On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:47:33 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson





No, TWSLS (two-way static lightspeed) is assumed c in this case.

Yes, a bit confusing, sorry. 'c' requires some kind of absolute
frame, here.

'c' requires nothing of the sort; it's merely an
arbitrary constant here, or perhaps a light
measurement with respect to a special frame
at rest and spatially distant from a light source.

There you go, "a special frame at rest".
What do you mean by 'rest', Ghost?

A classical notion, that. There is no "special" frame.
Everyone sees light (TWLS) traveling at c.



'c' is OWLS - and also TWLS - in that frame.

'c' is TWLS, if that. No one has ever measured OWLS,
as far as I know.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.

Einstein defined clock synching so that Tab will alway=Tba, even if it doesn't.
He didn't believe these times could ever be measured and so ws pretty confident
that his reputation was safe.
He didn't realise that atomic clocks would appear on the scene.
These are capable of refuting his nonsense but nobody is allowed to perform any
worthwhile OWLS experiment for obvious reasons.




Intuitively this result makes sense (at least from a Newtonian
standpoint) as it takes longer/more effort to fly, walk or
proceed in a crosswind or crosscurrent than it does in a
still medium.

This is the aether view, yes.

The classical luminiferous aether view, yes, not the Haether view,
which admittedly I'm still trying to analyze.

My Haether theory is still evolving but is looking better every day.




If we assume L = 10m (suggested by

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...edoflight.html

Ghost, we are well aware of the MMX analysis. Some of us
know that the null result was due to the fact that the
theory behind the experiment was faulty.

The theory *was* faulty. An absolute luminiferous aether was
nicely disproven by that experiment.

How can you prove that something doesn't exist?

By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

That's the point. The MMX proved that the aether, as visualised by Michelson
and others, did not appear to exist. So which one should be modified, the model
of the aether or the experiment.

You can't say something doesn't exist becasue you ran an experiment that didn't
detect it. Obviously if it doesn't exist no experiment could possibly be
designed to test for it.

Religion has thrived for centuries because nobody can prove the nonexistence of
gods.
Same applies to the aether.


You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.

But as soon as we claim it doesn't exist - because a test for one of its
hypothetical properties proved null - we immediately render the test itself
null and void, as well.




The theory still *is* faulty, in light of the "acceleration of
galactic recession". A galaxy, AFAIK, is a bunch of stars
all radiating in different directions with a central massive
black hole. Unless one assumes that the black hole is somehow
outfitted with a space drive of some sort there's no method
by which it can accelerate. I suspect a computation error;
the most logical one might have the permittivity and
permeability of free space being affected by local matter
density somehow. At least, such is my naive view on the
matter.

It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.

This 'density' refers to the stuff that makes EM fields.
I cannot really elaborate on that.
However my theory states that EM can travel through this stuff at different
speeds, at least for short distances and probably for longer distances in low
density stuff..





What you have tries to do is define what is actually
meant by OWLS and TWLS.

Well, *somebody* has to do it. :-) OWLS has the problem that
it needs to be measured by two synchronized clocks at
different positions. A precise definition is very important.

I think I have found a way to measure OWLS with only one clock.
More about that later.

I'd be interested in the details of that, and so would a number
of others I suspect.

I just have to check a few things.


See my animation www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
(a very small file download)
It poses a big unanswered question.

Yeah: how to run it on a Linux system. :-)

Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

Can you run the old microsoft Qbasic?


[.sigsnip]


Henri Wilson.
The BIG BANG Theory = The creationists' attempt to hijack science!
But they didn't succeed!

See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm