 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2006What Exactly Happens to TIME in GPS Orbit?
Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks to appear to run fast when seen from Earth. Could one of the experts from the lunatic fringe please explain this process in greater detail. There are aspects of it that are a little hard to follow. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged >when sent into orbit. They >seem to think that something happens to TIME itself >and this causes the clocks >to appear to run fast when seen from Earth. >Could one of the experts from the lunatic fringe please >explain this process in >greater detail. There are aspects of it that are a little >hard to follow. >HW. According to GR the change in gravity potential causes the clock to run fast. However, the transverse velocity of the clock causes it to be read slower. The reason being the transverse Doppler effect (which happens to be the same as the non existent time dilation). The slower reading superimposes the faster reading --- the net result is a faster than inerial reading on earth. > >Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged >when sent into orbit. They > >seem to think that something happens to TIME itself >and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > According to GR the change in gravity potential causes the clock to run > fast. "Fast"? Donchameen _slow_? > However, the transverse velocity of the clock causes it to be > read slower. Assuming your "transverse velocity" is applicable here, what you mean is that it causes it to run slower, not just to be "read" slower, right? > The reason being the transverse Doppler effect (which > happens to be the same as the non existent time dilation). Not so. The De is an illusion, alright, but that only tells us if an object is coming or going, and not its actual speed. The force of gravity lessens with altitude, so its effect on the orbiting clocks will be less than at the earth's surface. This is a real effect, not illusory like the De. > The slower reading superimposes the faster reading --- the net result > is a faster than inerial reading on earth. It sure sounds like you have it backwards here, Vert. Maybe you can explain why it sound that way? > > >Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged >when sent into orbit. They > > >seem to think that something happens to TIME itself >and this causes the clocks > > >to appear to run fast when seen from Earth. VERGON Get it straight, Tom --- I didn't write that. HW > > >Could one of the experts from the lunatic fringe please >explain this process in > > >greater detail. There are aspects of it that are a little >hard to follow. VERGON > > According to GR the change in gravity potential causes the clock to run > > fast. TOMGEE > "Fast"? Donchameen _slow_? VERGON That depends on which way the change is. As you go up, the potential increases and time goes faster Here is an authority's version: According to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, clocks run slower in gravity fields. The stronger the gravity, the slower the rate of time. But there are two components to gravity: the "gravitational potential" and the "gravitational field" - the latter is how fast objects accelerate when dropped, which on earth is around 9.8 m/s^2. Both are related to each other in the following way: gravitational field is the negative gradient of the gravitational potential. This means objects only accelerate when the gravitational potential varies over some distance. So the question arises, is gravitational time dilation due to the potential or the field? Most physicists would say "Why does it matter?" and I say "You have no idea how much it matters." The answer, by the way, is evident in the following equation from General Relativity: > > However, the transverse velocity of the clock causes it to be > > read slower. TOMGEE > Assuming your "transverse velocity" is applicable here, what > you mean is that it causes it to run slower, not just to be "read" > slower, right? VERGON Wrong. Gravity increase will cause time to RUN slower. Velocity (transverse or receding) will cause it to READ slower. I've explained all that elsewhere. > > The reason being the transverse Doppler effect (which > > happens to be the same as the non existent time dilation). TOMGEE > Not so. The De is an illusion, alright, but that only tells us if > an object is coming or going, and not its actual speed. VERGON Wrong again. The degree of frequency shift tells how fast or slow. TOMGEE > The force of gravity lessens with altitude, so its effect on the > orbiting clocks will be less than at the earth's surface. This is > a real effect, not illusory like the De. VERGON > > The slower reading superimposes the faster time --- the net result > > is a faster than inertial reading on earth. > > > It sure sounds like you have it backwards here, Vert. Maybe > you can explain why it sound that way? VERGION I didn't have it backwards. You just misunderstood. > >Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged >when sent into orbit. They > >seem to think that something happens to TIME itself >and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The slower reading superimposes the faster reading --- the net result > is a faster than inerial reading on earth. Very good, Vert, you got one right: http://www.npl.co.uk/publications/metromnia/issue18/ > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. > They [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Could one of the experts from the lunatic fringe Since those that believe in relativity are the norm they are not a 'lunatic fringe' - that honor belongs to idiots like yourself. Bill > please explain this process in > greater detail. There are aspects of it that are a little hard to follow. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. > > They [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Since those that believe in relativity are the norm they are not a 'lunatic > fringe' - that honor belongs to idiots like yourself. That depends, Bill, on what that belief may be. If it borders on religious fervor for some, believing that Relativity is a Bible of sorts, the Gospel as written by Einstein, so to speak, they may indeed be part of the lunatic fringe, no? > > > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. > > > They [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Bible of sorts, the Gospel as written by Einstein, so to speak, > they may indeed be part of the lunatic fringe, no? No. Do not confuse faith with assured confidence, buttressed by experimental observation. Apparently you do not understand that Einstein's reputation meant *nothing* (he didn't have one) until the predictions in his papers were soundly confirmed by experiment. PD | Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They | seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks | to appear to run fast when seen from Earth. Henri Wilson claims light adjusts it speed from c+v (relative th the observer) to c (relative to the observer) over a distance of 20-30 light years because he believes his own model of Wombat's Wedge-on Worbits, which he calls BaTh. He is a lunatic, as crazy as any relativist. It is pointless explaining anything to him. Androcles. > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They > seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks > to appear to run fast when seen from Earth. > > Could one of the experts from the lunatic fringe please explain this process in > greater detail. There are aspects of it that are a little hard to follow. Since you have proven that you are too dumb to understand it, it would be no point in explaining it yet again, would it? Paul > > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They > > seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Since you have proven that you are too dumb to understand it, > it would be no point in explaining it yet again, would it? But he *will* manage to misunderstand it in yet another highly original way, so why not give it a try? Dirk Vdm | > > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They | > > seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] | | Dirk Vdm Not too hot on originality, are you? From: Paul Lutus - view profile Date: Thurs, Jan 14 1999 12:00 am Email: "Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.com> Groups: sci.physics.relativity Not yet ratedRating: hide options Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original | Report Abuse | Find messages by this author << so isn't it a logical conclusion that those who find themselves to be "intelligent" should be careful not to create miscommunication? >> I must point out that not all intelligent people are nice and well-mannered, or skilled at communication. I would even venture to say the correlation between these traits is weak. << i like stupid people better than a.sholes. but i have met one or two -- no, make it just one -- stupid a.shole on this group... >> Wait until you meet a really smart a.shole. Now that's entertainment! Paul Lutus It would be nice if you were a really smart arsehole, Dork, but alas, you are just an ordinary dumb arsehole. Androcles Vdm. >> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Paul You cannot explain it can you? Does the clock physically change or does something happen to time itself? If so, please provide more details. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Does the clock physically change or does something happen to time itself? No. Paul >>>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >No. .....is that the best an SRian can do.... >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > .....is that the best an SRian can do.... Since you have proven that you are too dumb to understand it, it would be no point in explaining it yet again, would it? Paul B6 Time is absolute, and in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe shows the same time. But they work erratically if there is any change from the free fall. Acceleration affects the function of the atomic clock, and that has been measured in centrifuge. Free fall is the basic state without any acceleration. This is observable with current technology, and the result of the test will invalidate either the relativity theory or this theory of gravity as falling space. http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/ Henry Haapalainen | B6 | Time is absolute, and in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe | shows the same time. Yes indeed, but Phuckwit Duck will disagree. | But they work erratically if there is any change from | the free fall. Nah... Acceleration affects the function of the atomic clock, But I thought you said "When an object falls in a gravity field, it seems to be in accelerating motion. However, this is not so, the acceleration is only apparent." | and | that has been measured in centrifuge. Free fall is the basic state without | any acceleration. Free fall is a state of acceleration, Happy Henry. A centrifuge has opposing forces and objects in the centrifuge do not fly away. You are confusing unopposed force with acceleration, and acceleration is changing velocity as a function of time. You are proven wrong by your own words, Happy Henry. Pay up US $1000. Androcles. >| B6 >| Time is absolute, and in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >You are proven wrong by your own words, Happy Henry. >Pay up US $1000. No, A, listen. This is not as clear cut as you think. It depends whether acceleration is defined as a=F/M or a=dv/dt=d2x/dt2 In the case of an object in free fall towards the Earth, F/M=zero as measured on the object itself. However an observer on the moon would clearly see that dv/dt was increasing. I tend to agree with Henry that all clocks in free fall should read the same. After all, most Henrys are correct most of the time. >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. | >| B6 | >| Time is absolute, and in a free fall every atomic clock of the universe [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] | No, A, listen. This is not as clear cut as you think. | It depends whether acceleration is defined as a=F/M or a=dv/dt=d2x/dt2 I and my car accelerate simultaneously but my mass is different to the car's mass. Hence acceleration is independent of mass and a = d2x/dt2. | In the case of an object in free fall towards the Earth, F/M=zero as measured | on the object itself. So don't use F/M. The command modules of the Apollo missions fell to Earth with the same acceleration as the occupants. Hence acceleration is independent of mass and a = d2x/dt2. | However an observer on the moon would clearly see that dv/dt was increasing. Yep. a=dv/dt. | I tend to agree with Henry that all clocks in free fall should read the same. So do I, but I do not agree that "acceleration is only apparent."(HH) | After all, most Henrys are correct most of the time. He's not really a Henry, he's Dork Van de merde the Norwegian tusselad. Norway is next to Finland and he lives in Belgium, neither of the three of him knows who's who. Only a complete shithead could mistake Phuckwit Duck for me, but at least Phuckwit Duck told him Einstein's third law of motion was Newton's. Happy Henry still owes myself and Phuckwit Duck US$1000 each, and you still owe me three cases of Glenlivet. If you can persuade Dork Van de Haapalainen to pay up I'll waive the three cases as a commission, but his reputation still sucks, as does Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty Ltd. BTW, watch out for those clever software and electronic engineers in India: Skilled Migration Program The Australian Government has responded to industry concerns about skilled job vacancies by announcing that the 2005-2006 Migration Program has been increased to include an additional 20,000 skilled migration places. It is ironic that while Australia is enjoying its longest employment growth in recent history and its lowest unemployment figures for decades, we are facing a critical skill shortage. One company that has continued to grow and which does not appear to suffer from this shortage is AKE Electrical and Data Installations Pty Ltd. http://www.australianbusiness.com.au/ I ain't about to apply, I'm retired. Androcles Van de Wilson. | >Androcles. | | HW. | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | | Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >| >Free fall is a state of acceleration, Happy Henry. A centrifuge has >opposing [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >So don't use F/M. Well I'm not sure.....it does appear that 'free fall' is the 'default normal' state of all matter. >The command modules of the Apollo missions fell to Earth with the same >acceleration as the occupants. >Hence acceleration is independent of mass and a = d2x/dt2. Only wrt a third observer. Acceleration is zero according to the onboard accelerometers. >| However an observer on the moon would clearly see that dv/dt was >increasing. > >Yep. a=dv/dt. Yep...a third observer. >| I tend to agree with Henry that all clocks in free fall should read the >same. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > three cases as a commission, but his reputation still sucks, as does >Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits Pty Ltd. There is nothing wrong with my ellipses and I will sue for defamation if you keep on repeating that lie.... You should see a psychiatrist about your professional jealousy... >BTW, watch out for those clever software and electronic engineers > in India: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > has been increased to include an additional 20,000 skilled migration >places. f.cking OZ goverment is too bloody lazy to educate our local kids. Most of them are braindead from dope anyway and can't learn anything beyond pouring beer. >It is ironic that while Australia is enjoying its longest employment growth >in recent history and its lowest unemployment figures for decades, we are >facing a critical skill shortage. One company that has continued to grow >and which does not appear to suffer from this shortage is AKE Electrical >and Data Installations Pty Ltd. > http://www.australianbusiness.com.au/ Australia is importing people to increase demand then borrowing overseas money to pay their pensions. It's quite common for a migrant family with ten kids to be earning $1000 a week in benefits for doing f.ck all. >I ain't about to apply, I'm retired. I'm f.cking glad I wont be around in fifty years time....all hell is about to break loose.. >Androcles Van de Wilson. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. | >| >Free fall is a state of acceleration, Happy Henry. A centrifuge has | >opposing [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] | Only wrt a third observer. | Acceleration is zero according to the onboard accelerometers. It is still independent of mass. Accelerometers measure force, not acceleration. They are forcemeters. It's kinda like calling a car's dampers "shock absorbers". The tyres and springs absorb shock, not the dampers. The dampers provide friction and are there to prevent oscillation. The heat up, too, as do the tyres. Don't use F/M. | >| However an observer on the moon would clearly see that dv/dt was | >increasing. | > | >Yep. a=dv/dt. | | Yep...a third observer. The first observer sees the Earth accelerating toward him, the second observer see the command module accelerate toward him. The third observer sees the module accelerate away from him. Acceleration is relative. Einstein's "Principle of Equivalence" is bullshit, but then, he always was dickhead. When you feel the thrust of the plane on the runway as it makes it's takeoff roll, plane and passenger are equally accelerated and it isn't gravity doing that, it is force transmitted through the airframe. a=dv/dt. | >| I tend to agree with Henry that all clocks in free fall should read the | >same. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] | keep on repeating that lie.... | You should see a psychiatrist about your professional jealousy... Go ahead, I have this: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/worbit.JPG and I have 3 different revision levels of your program in my Wombat file, Google has archived our conversations. See if you can persuade a judge. You can bluff all you want, Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits suck, it is you that needs a psychiatrist. | >BTW, watch out for those clever software and electronic engineers | > in India: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | It's quite common for a migrant family with ten kids to be earning $1000 a week | in benefits for doing f.ck all. Same here. | >I ain't about to apply, I'm retired. | | I'm f.cking glad I wont be around in fifty years time....all hell is about to | break loose.. Fifty years? More like twenty before Western civilization collapses, the Yanks will be the first to go. They have something everyone wants, and it isn't technology, TV, fridge and car, it is arable land for growing food and already prepared. China and India (and Russia) can create their own technology, the central Asian climate is like the Oz Outback, no good for food and the populations are soaring among the uneducated. The interior of the USA is a breadbasket. The hungry will fight for it. America's wealth is it's food. | >Androcles Van de Wilson. | | HW. | www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm | | Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >| >| In the case of an object in free fall towards the Earth, F/M=zero as >| >measured [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >It is still independent of mass. >Accelerometers measure force, not acceleration. They are forcemeters. This is the problem. An accelerometer in free fall measures zero force. However it is clear that a force is still operating on it because a third observer will see a change in its velocity. The question is, "does an object in free fall down a gravity gradient experience the same downward force as one sitting on a platform at a fixed height? Is the force (of gravity) reduced due to the free movement? Intuitively, one would think YES, but observations of dv/dt suggest otherwise. I think it was this question that confused Einstein and caused him to jump to wrong conclusions. >It's kinda like calling a car's dampers "shock absorbers". The tyres and >springs >absorb shock, not the dampers. The dampers provide friction and are there >to prevent oscillation. The heat up, too, as do the tyres. >Don't use F/M. >| >| However an observer on the moon would clearly see that dv/dt was >| >increasing. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >airframe. >a=dv/dt. ...but not in the frame of the plane...where v is always zero. >| >| I tend to agree with Henry that all clocks in free fall should read the >| >same. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >You can bluff all you want, Wombat's Wobbly Wedge-on Worbits suck, >it is you that needs a psychiatrist. They are very accurate ellipses.. ..planetry ellipses are quite inaccurate in real life, due to the proximity of other objects. Small departures from perfect ellipses make bugger all difference to the brightness curves anyway. >| >BTW, watch out for those clever software and electronic engineers >| > in India: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >are soaring among the uneducated. The interior of the USA is a breadbasket. >The hungry will fight for it. America's wealth is it's food. There might be a war over Oz resources soon too. We have half the world's known uranium reserves. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. | >| >| In the case of an object in free fall towards the Earth, F/M=zero as | >| >measured [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] | This is the problem. | An accelerometer in free fall measures zero force. Right. So the command module and occupants are accelerating toward Earth by a = dx2/dt2 and F/M is irrelevant, the forcemeter reads zero. f.cking simple, nothing to argue over or debate. It's fact. Lay flat on you back in bed at home, the forcemeter reads positive in the z-axis, 0 in the x- and y-axes (and they do, I've worked with them) you are not accelerating up or down or you'd go through the roof or floor. f.cking simple, nothing to argue over or debate. It's fact. An inertial guidance system on a plane (and I've worked on them) integrates (yes, analogue computers integrate) the signal from the forcemeter divided by the calculated mass of the plane as fuel is depleted to give the velocity, that is then integrated to give x,y and z, the plane knows where it is relative to its start point. It's not quite that simple, winds can affect the calculation and the pitot tube http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/pitot.html is used also. The lunar excursion command capsule hasn't got a f.cking clue where it is using aircraft technology. Today, of course, GPS is used, but military planes are still equipped with INS because in the event of a nuclear holocaust with the former USSR the western world anticipates the GPS will be destroyed, Oz and Europe do not have a backup GPS yet and Britain quit rocketry at Woomera a long time ago, too expensive, our women need cosmetics to look good and tattoos are in vogue yet again. | However it is clear that a force is still operating on it because a third | observer will see a change in its velocity. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] | I think it was this question that confused Einstein and caused him to jump to | wrong conclusions. C'mon... this sh.t is so basic and obvious, Einstein was just a dickhead. | >It's kinda like calling a car's dampers "shock absorbers". The tyres and | >springs [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] | | ...but not in the frame of the plane...where v is always zero. Ok, so the runway moves under the plane. That kinda f.cks up F= ma, it takes a lot of force to accelerate the Earth. Actually force is relative too, we intuitively assume the Earth is at rest but it isn't. When a rocket leaves Earth the Earth's orbit changes, but the change is too small to measure. | >| >| I tend to agree with Henry that all clocks in free fall should read the | >| >same. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] | They are very accurate ellipses.. ..planetry ellipses are quite inaccurate in | real life, due to the proximity of other objects. You can waffle all you want, your program is sh.t, you need a trick cyclist. http://tinyurl.com/m25ls | Small departures from perfect ellipses make bugger all difference to the | brightness curves anyway. This what I'm looking for: http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3) It's got TWO curves at the bottom of the loop. I thought you really had it, you came f.cking close with http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rrlyr2.jpg but then you went off on a tangent about Wilson Cool Heavies or some such sh.t to boost your stupid f.cking ego, got into a waste of time argument with that stupid c.nt Andersen and that arsehole Dishwater and the whole thing petered out to nothing. Here you are, jaw-jaw about how f.cking right you think you are and refuse any help, prattling over Newton's laws like a 13-year-old. What you don't realise is that if you do this right you can make a serious contribution to physics and astronomy, but as things are you look like a fuckin' crackpot aetherialist. That's the FUCKIN' DATA. Model it properly, the star is beyond critical distance, you fuckin' deadbeat. You are a fuckin' joke, Wilson, you've have six years in that program and got nowhere past an ordinary cepheid. | >| >BTW, watch out for those clever software and electronic engineers | >| > in India: [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] | There might be a war over Oz resources soon too. We have half the world's known | uranium reserves. I can see these from where I live: http://www.yes2wind.com/nonflash_details.php?Region=South+Coast&SiteId=470 and I like 'em, offshore, silent, little environmental impact, no smoke, no radiation. Welsh mountains are covered with them. Why wind? http://www.yes2wind.com/whywind.html I'm no Greenpeace fanatic, but wind, wave, hydroelectric makes sense. Where you are, sunlight. All your energy needs for your house falls on its roof, add a battery for night time use, charge in daylight and you are all set. Same with your car. f.ck the uranium, f.ck the oil, f.ck the gas, leave it all in the ground. Chernobyl was pretty bad. Androcles. >| Small departures from perfect ellipses make bugger all difference to the >| brightness curves anyway. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > you've have six years in that program and got nowhere past an ordinary > cepheid. Don't continue this defamatory attitude. My program is very comprehensive and can simulate any situation. >| >| >I ain't about to apply, I'm retired. >| >| [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >| >already >| >prepared. But they soon wont have the oil needed to produce and distribute the food. >| >China and India (and Russia) can create their own technology, the central >| >Asian climate is like the Oz Outback, no good for food and the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >and I like 'em, offshore, silent, little environmental impact, no smoke, no >radiation. They are all the wrong design. Most of the wind goes straight through. f.cking engineers are useless. They should be more like conventional windmills. >Welsh mountains are covered with them. > Why wind? So we can kill more migrating birds? > http://www.yes2wind.com/whywind.html >I'm no Greenpeace fanatic, but wind, wave, hydroelectric makes sense. >Where you are, sunlight. All your energy needs for your house falls on its >roof, >add a battery for night time use, charge in daylight and you are all set. Pure Silicon is hard to get. >Same with >your car. f.ck the uranium, f.ck the oil, f.ck the gas, leave it all in the >ground. >Chernobyl was pretty bad. nevertheless, any form of energy source will be used when the crunch really hits. We can burn all those economics books right now. Capitalism cannot work without infinite energy. If there is not even enough energy to produce food for the world population, how will the rich people fuel their cars? >Androcles. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. | >| Small departures from perfect ellipses make bugger all difference to the | >| brightness curves anyway. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] | | Don't continue this defamatory attitude. c.nt. f.cking moron. Idiot. Arsehole. Jerk. Imbecile. Abo. | My program is very comprehensive and can simulate any situation. In your dreams. | >| >| >I ain't about to apply, I'm retired. | >| >| [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] | > | >I can see these from where I live: http://www.yes2wind.com/nonflash_details.php?Region=South+Coast&SiteId=470 | >and I like 'em, offshore, silent, little environmental impact, no smoke, no | >radiation. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] | | Pure Silicon is hard to get. Burn idiots instead, Oz is full of them. | >Same with | >your car. f.ck the uranium, f.ck the oil, f.ck the gas, leave it all in the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>>> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>>> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >Since you have proven that you are too dumb to understand it, >it would be no point in explaining it yet again, would it? What's this 'again' business? You have never explained it satisfactorily. You claim that the clock retains its 'proper' rate but that the duration of time in 'one second' varies with gravity. Can you enlarge on that please? >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>>>> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>>>> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You claim that the clock retains its 'proper' rate but that the duration of > time in 'one second' varies with gravity. See? :-) > Can you enlarge on that please? Since you yet again have proven that you are too dumb to understand what I say, it would be no point in repeating it yet again, would it? Paul >>>>>>>> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>>>>> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >Since you yet again have proven that you are too dumb to understand >what I say, it would be no point in repeating it yet again, would it? I take that to mean that whenever you try to jot down a likely GRian explanation, it appears so stupid you aren't game to publish it here. >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>>>>>> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>>>>>> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >>> Can you enlarge on that please? >> Since you yet again have proven that you are too dumb to understand >> what I say, it would be no point in repeating it yet again, would it? > > I take that to mean that whenever you try to jot down a likely GRian > explanation, it appears so stupid you aren't game to publish it here. Thanks for confirming that you are to dumb to take my words to mean what they say. Paul >>>> Can you enlarge on that please? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Thanks for confirming that you are to dumb to >take my words to mean what they say. What exactly WERE those words? I think you might be imagining them. >Paul HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They > seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks > to appear to run fast when seen from Earth. > > Could one of the experts from the lunatic fringe please explain this process in > greater detail. There are aspects of it that are a little hard to follow. Just look into the google archives where Minor Crank spent weeks explaining the intricate details of GPS to you. That way we can skip the step of teaching you anything and get straight to the part where you ignore what you are told. > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They > seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. Your guess is probably as good as anyone else's, but in general, the acquisition of energy, kinetic or gravitational, causes things to slow down (and also to increase in mass, although physicists currently think that only applies to kinetic energy). Raise an object in a gravitational field, it now has less gravitational energy, so it runs faster. You see the same thing in an accelerating spaceship. Objects in the top are in a region of lower energy, with slight less velocity than objects in the bottom (the slow length contraction of the spaceship causes objects in the top to have slightly less velocity than objects in the bottom). Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. Why does the acquisition of kinetic energy cause objects to slow down? Like I said, your guess is as good as anyone's, although I think Lorentz actually had an explanation for this, causing him to correctly predict that even the direct use of clocks to measure c would fail to measure the Earth's absolute velocity. Phil >> Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >> seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >bottom (the slow length contraction of the spaceship causes objects in >the top to have slightly less velocity than objects in the bottom). Only during the initial compression process. After that, all parts of the ship move at the same speed, (assuming constant aceleration). >Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. No they don't. >Why does the acquisition of kinetic energy cause objects to slow down? It doesn't... >Like I said, your guess is as good as anyone's, although I think Lorentz >actually had an explanation for this, causing him to correctly predict >that even the direct use of clocks to measure c would fail to measure >the Earth's absolute velocity. > >Phil HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Only during the initial compression process. After that, all parts of the ship > move at the same speed, (assuming constant aceleration). Nope. Here's a way to look at the situation that makes it easy to see the answer. Take a spaceship that is descending toward observer A on a planet at high speed. To make a landing, instead of crashing, the spaceship begins to decelerate, at a rate that will cause it to stop at the moment it lands just above A (who is safely just below the surface where the spaceship will land). If the spaceship continues to operate its engines -- to accelerate -- then it will "reverse course," and begin to ascend. However, the acceleration is constant, so there is no "initial compression" at the moment it (briefly) touched down. At that moment, its length is, say, 1,000 m. When it reaches 0.6 c, its length is about 800 m. Therefore, the top of the spaceship had a slight "rearward" motion relative to the bottom as seen by A. This slight rearward motion is WHY objects in the top of the spaceship have a faster time-rate than objects in the bottom. In keeping with the equivalence principle, we expect objects lower in a gravitational field to also have a slower time-rate, which of course the various gravitational experiments, especially Pound-Rebka, have proven is the case. As a side note, the variation of velocity along the spaceship means that when the bottom reaches 0.6c, the length is actually just over 800 m. If the bottom stops accelerating at 0.6c, the rest of the spaceship will soon "catch up," causing the rest of the spaceship to also move at 0.6c, and the final length to be exactly 800 m. Remember Henry, I'm not one of the rabid defenders of relativity. Just the truth. >>Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. > > No they don't. Yes they do, and I hope this allows you to see for yourself that this is the case. >>Why does the acquisition of kinetic energy cause objects to slow down? > > It doesn't... Well, the motion of particles in a circular track certainly proves that the acquisition of kinetic energy is at least *correlated* with a drop in time-rate. It was wrong of me to say that it *causes* the drop. Phil >>Like I said, your guess is as good as anyone's, although I think Lorentz >>actually had an explanation for this, causing him to correctly predict [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > >>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They > >>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Remember Henry, I'm not one of the rabid defenders of relativity. Just > the truth. I ?think? that might be the truth but it sure is a lot of words just to say the gravity of a planet bleeds energy from the moving mass in an iron crystal or a cesium atom. :o) Sue... > >>Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Sue... It was an attempt to provide a proof, as opposed to merely "saying" that objects in a gravitational field have slower time-rates than objects outside the field, to show *why* we believe that! It didn't work, for reasons I don't yet understand, but ... By the way, what do you mean by "the gravity of a planet bleeds energy from the moving mass in an iron crystal or a cesium atom."? Phil >>>>Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >>> >>>Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > >>>>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They > >>>>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > By the way, what do you mean by "the gravity of a planet bleeds energy > from the moving mass in an iron crystal or a cesium atom."? Atoms have masses in motion. The same coupling that pulls the atom toward out planet, also serves as a path for the atom's parts to exert little tugs attempting to pull the planet up. (So far, the planet has won every one of these tugs of war.) :-) Most of the coupling balances out due to the symetry of the atomic structure and the use of the Cesium hyper-fine transition offers a bit more isolation. Still... that is a function of the mass of the proton and electron. The first URL below has examples of both free and torsion pendulums which you can regard as a worst case example. Swiss cukcoo clock makers have advised for centuries that the pendulum would have to be much longer to work on a GPS SV instead of an Alpine peak. :o) << In terms of energy, all systems have two types of energy, potential energy and kinetic energy. When a spring is stretched or compressed, it stores elastic potential energy, which then is transferred into kinetic energy. The potential energy within a spring is determined by the equation... >> : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_harmonic_oscillator The SUMO clock was to provide a massless test of LPI but cavity and orbiter problems have probably doomed its launch. I believe links to similar work in France and Japan are in some of these pages: http://bigben.stanford.edu/sumo/status.htm Sue... > Phil > > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >>> > >>>Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >moment, its length is, say, 1,000 m. When it reaches 0.6 c, its length >is about 800 m. You're talking EINSTEINIAN CRAP. I'm not interested in that. >Therefore, the top of the spaceship had a slight >"rearward" motion relative to the bottom as seen by A. This slight [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Remember Henry, I'm not one of the rabid defenders of relativity. Just >the truth. The length of the spaceship doesn't change. >>>Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. >> >> No they don't. > >Yes they do, and I hope this allows you to see for yourself that this is >the case. You are just a brainwashed SRian... >>>Why does the acquisition of kinetic energy cause objects to slow down? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the acquisition of kinetic energy is at least *correlated* with a drop >in time-rate. It was wrong of me to say that it *causes* the drop. Absolute nonsense. >Phil >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>>>Relativists claim that GPS clock remain unchanged when sent into orbit. They >>>>>seem to think that something happens to TIME itself and this causes the clocks [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > The length of the spaceship doesn't change. I'm confused Henri. Lorentz concluded years before Einstein and relativity that an object moving through the ether/medium of space undergoes a length contraction. (he later explained this using the basic facts of electron physics). I thought that you believed in Lorentz's conclusions, but not Einstein's additions/reinterpretations of the same. Since when did you stop believing that absolute velocity has no effect on an object's length? My analysis above is quite consistent with Lorentz's scientific conclusions concerniong length and also time-rate, so objects in the bottom of an accelerating spaceship have a slower time-rate according to Lorentz! Do you disagree with that? Now, to conclude from this that objects deep in a gravitational field also have a slower time-rate, you need to believe in Einstein's equivalence principle, and there we may disagree. However, I am quite surprised to hear that you *may* disagree with the concept of length contraction. Maybe you just disagree with Einstein's version of it? Phil >>>>Therefore, objects in the top run/live faster than objects in the bottom. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. | My analysis above is quite consistent with | Lorentz's scientific conclusions concerniong length and also time-rate, | so objects in the bottom of an accelerating spaceship have a slower | time-rate according to Lorentz! Do you disagree with that? Yes. Androcles. >>>Therefore, the top of the spaceship had a slight >>>"rearward" motion relative to the bottom as seen by A. This slight [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >facts of electron physics). I thought that you believed in Lorentz's >conclusions, but not Einstein's additions/reinterpretations of the same. Don't misrepresent me please. I am a proponent of the ballistic theory of light and a true relativist. There is no aether. There are NO LTs. Time 'instant' is universal. Rod lengths define absolute intervals of space. >Since when did you stop believing that absolute velocity has no effect >on an object's length? When I was 5 yo. Velocity is relative. >My analysis above is quite consistent with >Lorentz's scientific conclusions concerniong length and also time-rate, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >hear that you *may* disagree with the concept of length contraction. >Maybe you just disagree with Einstein's version of it? Please restrict you messages to threads started by Seto in future. He might even agree with you occasionally. As far as I'm concerned, you are talking plain nonsnese. >Phil HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. [snip] >>>The length of the spaceship doesn't change. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Please restrict you messages to threads started by Seto in future. He might > even agree with you occasionally. Snot. I.e., it's more than a little arrogant to tell other people, who have NEVER attacked you personally, who they may talk to; the shitheads here do that. I at least *used* to expect, and got, better from you. > As far as I'm concerned, you are talking plain nonsnese. Okay, I'll bite once more. The usual explanation for the MM experiment's null result is that the arm moving in the same direction as observer A conducting the experiment, as seen by another inertial observer B, undergoes length contraction, thereby making it possible for light, which according to B is moving at a constant velocity c relative to B's frame of reference, not A's, to take an equal time to traverse both paths. The explanation certainly works, although any of the 6 various explanations for the dinosaurs' demise also work, so the fact that length contraction *explains* the MM null result does not, by itself, prove that the effect actually exists. What do you think is the real reason for the MM null result, if it's not length contraction? Phil >>Phil > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >prove that the effect actually exists. What do you think is the real >reason for the MM null result, if it's not length contraction? Light speed is source dependent. That is, it moves at c wrt its source and everything at rest wrt the source. You are just following the standard aether line. There is NO aether. >>>Phil >> >> HW. >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>[snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > You are just following the standard aether line. > There is NO aether. That "standard" ether line is not that easy to get rid of. How do explain the fact that a vacuum has a characteristic impedance, which antennas must be tuned to in order to transmit? Or its dielectric constant, which stores the energy of a capacitor? Binary star systems do NOT appear to speed up and slow down; surely you don't think that the photons emmitted by the star "adjust" their speed to that of the observer who will eventually see them. Light definitely travels at a constant velocity, c, which is independent of the source, meaning that light emmitted from the two stars, one moving toward us, the other away, will reach us at the same time (although their frequencies will be Doppler shifted). That's an observable FACT, which must apply to the MM experiment, unless you think the laws of physics vary with location. Oh well, why am I wasting my time? You appear to be as uninterested in FACTS as are the relativists. I like people who think independently, and don't just accept the standard line/lies, but you can't just make up stuff! If you're going to move closer to the truth than today's scientists, then you have to do what they sometimes do not do, namely take reality and facts into consideration, and then apply top-notch thinking to those facts, regardless of whether the conclusions agree with your pet theories or not. Today's scientists (and nutballs) look for "evidence to support their theories." That's stupid. What true thinkers look for are those factors that can be used by mere humans to PROVE what the answer actually is, regardless of what anyone currently merely believes the answer is! That's true science, everything else is bullshit. The stars in a binary star system do NOT appear to speed up and slow down? Then light's velocity is independent of its source, period, no debate, no possible argument, get the f.ck over it. Does that mean the relativists are right? Nope. They claim so, but some of their "conclusions" do not, logically speaking, follow from their premises. Phil >>>>Phil >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >>>Okay, I'll bite once more. The usual explanation for the MM experiment's >>>null result is that the arm moving in the same direction as observer A [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >antennas must be tuned to in order to transmit? Or its dielectric >constant, which stores the energy of a capacitor? If an experiment could be carried out to measure the impedance of completely empty space, the answer would probably be 'infinity'. The process of measuring renders that space 'NOT EMPTY'. ...of fields. What fields are nobody knows but their presence certainly makes space that is totally void of matter have certain properties. I would like to know the difference between 'empty space with NO fields' and empty space WITH fields'... >Binary star systems do >NOT appear to speed up and slow down; You must be new to this group. Otherwise you would know that I have produced many variable star brightness curves using c+v instead of c. >surely you don't think that the >photons emmitted by the star "adjust" their speed to that of the >observer who will eventually see them. Are you trying to deliberately annoy me? Only relativists believe that all starlight in the universe is adjusted so that it travels to little planet Earth at prcisely c. >Light definitely travels at a >constant velocity, c, which is independent of the source, meaning that >light emmitted from the two stars, one moving toward us, the other away, >will reach us at the same time (although their frequencies will be >Doppler shifted). That's an observable FACT, which must apply to the MM >experiment, unless you think the laws of physics vary with location. That is crap and is NOT an observable fact. If you want to know why variable stars vary run my Vbasic simulation programs. They show clearly how most star brightness curves are producable purely using c+v as the star orbits another body. See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg for some examples. You can run my very comprehensive program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe if you want to produce your own curves. >Oh well, why am I wasting my time? You appear to be as uninterested in >FACTS as are the relativists. You are obviously not aware of past conversations on this NG. My H-aether theory broady explains what happens to starlight. It starts out at c wrt its source......and that includes molecuar source speeds. Is it travels through space, its speed is modified due to a number of factors. Consequently, the speed of all light traveling in any one direction tends to becomoe unified. Speed however, must be specified relative to something. In the case of starlight there are only two relevant reference objects, the source and the ultimate target. Its speed is initially c wrt its source but that figure might be considerably different by the time it reaches its target. The speed relative to the target can have values very different from c. From studying variable star curves, I have good reason to believe that light from orbiting binaries tends to become unified over quite short distances, maybe 30 LYs....but this can vary widely, probably depending on what lies ion the space through which that starlight travels. My H-aether must not be confused with a general absolute EM frame of reference. Light speed is not governed rigidly in my theory, as it does in your aether, which you seem to believe exists...although I agree that the idea of a 'frame of background stars' is not without merit. I also think that the whole universe may be likened to a very low density, turbulent gas and that light experiences small speed changes every time it traverses significant pockets of this swirling 'material'. .. By material I mean matter.....and fields... >I like people who think independently, and >don't just accept the standard line/lies, but you can't just make up [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >PROVE what the answer actually is, regardless of what anyone currently >merely believes the answer is! You don't have the answers. At least I have some....ie, I know that variable star brightness curves can be produced solely on BaTh principles. If you want to resolve the issue then get Nasa to perform my 'moon relay' experiment, which is the only known practical way to compare OWLS from differently moving sources. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg >That's true science, everything else is >bullshit. The stars in a binary star system do NOT appear to speed up >and slow down? You're up yourself, mate. Their curves exactly match the c+v predictions. Run my program and see for yourself. It allows all the important variables to be changed easily. >Then light's velocity is independent of its source, >period, no debate, no possible argument, get the f.ck over it. Does that >mean the relativists are right? Nope. They claim so, but some of their >"conclusions" do not, logically speaking, follow from their premises. Light moves at c wrt its source. It moves at c+v wrt another object. Get used to it. >Phil HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > >>>Okay, I'll bite once more. The usual explanation for the MM experiment's > >>>null result is that the arm moving in the same direction as observer A [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > totally void of matter have certain properties. I would like to know the > difference between 'empty space with NO fields' and empty space WITH fields'... That is interesting. I think that we need some new words. But I am not an exspert of English. Henry Haapalainen > >>>Okay, I'll bite once more. The usual explanation for the MM experiment's > >>>null result is that the arm moving in the same direction as observer A [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > totally void of matter have certain properties. I would like to know the > difference between 'empty space with NO fields' and empty space WITH fields'... *Free space* is the term normally used to describe the 377 ohms we measure anywhere from air at sea level to the sparcest intersteller medium of 1 atom per cubic centimeter. > >Binary star systems do > >NOT appear to speed up and slow down; [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Only relativists believe that all starlight in the universe is adjusted so that > it travels to little planet Earth at prcisely c. Plasma physicist's believe it too. << It is sometimes remarked that 95% (or 99%, depending on whom you are trying to impress) of the Universe consists of plasma. This statement has the double merit of being extremely flattering to plasma physics, and quite impossible to disprove (or verify). Nevertheless, it is worth pointing out the prevalence of the plasma state. >> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node3.html > >Light definitely travels at a > >constant velocity, c, which is independent of the source, meaning that [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > They show clearly how most star brightness curves are producable purely using > c+v as the star orbits another body. Henri, Your propagation model requires you show us light electrons or super Coulomb coupling. http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html > See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg for some examples. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > speeds. > Is it travels through space, its speed is modified due to a number of factors. Permeability and permittivity of the region is normally used. > Consequently, the speed of all light traveling in any one direction tends to > becomoe unified. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be considerably different by the time it reaches its target. The speed relative > to the target can have values very different from c. Right... tell the judge you were measuring your speed relative to to a race car in Honolulu and see if you can get out of a speeding citiation. > From studying variable star curves, I have good reason to believe that light > from orbiting binaries tends to become unified over quite short distances, > maybe 30 LYs....but this can vary widely, probably depending on what lies ion > the space through which that starlight travels. Hydrogen gas at 377 ohms is a pretty good bet. > My H-aether must not be confused with a general absolute EM frame of reference. > Light speed is not governed rigidly in my theory, as it does in your aether, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > swirling 'material'. .. > By material I mean matter.....and fields... Light experiences speed changes when eps and mu change. http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html > >I like people who think independently, and > >don't just accept the standard line/lies, but you can't just make up [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > experiment, which is the only known practical way to compare OWLS from > differently moving sources. NASA is likely using Sagnac flowmeters in some of their equipment because they already know the results. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Their curves exactly match the c+v predictions. Two bits under your pillow exactly matches the 'tooth fairy' story. You would probaby build a trap to catch one before looking for a hole in your purse. > Run my program and see for yourself. It allows all the important variables to > be changed easily. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Light moves at c wrt its source. It moves at c+v wrt another object. Get used > to it. Golly-Wally! We bettah see if we can get this rubbish off the web! http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html :o) Sue... > >Phil > > HW. > www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. >> >>>Okay, I'll bite once more. The usual explanation for the MM experiment's >> >>>null result is that the arm moving in the same direction as observer A [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >we measure anywhere from air at sea level to the sparcest intersteller >medium of 1 atom per cubic centimeter. What is measured is a property of the measuring apparatus. The act of measuring changes the properties of space. >> Are you trying to deliberately annoy me? >> Only relativists believe that all starlight in the universe is adjusted so that >> it travels to little planet Earth at prcisely c. > >Plasma physicist's believe it too. They can beleive it if they want to keep on deluding themselves ...but they have no evidence that it is true. There is plenty of evidence that it is NOT true. ><< It is sometimes remarked that 95% (or 99%, depending >on whom you are trying to impress) of the Universe consists [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >of the plasma state. >> >http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node3.html Maybe you haven't been paying attention to my messages. Haven't you heard of the Wilson Densty Threshold, below which light behaves 100% ballistically? Light entering pockets of space above that, will have its speed varied accordingly...but usually by only very small amounts. ..and 'density' doesn't just refer to matter. >> >Light definitely travels at a >> >constant velocity, c, which is independent of the source, meaning that [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif >http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html Below the W.D.T. light has to rely on its own 'fields' for self-propagation. >> See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg for some examples. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Permeability and permittivity of the region is normally used. They are both zero below the WDT. They cannot be measured. >> Consequently, the speed of all light traveling in any one direction tends to >> becomoe unified. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >to a race car in Honolulu and see if you can get out of a speeding >citiation. Don't try to be funny. >> From studying variable star curves, I have good reason to believe that light >> from orbiting binaries tends to become unified over quite short distances, >> maybe 30 LYs....but this can vary widely, probably depending on what lies ion >> the space through which that starlight travels. > >Hydrogen gas at 377 ohms is a pretty good bet. How do you know if differently moving apparatus get the same 377 ohms? >> My H-aether must not be confused with a general absolute EM frame of reference. >> Light speed is not governed rigidly in my theory, as it does in your aether, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Light experiences speed changes when eps and mu change. According to normal extinction rules. Deep space isn't like that. >http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif >http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] >story. You would probaby build a trap to catch one before >looking for a hole in your purse. Have a look at them for yourself. Most variable star curves match BaTh predictions exactly. Cepheids, 'eclipsing binaries', 'flare stars', Miras and even gravitational lensing are just a result of light leaving an orbiting source at c and traveling to Earth at c+v for at least part of its journey., >> >Then light's velocity is independent of its source, >> >period, no debate, no possible argument, get the f.ck over it. Does that [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Golly-Wally! We bettah see if we can get this rubbish off the web! >http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Ewald-OseenExtinctionTheorem.html That's OK. No worries at all. Light travels like a wave in a medium. It travels ballistically in empty space. >:o) > >Sue... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > >> >>>Okay, I'll bite once more. The usual explanation for the MM experiment's > >> >>>null result is that the arm moving in the same direction as observer A [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > The act of measuring changes the properties of space. Change the gas in a waveguide; The elecrical length changes. You think perhaps the gas sneaks into the test equiment? > >> Are you trying to deliberately annoy me? > >> Only relativists believe that all starlight in the universe is adjusted so that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They can beleive it if they want to keep on deluding themselves ...but they > have no evidence that it is true. > There is plenty of evidence that it is NOT true. What evidence can you offer. (Your obtruse speculaton about a distant binary in not evidence ) > ><< It is sometimes remarked that 95% (or 99%, depending > >on whom you are trying to impress) of the Universe consists [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Haven't you heard of the Wilson Densty Threshold, below which light behaves > 100% ballistically? Indeed... I seldom pay attention to your messages. > Light entering pockets of space above that, will have its speed varied > accordingly...but usually by only very small amounts. > > ..and 'density' doesn't just refer to matter. Pockets of space ? I didn't even realise space had things to carry and assumed it would have no use for pockets. > >> >Light definitely travels at a > >> >constant velocity, c, which is independent of the source, meaning that [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Below the W.D.T. light has to rely on its own 'fields' for self-propagation. Why doesn't it just reflect back to the source like all other EM discontinuities that we observe ? > >> See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg for some examples. > >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > They are both zero below the WDT. > They cannot be measured. Then light doesn't propagate. Which explains why the whole notion exist only between your ears. > >> Consequently, the speed of all light traveling in any one direction tends to > >> becomoe unified. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Don't try to be funny. No jest intended. The argument you offered reduces to exactly that kind of foolish logic. > >> From studying variable star curves, I have good reason to believe that light > >> from orbiting binaries tends to become unified over quite short distances, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How do you know if differently moving apparatus get the same 377 ohms? I don't know, but synchroton radiation probably offers a clue because the radiation pattern is directed forward. If your notions involve matter moving at near luminal speeds wrt local matter it is something you might want to look into. ;-) > >> My H-aether must not be confused with a general absolute EM frame of reference. > >> Light speed is not governed rigidly in my theory, as it does in your aether, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > According to normal extinction rules. > Deep space isn't like that. Do we have the Henri Wilson equations as a replacement for Maxwell's equations so that we might understand how this strange 'pocketed' space behaves? > >http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif > >http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > Most variable star curves match BaTh predictions exactly. The inside of my pockets match Bill Gates pockets exactly too but I assure you he gets better service in a department store than I do. > Cepheids, 'eclipsing binaries', 'flare stars', Miras and even gravitational > lensing are just a result of light leaving an orbiting source at c and > traveling to Earth at c+v for at least part of its journey., If you could show that part of the journey is in a dielectric clould swept along by the emitter then the Ewald extinction is not violated. That is not a case for particle or ballistic propagation of light and it may be quite a tall order for the emitters to trap and move such a large volume of gas. If the emitters were moving a tail of gas, like a comet, in and out of the light path that might account for a slowed path for part of the cycle. > >> >Then light's velocity is independent of its source, > >> >period, no debate, no possible argument, get the f.ck over it. Does that [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Light travels like a wave in a medium. > It travels ballistically in empty space. ...and it wears wrist watches and carries magnetic monopoles in it pockets so it can fool interferrometers into fooling the scientists into believing they don't see what they really see. :o) Sue... > >:o) > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. | Indeed... I seldom pay attention to your messages. Nor I yours, shithead. Androcles. >> > *Free space* is the term normally used to describe the 377 ohms >> >we measure anywhere from air at sea level to the sparcest intersteller [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Change the gas in a waveguide; The elecrical length changes. >You think perhaps the gas sneaks into the test equiment? Irrelevant , as your messages usually are. >> >> Are you trying to deliberately annoy me? >> >> Only relativists believe that all starlight in the universe is adjusted so that [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >What evidence can you offer. (Your obtruse speculaton >about a distant binary in not evidence ) Certainly ONE binary wouldn't be rtegared as sound evidence BUT WHEN HUNDREDS OF VARIABLE STAR BRIGHTNESS CURVES MATCH THE BATH PREDICTIONS THEN I THINK WE MIGHT BE ON TO SOMETHING WORTHWHILE, DON'T YOU? After all, until very recently, variable stars have been the only practical source of c+v light. But that's probably too hard for a mere female... >> ><< It is sometimes remarked that 95% (or 99%, depending >> >on whom you are trying to impress) of the Universe consists [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Indeed... I seldom pay attention to your messages. Nor I to yours. They usually have nought to do with the topic under discussion. Besides, you are a hardcore aetherist...and there is NO aether. >> Light entering pockets of space above that, will have its speed varied >> accordingly...but usually by only very small amounts. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >things to carry and assumed it would have no use for >pockets. Look up the hubble images and you might see some examples of non-homogeneous space. >> >> That is crap and is NOT an observable fact. >> >> If you want to know why variable stars vary run my Vbasic simulation programs. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Why doesn't it just reflect back to the source like all other >EM discontinuities that we observe ? Reflect off what? There ain't nothing there....silly little girl. >> >Permeability and permittivity of the region is normally used. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Then light doesn't propagate. Which explains why the whole >notion exist only between your ears. Consider what happens when a single photon is emitted by the only atom in a vast region of space. Do you think it obeys the inverse square law? Sorry. That's far too hard for you..... >> >> From studying variable star curves, I have good reason to believe that light >> >> from orbiting binaries tends to become unified over quite short distances, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >speeds wrt local matter it is something you might >want to look into. ;-) Irrelevant as usual. >> >Light experiences speed changes when eps and mu change. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Maxwell's equations so that we might understand how this >strange 'pocketed' space behaves? Maxwell's equations apply only in a dielectric medium only. That's definitly too hard for you... >> Have a look at them for yourself. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >too but I assure you he gets better service in a department store >than I do. Trying to be funny again....? Give up, it doesn't work >> Cepheids, 'eclipsing binaries', 'flare stars', Miras and even gravitational >> lensing are just a result of light leaving an orbiting source at c and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >swept along by the emitter then the Ewald extinction is not >violated. Ewald extinction? That's a big expression for a little girl.... >That is not a case for particle or ballistic propagation >of light and it may be quite a tall order for the emitters to trap >and move such a large volume of gas. Most gas in space is so rare that it barely affects light speed. >If the emitters were moving a tail of gas, like a comet, in >and out of the light path that might account for a slowed >path for part of the cycle. Light might speed up when it encounters a gas pocket, not slow down. >> >> Light moves at c wrt its source. It moves at c+v wrt another object. Get used >> >> to it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >in it pockets so it can fool interferrometers into fooling the >scientists into believing they don't see what they really see. :o) I doubt if you have any theory that explains why IR and RF appear to be electromagnetic in nature. Explain the difference between a ULF signal and a gamma 'particle' if you're so bloody smart... >Sue... HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. > >> > *Free space* is the term normally used to describe the 377 ohms > >> >we measure anywhere from air at sea level to the sparcest intersteller [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Irrelevant , as your messages usually are. Your comprehension of the subject is duly noted. > >> >> Are you trying to deliberately annoy me? > >> >> Only relativists believe that all starlight in the universe is adjusted so that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > But that's probably too hard for a mere female... The traditional 'relativist' nod of agreement is duly noted. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message