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 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 14:00 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <e2pnfpFjrkbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #391334 |
On 1/09/2016 12:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > 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. > The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can never be answered. If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers. In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is because they have to. However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why? Because it just is. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <998eb804-8f8f-46be-b79e-770440a96251@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391337 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:01:00 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 1/09/2016 12:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of > some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be > reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can > never be answered. > > If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then > the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers. > In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is > because they have to. > > However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some > other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why? > Because it just is. > > Sylvia. Sorry, just because it is- is not good enough for me. I want to know why. It is as simple as that. You might be satisfied with the way that things work now but I want more.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 21:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4d9ce18f-f456-4e8a-b78d-77dca4f82485@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391338 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:14:16 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:01:00 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 1/09/2016 12:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of > > some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be > > reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can > > never be answered. > > > > If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then > > the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers. > > In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is > > because they have to. > > > > However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some > > other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why? > > Because it just is. > > > > Sylvia. > > Sorry, just because it is- is not good enough for me. I want to know why. It is as simple as that. You might be satisfied with the way that things work now but I want more. I'm looking for a better system!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 11:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <57e1e90d-e0eb-49a8-9f4a-bfa963153b14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391338 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:01:00 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > On 1/09/2016 12:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of > > some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be > > reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can > > never be answered. > > > > If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then > > the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers. > > In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is > > because they have to. > > > > However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some > > other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why? > > Because it just is. > > > > Sylvia. > > Sorry, just because it is- is not good enough for me. I want to know why. It is as simple as that. You might be satisfied with the way that things work now but I want more. The point is physics will always have the problem of "no underlying model" at some point. _Where_ that boundary lies can of course vary over the development of science but in the future AFAICT there will always be a John G. asking the question: "but why is X the way it is"? This appears to be a part of the human condition and is of course a very interesting aspect of our relation to cosmos. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 17:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45115e91-9f05-4fba-ac18-9626cf376bee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391368 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 1:33:51 PM UTC-5, JanPB wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 9:14:16 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 11:01:00 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote: > > > On 1/09/2016 12:08 PM, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of > > > some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be > > > reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can > > > never be answered. > > > > > > If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then > > > the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers. > > > In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is > > > because they have to. > > > > > > However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some > > > other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why? > > > Because it just is. > > > > > > Sylvia. > > > > Sorry, just because it is- is not good enough for me. I want to know why. It is as simple as that. You might be satisfied with the way that things work now but I want more. > > The point is physics will always have the problem of "no underlying > model" at some point. _Where_ that boundary lies can of course vary > over the development of science but in the future AFAICT there will > always be a John G. asking the question: "but why is X the way it is"? > > This appears to be a part of the human condition and is of course > a very interesting aspect of our relation to cosmos. > > -- > Jan Thanks JanPB if it's the John G. your talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e93db66-3186-404e-b8d0-02a5eff88aae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391337 |
Sylvia Else wrote:
The why question always has to be answered, if it can be, in terms of
some underlying mechanism. This cannot go on for ever. A point must be
reached where there IS no underlying mechanism, and the why question can
never be answered.
If electromagnetic waves didn't propagate at speed c in a vacuum, then
the laws of electromagnetism would be different for different observers.
In that sense, the reason electromagnetic waves move at speed c is
because they have to.
However, you can now ask whey c has the value it does, and not some
other value. It appears to be built into the fabric of reality. Why?
Because it just is.
Sylvia.
Both gravity and em transit the Vacuum of spacetime.
Does The impedance of the vacuum regulate the speed of light or does ( em or gravity ) regulate the vacuum ?
The vacuum is a harmonic oscillator.
It is like the "spatial volume of space time" is oscillating from a negative volume to a positive volume, with the surface area being proportional to the frequency
E=mc^2 says mass is electromagnetic
E=mc^2 says spacetime is electromagnetic
E=mc^2 says radiation is electromagnetic
Gravity will be electromagnetic in nature
If spacetime is electromagnetic, gravity will be also as gravity is a curvature of spacetime.
Black holes are near-perfect black bodies, in the sense that they absorb all the radiation that falls on them. It has been proposed that they emit black-body radiation (called Hawking radiation), with a temperature that depends on the mass of the black hole.
If we are in reality on the "INSIDE" of the event horizon, the CMBR is the ("energy usage requirements" per cubic meter) to operate the universe's functions to maintain "escape velocity".
Then the "loss of volume of spacetime" by gravity is electromagnetic as the escape velocity of the event horizon is higher in proportion to the quantity of mass contained in the volume spacetime.
10e-32 / (c*G^0.5) = 1.4145101e-32
(10e-32 / (49.9790376^0.5)) / (0.376730313461^2) = 9.9665516e-32
Planck Temperature is approximately 1.41679 x 10^32 Kelvin
1 / (0.5^0.5) = 1.41421356237
(0.1 / (0.5^0.5))^0.5 = 0.3760603093
1 / (0.141679^2) = 49.818314994
0.141679^0.5 = 0.3764027098
((0.141679^0.5) / (4 * c)) / pi = 9.99130403e-11
pi = 3.13886073
Just RMS , just 0.5^0.5, just 0.707
http://i57.tinypic.com/294ksba.jpg
The inside of a sphere is finite
The outside of a sphere is infinite
(1*Infinity)^0.5
Is there really a difference between
1.41679e+32 K & (2^0.5*10^32) ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-30 20:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a2c74316-dbc8-497e-8a9d-14ba160adf26@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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-08-31 18:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <515432d0-9dd7-4871-b6c7-f2cc40868ea1@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'". continuing... "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <46acab74-c96a-445c-98dd-2e447a767c2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391331 |
On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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'". > > continuing... > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." continuing... In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 18:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <220ed6f1-0a7a-43f7-8d96-1c97b7dac7fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391385 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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'". > > > > continuing... > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > continuing... > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-01 18:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <66899be1-4723-4d18-a1a7-120e78a05587@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391385 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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'". > > > > continuing... > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > continuing... > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jonathan Doolin <good4usoul@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 04:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76e1d43a-72e7-426b-b1f4-48a4db02a27b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391390 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > continuing... > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 17:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f112c6e-1c0c-45b3-8d83-4975af61aca4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391517 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 6:57:47 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. > > In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short. Radar is not optical.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 20:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <078e0960-9ec8-466f-a8b6-3132224b1ee4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391537 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 6:57:47 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. > > > > In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > > > > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short. > > Radar is not optical. Unless, you are talking about Lidar which wasn't invented until the early 60's.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 21:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <886f0b04-8fe4-45e1-85d8-43c8904d924c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391547 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 10:59:51 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 6:57:47 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. > > > > > > In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > > > > > > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short. > > > > Radar is not optical. > > Unless, you are talking about Lidar which wasn't invented until the early 60's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 21:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <580ca2c2-17df-4b0a-a04e-ff4639762d90@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391549 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 11:05:21 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 10:59:51 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 7:25:07 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 6:57:47 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. > > > > > > > > In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > > > > > > > > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short. > > > > > > Radar is not optical. > > > > Unless, you are talking about Lidar which wasn't invented until the early 60's. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lidar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 20:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7e3e9ada-286f-4a83-b408-bbee24b9b582@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391517 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 6:57:47 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. > > In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short. What about when circa Newton first realized that the planets such as Jupiter were not stars?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-04 21:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a73083e3-68d1-4bd3-b70c-612ac687607c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391546 |
On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 10:56:57 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Sunday, September 4, 2016 at 6:57:47 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Doolin wrote: > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:50:49 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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? > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > It should not the business of a scientist to "believe" a thing, but simply to acknowledge hypotheses and models, and follow various models to their conclusions... Then check how well the model stands up to comparisons with observations. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 you are ahead of your time, then you will need to spend a lot of time making your ideas clear. You might want to start by constructing a table comparing your ideas to your own impression of more commonly accepted ideas. > > > > In rare cases, perhaps you'll find the commonly accepted ideas false. But in more cases, it is probably just your impression of the more commonly accepted ideas that is false. > > > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> > > > > > > > >>>>>>>> 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." > > > > > > > > > > > > Couldn't that just be a difference in the index of refraction of the atmosphere for visible light and radar? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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'". > > > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > > > > > We have to remember where the definition of "free space velocity" comes from. It the fact borne into that sight measures are faster and that radar measures are short. > > What about when circa Newton first realized that the planets such as Jupiter were not stars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_telescope
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 20:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a1cd5cbc-c2ec-4525-8ef7-f838f6ff690f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391385 |
On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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'". > > > > continuing... > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > continuing... > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. Essen used a cavity, which is essentially a wave guide along a metal pipe which constitutes a electrical resonator...low damping... the cavity essentially prohibits or eliminates all future sight methods including triangulation... the waves on the guide do not travel... free space velocity educed from walls which provide resonant frequency... free space velocity effectively eliminates sight measures...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-05 21:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dfbb99ee-d640-4244-bb16-f29dc3daedee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #391588 |
On Monday, September 5, 2016 at 10:55:54 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > On Thursday, September 1, 2016 at 8:29:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 31, 2016 at 8:53:33 PM UTC-5, 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'". > > > > > > continuing... > > > > > > "These improvements included the psychrometer measurements by a weather plane along the path of the beam to provide correction for the refractive index and corrections amounting to 1 part in 10 to the fourth for fluctuation in the intensity of the signal. Consistent results finally yielded a value of 299.792 plus or minus 2.4 km per second." > > > > continuing... > > > > In 1950, Dr. L. Essen of the British National Physical Laboratory developed a method, know as cavity resonance, which produced results in keeping with that suggested (1). It is known that short radio wave travel along a metal pipe or wave guide or the proper size with very little loss of energy. Also, a closed length of wave guide constitutes an electrical resonator which exhibits low damping. The waves om the guide do not travel with free space velocity, but the boundaries are precisely defined by the walls, enabling the phase velocity and the resonant frequencies to be calculated from the electromagnetic theory. The free space velocity can thus be educed when the resonant frequency and the dimensions of the resonator are known. > > Essen used a cavity, which is essentially a wave guide along a metal pipe which constitutes a electrical resonator...low damping... the cavity essentially prohibits or eliminates all future sight methods including triangulation... the waves on the guide do not travel... free space velocity educed from walls which provide resonant frequency... free space velocity effectively eliminates sight measures... continuing... Essen pursued this method with a specifically constructed resonator. His final value was 299,792 plus or minus 9 km./sec. This value has been confirmed in more recent experiments at the National Physical Laboratory to an accuracy to 2 parts in a million. The higher precision obtained with new equipment has, however small systematic differences for different resonance arrangements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web