Absolute Velocity of Inertial Frames Using Time Signatures in Message Exchanges

If I have already presented you with an AE research project, then bear with this one. In 1919 British and German scienmce teams investigated AE's theory regarding mass bending of sun light rays visible around the sun stars. A full eclipse was observed and many photographs of the stars though of questionable value. Google on "einstein solar eclipse data controversy". In brief some problems included,
1. The resolution of telescopes used exceeded the data size being hundreths of a millimeter of star locations with and without so called bending around the sun - the data spread on the exposed photographic paper was in tyhe order of tenths of an arc second..
2. Weather was intermittent.
3. Most data was useless, with an almost random scattering of the target stars.

Einsteins book "relativity" pointed to this experiment as supporting SRT, and included the only data that was claimed as supporting SRT which consisted of only seven data/calculation points.

The keepers of the data are touchy about who gets to see the data.

Anyone with a minimum level of scientific sensitivity would not feeel the warm and fuzzy warmth when assessing theintyegrity of the experimental results as claimed.

These events propelled AE into the worlds most famous person, overnight. SRT was hastily and clusily inserted into the human languages with the vast majority those accepting the theory having very little technical data to justify the acceptance of the theory.

AE claimed he knew nothing of Michelson-Morley experiment when this was one of the most talked about mattes in the world physics culture.

Those supporting SRT almost to a peson has mentioned that M experiment had a "null" result which indicated SRT being near proven. The result was actually stated in terms that, "the expected fringe shift indicating relative ether-earth velocity was no greaterthan 1/4 of the earth expected velocity of 30km/sec" The actual number determined was approximately 8.4 km/sec, later redone by Dwight Miller with over 300,000 experimental runs over the next 30 hyears.
What righteous SRT supporter would seriously consider these matters when lecturing on SRT?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What a Fooking* liar you are. When you write "Einsteins book "relativity" pointed to this experiment as supporting SRT," the only reference to the 1919 expedition are in footnotes in chapters 22 and 29 which both point to Appendix 3, titled "The Experimental Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity".

The book you are talking about was published in 1920, long after total acceptance of SRT by people who matter. The 1920 book is a pop-science book, with almost no calculations in it.

You give us a speculation with regard to a science historian intent on selling books, which is refuted by looking at the data and history.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-cook-data-from-first-general-relativity-test

Your concerns about scientific integrity, in addition to being wholely wrong-placed are antique, as the current experimental support for GR and STR are much stronger than the 1919 observation, and in addition, since you have no viable alternative, your opinion doesn't matter.

* a strong intensifier -- See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fooking

Here's a slightly less antique summary of GR evidence from 2006 http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
Here's a slightly less antique summary of STR evidence when distinct from GR from 2005: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/

But you probably can't read those, so here it is again, simpler:

All your "concerns" amount to nothing, Eddington was right and at no point did anything wrong, and your data concerns from 1920 are antique compared to ever-increasing accuracy of experiments which indicate that Einstein was far closer to right than Newton on this issue.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2008/01/light-deflection-at-sun.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I can't see the figure you refer to, but I believe I understand what you are saying.
The mistake you make is this:
If A directs a light pulse at right angles to A's direction of travel, then that light pulse will not lag behind. It will keep up with A in the X-direction, and not maintain a path parallel to the Z-axis.
In order to emit a pulse that would stay parallel to the Z-axis, Y must direct the pulse rearward at a specific angle - an angle that A can calculate if they already know their speed.

So once again, we meet the requirement that we already know A's speed in order to measure their speed. When you imagine that a sideways pulse will naturally lag behind, you are imagining the existence of an absolute frame of reference that dictates the "correct" path to the light pulse. But, it just doesn't work that way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The stars and C frame is not necessaryfor the system to work.

If you look closely I referred to stars that were meassurably at rest. If one cannotg detect motion then what is the problem? Is it just because you know the stars are moving?
Why are you questioning the C frame status? What effect does a motionless C frame, or even a moving C frame, have to do with the thread?

 

On page 147 AE listed seven data points collected.
The discussion starts on Pe 145 captioned: Deflection of light by a Gravitational Fieldd Difteenth edition" with an added 5th Appendix AE wrote a preface to the book, dated December 1916.
I have a fifteenth edition.

Yes 1920, one year after the eclipse experiment. My edition has the seven data sets. It was in 1919 that AE became a public figure - It was in 1919 that AE 's SRT became recognized.

IU don't get you here.

Your post here was incorrect - my book has the data and a discussion of the experiment.

I am not attacking SRT. I posted a thread claiming to describe a system of measuring the absolute velocity of inertial frames moving relative to each other.

AlphaNumeric challeng

ed me for citing a 1933 paper in Physical Review as too old. One reason I used the book was to show a glitch in AE's armor of integrity and as a reply to AN's pain when having to consider a paper written in 1933. I didn't mean to provoke hostility nor to be referred to as a 'fooking liar' . Are you saying AE wrote book and caused it to be published, a book you characterize as 'pop-science' with little distribution? AE thought it proper to be read, as I said, I have a copy of a fifteenth edition - hardly evidence of a low distribution.

So your opening line here with the accusation of "fooking liar" needs redirection and correction and in that spirit only I suggest you take your 'fooking liar' statement and shove it up your fooking immature ass.

 

You have exceeded the SOL with your claim that the light beam will be dragged along, or will keep up with A in the X direction. The photon speed of the beam and even side lobes move at speed c. Your giving the light an X directed momentum component - light, it doesn't work that way.

No, I am merely recording emission and receipt times of time signatured messages.
Excuse me. I just discovered I didn't include a drawing I referred to in the post.

Pete, I have mentioned to you a number of times that the thread relies on the independent nature of light motion, light motion being independent of the light source motion. Therefore, The z-axis beam will not be dragged along as the frame carrying the device will move out from under the z-axis beam. This is what independece of source motion means doesn't it? The only way the beam gets to ride along is if thge beam was pointed in the forward direction, but being carried along or coast with the frame are illusions manufactured by an idea that it appears that light is being carried away -- btw the MM experiment has the built in flaw you are asking me to repeat here by directing the beam to a point where interference can occur. If the MM orthogonal leg is truly a 90 degree pulse that light should reflect 'up the down trajectory'.

 

Sorry, geistkiesel, but this is really very basic stuff that you're getting wrong. I can't help you unless you make some attempt to learn the basics.

I'm sorry I missed that before. That premise is simply wrong. I'll have a look at Chapter 7 of Relativity later, and post again.

 

Right, Relativity, part I, section 7:

By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light.​

Einstein and DeSitter are saying that the speed (the scalar velocity) of light is independent of the motion of the emitter. And that's all.

Einstein's use of the word "velocity" was not intended to include direction, as shown in his next paragraph:

In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school. ​

 

I am actually looking at the 1920 English volume, based on the German 5th edition (c. 1919), with the original 1916 preface, and a specially written Appendix III. The 14th German edition was published in 1922. If you have a "15th edition" you are probably talking about some modern print run like the 1961 English paperback, complete with an ISBN number. But when you say "Deflection of Light by a Gravitational Field" you are talking about GR, not STR which was one of my main points.

STR was introduced in two scientific papers in 1905. Minkowski gave it simpler mathematical foundations in 1907. By 1910, these German-language papers were accepted by many German physicists, and the ways that STR made the universe more understandable was beginning to be grasped well by others. By 1912, the first calls for Einstein to get a Nobel prize began, from the 1911 Nobel prize winner! So by 1916 (German First edition) or 1920 (The below English edition), STR was highly thought of by people who matter, and people who don't matter (in physics) wanted to wrap their heads around it. That's why this is a popular physics book -- not a scientific paper. The Times (London) on November 7, 1919 broke the news to the world of the successful test of Einstein over Newton, but that was a test of GR, not STR per se. Your jealousy of Einstein's actual merits and fame does not in the least manner make him wrong.

The figures in the table of paragraph 14 of Appendix III in this freely available English edition are for seven stars, but each is measured twice in orthogonal directions. This makes it 14 datapoints. But your argument against the paucity of the data is misplaced, since the datapoints are in agreement with GR over a null result or the Newtonian prediction. Your argument against the paucity of the data is innumerate and ignorant of the most basic fact of astronomical observation since there was only one eclipse and there are only so many bright stars available in frame. And any argument you might have had with the wide margin of error of the 1919 result is antique when compared with the Hipparcos 1997 repeat, as well with many other tests.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/a3.html

Pointing a telescope at the sun and getting accurate results is hard in-atmosphere, because the Sun is hot. The 1973 Mauritania result is not much different than the 1919 expedition. But you get better results out of atmosphere or with a different form of light, like radio waves.

Eddington was not the one who threw out the distorted images from the 1919 result, Dyson did. So your whole anti-Eddington tirade is baseless. Likewise, Einstein (who did not go on the 1919 expedition) is being completely ethical by quoting the results of and conclusions of other's original research.

And the book, with the full title of: Über die spezielle und die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie, gemeinverständlich or for the English edition: Relativity, the Special and the General Theory: A Popular Exposition tells you he is not writing for the professional physicist at the edge of human knowledge. These are pop-science books in the truest sense of the term. Physics for the masses with very little math.


And Dayton Miller's 1933 experiment, unlike the 1919 expedition, did not return the expected number (assuming an Earth which moves through a absolute ether) -- just a number different than zero. But Miller processed his numbers far more than the 1919 team.

See R. S. Shankland, S. W. McCuskey, F. C. Leone, and G. Kuerti, "New analysis of the interferometric observations of Dayton C. Miller," Rev. Mod. Phys. 27, 167–178 (1955) for a reason why Dayton Miller cannot be trusted in isolation. Where are the repeats of Miller's work? For 30 years Miller's experiment was repeated and nothing was seen. Are the laws of physics different when Miller works as opposed to other researchers? Or is the conclusion that Miller somehow goofed a more likely hypothesis?

Or look at http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 -- Miller set up a procedure which could be fooled, but the raw data exists and there is no signal. So the very tiny science mystery of why Dayton Miller, a devout anti-Relativist, got an answer which was neither compatible with Ether theory nor Relativity when all other experiment confirm Relativity is solved without disgrace to Miller's memory. And the 1919 expedition, the 1973 expedition, the Hipparcos space-based tests, and many others confirm General Relativity, which helps confirm Special Relativity in the special circumstance that gravity is negligible.

 

Miller got the same results as MM. He had been Presidednt of the US Physics Society (sic). You should get Miller's paper and Shanmkland's who claimed Miller did not adjust for temperature effects, was in error, read Miller. Miller also, referring to MM original in 1818, described MM as reporting that the relative speed detected was not greater than 1/4 the orbital speed, which is consistent with Miller's results.

It is curious whyt you, a confirmed relativity theorist can finf fault with Miller and his experimental methods, yet are unable to give Miller, et al, any sense of objective analysis. I did not attack anyone here and was responding to another post that claimed Miller's data was to old, but eclipse data seems to be within tolerance.

AE published his relativity book and as such he is held to arguments he wrote in the book. AE first describes the speed of the man, wrt the embankment, walking on the train as W = v + w. In all three points, the values are seen from the embankment. Then AE substitutes light for the man walking and c for W (as seen from the embankment). w was the speed of the man walking wrt the train as seen from the embankment. Then AE adjusts the expression as w = c - v and complains that this number is less than what every schoolboy knows when he states that the value should be the same as when the carriage was the reference frame. The terms, c - v describe the relative velocity of light wrt the train as seen from the embankment. AE made a switcheroo of reference frames, a moral no no.

Browse the Internet for eclipse data and controversy and for Eddingfton's changing mind through the years - first worry, then 'not worried', then ecstatic. Where is all the rest of the eclipse data? Was the measuring eqiuipment of sufficient resolution to accurately measure hundreths of a millimeter? Was AE fmiliar with the MM experiment? He claimed he was not. Did AE plagarize Lorentz et al in the '05 paper? Read the chapter on 'simulteneity' chapt 9. The observer on the train said that he saw the light coming from the front of the train before that arriving from the rear. The lightning strikes arrived at both ends of the train sinultaneously. When the train had moved and O saw the first light he said that that light must have been emmitted first, as he,O, was stationary. Observers at both ends can testify the light entered the moving frame at the same instant, yet O is justrified in claiming the lights weren't emiytted simultzaneously based on his particlular location on the moving frame. This is science? And who did you say was a "fooking liar"? The light from the front was emitted before the light from the rear and not the other way around - sure it was.

 

Where is it said or proven that the source motion may control the direction of the light? Is this what you are saying?

Your scalar argument is new to me. AS many times as I've used the 'indenpendence postulate', or 'fact' I have never been criticised. DeSitter and AE both used the term "velocity" yet you are saying the real word they used should be "scalar" ? Where did this come from Pete?

Even using your argument, is carried along has increased by the added component of velocity in the direction of the moving frame that the speed (scalar component) of the light has changed.

I have come to understand that a race between lightg pulses emitted on the embankment and from a moving train will always end in a tie. You bare saying that the If the component

of motion parallel to the moving frame does not alter the speed of light and only direction has changed?

I don't get it. AE used the word "velocity", but he meant to say "scalar" quantity of the light vector, is unaffected by the source motion? I don't agree with your altering the wprds of DeSitter and AE. Put the matter to a poll. You will probably get more votes once the issue is determined to be 'relativity theory, yes or no'.

Even if the statement is true, why does this translate into the 'constancy of the speed of light as measured in inertial frames'?

If we are on an inertial frame moving .9c and a pulse is emitted from the rear of the frame external to the frame and in a vacuum, I say measuring the speed of light wrt the vacuum is c. However, the relative velocity of frame and photon is c - v, just like all other entities moving relative to the frame. The SRT postulate regarding what will be, and what will not be measured has had two (at least) effects on scientific thinking.

One, a moving inertial frame will have its motion negated, in the equations, in order have what is observed to agree with theory.the speed of light being c relative to the frame.

Two, nobody now measures relative speeds of frame and photon, do they? Why bother, theory has settled the matter. Does not this carry over into measurments regarding Doppler data analysis? And doesn't SRT carry over (does it carry over?) into neglecting the motion of the observer when moving parallel or antparallel to a light beam?

If a light source is moving away from an observer who is moving in the same direction as the source, then the use of the data for speed determination will be in error to the degree the observer's speed is not considered.

A source of light moving in the same direction as the light has the effect of shortening the wave length of the light, correct? If an observer is moving antiparallel to the source wont the light wave-length suffer further contraction? Wavelength and frequency are thus measured with the perturbations to the wave-length and frequency (the effect of source motion) being related only to the motion of the source. So, are measrements treated in this manner examples of rationally analyzed data? Are these data void in intrinsic experimental errors regarding wave-length and frequency determination?

Velocity measurements of stellar entities have resulted in the postuilated existence of "dark matter" that constitutes 80-90% of all matter and these dark conclusions are all based in some respect, on Doppler measurements.

 

I am afraid I have to stand by my original assessment.

For Dayton C Miller to be correct, all other experiments have to be wrong, and that is just stupid. For Eddington to be wrong, all other experiments have to be wrong in precisely the same wayand with every increasing accuracy, and that is even more stupid.

And for you to regurgitate these tired old half-truths and biased readings and lies, leaves me only able to stand by my original assessment, which I phrased colorfully to be sure that you would take it to heart.

 

It's a simple consequence of the principle of relativity. This is not contentious.

No, they used a correct word for the context (a 1920 popular exposition). In that context, the word "velocity" means "speed", or "scalar velocity".

 

First, if you are going to converse with me you must cease your little pedetrian digs at, for instance, "my jealousy of Einstein". You exhibit a classic SRT persona, to wit, AE being " highly thought of by people who matter" and was detested by those in physics who didn't matter. So your scientific nugget of supporting data for SRT/GR is AE's reputation in the circle of the intelligent and all klnowing.

His fame was instantaneous as some SRTists convinced the paper world of AE's "merits". So the reporting contained the victory over Newton. The scientific value of AE is a defeat of Newton? Perhasps AE was standing in for Leibniz who was screwed by Newton in the matter of who discovered calculus first. IN was quoted after his hand picked panel voted 100% in IN's favor, that "It felt so good in Breaking Leibniz's heart."

Two things here. I do not dislike nor envy AE. Infact I recognize his EPR paper as instrumental in spreading the concept (which he opposed) of 'action at a distance' which IN didn't oppose but remained reluctant to suggest his law of gravitation permitted anything other than predictive calculations of the moon's position in orbit, but he was able to see that QM was teetering on the brink of disaster as EPR focused on the ability of an observer to predict the 'spin state' of a photon before it was measured, and that measuring a twin particle on opposite sides of the universe immediately set the parameter of the unmeasured photon. This spookiness has prevented a lot of intelligence to go to waste. Being forbidden to know before measuring a particular characteristic of matter is fundamental to QM

I was pointing out that only seven out of dozens of points were published. The unpublished data was scattered all over the sky which proved only that the experimentors were incompetent as manifest by their claiming the data shown was "good data". The paucity of data is not my complaint. The refusal to permit all the being available for public scrutiny is my complaint added with the retention and nonuse of actual data.

Yuor claim that the data was GR consistent provides the same level of confidence belief inspiring as was Richard Nixon's statement to the press, "I am not a crook". History says this is Nixon's only lie.

You haven't mentioned anything about the telescopes having a resolution of approximately 1 cm where separation of the stars was on the order of hundreths of a millimeter imbedded in photographic paper, represnting approximately 2=3 tenths within 20 arc seconds. And what is so secret about the matter that the public was denied a clean look? Eddington was so convinced re SRT that he thought it unnecessary to conduct the experiment and he only agreed to do so upon his promise (to the British Govt) to engage in some public project after he refused induction into the military on religious grounds. Eddington's manner was devious and corrupt.

The point here is that AE was famous overnight and remained so throughout his life, by those that matter of course. You want the 1997 test to negate the fraudulent one of 1919? What value did thew later test have? Was anything added to the sciences by line of SRTists strung out together all neatly joined at the hip pointing to "yet another confirmation of AE's relativity theory?" There is something smelly when a scientific law of nature needs repeated publication of claims that must always keep the knowledge level above a certainly level. And the proof to the public with other than arguments like your own about people who matter is nonexistent. Are you claiming special relativity qualities that permit you be granted an unquestionaabthe. This is telling the viewers of this thread that you are an unimpeachable source of truth; that if they are persuaded my Geistkiesel's anti-AE that aren't within the group of persons that matter. WHy do you do this?

So if the conditions weren't favorable for acquiring competent data why hide this fact? Well, they hid the facts because they had already claimed fanatic religious belief in SRT and because the press was would up tighter cork in beer keg.

How did this 1973 expedition locate bent light rays and hence the source stars using radio waves? Or did they? Or was some other form lof light involved, visible wav e lengths? Or were the data like infrared where the markings necessarily needed scientific translation? I can tell you are no donator to funds for research of disproving scscientists in the same sense that fans and supporters of the (Soccer) footbal team, die Augburger Bladder Hunde are faithful and loyal to their team. You are an honest person inthe same sense that a court judge that has been bought by one side in a litigation process, remains bought, as he promised.

rpenner, think, before responding to this question, consider your answer so Cas not to be embarrassed. Carefully now, do you know the difference between pigeon shit and chicken shit?
Chicken shit is saltier.

I have no tirade against anyone. Since you brought it up, Eddington at any moment in his life could have come clean to the world regarding the nature of the data. So you are saying Eddington was not a co-conspirator of
Dyson?

So, AE is justified in feeding his popular version on pieces of sweet bread? Like his simulataneity argument in chapter 9/ AE is saying that the observer on the train located at the midpoint point of siimultaneous lightning strikes at both ends of the train whom sees the forward strike before the one from the rear is justified in claiming that in his frame the forward strike occured before the latter? Even though observers on both ends of the train measured the two lightning bolts entering the moving frame simultaneously? Only the observer's particlular position in the moving frame permits one to believe the silly statement that the forward strike occured before the one from the aft end of the train. And when the observer is handed paper proof of the time of arrival of both lights onto the moving frame was simultaneous, the oberver may start screaming, "fooking liars, fooking liars, fooking liars".

Are you calling dayton miller and all the people on his team made up data fooking liars ? Miller has made all his data available for scrutiny, even to those who published rubish about Miller's failure to account for temperature effects which distorted the data? Miller spent considerable time and detail discussing temperature and Shankland paper is nothing but hypothetical "coulda shoulda wouldas". Shankland had been associated with Miller earlier in the series of experiments.

How the hell do you knlow who and how the data was processed?

You should read the venom coming through your posts -you discuss people, events, circumstances as if you were there in person. You called me jealous of AE, I observe you as an equivalent of a religious fanatic. When you went to school and studied SRT you knew nothing of it, and yet you accepted the spoonsfull of insanity as if being fed by the Archangel St Michael.

Did the eclipse data get such an intensive scrutiny? You didn't read Miller's
paper, or Shankland's. I get the distinct impression that you have an assigned peripheral mission in life which is to maintain a close and failthful allegience to the SRT silliness. The link to the data analysis was interesting but describes nothing except a slight failure to disguise a demeaning attitude about anyone challenging that religious order into which you were inducted and as you are trained.

Oh well I do appreciate the time and effort you put into this post, but I feel as if my time and effort have been violated' I notice you have failed to respond to the the thread here as it was presented. Your approach is naively immature - why disuss points of scientifically contested matters when it is much easier to simply utter the "1000 supporting experiments of SRT" in such a way as if no experiment will ever cast a cloud of suspicion on the theory, which is you life. What possible benefit does SRT offer to anyone on this planet? Cancer abatement, political equilibrium , travel in space to the stars, can it alleviate any kind of human discomfort. No, SRT cannot even be inserted into a line of words intended as humorouse. Regarding SRT? It's no joke.

One thing distinguishes SRT from Ptolemaic models providing information regarding the location of planets in the solar system : Ptolemy's system worked and contributed to satisfying spoken needs of those availing themselves of Ptolemy's circles within cirlces.

 

That's not what I wrote or what my links said. But I predicted you could not read them. The 1973 expedition which was a replay of the 1919 experiment has truly ugly error bars on it compared to experiments with radio waves or space-based telescopes. But perhaps you have spent less time at observatories than I and fail to see that telescopes, being manufactured to photograph stars, work best at night. In atmosphere, they heat up in unwieldy ways that makes the accuracy of their fidelity suspect.

Dude, you are on a tirade longer than the one that is mocked at the end of Downfall.

Because we have the raw data, Miller's own writing, and the results. It's very simple processing -- totaling up such and such a column of numbers and presenting the result. But then the signal of the totals may have been distorted by outliers in the noise, and totally swamp the totals of the signal, which is undesirable. And all of that is described in the linked documents.

Venom? No. Outrage at your attempts at miseducation

There are many proper biographies of the events. None of which are germane to the fact that Einstein's theory of GR is either better or worse than Newton's and long after Einstein is dead, the data still pours in to support Einstein.

And if you want to talk about experimental support for STR, well that goes back to at least 1859, as I have written many times before.

I think it did circa 1978-1979.

Harvey, G. M. (1979). “Gravitational Deflection of Light: A Re-examination of the observations of the solar eclipse of 1919.” The Observatory 99, 195-198.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979Obs....99..195H

Of course by then we had computers as machines, not just as a occupation, so data analysis became far more powerful, and we can look at all the stars, not just a mere handful. But all the data we have now shows Eddington and Dyson did good science with imperfect tools.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0685

 

Well, they did say velocity, did they not?

 

Chapter 9 of "Relativity" - throw momma from the train.

Your openiung words when posting in this thread were, "Fooking Liar!"
That isn't tirade?

Who is "we" in "we have the raw data"? Did you look at the data or are you citing a critic? Did you observe outliers in the data? Did you look at the data? I didn't think so. Are you taking the word of a stranger and then come running to me with all your stuff that supports AE only. I have observed that you aren't so concerned with SRT as you are concerned with the reputation of AE that some have called a scieintific tyrant, do you agree? Are you involved in some kind of secret activity that shouldn't be exposed to the noonday sun?
.
What are you trying to do by bringing up SRT support that far back to the last millenium? Who then could keep up with little ol' me even in discussion such as ours? Nobody was shrinking inertial frames and dilating time in 1859. Nobody was denying the universe simultaneity of event being unique to the inertial frame.

Did you realize that the links you gave me all stressed, guess what, science? NO. SRT? No. Measurment of c for the SOL in all inertial frames? No, they all effectively were diatribe against any dast critical of AE. Think of how many profs will start flipping Miog Mac when their SRT gets exposed as just another religious "community.working for M acDonmalds

This is another in the list of references that are meager in the display of science. There is , however, a plethora of tirade against those tghat dare criticisize the master. This one and another were all concerned perimarily with saving AE, then SRT.

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1979Obs....99..195H

What speciofically can you point to that supports your contention that moderrn technology Why did the modern analysis not echo Dwight Millers who used the data to determine the resolutionof individual experiments did not attempt to determine gross averages. I suspect that your Harvard crew is dumping out averages of that no one but themselves can scrutinize.
The persons analyzing the eclipse data in 5 pages, I believe, you infer are on the b
ball, bit supporters of Miller are Kooks, is this the report I write. The Harvard group did not enthusiastikcally enforce AE/SRT and they made many comments attesting to the dismal state of, what is now, "their data",.that proves nothing.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0685[/QUOTE]

Doesw your chapter 9 have the gedunken of the train and the embankment?

The forward and rearward points of a moving train are instantaneously colocated with emitted lights, half of which was directed down the track to the misdpoint of the two lignhts, where an embankment observer directly facing an observer on the train sitting 1/2 the distance between the two light.The light from the front of the train is seen by the train observer before he sees the light coming from the rear. The obser is told the light were emitted simultaneously and reached the embankment observer simultabneously. The train observer claimed that in the reference frame of the cho cho train he sees the forward light being emitted before the rearward light, hence, explaining the loss of simultaneity wrt the two inertial frames.

After a few moments the observers that had been stationed at the ends of the train each hand the train observer a printout of the time stamp indicating when the light entered the train frame. Bingo, both numbers were identical.

So now what does the train observer do? Thinking out loud he remarked that SRT authorized him the choice to consider the embankment moving and the train frame as stationary. Hmmm, hums the observer, if I consider the train as moving and the embankment at rest then the early light from the front could be explained by the fact that I and the light from the front were moving toward each other,and that explained the early arrival of the forward light striking me before the rear light arrived.the observer. The train observer's employer, Mr. Ironwheels, was listening to the observer and Mr. Ironwheels told the observer to retract the latest statement and to readopt the previous authorized consideration of the train's stationary velocity. The observer refused. Mr. Ironwheels then said to the observer. "The train was stationary, the embanklment was in motion and the forward light was emitted before the rear light." The observer looked Mr. Ironwheels straight in the eye and said, "You fooking liar". Mr. Ironwheels then called train security and told them "to throw momma from the train.", which security promptly did. Yes, Mr. Ironwheels' momma was the train observer. "How ironic" mused the observer just before he started bouncing on the rocky embankment strung next to the moving train, "my son threw me from the train".