| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
30 Apr 2006 01:21:43 PM |
| Object: |
The SRians are making contradictory claims |
The SRians (specifically PD) are making the following contradictory
claims:
Claim #1
PD said: When two observers A and B are in relative motion the passage
of a clock second on A's clock does not coincide with the passage of a
clock second in B's clock.
Claim #2
PD (SR) also said that in the twin paradox situation the elapsed clock
seconds in B's clock (the traveling clock) can be compared directly
with the elapsed clock seconds in A's clock when B return after a
journey.
It seems that the SRians will go to the extend of making contradictory
claims to explain their theory. Go figure.
.
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
08 May 2006 01:27:38 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147104064.710165.61160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147100121.512083.267850@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147051795.131182.25300@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146934235.782774.204180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146777161.523738.139170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Put up or shut up.
You put up or shut up. You and I disagree what each other say.
The
only
way
to settle the issue is by doing my proposed experiments.
A couple of comments.
1. You are not in a position to determine what "the only way" to
settle
the issue is. You haven't bothered reading the experimental papers
of
work that HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE that settle the issue.
2. We are not talking about SR in this little challenge. We are
talking
about your understanding of physics, which you claim is 20 years
ahead.
We're putting that little claim to the test. So far, all you're
doing
is bluffing and stalling, and you know it.
Refusal to do experiments to settle an arguement is a sign of an
attempt
to
bluff (bull *****) your way out.
Sorry, Ken, your baiting is not compelling. Some comments:
1. Sound reasons for specifically NOT doing or funding your
experiments
as you have proposed them have been given to you repeatedly; viz.,
inadequate accounting for precision of measurement required, as well
as
inadequate design of apparatus to meet that required precision. You
seem to have difficulty with experimental design and experimental
practices in general.
2. Sound reasons for not doing an experiment even like the ones you
propose have been explained to you; viz., measured isotropy
experiments
plus measured TWLS measurements are completely equivalent to
conducting
a direct OWLS measurement, and no new information would be obtained by
the direct measurement, and therefore it is a waste of resources to do
it. All this is true despite your protestations that the direct
measurement should be done anyway, despite your misconception that the
direct measurement has less experimental error than the ones already
performed (see comment 1), and despite your misunderstanding of the
terms "isotropy" and "homogeneity".
3. Your theory is already counter to experimental measurement. Your
refusal to read the experimental papers in the literature that are in
direct conflict with your model does not change this fact.
4. Doing your experiments would do nothing to establish your
understanding of the first five chapters of an introductory physics
text, which you claim to know better than most folks. My challenge to
you was not at all oriented toward your experiments; it was oriented
to
your claim that your understanding of physics is 20 years ahead of
most
folks. You have not retracted that remark, but on the other hand you
don't submit to a test that would vindicate you.
Here what you are saying:
We already defined that OWLS=TWLS=c and we don't want to do any
experiment
that could change this definition and that's why we refuse to do any
direct
OWLS measurements inspite of the fact that we can do that easily.
No, that is not what I'm saying.
We have already *measured* isotropy. We have already *measured*
homogeneity. We have already *measured* TWLS = c.
No TWLS=c by definition .....not measured.
That is incorrect, and this has been pointed out to you before. The
*measurements* of TWLS = c were done *before* the redefinition of the
meter. The redefinition of the meter was only made possible by the
performance of these measurements and their confirmation.
We have already figured out that it is *impossible* for OWLS =/= TWLS
without violating either isotropy or homogeneity, both of which are
established experimentally.
You figured out wrong. Any credible physicists would want to do experiment
to confirm what they figure out. Only the indoctrinate SRians refuse to do
so because they are afraid that do those experiment will refute their SR
religious claims.
As I said, your inability to understand the analysis is no reason to
satisfy your whim that the direct measurement should be done directly.
Your conviction that this based in some fear-based conspiracy is a
product of your own mind, Ken. Stop blaming others for your own
shortcomings.
You don't seem to understand any of these things, and so you make up
reasons ("Conspiracy!") why it has not been done to satisfy your whim.
You also do not seem to understand what's wrong with your grant
proposals to perform your experiment and why they are rejected, and
again your make up reasons ("Conspiracy!") to account for it.
If there is no conspiracy then why don't you do the following simple
experiments to confiorm that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS
isotropy???????
Because
1. It is not simple. No experiment is simple. There is great care and
investment of time and resources to design and conduct a well-conceived
experiment. You do not have any understanding or experience about this.
You do not understand what magnitude phase difference you need to be
sensitive to, nor to what difference in OWLS this would allow you to be
sensitive to, nor to what precision the mirror has to be placed, nor
how well that placement has to be protected as a function of time, nor
how you would go about protecting that mirror placement to be sure it
did not drift, nor what physical factors would cause drift in the
mirror placement, nor what physical environment (e.g. vacuum level,
temperature control, etc.) you would need to maintain over the 1 km
distance between laser and mirror. In short, you don't know what you're
doing.
2. It is not needed. There are also some people that are convinced that
objects do not fall to the Earth at the same rate in a vacuum and
insist that it be done with elephants and banana peels just to be sure.
This desire, of course, should be ignored as spurious.
3. OWLS isotropy experiments *and* TWLS isotropy experiments have both
been performed. The fact that you do not understand the results of
those experiments and have not read the articles pertaining to those
experiments does not mean that someone should do your experiment just
to satisfy you and save you the trouble of reading.
Ken, here is a suggestion: Take your grant proposal to three different
physicists in three different physics departments and pay them a modest
honorarium (say, $100 each) to review your proposal and ask them to
provide you with a detailed critique of your proposal. Ask them what's
wrong with it and why, if any reason exists, should the proposed
experiment not be done. That way, you can get concrete suggestions on
what you need to correct in your proposal to get it funded and you
don't have to worry about a grand scheme to squelch your ideas.
PD
_________________________________________________________
It has been determined experimentally that OWLS and TWLS are isotropic. The
question is: Is the OWLS has the same value as the TWLS. In other words, is
OWLS=TWLS=c=299,792,458m/second? The reason for this question is that the
OWLS has never been measured experimentally. It is assumed to be c because
it is isotropic the same as TWLS which had been measured experimentally.
The following experiments are designed to answer this question:
1. Two identical light sources A and B are separated by a distance of 1 km.
Also both locations are equipped with a reflecting mirror and a phase
comparator.
2. From the A location send out a continuous laser beam and reflect it back
to the phase comparator at A.
3. From the B location send out a continuous laser beam to the phase
comparator at A.
4. Compare the two beams to see if there is any phase difference ewith time.
If OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy then there should not be any
phase difference with time.
5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 from the B location.
Ken Seto
___________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
09 May 2006 08:23:14 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147112858.369623.234210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147104064.710165.61160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147100121.512083.267850@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147051795.131182.25300@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146934235.782774.204180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146777161.523738.139170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Put up or shut up.
You put up or shut up. You and I disagree what each other
say.
The
only
way
to settle the issue is by doing my proposed experiments.
A couple of comments.
1. You are not in a position to determine what "the only way"
to
settle
the issue is. You haven't bothered reading the experimental
papers
of
work that HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE that settle the issue.
2. We are not talking about SR in this little challenge. We
are
talking
about your understanding of physics, which you claim is 20
years
ahead.
We're putting that little claim to the test. So far, all
you're
doing
is bluffing and stalling, and you know it.
Refusal to do experiments to settle an arguement is a sign of an
attempt
to
bluff (bull *****) your way out.
Sorry, Ken, your baiting is not compelling. Some comments:
1. Sound reasons for specifically NOT doing or funding your
experiments
as you have proposed them have been given to you repeatedly; viz.,
inadequate accounting for precision of measurement required, as
well
as
inadequate design of apparatus to meet that required precision.
You
seem to have difficulty with experimental design and experimental
practices in general.
2. Sound reasons for not doing an experiment even like the ones
you
propose have been explained to you; viz., measured isotropy
experiments
plus measured TWLS measurements are completely equivalent to
conducting
a direct OWLS measurement, and no new information would be
obtained by
the direct measurement, and therefore it is a waste of resources
to do
it. All this is true despite your protestations that the direct
measurement should be done anyway, despite your misconception that
the
direct measurement has less experimental error than the ones
already
performed (see comment 1), and despite your misunderstanding of
the
terms "isotropy" and "homogeneity".
3. Your theory is already counter to experimental measurement.
Your
refusal to read the experimental papers in the literature that are
in
direct conflict with your model does not change this fact.
4. Doing your experiments would do nothing to establish your
understanding of the first five chapters of an introductory
physics
text, which you claim to know better than most folks. My challenge
to
you was not at all oriented toward your experiments; it was
oriented
to
your claim that your understanding of physics is 20 years ahead of
most
folks. You have not retracted that remark, but on the other hand
you
don't submit to a test that would vindicate you.
Here what you are saying:
We already defined that OWLS=TWLS=c and we don't want to do any
experiment
that could change this definition and that's why we refuse to do any
direct
OWLS measurements inspite of the fact that we can do that easily.
No, that is not what I'm saying.
We have already *measured* isotropy. We have already *measured*
homogeneity. We have already *measured* TWLS = c.
No TWLS=c by definition .....not measured.
That is incorrect, and this has been pointed out to you before. The
*measurements* of TWLS = c were done *before* the redefinition of the
meter. The redefinition of the meter was only made possible by the
performance of these measurements and their confirmation.
We have already figured out that it is *impossible* for OWLS =/= TWLS
without violating either isotropy or homogeneity, both of which are
established experimentally.
You figured out wrong. Any credible physicists would want to do
experiment
to confirm what they figure out. Only the indoctrinate SRians refuse to
do
so because they are afraid that do those experiment will refute their SR
religious claims.
As I said, your inability to understand the analysis is no reason to
satisfy your whim that the direct measurement should be done directly.
Your conviction that this based in some fear-based conspiracy is a
product of your own mind, Ken. Stop blaming others for your own
shortcomings.
You don't seem to understand any of these things, and so you make up
reasons ("Conspiracy!") why it has not been done to satisfy your whim.
You also do not seem to understand what's wrong with your grant
proposals to perform your experiment and why they are rejected, and
again your make up reasons ("Conspiracy!") to account for it.
If there is no conspiracy then why don't you do the following simple
experiments to confiorm that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS
isotropy???????
Because
1. It is not simple. No experiment is simple. There is great care and
investment of time and resources to design and conduct a well-conceived
experiment. You do not have any understanding or experience about this.
You do not understand what magnitude phase difference you need to be
sensitive to, nor to what difference in OWLS this would allow you to be
sensitive to, nor to what precision the mirror has to be placed, nor
how well that placement has to be protected as a function of time, nor
how you would go about protecting that mirror placement to be sure it
did not drift, nor what physical factors would cause drift in the
mirror placement, nor what physical environment (e.g. vacuum level,
temperature control, etc.) you would need to maintain over the 1 km
distance between laser and mirror. In short, you don't know what you're
doing.
2. It is not needed. There are also some people that are convinced that
objects do not fall to the Earth at the same rate in a vacuum and
insist that it be done with elephants and banana peels just to be sure.
This desire, of course, should be ignored as spurious.
3. OWLS isotropy experiments *and* TWLS isotropy experiments have both
been performed. The fact that you do not understand the results of
those experiments and have not read the articles pertaining to those
experiments does not mean that someone should do your experiment just
to satisfy you and save you the trouble of reading.
Ken, here is a suggestion: Take your grant proposal to three different
physicists in three different physics departments and pay them a modest
honorarium (say, $100 each) to review your proposal and ask them to
provide you with a detailed critique of your proposal. Ask them what's
wrong with it and why, if any reason exists, should the proposed
experiment not be done. That way, you can get concrete suggestions on
what you need to correct in your proposal to get it funded and you
don't have to worry about a grand scheme to squelch your ideas.
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians to
review my simple experiment. My experiment is based on the following solid
arguements:
If there is absolute motion in the vertical direction as the Pound and Rebka
experiments suggested then there should be a phase difference between the OW
path (AB) and the TW path (ABA) as follows:
The OW path AB has one delay time due to the absolute motion of the target
(the phase comparator at B).
The TW path ABA has two delay times due to the absolute motion of the
targets (the mirror at B and the phase comparator at A) plus the delay time
at the reflecting mirror.
Ken Seto
_________________________________________________________
It has been determined experimentally that OWLS and TWLS are isotropic.
The
question is: Is the OWLS has the same value as the TWLS. In other words,
is
OWLS=TWLS=c=299,792,458m/second? The reason for this question is that
the
OWLS has never been measured experimentally. It is assumed to be c
because
it is isotropic the same as TWLS which had been measured experimentally.
The following experiments are designed to answer this question:
1. Two identical light sources A and B are separated by a distance of 1
km.
Also both locations are equipped with a reflecting mirror and a phase
comparator.
2. From the A location send out a continuous laser beam and reflect it
back
to the phase comparator at A.
3. From the B location send out a continuous laser beam to the phase
comparator at A.
4. Compare the two beams to see if there is any phase difference ewith
time.
If OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS isotropy then there should not be
any
phase difference with time.
5. Repeat steps 2 to 4 from the B location.
Ken Seto
___________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
09 May 2006 08:41:20 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147112858.369623.234210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147104064.710165.61160@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147100121.512083.267850@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147051795.131182.25300@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146934235.782774.204180@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1146777161.523738.139170@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Put up or shut up.
You put up or shut up. You and I disagree what each other
say.
The
only
way
to settle the issue is by doing my proposed experiments.
A couple of comments.
1. You are not in a position to determine what "the only way"
to
settle
the issue is. You haven't bothered reading the experimental
papers
of
work that HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE that settle the issue.
2. We are not talking about SR in this little challenge. We
are
talking
about your understanding of physics, which you claim is 20
years
ahead.
We're putting that little claim to the test. So far, all
you're
doing
is bluffing and stalling, and you know it.
Refusal to do experiments to settle an arguement is a sign of an
attempt
to
bluff (bull *****) your way out.
Sorry, Ken, your baiting is not compelling. Some comments:
1. Sound reasons for specifically NOT doing or funding your
experiments
as you have proposed them have been given to you repeatedly; viz.,
inadequate accounting for precision of measurement required, as
well
as
inadequate design of apparatus to meet that required precision.
You
seem to have difficulty with experimental design and experimental
practices in general.
2. Sound reasons for not doing an experiment even like the ones
you
propose have been explained to you; viz., measured isotropy
experiments
plus measured TWLS measurements are completely equivalent to
conducting
a direct OWLS measurement, and no new information would be
obtained by
the direct measurement, and therefore it is a waste of resources
to do
it. All this is true despite your protestations that the direct
measurement should be done anyway, despite your misconception that
the
direct measurement has less experimental error than the ones
already
performed (see comment 1), and despite your misunderstanding of
the
terms "isotropy" and "homogeneity".
3. Your theory is already counter to experimental measurement.
Your
refusal to read the experimental papers in the literature that are
in
direct conflict with your model does not change this fact.
4. Doing your experiments would do nothing to establish your
understanding of the first five chapters of an introductory
physics
text, which you claim to know better than most folks. My challenge
to
you was not at all oriented toward your experiments; it was
oriented
to
your claim that your understanding of physics is 20 years ahead of
most
folks. You have not retracted that remark, but on the other hand
you
don't submit to a test that would vindicate you.
Here what you are saying:
We already defined that OWLS=TWLS=c and we don't want to do any
experiment
that could change this definition and that's why we refuse to do any
direct
OWLS measurements inspite of the fact that we can do that easily.
No, that is not what I'm saying.
We have already *measured* isotropy. We have already *measured*
homogeneity. We have already *measured* TWLS = c.
No TWLS=c by definition .....not measured.
That is incorrect, and this has been pointed out to you before. The
*measurements* of TWLS = c were done *before* the redefinition of the
meter. The redefinition of the meter was only made possible by the
performance of these measurements and their confirmation.
We have already figured out that it is *impossible* for OWLS =/= TWLS
without violating either isotropy or homogeneity, both of which are
established experimentally.
You figured out wrong. Any credible physicists would want to do
experiment
to confirm what they figure out. Only the indoctrinate SRians refuse to
do
so because they are afraid that do those experiment will refute their SR
religious claims.
As I said, your inability to understand the analysis is no reason to
satisfy your whim that the direct measurement should be done directly.
Your conviction that this based in some fear-based conspiracy is a
product of your own mind, Ken. Stop blaming others for your own
shortcomings.
You don't seem to understand any of these things, and so you make up
reasons ("Conspiracy!") why it has not been done to satisfy your whim.
You also do not seem to understand what's wrong with your grant
proposals to perform your experiment and why they are rejected, and
again your make up reasons ("Conspiracy!") to account for it.
If there is no conspiracy then why don't you do the following simple
experiments to confiorm that OWLS isotropy is the same as TWLS
isotropy???????
Because
1. It is not simple. No experiment is simple. There is great care and
investment of time and resources to design and conduct a well-conceived
experiment. You do not have any understanding or experience about this.
You do not understand what magnitude phase difference you need to be
sensitive to, nor to what difference in OWLS this would allow you to be
sensitive to, nor to what precision the mirror has to be placed, nor
how well that placement has to be protected as a function of time, nor
how you would go about protecting that mirror placement to be sure it
did not drift, nor what physical factors would cause drift in the
mirror placement, nor what physical environment (e.g. vacuum level,
temperature control, etc.) you would need to maintain over the 1 km
distance between laser and mirror. In short, you don't know what you're
doing.
2. It is not needed. There are also some people that are convinced that
objects do not fall to the Earth at the same rate in a vacuum and
insist that it be done with elephants and banana peels just to be sure.
This desire, of course, should be ignored as spurious.
3. OWLS isotropy experiments *and* TWLS isotropy experiments have both
been performed. The fact that you do not understand the results of
those experiments and have not read the articles pertaining to those
experiments does not mean that someone should do your experiment just
to satisfy you and save you the trouble of reading.
Ken, here is a suggestion: Take your grant proposal to three different
physicists in three different physics departments and pay them a modest
honorarium (say, $100 each) to review your proposal and ask them to
provide you with a detailed critique of your proposal. Ask them what's
wrong with it and why, if any reason exists, should the proposed
experiment not be done. That way, you can get concrete suggestions on
what you need to correct in your proposal to get it funded and you
don't have to worry about a grand scheme to squelch your ideas.
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians to
review my simple experiment.
Well then, I'd say you're up a creek without a paddle. A brief review
of your situation.
1. You have a theory that you feel will be demonstrated correct only by
a specific experiment of your own design.
2. You do not have the money or resources to design, construct, or
operate the experiment yourself, and you are therefore dependent on
external funding agencies to support your work.
3. Your proposal has been deemed inadequate by reviewers that are
commissioned by those external funding agencies.
4. You are not willing to solicit criticism by "SRian" reviewers to
determine the source of inadequacy of your proposal.
So, by self-defeating design, you have set yourself up for failure.
Most people have a strategy for achieving a goal. You have a strategy
for not achieving a goal. There is a psychiatric term for this
behavior.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would like to explain what your
strategy is for getting your theories validated. How do you expect,
realistically, that your experiment will get done and that in so doing
your ideas will earn some serious consideration? Or are you not
interested in seeing your experiment done?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
09 May 2006 08:51:20 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147182080.410873.174750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147112858.369623.234210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians
to
review my simple experiment.
Well then, I'd say you're up a creek without a paddle. A brief review
of your situation.
1. You have a theory that you feel will be demonstrated correct only by
a specific experiment of your own design.
2. You do not have the money or resources to design, construct, or
operate the experiment yourself, and you are therefore dependent on
external funding agencies to support your work.
3. Your proposal has been deemed inadequate by reviewers that are
commissioned by those external funding agencies.
4. You are not willing to solicit criticism by "SRian" reviewers to
determine the source of inadequacy of your proposal.
So, by self-defeating design, you have set yourself up for failure.
Most people have a strategy for achieving a goal. You have a strategy
for not achieving a goal. There is a psychiatric term for this
behavior.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would like to explain what your
strategy is for getting your theories validated. How do you expect,
realistically, that your experiment will get done and that in so doing
your ideas will earn some serious consideration? Or are you not
interested in seeing your experiment done?
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians to
review my simple experiment. My experiment is based on the following solid
arguements:
If there is absolute motion in the vertical direction as the Pound and Rebka
experiments suggested then there should be a phase difference between the OW
path (AB) and the TW path (ABA) as follows:
The OW path AB has one delay time due to the absolute motion of the target
(the phase comparator at B).
The TW path ABA has two delay times due to the absolute motion of the
targets (the mirror at B and the phase comparator at A) plus the delay time
at the reflecting mirror.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
09 May 2006 08:57:48 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147182080.410873.174750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147112858.369623.234210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians
to
review my simple experiment.
Well then, I'd say you're up a creek without a paddle. A brief review
of your situation.
1. You have a theory that you feel will be demonstrated correct only by
a specific experiment of your own design.
2. You do not have the money or resources to design, construct, or
operate the experiment yourself, and you are therefore dependent on
external funding agencies to support your work.
3. Your proposal has been deemed inadequate by reviewers that are
commissioned by those external funding agencies.
4. You are not willing to solicit criticism by "SRian" reviewers to
determine the source of inadequacy of your proposal.
So, by self-defeating design, you have set yourself up for failure.
Most people have a strategy for achieving a goal. You have a strategy
for not achieving a goal. There is a psychiatric term for this
behavior.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would like to explain what your
strategy is for getting your theories validated. How do you expect,
realistically, that your experiment will get done and that in so doing
your ideas will earn some serious consideration? Or are you not
interested in seeing your experiment done?
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians to
review my simple experiment. My experiment is based on the following solid
arguements:
Repeating your strategy for failure does not sound like a good
problem-solving approach, Ken.
Let me suggest another activity that you might find satisfying for
similar reasons:
1. Crash a wedding reception for people you don't know.
2. Get up on the table, step in the wedding cake, and bellow: "The
world hates me for what I do!"
3. Feel justified in your assertion by the reaction you garner.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
09 May 2006 01:30:14 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147182080.410873.174750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147112858.369623.234210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated
SRians
to
review my simple experiment.
Well then, I'd say you're up a creek without a paddle. A brief review
of your situation.
1. You have a theory that you feel will be demonstrated correct only
by
a specific experiment of your own design.
2. You do not have the money or resources to design, construct, or
operate the experiment yourself, and you are therefore dependent on
external funding agencies to support your work.
3. Your proposal has been deemed inadequate by reviewers that are
commissioned by those external funding agencies.
4. You are not willing to solicit criticism by "SRian" reviewers to
determine the source of inadequacy of your proposal.
So, by self-defeating design, you have set yourself up for failure.
Most people have a strategy for achieving a goal. You have a strategy
for not achieving a goal. There is a psychiatric term for this
behavior.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would like to explain what your
strategy is for getting your theories validated. How do you expect,
realistically, that your experiment will get done and that in so doing
your ideas will earn some serious consideration? Or are you not
interested in seeing your experiment done?
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians
to
review my simple experiment. My experiment is based on the following
solid
arguements:
Repeating your strategy for failure does not sound like a good
problem-solving approach, Ken.
Let me suggest another activity that you might find satisfying for
similar reasons:
1. Crash a wedding reception for people you don't know.
2. Get up on the table, step in the wedding cake, and bellow: "The
world hates me for what I do!"
3. Feel justified in your assertion by the reaction you garner.
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute motion . You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
09 May 2006 04:02:19 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147182080.410873.174750@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147112858.369623.234210@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated
SRians
to
review my simple experiment.
Well then, I'd say you're up a creek without a paddle. A brief review
of your situation.
1. You have a theory that you feel will be demonstrated correct only
by
a specific experiment of your own design.
2. You do not have the money or resources to design, construct, or
operate the experiment yourself, and you are therefore dependent on
external funding agencies to support your work.
3. Your proposal has been deemed inadequate by reviewers that are
commissioned by those external funding agencies.
4. You are not willing to solicit criticism by "SRian" reviewers to
determine the source of inadequacy of your proposal.
So, by self-defeating design, you have set yourself up for failure.
Most people have a strategy for achieving a goal. You have a strategy
for not achieving a goal. There is a psychiatric term for this
behavior.
If you feel otherwise, perhaps you would like to explain what your
strategy is for getting your theories validated. How do you expect,
realistically, that your experiment will get done and that in so doing
your ideas will earn some serious consideration? Or are you not
interested in seeing your experiment done?
ROTFLOL....I am not going to spend money to pay for indoctrinated SRians
to
review my simple experiment. My experiment is based on the following
solid
arguements:
Repeating your strategy for failure does not sound like a good
problem-solving approach, Ken.
Let me suggest another activity that you might find satisfying for
similar reasons:
1. Crash a wedding reception for people you don't know.
2. Get up on the table, step in the wedding cake, and bellow: "The
world hates me for what I do!"
3. Feel justified in your assertion by the reaction you garner.
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute motion . You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a measurement
of.
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement which I
specifically addressed
- some fretting about a delay due to motion of mirror and receiver in a
OWLS isotropy experiment or in a TWLS measurement which is completely
contraindicated by experiment (independence of speed of light to
source, independence of speed of light to observer)
None of this is a "solid argument" for detection of absolute motion,
let alone a solid argument for detecting it by the method you propose.
If an experiment has motivation, the proposal to do the experiment
STILL has to be carefully crafted. If it is not, then it will not be
funded even if there is strong motivation. This is because placing
funding in the hands of someone who doesn't know what they're doing is
foolish, no matter how motivated they are.
This is the reason why jet planes, CO2 lasers, and scalpels are not
placed in the hands of people who don't know what they're doing, no
matter how motivated they are to use them.
Your refusal to establish credibly that you know what you're doing is a
strategy for failure.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
10 May 2006 09:20:41 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147208539.560011.74980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute motion . You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a measurement
of.
Sigh....that's the point. They failed to correctly interpreting the results
of their experiments. The model they used the GR model for gravity to
interpret their results. GR posits that different heights give rise to
different gravity potentials and thus frequency shift at different heights.
My model says that different gravity potential represents different state of
absolute motion at different heights and thus the frequency shift at
different heights is due to different states of absolute motions..
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement which I
specifically addressed
No you didn't.
- some fretting about a delay due to motion of mirror and receiver in a
OWLS isotropy experiment or in a TWLS measurement which is completely
contraindicated by experiment (independence of speed of light to
source, independence of speed of light to observer)
You are wrong. no experiment contradict what I said. The delay time at the
detector is real as suggested by the Pound and Rebka experiments.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
10 May 2006 09:45:15 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147208539.560011.74980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute motion . You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a measurement
of.
Sigh....that's the point. They failed to correctly interpreting the results
of their experiments. The model they used the GR model for gravity to
interpret their results. GR posits that different heights give rise to
different gravity potentials and thus frequency shift at different heights.
My model says that different gravity potential represents different state of
absolute motion at different heights and thus the frequency shift at
different heights is due to different states of absolute motions..
And as such, your model is not an improvement on the GR explanation of
what's going on. Moreover, this has no bearing on the equivalence of
OWLS isotropy plus TWLS measurement and a OWLS measurement.
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement which I
specifically addressed
No you didn't.
Oh, yes, I did. Your memory is short.
I explained in great detail -- twice in fact -- how a linear fit to two
TWLS measurements with different lever arms allows you to extract the
delay in the mirror and the TWLS value with the delay removed. You may
not have understood it, but the fact remains.
Would you like to start a new topic with this specific question
addressed? Be my guest. I'll address it there so you won't forget so
easily.
PD
- some fretting about a delay due to motion of mirror and receiver in a
OWLS isotropy experiment or in a TWLS measurement which is completely
contraindicated by experiment (independence of speed of light to
source, independence of speed of light to observer)
You are wrong. no experiment contradict what I said. The delay time at the
detector is real as suggested by the Pound and Rebka experiments.
Um... what?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
11 May 2006 08:36:28 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147208539.560011.74980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute motion .
You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with
you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a measurement
of.
Sigh....that's the point. They failed to correctly interpreting the
results
of their experiments. The model they used the GR model for gravity to
interpret their results. GR posits that different heights give rise to
different gravity potentials and thus frequency shift at different
heights.
My model says that different gravity potential represents different
state of
absolute motion at different heights and thus the frequency shift at
different heights is due to different states of absolute motions..
And as such, your model is not an improvement on the GR explanation of
what's going on. Moreover, this has no bearing on the equivalence of
OWLS isotropy plus TWLS measurement and a OWLS measurement.
It sure is an improvement over GR. It provides a physical model for gravity.
It explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. It unites
gravity with the other forces. It explains dark energy. It explains dark
matter. It explains why the far regions of the universe are in a state of
accelerated expansion. It explains the anormalous acceleration of Pioneer
10.
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement which I
specifically addressed
No you didn't.
Oh, yes, I did. Your memory is short.
I explained in great detail -- twice in fact -- how a linear fit to two
TWLS measurements with different lever arms allows you to extract the
delay in the mirror and the TWLS value with the delay removed. You may
not have understood it, but the fact remains.
That's the problem...your explanation assumes that the leading edge of a
light ray (the first photon) will hit the target. That's a violation of the
HUP and the provision of the Schrodinger equation.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
11 May 2006 09:09:06 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147208539.560011.74980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute motion .
You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with
you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a measurement
of.
Sigh....that's the point. They failed to correctly interpreting the
results
of their experiments. The model they used the GR model for gravity to
interpret their results. GR posits that different heights give rise to
different gravity potentials and thus frequency shift at different
heights.
My model says that different gravity potential represents different
state of
absolute motion at different heights and thus the frequency shift at
different heights is due to different states of absolute motions..
And as such, your model is not an improvement on the GR explanation of
what's going on. Moreover, this has no bearing on the equivalence of
OWLS isotropy plus TWLS measurement and a OWLS measurement.
It sure is an improvement over GR. It provides a physical model for gravity.
It explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. It unites
gravity with the other forces. It explains dark energy. It explains dark
matter. It explains why the far regions of the universe are in a state of
accelerated expansion. It explains the anormalous acceleration of Pioneer
10.
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement which I
specifically addressed
No you didn't.
Oh, yes, I did. Your memory is short.
I explained in great detail -- twice in fact -- how a linear fit to two
TWLS measurements with different lever arms allows you to extract the
delay in the mirror and the TWLS value with the delay removed. You may
not have understood it, but the fact remains.
That's the problem...your explanation assumes that the leading edge of a
light ray (the first photon) will hit the target. That's a violation of the
HUP and the provision of the Schrodinger equation.
It assumes no such thing. It assumes that a TWLS measurement is a
measurement of TWLS. Are you suggesting that a TWLS measurement is
impossible to do?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
11 May 2006 03:45:49 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147208539.560011.74980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute
motion .
You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with
you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a
measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a
measurement
of.
Sigh....that's the point. They failed to correctly interpreting the
results
of their experiments. The model they used the GR model for gravity
to
interpret their results. GR posits that different heights give rise
to
different gravity potentials and thus frequency shift at different
heights.
My model says that different gravity potential represents different
state of
absolute motion at different heights and thus the frequency shift at
different heights is due to different states of absolute motions..
And as such, your model is not an improvement on the GR explanation of
what's going on. Moreover, this has no bearing on the equivalence of
OWLS isotropy plus TWLS measurement and a OWLS measurement.
It sure is an improvement over GR. It provides a physical model for
gravity.
It explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. It
unites
gravity with the other forces. It explains dark energy. It explains dark
matter. It explains why the far regions of the universe are in a state
of
accelerated expansion. It explains the anormalous acceleration of
Pioneer
10.
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement
which I
specifically addressed
No you didn't.
Oh, yes, I did. Your memory is short.
I explained in great detail -- twice in fact -- how a linear fit to
two
TWLS measurements with different lever arms allows you to extract the
delay in the mirror and the TWLS value with the delay removed. You may
not have understood it, but the fact remains.
That's the problem...your explanation assumes that the leading edge of a
light ray (the first photon) will hit the target. That's a violation of
the
HUP and the provision of the Schrodinger equation.
It assumes no such thing. It assumes that a TWLS measurement is a
measurement of TWLS. Are you suggesting that a TWLS measurement is
impossible to do?
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading edge of a
light ray will hit the target ???
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
11 May 2006 04:38:36 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147208539.560011.74980@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147183068.219588.84840@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
I presented a solid arguement for the detection of absolute
motion .
You
ignored it every time. So there is no point of wasting time with
you.
I don't think that's what you did. What you suggested was
- an interpretation that the Pound-Rebka experiment was a
measurement
of something other than what Pound and Rebka said it was a
measurement
of.
Sigh....that's the point. They failed to correctly interpreting the
results
of their experiments. The model they used the GR model for gravity
to
interpret their results. GR posits that different heights give rise
to
different gravity potentials and thus frequency shift at different
heights.
My model says that different gravity potential represents different
state of
absolute motion at different heights and thus the frequency shift at
different heights is due to different states of absolute motions..
And as such, your model is not an improvement on the GR explanation of
what's going on. Moreover, this has no bearing on the equivalence of
OWLS isotropy plus TWLS measurement and a OWLS measurement.
It sure is an improvement over GR. It provides a physical model for
gravity.
It explains why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. It
unites
gravity with the other forces. It explains dark energy. It explains dark
matter. It explains why the far regions of the universe are in a state
of
accelerated expansion. It explains the anormalous acceleration of
Pioneer
10.
- some fretting about delay at a mirror in a TWLS measurement
which I
specifically addressed
No you didn't.
Oh, yes, I did. Your memory is short.
I explained in great detail -- twice in fact -- how a linear fit to
two
TWLS measurements with different lever arms allows you to extract the
delay in the mirror and the TWLS value with the delay removed. You may
not have understood it, but the fact remains.
That's the problem...your explanation assumes that the leading edge of a
light ray (the first photon) will hit the target. That's a violation of
the
HUP and the provision of the Schrodinger equation.
It assumes no such thing. It assumes that a TWLS measurement is a
measurement of TWLS. Are you suggesting that a TWLS measurement is
impossible to do?
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading edge of a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
PD
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
12 May 2006 07:55:23 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading edge of
a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Of course I think OWLS can be measured directly. I proposed experiments to
do so in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
Of course, the above link also includes TWLS measurements.
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
NO....you have to measure it.
PD
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
12 May 2006 08:11:04 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading edge of
a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Of course I think OWLS can be measured directly. I proposed experiments to
do so in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
Of course, the above link also includes TWLS measurements.
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
NO....you have to measure it.
That's what I meant. So, Ken, how can you tell how fast the leading
edge of a light ray goes from point A to point B, if the HUP prohibits
you from knowing that it arrived at point B and you measure a speed
from that? Isn't that determining a velocity by knowing its position?
PD
PD
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
12 May 2006 08:33:57 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147439464.124953.218990@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading edge
of
a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Of course I think OWLS can be measured directly. I proposed experiments
to
do so in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
Of course, the above link also includes TWLS measurements.
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
NO....you have to measure it.
That's what I meant. So, Ken, how can you tell how fast the leading
edge of a light ray goes from point A to point B, if the HUP prohibits
you from knowing that it arrived at point B and you measure a speed
from that? Isn't that determining a velocity by knowing its position?
You missed my point completely. I am saying:
SR claims that the position of the leading edge of a light ray (the first
photon) and the velocity of the leading edge of the same light ray is known
at all times. That is a violation of the HUP and a violation of the
Schrodinger equation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
12 May 2006 09:09:05 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147439464.124953.218990@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading edge
of
a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Of course I think OWLS can be measured directly. I proposed experiments
to
do so in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
Of course, the above link also includes TWLS measurements.
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
NO....you have to measure it.
That's what I meant. So, Ken, how can you tell how fast the leading
edge of a light ray goes from point A to point B, if the HUP prohibits
you from knowing that it arrived at point B and you measure a speed
from that? Isn't that determining a velocity by knowing its position?
You missed my point completely. I am saying:
SR claims that the position of the leading edge of a light ray (the first
photon) and the velocity of the leading edge of the same light ray is known
at all times. That is a violation of the HUP and a violation of the
Schrodinger equation.
But you also say that a OWLS measurement is possible, and you've
recommended an experiment to measurement, yet you say the HUP makes
that measurement impossible.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
13 May 2006 08:11:57 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147442945.088250.308150@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147439464.124953.218990@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading
edge
of
a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Of course I think OWLS can be measured directly. I proposed
experiments
to
do so in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
Of course, the above link also includes TWLS measurements.
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray
goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
NO....you have to measure it.
That's what I meant. So, Ken, how can you tell how fast the leading
edge of a light ray goes from point A to point B, if the HUP prohibits
you from knowing that it arrived at point B and you measure a speed
from that? Isn't that determining a velocity by knowing its position?
You missed my point completely. I am saying:
SR claims that the position of the leading edge of a light ray (the
first
photon) and the velocity of the leading edge of the same light ray is
known
at all times. That is a violation of the HUP and a violation of the
Schrodinger equation.
But you also say that a OWLS measurement is possible, and you've
recommended an experiment to measurement, yet you say the HUP makes
that measurement impossible.
But my experiment does not measure the position of the leading edge (the
first photon) of a light ray. The leading edge can miss the detector
completely and thus the OWLS measurement can be different than the TWLS.
That's the whole purpose of my proposed experiments.
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
15 May 2006 09:17:17 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147442945.088250.308150@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147439464.124953.218990@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147356546.037754.114240@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147272315.039295.13200@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
So you think that the math of SR didn't assume that the leading
edge
of
a
light ray will hit the target ???
Do you or do you not think that a OWLS measurement is possible?
Of course I think OWLS can be measured directly. I proposed
experiments
to
do so in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Do you or do you not thing that a TWLS measurement is possible?
Of course, the above link also includes TWLS measurements.
That is, can you tell how fast the leading edge of a light ray
goes
from point A to point B, or from point A to point B and back to A
again?
NO....you have to measure it.
That's what I meant. So, Ken, how can you tell how fast the leading
edge of a light ray goes from point A to point B, if the HUP prohibits
you from knowing that it arrived at point B and you measure a speed
from that? Isn't that determining a velocity by knowing its position?
You missed my point completely. I am saying:
SR claims that the position of the leading edge of a light ray (the
first
photon) and the velocity of the leading edge of the same light ray is
known
at all times. That is a violation of the HUP and a violation of the
Schrodinger equation.
But you also say that a OWLS measurement is possible, and you've
recommended an experiment to measurement, yet you say the HUP makes
that measurement impossible.
But my experiment does not measure the position of the leading edge (the
first photon) of a light ray. The leading edge can miss the detector
completely and thus the OWLS measurement can be different than the TWLS.
That's the whole purpose of my proposed experiments.
Let me see if I have this straight.
Suppose I have a train whose speed I want to measure, and I'm going to
measure OWTS between points A and B. The front of the train crosses the
line at A and this is what I use to start a clock. Now, when the train
gets to B, I miss the first car at B (it misses the detector somehow),
but the middle car of the train is seen by the detector at B, and this
stops the clock. When this happens, have I measured the OWTS of the
train?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
15 May 2006 09:30:39 AM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147702637.160862.58520@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147442945.088250.308150@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147439464.124953.218990@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
But my experiment does not measure the position of the leading edge (the
first photon) of a light ray. The leading edge can miss the detector
completely and thus the OWLS measurement can be different than the TWLS.
That's the whole purpose of my proposed experiments.
Let me see if I have this straight.
Suppose I have a train whose speed I want to measure, and I'm going to
measure OWTS between points A and B. The front of the train crosses the
line at A and this is what I use to start a clock. Now, when the train
gets to B, I miss the first car at B (it misses the detector somehow),
but the middle car of the train is seen by the detector at B, and this
stops the clock. When this happens, have I measured the OWTS of the
train?
Sigh....you can't use the train as an example for a light ray. The light ray
is being transmitted by the structured ether and at the same time the source
and the detector are moving in the ether. The result is that the first
portion of a light ray will miss the detector and the amount missing the
detector is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the detector. This
is the reason why you can't determine the postion of a photon between
emmission and absorption.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: The SRians are making contradictory claims |
15 May 2006 10:27:55 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147702637.160862.58520@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147442945.088250.308150@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147439464.124953.218990@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147383516.677530.327440@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
But my experiment does not measure the position of the leading edge (the
first photon) of a light ray. The leading edge can miss the detector
completely and thus the OWLS measurement can be different than the TWLS.
That's the whole purpose of my proposed experiments.
Let me see if I have this straight.
Suppose I have a train whose speed I want to measure, and I'm going to
measure OWTS between points A and B. The front of the train crosses the
line at A and this is what I use to start a clock. Now, when the train
gets to B, I miss the first car at B (it misses the detector somehow),
but the middle car of the train is seen by the detector at B, and this
stops the clock. When this happens, have I measured the OWTS of the
train?
Sigh....you can't use the train as an example for a light ray. The light ray
is being transmitted by the structured ether and at the same time the source
and the detector are moving in the ether. The result is that the first
portion of a light ray will miss the detector and the amount missing the
detector is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the detector. This
is the reason why you can't determine the postion of a photon between
emmission and absorption.
Ken Seto
OK, so imagine that you have a wavetrain of light, a pulse of light
with a front and a back that is emitted from the source at A and which
arrives at B.
Define the measurement of OWLS in terms of any portions of the
wavetrain | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
