Androcles wrote:

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:nga0t2-0cb.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
| <Androcles@MyPlace.org>
| wrote
| on Sat, 13 Aug 2005 02:47:58 GMT
| <ybdLe.3033$le3.78@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
| > message news:62vvs2-7gj.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| > | In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
| > | <swormley1@mchsi.com>
| > | wrote
| > | on Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:59:26 GMT
| > | <iP2Le.242996$x96.139555@attbi_s72>:
| > | > kenseto wrote:
| > | >>
| > | >> That's the problem you assumed that the incoming light from O
is
| > moving at a
| > | >> constant c.
| > | >>
| > | >
| > | > Measurement of light speed in the past have confirmed A.
| > Einstein's
| > | > hypothesis that c is a constant of nature. And now c is a
| > *defined*
| > | > constant. Of course, the incoming light from O is moving at
the
| > | > constant c. This is empirically correct!
| > |
| > | No, they have *not* confirmed his hypothesis. They've merely
failed
| > | to disprove it. :-) It's a subtle difference -- and certainly
such
| > | measurements *have* disproved the hypothesis that c' = c+v.
| >
| > You have no idea what a proof is, Ghost, and refuse to respond to
| > anything that disagrees with your own stupid point of view.
| > Androcles
| >
|
| You have, of course, disproven SR and GR, I take it.
| Congratulations.

Thank you.
Now that you recognise that, what the ***** are you rambling on
about measurements *have* disproved the hypothesis that c' = c+v,
you half-witted lunatic?



| Submit it to a review board and that Nobel should be yours, in
| about 2 decades or so, once everyone recognizes your work.
| Don't forget the data and the procedures, and I'm sure
| someone will contact you regarding textbook royalties,
| probably around the start of the Fall 2006 school year.
| Can't rush these things, really. You might sign it
| "future Nobel Prize awardee Androcles" or some such.
|
| In any event, SR can never be proven. Why? Because in
| its fundamental hypothesis there's an exhaustive search:
| that the lightspeed of c is constant *everywhere* in the
| Universe, no matter what source and what destination.

You don't know what a hypothesis is, you don't know what
a postulate is and you don't know what a definition is.
Nor do you know how the cuckoo transformations were
derived.
All in all, you are an ignorant, non-thinking, refuse-to-listen bigot.



| Impossibility squared. Perhaps to the fourth power,
| as the coordinates of motion are also in there as well.
|
| But it can easily be disproven. All one really need do is
| perform an experiment that shows results differing from
| one of its predictions.

In our frame of reference, the measured life span if a muon
is 2.2 microseconds.
In our frame of reference, the measured distance to the origin
of muons is 100km, ground to upper atmosphere.
By our definition of speed, v = 100000/0.0000022 m/s.
In our frame of reference, the speed of muons is 150c.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae611.cfm

No particle has ever been directly measured to travel at greater than c.
Direct measurement means two clocks connected to detectors along the
path of the particle. Particle passes detector1 at t1, particle passes
detector 2 at t2. D=RT

Your usual argument is that the source of these particles is at rest wrt
lab frame, which is an old argument of my own as well. The reasoning
being that with a particle moving at c wrt the source the em waves
intercepting the particle are infinitely red shifted wrt it, and thus
energyless. As it so happened, I discovered that this was actually one
of the very reasons for Einstein's proclamation that nothing can be
accelerated to greater than c, and so it is an argument in favor the
theory rather than in disfavor.

However, because of this playing out of light energy at c wrt the
source, the ballistic model of light that you cite, e.g. the one that
allows particle speeds of greater than c wrt lab frame, would require
the light (em energy) that accelerated it to propagate at greater than c
wrt lab frame. Thus in order to prove your argument, you need only prove
that light can propagate at greater than c wrt lab frame.

Now comes in the problem of measurement of one-way light-speed. This
endeavor becomes a bit ambiguous as Einstein cleverly outlined in the
section that you like to quote most often, and must inevitably be
defined in a circular manner. Einstein chose to define light speed as
constant for reasons of symmetry. Symmetry was a very good reason, and
since those days it has been applied successfully to many other areas.
Nature apparently does like symmetry, as does logic.

You are free to define light speed otherwise, but this doesn't make SR
incorrect, it simply makes it a different logical approach than yours.
OTOH, you don't really seem to have a consistent alternate model, best I
can tell from your postings. Lorentz did however, but mathematically it
is equivalent to SR.

While it is true that there were shortcomings of SR, GR was developed to
address them. The full theory has never been disproved experimentally, I
don't think its possible to do so because the definitions of the
measures are circular.

And also any other model would have to provide
the same end results.

Given two theories that both accurately predict
the final outcomes of experiments, which one would be correct? Answer:
Neither would be correct. Theories can be defined by such things as
*utility*, *accuracy*, and *representativeness*, while *correctness* in
this context is a purely philosophical/logical stance. A leap of faith.

Richard Perry

All in all, you are an ignorant, non-thinking, refuse-to-listen bigot.


For example, H. Wilson's
| "light race" experiments would do just fine, if
| conducted correctly. Gravity Probe B results should be
| interesting either way (apparently GR predicts a torque
| transference of some sort). Uncle Al's chirality/crystallity
| results I'm not equipped to judge, but might disprove a rather
| esoteric GR subpoint. Sitter's results might be useful.
|
| MMX, were it to show a result, would disprove SR or GR handily.
| And it *should* show a result (Sagnac), just not the result
| predicted by the rigid luminferous aether.
|
| c' = c+v can be similarly disproven. There's at least one
| experiment that purports to do such; it involves decaying
| pi mesons traveling at about 0.2 c, and a lightspeed trap.
|
| A more subtle but easier to measure approach involves Compton
| scattering; briefly put, SR has different rules regarding
| particle mechanics than Newtonian QM. These differences can
| presumably be measured.


All you need to understand is v = x/t.

Case proven, SR and GR which depends on it is your religion,
not a science.

Androcles.