Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #375061 > unrolled thread

Why Are Direct OWLS Experiment Using a Moving Source Not Being Performed?

Started by	Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com>
First post	2016-01-28 18:50 +0000
Last post	2016-01-30 17:53 -0600
Articles	20 on this page of 70 — 13 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →

#375061 — Why Are Direct OWLS Experiment Using a Moving Source Not Being Performed?

From	Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com>
Date	2016-01-28 18:50 +0000
Subject	Why Are Direct OWLS Experiment Using a Moving Source Not Being Performed?
Message-ID	<n8dntk$1q0d$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly 
OWLS comparisons. 
There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved 
in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#375091

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-28 17:48 -0800
Message-ID	<7aac7240-9ca3-4c15-b506-e8265e83e0f0@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375061

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 12:50:33 PM UTC-6, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly 
> OWLS comparisons. 
> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved 
> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.

I'm starting to wonder why myself.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375099

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-01-29 15:05 +1100
Message-ID	<dh06ntFdqlfU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#375061

On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> OWLS comparisons.
> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
>

You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375101

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-28 21:11 -0800
Message-ID	<efd0ef3a-31b5-49d2-ab67-d0dea3d8fe87@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375099

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> > OWLS comparisons.
> > There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> > in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> >
> 
> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> 
> Sylvia.

I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375102

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-01-29 16:15 +1100
Message-ID	<dh0arlFem49U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#375101

On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
>>> OWLS comparisons.
>>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
>>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
>>>
>>
>> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
>

In your head doesn't count.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375104

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-28 21:20 -0800
Message-ID	<5e275dbb-421f-4c50-9c54-904f7c5a423e@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375102

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> >>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> >>> OWLS comparisons.
> >>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> >>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> >>>
> >>
> >> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
> >
> 
> In your head doesn't count.
> 
> Sylvia.

It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375105

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-28 21:23 -0800
Message-ID	<9bbf86df-0b02-44d8-af57-11b0a62bd145@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375104

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:21:01 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> > >>> OWLS comparisons.
> > >>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> > >>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> > >
> > > I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
> > >
> > 
> > In your head doesn't count.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.

Thoughts and ideas are meant to be bounced off other minds. If nobody responds, it means there is no echo.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375106

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-28 21:27 -0800
Message-ID	<b4803d36-e857-4357-a753-7ca91fbe60e6@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375105

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:23:25 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:21:01 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > >> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > >>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> > > >>> OWLS comparisons.
> > > >>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> > > >>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> > > >>
> > > >> Sylvia.
> > > >
> > > > I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
> > > >
> > > 
> > > In your head doesn't count.
> > > 
> > > Sylvia.
> > 
> > It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.
> 
> Thoughts and ideas are meant to be bounced off other minds. If nobody responds, it means there is no echo.

Henry, maybe you are my echo- maybe Sylvia too.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375107

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-28 21:29 -0800
Message-ID	<bb30ed9a-9045-4f91-9350-b85046898d40@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375106

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:27:26 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:23:25 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:21:01 PM UTC-6, John Gogo wrote:
> > > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > > > >> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > > > >>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> > > > >>> OWLS comparisons.
> > > > >>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> > > > >>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Sylvia.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
> > > > >
> > > > 
> > > > In your head doesn't count.
> > > > 
> > > > Sylvia.
> > > 
> > > It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.
> > 
> > Thoughts and ideas are meant to be bounced off other minds. If nobody responds, it means there is no echo.
> 
> Henry, maybe you are my echo- maybe Sylvia too.

Maybe Tom too but he would never admit it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375108

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-01-29 16:33 +1100
Message-ID	<dh0bu7Feu6jU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#375104

On 29/01/2016 4:20 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
>>>>> OWLS comparisons.
>>>>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
>>>>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
>>>
>>
>> In your head doesn't count.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.
>

Light emitted from a moving source either moves at speed c relative to 
an observer, or it doesn't. Real experiments would indicate which.

To do an experiment in your head, you'd have to choose. The result would 
tell you nothing about the real world.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375201

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-29 20:57 -0800
Message-ID	<de132b75-6828-4c54-ac33-d1a546c6e925@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375108

On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:34:02 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 29/01/2016 4:20 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> >>>>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> >>>>> OWLS comparisons.
> >>>>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> >>>>> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow the recipe.
> >>>
> >>
> >> In your head doesn't count.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.
> >
> 
> Light emitted from a moving source either moves at speed c relative to 
> an observer, or it doesn't. Real experiments would indicate which.
> 
> To do an experiment in your head, you'd have to choose. The result would 
> tell you nothing about the real world.
> 
> Sylvia.

I believe that light doesn't but EMR does.  You believe that sight is part EMR. But sight, light does not contain a velocity. C, the speed of light, only comes into the scenario scientifically, when we are dealing with TWO-WAY measures. All of the literature says this. Modern science does not deal with sight/light. Instead, it primarily deals with light rays and mirrors which are "contained"- so that the distances inside these containers are capable of measuring a quantity- a limit. More importantly, man needed a measure which could be defined outside of nature- irregardless of nature..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375211

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date	2016-01-30 22:10 +1100
Message-ID	<dh3k0oF98ofU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#375201

On 30/01/2016 3:57 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:34:02 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else
> wrote:
>> On 29/01/2016 4:20 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia
>>>>> Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now
>>>>>>> possible, particularly OWLS comparisons. There can only
>>>>>>> be one answer. The whole physics establishment is
>>>>>>> involved in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of
>>>>>>> the hoaxer Einstein.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow
>>>>> the recipe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In your head doesn't count.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.
>>>
>>
>> Light emitted from a moving source either moves at speed c relative
>> to an observer, or it doesn't. Real experiments would indicate
>> which.
>>
>> To do an experiment in your head, you'd have to choose. The result
>> would tell you nothing about the real world.
>>
>> Sylvia.
>
> I believe that light doesn't but EMR does.  You believe that sight is
> part EMR. But sight, light does not contain a velocity. C, the speed
> of light, only comes into the scenario scientifically, when we are
> dealing with TWO-WAY measures. All of the literature says this.
> Modern science does not deal with sight/light. Instead, it primarily
> deals with light rays and mirrors which are "contained"- so that the
> distances inside these containers are capable of measuring a
> quantity- a limit. More importantly, man needed a measure which could
> be defined outside of nature- irregardless of nature..
>

All of which is entirely beside the point.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375280

From	John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-30 20:31 -0800
Message-ID	<4379651a-c131-4c5a-b01e-82e451286fdf@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375211

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 5:10:20 AM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 30/01/2016 3:57 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:34:02 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else
> > wrote:
> >> On 29/01/2016 4:20 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 11:15:36 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On 29/01/2016 4:11 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 10:05:21 PM UTC-6, Sylvia
> >>>>> Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 29/01/2016 5:50 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now
> >>>>>>> possible, particularly OWLS comparisons. There can only
> >>>>>>> be one answer. The whole physics establishment is
> >>>>>>> involved in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of
> >>>>>>> the hoaxer Einstein.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> You could do them yourself. No one's stopping you.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I've already done them I'm my head. Nobody wants to follow
> >>>>> the recipe.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In your head doesn't count.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> It a least has to be a duet; otherwise, it make no sense.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Light emitted from a moving source either moves at speed c relative
> >> to an observer, or it doesn't. Real experiments would indicate
> >> which.
> >>
> >> To do an experiment in your head, you'd have to choose. The result
> >> would tell you nothing about the real world.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> >
> > I believe that light doesn't but EMR does.  You believe that sight is
> > part EMR. But sight, light does not contain a velocity. C, the speed
> > of light, only comes into the scenario scientifically, when we are
> > dealing with TWO-WAY measures. All of the literature says this.
> > Modern science does not deal with sight/light. Instead, it primarily
> > deals with light rays and mirrors which are "contained"- so that the
> > distances inside these containers are capable of measuring a
> > quantity- a limit. More importantly, man needed a measure which could
> > be defined outside of nature- irregardless of nature..
> >
> 
> All of which is entirely beside the point.
> 
> Sylvia.

Well, it would be the backdrop.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375124

From	"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Date	2016-01-29 11:30 +0100
Message-ID	<n8ff0m$c2g$1@news.albasani.net>
In reply to	#375061

On 28.01.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> OWLS comparisons.
> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
>

The nauseating evidence from the real world:

https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

'Doctor' Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will kick and scream
and call the evidence stupid,
but that won't make the evidence go away.

Frustrating, isn't it? :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375149

From	kenseto <setoken@att.net>
Date	2016-01-29 07:06 -0800
Message-ID	<43fcaa24-97a0-47d0-a0f3-4d0e75e700be@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375124

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 5:30:49 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 28.01.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
> > OWLS comparisons.
> > There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is involved
> > in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer Einstein.
> >
> 
> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf

This is not a direct OWLS measurement.....the value of k is derived by comparing c' with an assumed c. 


> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> 
> 'Doctor' Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will kick and scream
> and call the evidence stupid,
> but that won't make the evidence go away.
> 
> Frustrating, isn't it? :-D
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375183

From	Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com>
Date	2016-01-29 19:48 +0000
Message-ID	<n8gfmd$1ud0$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#375124

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 28.01.2016 19:50, Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Such experiments are still difficult but are now possible, particularly
>> OWLS comparisons.
>> There can only be one answer. The whole physics establishment is
>> involved in a massive conspiracy to protect the name of the hoaxer
>> Einstein.
>>
>>
> The nauseating evidence from the real world:
> 
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments 
were not possible when those papers were written.

> 'Doctor' Henry George Wilson  will kick and scream and call the
> evidence stupid,
> but that won't make the evidence go away.
> 
> Frustrating, isn't it? :-D

Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be 
easily fiddled to produce any desired answer. Interference methods are 
full of assumptions and cannot be called direct either. 
Don't you know what direct means? It means sending light pulses from 
differently moving sources and measuring their speeds with two clocks. 
That can now be done...and in empty space.

To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not 
even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just an 
oscilloscope.

Of course the easiest way is refute Einstein's nonsensical P2 to use 
orbiting stars as light sources and see how they appear to vary in 
brightness as their photons bunch and separate during travel.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375190

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-29 14:41 -0800
Message-ID	<43e0a9a2-09b8-4f25-95b5-123abcd0c2c5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375183

On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > The nauseating evidence from the real world:
> > 
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> 
> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments 
> were not possible when those papers were written.

They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.

> > 'Doctor' Henry George Wilson  will kick and scream and call the
> > evidence stupid,
> > but that won't make the evidence go away.
> > 
> > Frustrating, isn't it? :-D
> 
> Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be 
> easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.

And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.

> Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called direct
> either.  Don't you know what direct means? It means sending light pulses
> from differently moving sources and measuring their speeds with two clocks. 
> That can now be done...and in empty space.

SO how are the clocks synchronized?

> To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not 
> even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just an 
> oscilloscope.

Really?  ONE oscilloscope?  I don't think so!

> Of course the easiest way is refute Einstein's nonsensical P2 to use 
> orbiting stars as light sources and see how they appear to vary in 
> brightness as their photons bunch and separate during travel.

Variable star "methods" are full of assumptions and cannot be called
direct either.  It amounts to looking for signs of an assumed theory
and throwing out everything that disagrees with that assumption.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375216

From	Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com>
Date	2016-01-30 11:49 +0000
Message-ID	<n8i80t$avu$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#375190

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:41:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 11:30:46 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >
>> > The nauseating evidence from the real world:
>> > 
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>> > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>> 
>> ...now known as 'Paul Andersen's comedy show'. Direct OWLS experiments
>> were not possible when those papers were written.
> 
> They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
> without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.
> 
>> > 'Doctor' Henry George Wilson  will kick and scream and call the
>> > evidence stupid,
>> > but that won't make the evidence go away.
>> > 
>> > Frustrating, isn't it? :-D
>> 
>> Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
>> easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.
> 
> And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.
> 
>> Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called
>> direct either.  Don't you know what direct means? It means sending
>> light pulses from differently moving sources and measuring their speeds
>> with two clocks.
>> That can now be done...and in empty space.
> 
> SO how are the clocks synchronized?
> 
>> To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not
>> even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just
>> an oscilloscope.
> 
> Really?  ONE oscilloscope?  I don't think so!

You don't think...period...
You lack a required ingredient.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375221

From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>
Date	2016-01-30 05:17 -0800
Message-ID	<6e290264-fed4-4402-9562-eaa4f50cf904@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#375216

On Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 4:49:57 AM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 14:41:20 -0800, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Friday, January 29, 2016 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > Direct OWLS experiments were not possible when those papers were written.
> > 
> > They are still not because you have no way to synchronize the clocks
> > without making assumptions about the synchronization mechanism.

No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.

> > > Not at all. None of the above is a direct experiment. They can all be
> > > easily fiddled to produce any desired answer.
> > 
> > And that is exactly the case for "Henry's" variable star nonsense.

No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.

> > > Interference methods are full of assumptions and cannot be called
> > > direct either.  Don't you know what direct means? It means sending
> > > light pulses from differently moving sources and measuring their speeds
> > > with two clocks.
> > > That can now be done...and in empty space.
> > 
> > SO how are the clocks synchronized?

No response from "Wilson" on this very critical point.

> > > To prove Einstein wrong, by DIRECT OWLS COMPARISON, the clocks do not
> > > even have to be synched. In fact one doesn't even need a clock...just
> > > an oscilloscope.
> > 
> > Really?  ONE oscilloscope?  I don't think so!
> 
> You don't think...period...

This is obviously a typical "Wilson" ad hom which he uses in place of a
cogent argument.  Obviously, I DO think, otherwise I wouldn't even be able
to post a message.  Obviously, I DO think because I realize that a 'scope
is just like a clock and it can't communicate with the end point if it is
at the starting point without wires (or a wireless signal) running from said
end point to the oscilloscope, and that defeats the purpose for an OWLS
experiment (i.e., it is a TWLS measurement).

> You lack a required ingredient.

Yes, I lack the ability to think illogically.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#375226

From	Polikwaptiwa <polikw@polikwamail.org>
Date	2016-01-30 15:34 +0000
Message-ID	<n8il56$10jg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
In reply to	#375221

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> You lack a required ingredient.
> 
> Yes, I lack the ability to think illogically.

Then stop trying it all the time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 4 [1] 2 3 4 Next page →

csiph-web

Why Are Direct OWLS Experiment Using a Moving Source Not Being Performed?

Contents

#375061 — Why Are Direct OWLS Experiment Using a Moving Source Not Being Performed?

#375091

#375099

#375101

#375102

#375104

#375105

#375106

#375107

#375108

#375201

#375211

#375280

#375124

#375149

#375183

#375190

#375216

#375221

#375226