 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / September 2005Absolute Motion Explains the Results of Past Experiments
The following link describes new interpretions for the following past famous experiments based on absolute motion: the Double-Slit experiment, the Compton Shift experiment and the Photoelectric experiment. http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005pastexperiments.pdf Ken Seto > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past famous > experiments based on absolute motion: [snip crap] Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 No Lorentz violation Idiot.  SignatureUncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf > > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past famous > > experiments based on absolute motion: > [snip crap] Al Hitler is a runt of the SR experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto >>>The following link describes new interpretions for the following past > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Ken Seto Seto's linked PDF is contracited by Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004) http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml No aether Chuck Lane's Lorentz-violation page http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/ Breaking Lorentz symmetry http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7 No Lorentz violation > >>>The following link describes new interpretions for the following past > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Seto's linked PDF is contracited by Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto | > >>>The following link describes new interpretions for the following past | > > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] | | Ken Seto Stupid c.nt. > | > >>>The following link describes new interpretions for the following > past [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Stupid c.nt. Hey f.ck face....are you talking about yourself? | > | > >>>The following link describes new interpretions for the following | > past [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] | | Hey f.ck face....are you talking about yourself? Stoooopid c.nt > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ken Seto Einstein postulated that all observer measure the speed of light to be c. And he turned out to empirically correct--all observers do measure the speed of light to be c. Einstein postulated that the physics in this inertial frame is the same as the physics in that inertial frame. And he turned out to empirically correct--the physics in this inertial frame is the same as the physics in that inertial frame. Implicit in the theory of relativity is that all motion is relative. that all motion is with respect to something else. Anyone can choose whatever reference they like. There are no "absolute" references. There are no "absolute reference frames. Observations and measurement show that the speed of light is constant. The wavelength is function of photon energy http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Photon.html lambda = h/E The wavelength is shifted due to the relative radial velocity between source and observer. Shifts in spectral emission and absorption lines for various elements and molecules (Doppler shift) allows the determination of relative radial velocity between source and observer. See: Doppler Effect http://scienceworld.wolfram.co m/physics/DopplerEffect.html Standard tool in the Astrophysics community. Now, Seto, it may be that you are untutored in some basics of physics. All of us were unlearned at some point in our lives. But it is the fool who is shown the way by many, who fails to learn from their guidance. > > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to be c. And he turned out to empirically correct--all observers > do measure the speed of light to be c. Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. Definition for a runt of the SR experts: A moron who thinks that SR is a religion. An idiot who doesn't know the limitations of SR. A mental midget who can't comprehend beyond what he was taught in school. An imbecile who follows the real experts around like a puppy and eats up their sh.t like gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who disagrees with SR Ken Seto > Einstein postulated that the physics in this inertial frame is the > same as the physics in that inertial frame. And he turned out to [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > fool who is shown the way by many, who fails to learn from their > guidance. | > > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. | > > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | | Ken Seto "That fellow seems to me to possess but one idea, and that is a wrong one."--Dr. Samuel Johnson > Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gourmet puppy chow. An a.shole who will attack anybody who > disagrees with SR Seto misses the point--Einstein postulated that all observer measure the speed of light to be c. And he turned out to empirically correct--all observers do measure the speed of l ight to be c. >> Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. >> Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > empirically correct--all observers do measure the speed of l > ight to be c. You incorrigible idiot Wormley. OF COURSE ALL OBSERVERS MEASURE TWLS TO BE C. THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BALLISTIC THEORY PREDICTS. NOBODY HAS EVER MEASURED OWLS. If they ever manage to, they will find it is c+v, where v is the speed of the observer relative to the source. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". > OF COURSE ALL OBSERVERS MEASURE TWLS TO BE C. > > THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BALLISTIC THEORY PREDICTS. > > NOBODY HAS EVER MEASURED OWLS. Henri, historically there is a body of OWLS experiments Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards frames"). Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821. Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990). Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241. Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965). Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255. Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8] >> OF COURSE ALL OBSERVERS MEASURE TWLS TO BE C. >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 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 those experiments fully support the BaT. OWLS is 100% isotropic according to and because of the BaT. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". > >> Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > >> Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > If they ever manage to, they will find it is c+v, where v is the speed of the > observer relative to the source. You are wrong. They won't measure c+v. They will measure c because they insist that the wvae length of incoming light is changed.. The only way that they can measure a different light speed is by assuming that the wvae length for a specific light source to remain as a universal constant. In that case any change in frequency is evidence for varying light speed. Ken Seto >> >> Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. >> >> Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >for a specific light source to remain as a universal constant. In that case >any change in frequency is evidence for varying light speed. Ken you should give up aether theory and get yourself up to date. >Ken Seto HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe "Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong". > >> >> Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > >> >> Definition for a runt of the SR experts: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Ken you should give up aether theory and get yourself up to date. ROTFLOL...... > OF COURSE ALL OBSERVERS MEASURE TWLS TO BE C. > > THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BALLISTIC THEORY PREDICTS. > > NOBODY HAS EVER MEASURED OWLS. Henri, historically there is a body of OWLS experiments Ref: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way%20tests 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an ether frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called "Edwards frames"). Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821. Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990). Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241. Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965). Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255. Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. [one part in 10^8] In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote on Wed, 28 Sep 2005 14:41:36 GMT <AYx_e.373658$_o.72539@attbi_s71>: >> OF COURSE ALL OBSERVERS MEASURE TWLS TO BE C. >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > 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] The question, of course, is whether they support BaT? They seem to support SR/GTR fairly well... :-) In any event, if one has an OWLS of c+v one way, and c-v the other, the TWLS speed is distance / time (one of the few times a certain other poster is actually correct!) which means that: A -> B: t = l/(c+v) B -> A: t = l/(c-v) A->B->A: t = l/(c+v) + l/(c-v) = 2c/(c^2-v^2) which means that the TWLS is 2l / (2c/(c^2-v^2)) = (c^2-v^2)/c < c. Or, one can postulate c-v one direction and work out the w such that TWLS = c, or l/(c-v) + l/w = 2l/c or l(cw + c(c-v))/(wc(c-v)) = 2lw(c-v)/(wc(c-v)) l(cw + c(c-v)) = 2lw(c-v) cw + c(c-v) = 2w(c-v) = 2wc-2wv w(c-2c+2v) = -c(c-v) w(2v-c) = c(v-c) w = c(c-v)/(c-2v) > c+v In any event, TWLS cannot be c for the ballistic theory since the light source has moving atoms. The error would be on the order of a few hundred meters a second, or about 10^-6 c -- but it is there, for that particular theory. For Algol, about 92 ly away, such an error would result in a discrepancy of almost an hour in certain measurements. Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past famous > experiments based on absolute motion: the Double-Slit experiment, the > Compton Shift experiment and the Photoelectric experiment. > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005pastexperiments.pdf > > Ken Seto Link doesn't connect. Can you fix it, or are you blowing smoke? Jim G c'=c+v > > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past famous > > experiments based on absolute motion: the Double-Slit experiment, the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Link doesn't connect. Can you fix it, or are you blowing smoke? Sorry try this: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/pastexperiments.pdf Ken Seto > > > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past > famous [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Sorry try this: > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/pastexperiments.pdf I went into my site and changed the file name. The following link should work now. Thanks for pointing out. http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005pastexperiments.pdf Ken Seto > > > > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past > > famous [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > work now. Thanks for pointing out. > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005pastexperiments.pdf OK now Relative motion being unchanged between screens and source, conclusion as to 'absolute' motion remains obscure (for me :-( ) Jim G c'=c+v > > > > > The following link describes new interpretions for the following past > > > famous [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Relative motion being unchanged between screens and source, conclusion > as to 'absolute' motion remains obscure (for me :-( ) Absolute motion is not relative motion between the screen and the source. It is the motion of the screen wrt the light carrying E-Strings. The absolute motion of the partition move the E-Strings from the center strip into the slit openings. Before these E-String are move into the openings they form a dark fringe on the screen because the light waves that they were carrying will have already been absorbed by the source side of the partition strip. When these light carrying E-Srtrings move into the slit openings the light waves they are carrying will continue onto the screen and show up on the screen as a light fringe. Ken Seto |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.