OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 20:26 On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 13:07:28 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ka98a1501qj0a0fj4tbrst10mojilnk2b8(a)4ax.com... >> On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:36:08 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >> >> >The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between >> >the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite >> >directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a >> >light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length >is >> >the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: >> >The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second >> >Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m >> >Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second >> > = >> >299,792,458m/1 second >> >> Ken, OWLS can theoretically be anything from + infintiy to - infinity. >> >> But it is never likely to be very different from c because the RMS >velocity at >> 3K is pretty small. >> Very few objects in the whole universe are moving at anywhere near c wrt >> anything else. >> >> In a TW light speed experiment in which the components are mutually at >rest, >> OWLS=TWLS=c (in a vacuum). > >Assertion is not an arguement. The principle is used in surveying and in all light standardization measurements. It works 100%. It supports the BaT 100% > >Ken Seto > > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: bz on 6 Jun 2005 22:49 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:p6q9a1h563g91m2lbdellnbloku9p9pt5r(a)4ax.com: > On Mon, 6 Jun 2005 11:44:49 +0000 (UTC), bz <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> > wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:30a8a11lhguqj8peohbfp0c25auhismk4r(a)4ax.com: >> >>> According to the BaT, light will move at c wrt every component in the >>> apparatus and therefore the travel time in both directions will be the >>> same. >>> >> >>how can it do so when different components are traveling at different >>velocities wrt the apparatus. For example, in a paricle accelerator. > > The above statement refered to experiments in which all components are > mutually at rest. "wrt every component in the apparatus" doesn't seem to make that point very clearly. In fact it would seem to imply the opposite. >>I thought BaT said light will move at c wrt the emitting body >>irrespective of the motions of anything else in the universe. > > It does. > What's wrong with that? It means that photons emitted by moving particles in an accelerator should move at c+v where v is the velocity of the particle, irrespective of the motion of anything else in the universe, including so called EM frames, whatever those are. > Incidentally, a decaying particle cannot be assumed to constitute a > normal source. It can under SR/GR. If it can't under BaT, that is a strike against BaT. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: Jerry on 6 Jun 2005 23:56 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >You ARE a complete failure. > > Silly boy! Why do you automatically assume that I'm male? Like my real name, "Jerry" is gender-ambiguous. It is a common diminutive for Geraldine. Ever heard of supermodel Jerry Hall? Pig. Jerry
From: Jerry on 7 Jun 2005 00:33 Henri Wilson wrote: > On 6 Jun 2005 04:29:33 -0700, "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >(sigh) > >Download Filipas and Fox and -read- it. All of your objections > >are answered. You have nothing to stand on. > >http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Filippas_Fox_1964.pdf > > You don't really think that experiment proves anything > do you? It contains so many asumptions it could produce > any answers you can name. >From the nature of your response, it is obvious that you are incapable of providing valid criticism of the experimental setup or understanding the math. Hence you resort to rhetoric, hoping that nobody notices the complete emptiness of your words. Jerry
From: russell on 7 Jun 2005 02:21
Jerry wrote: [snip] > Proxy methods may exist for indirectly measuring bullet, electron, > and snail velocities, but it's a fallacy to believe that just because > proxy methods may exist for measuring the speed of such entities, that > there has "gotta" be a proxy method for measuring OWLS. And more fundamentally, either you need *one* entity whose one-way speed (measured by the "proxy" of your choice) *defines* clock synchronization, in which case it's no longer a proxy, or your one-way speed is entirely dependent on whatever other method you use for clock synchronization, and any proxies you might use must be calibrated to that. In other words, what I've been saying all along -- you can't measure the OW speed of anything independently of synch convention. That said, I can conceive that there may be methods, not explicitly two-way or whose two-way equivalence is difficult to discern, that hold out the prospect of resolving an OWLS anisotropy *within* the current clock synch conventions. The problem with that is, such a finding would require that TWLS is *also* anisotropic because current clock synch convention fixes OWLS=TWLS. So, as it were in spite of itself, such a method amounts to a TWLS anisotropy experiment and has to live or die by comparison with existing explicit TWLS anisotropy measurements whose error bars are small. |