Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424486 > unrolled thread

The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse

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

Contents

  The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 23:00 -0700
    Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 23:01 -0700
      Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 23:08 -0700
        Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-11 16:06 +0000
          Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:12 +1000
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee> - 2017-07-12 22:26 +0000
          Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-11 18:16 -0700
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-12 17:00 +0000
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 16:37 -0700
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:58 +1000
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 17:30 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 17:42 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse gregguikema@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 18:23 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 18:47 -0700
                  Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 05:11 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 09:29 +1000
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 19:21 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-15 20:05 -0700
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 20:43 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:30 +1000
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:11 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 18:37 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 18:56 -0700
                  Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 19:21 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 19:23 -0700
                  Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-23 17:32 -0700
                    Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 19:22 -0700
                      Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-23 20:30 -0700
                        Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 21:55 -0700
                          Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 19:07 -0700
                            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 20:09 -0700
                            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 20:45 -0700
    Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 15:38 +1000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#425560

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:16:41 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:

> Here is the gist of the experiment:
> 
> Setup:
> 
> In a line of sight experiment:
> 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
> 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
> 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.

Ok. "observer O" is then said to be located at x=0. 


> Experiment:
> 
> 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light 
> source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.

Ok. Equivalently, C sends out an (omnidirectional) pulse, a "lightsphere". 

> 2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated 
> at the same time.

No, because you haven't defined what is meant by 'at the same time'.
If O, A, B & C were all esynched, then A & B will receive their respective pulse at the same time, in the sense that, the values indicated by their clocks (wristwatch, say) will indicate the same values. 

But this is totally irrelevant to the experiment, since you dont need to know these values.


> 3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by
>  the observer.

Meaning that O can receive signals emanating from A & B. 

> Theoretical conclusion:
> 1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed 
> before light source B since light source A is situated closer to 
> the observers...

Conventional theory (SR, say) will compute & conclude that O will receive 
A's signal ("see" it) before receiving B's signal. And this is confirmed by actual exp's. 

> 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will 
> be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, 

Then your theory fails big time since it does not adhere to actual empirical data. 

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

#425644

On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:11:54 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:16:41 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> 
> > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > 
> > Setup:
> > 
> > In a line of sight experiment:
> > 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
> > 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
> > 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> 
> Ok. "observer O" is then said to be located at x=0. 
> 
> 
> > Experiment:
> > 
> > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light 
> > source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.
> 
> Ok. Equivalently, C sends out an (omnidirectional) pulse, a "lightsphere". 
> 
> > 2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated 
> > at the same time.
> 
> No, because you haven't defined what is meant by 'at the same time'.
> If O, A, B & C were all esynched, then A & B will receive their respective pulse at the same time, in the sense that, the values indicated by their clocks (wristwatch, say) will indicate the same values. 
> 
> But this is totally irrelevant to the experiment, since you dont need to know these values.
> 
> 
> > 3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by
> >  the observer.
> 
> Meaning that O can receive signals emanating from A & B. 
> 
> > Theoretical conclusion:
> > 1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed 
> > before light source B since light source A is situated closer to 
> > the observers...
> 
> Conventional theory (SR, say) will compute & conclude that O will receive 
> A's signal ("see" it) before receiving B's signal. And this is confirmed by actual exp's. 
> 
> > 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will 
> > be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, 
> 
> Then your theory fails big time since it does not adhere to actual empirical data.

Thank you Rotchm for responding. I will continue to meditate what you say. My first thought was that I insisted that this is a one-way measure, while convention says that one way measure is not possible. It would be helpful if you said:

1) this is not a one-way measure
2) that you equate this experiment with any other gedankin specifically
3) the orientation of the experiment is unoriginal; therefore, not useful

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

#425646

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 8:37:13 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 18, 2017 at 10:11:54 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 9:16:41 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> > 
> > > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > > 
> > > Setup:
> > > 
> > > In a line of sight experiment:
> > > 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
> > > 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
> > > 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> > 
> > Ok. "observer O" is then said to be located at x=0. 
> > 
> > 
> > > Experiment:
> > > 
> > > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light 
> > > source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.
> > 
> > Ok. Equivalently, C sends out an (omnidirectional) pulse, a "lightsphere". 
> > 
> > > 2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated 
> > > at the same time.
> > 
> > No, because you haven't defined what is meant by 'at the same time'.
> > If O, A, B & C were all esynched, then A & B will receive their respective pulse at the same time, in the sense that, the values indicated by their clocks (wristwatch, say) will indicate the same values. 
> > 
> > But this is totally irrelevant to the experiment, since you dont need to know these values.
> > 
> > 
> > > 3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by
> > >  the observer.
> > 
> > Meaning that O can receive signals emanating from A & B. 
> > 
> > > Theoretical conclusion:
> > > 1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed 
> > > before light source B since light source A is situated closer to 
> > > the observers...
> > 
> > Conventional theory (SR, say) will compute & conclude that O will receive 
> > A's signal ("see" it) before receiving B's signal. And this is confirmed by actual exp's. 
> > 
> > > 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will 
> > > be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, 
> > 
> > Then your theory fails big time since it does not adhere to actual empirical data.
> 
> Thank you Rotchm for responding. I will continue to meditate what you say. My first thought was that I insisted that this is a one-way measure, while convention says that one way measure is not possible. It would be helpful if you said:
> 
> 1) this is not a one-way measure
> 2) that you equate this experiment with any other gedankin specifically
> 3) the orientation of the experiment is unoriginal; therefore, not useful

A transmitter which is midpoint will propagate signals both ways with the same rate.

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

#425648

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:56:56 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:

> A transmitter which is midpoint will propagate signals both ways 
> with the same rate.

You mean at the same speed? And even if thats what you meant, empirically, that is irrelevant to your setup (since nowhere are you required to measure any speeds whatsoever. You just want to know if two signals arrive at the same place simultaneously). But if you want to analyse the conclusion of a model (SR here), then SR posits that EM's will propagate at c in all directions. 

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

#425650

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:37:13 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:

> Thank you Rotchm for responding. I will continue to meditate what you 
> say. My first thought was that I insisted that this is a one-way 
> measure, while convention says that one way measure is not possible. 
> It would be helpful if you said:
> 
> 1) this is not a one-way measure

Was not part of the topic, so no reason to have said that. And even if it were not a OWLS, its irrelevant to the setup (see my response to your other response). 

...

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

#425932

On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:23:39 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 19, 2017 at 9:37:13 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> 
> > Thank you Rotchm for responding. I will continue to meditate what you 
> > say. My first thought was that I insisted that this is a one-way 
> > measure, while convention says that one way measure is not possible. 
> > It would be helpful if you said:
> > 
> > 1) this is not a one-way measure
> 
> Was not part of the topic, so no reason to have said that. And even if it were not a OWLS, its irrelevant to the setup (see my response to your other response). 
> 
> ...

The title of the paper: "The light sandwich experiment" is an illustration proposed so that a midpoint may be able to synchronize clocks A and B. 'And the Solution to Poincare's Curse" which states that it is impossible to measure the one way velocity of light. I propose a one way light measure which will prove that there is a legitimate one way measure possible and it will prove that lighted bodies are observed instantaneously (macroscopically).

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

#425941

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:32:22 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:

> I propose a one way light measure which will prove that there 
> is a legitimate one way measure possible and...

Where is this proposition/setup? Can you *BRIEFLY* DESCRIBE IT HERE?

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

#425944

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:22:42 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 8:32:22 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> 
> > I propose a one way light measure which will prove that there 
> > is a legitimate one way measure possible and...
> 
> Where is this proposition/setup? Can you *BRIEFLY* DESCRIBE IT HERE?

As we measure microscopically there is a question whether A and B are measured by the speed of light or the speed of the creation of the image (the time it takes to develop an image). It becomes a mechanical issue- but when we observe objects such as the sun or the moon- these are macroscopic issues- and to be honest- if we presented observable objects of varying distances- there will be no effect of traveling- as synchronized from a transmitting midpoint with respect to a line of sight observer- the effect will be nil or instantaneous.

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

#425946

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:30:49 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:22:42 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:

> > Where is this proposition/setup? Can you *BRIEFLY* DESCRIBE IT HERE?
> 
> As we measure microscopically there is a question whether A and B 
> are measured by the speed of light or the speed of the creation 
> of the image (the time it takes to develop an image). It becomes 
<snip>

That is not describing your setup. What is your proposed setup to measure the owls? 

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

#426393

On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:30:49 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:22:42 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> 
> > > Where is this proposition/setup? Can you *BRIEFLY* DESCRIBE IT HERE?
> > 
> > As we measure microscopically there is a question whether A and B 
> > are measured by the speed of light or the speed of the creation 
> > of the image (the time it takes to develop an image). It becomes 
> <snip>
> 
> That is not describing your setup. What is your proposed setup to measure the owls?

When Michelson performed his series of experiments over several years, he was looking for "light that could be seen traveling". He was looking for the "luminous ether" period. He set out to devise his experiments that would measure that "visible difference". Much to his dismay, he never was able to measure ANY difference- his result was "null"

When I am attempting to construct what I call "the Light Sandwich Experiment, my main goal of the construction is based on the belief that the sun is not observed in the sky with a 8 minute delay- on the contrary, it is observed instantaneously! And so I begin to construct an experiment that would prove this theory. In order to do this, a baseline with a ONE WAY directional measure will have to be fashioned that would show- that regardless of varying distance of luminous objects A and B, these very same objects varying objects will show that the observer "perceives" these objects at the same time.

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

#426396

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 9:07:46 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:30:49 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 9:22:42 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
> > 
> > > > Where is this proposition/setup? Can you *BRIEFLY* DESCRIBE IT HERE?
> > > 
> > > As we measure microscopically there is a question whether A and B 
> > > are measured by the speed of light or the speed of the creation 
> > > of the image (the time it takes to develop an image). It becomes 
> > <snip>
> > 
> > That is not describing your setup. What is your proposed setup to measure the owls?
> 
> When Michelson performed his series of experiments over several years, he was looking for "light that could be seen traveling". He was looking for the "luminous ether" period. He set out to devise his experiments that would measure that "visible difference". Much to his dismay, he never was able to measure ANY difference- his result was "null"
> 
> When I am attempting to construct what I call "the Light Sandwich Experiment, my main goal of the construction is based on the belief that the sun is not observed in the sky with a 8 minute delay- on the contrary, it is observed instantaneously! And so I begin to construct an experiment that would prove this theory. In order to do this, a baseline with a ONE WAY directional measure will have to be fashioned that would show- that regardless of varying distance of luminous objects A and B, these very same objects varying objects will show that the observer "perceives" these objects at the same time.

Tell me another object such as the SUN that will BLIND your eyesight if you look at it "long enough"- that it is actually not where it is observed?

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

#426397

On Thursday, July 27, 2017 at 10:07:46 PM UTC-4, John Gogo wrote:
> On Sunday, July 23, 2017 at 11:55:51 PM UTC-5, rotchm wrote:
 
> > That is not describing your setup. What is your proposed setup 
> > to measure the owls?
> 
> When Michelson performed his series of experiments over several years, 
> he was looking for <snip>

That is not what I asked. Stay on topic: YOUR proposed exp. 

> When I am attempting to construct what I call "the Light 
> Sandwich Experiment, my main goal of the construction is based 
> on the belief that the sun is not observed in the sky with a 
> 8 minute delay- on the contrary, it is observed instantaneously!

As in, the light emanating from the sur is arbitrarily fast, arrives here instantaneously?  If so, how do you account for the fact that when we send light to the reflectors on the moon, it returns to us roughly 3 seconds later? Or when we send light (an EM ping/timing pulse) to one of the many sat's, its reflexion arrives back to us (or to other sats in space) a few minutes later? Such facts tend to indicate that light has a finite speed, no?


> And so I begin to construct an experiment that would prove this theory. 
> In order to do this, a baseline with a ONE WAY directional measure 
> will have to be fashioned that would show- that regardless of varying
> distance of luminous objects A and B, these very same objects 
> varying objects will show that the observer "perceives" these 
> objects at the same time.

Again, describe how you will set this up; the gedanken...
You have yet to provide this, which is the topic...It seems that you are trying to dodge it... 

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

#426403

On 11/07/2017 4:00 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
> 

In the paper, you say "Since the clock is stationed exactly in between 
Omni light sources A and B, Omnilight sources A and B are illuminated at 
precisely the same time at tA and tB."

This is not correct, because there are missing words, being "in a frame 
in which A and B and the clock are not moving." For other frames, there 
is no synchronisation between the illumination of A and B.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web