Science > Physics > "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!"
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"optman" |
| Date: |
07 Jun 2007 10:19:35 AM |
| Object: |
"We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
<CITE>
We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!
In fact, we use them to detect some fast particles moving through our detectors.
You might say: "What?? In the previous 12 pages you convinced me that
there is no such thing as an object moving faster than the speed of light!".
Don't worry: you are right. The trick is that I carefully left out in the first
paragraph the words IN A VACUUM when I said "particles moving faster
than the speed of light!" Got it? ...
</CITE>
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page14.html
It seems to me that this Fermilab scientist is meaning that
the vacuum is rather a limiting environment for the light.
How do you interpret what this scientist is saying?
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
07 Jun 2007 03:43:47 PM |
|
|
"optman" <optman@optmanoptman.inv> wrote in message
news:f497kv$55n$1@aioe.org...
How do you interpret what this scientist is saying?
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=scientists+slow+light&meta=
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carl G." |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
07 Jun 2007 10:47:10 AM |
|
|
"optman" <optman@optmanoptman.inv> wrote in message
news:f497kv$55n$1@aioe.org...
<CITE>
We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed
of light!
In fact, we use them to detect some fast particles moving through our
detectors.
You might say: "What?? In the previous 12 pages you convinced me that
there is no such thing as an object moving faster than the speed of
light!".
Don't worry: you are right. The trick is that I carefully left out in the
first
paragraph the words IN A VACUUM when I said "particles moving faster
than the speed of light!" Got it? ...
</CITE>
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page14.html
It seems to me that this Fermilab scientist is meaning that
the vacuum is rather a limiting environment for the light.
How do you interpret what this scientist is saying?
Light travels fastest in a vacuum, and slower in other mediums. When
scientists say "the speed of light", the often mean "the speed of light in
vacuum". When traveling through other mediums, particles can move faster
than light can travel through the same medium. When particles travel faster
than light in a medium, they radiate light in the form of Cerenkov
radiation. Particles can never travel faster than light in a vacuum.
Carl G.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
07 Jun 2007 10:39:38 AM |
|
|
In article <f497kv$55n$1@aioe.org>, "optman" <optman@optmanoptman.inv> wrote:
<CITE>
We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of
light!
In fact, we use them to detect some fast particles moving through our
detectors.
You might say: "What?? In the previous 12 pages you convinced me that
there is no such thing as an object moving faster than the speed of light!".
Don't worry: you are right. The trick is that I carefully left out in the
first
paragraph the words IN A VACUUM when I said "particles moving faster
than the speed of light!" Got it? ...
</CITE>
http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page14.html
It seems to me that this Fermilab scientist is meaning that
the vacuum is rather a limiting environment for the light.
How do you interpret what this scientist is saying?
Light travels slower in a medium other then vacuum. Therefore, if we have a
material called examplium where the speed of light is 0.75c, we can accelerate
particles to travel through it at 0.8c and it will be travelling faster then
the light in the medium.
See Cerenkov Radiation.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
07 Jun 2007 12:06:32 PM |
|
|
On Jun 7, 10:19 am, "optman" <opt...@optmanoptman.inv> wrote:
<CITE>
We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!
In fact, we use them to detect some fast particles moving through our detectors.
You might say: "What?? In the previous 12 pages you convinced me that
there is no such thing as an object moving faster than the speed of light!".
Don't worry: you are right. The trick is that I carefully left out in the first
paragraph the words IN A VACUUM when I said "particles moving faster
than the speed of light!" Got it? ...
</CITE>http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page14.html
It seems to me that this Fermilab scientist is meaning that
the vacuum is rather a limiting environment for the light.
How do you interpret what this scientist is saying?
No, he's not saying that.
He's saying there is a universal speed limit.
It so happens that light travels at that speed limit when it traveling
in vacuum.
In material media, light (as a whole, not as individual photons)
travels *slower* than that speed limit.
It also happens sometimes that other particles travel through a
material medium at a speed faster than light's but lower than the
universal speed limit.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
08 Jun 2007 03:59:59 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 10:06:32 -0700, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 7, 10:19 am, "optman" <opt...@optmanoptman.inv> wrote:
<CITE>
We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!
In fact, we use them to detect some fast particles moving through our detectors.
You might say: "What?? In the previous 12 pages you convinced me that
there is no such thing as an object moving faster than the speed of light!".
Don't worry: you are right. The trick is that I carefully left out in the first
paragraph the words IN A VACUUM when I said "particles moving faster
than the speed of light!" Got it? ...
</CITE>http://home.fnal.gov/~pompos/light/light_page14.html
It seems to me that this Fermilab scientist is meaning that
the vacuum is rather a limiting environment for the light.
How do you interpret what this scientist is saying?
No, he's not saying that.
He's saying there is a universal speed limit.
It so happens that light travels at that speed limit when it traveling
in vacuum.
In material media, light (as a whole, not as individual photons)
travels *slower* than that speed limit.
It also happens sometimes that other particles travel through a
material medium at a speed faster than light's but lower than the
universal speed limit.
Speed wrt what Draper?
.......You sure are a slow learner...
PD
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
08 Jun 2007 08:44:03 AM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
11 Jun 2007 05:59:44 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
11 Jun 2007 06:21:37 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
What's never measured?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
12 Jun 2007 07:01:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:21:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
What's never measured?
OW light speed, Wormy.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
12 Jun 2007 09:06:59 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:21:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
What's never measured?
OW light speed, Wormy.
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
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: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
13 Jun 2007 05:24:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:06:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:21:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
What's never measured?
OW light speed, Wormy.
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
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]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
13 Jun 2007 06:50:40 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:06:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:21:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
What's never measured?
OW light speed, Wormy.
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
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]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of evidence!
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
16 Jun 2007 10:10:12 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
<kp%bi.162411$_c5.89079@attbi_s22>:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 02:06:59 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:21:37 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 13:44:03 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Speed wrt what Draper?
The speed of light is c wrt all inertial observers, Henri! It is emprically
so. Boy, you sure have a lot of Fumbles Henri!
http://www.google.com/search?q=Henri+Wilson+++++fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
Never measured, Wormy....
What's never measured?
OW light speed, Wormy.
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
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]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of evidence!
I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
suit who can float in the air. ;-)
--
#191,
"Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of
elderberries!" - Monty Python and the Holy Grail
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
18 Jun 2007 05:44:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of evidence!
I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
suit who can float in the air. ;-)
Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that which
supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that do exactly
the same..
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
18 Jun 2007 05:53:18 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of evidence!
I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
suit who can float in the air. ;-)
Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that which
supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that do exactly
the same..
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
19 Jun 2007 06:41:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of evidence!
I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
suit who can float in the air. ;-)
Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that which
supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that do exactly
the same..
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
19 Jun 2007 08:01:43 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
So Henri admits he cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
20 Jun 2007 01:40:02 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
<kcqg73h28pf7223hdhahu5ccev0q6kq3lo@4ax.com>:
On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
None is believable...
Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of evidence!
I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
suit who can float in the air. ;-)
Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that which
supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that do exactly
the same..
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
--
#191,
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
20 Jun 2007 05:51:32 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:2numk4-e2d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: <HW@>
: wrote
: on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: <kcqg73h28pf7223hdhahu5ccev0q6kq3lo@4ax.com>:
: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
: >
: >>Henri Wilson wrote:
: >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: >>> <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: >>>> wrote
: >>>> on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: >>>
: >>>>>>> Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: >>>>>>>
: >>>>>>> Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
: >>>>>>>
: >>>>>>> Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: >>>>>>> Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
place an
: >>>>>>> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in
10^8]
: >>>>>> All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: >>>>>> None is believable...
: >>>>>>
: >>>>> Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
evidence!
: >>>>>
: >>>> I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: >>>> presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: >>>> that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: >>>> evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: >>>>
: >>>> So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: >>>> difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: >>>> a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: >>>> suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>> Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that
which
: >>> supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: >>> There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that
do exactly
: >>> the same..
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: >>>
: >>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.
: >>
: >> Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
: >> contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: >
: > No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: >
:
: OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Ok, Easy answer.
Ask Cassini the time.
: Include experimental method and expected results.
Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
Expected result according to relativity,
time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
You are correct, your question was dumb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hayek" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
20 Jun 2007 12:44:08 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:2numk4-e2d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: <HW@>
: wrote
: on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: <kcqg73h28pf7223hdhahu5ccev0q6kq3lo@4ax.com>:
: > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
: >
: >>Henri Wilson wrote:
: >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: >>> <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
: >>>
: >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: >>>> wrote
: >>>> on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: >>>
: >>>>>>> Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: >>>>>>>
: >>>>>>> Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
: >>>>>>>
: >>>>>>> Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: >>>>>>> Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
place an
: >>>>>>> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in
10^8]
: >>>>>> All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: >>>>>> None is believable...
: >>>>>>
: >>>>> Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
evidence!
: >>>>>
: >>>> I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: >>>> presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: >>>> that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: >>>> evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: >>>>
: >>>> So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: >>>> difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: >>>> a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: >>>> suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: >>>>
: >>>
: >>> Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only that
which
: >>> supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: >>> There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world that
do exactly
: >>> the same..
: >>>
: >>>
: >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: >>>
: >>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.
: >>
: >> Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
: >> contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: >
: > No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: >
:
: OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Ok, Easy answer.
Ask Cassini the time.
: Include experimental method and expected results.
Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
Expected result according to relativity,
time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
Was this experiment actually done ?
Uwe Hayek.
You are correct, your question was dumb.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
20 Jun 2007 04:10:14 PM |
|
|
"Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:46796767$0$336$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
: > news:2numk4-e2d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: > : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: > : <HW@>
: > : wrote
: > : on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: > : <kcqg73h28pf7223hdhahu5ccev0q6kq3lo@4ax.com>:
: > : > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: > wrote:
: > : >
: > : >>Henri Wilson wrote:
: > : >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: > : >>> <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
: > : >>>
: > : >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: > : >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: > : >>>> wrote
: > : >>>> on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>>>> Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>> Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583
(1965).
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>> Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: > : >>>>>>> Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
: > place an
: > : >>>>>>> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part
in
: > 10^8]
: > : >>>>>> All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: > : >>>>>> None is believable...
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>> Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
: > evidence!
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>> I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: > : >>>> presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: > : >>>> that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: > : >>>> evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: > : >>>> difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: > : >>>> a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: > : >>>> suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only
that
: > which
: > : >>> supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: > : >>> There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world
that
: > do exactly
: > : >>> the same..
: > : >>>
: > : >>>
: > : >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
virgin
: > mother.
: > : >>
: > : >> Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
observation
: > that
: > : >> contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: > : >
: > : > No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: > : >
: > :
: > : OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
: >
: > Ok, Easy answer.
: > Ask Cassini the time.
: >
: >
: > : Include experimental method and expected results.
: >
: > Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
: > Expected result according to relativity,
: > time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
: >
: > Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
:
: Was this experiment actually done?
Several times a day, every day, if you call a phone conversation or boiling
an egg an "experiment".
NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
for years.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
soon be noticed.
Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
20 Jun 2007 10:50:24 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
<Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
wrote
on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:10:14 GMT
<WIgei.188284$4a.23700@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:46796767$0$336$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
: Androcles wrote:
: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message
: > news:2numk4-e2d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: > : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: > : <HW@>
: > : wrote
: > : on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: > : <kcqg73h28pf7223hdhahu5ccev0q6kq3lo@4ax.com>:
: > : > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: > wrote:
: > : >
: > : >>Henri Wilson wrote:
: > : >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: > : >>> <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
: > : >>>
: > : >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: > : >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: > : >>>> wrote
: > : >>>> on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: > : >>>
: > : >>>>>>> Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>> Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583
(1965).
: > : >>>>>>>
: > : >>>>>>> Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: > : >>>>>>> Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to
: > place an
: > : >>>>>>> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part
in
: > 10^8]
: > : >>>>>> All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: > : >>>>>> None is believable...
: > : >>>>>>
: > : >>>>> Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance of
: > evidence!
: > : >>>>>
: > : >>>> I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: > : >>>> presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: > : >>>> that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: > : >>>> evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>> So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: > : >>>> difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: > : >>>> a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: > : >>>> suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: > : >>>>
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only
that
: > which
: > : >>> supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: > : >>> There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world
that
: > do exactly
: > : >>> the same..
: > : >>>
: > : >>>
: > : >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: > : >>>
: > : >>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
virgin
: > mother.
: > : >>
: > : >> Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
observation
: > that
: > : >> contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: > : >
: > : > No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: > : >
: > :
: > : OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
: >
: > Ok, Easy answer.
: > Ask Cassini the time.
: >
: >
: > : Include experimental method and expected results.
: >
: > Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
: > Expected result according to relativity,
: > time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
: >
: > Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
:
: Was this experiment actually done?
Several times a day, every day, if you call a phone conversation or boiling
an egg an "experiment".
Regrettably, the Huyguens probe is now dead; we could have asked it the
time as well.
NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
for years.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
soon be noticed.
Actually, it's a sine wave, and it would be very quickly noticed.
Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.
--
#191,
Windows. Because it's not a question of if.
It's a question of when.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
21 Jun 2007 04:26:54 PM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:059pk4-fu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
: wrote
: on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 21:10:14 GMT
: <WIgei.188284$4a.23700@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
: >
: > "Hayek" <hayektt@nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote in message
: > news:46796767$0$336$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
: >: Androcles wrote:
: >: > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
: > message
: >: > news:2numk4-e2d.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: >: > : In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
: >: > : <HW@>
: >: > : wrote
: >: > : on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:41:32 GMT
: >: > : <kcqg73h28pf7223hdhahu5ccev0q6kq3lo@4ax.com>:
: >: > : > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007 22:53:18 GMT, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
: >: > wrote:
: >: > : >
: >: > : >>Henri Wilson wrote:
: >: > : >>> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007 20:10:12 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
: >: > : >>> <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
: >: > : >>>
: >: > : >>>> In sci.physics.relativity, Sam Wormley
: >: > : >>>> <swormley1@mchsi.com>
: >: > : >>>> wrote
: >: > : >>>> on Wed, 13 Jun 2007 23:50:40 GMT
: >: > : >>>
: >: > : >>>>>>> Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
: >: > : >>>>>>>
: >: > : >>>>>>> Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583
: > (1965).
: >: > : >>>>>>>
: >: > : >>>>>>> Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
: >: > : >>>>>>> Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector
to
: >: > place an
: >: > : >>>>>>> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one
part
: > in
: >: > 10^8]
: >: > : >>>>>> All performed BY relativists FOR relativists....
: >: > : >>>>>> None is believable...
: >: > : >>>>>>
: >: > : >>>>> Ah ha, Henri, choosing what you will believe in ignorance
of
: >: > evidence!
: >: > : >>>>>
: >: > : >>>> I'm frankly not sure what Henri's problem is here, but
: >: > : >>>> presumably the experiments are well-enough specified so
: >: > : >>>> that anyone can perform them, and confirm or refute the
: >: > : >>>> evidence filed in peer-reviewed journals.
: >: > : >>>>
: >: > : >>>> So long as the data is accurately tallied, it makes little
: >: > : >>>> difference whether the experiment is done by a relativist,
: >: > : >>>> a skeptic, a madman, or a little green guy with a special
: >: > : >>>> suit who can float in the air. ;-)
: >: > : >>>>
: >: > : >>>
: >: > : >>> Ghost, relativists are not the only group that recognizes only
: > that
: >: > which
: >: > : >>> supports its belief system and rejects that which refutes it.
: >: > : >>> There are about 4000 fanatical religious sects around the world
: > that
: >: > do exactly
: >: > : >>> the same..
: >: > : >>>
: >: > : >>>
: >: > : >>> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
: >: > : >>>
: >: > : >>> Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's
: > virgin
: >: > mother.
: >: > : >>
: >: > : >> Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an
: > observation
: >: > that
: >: > : >> contradicts a prediction of relativity.
: >: > : >
: >: > : > No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
: >: > : >
: >: > :
: >: > : OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
: >: >
: >: > Ok, Easy answer.
: >: > Ask Cassini the time.
: >: >
: >: >
: >: > : Include experimental method and expected results.
: >: >
: >: > Send signal to Cassini, request time stamp of return signal.
: >: > Expected result according to relativity,
: >: > time stamp = (time received - time of request)/2 + time of request.
: >: >
: >: > Test complete, relativity fails. Done.
: >:
: >: Was this experiment actually done?
: >
: > Several times a day, every day, if you call a phone conversation or
boiling
: > an egg an "experiment".
:
: Regrettably, the Huyguens probe is now dead; we could have asked it the
: time as well.
Not that it would be particularly relevant, it is Saturn - Earth distance
and velocity that pertains here.
: > NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
: > for years.
: > http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
: > Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
: > Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
: > at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
: > soon be noticed.
:
: Actually, it's a sine wave, and it would be very quickly noticed.
Einstein's third postulate
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A"
is thus *****-canned along with all the ignorant self-serving crap that
follows from it. You can *****-can Hayek's aether along with it, too.
:
: > Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
: > then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
22 Jun 2007 05:16:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 21:26:54 GMT, "Androcles" <Engineer@hogwarts.physics>
wrote:
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:059pk4-fu.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
: In sci.physics.relativity, Androcles
: Regrettably, the Huyguens probe is now dead; we could have asked it the
: time as well.
Not that it would be particularly relevant, it is Saturn - Earth distance
and velocity that pertains here.
: > NASA - JPL is in constant communication with Cassini and has been
: > for years.
: > http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
: > Cassini is using UTC, Einstein's crap is simply ignored as nonsense.
: > Note, however, that Earth both approaches and recedes from Saturn
: > at 0.0001c once a year and any so-called "relativistic effect" would
: > soon be noticed.
:
: Actually, it's a sine wave, and it would be very quickly noticed.
Einstein's third postulate
"we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A
to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A"
is thus *****-canned along with all the ignorant self-serving crap that
follows from it. You can *****-can Hayek's aether along with it, too.
Gord!! You're not still on about that!!!!
It's the only thing Einstein got right, even if for the wrong reasons..
....but you left out the condition that A, B and the source are mutually at
rest.
:
: > Engineers ignore relativists and aetherialists and get on with the job,
: > then when they retire they like to laugh at the idiots.
message rating: 4 bottles
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
21 Jun 2007 03:51:17 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.
The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as 'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.
All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong except maybe in that
local EM control frames exist around large masses and cause some of LET's
predictions to appear to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeckyl" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
21 Jun 2007 03:57:52 AM |
|
|
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:rhek73dv8783plqmotbl45tlh9k808qr90@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.
The only prediction of relativity that matters
They all matter
is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as
'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.
Got a way we can accurately measure that?
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from
differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness
curves
of variable stars.
And that suggests the the OWLS is c .. no c+v. One has to invent all sorts
of rationalisations and excuses and weird fields to make the results (that
are ALREADY compatible with SR) work with a non c speed for light. You've
got the results of evidence completely backwards.
All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong except maybe in
that
local EM control frames exist around large masses and cause some of LET's
predictions to appear to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.
What evidence .. do you mean that every experiment done is consistent with
SR predictions?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
21 Jun 2007 06:11:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 18:57:52 +1000, "Jeckyl" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message
news:rhek73dv8783plqmotbl45tlh9k808qr90@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation
that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.
The only prediction of relativity that matters
They all matter
is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as
'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.
Got a way we can accurately measure that?
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from
differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness
curves
of variable stars.
And that suggests the the OWLS is c .. no c+v. One has to invent all sorts
of rationalisations and excuses and weird fields to make the results (that
are ALREADY compatible with SR) work with a non c speed for light. You've
got the results of evidence completely backwards.
All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong except maybe in
that
local EM control frames exist around large masses and cause some of LET's
predictions to appear to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.
What evidence .. do you mean that every experiment done is consistent with
SR predictions?
poor fool...
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster thanthe speed of light!" |
21 Jun 2007 06:55:28 PM |
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.
Beg to differ, Henri.
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
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: "Wilson" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
22 Jun 2007 05:21:13 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:55:28 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.
Beg to differ, Henri.
Historically there is a body of OWLS experiments, Henri.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path
and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large
class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is
anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip
speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way
speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories
the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the
anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all
are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories
predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above,
especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards
frames").
The isotropy of OWLS is one of the principal features of the BaTh.
None of the above experiments compares OWLS from differently moving sources.
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s.
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8]
According to BaTh OWLS is 100% isotropic in any single frame experiment
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: "We at Fermilab deal everyday with particles moving faster than the speed of light!" |
21 Jun 2007 11:14:03 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
wrote
on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:51:17 GMT
<rhek73dv8783plqmotbl45tlh9k808qr90@4ax.com>:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 23:40:02 -0700, The Ghost In The Machine
<ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
<HW@>
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
Trouble is that Henri cannot cite even one example of an observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity.
No 'prediction' of relativity has been directly tested.
OK, dumb question. How would you test a prediction of relativity?
Include experimental method and expected results.
The only prediction of relativity that matters is the one that says measured
OWLS will always turn out to be numerically equal to the constant known as 'c',
irrespective of relative source speed.
There is only one known practical way to test whether OWLS from differently
moving sources equals c or c+v...That involves studying the brightness curves
of variable stars.
And what, precisely, is wrong with diffraction gratings?
nBaT: Newtonian ballistic theory. This theory models light as
a more or less thrown ball in an absolute spacetime system.
x' = x-vt, t' = t.
SR: Standard Special Relativity/Lorentz Transformation.
m1nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the wavelength.
m2nBaT: nBaT with the final velocity adjusted so that c/c0 = 1,
fiddling with the frequency.
BaTh: ?
nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1 - v/c, w/w0 = 1
SR: f/f0 = sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c), c/c0 = 1,
w/w0 = sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c)
m1nBaT: f/f0 = 1 - v/c, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1/(1-v/c)
m2nBaT: f/f0 = 1, c/c0 = 1, w/w0 = 1 -- Immobile!
BaTh: f/f0 = ?, c/c0 = ?, w/w0 = ?
Note that in all cases c = f*w, c0 = f0*w0, and therefore
c/c0 = (f/f0) * (w/w0) -- regardless of whether one believes in SR,
nBaT, "tick fairies", or LGMs with UFOs.
All the evidence points to Einstein being completely wrong
except maybe in that local EM control frames exist around
large masses and cause some of LET's predictions to appear
to work in part. SR is, of course, just a disguised
aether theory.
Of course Einstein is completely wrong. That's why SR and
GR are still in use more than 100 years after SR's "birth".
(Spot the flaw.)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.
--
#191,
Windows Vista. It'll Fix Everything(tm).
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
