v/c), c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = sqrt(1 - v/c)

?

Or something else?

Androcles already got

APT: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1 - v/c

so I'm naming it after him, for the nonce.
(Androcles' Propagation Theory.)

[rest snipped]

--
#191,
"Woman? What woman?"

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

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
:
: wrote
: on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:02:40 GMT
: :
:
: "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
:
:
: I see. So frequency is invariant, velocity changes, therefore
: wavelength changes?

Yes, well done.


: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1 - v/c

Yes, well done.

: Interesting hypothesis.

"I frame no hypotheses." -- Sir Isaac Newton.

Nowadays the meter (a unit of length) is DEFINED in terms of speed *
frequency.

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html
(t = 1/f)


Naturally this is only possible if frequency is invariant, it would not do
to
have metres proportional to a changing frequency. Care must be taken
to ensure the velocity is relative to the source or you'll have an incorrect
meter. Fortunately it always is in such measurerments. After all, you'd be a
fool
to use blue or red shifted light to graduate your yardstick.
It is amusing that you would consider standard practice to be an
"interesting hypothesis".

So... if you get a changed angle from a diffraction grating you'll
now know that you have a changed speed of light, it doesn't take
a genius to work it out. You tin god Einstein himself said "but the ray
moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary
system, with the velocity c-v" before he tried to invent his exotic time
machine math
he borrowed from HG Wells.

Real physics is rather mundane, really, nothing exciting about it for
you get hypertension over.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: HW@
: wrote
: on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:28:14 GMT
: :
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:14:03 -0700, 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.
:
: Why call it 'spacetime' Ghost.
:
: It is 'space' and 'time' , two entirely separate dimensions.
:
: And the reason the abstract concept doesn't work as a Cartesian cross
: product is ... ?

There is no negative t-axis.

In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles

wrote
on Sat, 23 Jun 2007 09:48:01 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: HW@
: wrote
: on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 22:28:14 GMT
: :
: On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:14:03 -0700, 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.
:
: Why call it 'spacetime' Ghost.
:
: It is 'space' and 'time' , two entirely separate dimensions.
:
: And the reason the abstract concept doesn't work as a Cartesian cross
: product is ... ?

There is no negative t-axis.


Ah, I see. So every time calculation is based on the formation of the Solar
System?

Quick, how does one represent "5 minutes ago"? Oh, wait, you can't.

--
#191,
Linux makes one use one's mind.
Windows just messes with one's head.

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