Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390090 > unrolled thread
| Started by | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 89 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-15 19:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-19 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-20 13:34 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-20 13:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-21 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 16:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 11:31 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 18:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 12:17 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 19:48 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 13:21 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 14:29 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:22 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:30 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-21 20:39 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-22 15:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 08:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-24 12:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-24 18:52 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-25 16:02 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 15:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 11:51 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:02 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:05 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 12:40 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:43 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:58 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-25 19:06 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-26 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:46 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 19:47 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 12:59 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-27 21:11 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-28 15:19 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 14:18 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 20:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-29 21:32 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 18:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:36 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 19:41 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-08-31 13:45 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 11:49 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 13:54 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:26 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 19:08 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-09-01 14:00 +1000
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 21:18 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-09-01 11:33 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 17:37 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-01 08:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-30 20:09 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-31 18:53 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:29 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:42 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-01 18:50 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-04 04:57 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 17:25 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:59 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:05 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 20:56 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-04 21:03 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 20:55 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-05 21:07 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 21:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-06 22:23 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> - 2016-09-07 06:45 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-08-21 23:21 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:12 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:14 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:17 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:19 -0700
Re: My instantaneous point of view John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-23 16:22 -0700
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-27 21:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <15be525b-f53b-4829-927d-b088a3af4d84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391086 |
On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > wrote: > >> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 8:31:12 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come to Earth, one second > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of the "largeness of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the screen"(determined by maximum > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> visual acuity) is instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon, but it was initially covered > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a laser pulse hits > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the retro-reflector, the large screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was uncovered. Do you maintain that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the returning laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. For > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to observe the photons representing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of the screen before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the returning laser pulse, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would have to travel faster than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Why would they travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they know that they should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a machine > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to measure "photons" from which the very > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature of its' meaning is traveling. Don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> think like this. Think about why the object > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> is large as it is and what makes this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go right away to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen of photons. Don't do this. Instead, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image of the screen- the 1,2,3 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in seconds vs. the signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> spatially be able to tell a time difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you can > >>>>>>>>>>>> like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I > >>>>>>>>>>> refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the six > >>>>>>>>>>> month variation of occultation of the Jupiter's > >>>>>>>>>>> two main moons have anything to do with the speed > >>>>>>>>>>> of light. I believe the 22 minutes means > >>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes > >>>>>>>>>>> means to you, but do you know what the 22 minutes > >>>>>>>>>>> mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly > >>>>>>>>>> simple explanation for what's observed, and is > >>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we know about light. > >>>>>>>>>> It seems bizarre in the extreme for you to want to > >>>>>>>>>> believe that the cause is something else when we > >>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's happening. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable dragons. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during a > >>>>>>>>> magicians performance and the magician is like > >>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in half- > >>>>>>>>> you believe the woman is really being sawed in half- > >>>>>>>>> right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that the > >>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive suggests > >>>>>>>> that the women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model of > >>>>>>>> light is flawed. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like the > >>>>>>> one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed on > >>>>>>> mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity which > >>>>>>> proves that screens can be observed BEFORE signals. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. > >>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing > >>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out there > >>>>> like the 1950's naval experiments where sight triangulation > >>>>> occurred instantly and the radar "fell short". The main > >>>>> problem is how science interprets the results. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot > >>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm just > >>> waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to talk about > >>> a subject that nobody wants to talk about. > >>> > >> > >> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have become > >> aware of them somehow. If there are no official documents to refer > >> to, how do you know that it's not just something someone overheard > >> in a pub? > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a person > > of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I do. Why > > don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? > > > > Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't do > that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible. > > You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were > personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come > across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to > facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an > opportunity to check your interpretation of the results. > > Sylvia. This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave faster results than the radar?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-28 15:19 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2faiqF4fgvU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391092 |
On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds if go/come to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of the "largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen"(determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, but it was initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. Then, when a laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the retro-reflector, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen was uncovered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you maintain that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the photons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing the largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the photons in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the former >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to travel faster than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very nature of its' meaning is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't think like this. Think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large as it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this possible. Then you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go right away to the screen of photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the signal that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spatially be able to tell a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I >>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> six month variation of occultation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the speed of light. I believe the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means something else. Now, I know >>>>>>>>>>>>> what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you >>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly >>>>>>>>>>>> simple explanation for what's observed, and is >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we know about >>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you >>>>>>>>>>>> to want to believe that the cause is something >>>>>>>>>>>> else when we clearly understand what's >>>>>>>>>>>> happening. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable >>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during a >>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and the magician is like >>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in >>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman is really being sawed >>>>>>>>>>> in half- right? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that the >>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive >>>>>>>>>> suggests that the women-really-sawn-in-half model >>>>>>>>>> is flawed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model >>>>>>>>>> of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like >>>>>>>>> the one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed >>>>>>>>> on mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity >>>>>>>>> which proves that screens can be observed BEFORE >>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. >>>>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing >>>>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out >>>>>>> there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight >>>>>>> triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell >>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science interprets the >>>>>>> results. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot >>>>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm >>>>> just waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to >>>>> talk about a subject that nobody wants to talk about. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have >>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official >>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just >>>> something someone overheard in a pub? >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a >>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I >>> do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? >>> >> >> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't >> do that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible. >> >> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were >> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come >> across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to >> facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an >> opportunity to check your interpretation of the results. >> >> Sylvia. > > This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would do a > better job considering that you think highly of yourself and you live > in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my only asset is > my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions or > influence to perform this experiment. You really can't access the > info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave faster > results than the radar? > No, I can't find it. You say it exists - point to it. Sylvia
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 20:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bd30a6d9-d345-4a87-9f37-7f14d386deaa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391098 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds if go/come to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of the "largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen"(determined by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, but it was initially > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. Then, when a laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen was uncovered. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you maintain that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the returning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the photons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing the largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the former > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to travel faster than the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very nature of its' meaning is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't think like this. Think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this possible. Then you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go right away to the screen of photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spatially be able to tell a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> six month variation of occultation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the speed of light. I believe the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means something else. Now, I know > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly > >>>>>>>>>>>> simple explanation for what's observed, and is > >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we know about > >>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you > >>>>>>>>>>>> to want to believe that the cause is something > >>>>>>>>>>>> else when we clearly understand what's > >>>>>>>>>>>> happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable > >>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during a > >>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and the magician is like > >>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman is really being sawed > >>>>>>>>>>> in half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that the > >>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive > >>>>>>>>>> suggests that the women-really-sawn-in-half model > >>>>>>>>>> is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model > >>>>>>>>>> of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like > >>>>>>>>> the one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed > >>>>>>>>> on mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity > >>>>>>>>> which proves that screens can be observed BEFORE > >>>>>>>>> signals. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. > >>>>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing > >>>>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out > >>>>>>> there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight > >>>>>>> triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science interprets the > >>>>>>> results. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot > >>>>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm > >>>>> just waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to > >>>>> talk about a subject that nobody wants to talk about. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have > >>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official > >>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just > >>>> something someone overheard in a pub? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a > >>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I > >>> do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? > >>> > >> > >> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't > >> do that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible. > >> > >> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were > >> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come > >> across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to > >> facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an > >> opportunity to check your interpretation of the results. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would do a > > better job considering that you think highly of yourself and you live > > in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my only asset is > > my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions or > > influence to perform this experiment. You really can't access the > > info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > > velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave faster > > results than the radar? > > > > No, I can't find it. > > You say it exists - point to it. > > Sylvia Look for the term "free space velocity", the invention of it and the obsoleting factors of it. You will find that we had to swallow a big fact- in order to start believing in Einstein's theories which coincidently establish ridiculous statements of time travel. Fantasy is fine and wonderful, but it doesn't make things practical and true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 14:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2kfpdFbqsrU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391207 |
On 30/08/2016 1:21 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds if go/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Moon, but it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered up. Then, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a laser pulse hits the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen was uncovered. Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons in the returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse, the former would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel faster than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the very nature of its' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. Don't think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this. Think about why the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes this possible. Then you go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't do this. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be able to tell a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe that the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the six month variation of occultation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of light. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the 22 minutes means something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means to you, but do you know what the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we know about light. It seems bizarre >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the extreme for you to want to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the cause is something else when we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during >>>>>>>>>>>>> a magicians performance and the magician is >>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> sawed in half- you believe the woman is >>>>>>>>>>>>> really being sawed in half- right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that >>>>>>>>>>>> the apparently sawn-in-half woman is still >>>>>>>>>>>> alive suggests that the >>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the >>>>>>>>>>>> model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- >>>>>>>>>>> like the one's in famous toothed-wheel >>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain tops to derive a >>>>>>>>>>> measurable quantity which proves that screens can >>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the >>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well >>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is going >>>>>>>>>> to do it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence >>>>>>>>> out there like the 1950's naval experiments where >>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred instantly and the radar >>>>>>>>> "fell short". The main problem is how science >>>>>>>>> interprets the results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people >>>>>>>> cannot check, why not provide links to official >>>>>>>> documents? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and >>>>>>> I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very >>>>>>> difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to >>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have >>>>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official >>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just >>>>>> something someone overheard in a pub? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a >>>>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality >>>>> as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be >>>>> proved? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I >>>> can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything is >>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were >>>> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have >>>> come across information about them somehow. Why not provide >>>> details to facilitate some independent verification, as well as >>>> allowing an opportunity to check your interpretation of the >>>> results. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would >>> do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and >>> you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my >>> only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not >>> have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really >>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments >>> about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the >>> water gave faster results than the radar? >>> >> >> No, I can't find it. >> >> You say it exists - point to it. >> >> Sylvia > > Look for the term "free space velocity", the invention of it and the > obsoleting factors of it. You will find that we had to swallow a big > fact- in order to start believing in Einstein's theories which > coincidently establish ridiculous statements of time travel. Fantasy > is fine and wonderful, but it doesn't make things practical and > true. > You made specific claims regarding US Navy experiments in the 1950s. Searching for "free space velocity" doesn't help me. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 20:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ec561197-51e0-4dd3-bdfa-0280ce715f51@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391098 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds if go/come to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of the "largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen"(determined by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, but it was initially > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. Then, when a laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen was uncovered. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you maintain that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the returning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the photons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing the largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the former > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to travel faster than the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very nature of its' meaning is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't think like this. Think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this possible. Then you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go right away to the screen of photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spatially be able to tell a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> six month variation of occultation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the speed of light. I believe the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means something else. Now, I know > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly > >>>>>>>>>>>> simple explanation for what's observed, and is > >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we know about > >>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you > >>>>>>>>>>>> to want to believe that the cause is something > >>>>>>>>>>>> else when we clearly understand what's > >>>>>>>>>>>> happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable > >>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during a > >>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and the magician is like > >>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman is really being sawed > >>>>>>>>>>> in half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that the > >>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive > >>>>>>>>>> suggests that the women-really-sawn-in-half model > >>>>>>>>>> is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model > >>>>>>>>>> of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like > >>>>>>>>> the one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed > >>>>>>>>> on mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity > >>>>>>>>> which proves that screens can be observed BEFORE > >>>>>>>>> signals. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. > >>>>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing > >>>>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out > >>>>>>> there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight > >>>>>>> triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science interprets the > >>>>>>> results. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot > >>>>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm > >>>>> just waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to > >>>>> talk about a subject that nobody wants to talk about. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have > >>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official > >>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just > >>>> something someone overheard in a pub? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a > >>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I > >>> do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? > >>> > >> > >> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't > >> do that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible. > >> > >> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were > >> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come > >> across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to > >> facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an > >> opportunity to check your interpretation of the results. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would do a > > better job considering that you think highly of yourself and you live > > in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my only asset is > > my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions or > > influence to perform this experiment. You really can't access the > > info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > > velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave faster > > results than the radar? > > > > No, I can't find it. > > You say it exists - point to it. > > Sylvia You are telling me to go downstairs to my storage space and pull it out. OK, here I go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-29 21:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bce5df17-7d48-4cae-86c5-1416cec8cff2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391098 |
On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:03:52 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 9:17:46 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds if go/come to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of the "largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen"(determined by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, but it was initially > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. Then, when a laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen was uncovered. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you maintain that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the returning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse reaches the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the photons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing the largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the former > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would have to travel faster than the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the very nature of its' meaning is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't think like this. Think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this possible. Then you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go right away to the screen of photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> image of the screen- the 1,2,3 in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spatially be able to tell a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... I > >>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to believe that the 22 minutes of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> six month variation of occultation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have anything to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>> with the speed of light. I believe the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means something else. Now, I know > >>>>>>>>>>>>> what the 22 minutes means to you, but do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an elegantly > >>>>>>>>>>>> simple explanation for what's observed, and is > >>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we know about > >>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme for you > >>>>>>>>>>>> to want to believe that the cause is something > >>>>>>>>>>>> else when we clearly understand what's > >>>>>>>>>>>> happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable > >>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during a > >>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and the magician is like > >>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman appears to be sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman is really being sawed > >>>>>>>>>>> in half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that the > >>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman is still alive > >>>>>>>>>> suggests that the women-really-sawn-in-half model > >>>>>>>>>> is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the model > >>>>>>>>>> of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- like > >>>>>>>>> the one's in famous toothed-wheel experiments- placed > >>>>>>>>> on mountain tops to derive a measurable quantity > >>>>>>>>> which proves that screens can be observed BEFORE > >>>>>>>>> signals. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the experiment. > >>>>>>>> Given its conflict with the well established existing > >>>>>>>> theory, no one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence out > >>>>>>> there like the 1950's naval experiments where sight > >>>>>>> triangulation occurred instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science interprets the > >>>>>>> results. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people cannot > >>>>>> check, why not provide links to official documents? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and I'm > >>>>> just waiting for people to wake up. It's very difficult to > >>>>> talk about a subject that nobody wants to talk about. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have > >>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official > >>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just > >>>> something someone overheard in a pub? > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a > >>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality as I > >>> do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be proved? > >>> > >> > >> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I can't > >> do that, since proving non-existence of anything is impossible. > >> > >> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were > >> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have come > >> across information about them somehow. Why not provide details to > >> facilitate some independent verification, as well as allowing an > >> opportunity to check your interpretation of the results. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would do a > > better job considering that you think highly of yourself and you live > > in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my only asset is > > my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions or > > influence to perform this experiment. You really can't access the > > info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > > velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave faster > > results than the radar? > > > > No, I can't find it. > > You say it exists - point to it. > > Sylvia Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts to determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted to the graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in science in education Department of education and physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a radar range could be compared with a range determined by visual methods, a ship sighting on a land object for example, it was often found that the radar range was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also raised the question of whether the speed of light as then understood was accurate. It was not until after the war that an answer to the question could be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a curious increase in the measured velocity. These determinations appear to reopen the question of the true value of c."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 15:11 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2kis6Fcgm1U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391211 |
On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds if go/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Moon, but it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered up. Then, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a laser pulse hits the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen was uncovered. Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons in the returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse, the former would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel faster than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the very nature of its' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. Don't think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this. Think about why the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is and what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes this possible. Then you go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't do this. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be able to tell a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe that the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the six month variation of occultation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of light. I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the 22 minutes means something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means to you, but do you know what the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely consistent with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we know about light. It seems bizarre >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the extreme for you to want to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the cause is something else when we >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during >>>>>>>>>>>>> a magicians performance and the magician is >>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> sawed in half- you believe the woman is >>>>>>>>>>>>> really being sawed in half- right? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that >>>>>>>>>>>> the apparently sawn-in-half woman is still >>>>>>>>>>>> alive suggests that the >>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the >>>>>>>>>>>> model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- >>>>>>>>>>> like the one's in famous toothed-wheel >>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain tops to derive a >>>>>>>>>>> measurable quantity which proves that screens can >>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the >>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well >>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is going >>>>>>>>>> to do it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence >>>>>>>>> out there like the 1950's naval experiments where >>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred instantly and the radar >>>>>>>>> "fell short". The main problem is how science >>>>>>>>> interprets the results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people >>>>>>>> cannot check, why not provide links to official >>>>>>>> documents? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and >>>>>>> I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very >>>>>>> difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to >>>>>>> talk about. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have >>>>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official >>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just >>>>>> something someone overheard in a pub? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a >>>>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality >>>>> as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be >>>>> proved? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I >>>> can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything is >>>> impossible. >>>> >>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were >>>> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have >>>> come across information about them somehow. Why not provide >>>> details to facilitate some independent verification, as well as >>>> allowing an opportunity to check your interpretation of the >>>> results. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would >>> do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and >>> you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my >>> only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not >>> have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really >>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments >>> about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the >>> water gave faster results than the radar? >>> >> >> No, I can't find it. >> >> You say it exists - point to it. >> >> Sylvia > > Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts to > determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted to the > graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the > degree of master in science in education Department of education and > physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in Chapter 4 > entitled "the question reopened": > > "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful > conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some > situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a radar > range could be compared with a range determined by visual methods, a > ship sighting on a land object for example, it was often found that > the radar range was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations > of the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form of > electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also > raised the question of whether the speed of light as then understood > was accurate. > > It was not until after the war that an answer to the question could > be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a curious > increase in the measured velocity. These determinations appear to > reopen the question of the true value of c." > That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but not reading the lines themselves. They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, merely that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not correct. Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known distance on land between two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, being the distance of the ship from the objects. There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <af69b81c-e233-4287-bcee-dcc87047c8ec@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391214 |
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:30:11 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at 10:22:05 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 20, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:40:09 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds if go/come > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one second > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not instantaneous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. But, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the observation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the Moon, but it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered up. Then, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when a laser pulse hits the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the large > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen was uncovered. Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse reaches > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have been > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons in the returning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse, the former would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel faster than the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why would they travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? How would they know that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they should travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to measure "photons" from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which the very nature of its' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. Don't think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like this. Think about why the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is and what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes this possible. Then you go > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't do this. Instead, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image of the screen- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the signal > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are going > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be able to tell a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts here... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon measure... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe that the 22 minutes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the six month variation of occultation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of light. I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe the 22 minutes means something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 minutes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> means to you, but do you know what the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for what's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely consistent with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what we know about light. It seems bizarre > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the extreme for you to want to believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the cause is something else when we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in undetectable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience during > >>>>>>>>>>>>> a magicians performance and the magician is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears to be > >>>>>>>>>>>>> sawed in half- you believe the woman is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> really being sawed in half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact that > >>>>>>>>>>>> the apparently sawn-in-half woman is still > >>>>>>>>>>>> alive suggests that the > >>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that the > >>>>>>>>>>>> model of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on Earth- > >>>>>>>>>>> like the one's in famous toothed-wheel > >>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain tops to derive a > >>>>>>>>>>> measurable quantity which proves that screens can > >>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the > >>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well > >>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is going > >>>>>>>>>> to do it. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is evidence > >>>>>>>>> out there like the 1950's naval experiments where > >>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred instantly and the radar > >>>>>>>>> "fell short". The main problem is how science > >>>>>>>>> interprets the results. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which people > >>>>>>>> cannot check, why not provide links to official > >>>>>>>> documents? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time and > >>>>>>> I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's very > >>>>>>> difficult to talk about a subject that nobody wants to > >>>>>>> talk about. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to have > >>>>>> become aware of them somehow. If there are no official > >>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know that it's not just > >>>>>> something someone overheard in a pub? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you are a > >>>>> person of this Earth- you have as much right to this reality > >>>>> as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you think it must be > >>>>> proved? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly I > >>>> can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything is > >>>> impossible. > >>>> > >>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you were > >>>> personally involved, and not just imagining it, you must have > >>>> come across information about them somehow. Why not provide > >>>> details to facilitate some independent verification, as well as > >>>> allowing an opportunity to check your interpretation of the > >>>> results. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you would > >>> do a better job considering that you think highly of yourself and > >>> you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do this considering my > >>> only asset is my mind and its' investigative powers. I do not > >>> have millions or influence to perform this experiment. You really > >>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments > >>> about free space velocity, and how sight triangulations on the > >>> water gave faster results than the radar? > >>> > >> > >> No, I can't find it. > >> > >> You say it exists - point to it. > >> > >> Sylvia > > > > Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts to > > determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted to the > > graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the > > degree of master in science in education Department of education and > > physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > > northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in Chapter 4 > > entitled "the question reopened": > > > > "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful > > conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some > > situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a radar > > range could be compared with a range determined by visual methods, a > > ship sighting on a land object for example, it was often found that > > the radar range was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations > > of the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form of > > electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also > > raised the question of whether the speed of light as then understood > > was accurate. > > > > It was not until after the war that an answer to the question could > > be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a curious > > increase in the measured velocity. These determinations appear to > > reopen the question of the true value of c." > > > > That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but not > reading the lines themselves. > > They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, merely > that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not correct. > > Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things like > measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known distance on land > between two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be used to > the infer the lengths of the other sides, being the distance of the ship > from the objects. > > There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. > > Sylvia. continuing from the same article: "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by radar were compared with the values obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies indicated a higher free space value."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 11:28 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2mq6qFt6hlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391264 |
On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about two seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the observation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on the Moon, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was initially covered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be observed before >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the returning laser pulse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons representing the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the photons in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would have to travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the latter. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they travel faster? How >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they know that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a machine to measure "photons" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the very nature of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is traveling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. Think >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is and what makes this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the screen of photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the satellite sends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to spatially be able to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell a time difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here... you can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes of the six month >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation of occultation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 minutes means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I know what the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means to you, but do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's observed, and is entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we know about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you to want to believe that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause is something else when we clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during a magicians performance and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magician is like nature. When the woman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in half- you believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in half- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the apparently sawn-in-half woman is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still alive suggests that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth- like the one's in famous >>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable quantity which >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that screens can be observed BEFORE >>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well >>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is >>>>>>>>>>>> going to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is >>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval >>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation occurred >>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main >>>>>>>>>>> problem is how science interprets the results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which >>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links to >>>>>>>>>> official documents? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time >>>>>>>>> and I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's >>>>>>>>> very difficult to talk about a subject that nobody >>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to >>>>>>>> have become aware of them somehow. If there are no >>>>>>>> official documents to refer to, how do you know that >>>>>>>> it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you >>>>>>> are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to >>>>>>> this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you >>>>>>> think it must be proved? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly >>>>>> I can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything >>>>>> is impossible. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you >>>>>> were personally involved, and not just imagining it, you >>>>>> must have come across information about them somehow. Why >>>>>> not provide details to facilitate some independent >>>>>> verification, as well as allowing an opportunity to check >>>>>> your interpretation of the results. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you >>>>> would do a better job considering that you think highly of >>>>> yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do >>>>> this considering my only asset is my mind and its' >>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or influence to >>>>> perform this experiment. You really can't access the info >>>>> concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space >>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave >>>>> faster results than the radar? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, I can't find it. >>>> >>>> You say it exists - point to it. >>>> >>>> Sylvia >>> >>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts >>> to determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted >>> to the graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements >>> for the degree of master in science in education Department of >>> education and physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson >>> Institution: northern Illinois university, 1959 under the >>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": >>> >>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful >>> conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some >>> situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a >>> radar range could be compared with a range determined by visual >>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for example, it was >>> often found that the radar range was SHORT. This was usually >>> blamed on miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. Since a >>> radar signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at >>> the speed of light, it also raised the question of whether the >>> speed of light as then understood was accurate. >>> >>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the question >>> could be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a >>> curious increase in the measured velocity. These determinations >>> appear to reopen the question of the true value of c." >>> >> >> That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but >> not reading the lines themselves. >> >> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, >> merely that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not >> correct. >> >> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things >> like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known >> distance on land between two objects which forms one side of a >> triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, >> being the distance of the ship from the objects. >> >> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. >> >> Sylvia. > > continuing from the same article: > > "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using two > radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and the Soren > system in the United states, to check their accuracy and to study > their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by > radar were compared with the values obtained by normal sight > triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies indicated a higher > free space value." > Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous measurements. In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not affected by the speed of light. There's no new physics here. Sylvia. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 19:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <da299905-7648-4186-9fcf-7d822e4de01b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391266 |
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM > >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about two seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the observation of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on the Moon, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was initially covered > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be observed before > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the returning laser pulse > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons representing the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would have to travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the latter. Why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they travel faster? How > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they know that they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a machine to measure "photons" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the very nature of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is traveling. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. Think > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is and what makes this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go right > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the screen of photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the satellite sends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to spatially be able to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell a time difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here... you can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes of the six month > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation of occultation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 minutes means > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I know what the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means to you, but do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's observed, and is entirely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we know about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you to want to believe that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause is something else when we clearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during a magicians performance and the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magician is like nature. When the woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in half- you believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in half- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the apparently sawn-in-half woman is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still alive suggests that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the model of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth- like the one's in famous > >>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable quantity which > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that screens can be observed BEFORE > >>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the > >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well > >>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is > >>>>>>>>>>>> going to do it. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is > >>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval > >>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation occurred > >>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main > >>>>>>>>>>> problem is how science interprets the results. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which > >>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links to > >>>>>>>>>> official documents? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time > >>>>>>>>> and I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's > >>>>>>>>> very difficult to talk about a subject that nobody > >>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to > >>>>>>>> have become aware of them somehow. If there are no > >>>>>>>> official documents to refer to, how do you know that > >>>>>>>> it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you > >>>>>>> are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to > >>>>>>> this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you > >>>>>>> think it must be proved? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly > >>>>>> I can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything > >>>>>> is impossible. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you > >>>>>> were personally involved, and not just imagining it, you > >>>>>> must have come across information about them somehow. Why > >>>>>> not provide details to facilitate some independent > >>>>>> verification, as well as allowing an opportunity to check > >>>>>> your interpretation of the results. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you > >>>>> would do a better job considering that you think highly of > >>>>> yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do > >>>>> this considering my only asset is my mind and its' > >>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or influence to > >>>>> perform this experiment. You really can't access the info > >>>>> concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > >>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave > >>>>> faster results than the radar? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> No, I can't find it. > >>>> > >>>> You say it exists - point to it. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia > >>> > >>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts > >>> to determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted > >>> to the graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements > >>> for the degree of master in science in education Department of > >>> education and physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson > >>> Institution: northern Illinois university, 1959 under the > >>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": > >>> > >>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful > >>> conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some > >>> situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a > >>> radar range could be compared with a range determined by visual > >>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for example, it was > >>> often found that the radar range was SHORT. This was usually > >>> blamed on miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. Since a > >>> radar signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at > >>> the speed of light, it also raised the question of whether the > >>> speed of light as then understood was accurate. > >>> > >>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the question > >>> could be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a > >>> curious increase in the measured velocity. These determinations > >>> appear to reopen the question of the true value of c." > >>> > >> > >> That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but > >> not reading the lines themselves. > >> > >> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, > >> merely that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not > >> correct. > >> > >> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things > >> like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known > >> distance on land between two objects which forms one side of a > >> triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, > >> being the distance of the ship from the objects. > >> > >> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > continuing from the same article: > > > > "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using two > > radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and the Soren > > system in the United states, to check their accuracy and to study > > their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by > > radar were compared with the values obtained by normal sight > > triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies indicated a higher > > free space value." > > > > Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed of > light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there to indicate > anything other than a problem with the previous measurements. > > In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of microwaves in > AIR are not exactly the same. > > Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not affected > by the speed of light. > > There's no new physics here. > > Sylvia. > > Sylvia. Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 19:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0416902d-3c06-4643-a6a3-ce5c1a482c4c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391269 |
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > >>> wrote: > > >>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > > >>>>> Else wrote: > > >>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, > > >>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM UTC-5, > > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM > > >>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 PM > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:18:12 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, John > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 8:31:12 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 AM, > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 20, 2016 at 9:40:09 PM > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 6:17 > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would take > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about two seconds > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, one second > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if one-way. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous then. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any signal. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the observation of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined by > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maximum visual acuity) > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is instantaneous. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a large > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on the Moon, but > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was initially covered > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a laser > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen was > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. Do you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain that the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be observed before > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the returning laser pulse > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches the Earth? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying to say. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is sensitive to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For you to observe > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons representing the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness of the screen > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the photons in the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would have to travel > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the latter. Why > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they travel faster? How > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they know that they > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel faster? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" like > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a machine to measure "photons" > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the very nature of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is traveling. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. Think > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about why the object is large > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is and what makes this > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go right > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the screen of photons. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't do this. Instead, compare > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1,2,3 in seconds vs. the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the satellite sends > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you are > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going to spatially be able to > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tell a time difference. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the facts > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> here... you can like it or not. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes of the six month > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> variation of occultation of the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main moons have > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything to do with the speed of > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 minutes means > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I know what the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means to you, but do you > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 minutes mean to me? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's an > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple explanation for > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's observed, and is entirely > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we know about > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. It seems bizarre in the extreme > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you to want to believe that the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cause is something else when we clearly > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the audience > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during a magicians performance and the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magician is like nature. When the woman > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in half- you believe > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in half- > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right? > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The fact > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the apparently sawn-in-half woman is > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> still alive suggests that the > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> women-really-sawn-in-half model is flawed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest that > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the model of light is flawed. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far on > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth- like the one's in famous > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on mountain > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable quantity which > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proves that screens can be observed BEFORE > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. > > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do the > > >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment. Given its conflict with the well > > >>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no one else is > > >>>>>>>>>>>> going to do it. > > >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is > > >>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval > > >>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation occurred > > >>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell short". The main > > >>>>>>>>>>> problem is how science interprets the results. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which > > >>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links to > > >>>>>>>>>> official documents? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my time > > >>>>>>>>> and I'm just waiting for people to wake up. It's > > >>>>>>>>> very difficult to talk about a subject that nobody > > >>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd have to > > >>>>>>>> have become aware of them somehow. If there are no > > >>>>>>>> official documents to refer to, how do you know that > > >>>>>>>> it's not just something someone overheard in a pub? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, you > > >>>>>>> are a person of this Earth- you have as much right to > > >>>>>>> this reality as I do. Why don't you prove it- if you > > >>>>>>> think it must be proved? > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? Clearly > > >>>>>> I can't do that, since proving non-existence of anything > > >>>>>> is impossible. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless you > > >>>>>> were personally involved, and not just imagining it, you > > >>>>>> must have come across information about them somehow. Why > > >>>>>> not provide details to facilitate some independent > > >>>>>> verification, as well as allowing an opportunity to check > > >>>>>> your interpretation of the results. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> Sylvia. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought you > > >>>>> would do a better job considering that you think highly of > > >>>>> yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why can't you do > > >>>>> this considering my only asset is my mind and its' > > >>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or influence to > > >>>>> perform this experiment. You really can't access the info > > >>>>> concerning the 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > > >>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the water gave > > >>>>> faster results than the radar? > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> No, I can't find it. > > >>>> > > >>>> You say it exists - point to it. > > >>>> > > >>>> Sylvia > > >>> > > >>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal attempts > > >>> to determine the velocity of light A qualifying paper submitted > > >>> to the graduate school in partial fulfillment of the requirements > > >>> for the degree of master in science in education Department of > > >>> education and physical science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson > > >>> Institution: northern Illinois university, 1959 under the > > >>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": > > >>> > > >>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the successful > > >>> conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging device in some > > >>> situation, however, produced unsatisfactory results. Where a > > >>> radar range could be compared with a range determined by visual > > >>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for example, it was > > >>> often found that the radar range was SHORT. This was usually > > >>> blamed on miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. Since a > > >>> radar signal is a form of electromagnetic radiation traveling at > > >>> the speed of light, it also raised the question of whether the > > >>> speed of light as then understood was accurate. > > >>> > > >>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the question > > >>> could be sought. Then new techniques of measurement indicated a > > >>> curious increase in the measured velocity. These determinations > > >>> appear to reopen the question of the true value of c." > > >>> > > >> > > >> That seems to be an example of your reading between the lines, but > > >> not reading the lines themselves. > > >> > > >> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not constant, > > >> merely that at the time it appeared that the accepted value was not > > >> correct. > > >> > > >> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just things > > >> like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the known > > >> distance on land between two objects which forms one side of a > > >> triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, > > >> being the distance of the ship from the objects. > > >> > > >> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. > > >> > > >> Sylvia. > > > > > > continuing from the same article: > > > > > > "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using two > > > radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and the Soren > > > system in the United states, to check their accuracy and to study > > > their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by > > > radar were compared with the values obtained by normal sight > > > triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies indicated a higher > > > free space value." > > > > > > > Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed of > > light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there to indicate > > anything other than a problem with the previous measurements. > > > > In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of microwaves in > > AIR are not exactly the same. > > > > Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not affected > > by the speed of light. > > > > There's no new physics here. > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Sylvia. > > Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'". NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 12:57 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2mvdhFu8dkU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391270 |
On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >> wrote: >>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 8:31:12 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 20, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:17 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by maximum visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon, but it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse hits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was uncovered. Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you maintain that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the screen could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the former would have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to travel faster than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Why would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they should travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a machine to measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "photons" from which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of its' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of photons. Don't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Instead, compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the signal that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are going to spatially be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts here... you can like it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of the six >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month variation of occultation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have anything to do with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light. I believe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, but do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know what the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an elegantly simple explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for what's observed, and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bizarre in the extreme for you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to believe that the cause is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else when we clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience during a magicians >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance and the magician is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be sawed in half- you believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the apparently sawn-in-half >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> woman is still alive suggests that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Earth- like the one's in famous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain tops to derive a measurable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that screens can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the experiment. Given its conflict with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well established existing theory, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred instantly and the radar "fell >>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interprets the results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which >>>>>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links >>>>>>>>>>>>> to official documents? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my >>>>>>>>>>>> time and I'm just waiting for people to wake >>>>>>>>>>>> up. It's very difficult to talk about a subject >>>>>>>>>>>> that nobody wants to talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd >>>>>>>>>>> have to have become aware of them somehow. If >>>>>>>>>>> there are no official documents to refer to, how >>>>>>>>>>> do you know that it's not just something someone >>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, >>>>>>>>>> you are a person of this Earth- you have as much >>>>>>>>>> right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove >>>>>>>>>> it- if you think it must be proved? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? >>>>>>>>> Clearly I can't do that, since proving non-existence >>>>>>>>> of anything is impossible. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless >>>>>>>>> you were personally involved, and not just imagining >>>>>>>>> it, you must have come across information about them >>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to facilitate some >>>>>>>>> independent verification, as well as allowing an >>>>>>>>> opportunity to check your interpretation of the >>>>>>>>> results. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought >>>>>>>> you would do a better job considering that you think >>>>>>>> highly of yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why >>>>>>>> can't you do this considering my only asset is my mind >>>>>>>> and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions >>>>>>>> or influence to perform this experiment. You really >>>>>>>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval >>>>>>>> experiments about free space velocity, and how sight >>>>>>>> triangulations on the water gave faster results than >>>>>>>> the radar? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I can't find it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal >>>>>> attempts to determine the velocity of light A qualifying >>>>>> paper submitted to the graduate school in partial >>>>>> fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in >>>>>> science in education Department of education and physical >>>>>> science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: >>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in >>>>>> Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": >>>>>> >>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the >>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging >>>>>> device in some situation, however, produced unsatisfactory >>>>>> results. Where a radar range could be compared with a range >>>>>> determined by visual methods, a ship sighting on a land >>>>>> object for example, it was often found that the radar range >>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations of >>>>>> the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form >>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of >>>>>> light, it also raised the question of whether the speed of >>>>>> light as then understood was accurate. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the >>>>>> question could be sought. Then new techniques of >>>>>> measurement indicated a curious increase in the measured >>>>>> velocity. These determinations appear to reopen the >>>>>> question of the true value of c." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between the >>>>> lines, but not reading the lines themselves. >>>>> >>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not >>>>> constant, merely that at the time it appeared that the >>>>> accepted value was not correct. >>>>> >>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just >>>>> things like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the >>>>> known distance on land between two objects which forms one >>>>> side of a triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of >>>>> the other sides, being the distance of the ship from the >>>>> objects. >>>>> >>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> continuing from the same article: >>>> >>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using >>>> two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and >>>> the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy >>>> and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The >>>> distances measured by radar were compared with the values >>>> obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent >>>> discrepancies indicated a higher free space value." >>>> >>> >>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed >>> of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there >>> to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous >>> measurements. >>> >>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of >>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. >>> >>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not >>> affected by the speed of light. >>> >>> There's no new physics here. >>> >>> Sylvia. >>> >>> Sylvia. >> >> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been >> examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of >> the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of >> these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL >> IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was >> achieved'". > > NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? > Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the speed of the wave, and then you do it again the same way, you expect to get the same answer. If you don't then either the speed is really varying between measurements, or you have issues with how you're doing the measurement. Once they'd improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5ea0c64e-cc81-4773-943e-e5174e619eb6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391271 |
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >> wrote: > >>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 8:31:12 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by maximum visual > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon, but it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse hits > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was uncovered. Do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you maintain that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been trying to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the former would have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to travel faster than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Why would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they should travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a machine to measure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "photons" from which the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of its' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of photons. Don't do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Instead, compare > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are going to spatially be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts here... you can like it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of the six > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month variation of occultation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have anything to do with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light. I believe the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, but do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know what the 22 minutes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an elegantly simple explanation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for what's observed, and is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It seems > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bizarre in the extreme for you to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to believe that the cause is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else when we clearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience during a magicians > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance and the magician is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be sawed in half- you believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the apparently sawn-in-half > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> woman is still alive suggests that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half model > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the model of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Earth- like the one's in famous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain tops to derive a measurable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that screens can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the experiment. Given its conflict with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well established existing theory, no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> interprets the results. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which > >>>>>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to official documents? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my > >>>>>>>>>>>> time and I'm just waiting for people to wake > >>>>>>>>>>>> up. It's very difficult to talk about a subject > >>>>>>>>>>>> that nobody wants to talk about. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd > >>>>>>>>>>> have to have become aware of them somehow. If > >>>>>>>>>>> there are no official documents to refer to, how > >>>>>>>>>>> do you know that it's not just something someone > >>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, > >>>>>>>>>> you are a person of this Earth- you have as much > >>>>>>>>>> right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove > >>>>>>>>>> it- if you think it must be proved? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? > >>>>>>>>> Clearly I can't do that, since proving non-existence > >>>>>>>>> of anything is impossible. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless > >>>>>>>>> you were personally involved, and not just imagining > >>>>>>>>> it, you must have come across information about them > >>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to facilitate some > >>>>>>>>> independent verification, as well as allowing an > >>>>>>>>> opportunity to check your interpretation of the > >>>>>>>>> results. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought > >>>>>>>> you would do a better job considering that you think > >>>>>>>> highly of yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why > >>>>>>>> can't you do this considering my only asset is my mind > >>>>>>>> and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions > >>>>>>>> or influence to perform this experiment. You really > >>>>>>>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval > >>>>>>>> experiments about free space velocity, and how sight > >>>>>>>> triangulations on the water gave faster results than > >>>>>>>> the radar? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> No, I can't find it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal > >>>>>> attempts to determine the velocity of light A qualifying > >>>>>> paper submitted to the graduate school in partial > >>>>>> fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in > >>>>>> science in education Department of education and physical > >>>>>> science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > >>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in > >>>>>> Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the > >>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging > >>>>>> device in some situation, however, produced unsatisfactory > >>>>>> results. Where a radar range could be compared with a range > >>>>>> determined by visual methods, a ship sighting on a land > >>>>>> object for example, it was often found that the radar range > >>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations of > >>>>>> the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form > >>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of > >>>>>> light, it also raised the question of whether the speed of > >>>>>> light as then understood was accurate. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the > >>>>>> question could be sought. Then new techniques of > >>>>>> measurement indicated a curious increase in the measured > >>>>>> velocity. These determinations appear to reopen the > >>>>>> question of the true value of c." > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between the > >>>>> lines, but not reading the lines themselves. > >>>>> > >>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not > >>>>> constant, merely that at the time it appeared that the > >>>>> accepted value was not correct. > >>>>> > >>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just > >>>>> things like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the > >>>>> known distance on land between two objects which forms one > >>>>> side of a triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of > >>>>> the other sides, being the distance of the ship from the > >>>>> objects. > >>>>> > >>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> continuing from the same article: > >>>> > >>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using > >>>> two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and > >>>> the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy > >>>> and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The > >>>> distances measured by radar were compared with the values > >>>> obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent > >>>> discrepancies indicated a higher free space value." > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed > >>> of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there > >>> to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous > >>> measurements. > >>> > >>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of > >>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. > >>> > >>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not > >>> affected by the speed of light. > >>> > >>> There's no new physics here. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> Sylvia. > >> > >> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been > >> examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of > >> the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of > >> these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL > >> IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was > >> achieved'". > > > > NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? > > > > Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the speed of the > wave, and then you do it again the same way, you expect to get the same > answer. If you don't then either the speed is really varying between > measurements, or you have issues with how you're doing the measurement. > Once they'd improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. > > Sylvia. This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 13:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2n266Fam6U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391272 |
On 31/08/2016 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 8:31:12 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 20, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:17 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by maximum visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon, but it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse hits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was uncovered. Do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you maintain that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the screen could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been trying to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to photons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the former would have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to travel faster than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Why would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they should travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a machine to measure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "photons" from which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of its' >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of photons. Don't do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Instead, compare >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the signal that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are going to spatially be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a time >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts here... you can like it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of the six >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month variation of occultation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have anything to do with the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light. I believe the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means something >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, but do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know what the 22 minutes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean to me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an elegantly simple explanation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for what's observed, and is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It seems >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bizarre in the extreme for you to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to believe that the cause is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else when we clearly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience during a magicians >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance and the magician is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be sawed in half- you believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the apparently sawn-in-half >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> woman is still alive suggests that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half model >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the model of light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Earth- like the one's in famous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain tops to derive a measurable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that screens can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the experiment. Given its conflict with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well established existing theory, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred instantly and the radar "fell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interprets the results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to official documents? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and I'm just waiting for people to wake >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. It's very difficult to talk about a subject >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that nobody wants to talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to have become aware of them somehow. If >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no official documents to refer to, how >>>>>>>>>>>>> do you know that it's not just something someone >>>>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, >>>>>>>>>>>> you are a person of this Earth- you have as much >>>>>>>>>>>> right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove >>>>>>>>>>>> it- if you think it must be proved? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? >>>>>>>>>>> Clearly I can't do that, since proving non-existence >>>>>>>>>>> of anything is impossible. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless >>>>>>>>>>> you were personally involved, and not just imagining >>>>>>>>>>> it, you must have come across information about them >>>>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to facilitate some >>>>>>>>>>> independent verification, as well as allowing an >>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to check your interpretation of the >>>>>>>>>>> results. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought >>>>>>>>>> you would do a better job considering that you think >>>>>>>>>> highly of yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why >>>>>>>>>> can't you do this considering my only asset is my mind >>>>>>>>>> and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions >>>>>>>>>> or influence to perform this experiment. You really >>>>>>>>>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval >>>>>>>>>> experiments about free space velocity, and how sight >>>>>>>>>> triangulations on the water gave faster results than >>>>>>>>>> the radar? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I can't find it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal >>>>>>>> attempts to determine the velocity of light A qualifying >>>>>>>> paper submitted to the graduate school in partial >>>>>>>> fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in >>>>>>>> science in education Department of education and physical >>>>>>>> science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: >>>>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in >>>>>>>> Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the >>>>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging >>>>>>>> device in some situation, however, produced unsatisfactory >>>>>>>> results. Where a radar range could be compared with a range >>>>>>>> determined by visual methods, a ship sighting on a land >>>>>>>> object for example, it was often found that the radar range >>>>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations of >>>>>>>> the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form >>>>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of >>>>>>>> light, it also raised the question of whether the speed of >>>>>>>> light as then understood was accurate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the >>>>>>>> question could be sought. Then new techniques of >>>>>>>> measurement indicated a curious increase in the measured >>>>>>>> velocity. These determinations appear to reopen the >>>>>>>> question of the true value of c." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between the >>>>>>> lines, but not reading the lines themselves. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not >>>>>>> constant, merely that at the time it appeared that the >>>>>>> accepted value was not correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just >>>>>>> things like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the >>>>>>> known distance on land between two objects which forms one >>>>>>> side of a triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of >>>>>>> the other sides, being the distance of the ship from the >>>>>>> objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> continuing from the same article: >>>>>> >>>>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using >>>>>> two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and >>>>>> the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy >>>>>> and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The >>>>>> distances measured by radar were compared with the values >>>>>> obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent >>>>>> discrepancies indicated a higher free space value." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed >>>>> of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there >>>>> to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous >>>>> measurements. >>>>> >>>>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of >>>>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. >>>>> >>>>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not >>>>> affected by the speed of light. >>>>> >>>>> There's no new physics here. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been >>>> examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of >>>> the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of >>>> these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL >>>> IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was >>>> achieved'". >>> >>> NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? >>> >> >> Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the speed of the >> wave, and then you do it again the same way, you expect to get the same >> answer. If you don't then either the speed is really varying between >> measurements, or you have issues with how you're doing the measurement. >> Once they'd improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. >> >> Sylvia. > > This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon? > The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only way that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent variation vanish is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause of them. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6bb86df2-a0a9-41db-9150-232d456525cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391274 |
On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:45:15 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 31/08/2016 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 1:02:30 AM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at 9:54:26 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:30:11 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:22:05 PM UTC-5, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 9:17:46 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 11:42 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 8:31:12 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 9:41 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 9:40:09 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 21/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to Earth, one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "largeness of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by maximum visual > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large screen on the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Moon, but it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially covered > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. Then, when a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse hits > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was uncovered. Do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you maintain that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the screen could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse reaches the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is what I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been trying to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to photons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For you to observe the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons representing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser pulse, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the former would have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to travel faster than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Why would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they should travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating "retina" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like a machine to measure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "photons" from which the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of its' > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meaning is traveling. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't think like this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> object is large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes this > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible. Then you go > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> right away to the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of photons. Don't do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this. Instead, compare > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the image of the screen- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in seconds vs. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only way you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are going to spatially be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a time > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts here... you can like it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the Jupiter moon > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure... I refuse to believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of the six > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> month variation of occultation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the Jupiter's two main moons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have anything to do with the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speed of light. I believe the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22 minutes means something > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> else. Now, I know what the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, but do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you know what the 22 minutes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean to me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not believe? It's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an elegantly simple explanation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for what's observed, and is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entirely consistent with what we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It seems > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bizarre in the extreme for you to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to believe that the cause is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else when we clearly > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand what's happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undetectable dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience during a magicians > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> performance and the magician is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like nature. When the woman appears > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be sawed in half- you believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the woman is really being sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get there. The > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fact that the apparently sawn-in-half > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> woman is still alive suggests that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half model > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to suggest > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the model of light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place screens far > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on Earth- like the one's in famous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toothed-wheel experiments- placed on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountain tops to derive a measurable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that screens can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be observed BEFORE signals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need to do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the experiment. Given its conflict with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the well established existing theory, no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. There is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence out there like the 1950's naval > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments where sight triangulation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurred instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how science > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interprets the results. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague references, which > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people cannot check, why not provide links > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to official documents? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead of my > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> time and I'm just waiting for people to wake > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up. It's very difficult to talk about a subject > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that nobody wants to talk about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, you'd > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have to have become aware of them somehow. If > >>>>>>>>>>>>> there are no official documents to refer to, how > >>>>>>>>>>>>> do you know that it's not just something someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. Sylvia, > >>>>>>>>>>>> you are a person of this Earth- you have as much > >>>>>>>>>>>> right to this reality as I do. Why don't you prove > >>>>>>>>>>>> it- if you think it must be proved? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these experiments? > >>>>>>>>>>> Clearly I can't do that, since proving non-existence > >>>>>>>>>>> of anything is impossible. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these experiments. Unless > >>>>>>>>>>> you were personally involved, and not just imagining > >>>>>>>>>>> it, you must have come across information about them > >>>>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to facilitate some > >>>>>>>>>>> independent verification, as well as allowing an > >>>>>>>>>>> opportunity to check your interpretation of the > >>>>>>>>>>> results. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just thought > >>>>>>>>>> you would do a better job considering that you think > >>>>>>>>>> highly of yourself and you live in the 21 century. Why > >>>>>>>>>> can't you do this considering my only asset is my mind > >>>>>>>>>> and its' investigative powers. I do not have millions > >>>>>>>>>> or influence to perform this experiment. You really > >>>>>>>>>> can't access the info concerning the 1950's US Naval > >>>>>>>>>> experiments about free space velocity, and how sight > >>>>>>>>>> triangulations on the water gave faster results than > >>>>>>>>>> the radar? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> No, I can't find it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the principal > >>>>>>>> attempts to determine the velocity of light A qualifying > >>>>>>>> paper submitted to the graduate school in partial > >>>>>>>> fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master in > >>>>>>>> science in education Department of education and physical > >>>>>>>> science Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > >>>>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the subtopic in > >>>>>>>> Chapter 4 entitled "the question reopened": > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the > >>>>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a ranging > >>>>>>>> device in some situation, however, produced unsatisfactory > >>>>>>>> results. Where a radar range could be compared with a range > >>>>>>>> determined by visual methods, a ship sighting on a land > >>>>>>>> object for example, it was often found that the radar range > >>>>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on miscalibrations of > >>>>>>>> the radar or visual devices. Since a radar signal is a form > >>>>>>>> of electromagnetic radiation traveling at the speed of > >>>>>>>> light, it also raised the question of whether the speed of > >>>>>>>> light as then understood was accurate. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to the > >>>>>>>> question could be sought. Then new techniques of > >>>>>>>> measurement indicated a curious increase in the measured > >>>>>>>> velocity. These determinations appear to reopen the > >>>>>>>> question of the true value of c." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between the > >>>>>>> lines, but not reading the lines themselves. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is not > >>>>>>> constant, merely that at the time it appeared that the > >>>>>>> accepted value was not correct. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are just > >>>>>>> things like measuring angles and using trigonometry where the > >>>>>>> known distance on land between two objects which forms one > >>>>>>> side of a triangle can be used to the infer the lengths of > >>>>>>> the other sides, being the distance of the ship from the > >>>>>>> objects. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild speculations. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> continuing from the same article: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made using > >>>>>> two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system in Britain and > >>>>>> the Soren system in the United states, to check their accuracy > >>>>>> and to study their possible uses in geodetic surveys. The > >>>>>> distances measured by radar were compared with the values > >>>>>> obtained by normal sight triangulation methods.. Consistent > >>>>>> discrepancies indicated a higher free space value." > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the accepted speed > >>>>> of light was lower than its actual value. There's nothing there > >>>>> to indicate anything other than a problem with the previous > >>>>> measurements. > >>>>> > >>>>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of > >>>>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. > >>>>> > >>>>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods are not > >>>>> affected by the speed of light. > >>>>> > >>>>> There's no new physics here. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sylvia. > >>>> > >>>> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have been > >>>> examined with great detail and are presented as a measurement of > >>>> the free-space velocity of electromagnetic waves. The first of > >>>> these showed large differences and it was not until MANY TECHNICAL > >>>> IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED that 'the necessary consistency was > >>>> achieved'". > >>> > >>> NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? > >>> > >> > >> Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the speed of the > >> wave, and then you do it again the same way, you expect to get the same > >> answer. If you don't then either the speed is really varying between > >> measurements, or you have issues with how you're doing the measurement. > >> Once they'd improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon? > > > > The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the > cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then > removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only way > that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent variation vanish > is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause of them. > > Sylvia. So, are you saying that we choose to ignore certain realities about nature in order to develop a seamless system of measure?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 11:49 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2pfppFi9h9U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391327 |
On 1/09/2016 10:37 AM, John Gogo wrote: > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:45:15 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 31/08/2016 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>> wrote: >>>> On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 10:30:11 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 10:22:05 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21, 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:42 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 21, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22/08/2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:41 AM, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saturday, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 20, 2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:40:09 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21/08/2016 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6:17 AM, John >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> take about >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if go/come >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, not any >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by maximum visual >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Suppose we had a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the large screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to observe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that they >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "retina" like a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure "photons" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think like this. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the object is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large as it is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this possible. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you go right >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this. Instead, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way you are going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time difference. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the facts here... you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter moon measure... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the six month variation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of occultation of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moons have anything to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the speed of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but do you know what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes mean to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe? It's an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems bizarre in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extreme for you to want >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that the cause >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something else when we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happening. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in undetectable dragons. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the audience during a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the magician is like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is really being sawed in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. The fact that the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still alive suggests that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest that the model of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light is flawed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens far on Earth- like the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one's in famous toothed-wheel >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens can be observed BEFORE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the experiment. Given its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the well >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is evidence out there like >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science interprets the results. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references, which people cannot >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check, why not provide links to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official documents? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my time and I'm just waiting for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to wake up. It's very difficult >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to talk about a subject that nobody >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd have to have become aware of them >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow. If there are no official >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's not just something someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, you are a person of this Earth- you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have as much right to this reality as I do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you prove it- if you think it >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be proved? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments? Clearly I can't do that, since >>>>>>>>>>>>> proving non-existence of anything is >>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments. Unless you were personally >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and not just imagining it, you must >>>>>>>>>>>>> have come across information about them >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to >>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate some independent verification, as >>>>>>>>>>>>> well as allowing an opportunity to check your >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the results. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just >>>>>>>>>>>> thought you would do a better job considering >>>>>>>>>>>> that you think highly of yourself and you live >>>>>>>>>>>> in the 21 century. Why can't you do this >>>>>>>>>>>> considering my only asset is my mind and its' >>>>>>>>>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or >>>>>>>>>>>> influence to perform this experiment. You >>>>>>>>>>>> really can't access the info concerning the >>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's US Naval experiments about free space >>>>>>>>>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the >>>>>>>>>>>> water gave faster results than the radar? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I can't find it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the >>>>>>>>>> principal attempts to determine the velocity of >>>>>>>>>> light A qualifying paper submitted to the graduate >>>>>>>>>> school in partial fulfillment of the requirements >>>>>>>>>> for the degree of master in science in education >>>>>>>>>> Department of education and physical science >>>>>>>>>> Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: >>>>>>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the >>>>>>>>>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question >>>>>>>>>> reopened": >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the >>>>>>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a >>>>>>>>>> ranging device in some situation, however, produced >>>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory results. Where a radar range could >>>>>>>>>> be compared with a range determined by visual >>>>>>>>>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for >>>>>>>>>> example, it was often found that the radar range >>>>>>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on >>>>>>>>>> miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. >>>>>>>>>> Since a radar signal is a form of electromagnetic >>>>>>>>>> radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also >>>>>>>>>> raised the question of whether the speed of light >>>>>>>>>> as then understood was accurate. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to >>>>>>>>>> the question could be sought. Then new techniques >>>>>>>>>> of measurement indicated a curious increase in the >>>>>>>>>> measured velocity. These determinations appear to >>>>>>>>>> reopen the question of the true value of c." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between >>>>>>>>> the lines, but not reading the lines themselves. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is >>>>>>>>> not constant, merely that at the time it appeared >>>>>>>>> that the accepted value was not correct. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are >>>>>>>>> just things like measuring angles and using >>>>>>>>> trigonometry where the known distance on land between >>>>>>>>> two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be >>>>>>>>> used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, >>>>>>>>> being the distance of the ship from the objects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild >>>>>>>>> speculations. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> continuing from the same article: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made >>>>>>>> using two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system >>>>>>>> in Britain and the Soren system in the United states, >>>>>>>> to check their accuracy and to study their possible >>>>>>>> uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by >>>>>>>> radar were compared with the values obtained by normal >>>>>>>> sight triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies >>>>>>>> indicated a higher free space value." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the >>>>>>> accepted speed of light was lower than its actual value. >>>>>>> There's nothing there to indicate anything other than a >>>>>>> problem with the previous measurements. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of >>>>>>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods >>>>>>> are not affected by the speed of light. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There's no new physics here. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sylvia. >>>>>> >>>>>> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have >>>>>> been examined with great detail and are presented as a >>>>>> measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic >>>>>> waves. The first of these showed large differences and it >>>>>> was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED >>>>>> that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'". >>>>> >>>>> NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the >>>> speed of the wave, and then you do it again the same way, you >>>> expect to get the same answer. If you don't then either the >>>> speed is really varying between measurements, or you have >>>> issues with how you're doing the measurement. Once they'd >>>> improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. >>>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon? >>> >> >> The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the >> cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then >> removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only >> way that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent >> variation vanish is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause >> of them. >> >> Sylvia. > > So, are you saying that we choose to ignore certain realities about > nature in order to develop a seamless system of measure? > I knew you wanted to construe the technical improvements as being a way to ignore the truth that the speed of electromagnetic (EMW) waves changes. I was trying, apparently very unsuccessfully, to explain that if the speed of EMW actually varied, then the technical improvements would not have made it appear constant, because they would not be addressing the cause of the variation. If the speed of EMW actually varied, it would be impossible to build accurate radar systems, which depend on the speed not varying. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 18:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f090af87-4ba5-4ed1-af3f-a2b0c1490517@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391329 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/09/2016 10:37 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:45:15 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 31/08/2016 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 10:30:11 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 10:22:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:42 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:41 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saturday, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:40:09 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > take about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > if go/come > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > So, not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > No, not any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > by maximum visual > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Suppose we had a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, when > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the large screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to observe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "retina" like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure "photons" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think like this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the object is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this possible. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you go right > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this. Instead, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way you are going > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the facts here... you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter moon measure... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the six month variation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of occultation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moons have anything to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the speed of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but do you know what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes mean to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe? It's an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for what's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems bizarre in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extreme for you to want > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that the cause > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something else when we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in undetectable dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the audience during a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the magician is like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is really being sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. The fact that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still alive suggests that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest that the model of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens far on Earth- like the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one's in famous toothed-wheel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens can be observed BEFORE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the experiment. Given its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the well > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is evidence out there like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science interprets the results. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references, which people cannot > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check, why not provide links to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official documents? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my time and I'm just waiting for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to wake up. It's very difficult > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to talk about a subject that nobody > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd have to have become aware of them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow. If there are no official > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's not just something someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, you are a person of this Earth- you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have as much right to this reality as I do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you prove it- if you think it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be proved? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments? Clearly I can't do that, since > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proving non-existence of anything is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments. Unless you were personally > >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and not just imagining it, you must > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have come across information about them > >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate some independent verification, as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well as allowing an opportunity to check your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the results. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought you would do a better job considering > >>>>>>>>>>>> that you think highly of yourself and you live > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the 21 century. Why can't you do this > >>>>>>>>>>>> considering my only asset is my mind and its' > >>>>>>>>>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or > >>>>>>>>>>>> influence to perform this experiment. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> really can't access the info concerning the > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > >>>>>>>>>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the > >>>>>>>>>>>> water gave faster results than the radar? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, I can't find it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the > >>>>>>>>>> principal attempts to determine the velocity of > >>>>>>>>>> light A qualifying paper submitted to the graduate > >>>>>>>>>> school in partial fulfillment of the requirements > >>>>>>>>>> for the degree of master in science in education > >>>>>>>>>> Department of education and physical science > >>>>>>>>>> Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > >>>>>>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the > >>>>>>>>>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question > >>>>>>>>>> reopened": > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the > >>>>>>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a > >>>>>>>>>> ranging device in some situation, however, produced > >>>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory results. Where a radar range could > >>>>>>>>>> be compared with a range determined by visual > >>>>>>>>>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for > >>>>>>>>>> example, it was often found that the radar range > >>>>>>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on > >>>>>>>>>> miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. > >>>>>>>>>> Since a radar signal is a form of electromagnetic > >>>>>>>>>> radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also > >>>>>>>>>> raised the question of whether the speed of light > >>>>>>>>>> as then understood was accurate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to > >>>>>>>>>> the question could be sought. Then new techniques > >>>>>>>>>> of measurement indicated a curious increase in the > >>>>>>>>>> measured velocity. These determinations appear to > >>>>>>>>>> reopen the question of the true value of c." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between > >>>>>>>>> the lines, but not reading the lines themselves. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is > >>>>>>>>> not constant, merely that at the time it appeared > >>>>>>>>> that the accepted value was not correct. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are > >>>>>>>>> just things like measuring angles and using > >>>>>>>>> trigonometry where the known distance on land between > >>>>>>>>> two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be > >>>>>>>>> used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, > >>>>>>>>> being the distance of the ship from the objects. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild > >>>>>>>>> speculations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> continuing from the same article: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made > >>>>>>>> using two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system > >>>>>>>> in Britain and the Soren system in the United states, > >>>>>>>> to check their accuracy and to study their possible > >>>>>>>> uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by > >>>>>>>> radar were compared with the values obtained by normal > >>>>>>>> sight triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies > >>>>>>>> indicated a higher free space value." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the > >>>>>>> accepted speed of light was lower than its actual value. > >>>>>>> There's nothing there to indicate anything other than a > >>>>>>> problem with the previous measurements. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of > >>>>>>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods > >>>>>>> are not affected by the speed of light. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There's no new physics here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have > >>>>>> been examined with great detail and are presented as a > >>>>>> measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic > >>>>>> waves. The first of these showed large differences and it > >>>>>> was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED > >>>>>> that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'". > >>>>> > >>>>> NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the > >>>> speed of the wave, and then you do it again the same way, you > >>>> expect to get the same answer. If you don't then either the > >>>> speed is really varying between measurements, or you have > >>>> issues with how you're doing the measurement. Once they'd > >>>> improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon? > >>> > >> > >> The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the > >> cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then > >> removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only > >> way that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent > >> variation vanish is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause > >> of them. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > So, are you saying that we choose to ignore certain realities about > > nature in order to develop a seamless system of measure? > > > > I knew you wanted to construe the technical improvements as being a way > to ignore the truth that the speed of electromagnetic (EMW) waves > changes. I was trying, apparently very unsuccessfully, to explain that > if the speed of EMW actually varied, then the technical improvements > would not have made it appear constant, because they would not be > addressing the cause of the variation. > > If the speed of EMW actually varied, it would be impossible to build > accurate radar systems, which depend on the speed not varying. > > Sylvia. So, we agree on this reality- a reality built by blocking out the noise which would make this system (such as radar) useless and incoherent?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 13:54 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2pn42FjpaaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391332 |
On 1/09/2016 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > So, we agree on this reality- a reality built by blocking out the > noise which would make this system (such as radar) useless and > incoherent? > You're still trying to twist this into some kind of conspiracy by scientists to force the perceived reality into a particular chosen form by ignoring those aspects of reality that they don't want. The noise is in the measuring equipment and of course one wants to eliminate it, precisely in order to determine the reality of the thing being measured. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <539cbef0-dfaa-4e2d-8b41-bf782d6c7fc9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391336 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 10:54:46 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/09/2016 11:59 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > So, we agree on this reality- a reality built by blocking out the > > noise which would make this system (such as radar) useless and > > incoherent? > > > > You're still trying to twist this into some kind of conspiracy by > scientists to force the perceived reality into a particular chosen form > by ignoring those aspects of reality that they don't want. > > The noise is in the measuring equipment and of course one wants to > eliminate it, precisely in order to determine the reality of the thing > being measured. > > Sylvia. I'm not trying to twist anything. I'm only trying to open up something- I think that we have largely forgotten.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 19:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <08a23b8f-4d92-45b9-be53-1fa13ad31f84@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391329 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:49:49 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/09/2016 10:37 AM, John Gogo wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 10:45:15 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >> On 31/08/2016 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:57:58 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>> wrote: > >>>> On 31/08/2016 12:41 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:36:24 PM UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 8:29:01 PM UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>> On 31/08/2016 11:08 AM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 12:11:37 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On 30/08/2016 2:32 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 28, 2016 at 12:19:26 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 2:11 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, August 27, 2016 at 9:59:47 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 28/08/2016 12:46 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 10:45:16 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 12:06 PM, John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at 8:51:28 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 26/08/2016 8:29 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 25, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1:02:30 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 25/08/2016 11:52 AM, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:54:26 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 24/08/2016 1:42 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at 12:18:12 AM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 1:39 PM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 10:30:11 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at 10:22:05 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10:03:52 PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, August > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21, 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:17:46 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 22/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11:42 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 21, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2016 at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8:31:12 PM > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-5, Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 22/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:41 AM, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> John Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Saturday, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > August 20, 2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9:40:09 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PM UTC-5, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Else > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 21/08/2016 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > 6:17 AM, John > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gogo > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > take about > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > if go/come > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> second > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one-way. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > So, not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > then. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > No, not any > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen"(determined > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > by maximum visual > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acuity) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantaneous. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Suppose we had a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Moon, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but it was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initially > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> covered up. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then, when > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse hits > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retro-reflector, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the large screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> uncovered. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maintain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> laser pulse > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Earth? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, this is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been trying > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to say. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your retina is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sensitive to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. For > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you to observe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the photons > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> representing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the largeness > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returning laser > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pulse, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> former would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster than the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latter. Why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How would they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know that they > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should travel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faster? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are treating > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "retina" like a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measure "photons" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from which the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> very nature of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its' meaning is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traveling. Don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> think like this. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think about why > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the object is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> large as it is > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and what makes > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this possible. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then you go right > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> away to the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screen of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> photons. Don't > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do this. Instead, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> compare the image > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the screen- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1,2,3 in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seconds vs. the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> satellite sends > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is the only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> way you are going > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to spatially be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to tell a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> time difference. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm just giving you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the facts here... you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can like it or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For instance, the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter moon measure... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I refuse to believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the 22 minutes of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the six month variation > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of occultation of the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jupiter's two main > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> moons have anything to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do with the speed of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light. I believe the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something else. Now, I > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know what the 22 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> minutes means to you, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but do you know what > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 22 minutes mean to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why would you not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe? It's an > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elegantly simple > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explanation for what's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observed, and is entirely > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistent with what we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know about light. It > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seems bizarre in the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extreme for you to want > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to believe that the cause > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is something else when we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clearly understand what's > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> happening. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You might as well believe > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in undetectable dragons. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you are like one in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the audience during a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> magicians performance and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the magician is like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nature. When the woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> appears to be sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- you believe the woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is really being sawed in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> half- right? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know how you get > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there. The fact that the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> apparently sawn-in-half woman > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is still alive suggests that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the women-really-sawn-in-half > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> model is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As yet, there's nothing to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggest that the model of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> light is flawed. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My point is we can place > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens far on Earth- like the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one's in famous toothed-wheel > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments- placed on mountain > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tops to derive a measurable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> quantity which proves that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> screens can be observed BEFORE > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> signals. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, it's your theory. You need > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do the experiment. Given its > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict with the well > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> established existing theory, no > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one else is going to do it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The phenomenon occurs naturally. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is evidence out there like > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the 1950's naval experiments where > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sight triangulation occurred > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instantly and the radar "fell > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> short". The main problem is how > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science interprets the results. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead of providing vague > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> references, which people cannot > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check, why not provide links to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> official documents? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Official documents... maybe, I'm ahead > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of my time and I'm just waiting for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people to wake up. It's very difficult > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to talk about a subject that nobody > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wants to talk about. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If there were 1950's naval experiments, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd have to have become aware of them > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow. If there are no official > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> documents to refer to, how do you know > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that it's not just something someone > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overheard in a pub? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Free space velocity was their explanation. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia, you are a person of this Earth- you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have as much right to this reality as I do. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why don't you prove it- if you think it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be proved? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove what? The non-existence of these > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments? Clearly I can't do that, since > >>>>>>>>>>>>> proving non-existence of anything is > >>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You are saying things about these > >>>>>>>>>>>>> experiments. Unless you were personally > >>>>>>>>>>>>> involved, and not just imagining it, you must > >>>>>>>>>>>>> have come across information about them > >>>>>>>>>>>>> somehow. Why not provide details to > >>>>>>>>>>>>> facilitate some independent verification, as > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well as allowing an opportunity to check your > >>>>>>>>>>>>> interpretation of the results. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I have been trying to do- I just > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought you would do a better job considering > >>>>>>>>>>>> that you think highly of yourself and you live > >>>>>>>>>>>> in the 21 century. Why can't you do this > >>>>>>>>>>>> considering my only asset is my mind and its' > >>>>>>>>>>>> investigative powers. I do not have millions or > >>>>>>>>>>>> influence to perform this experiment. You > >>>>>>>>>>>> really can't access the info concerning the > >>>>>>>>>>>> 1950's US Naval experiments about free space > >>>>>>>>>>>> velocity, and how sight triangulations on the > >>>>>>>>>>>> water gave faster results than the radar? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> No, I can't find it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You say it exists - point to it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Sylvia > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ok, here goes. Title: An examination of the > >>>>>>>>>> principal attempts to determine the velocity of > >>>>>>>>>> light A qualifying paper submitted to the graduate > >>>>>>>>>> school in partial fulfillment of the requirements > >>>>>>>>>> for the degree of master in science in education > >>>>>>>>>> Department of education and physical science > >>>>>>>>>> Author: Frederick Arnold Nelson Institution: > >>>>>>>>>> northern Illinois university, 1959 under the > >>>>>>>>>> subtopic in Chapter 4 entitled "the question > >>>>>>>>>> reopened": > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "The use of radar was an important factor in the > >>>>>>>>>> successful conclusion of WWII. Its employment as a > >>>>>>>>>> ranging device in some situation, however, produced > >>>>>>>>>> unsatisfactory results. Where a radar range could > >>>>>>>>>> be compared with a range determined by visual > >>>>>>>>>> methods, a ship sighting on a land object for > >>>>>>>>>> example, it was often found that the radar range > >>>>>>>>>> was SHORT. This was usually blamed on > >>>>>>>>>> miscalibrations of the radar or visual devices. > >>>>>>>>>> Since a radar signal is a form of electromagnetic > >>>>>>>>>> radiation traveling at the speed of light, it also > >>>>>>>>>> raised the question of whether the speed of light > >>>>>>>>>> as then understood was accurate. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> It was not until after the war that an answer to > >>>>>>>>>> the question could be sought. Then new techniques > >>>>>>>>>> of measurement indicated a curious increase in the > >>>>>>>>>> measured velocity. These determinations appear to > >>>>>>>>>> reopen the question of the true value of c." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> That seems to be an example of your reading between > >>>>>>>>> the lines, but not reading the lines themselves. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> They're not suggesting that the speed of light is > >>>>>>>>> not constant, merely that at the time it appeared > >>>>>>>>> that the accepted value was not correct. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Further, the visual methods they're referring to are > >>>>>>>>> just things like measuring angles and using > >>>>>>>>> trigonometry where the known distance on land between > >>>>>>>>> two objects which forms one side of a triangle can be > >>>>>>>>> used to the infer the lengths of the other sides, > >>>>>>>>> being the distance of the ship from the objects. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> There's nothing here to support your wild > >>>>>>>>> speculations. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> continuing from the same article: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> "During 1948, a series of careful measurements was made > >>>>>>>> using two radar navigational systems, the Oboe system > >>>>>>>> in Britain and the Soren system in the United states, > >>>>>>>> to check their accuracy and to study their possible > >>>>>>>> uses in geodetic surveys. The distances measured by > >>>>>>>> radar were compared with the values obtained by normal > >>>>>>>> sight triangulation methods.. Consistent discrepancies > >>>>>>>> indicated a higher free space value." > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Yes - apparently they consistently found that the > >>>>>>> accepted speed of light was lower than its actual value. > >>>>>>> There's nothing there to indicate anything other than a > >>>>>>> problem with the previous measurements. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In any case, the speed of light in AIR and the speed of > >>>>>>> microwaves in AIR are not exactly the same. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also note, in passing, that sight triangulation methods > >>>>>>> are not affected by the speed of light. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> There's no new physics here. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sylvia. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Continuing, "The American results, in particular, have > >>>>>> been examined with great detail and are presented as a > >>>>>> measurement of the free-space velocity of electromagnetic > >>>>>> waves. The first of these showed large differences and it > >>>>>> was not until MANY TECHNICAL IMPROVEMENTS WERE INCORPORATED > >>>>>> that 'the necessary consistency was achieved'". > >>>>> > >>>>> NECESSARTY CONSISTENCY, what does this mean? > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Consistency of one result with another. If you measure the > >>>> speed of the wave, and then you do it again the same way, you > >>>> expect to get the same answer. If you don't then either the > >>>> speed is really varying between measurements, or you have > >>>> issues with how you're doing the measurement. Once they'd > >>>> improved their technique, the former possibility was excluded. > >>>> > >>>> Sylvia. > >>> > >>> This is my problem. What is the price of excluding a phenomenon? > >>> > >> > >> The only way to make an apparent variation vanish is to remove the > >> cause. If the apparent variation is caused by actual changes, then > >> removing the cause would involve modifying the universe. The only > >> way that adjustments to the equipment can make an apparent > >> variation vanish is if it's the equipment itself that's the cause > >> of them. > >> > >> Sylvia. > > > > So, are you saying that we choose to ignore certain realities about > > nature in order to develop a seamless system of measure? > > > > I knew you wanted to construe the technical improvements as being a way > to ignore the truth that the speed of electromagnetic (EMW) waves > changes. I was trying, apparently very unsuccessfully, to explain that > if the speed of EMW actually varied, then the technical improvements > would not have made it appear constant, because they would not be > addressing the cause of the variation. > > If the speed of EMW actually varied, it would be impossible to build > accurate radar systems, which depend on the speed not varying. > > Sylvia. I have no problem with the speed of light mechanically. It is one of our best inventions and miraculously continues to be so. I just think that we are getting more curios. I think the why question is starting to pique our interest, instead of just knowing that systems operate a certain way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web