On 28 Mar 2006 03:37:33 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Henri Wilson wrote:
>> On 26 Mar 2006 23:58:04 -0800, "George Dishman" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >Henri Wilson wrote:
>> >> Wilson does not agree with Einstein.
>> >> Wilson agrees with Ritz..... who effectively said that in any one frame,
>> >> TWLS =
>> >> OWLS = c.
>> >Careful Henry, not "in any one frame", only "in the rest
>> >frame of the source" and only if the other equipment
>> >is also at rest. Bounce the light off a moving mirror for
>> >example and the reflected one-way speed will probably
>> >be affected but with those qualifications you are right.
>> I have made it quite clear before that by 'any one frame' I mean everything
>> the experiment is in the one frame. That naturally implies source, mirror and
>> detector are mutually at rest.
>That may be what you mean but it's not what the words
>say, which is why you need to be careful about how you
>express it. The "any" in "any one frame" means it
>doesn't matter what frame you use as long as all the
>measurements are stated in the same frame, you just
>need to say "the rest frame of the equipment" to clarify
>that. What you intended is fine, it's just the words that
>may cause confusion.
I have explained it many times before.
I started a whole thread about it.
Androcles knows what I mean but cannot understand why I am right.
>> Even Androcles should be able to understand that.
>I'm sure he can find a way to fail to understand. He
>finally had to admit Jeff had been correct all along
>but he's still whingeing and hasn't apologised.
>> Incidentally, this is only true in flat gravity. If for instance the
>> were carries out vertically, average OWLS would still equals average TWLS but
>> would have a value less than the constant c.
>Yes, the same goes for SR of course.
But SR would have no way of using TWLS to find OWLS if Einstein hadn't
accidentally stumbled onto the BaTh approach with his clock synch definition.
Makes one wonder if Einstein was really a ballistician.
>> The 'hushed-up' Venus radar experiment verified this.
>I didn't take you for a conspiracy nut. See the recent
>announcement on possible measurement of the
>"gravitomagnetic London moment" for the way news
>of a conflict between experiment and GR is received.
>If it is confirmed, that's definitely Nobel stuff, and you
>have to wonder whether it would affect the determination
>of dark matter/ dark energy values.
There is plenty of dark matter in the form of dead stars and cold
planets....probably whole extinct galaxies.
This is borne out by the number of variable stars that show no signs of a
companion star and therefore must be orbiting a WCH.