swansont

Cite, please.

But once the curvature is there' date=' you don't need anything to propagate - it's static. Changes in the curvature will also propagate, and do so at c. Van Flandern's site just goes to show that Sturgeon's Law is valid.

I couldn't find one online in a limited search. I know I have done it for Helmholtz coils and plotted the field, but that was a few computers ago, so those files (and the application) may be long gone.

Why? Summer is when people sleep in, stay up later and take vacations. Also, presumably if you do this symmetric to the hottest part of the year, you save on cooling costs if people don't turn on the AC so much when they're outdoors in the daytime.

The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. Most science libraries have them, as would some Physics or Chemistry students and most professors.

You're correct in that I don't know all the particulars one way or another. But I note that you have not provided any particulars, either, in support of any of your claims. Being able to reproduce results is one of the cornerstones of science. It's why Pons and Fleischmann are no longer employed at the same address as they were before the cold fusion incident. When you get one result and the rest of the world doesn't, you have to wonder why. From what I've read, Miller did his experiments basically in a tent because he was convinced of ether shielding, yet others did experiments to test if there was such an effect and came up empty. When I said "systematics" this is not the same as random experimental noise. It means a bias in the mechanism that skew the results in one particular direction. Lots of things can give diurnal results, and if you really have a diurnal effect, it's damn hard to separate all of them out an isolate the one in question. Basically you seem to be proposing that he got it right and everybody else is wrong, and that despite the trend that as equipment gets better and better over time, so do experimental results. You're trying to buck the odds twice. 8 km/s is not a "fatal shot" for a few reasons. It has been shown to be an anomoly, first of all, by the numerous other experiments. Show why the others don't come up with the 8 km/s result. Another reason is stellar aberration, which shown that we cannot be moving at some speed other than 30 km/s. That's the result you have to measure, not "any value other than zero."

I think he wants equations for the off-axis solution, that show the dipole nature.

A pass. The guy had a wide open jump shot, so I turned my head toward the basket, getting ready for a rebound, then looked back at him just in time to get plastered in the face - he decided to pass the ball to me instead.

Since GR predicts that gravity propagates at c, and there is data to support the notion, I don't see how that is reasonable at all.

No, on the GPS satellites they don't cancel. I already pointed this out in post #16. The v2/2c2 term does not equal the change in the GM/rc2 term. This is really pretty simple algebra, and there's a graph (although it's really small for some reason) in the link I gave, that shows the overall correction as a function of orbit size.

If you look at the equations, you will find that for v>c you get an imaginary term. So either the mass is imaginary (to get real energy) or if the mass is real, you have an imaginary energy. So jumping across that divide requires something to change character somehow, and there's no known physical attributes that can be discerned from all that. It is entirely possible that superluminal particles exist (tachyons) but as we have no way of interacting with them, it makes no tangible difference if they do or don't.

A basketball. No kidding. It was an old ball and had a seam that was about to give way, so there was a bulge. I caught it in the eye at just the wrong orientation, so the bulge struck my eye and had some kind of abrasion on my eyeball that hurt like hell. Couldn't lie down, because the change in pressure was too painful, for a day - had to sleep sitting up. Bothered me for weeks. Any kind of dust or other irritant in my eye hurt a lot.

But the gravity causes curvature, and that curvature is already in place. I think it might be more appropriate to think of it as changes in gravity propagating at c.

GPS clocks' synthesizers must run at a different frequency in orbit than when they are on the ground in order to run at the same rate as the ground clocks. It's in the link I provided.

You have to model the atoms. It gets very difficult to approximate as the atom gets larger.

Small perturbations. I was speaking of the first-order solution.

You can diffract the light and see how much deflection there is, or look at interference with respect to some standard wavelength.

Not only the right, but the duty - the system is based upon criticism. Peer review, as one example. Science isn't perfect, but it is ultimately self-correcting.

It is unclear what you mean here by "simultaneity could not be proved." Do you mean that simultaneity in one frame did not indicate simultaneity in another frame? In your "linear Sagnac" example, you seem to indicate agreement with this - if c is constant in all inertial frames, then events that are simultaneous in one frame are not in another. The point is that physical law is not left to the arbitrary choice of the observers. Physical law is the same in all inertial reference frames, so that there is no preferred frame in which one must do calculations. If e.g. momentum is conserved, it is conserved in all frames, and consquently if it it not conserved in one frame, it is not conserved in all frames. You seem to be fixated on one example with a train, but can't two massive bodies be in relative motion in inertial frames? Which one of those is the preferred frame? What of two low-mass objects? Physics has to be true in general. What may appear to be conceptually difficult in one contrivance may not be in many other situations.

I agree that if simultaneity is absolute then SR is false. Any assumption about simultaneity being absolute is equivalent to assuming that SR is false. To assume that an ordering of events must stay on that order in all frames falls into that category - it is a statement that implicitly assumes SR is false. i.e. It assumes the conclusion.