🚀 go-pugleaf

In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
<H@.>
 wrote
on Sun, 31 Oct 2004 01:47:57 GMT
<4tt2o0h155okii7t9tjm4qq79oe4c51ccu@4ax.com>:
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 15:01:13 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote:
>
>>In sci.physics.relativity, robert j. kolker
>><nowhere@nowhere.net>
>> wrote
>>on Thu, 28 Oct 2004 08:00:41 -0400
>><2uc5beF29pepvU1@uni-berlin.de>:
>>>
>>>
>>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>> Ah, good.  Chalk up another one for the GRians. :-)  Not that
>>>> it matters all that much; we've observed gravitational lensing
>>>> (or at least what we think is such) as well, which presumably
>>>> can also be used to verify GR, although there are some issues
>>>> on how one properly determines the mass of the object bending
>>>> the light.
>>>
>>> Later more technically sophisticate experiments have corroberated GTR 
>>> predictions on light bending. What more do you require?
>>
>>Me?  Not much.  But the trools [sic] here seem to think that there's
>>something missing, and try to prove Newtonian ideans by rather
>>dubious and/or questionable methods -- witness for instance
>>the notion that somehow double-star orbits prove the ballistic
>>theory of light with variable speed, when supernovae provide much
>>stronger evidence of light's constancy of speed.
>>
>>Nor is it clear that a OWLS is really necessary.  The round-trip
>>time of an airliner with a constant head/tailwind is
>>d/(v+w) + d/(v-w) = 2vd/(v^2 - w^2) > 2d/v , in Newtonian space.
>>The round-trip time of an airliner in a crabwind is
>>2d*sqrt(1 + w^2/v^2)/v .  Should be easy to detect that "aether wind"
>>using MMX...but no one ever has, except maybe one set of results out
>>of a few dozen -- and no one's been able to verify those results.
>>(I would forget the name, but he's mentioned in _Fads and Fallacies
>>In The Name Of Science_ by Martin Gardner.)
>>
>>Not that this is proof of GR or SR, mind you.  GR and SR cannot
>>be proven -- merely disproven.  But the evidence is ridiculously
>>strong; 
>
> I haven't seen any of it. Where is it?

Interesting.  Surely you've seen Sam Wormley's posts?

What format of response did you expect?  I'm not a researcher
and would have to dig for such things as muon observations,
stellar observations, TWLS experiments (AFAIK there have
been no direct OWLS experiments, because of the time
synchronization problem), orbits of Mercury, the
Compton effect, the photoelectric effect, the deviation
of starlight around the Sun, and other such phenomena.

I'd be curious as to why these aren't evidence of c' = c.

>
>>the best we can do is supplant relativity with something
>>that is "upwardly compatible", and I for one have no idea what
>>that theory would be, except that it's not Newtonian. :-)
>>
>>> GTR has not yet 
>>> been falsified by a vetted and reproduced experiment. Not once. GTR has 
>>> been put to the test many times since 1960 when better methods of 
>>> observation became available. That is 45 years and no falsification.
>>
>>45?  I would have thought it was older than that, but I'd have
>>to look.
>>
>>>
>>> Bob Kolker
>>>
>>>
>
>
> HW.
>
> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.