| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2005 08:07:14 PM |
| Object: |
Home Page for Model Mechanics |
The following link is the home page for Model Mechanics. The following
papers are included in this link:
1. Unification of Physics.
2. Cosmology Based on Absolute Motion.
3. Proposed Experiments to Detect Absolute Motion.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005home.pdf
Enjoy,
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
26 Aug 2005 08:13:52 PM |
|
|
A Physics Booklist: Recommendations from the Net
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Administrivia/booklist.html
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Perspicacious" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
26 Aug 2005 08:53:09 PM |
|
|
I will not be paying money or reading Ken Seto's
description of cells, quantum theory, consciousness,
and the universe, since what he posts for free at
this newsgroup has an extraordinarily large negative
value.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
27 Aug 2005 08:21:03 AM |
|
|
"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125107589.899953.232330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I will not be paying money or reading Ken Seto's
description of cells, quantum theory, consciousness,
and the universe, since what he posts for free at
this newsgroup has an extraordinarily large negative
value.
Hey ***** head .....no body is asking you to buy my book. My theory is
light-years ahead of yours which is based on the bogus concept that two
photons circumnavigate the universe and meet again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
27 Aug 2005 09:07:41 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125107589.899953.232330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I will not be paying money or reading Ken Seto's
description of cells, quantum theory, consciousness,
and the universe, since what he posts for free at
this newsgroup has an extraordinarily large negative
value.
Hey ***** head .....no body is asking you to buy my book. My theory is
light-years ahead of yours which is based on the bogus concept that two
photons circumnavigate the universe and meet again.
Seto's "theory" is empirically contradicted.
Observations and measurement show that the speed of light is constant.
The wavelength is function of photon energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
lambda = h/E
The wavelength is shifted due to the relative radial velocity between
source and observer. Shifts in spectral emission and absorption lines
for various elements and molecules (Doppler shift) allows the
determination of relative radial velocity between source and observer.
See: Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co m/physics/DopplerEffect.html
Standard tool in the Astrophysics community.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
27 Aug 2005 12:05:48 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Ns_Pe.284449$x96.5396@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Perspicacious" <iperspicacious@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1125107589.899953.232330@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I will not be paying money or reading Ken Seto's
description of cells, quantum theory, consciousness,
and the universe, since what he posts for free at
this newsgroup has an extraordinarily large negative
value.
Hey ***** head .....no body is asking you to buy my book. My theory is
light-years ahead of yours which is based on the bogus concept that two
photons circumnavigate the universe and meet again.
Seto's "theory" is empirically contradicted.
How would you know wormy? You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
Observations and measurement show that the speed of light is constant.
The wavelength is function of photon energy
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html
lambda = h/E
The wavelength is shifted due to the relative radial velocity between
source and observer. Shifts in spectral emission and absorption lines
for various elements and molecules (Doppler shift) allows the
determination of relative radial velocity between source and observer.
See: Doppler Effect
http://scienceworld.wolfram.co m/physics/DopplerEffect.html
Standard tool in the Astrophysics community.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
27 Aug 2005 12:14:23 PM |
|
|
"Mommy, I want a system for Christmas."
"Oh, how nice, my little demon child. What type of system do you
want????"
"A system! A system! I dont wan't to have to specify any certain type
of system, I JUST WANT A SYSTEM DOG-GONE IT."
"Ok, Lil darling, we'll get a system for ewe."
"Thank you, Mommy. You're a brick. Back into the dark broom-closet
now?"
'Yes my little darling child. You get back out in a week."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 08:41:17 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
How would you know wormy? You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 09:13:58 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1ajQe.289355$_o.42582@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
How would you know wormy? You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
Not too many of them around here in these NGs.
Tom Roberts is one and perhaps Paul Andersen.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 12:17:46 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1ajQe.289355$_o.42582@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
How would you know wormy? You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
Not too many of them around here in these NGs.
Tom Roberts is one and perhaps Paul Andersen.
I'm certainly glad you respect Tom Roberts, because he has
correctly corrected you many times... you should learn from
Tom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 09:47:31 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_kmQe.287208$x96.241000@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1ajQe.289355$_o.42582@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
How would you know wormy? You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
Not too many of them around here in these NGs.
Tom Roberts is one and perhaps Paul Andersen.
I'm certainly glad you respect Tom Roberts, because he has
correctly corrected you many times... you should learn from
Tom.
Very few of his corrections are accepted but most of his corrections are
nonsense and based on his bogus SR ideas about nature.
The reason why he is an SR experts and you are a runt is because he
understand what SR says and you don't. All you ever did was to quote
references without showing that you understand these references. Also he
does not attack anybody he merely point out what SR says.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 10:58:37 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:_kmQe.287208$x96.241000@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:1ajQe.289355$_o.42582@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
How would you know wormy? You are a runt of the SR experts.
Definition for a runt of the SR experts:
A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't
know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend
beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows
the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their ***** like
gourmet puppy chow. An ***** who will attack anybody who
disagrees with SR
Ken Seto
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
Not too many of them around here in these NGs.
Tom Roberts is one and perhaps Paul Andersen.
I'm certainly glad you respect Tom Roberts, because he has
correctly corrected you many times... you should learn from
Tom.
Very few of his corrections are accepted but most of his corrections are
nonsense and based on his bogus SR ideas about nature.
The reason why he is an SR experts and you are a runt is because he
understand what SR says and you don't. All you ever did was to quote
references without showing that you understand these references. Also he
does not attack anybody he merely point out what SR says.
Ken Seto
As I said, Seto, you should listen to, and learn from Tom Roberts.
Think what you will of me... Learn from Tom.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jonathan Silverlight" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 12:13:06 PM |
|
|
In message <1ajQe.289355$_o.42582@attbi_s71>, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> writes
kenseto wrote:
Nothing.
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
It isn't worth arguing with this idiot. Kill file him. He's even
recycling his invective, as this page will show
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KillSubset.html>
--
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 09:50:04 AM |
|
|
"Jonathan Silverlight" <jsilverlight@spam.merseia.fsnet.co.uk.invalid> wrote
in message news:KXhCGb7iCfEDFwnO@merseia.fsnet.co.uk...
In message <1ajQe.289355$_o.42582@attbi_s71>, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com> writes
kenseto wrote:
Nothing.
And who are these "real experts" that Seto refers to?
It isn't worth arguing with this idiot. Kill file him. He's even
recycling his invective, as this page will show
<http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/KillSubset.html>
ROTFLOL....idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
27 Aug 2005 12:18:49 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
[snip]
Observations and measurement show that the speed of light is constant.
[snip]
references please. so we can finally remove the constancy of the speed
of light as an AXIOM of SR and turn it into an empirical principle.
hey stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, the constancy of
the speed of light is a highly speculative axiom. it cannot be proven
in the context of SR using any kind of experiment due to the way the
theory is setup and clocks/rulers are used to treat simultaneity.
hey stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, i am waiting to
see a paper that validates the axiom of the constancy of the one-way
speed of light.
hey stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, the constancy
of the speed of light is a counterintuitive principle and has severe
implications regarding the nature of physwical reality, if it is true,
implications which you do not understand.
Plonk
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
27 Aug 2005 08:52:44 PM |
|
|
Mike:
Sam Wormley wrote:
[snip]
Observations and measurement show that the speed of light is constant.
[snip]
references please. so we can finally remove the constancy of the speed
of light
Which experiment has shown otherwise.
as an AXIOM of SR and turn it into an empirical principle.
Since that postulate is unnecssary to derive special relativity,
why would it make any difference?
hey stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, the constancy of
the speed of light is a highly speculative axiom. it cannot be proven
in the context of SR using any kind of experiment due to the way the
theory is setup and clocks/rulers are used to treat simultaneity.
There's nothing speculative about it. Which experiment has ever
shown a non-constant speed of light? Which experiments contradict
maxwell's equations? Which experiments show that frequency x wavelength
in vacuum is not a constant?
hey stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, i am waiting to
see a paper that validates the axiom of the constancy of the one-way
speed of light.
I'm waiting to see an explanation of the physics that would
distinguish between a round trip speed of light and differing
one-way speeds that amounts to more than mental masturbation
and/or doesn't contradict observations.
hey stoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, the constancy
of the speed of light is a counterintuitive principle and has severe
I didn't realize that nature was obligated to be intuitive,
especially if you go out of your way to avoid the intuition.
implications regarding the nature of physwical reality, if it is true,
implications which you do not understand.
Naturally, there are implications. Charge conservation is one such
implication. Since no one has ever observed a process in which charge
is not conserved, a constant speed of light is feature.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 08:32:53 AM |
|
|
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh29av.bmo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
hey stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, i am waiting to
see a paper that validates the axiom of the constancy of the one-way
speed of light.
I'm waiting to see an explanation of the physics that would
distinguish between a round trip speed of light and differing
one-way speeds that amounts to more than mental masturbation
and/or doesn't contradict observations.
Then how come physicists refused to do any one-way light speed experiments
to quiet the critics down?? How come that physicists only do one-way
isotropic experiments? Why don't they give us the value of one-way light
speed for these experiments?
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 11:48:06 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh29av.bmo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
hey stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, i am waiting to
see a paper that validates the axiom of the constancy of the one-way
speed of light.
I'm waiting to see an explanation of the physics that would
distinguish between a round trip speed of light and differing
one-way speeds that amounts to more than mental masturbation
and/or doesn't contradict observations.
Then how come physicists refused to do any one-way light speed experiments
to quiet the critics down?? How come that physicists only do one-way
isotropic experiments? Why don't they give us the value of one-way light
speed for these experiments?
Ha, it is easy to perform a OWSL experiment. Many have already been
performed and showed significant variations and proved that speed of
light is dependent on the speed of the source. But the submitted papers
were rejected (ALL OF THEM) with the following quote from referees:
"The author does not understand Relativity"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Mike
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 07:11:24 AM |
|
|
Mike:
kenseto wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh29av.bmo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
hey stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, i am waiting to
see a paper that validates the axiom of the constancy of the one-way
speed of light.
I'm waiting to see an explanation of the physics that would
distinguish between a round trip speed of light and differing
one-way speeds that amounts to more than mental masturbation
and/or doesn't contradict observations.
Then how come physicists refused to do any one-way light speed experiments
to quiet the critics down?? How come that physicists only do one-way
isotropic experiments? Why don't they give us the value of one-way light
speed for these experiments?
Ha, it is easy to perform a OWSL experiment.
So perform one and publish the results.
Many have already been performed and showed significant variations
and proved that speed of light is dependent on the speed of the source.
Ahh.. The old conspiracy theory argument. If the experiments
weren't published, how did you find out about them? Do you mean
that the experiments wereb't published by reputable journals,
but are widely disseminated in vantiy fringe publications?
But the submitted papers were rejected (ALL OF THEM) with the
following quote from referees:
"The author does not understand Relativity"
So, does that mean you think a reputable journal should publish
articles about relativity which are written by authors who know
nothing about the subject?
If a thousand authors claimed that men could fly across the grand canyon
by flapping their arms fast enough, based on the fact that some humans
aren't that much heavier than condors, does that mean at least some of
the authors understood aerodynamics? Just because ``ALL OF THEM'' had their
articles rejected, doesn't imply ``SOME OF THEM'' were right and the
journals conspired against them.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Say, that is a very persuasive argument. However, my
hohohohoh invalidates it.
--
The cabal
There is no cabal
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 03:00:52 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
[snip-plonk]
If a thousand authors claimed that men could fly across the grand canyon
by flapping their arms fast enough,....
Hello sophist (this is a courtesy name instead of using crank, for
example)
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 12:10:25 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1125247686.850291.56080@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrndh29av.bmo.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
Mike:
hey stooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooopid, i am waiting
to
see a paper that validates the axiom of the constancy of the one-way
speed of light.
I'm waiting to see an explanation of the physics that would
distinguish between a round trip speed of light and differing
one-way speeds that amounts to more than mental masturbation
and/or doesn't contradict observations.
Then how come physicists refused to do any one-way light speed
experiments
to quiet the critics down?? How come that physicists only do one-way
isotropic experiments? Why don't they give us the value of one-way light
speed for these experiments?
Ha, it is easy to perform a OWSL experiment. Many have already been
performed and showed significant variations and proved that speed of
light is dependent on the speed of the source. But the submitted papers
were rejected (ALL OF THEM) with the following quote from referees:
Can you give us some references on these OWLS experiments? Thanks
"The author does not understand Relativity"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
Hahaha....I agree
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 12:23:55 PM |
|
|
Hey Seto, historically there is a body of OWLS experiments
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
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").
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]
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 08:52:46 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:LqmQe.289590$_o.232558@attbi_s71...
Hey Seto, historically there is a body of OWLS experiments
Ref:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way
%20tests
Hey Wormy where are the values of OWLS for these experiments??
Ken Seto
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").
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]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 11:05:53 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:LqmQe.289590$_o.232558@attbi_s71...
Hey Seto, historically there is a body of OWLS experiments
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
Hey Wormy where are the values of OWLS for these experiments??
Gosh, Seto, you might actually have to read references! Are you illiterate?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
For example....
Baird and Whitford, Opt. Comm. 31 (1979), p363, p367.
Measured c = 299792458.8 +- 0.2 meter/s, with 1.2 meter uncertainty due to
realization of the Kr meter standard used. The fact that the Kr standard
for the meter became the limit on accuracy was a major reason for the 1983
redefinition of the meter in terms of the definition of c and the definition
of the second.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 06:05:58 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley wrote:
Hey Seto, historically there is a body of OWLS experiments
Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
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").
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]
Why don't you read down the page:
"Publication Bias
There are two very different aspects of publication bias:
Unpopular or unexpected results may not be published because either the
original experimenters or some journal referees have misgivings or
reservations about the results, based on the results themselves and not
any independent evaluation of experimental procedures or technique.
Expected experimental results may not be published because either the
original experimenters or some journal referees do not consider them
interesting enough to merit publication. "
Clearly admitting bias
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
28 Aug 2005 05:55:27 PM |
|
|
T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7): 1031-1068.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 06:45:36 AM |
|
|
Mike:
T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7): 1031-1068.
Van Flandern has demonstrated repeatedly on this newsgroup
that he has no grasp of those subjects in any depth, so referencing
an article in a journal that caters to philosophical articles
is not exactly a definitive statement about much of anything.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
29 Aug 2005 02:57:58 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Mike:
T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7): 1031-1068.
Van Flandern has demonstrated repeatedly on this newsgroup
that he has no grasp of those subjects in any depth, so referencing
an article in a journal that caters to philosophical articles
is not exactly a definitive statement about much of anything.
Are you then insisting here that the referees of that paper were
imbeciles? Are you trying to discredit them without even knowing who
they are? Are you trying to discredit a journal to suit your own
agenda?
Of course, all of the above in place of actually trying to rebutt the
conclusions of the paper. Is that what science means to you Bildge?
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
30 Aug 2005 10:29:34 PM |
|
|
Mike:
Bilge wrote:
Mike:
T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7): 1031-1068.
Van Flandern has demonstrated repeatedly on this newsgroup
that he has no grasp of those subjects in any depth, so referencing
an article in a journal that caters to philosophical articles
is not exactly a definitive statement about much of anything.
Are you then insisting here that the referees of that paper were
imbeciles?
Was van flandern a referee or are just pulling that out of your
*****/strawman repository? While you're busy trying reaching for your next
strawman, why don't you pay a visit to that journal's web site and attempt
to read the what the journal's editors state for the aim and scope of the
journal.
Are you trying to discredit them without even knowing who they are?
See above. I know who van flandern is, although I can't see why
that matters. What matters is that he has no grasp of those of
subjects, as I noted in that paragraph you failed to read.
Are you trying to discredit a journal to suit your own agenda?
Why don't you sign up for that remedial reading course, real soon?
That might help you relate your replies to what was written in the
posts to which you are responding.
Of course, all of the above in place of actually trying to rebutt the
conclusions of the paper. Is that what science means to you Bildge?
I've rebutted van flandern's conclusions before in this newsgroup, to
van flandern. So have a lot of other people. But, that isn't relevant to
the point. The fact is, van flandern clearly misunderstands the theories
he argues against, as is evident by his mistatements about them. Since
he's ony arguing against his own misconceptions, what he concludes is that
his misconceptions are wrong. You have a long way to go before catching up
to your counterparts on the creation front. At least the creationists are
a little more subtle in creating strawmen from misreprentations of
evolution, than you (van flandern, or te other kooks) are in creating
strawmen through your misrepresentations of relativity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
30 Aug 2005 08:44:11 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1125269727.389087.149080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7): 1031-1068.
I don't think that these are actual experiments. I think that they are based
on interpretations of cosmological observations....However I could be wrong,
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Home Page for Model Mechanics |
30 Aug 2005 11:07:43 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1125269727.389087.149080@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier (2002), "Experimental Repeal of the
Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field
Interactions", Found.Phys. 32(#7): 1031-1068.
I don't think that these are actual experiments. I think that they are based
on interpretations of cosmological observations....However I could be wrong,
Gosh, Seto, you might actually have to read references! Are you illiterate?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests
For example....
Baird and Whitford, Opt. Comm. 31 (1979), p363, p367.
Measured c = 299792458.8 +- 0.2 meter/s, with 1.2 meter uncertainty due to
realization of the Kr meter standard used. The fact that the Kr standard
for the meter became the limit on accuracy was a major reason for the 1983
redefinition of the meter in terms of the definition of c and the definition
of the second.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
