FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [43 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:42 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| ...
| > | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| > | ...
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| > | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
| > | agree with me!!
| > |
| > | GSS
| >
| > Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
| > being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
|
| OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
|
| But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
| and intelligent human beings have no say at all?


Of course not.

|
| How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
| education system or the product of our industrialized society?

Interesting question, and not being a trained psychologist I don't really
know.
It seems to me that there is a class of people that are capable of
soaking up vast amounts of information and can "remember" what
they are told, and that is the majority. Children learn language first,
whatever nationality, and then the training in remembering begins
in earnest, making them recite multiplication tables and "facts"
about geography and history and science etc.
If they can then recite these "facts" back in an exam paper they are
considered intelligent, but to me they are a database without a processor,
they cannot think for themselves.
Tell a kid there is no Santa and you'll *not* be believed before the age
of five, his parent told him otherwise.
He'll be dubious between the ages of six and seven, accept the
truth at the age of eight. We lie to children from the beginning.

The last thing any of us want is to say "I was wrong", which is perhaps
why I admire Michelson so much. He didn't find what he sought, but
he published anyway. Sagnac built Michelson's interferomer and made
it rotate, *proving* Einstein was wrong, and Einstein knew it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Did Einstein renounce his sins? No bloody fear, there was fame and fortune
waiting.
The shitheads that "understand" (meaning they can recite) relativity
want fame and fortune too, so greed is their prime motivation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

| How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?

I really have no idea. Perhaps the answer is to ignore them and
concentrate solely on those who really have something worth saying.
Personally I welcome constructive criticism. When one teaches, two learn.
If you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (which is really a send-up
of communism), it is the pigs that win in the end. Tragic, but there it is.

You'll find the signal-to-noise ratio in these newsgroups is extremely poor,
and occasionally someone with some sense finds a nugget, but more often
than not it is fool's gold.
Intelligence isn't what you know, it is applying what you know to
unfamiliar situations and being prepared to be wrong. To be a
physicist of the calibre of great men such as Michelson you must attempt
sincerely to show that you are wrong, not try to show you are right,
because if you ARE wrong, someone will find it.
Copernicus was wrong, the sun is not the centre of the universe and
the planets do not move in perfect circles as Kepler showed, but
he had a better model than Ptolemy and with that modern science
was born.
Nature is not a democracy, we cannot make it work by popular vote.
All great scientists are individuals that go against the popular ideas
of the majority, but they must be able to show they are correct.
The minority of true scientists are called engineers, the marketplace
proves their worth. They are the people that adapt old ideas to new
situations, taking men to the moon, flying faster than sound, building
ships and TVs and refrigerators and generally improving the quality
of life, while teachers have no ability to anything but repeat what
they are taught themselves.

So have your say, as I do, but do not expect to be believed by
those who cannot think. Your target is the young, fertile mind, not
the fogeys that have nothing better to do than try to repeat the
ideas of others, and try not to waste your talents on the indolent.
Androcles


| GSS
|
| > Sue doesn't have a clue how radio or light propagates, even though
| > it has been explained to him many times.
| > Phuddlephuck is snot-nosed git who snips to try to win an argument.
| > You'll find lots of shitheads with their own agenda.
| >
| > Actually the real problem began with an eighteen year-old punk
| > who made up his own theory that Algol was an eclipsing binary
| > and astronomy has spiralled downhill ever since, taking physics
| > with it.
| > http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html
| >
| > If you want to do something useful get involved with Wackypedia,
| > there are bishops and cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity
| > there, eager to promote their own point of view to the greater glory
| > of themselves and the destruction of physics.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:48 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

Sorcerer wrote:
Quote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| ...
| > | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| > | ...
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| > | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
| > | agree with me!!
| > |
| > | GSS

| > Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
| > being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.

| OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.

| But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
| and intelligent human beings have no say at all?

Of course not.

| How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
| education system or the product of our industrialized society?

Interesting question, and not being a trained psychologist I don't really
know.
It seems to me that there is a class of people that are capable of
soaking up vast amounts of information and can "remember" what
they are told, and that is the majority. Children learn language first,
whatever nationality, and then the training in remembering begins
in earnest, making them recite multiplication tables and "facts"
about geography and history and science etc.

If they can then recite these "facts" back in an exam paper they are
considered intelligent, but to me they are a database without a processor,
they cannot think for themselves.

Tell a kid there is no Santa and you'll *not* be believed before the age
of five, his parent told him otherwise.
He'll be dubious between the ages of six and seven, accept the
truth at the age of eight. We lie to children from the beginning.

The last thing any of us want is to say "I was wrong", which is perhaps
why I admire Michelson so much. He didn't find what he sought, but
he published anyway. Sagnac built Michelson's interferomer and made
it rotate, *proving* Einstein was wrong, and Einstein knew it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Did Einstein renounce his sins? No bloody fear, there was fame and fortune
waiting.

The shitheads that "understand" (meaning they can recite) relativity
want fame and fortune too, so greed is their prime motivation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm

| How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?

I really have no idea. Perhaps the answer is to ignore them and
concentrate solely on those who really have something worth saying.
Personally I welcome constructive criticism. When one teaches, two learn.
If you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (which is really a send-up
of communism), it is the pigs that win in the end. Tragic, but there it is.

You'll find the signal-to-noise ratio in these newsgroups is extremely poor,
and occasionally someone with some sense finds a nugget, but more often
than not it is fool's gold.

Intelligence isn't what you know, it is applying what you know to
unfamiliar situations and being prepared to be wrong. To be a
physicist of the calibre of great men such as Michelson you must attempt
sincerely to show that you are wrong, not try to show you are right,
because if you ARE wrong, someone will find it.
Copernicus was wrong, the sun is not the centre of the universe and
the planets do not move in perfect circles as Kepler showed, but
he had a better model than Ptolemy and with that modern science
was born.

Nature is not a democracy, we cannot make it work by popular vote.
All great scientists are individuals that go against the popular ideas
of the majority, but they must be able to show they are correct.

The minority of true scientists are called engineers, the marketplace
proves their worth. They are the people that adapt old ideas to new
situations, taking men to the moon, flying faster than sound, building
ships and TVs and refrigerators and generally improving the quality
of life, while teachers have no ability to anything but repeat what
they are taught themselves.

So have your say, as I do, but do not expect to be believed by
those who cannot think. Your target is the young, fertile mind, not
the fogeys that have nothing better to do than try to repeat the
ideas of others, and try not to waste your talents on the indolent.

Androcles

Thanks again.
I highly appreciate your opinion and advice.

GSS
Back to top
Sorcerer1
science forum Guru


Joined: 09 Jun 2006
Posts: 410

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:03 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150721322.900503.226240@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | ...
| > | > | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| > | > | ...
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| > | > | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them
will
| > | > | agree with me!!
| > | > |
| > | > | GSS
|
| > | > Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
| > | > being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
|
| > | OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
|
| > | But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st
century
| > | and intelligent human beings have no say at all?
|
| > Of course not.
|
| > | How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
| > | education system or the product of our industrialized society?
|
| > Interesting question, and not being a trained psychologist I don't
really
| > know.
| > It seems to me that there is a class of people that are capable of
| > soaking up vast amounts of information and can "remember" what
| > they are told, and that is the majority. Children learn language first,
| > whatever nationality, and then the training in remembering begins
| > in earnest, making them recite multiplication tables and "facts"
| > about geography and history and science etc.
|
| > If they can then recite these "facts" back in an exam paper they are
| > considered intelligent, but to me they are a database without a
processor,
| > they cannot think for themselves.
|
| > Tell a kid there is no Santa and you'll *not* be believed before the age
| > of five, his parent told him otherwise.
| > He'll be dubious between the ages of six and seven, accept the
| > truth at the age of eight. We lie to children from the beginning.
| >
| > The last thing any of us want is to say "I was wrong", which is perhaps
| > why I admire Michelson so much. He didn't find what he sought, but
| > he published anyway. Sagnac built Michelson's interferomer and made
| > it rotate, *proving* Einstein was wrong, and Einstein knew it.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| > Did Einstein renounce his sins? No bloody fear, there was fame and
fortune
| > waiting.
|
| > The shitheads that "understand" (meaning they can recite) relativity
| > want fame and fortune too, so greed is their prime motivation.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
|
| > | How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?
|
| > I really have no idea. Perhaps the answer is to ignore them and
| > concentrate solely on those who really have something worth saying.
| > Personally I welcome constructive criticism. When one teaches, two
learn.
| > If you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (which is really a send-up
| > of communism), it is the pigs that win in the end. Tragic, but there it
is.
| >
| > You'll find the signal-to-noise ratio in these newsgroups is extremely
poor,
| > and occasionally someone with some sense finds a nugget, but more often
| > than not it is fool's gold.
|
| > Intelligence isn't what you know, it is applying what you know to
| > unfamiliar situations and being prepared to be wrong. To be a
| > physicist of the calibre of great men such as Michelson you must attempt
| > sincerely to show that you are wrong, not try to show you are right,
| > because if you ARE wrong, someone will find it.
| > Copernicus was wrong, the sun is not the centre of the universe and
| > the planets do not move in perfect circles as Kepler showed, but
| > he had a better model than Ptolemy and with that modern science
| > was born.
|
| > Nature is not a democracy, we cannot make it work by popular vote.
| > All great scientists are individuals that go against the popular ideas
| > of the majority, but they must be able to show they are correct.
|
| > The minority of true scientists are called engineers, the marketplace
| > proves their worth. They are the people that adapt old ideas to new
| > situations, taking men to the moon, flying faster than sound, building
| > ships and TVs and refrigerators and generally improving the quality
| > of life, while teachers have no ability to anything but repeat what
| > they are taught themselves.
| >
| > So have your say, as I do, but do not expect to be believed by
| > those who cannot think. Your target is the young, fertile mind, not
| > the fogeys that have nothing better to do than try to repeat the
| > ideas of others, and try not to waste your talents on the indolent.
|
| > Androcles
|
| Thanks again.
| I highly appreciate your opinion and advice.
|
| GSS

The next step is the study of Nature. For the most part, empirical
evidence is reliable. It's pretty hard to fake the luminosity curve of
a star when thousands of other observers have seen it, so I for one
will seldom question it.
What is in question, however, is the interpretation of that data.
Most people will seize upon the first explanation given,
they are eager for any explanation and unless someone provides
an alternative the world is stuck with it. If the explanation appears
to be initially plausible and particularly if it is a simple one, it becomes
"fact", not to be disputed.
The example I have in mind is this:
This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its
brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed it
diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed its
brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its
brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion,
a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change
is true and that it was not mistaken.
(John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)

Note the year. John Goodricke was 18 years old, he died at the age of 22.
We've lived with a star that is eclipsed by its "dark neighbour" every
70 hours for over 200 years, because that was the kid's explanation.
http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html

Yet... think about it. If the visible star is in orbit about another then it
is
alternately approaching and receding from us, and by the vector addition
of velocities the light itself is alternately greater than emission
velocity,
less than emission velocity. Fast photons emitted later will catch up
to slow photons emitted earlier. By carefully programming what we could
expect to see, the empirical data is matched.
In other words, there is another explanation that is actually simpler
than the one given.
With Goodricke's eclipsing model we are compelled to accept
Einstein's second postulate, and Einstein himself simply accepted
Goodricke's explanation:
"because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not
be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of
a fixed star by its dark neighbour. "
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Why did Einstein (who was surely intelligent) not challenge Goodricke?
The answer is simple... he didn't have a computer.
You do, though. It takes millions of computations to reproduce the curve.
Here is the program that reproduces the luminosity curve of Algol,
matching the empirical data but with a different cause, it is my telescope.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
With it, I discovered the planet "Androcles" in orbit around Algol and
the planet "Cassandra" in orbit about delta Cepheus.
Cassandra of mythology told the truth but was not believed, hence my choice
of names for the planets I have discovered.
Bernoulli said upon seeing an anonymous paper written by Newton "I recognise
the lion by his paw"; hence Newton is the lion, the thorn in his paw is
Einstein, I am Androcles.
I stand upon the shoulders of a giant, I have seen further than any man
before me, while the shitheads crawl beneath the feet of a pygmy.
Come, stand up here with me. The view is wonderful. See what other
planets you can find using an Androclean telescope, there are many to
choose from:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
A.
Back to top
Hayek
science forum addict


Joined: 06 Sep 2005
Posts: 85

PostPosted: Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

GSS wrote:

Quote:
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf


"For establishing the Universal Reference Frame with

reference to ICRF, we don't need to establish the
location of the center of mass of the
Universe. The speed of light is an isotropic constant
c and the measures of distance and time
are absolute in this frame."


I hate to burst your bubble, but consider this :

I prefer to call gravitation inertia, and the
equivalence principle, Eotvosch experiments, allows me
to do this.

Inertia sets the time rate, and also sets the size of
the objects.

Since parts of the universe have not made "light"
contact with eachother, it follows that they have not
made gravitational or inertial contact with eachother.

So, it follows that inertia is constantly increasing,
as costantly more masses make gravitational contact
with our masses.

Thus time rate is constantly slowing down, and
distances are increasing, better : objects are shrinking.

There is no "absolute time" in any frame. Time or
better inertia, is set by the masses surrounding the
clock and having their inertial field acting on it.
A clock is an inertiameter.

Uwe Hayek.

--
L'intellectuel qui pense comme autrui ne sert rien !

This is the bitterest pain among men, to have much
knowledge but no power.
Herodotus (484 BC - 430 BC), The Histories of Herodotus

IDIOCY - Never underestimate the power of stupid
people in large groups.
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:54 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

Tom Roberts wrote:
Quote:
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]

There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.

Can we interpret this statement as "People who are making a lot of
noise do not understand the basics of these theories?"

Quote:
it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
for the null result of MMEx.

That is always appropriate, as that is how science progresses.

But it is hopeless to attempt to do this without understanding the
current theories of physics; for this experiment the relevant theories
are: SR and classical electrodynamics. Knowing _and_using_ basic logic
is also necessary. Your writings fail on these points, and are therefore
useless.

Your "new hypothesis on photon emission" becomes simply a ballistic
theory in the classical domain.

No, that is wrong observation. It does not become a ballistic theory in
any domain. Fundamental assumption of this "hypothesis" is the
existence of a universal reference frame (some thing like ICRF) where
the speed of light c is constant. As per ballistic theories, the speed
of light emitted from a source moving at velocity v in the ICRF (or
universal reference frame) could be c+v.

Quote:
While such theories can indeed explain
the MMX, they are refuted many times by other experiments.

The MMX and all other experiments which involve (a) reflection of light
and (b) interference of different beams of light, can be explained by
*only* two hypothesizes, i.e.

1. Speed of light is constant c in all inertial reference frames in
relative motion, leading to the notion of relative time and distance.
(SR hypothesis)

2. Speed of light is constant c only in Universal Reference Frame (so
called aether frame) but the frequency of light photon emitted from a
moving source is proportional to its relative emission velocity wrt the
source. (New hypothesis)

We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.

We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.

Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.

GSS
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:56 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

In article <1150822490.588120.324490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]

There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.

Can we interpret this statement as "People who are making a lot of
noise do not understand the basics of these theories?"

Sure, but you're one of them making the noise.

Quote:
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.

We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.

Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.

GSS


So go ahead and do them. Till then, understand you're sounding more
like a crank.

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:42 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

CuntFace Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:


Quote:
and (b) interference of different beams of light, can be explained by
*only* two hypothesizes, i.e.

1. Speed of light is constant c in all inertial reference frames in
relative motion, leading to the notion of relative time and distance.
(SR hypothesis)

2. Speed of light is constant c only in Universal Reference Frame (so
called aether frame) but the frequency of light photon emitted from a
moving source is proportional to its relative emission velocity wrt the
source. (New hypothesis)

We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.

We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.

Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.

GSS

You still posting, ShitHead? here is a partial list of one way light
speed experiments that disprove the notion of anisotropy. Eat s**t:

1. C.M.Will "Clock Synchronization and isotropy of one-way speed of
light", Phys.Rev. D, 45, 2 (1992)

2. D.R.Gagnon, D.G.Torr, P.T.Kolen, T.Chang "Guided-wave measurement
of the one-way speed of light", Phys.Rev. A, 38, 4 (1988)

3. T.Chang , "Maxwell's equations in anisotropic space",
Phys.Lett, 70A, 1 (1979)

4. T.Krisher, L.Maleki, G.Lutes, L.Primas, R.Logan, J.Anderson, C.Will,
Phys. Rev. D, 42, 2, (1990)

5. S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchuk, H. Mller, A. Peters: "Test
of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating
optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005)

6. T. Chang, D. Torr, "Dual properties of spacetime under an
alternative Lorentz transformation", Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4,
(1988)

7. T.Chang, D.Torr, D.Gagnon, "A modified Lorentz theory as a test
theory of special relativity", ", Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4,
(1988)

8. S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin "A precision test of the
isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical
cavities" Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)

9. Lipa, J. A., Nissen, J. A., Wang, S., Stricker, D. A., and Avaloff,
D. "A New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 060403 (2003)

10. Wolf, P., Bize, S., Clairon, A., Santarelli, G., Tobar, M. E., and
Luiten, A. N. "Improved Test of Lorentz Invariance in
Electrodynamics" Phys. Rev. D 70, 051902(R) (2004)
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:25 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <1150822490.588120.324490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]

There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.

Can we interpret this statement as "People who are making a lot of
noise do not understand the basics of these theories?"

Sure, but you're one of them making the noise.

Have I ever abused anybody?
Have I ever criticized any individual? I always comment/criticize
ideas, opinions, arguments and viewpoints which appear to be either
invalid or illogical.

How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?

Quote:
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.

We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.

Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.

GSS


So go ahead and do them. Till then, understand you're sounding more
like a crank.

Kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf

GSS
Back to top
Phineas T Puddleduck
science forum Guru


Joined: 01 Jun 2006
Posts: 759

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:27 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

In article <1150997128.472535.47190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Quote:
Have I ever abused anybody?
Have I ever criticized any individual? I always comment/criticize
ideas, opinions, arguments and viewpoints which appear to be either
invalid or illogical.

How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?

Considering you had no clue about proper time and distance, you PROVED
your views on relativity are useless. They're pretty fundamental
concepts in relativity - hence you obviously do not understand what you
are tring to refute.

If you think I'm going to teach you relativity, you can pay me the
going rate. I'm not here to educate cranks.

*PLONK*

--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.

Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.

Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.

Relf's Law?
"Bullshit repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
Back to top
GSS
science forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:39 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
Quote:
In article <1150997128.472535.47190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:

Have I ever abused anybody?
Have I ever criticized any individual? I always comment/criticize
ideas, opinions, arguments and viewpoints which appear to be either
invalid or illogical.

How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?

Considering you had no clue about proper time and distance, you PROVED
your views on relativity are useless. They're pretty fundamental
concepts in relativity - hence you obviously do not understand what you
are tring to refute.

I am not "tring" to refute, I have already refuted Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_sr.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_gr.pdf

Quote:
If you think I'm going to teach you relativity, you can pay me the
going rate. I'm not here to educate cranks.

Please do not commit this mistake anymore.
Do not teach Relativity to anyone. Enough is enough!!

GSS
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:54 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

Cuntface Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
<sorry, snipped>

Stupid cunts don't have a say, go f*** youself.
Back to top
dda1
science forum Guru


Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762

PostPosted: Thu Jun 22, 2006 6:07 pm    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

FuckedInTheAss Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
..
Quote:

How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?


no, cunt, it is because you have been posting the same s**t since 1999,
it has been explained to you that you are posting s**t and you still
persist. So, after a few years people got tired of you and called you
for what you are : a persitent cretin. An now, the whole web and most
of India is ashamed of your existence.
Back to top
Bilge
science forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 2816

PostPosted: Fri Jun 23, 2006 6:41 am    Post subject: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. Reply with quote

GSS:
Quote:
Tom Roberts wrote:

Your "new hypothesis on photon emission" becomes simply a ballistic
theory in the classical domain.

No, that is wrong observation. It does not become a ballistic theory in
any domain. Fundamental assumption of this "hypothesis" is the
existence of a universal reference frame (some thing like ICRF) where
the speed of light c is constant. As per ballistic theories, the speed
of light emitted from a source moving at velocity v in the ICRF (or
universal reference frame) could be c+v.

That defines a galilean invariant theory, which is experimentally
ruled out.

Quote:
While such theories can indeed explain
the MMX, they are refuted many times by other experiments.

The MMX and all other experiments which involve (a) reflection of light
and (b) interference of different beams of light, can be explained by
*only* two hypothesizes, i.e.

1. Speed of light is constant c in all inertial reference frames in
relative motion, leading to the notion of relative time and distance.
(SR hypothesis)

2. Speed of light is constant c only in Universal Reference Frame (so
called aether frame) but the frequency of light photon emitted from a
moving source is proportional to its relative emission velocity wrt the
source. (New hypothesis)

We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.

No one needs to discuss anything until you post the equations
that mathenatically define your so-called hypothesis.

Quote:
We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.

The second postulate is actually irrelevant. If light has no mass,
it propagates at `c'. If light has a mass, it propagates just like
any other mass and has a rest frame. I can easily write down a
perfectly good poincare invariant theory of E&M in which light
has a non-zero mass. Maxwell's equations no longer hold, however.
The proca lagrangian is one example.

Quote:
Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.

Non-sense. You merely wish to ignore the vast volume supporting
relativity which has been attained over the last century. Since
you do not wish to consider experiments which involve the reflection
or interference of light, let's consider experiments which do not
even involve light, but which do depend upon the poincare invariance
of special relativity, like \beta decay.
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [43 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:04 pm | All times are GMT
Forum index » Science and Technology » Physics » Particle
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts The Riemann Hypothesis Revisited Ivan Iliev num-analysis 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:07 pm
No new posts The Riemann Hypothesis Revisited Ivan Iliev Math 0 Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:59 pm
No new posts (factors of x) / (factors of x-1) = the null set? DGoncz@aol.com Math 12 Fri Jul 14, 2006 7:57 pm
No new posts Simple factoring result, but what about lies? jstevh@msn.com Recreational 7 Fri Jul 14, 2006 12:52 am
No new posts How to measure the size of Universe! studyandjobs@yahoo.com Relativity 3 Sat Jul 08, 2006 1:53 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: Electronics forum |  Medicine forum |  Unix/Linux blog |  Unix/Linux documentation |  Unix/Linux forums  |  send newsletters
 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.4478s ][ Queries: 16 (0.4128s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]