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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408202 > unrolled thread

Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?

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

Contents

  Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-07 20:10 +1100
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-07 13:35 +0000
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-08 12:27 +1100
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Python <python@python.invalid> - 2017-02-08 02:35 +0100
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-08 04:00 +0000
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:43 -0600
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-07 05:45 -0800
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 14:50 -0800
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-07 16:53 -0600
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 05:40 +1100
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-08 12:30 +1100
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 08:44 -0600
          Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 05:41 +1100
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2017-02-08 10:55 -0800
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 11:14 -0800
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 13:23 -0800
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? alsor@interia.pl - 2017-02-08 17:39 -0800
                  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-08 17:54 -0800
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-08 21:40 +0100
      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-09 20:01 +1100
        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-09 13:03 +0100
          Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-10 17:47 +1100
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-10 09:31 -0600
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-11 12:32 +1100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 19:08 -0800
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-02-10 22:37 -0600
                  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-12 08:38 +1100
            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-10 18:06 +0000
              Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-11 12:33 +1100
                Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-11 06:16 +0000
                  Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-12 08:42 +1100
                    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-12 06:07 +0000
                      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-13 20:31 +1100
                        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-13 16:31 +0000
                          Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-14 08:45 +1100
                            Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-02-14 02:42 +0000
                    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-02-14 20:44 +0100
                      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-14 12:23 -0800
                      Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-02-19 11:50 +1100
                        Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-18 21:08 -0800
    Re: Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass? John Heath <heathjohn2@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 05:43 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#408564

On 09.02.2017 10:01, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 09/02/17 07:40, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Albert Einstein:
>> THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
>>   page 199:
>>   <<
>>     .., a ray of light going past the Sun undergoes
>>     a deflection of 1.7"; ..
>>   >>
>> Which we now know is the correct prediction.
>
> Who knows that? Nobody has verified it. In fact not one aspect of
> Einstein's theories has been verified.

Newtonian gravitation predicts that
the PPN parameter gamma is zero,
while GR predicts it is 1.

Measurements show:

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
  gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
  gamma - 1 = (-1.3 ± 5.2) x 10^-5

https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
  gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0004

https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
  gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0003

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
  gamma - 1 = (-4.8 ± 5.7) x 10^-5

'nuff said!

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#408687

On 09/02/17 23:03, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 09.02.2017 10:01, HGW... DSc. wrote:

>>> Which we now know is the correct prediction.
>>
>> Who knows that? Nobody has verified it. In fact not one aspect of
>> Einstein's theories has been verified.
>
> Newtonian gravitation predicts that
> the PPN parameter gamma is zero,
> while GR predicts it is 1.
>
> Measurements show:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>   gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>   gamma - 1 = (-1.3 ± 5.2) x 10^-5
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>   gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0004
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>   gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0003
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>   gamma - 1 = (-4.8 ± 5.7) x 10^-5
>
> 'nuff said!
>
These worthless experiments reveal the lengths to which desperate 
Einstein supporters will go to try to prove just one aspect of his silly 
theories correct. They all knew the answer they wanted and incorporated 
enough approximations and estimates to get close to it.
Good try, Paul! We know how the Einstein conspirators work.

There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed varies. 
That's all we need to know.

-- 

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

#408729

On 2/10/17 2/10/17   12:47 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> [... attempts to ignore actual experiments]
>
> There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed varies.

References, please.

Note that only REAL experiments will do, that actually measure the speed of 
light. Your personal fantasies and guesses are useless.

Tom Roberts

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

#408788

On 11/02/17 02:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/10/17 2/10/17   12:47 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>> [... attempts to ignore actual experiments]
>>
>> There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed
>> varies.
>
> References, please.
>
> Note that only REAL experiments will do, that actually measure the
> speed of light. Your personal fantasies and guesses are useless.

MMX, Sagnac...Every experiment that measures the Doppler shift of light.

Every one proves light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v
relative to a moving object.

Not ONE experiment has ever shown light speed to always equal c.

Now, studies of variable star curves have put the last nail in 
Einstein's coffin by showing quite convincingly that light speed is 
source dependent.

> Tom Roberts


-- 

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

#408794

On Friday, February 10, 2017 at 5:32:28 PM UTC-8, HGW... DSc. wrote:

> Now, studies of variable star curves have put the last nail in 
> Einstein's coffin by showing quite convincingly that light speed is 
> source dependent.

Now, that is an outright lie...

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

#408797

On 2/10/17 2/10/17   7:32 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 11/02/17 02:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> On 2/10/17 2/10/17   12:47 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>>> [... attempts to ignore actual experiments]
>>> There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed
>>> varies.
>>
>> References, please.
>>
>> Note that only REAL experiments will do, that actually measure the
>> speed of light. Your personal fantasies and guesses are useless.
>
> MMX, Sagnac...Every experiment that measures the Doppler shift of light.

Nope. Apparently you cannot read, and cannot even THINK about this. Only 
experiments that actually measure the speed of light qualify, because your claim 
is about the SPEED OF LIGHT and not about measurements of fringe shifts, 
frequency, or wavelength. Not one of those experiments you mention actually 
measured SPEED.

Your FANTASIES about how those measurements relate to the speed of light are 
USELESS. Because they don't actually measure the speed of light (DUH!).

> Every one proves light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v
> relative to a moving object.

No, THEY DO NOT. The MMX and Sagnac show interesting properties of light, and 
the Doppler measurements show something about light's frequency or wavelength 
(depending on which Doppler measurement you mean), but NONE of them actually 
measure the speed of light. So you can only FANTASIZE about how they relate to 
the speed of light, and your fantasies are USELESS.

> Not ONE experiment has ever shown light speed to always equal c.

Not true. There were HUNDREDS of measurements of the vacuum speed of light 
before the redefinition of the meter in 1983. And many others....

You are so blazingly ignorant you cannot get anything right. And so amazingly 
stupid that even after decades around here you haven't bothered to look up any 
actual experiments.

> Now, studies of variable star curves have put the last nail in Einstein's coffin
> by showing quite convincingly that light speed is source dependent.

Nope. Those are measurements of brightness, NOT SPEED.

You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting to write 
about it. And you also need to learn how to read.

Tom Roberts

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

#408857

On 11/02/17 15:37, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 2/10/17 2/10/17   7:32 PM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>> On 11/02/17 02:31, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> On 2/10/17 2/10/17   12:47 AM, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>>>> [... attempts to ignore actual experiments]
>>>> There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed
>>>> varies.
>>>
>>> References, please.
>>>
>>> Note that only REAL experiments will do, that actually measure the
>>> speed of light. Your personal fantasies and guesses are useless.
>>
>> MMX, Sagnac...Every experiment that measures the Doppler shift of light.
>
> Nope. Apparently you cannot read, and cannot even THINK about this. Only
> experiments that actually measure the speed of light qualify, because
> your claim is about the SPEED OF LIGHT and not about measurements of
> fringe shifts, frequency, or wavelength. Not one of those experiments
> you mention actually measured SPEED.
>
> Your FANTASIES about how those measurements relate to the speed of light
> are USELESS. Because they don't actually measure the speed of light (DUH!).
>
>> Every one proves light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v
>> relative to a moving object.
>
> No, THEY DO NOT. The MMX and Sagnac show interesting properties of
> light, and the Doppler measurements show something about light's
> frequency or wavelength (depending on which Doppler measurement you
> mean), but NONE of them actually measure the speed of light. So you can
> only FANTASIZE about how they relate to the speed of light, and your
> fantasies are USELESS.
>
>> Not ONE experiment has ever shown light speed to always equal c.

That is because it has been impossible to measure OWLS from a moving 
source. The best that can be done even now is a comparison of two light 
speeds and that too is still very difficult because of extinction and 
unification. The only moving sources worth investigating are orbiting 
stars...and they show quite conclusively that their light INITIALLY 
moves at c+v towards Earth.


> Not true. There were HUNDREDS of measurements of the vacuum speed of
> light before the redefinition of the meter in 1983. And many others....
>
> You are so blazingly ignorant you cannot get anything right. And so
> amazingly stupid that even after decades around here you haven't
> bothered to look up any actual experiments.

I don't wish to get anything 'right' in your fantasy universe.
I'm only concerned with the real world.

>
>> Now, studies of variable star curves have put the last nail in
>> Einstein's coffin
>> by showing quite convincingly that light speed is source dependent.
>
> Nope. Those are measurements of brightness, NOT SPEED.
>
> You REALLY need to learn something about the subject before attempting
> to write about it. And you also need to learn how to read.
>
> Tom Roberts
>


-- 

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

#408737

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 09/02/17 23:03, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 09.02.2017 10:01, HGW... DSc. wrote:

>>>> Which we now know is the correct prediction.
>>>
>>> Who knows that? Nobody has verified it. In fact not one aspect of
>>> Einstein's theories has been verified.
>>
>> Newtonian gravitation predicts that
>> the PPN parameter gamma is zero,
>> while GR predicts it is 1.
>>
>> Measurements show:
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>>   gamma = 0.997 ± 0.003
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>>   gamma - 1 = (-1.3 ± 5.2) x 10^-5
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>>   gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0004
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>>   gamma = 0.9998 ± 0.0003
>>
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>>   gamma - 1 = (-4.8 ± 5.7) x 10^-5
>>
>> 'nuff said!
>>
>These worthless experiments reveal the lengths to which desperate 
>Einstein supporters will go to try to prove just one aspect of his silly 
>theories correct. They all knew the answer they wanted and incorporated 
>enough approximations and estimates to get close to it.
>Good try, Paul! We know how the Einstein conspirators work.

>There are plenty of simple experiments that show light speed varies. 
>That's all we need to know.

Ralph, tell us why you believe experiments that are so simple that they
don't have the accuracy to tell the difference between c and c±v, yet
you poo-poo the more sophisticated experiments Paul lists that really
can tell the difference, and show that light from a moving source really
does move at c relative to the destination.

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

#408789

On 11/02/17 05:06, Michael Moron-y wrote more conspirational crap...:

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

#408800

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 11/02/17 05:06, Michael Moron-y wrote more conspirational crap...:

Ralph Malcolm, why did you claim to have plonked me when it is now obvious
you still crave the attention I give you when I reply to your k00ky posts,
Ralph?

And why didn't you answer this simple question instead of just snipping 
it, Ralph?

: Ralph, tell us why you believe experiments that are so simple that they
: don't have the accuracy to tell the difference between c and c±v, yet
: you poo-poo the more sophisticated experiments Paul lists that really
: can tell the difference, and show that light from a moving source really
: does move at c relative to the destination?

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

#408861

On 11/02/17 17:16, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

> : Henry, tell us why you believe experiments that are so simple that they
> : don't have the accuracy to tell the difference between c and c±v, yet
> : you poo-poo the more sophisticated experiments Paul lists that really
> : can tell the difference, and show that light from a moving source really
> : does move at c relative to the destination?

Paul's list includes papers written BY desperate dingleberries FOR 
desperate dingleberries and PUBLISHED BY desperate dingleberry run 
journals.
The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the 
paper they are written on.


-- 

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

#408898

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 11/02/17 17:16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>> : Henry,

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I did not address anyone named "Henry", Ralph.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, if you really don't want me to keep writing
your name (which is Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) all over sci.physics.relativity,
Ralph, I strongly suggest that you cease editing my posts, Ralph Malcolm 
Rabbidge.

So Ralph, I will repost my CORRECT question, Ralph. I strongly suggest
that you leave it alone, Ralph if you don't want me to keep writing "Ralph
Malcolm Rabbidge" all over the place, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

: Ralph, tell us why you believe experiments that are so simple that they
: don't have the accuracy to tell the difference between c and c±v, yet
: you poo-poo the more sophisticated experiments Paul lists that really
: can tell the difference, and show that light from a moving source really
: does move at c relative to the destination?

>Paul's list includes papers written BY desperate dingleberries FOR 
>desperate dingleberries and PUBLISHED BY desperate dingleberry run 
>journals.

Ralph, what do the followers of anti-relativist Herbert Dingle have
to do with anything, Ralph, and why are the Herbert Dingle followers
desperate?

>The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the 
>paper they are written on.

Ralph, you haven't even read any of the papers in Paul's links! How can
you factually believe that?  Tell us, Ralph, after reading them, why do
you believe that "answers were known beforehand" (whatever that means) and
why do you believe those papers are invalid?  Scientific reasons for being
invalid, Ralph, an answer of "they concluded light moves at c in all
frames" as a reason for it being invalid is not a valid reason.

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

#409009

On 12/02/17 17:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>
>> On 11/02/17 17:16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

> : does move at c relative to the destination?
>
>> Paul's list includes papers written BY desperate dingleberries FOR
>> desperate dingleberries and PUBLISHED BY desperate dingleberry run
>> journals.
>
> Henry what do the followers of anti-relativist Herbert Dingle have
> to do with anything, Ralph, and why are the Herbert Dingle followers
> desperate?
>
>> The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the
>> paper they are written on.
>
> Henry, you haven't even read any of the papers in Paul's links!

I have. They are highly amusing.

-- 

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

#409068

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 12/02/17 17:07, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> Paul's list includes papers written BY desperate dingleberries FOR
>>> desperate dingleberries and PUBLISHED BY desperate dingleberry run
>>> journals.
>>
>> Henry,

No, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I was not addressing any "Henry" in my post.

>> Ralph, what do the followers of anti-relativist Herbert Dingle have
>> to do with anything, Ralph, and why are the Herbert Dingle followers
>> desperate?
>>
>>> The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the
>>> paper they are written on.
>>
>> Ralph, you haven't even read any of the papers in Paul's links!

>I have. They are highly amusing.

I seriously doubt it, Ralph.  Obviously you have not understood any of
them, Ralph.  Why don't you point out the (alleged) flaws with these
experiments that you find "amusing" and post them here?  You can't, of
course...

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

#409122

On 14/02/17 03:31, Michael Moron-y wrote the usual nonsense:
> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>

>>>
>>>> The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the
>>>> paper they are written on.
>>>
>>> Ralph, you haven't even read any of the papers in Paul's links!
>
>> I have. They are highly amusing.
>
> I seriously doubt it, Henry.  Obviously you have not understood any of
> them, Henry.  Why don't you point out the (alleged) flaws with these
> experiments that you find "amusing" and post them here?  You can't, of
> course...

They are full of assumptions, guesses and silly estimates, that could 
produce just about any answer.

Of course the dingleberry community laps it up without close inspection. 
"Everything that supports Einstein MUST BE right be definition. SO 
ACCEPT IT!"



-- 

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

#409142

"HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 14/02/17 03:31, Michael Moron-y wrote the usual nonsense:
>> "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>>

>>>>
>>>>> The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the
>>>>> paper they are written on.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph, you haven't even read any of the papers in Paul's links!
>>
>>> I have. They are highly amusing.
>>
>> I seriously doubt it, Ralph.  Obviously you have not understood any of
>> them, Ralph.  Why don't you point out the (alleged) flaws with these
>> experiments that you find "amusing" and post them here?  You can't, of
>> course...

>They are full of assumptions, guesses and silly estimates, that could 
>produce just about any answer.

Why not point out these alleged assumptions, guesses and silly estimates,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?  Is it because you can't find one single
assumption, guess or silly estimate, Ralph?

>Of course the dingleberry community laps it up without close inspection. 

Why would the fans of Herbert Dingle care?  Aren't you a follower of
Herbert Dingle, Ralph?

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

#409256

On 11.02.2017 22:42, HGW... DSc. wrote:
> On 11/02/17 17:16, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>
>> : Henry, tell us why you believe experiments that are so simple that they
>> : don't have the accuracy to tell the difference between c and c±v, yet
>> : you poo-poo the more sophisticated experiments Paul lists that really
>> : can tell the difference, and show that light from a moving source
>> : really does move at c relative to the destination?
>
> Paul's list includes papers written BY desperate dingleberries FOR
> desperate dingleberries and PUBLISHED BY desperate dingleberry run
> journals.
> The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the
> paper they are written on.
>

It's always fun to see Ralph kick and scream in despair
over the fact that he can't make the experimental evidence
go a way by name calling and shouting profanities. :-D

A few of the many experiments that falsify theories
where the speed of light is not invariant:

A. A. Michelson:
EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT
https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf

C. G. Babcock and T. G. Bergman:
Determination of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf

T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I. Wallin:
TEST OF THE SECOND  POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GeV REGION
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf

P. Beckmann and P. Mandics:
Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation
in High Vacuum
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf

T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox:
Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf

  K. Brecher:
Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf

See Ralph?
They are still here!

-- 
Paul, loving to rub it in

https://paulba.no/

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

#409260

Why Should Gravitational Mass Equal Inertial Mass?

Why should a photon have zero mass?

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

#409898

On 15/02/17 06:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 11.02.2017 22:42, HGW... DSc. wrote:

>>
>> Paul's list includes papers written BY desperate dingleberries FOR
>> desperate dingleberries and PUBLISHED BY desperate dingleberry run
>> journals.
>> The require answers were known beforehand and they are not worth the
>> paper they are written on.
>>
>
> It's always fun to see Ralph kick and scream in despair
> over the fact that he can't make the experimental evidence
> go a way by name calling and shouting profanities. :-D
>
> A few of the many experiments that falsify theories
> where the speed of light is not invariant:
>
> A. A. Michelson:
> EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT
> https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
>
> C. G. Babcock and T. G. Bergman:
> Determination of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>
> T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I. Wallin:
> TEST OF THE SECOND  POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GeV REGION
> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>
> P. Beckmann and P. Mandics:
> Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation
> in High Vacuum
> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>
> T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox:
> Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source
> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>
>   K. Brecher:
> Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?
> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> See Ralph?
> They are still here!

Four of those pages are just black.

These experiments demonstrate very well how people who do not understand 
ballistic theory make utter fools of themselves when they try to refute it.

I have tried to explain to you that no moving mirror experiment of this 
nature will produce a fringe displacement for the simple reason that in 
BaTh, wavelength is absolute. Since there is no change in path lengths 
irrespective of mirror speed, the number of 'waves' in each path remains 
constant so that interferometry will naturally produce a null result.

When you can refer me to a believable and DIRECT measurement of OWLS 
using two clocks and a moving source and which shows light speed is not 
source dependent, you might improve your own image.


>


-- 

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

#409908

On Saturday, February 18, 2017 at 5:51:00 PM UTC-7, HGW... DSc. wrote:
>
> On 15/02/17 06:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > It's always fun to see Ralph kick and scream in despair
> > over the fact that he can't make the experimental evidence
> > go a way by name calling and shouting profanities. :-D
> >
> > A few of the many experiments that falsify theories
> > where the speed of light is not invariant:
> >
> > A. A. Michelson:
> > EFFECT OF REFLECTION FROM A MOVING MIRROR ON THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
> >
> > C. G. Babcock and T. G. Bergman:
> > Determination of the Constancy of the Speed of Light
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> >
> > T. Alväger, F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I. Wallin:
> > TEST OF THE SECOND  POSTULATE OF SPECIAL RELATIVITY IN THE GeV REGION
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> >
> > P. Beckmann and P. Mandics:
> > Test of the Constancy of the Velocity of Electromagnetic Radiation
> > in High Vacuum
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> >
> > T. A. Filippas and J. G. Fox:
> > Velocity of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> >
> >   K. Brecher:
> > Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> >
> > See Ralph?
> > They are still here!
> 
> Four of those pages are just black.

So Ralphie-boy proves himself to be a racist.

> These experiments demonstrate very well how people who do not understand 
> ballistic theory make utter fools of themselves when they try to refute it.

That would be Ralphie-boy making a fool of himself.

> I have tried to explain to you that no moving mirror experiment of this 
> nature will produce a fringe displacement for the simple reason that in 
> BaTh, wavelength is absolute.

I don't think anyone has measured wavelength of light in dirty bathwater.
Wouldn't there be too much absorption?

> Since there is no change in path lengths 
> irrespective of mirror speed, the number of 'waves' in each path remains 
> constant so that interferometry will naturally produce a null result.

Just listen to Ralphie-boy foaming at the mouth while mouthing absurdities.

> When you can refer me to a believable and DIRECT measurement of OWLS 
> using two clocks and a moving source and which shows light speed is not 
> source dependent, you might improve your own image.

Anyone with a smattering of mathematical ability knows that OWLS is not
necessary to refute DirtyBaThWater.  Unfortunately, stupid, ignorant
Ralphie-boy is incapable of doing any kind of math (except wrong math).
He is SO stupid he thinks that a "c + v" term in the denominator of an
equation confirms ballistic theory.  He is an embarrassment to everyone
with normal intelligence.

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

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

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

csiph-web