One Way Light Speed
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
Mr. Heymann brought a paper to this newsgroup "Test of the Second Postulate
of Special Relativity in the GeV Region" by Alvager & Farley at CERN.
Here is few more related ones:
D. Sadeh, "Experimental Evidence for Constancy of the Velocity of Gamma
Rays, Using Annihilation in Flight," Physical Review Letters 10, (1963), pp.
271-73
roughly: positron and electron annihilation, generating two photons
"simultaneously" travelling 180° from each other, with an initial particle
center of mass motion of 0.6c
T. A. Fihppas and J. G. Fox, "Velocity Of Gamma Rays from a Moving Source,"
Physical Review 135, (1964), pp. B1071-75
Kenneth Brecher, "is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the
Source?", Physical Review Letters 39, (1978), pp. 1051-54.
roughly: showing the constancy of OWLS to within 10^-9 of the source
velocity (0.001c) binary pulsars
(from post by Luc Bourhis 18 Nov 2001)
I don't see how the last one could be a two-way measurement is disguise.
Anyone?
David A. Smith
Frank Wappler
David A. Smith wrote:
> [...] Kenneth Brecher, "is the Speed of Light Independent
> of the Velocity of the Source?",
> Physical Review Letters 39, (1978), pp. 1051-54.
> roughly: showing the constancy of OWLS to within 10^-9
> of the source velocity (0.001c) binary pulsars [...]
I don't see how Brecher could unambiguously define
what, if anything particular, he meant by "binary pulsar"
without referring to (ratios between) distances;
and I haven't seen any reproducible defintion of
(how to measure values of) "distance"
which didn't introduce "Speed of Light, c, OWLS"
as an invariant symbol to begin with.
Consequently I don't see how Brecher's publication
could be misconstrued as "showing the constancy of OWLS",
rather than showing (at best) that the source(s) of the signals
which Brecher considered did indeed satisfy his definition of
a "binary pulsar", in this trial.
> I don't see how the last one could be a two-way measurement is disguise.
I don't see that either.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Stephen Speicher
noticed this post on another service, and I am posting from
there. I am not sure what name will appear on the message
header, but this message is from me, Stephen Speicher.]
To answer your question the first thing to be done is to read the
paper and understand what is being measured and what is being
deduced. In order to see certain differences between differing
theories one can simply write lightspeed as c' = c + kv, where k
is a parameter which equals 1 in some theories, and is equal to 0
in special relativity.
A non-zero value of k, i.e., a source dependency for the speed of
light, would lead to certain well-known effects on measurements
made of binary star systems. Brecher did not measure the speed of
light per se, but rather was able to deduce, based upon
measurements made of several binary star systems, that the
difference between c' and c was dependent on a k value which was
less than 2*10^-9.
The value which Brecher offers is setting a new upper limit to
any source dependency on the speed of light, and Brecher's limit
on k bettered Alvager's terrestrial experiment by 5 orders of
magnitude.
David, permit me to point out that a better alternative to
presenting experiments which need to be "explained" is to first
study and learn why direct experimental measurement of OWLS is,
in principle, not possible by means of light signals. The value
in learning the _principle_ is that one need not feel compelled
to take the time and effort required to explain each and every
experiment which comes along.
p.s. Tom Roberts was always honest enough to point out that some
of these cosmological experiments may not be valid due to
extinction effects in the interstellar gas. I just want to point
out that such a criticism, while true for some of these type of
experiments, is not valid for Brecher's work due to the energies
and distances he is working with.
--
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> David, permit me to point out that a better alternative to
> presenting experiments which need to be "explained" is to first
> study and learn why direct experimental measurement of OWLS is,
> in principle, not possible by means of light signals. The value
> in learning the _principle_ is that one need not feel compelled
> to take the time and effort required to explain each and every
> experiment which comes along.
You've probably answered this a billion times. Where can someone who can no
longer attend school due to domestic obligations learn this principle? I'm
banging my head against this wall. I need to understand why the wall is not
the direction I should be moving my head, so to speak. Got a book that is
still in print and doesn't cost $100 you can recommend? (Of course my lack
of "high level math" will keep me from getting most of it, but posterity
would be served.)
I was listing these papers here, so that they would be in one place for this
group. The source that lifted them from indicated, as you did, that all but
Brecher's work were really two-way measurements.
David A. Smith
Stephen Speicher
> Dear Stephen:
>
> > David, permit me to point out that a better alternative to
> > presenting experiments which need to be "explained" is to first
> > study and learn why direct experimental measurement of OWLS is,
> > in principle, not possible by means of light signals. The value
> > in learning the _principle_ is that one need not feel compelled
> > to take the time and effort required to explain each and every
> > experiment which comes along.
>
> You've probably answered this a billion times. Where can someone who can no
> longer attend school due to domestic obligations learn this principle? I'm
> banging my head against this wall. I need to understand why the wall is not
> the direction I should be moving my head, so to speak. Got a book that is
> still in print and doesn't cost $100 you can recommend? (Of course my lack
> of "high level math" will keep me from getting most of it, but posterity
> would be served.)
>
The book I have often recommended for this (often, though not a
billion times) is Yuan Zhong Zhang, "Special Relativity And Its
Experimental Foundations," _World Scientific_, 1997. Zhang gives
a very clear explanation of this issue, spaced across the whole
book, and it really does not require any "high level math" at all
-- just a lot of concentration and thought. (Note that there are
a number of idiosyncratic formulations which I attribute to the
difference in first language of the author.)
The book is available new, ready to ship within 24 hours, from
Barnes & Noble's online service:
The book is also available from used book sources, ranging in
price from $25 to prices exceeding the new book cost through
Barnes & Noble.
> I was listing these papers here, so that they would be in one place for this
> group.
>
Tom Roberts' FAQ entry "What is the experimental basis of Special
Relativity?" is quite good.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
> The source that lifted them from indicated, as you did, that all but
> Brecher's work were really two-way measurements.
>
I'm not sure of what you are saying, but Brecher does not really
measure the speed of light, but rather, as I said, he placed
stringent limits on any supposed source dependency.
Stephen Speicher
Oops. I meant to note that the B & N price was $44, less than
half of the $100 for which David was concerned.
PHILLIP V GLASGOW
dl...@aol.com (formerly) <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:in019.70103$L02.3...@news1.west.cox.net...
> Dear Stephen:
>
> > David, permit me to point out that a better alternative to
> > presenting experiments which need to be "explained" is to first
> > study and learn why direct experimental measurement of OWLS is,
> > in principle, not possible by means of light signals. The value
> > in learning the _principle_ is that one need not feel compelled
> > to take the time and effort required to explain each and every
> > experiment which comes along.
>
> You've probably answered this a billion times. Where can someone who can
no
> longer attend school due to domestic obligations learn this principle?
It deals with the construction of a one-way transit experiment and the rules
of measurement one is required to follow. Let us suppose we are to
construct just such an experiment (I am sure presented much more simply than
required). First we measure off a given interval in coordinate space.
Knowing two-way light speed is c, we could use the transit time interval of
a two way transit to determine the distance between the two points [d = c /
(2*(t2 - t1))]. Now we must synchronize the clocks. According to
procedure, we locate the center and send a light signal to the endpoints.
Upon detection at the endpoints the clocks are synchronized. Now, this is
where it gets sticky. If we detect OWLS to be c (e.g. by measuring the
times of emission and absorption of a light ray which transits one endpoint
to the other to be consistent with OWL=c), is it a consequence of the
synchronization procedure OR is it that lightspeed is isotropically c? It
all boils down to whether, indeed, the clocks are synchronized, that is,
whether they are tick the same proper time readings simultaneously. If they
do tick the same proper time readings simultaneously, then the time of
transit is consistent with OWLS being c. If they do not, then it cannot be
a constant value.
So how are we to know if the spatially separated clocks are truly ticking
their seconds simultaneously? The answer is that we can't know. What
evidence we do have suggests that we can not be certain that any co-moving
pair of clocks which are spatially seperated and synchronized under the
assumption of OWLS=c are truly synchronized. Why? Because relatively moving
inertial systems disagree about which spatially separated events are
simultaneous in their respective frames. In other words, a pair of events
which share the same proper time in one frame, do not share the same proper
time in a relatively moving frame. It begs the question, whose
simultaneity is simultaneous?
On the one hand, you may consider the conclusion that if we have no evidence
that the synchronization procedure produces simultaneous synchronization for
all inertial frames of reference then the OWLS is not constant. But before
you do, in the context of relativity, OWLS being c is fundamental to its
construction. That is, after all, how the synchronization procedure is
derived. In other words, the time of transit from a midpoint location is
_assumed_ to be the same because light speed is the same in either
direction. It should be noted that light speed is constant in relativity in
relative space and time. By relative, I mean the coordinate space and the
coordinate time (as measured by clocks) of inertial systems. In this
regard, we are left with no means to determine displacement of light wrt an
inertial system to be something other than c by measurement of intervals of
space and time in their absolute construction.
So absolute transits of light wrt inertials systems do not appear to be
constant in relativity (because no reliable simultaneity can be
established), however, relative transit speeds are indeed constant and
consistent with the construction of coordinate space and coordinate time
(which is natural as it is assumed in the construction).
Additionally, it should be noted that the constancy of _absolute_ transits
of light wrt to inertial systems is just another way of saying that light
speed is source dependent and not source dependent in the same breath. This
is a oxymoron and completely incompatible with relativity and observation.
Phil
Frank Wappler
Stephen Speicher wrote:
> In order to see certain differences between differing theories
> one can simply write lightspeed as c' = c + kv,
> where k is a parameter [...]
If this is to define parameter k (presumably as a real number)
and if these supposed theories were to be experimentally distinguishable
by determining the value of k, trial by trial,
then what are the definitions (of how to measure, or to assume values)
of "c'", "c", and "v" to begin with
(either separately, or at least in ratio between each other) ??
> A non-zero value of k, i.e., a source dependency for the speed of
> light, would lead to certain well-known effects on measurements
> made of binary star systems. [...]
Which constraints on the quantities "c'", "c", and/or "v"
would have to be measured in the first place to determine _that_
some particular (set of) light source(s) had been a
"binary star system", in some particular trial ?
Thanks, Frank W ~@) R
Ken Seto
Davis,
Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
clocks. That's why he invented e-synch. What e-synch
says is that the two spatially separated synchronized
clocks the distant clock must be off-set by an appropriate
amount in order to get c. You ask what is the offset?
The answer to this question is: You need to determined
the off-set value experimentally. The following proposed
experiment will enable us to determine the off-set.
It is identified in the experiment as Tab.
Proposed Experiment to find the e-synch off-set:
1. Two sets of cesium clocks A1, A2 and B1, B2 are located at the A
location
on a straight rail track.
2. A1 and B1 are not running. A2 and B2 are synchronized and running.
3. A1 and B1 are each equipped with a laser light pulse detector. The
diameter of the detection surface area is 4 mm.
4. Slow transport clocks B1 and B2 to a new location 100 meters away.
The distance is pre-determined using Einstein's procedure to measure
distance.
5. At the A location there is a laser light source equipped with a
shutter.
6. The laser beam is split into two continuous beams before passing
through the shutter. One of the beams goes to detector A and the
other goes to detector B. The leading edge of the laser beam
through the shutter will act to activate clocks A 1 and B1 and
the lagging edge of the laser beam will
act to de-activate them
7. Each trial (experiment) is conducted by opening and closing of the
shutter for the following time intervals: 1 second, 2 seconds, 3
seconds, 4 seconds, 5 seconds, 6 seconds, 7 seconds, 8 seconds,
9 seconds and 10 seconds.
8. Laser beam A will activate and de-activate clock A1 for each trial
and the results are identified as Ta1, Ta2, Ta3, Ta4 Ta5, Ta6,
Ta7, Ta8, Ta9 and Ta10.
9. Laser beam B will activate and de-activate clock B1 for each trial
and the results are identified as Tb1, Tb2, Tb3, Tb4, Tb5, Tb6,
Tb7, Tb8, Tb9 and Tb10.
10. Increase the detection surface area to 20 cm in diameter.
Gradually decrease the diameter at 0.001 cm interval. For each
decrease in diameter do the trial using the one-second-shutter
opening and closing interval. Repeat the trials until the
activation time in clock B shows a difference compared
to clock A for that specific trial. Measure the diameter for
that trial and identify it Db .
11. Slow transport clocks B1 and B2 back to the A location.
12. Repeat steps 1-11 with A and B oriented in a different horizontal
direction.
13. Repeat steps 1-12 in different locations.
14. Repeat steps 1-13 at different time of the year.
The SRT predictions for these experiments are as follows:
(a) Clocks A2 and B2 are still synchronized when they are reunited.
This means that the A and B locations are in the same frame of
reference. Also this means that any difference in activation
time between clocks A1 and B1 is due to the absolute motion
of clock B1.
(b) Ta1=Tb1=1 second; Ta2=Tb2=2 seconds; Ta3=Tb3=3 seconds; Ta4=Tb4=4
seconds; Ta5=Tb5=5 seconds; Ta6=Tb6=6 seconds; Ta7=Tb7=7 seconds;
Ta8=Tb8=8 seconds; Ta9=Tb9=9 seconds and Ta10=Tb10=10 seconds.
(c) There is no difference in activation time between clocks A1 and B1
by reducing the detection surface area on clock B1.
(d) Different orientation of the clocks will have no effect on the
activation time for both clocks A1 and B1.
(e) Different time of the year and different locations will have no
effect on the activation time for both clocks A1 and B1
The Aether predictions for these experiments are as follows:
a) Clocks A2 and B2 are still synchronized when they are reunited.
This means that the A and B locations are in the same frame of
reference.
Also this means that any difference in activation time between clocks
A1
and B1 is due to the absolute motion of clock B1.
b) Ta1=1second>Tb1; Ta2=2seconds>Tb2; Ta3=3seconds>Tb3;
Ta4=4seconds>Tb4; Ta5=5seconds>Tb5; Ta6=6seconds>Tb6;
Ta7=7seconds>Tb7; Ta8=8seconds>Tb8; Ta9=9seconds>Tb9
and Ta10=10seconds>Tb10.
c) The difference in activation times between clocks A1 and B1 is a
constant for each trial. Identify this value as Tab
d) There is a difference in activation time between A1 and B1 when the
diameter of the detection surface is reduced to approimately 10 cm
(this assumes that the state of absolute motion of clock B1 is
approimately 300 km/sec).
e) Different horizontal orientations of clocks A1 and B1 will yield
the same results as predicted above. This suggests that the direction
of
absolute motion of clock B1 is not in the horizontal direction but
rather it is
in the vertical direction. This interpretation agrees with such past
experiments as the Michelson-Morley experiment (the MMX) and the
Compton shift experiment. The results of these experiments were
independent of
the horizontal orientations of the experimental apparatus. It is
noteworthy to point out that the MMX null result can be explained if
the direction of absolute motion of the apparatus is moving in the
vertical direction.
f) Different time of the year and different locations will yield the
same results as predicted above. This suggests that the different
observed
relative motions of the earth have no effect on its state of absolute
motion. In other word, the absolute motion of the earth maintained in
the vertical direction at different locations throughout the year.
The theory behind the aether predictions is as follows:
1) The laser beams are moving horizontally in the aether while the
detectors are moving vertically relative to the laser beams.
2) Detector A is at the shutter's location and therefore it has no
time to move away and thus it detects the whole length of the beam
that passed through the shutter.
3) Detector B is 100 meters from the shutter opening. The transit time
for light to reach detector B1 is 100 m/c seconds. This means that
detector B1 will have this time to move away from the light beam in
the vertical direction. If the motion of detector B1 is at 300 km/sec.
then B will have moved 10 cm vertically by the time the leading
edge of the laser beam reaches the old location of the detector.
This means that detector B1
will miss the first portion of the beam B and thus the activation
time for clock B1 is less than the shutter opening time. This
prediction is confirmed if the difference in activation time
between clocks A1 and B1 is a constant for each trial.
4) Reducing the diameter of the detection surface area to Db will
start to show a different activation time between clocks A1 and
B1 when the diameter is reduced to Db. This means that clock B1
will have moved a distance of Db/2 cm or Db/200 m during a time
interval Tab seconds. The absolute motion
of clock B1 can be calculated from these results as follows:
Vab= Db/200*Tab m/sec......(1)
Where Vab is the absolute motion of clock B1.
For a complete description of this exciting new aether theory, please
visit
my website:
http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html
Ken Seto.
William Bliss
[...]
> Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
> c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
> clocks.
Why do you say this, Ken?
If A.E. knew this then why did he propose his second SR principle?
> That's why he invented e-synch.
In which paper does he mention "e-synch"?
[...]
Wm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> > A non-zero value of k, i.e., a source dependency for the speed of
> > light, would lead to certain well-known effects on measurements
> > made of binary star systems. [...]
>
> Which constraints on the quantities "c'", "c", and/or "v"
> would have to be measured in the first place to determine _that_
> some particular (set of) light source(s) had been a
> "binary star system", in some particular trial ?
If these are local systems (I believe they are near us), then we can see an
angular displacement of these systems over time (center of mass). This will
compare with similar displacements of objects which we can judge the size
of, and therfore the distance of. Consequently we can 'see' how much the
pulses shift "left and right" from the center of mass to determine the
orbital diameter. Then the period establishes the speed.
Since there are multiple systems involved, and single non-zero center
of-mass speed (wrt Sol) will not skew the results inordinately.
I personally feel that you are straining at gnats. Have you looked at the
data from the cited paper?
David A. Smith
Ken Seto
> "Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote
> [...]
> > Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
> > c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
> > clocks.
>
> Why do you say this, Ken?
> If A.E. knew this then why did he propose his second SR principle?
His second principle is based on round trip speed of light.
>
>
> > That's why he invented e-synch.
>
> In which paper does he mention "e-synch"?
I don't have the paper off habd. But if you ask any
of the SR experts they can tell you that e-synch
is required to get one way light speed equal to c.
Ken seto
> [...]
>
> Wm
HenriWilson
<CUTw...@telocity.com> wrote:
>"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote
>[...]
>> Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
>> c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
>> clocks.
>
>Why do you say this, Ken?
>If A.E. knew this then why did he propose his second SR principle?
Ken is correct.
The whole of SR follows directly from AE's definition of clock synch.
He effectively made OWLS equal to TWLS by always adjusting his clocks so
taht it must.
What he didn't realize was that one day clocks would be available to check
that out.
There are two alternative explanations that I can see.
1. the 'turbulent aether' concept. Light is conveyed through a medium that
has no absolute spatial properties.
.
The light travel time for a two way trip is L/(c+v)+L(c-v) where c is the
prevailing 'true local OWLS'. v is the apparatus velocity wrt the frame
defined by that value of 'true OWLS'
So TWLS=2Lc/(1-(v/c)^2)
If we take the CMBR as a spatial reference frame and assume that the earth
is moving about c/1000 then TWLS should vary by about 1 part in 10^6 as the
earth rotates (or considerably less depending on the direction of
movement). It is known to be more constant that that.
2. OWLS is source dependent over short distances.
In this case, TWLS equals L/c + L/c always equals OWLS as long as the
mirror and the source/detector are not moving relative to each other.
>
>
>> That's why he invented e-synch.
>
>In which paper does he mention "e-synch"?
>[...]
>
>Wm
>
>
>
Henri Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
At the frontier of scientific invention.
See the amazing animations at:
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
HenriWilson
>On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:10:50 -0400, "William Bliss"
><CUTw...@telocity.com> wrote:
>
>>"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote
>>[...]
>>> Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
>>> c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
>>> clocks.
>>
>>Why do you say this, Ken?
>>If A.E. knew this then why did he propose his second SR principle?
>
>Ken is correct.
>The whole of SR follows directly from AE's definition of clock synch.
>He effectively made OWLS equal to TWLS by always adjusting his clocks so
>taht it must.
>
>What he didn't realize was that one day clocks would be available to check
>that out.
>
>There are two alternative explanations that I can see.
>
>1. the 'turbulent aether' concept. Light is conveyed through a medium that
>has no absolute spatial properties.
>.
>The light travel time for a two way trip is L/(c+v)+L(c-v) where c is the
>prevailing 'true local OWLS'. v is the apparatus velocity wrt the frame
>defined by that value of 'true OWLS'
>
>So TWLS=2Lc/(1-(v/c)^2)
Sorry, the travel time is 2L/(c(1-(v/c)^2)).
TWLS=2L/(travel time)
= c(1-(v/c)^2)
>
>If we take the CMBR as a spatial reference frame and assume that the earth
>is moving about c/1000 then TWLS should vary by about 1 part in 10^6 as the
>earth rotates (or considerably less depending on the direction of
>movement). It is known to be more constant that that.
>
>2. OWLS is source dependent over short distances.
>In this case, TWLS equals L/c + L/c always equals OWLS as long as the
>mirror and the source/detector are not moving relative to each other.
>
Sorry, the travel time = 2L/c for both OWLS and TWLS.
Frank Wappler
David A. Smith wrote:
> [Frank Wappler wrote:
> > Stephen Speicher wrote:
> > > ... simply write lightspeed as c' = c + kv,
> > > where k is a parameter ...
> > ... what are the definitions (of how to measure, or to assume values)
> > of "c'", "c", and "v" to begin with ...]
> > Which constraints on the quantities "c'", "c", and/or "v"
> > would have to be measured in the first place to determine _that_
> > some particular (set of) light source(s) had been a
> > "binary star system", in some particular trial ?
> [...] Have you looked at the data from the cited paper?
I remeber having looked at the paper itself,
K. Brecher, PRL 39, 1051 (1977), a while ago;
apparently it had been referenced in this newsgroup before
in claiming that measurement procedures (e.g. those of SR)
were testable through experimental results,
rather than being already required to obtain any
experimental results in the first place.
But your suggestion is well-taken: taking a look at the
observational data (as far as it has been recorded) should also serve
to illustrate that, and how, conclusions were drawn from that data.
So I looked for instance at
E. Schreier et al., Astrophys. J. (Lett.) 172, L79 (1972)
(-- thank goodness for public and institutional libraries! --)
where the data is represented as Uhuru's observations of Cen X-3,
which were ordered and counted in consecutively indexed "bins"
of (supposedly equal) time intervals.
Further, the subsequently applied measurement procedures are
indicated in some detail;
in particular for the determinations of _whether_, and with
which level of confidence, the signal sources under consideration
were characterized as "binary star system" (wrt. the receivers),
and for the derivation of the numbers in the first column
of Brecher's Table I.
Namely:
Apparently, Schreier et al. define "binary system",
and in particular, the measure of their confidence that
Cen X-3 constituted a "binary system" wrt Uhuru,
in the trial over which Uhuru's observations were collected,
mainly through the confidence level at which
the counts N of observations, binned as indicated,
can be described by a quasi-periodic function of the bin index t
such that
N( t ) == N( t + tau (1 + a + 2 Pi b / T sin( 2 Pi (t - t0) / T ) ),
with real number parameter a,
bin-index difference parameters tau, b, and T, and
bin index t0.
Schreier et al. do indeed find a good fit of this function
to the given data with parameter values a =approx= 1/4000,
tau =approx= 50.44 bins, b =approx= 414 bins, T =approx= 1.88 10^6 bins,
and for some particular bin index t0;
and they declare "all our present observational data [...] consistent
with this interpretation".
I note that surely one may consider, and may even encounter,
observer pairs A and B such that A were _not_ found to be consistent
with having been a "binary system" wrt B, by Schreier et al.'s
definition;
and in turn, for seemingly any _other_ conceivable function N'( t )
of binned counts of B's observations of A's signals,
one may consider, and may even encounter, observer pairs A and B
which were consistent with function N'( t ), at least in some trials.
IOW, surely it is not trivial to determine _whether_
some particular A was (at least consistent with having been)
a "binary system" wrt some particular B;
it requires first of all to construct and select some particular
reproducible definition of (how to measure) "binary systems",
such as function N( t ) above,
and then of course the collection of a suitable set of observations
to which the defined measurement procedure can be applied,
along with the actual derivation of a result.
Indeed, apparently, Schreier et al. succeeded in defining their notion
of "binary systems" through a reproducible measurement procedure,
and, as observation/data/luck would have it, in actually determining
_that_ Cen X-3 had constituted a "binary system" wrt Uhuru,
for the given data.
Further, they define and calculate the quantity
"orbital_velocity sin( inclination_of_the_orbit )" ==
v sin( i ) == 2 Pi speed_of_light b / T,
therefore with the above fit results:
v sin( i ) =approx= 0.001385 speed_of_light,
which per (SI-) definition of "1 km/s" as (1/299,792,458) km/s,
together with the measurement procedure which defines
"(optical) vacuum" may also be expressed as
v sin( i ) =approx= 415 km/s.
This is one of the measured values which Brecher uses;
listed in Table I as an "observed property of Cen X-3", rather than
as a "measured relation of Cen X-3 and Uhuru wrt each other"
which I'd consider more appropriate and to the point --
but that's just a quibble about nomenclature.
More importantly:
Are Schreier et al.'s definition and determination of this
particular value (concerning some particular observer pair,
i.e. Cen X-3 and Uhuru, one of whom was measured being
a "binary system" wrt the other),
indeed reproducible for _any_ value of Brecher's parameter k,
such that values of k could indeed be constrained
based on Schreier et al.'s measurement ??
Yes, "k" is explicitly absent from their definition and derivation;
but OTOH, they don't use Brecher's parametrization of
"lightspeed" as "c' = c + kv" either.
Is Schreier et al.'s "speed_of_light" at all to be identified
with Brecher's "lightspeed" ?
Is Schreier et al.'s measurement of v sin( i ) of Cen X-3 wrt Uhuru
at all consistent with Brecher's parametrization and use
(besides any coincidences in their choice of symbols) ??
Did Brecher reproduce/understand Schreier et al.'s
definition and determination of this particular v sin( i ) value
(since, apparently, he didn't give any separate definition) ???
That's just one comparatively superficial point
in one particular example; the so-called "experimental tests of SR"
can be debunked as a whole more systematically.
For instance, as indicated above, Schreier et al. apparently required
all the various time intervals containing counts of Uhuru's observations
(each of which was going to be indexed as "one bin")
to be "equal" to each other.
Which definition of (how to measure) "equality" of various
time intervals might they have considered,
other than the conventional SR definition, based on Einstein's
calibration procedure ??; i.e. that if two observers, A and B,
succeeded to identify some auxiliary observer M as the
"middle between" each other, in some particular trial,
then the invidually observed lightsignal roundtrip intervals
to and from M are defined as "equal" to each other,
{ A_saw_M_saw_A_signalled, A_signalled } is called equal to
{ A_saw_M_saw_A_saw_M_saw_A_signalled, A_saw_M_saw_A_signalled },
and
{ B_saw_M_saw_B_signalled, B_signalled } is called equal to
{ B_saw_M_saw_B_saw_M_saw_B_signalled, B_saw_M_saw_B_signalled }.
If that's the measurement procedure which had been employed
or which were at least to be assumed as reference
in order to estimate "systematic errors" of an actual procedure
and result,
then any result thus otained cannot in turn be claimed
to "test SR" in the first place.
Experimental procedure cannot be falsified through
measured experimental results;
instead, experimental procedures must be selected a priori
in order to derive measurements from given observations
to begin with.
> If these are local systems (I believe they are near us),
> then we can see an angular displacement of these systems [...]
If you meant that "angular displacement" were to be _measured_,
as a real number value, such that all (signalling, and/or receiving)
observers involved were able to understand and agree on the value
obtained in any particular trial, at least in principle,
then you should _define how_ to measure such a value,
in terms of what each individually saw and counted
(of the corresponding others).
For this to be accomplished, a definition of (how to measure)
"distance" might be a useful prerequisit.
> over time (center of mass). This will compare with similar
> displacements of objects which we can judge the size of,
> and therefore the distance of. [...]
Given that your above notion/measure of "angular displacement"
is (as of my writing) yet undefined,
why not refer to the conventional (i.e. Einstein's SR) definition
of the value of "distance" of A and B wrt each other as
1/2 speed_of_light calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval ==
1/2 speed_of_light { A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled, A_signalled } ==
1/2 speed_of_light { B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled, B_signalled },
if indeed A and B succeeded in identifying some auxiliary
as the "middle between" each other throughout these
individually observed intervals, and thereby to calibrate
A's state "A_signalled" as simultaneous to B's state "B_signalled",
and A's state "A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled" as simultaneous to
B's state "B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled".
After all, and most important for a measuement:
this particular procedure guarantees that those who are
characterized by this measure (i.e. A and B, by the value
of their distance wrt each other) are mutually able to
understand and agree on the result, in each trial;
at least in principle, provided each can individually
observe, compare, and count.
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
p.s.
> I personally feel that you are straining at gnats.
I personally feel gnats worth straining at;
professionally I (merely) count on gnats and even lesser individuals
counting no less than they (or anyone) might count on each other.
William Bliss
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:3d471fa8...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:10:50 -0400, "William Bliss"
> <CUTw...@telocity.com> wrote:
>
> >"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote
> >[...]
> >> Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
> >> c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
> >> clocks.
> >
> >Why do you say this, Ken?
> >If A.E. knew this then why did he propose his second SR principle?
>
> Ken is correct.
> The whole of SR follows directly from AE's definition of clock synch.
I wasn't aware that AE proposed any new method of synchronizing
clocks in one's own inertial frame. On the contrary, I thought AE rather
liked the old way, you know, walk slowly carrying a master clock...?
> He effectively made OWLS equal to TWLS by always adjusting his clocks so
> taht it must.
Wouldn't "adjusting his clocks" be paramount to measuring one's
speed throught the aether? If it was that easy to detect the aether
why didn't AE do so. Everyone was looking for a means to detect
the earth's speed through the aether and, it seems to me that, anyone
who succeeded would've got the Nobel prize. If I was a low level
clerk that's the research direction I would've taken. :)
>
> What he didn't realize was that one day clocks would be available to check
> that out.
It seems to me that the Fizeau spinning wheel experiment could
easily be modified to simulaneously measure both OW and TW
light speed, and do so using just one clock. So, I'm still a tad
confused about your theory.
>
> There are two alternative explanations that I can see.
Whoa! Slow down there Henri. What exactly is it that you are
trying to explain?
>
> 1. the 'turbulent aether' concept. Light is conveyed through a medium that
> has no absolute spatial properties.
> .
> The light travel time for a two way trip is L/(c+v)+L(c-v) where c is the
> prevailing 'true local OWLS'. v is the apparatus velocity wrt the frame
> defined by that value of 'true OWLS'
Seems to me your model has two unkowns c & v. How do you pin
down one or the other of these two speeds?
>
> So TWLS=2Lc/(1-(v/c)^2)
I suspect you mean TWLS=2L/(c(1-(v/c)^2)). :)
>
> If we take the CMBR as a spatial reference frame and assume that the earth
> is moving about c/1000 then [...]
Sorry! I'm not ready to make such a leap of faith. It seems to me that
even an aether based cosmology could allow the CMBR to be anisotropic
with respect to this aether.
Wm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
You are way over my head, though I do have a couple of comments below...
<<snip>>
> "orbital_velocity sin( inclination_of_the_orbit )" ==
> v sin( i ) == 2 Pi speed_of_light b / T,
>
> therefore with the above fit results:
>
> v sin( i ) =approx= 0.001385 speed_of_light,
Interesting formula. This is the number I've seen published.
> Is Schreier et al.'s "speed_of_light" at all to be identified
> with Brecher's "lightspeed" ?
There _should_ only be ~10^-10 difference between them. And it should not
affect the differential between readings, since they occur over a much
shorter span than 5 years.
> Experimental procedure cannot be falsified through
> measured experimental results;
> instead, experimental procedures must be selected a priori
> in order to derive measurements from given observations
> to begin with.
You mean like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury, for which data
was obtained first, and theory followed?
> > If these are local systems (I believe they are near us),
> > then we can see an angular displacement of these systems [...]
>
> If you meant that "angular displacement" were to be _measured_,
> as a real number value, such that all (signalling, and/or receiving)
> observers involved were able to understand and agree on the value
> obtained in any particular trial, at least in principle,
>
> then you should _define how_ to measure such a value,
> in terms of what each individually saw and counted
> (of the corresponding others).
> For this to be accomplished, a definition of (how to measure)
> "distance" might be a useful prerequisit.
Would a red or blue shift be sufficient? Certainly with a 0.001c velocity,
the shifts should be verifiable, or at least the variance between
"advancing" and "retarding".
> > over time (center of mass). This will compare with similar
> > displacements of objects which we can judge the size of,
> > and therefore the distance of. [...]
>
> Given that your above notion/measure of "angular displacement"
> is (as of my writing) yet undefined,
> why not refer to the conventional (i.e. Einstein's SR) definition
> of the value of "distance" of A and B wrt each other as
>
> 1/2 speed_of_light calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval ==
>
> 1/2 speed_of_light { A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled, A_signalled } ==
>
> 1/2 speed_of_light { B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled, B_signalled },
Doesn't apply, since there is no evidence that our signals were being
observed by the binary star system!
> > I personally feel that you are straining at gnats.
>
> I personally feel gnats worth straining at;
> professionally I (merely) count on gnats and even lesser individuals
> counting no less than they (or anyone) might count on each other.
Like a metal detector on the beach... you just never know.
David A. Smith
Frank Wappler
David A. Smith wrote:
> [Frank Wappler wrote:
> > David A. Smith wrote:
> > > Have you looked at the data from the cited paper?
> > ... having looked at the paper itself,
> > K. Brecher, PRL 39, 1051 (1977)
> > ... I looked for instance at
> > E. Schreier et al., Astrophys. J. (Lett.) 172, L79 (1972)
> > ... define ... the measure of their confidence that
> > Cen X-3 constituted a "binary system" wrt Uhuru, in the trial
> > over which Uhuru's observations were collected
> > mainly through the confidence level at which
> > counts N of observations, binned as indicated, can be
> > described by a quasi-periodic function of the bin index t
> > such that
> > N( t ) == N( t + tau (1 + a + 2 Pi b / T sin( 2 Pi (t - t0) / T )) ),
> > with real number parameter a,
> > bin-index difference parameters tau, b, and T, and
> > bin index t0.
... on second looks, they seem instead to fit the constraint
N( t ) == N( t + tau (1 + a + 2 Pi b / T cos( 2 Pi (t - t0) / T )) ).
> > ... find a good fit of this function
> > to the given data with parameter values a =approx= 1/4000,
... on second looks, the value shown with the fit, Fig. 4 (a),
is actually a =approx= 1/5000.
(The number 1/4000 which is given in the text seems to refer
to a different measure.)
> > tau =approx= 50.44 bins, b =approx= 414 bins,
> > T =approx= 1.88 10^6 bins, and for some particular bin index t0 ...
> > Further, they define and calculate the quantity ...]
> > "orbital_velocity sin( inclination_of_the_orbit )" ==
> > v sin( i ) == 2 Pi speed_of_light b / T,
> > therefore with the above fit results:
> > v sin( i ) =approx= 0.001385 speed_of_light,
> Interesting formula.
Most certainly; note in particular the conincidence
of the real number term "2 Pi b / T", which appears both
in the definition of "v sin( i )" as coefficient to "speed_of_light",
and in Schreier et al.'s fit constraint N( t )
as coefficient to the term "cos( 2 Pi (t - t0) / T )".
Having identified the expression "2 Pi speed_of_light b / T"
as v sin( i ),
the above coincidence suggests to identify correspondingly
"2 Pi speed_of_light (b / T) cos( 2 Pi (t - t0) / T )"
as v( t ) sin( i ).
Thus
v( t ) sin( i ) == v sin( i ) cos( 2 Pi (t - t0) / T ),
or with the abbreviation "2 Pi / T" == "omega", introduced by Brecher:
v( t ) sin( i ) == v sin( i ) cos( omega (t - t0) ).
> This is the number I've seen published.
Really ? (where ??) -- I've only seen the more ideosynchratic version:
> > [... per (SI-) definition of
> > "1 km/s" as (1/299,792,458) speed_of_light,
> > together with the measurement procedure which defines
> > "(optical) vacuum" may also be expressed as
> > v sin( i ) =approx= 415 km/s.]
> > Is Schreier et al.'s "speed_of_light" at all to be identified
> > with Brecher's "lightspeed" ?
Let me emphasize my question by making this identification explicitly
(writing "speed_of_light" for both instances):
On one hand we have Schreier et al.'s:
v( t ) sin( i ) ==
v sin( i ) cos( omega (t - t0) ) =
speed_of_light b omega cos( omega (t - t0) ),
and on the other hand Brecher's speed_of_light == c + k v,
i.e. explicitly, AFAIU: speed_of_light == c + k v( t ) sin( i ).
Together:
speed_of_light =
c + k speed_of_light b omega cos( omega (t - t0) ),
speed_of_light = c / (1 - k omega cos( omega (t - t0) );
i.e. inserted in Schreier et al.'s initial "interesting formula":
v sin( i ) =
speed_of_light b omega =
c b omega / (1 - k omega cos( omega (t - t0) ).
Here b, omega == 2 Pi / T, and t0 are constants of
Schreier et al.'s fit,
k had been introduced as a constant real number parameter,
and c and sin( i ) are to be taken as constants as well
(AFAIU, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Therefore, unless k = 0, v sin( i ) were obtained as a function
with explicit dependence on the bin index t.
But Schreier et al. are referring to v sin( i )
as a "system parameter", of Cen X-3 and Uhuru wrt each other,
thus implying that v sin( i ) were a constant (wrt bin index t),
and Brecher refers to v (in Schreier et al. notation)
as "(constant) orbital speed" as well.
Consequently, Brecher's parametrization and supposed initial
consideration of all values 0 =< k =< 1 were thus inconsistent
with Brecher's _own_ (apparently correct) understanding
of Schreier et al.'s result;
admitting _already from the outset only_ k = 0 and "c' = c"
without requiring any further analysis such as Brecher's
introduction of the notions "distance", "semimajor axis"
"time measured in the source frame", and so on.
Since however Brecher got to publish his analysis in a peer-reviewed
journal, I'd suspect that therefore Schreier et al.'s "speed_of_light"
ought not to be identified with Brecher's "lightspeed" at all;
though of course it bears checking.
In any other case, Brecher is of course free to define his notion of
"lightspeed" in any reproducible way he likes;
why not as "c + k v" for some real number k,
and with c == "speed_of_light" in Schreier et al.'s sense and/or
in the conventional sense, i.e. in the context of
the measurement procedures of SR.
But whatever his analysis then derived about this
newly and subsequently defined quantity
couldn't have any baring on the reproducibility
of the measurement procedures of SR to begin with;
contrary to his claim of having
"present[ed] a ... test of the second postulate".
> There _should_ only be ~10^-10 difference between them.
If Brecher and Schreier et al. meant the same by
"lightspeed" and "speed_of_light"
(but just having differed in their choice of symbols
for abbreviations, namely "c'" vs. "c")
then their difference should be exactly zero; a priori.
If further v sin( i ) were supposed to be a constant,
as Schreier et al. imply,
and as Brecher himself states even more explicitly,
then Brecher's entire analysis of determining the value
of parameter k appears irrelevant; k must be zero from the outset.
(Incidentally, since thereby c' = c, Brecher and Schreier et al.
had then agreed on their choice of notation, too.)
Otherwise, given definitions of (how to measure) Brecher's "lightspeed"
and Schreier et al.'s and/or the conventional "speed_of_light"
separately, if at all,
on what basis should anyone expect that they _should_
differ by no more than ~10^-10 ??,
rather than simply being entirely incommensurate quantities,
for instance, or rather than
plainly _defining_ "lightspeed" (in any particular trial,
and any particular pair of observers) as
"speed_of_light + v", with v being their measured speed
wrt each other,
which conventionally, i.e. based on the measurement procedures of SR,
is obtained as v == s speed_of_light, with s being a real number,
with 0 =< s < 1,
and where s > 10^9 may surely be obtained
at least in _some_ trials, for _some_ particular pairs.
> And it should not affect the differential between readings,
> since they occur over a much shorter span than 5 years.
Your comment seems over my head enough to be unable to
understand and comment on it besides asking you to
please elaborate, if you care.
> > Experimental procedure cannot be falsified through
> > measured experimental results;
> > instead, experimental procedures must be selected a priori
> > in order to derive measurements from given observations
> > to begin with.
> You mean like the precession of the perihelion of Mercury,
> for which data was obtained first, and theory followed?
I mean like:
if the perihelion of some particular P were to be measured in one trial
and the aphelion of P were to be measured in another trial,
and from these results it were determined that
distance( Helios P_at_aphelion ) = 3 distance( Helios P_at_perihelion )
then this experimental result does _not_ constitute an
"experimental test and corroboration" of the supposition that
distance( Helios P_at_aphelion ) >= distance( Helios P_at_perihelion );
instead, this particular inequality is implicit in the very definitions
of (how to measure) "perihelion" and "aphelion"
(and their relation between each other, as commensurate quantities)
a priori,
before and without reference to any particular actual
experimental determinations of these values.
And as far as theory is to be involved at all:
this particular result falsifies for instance the theory that
"distance( Helios P_at_aphelion ) and distance( Helios P_at_perihelion )
are always equal",
and it corroborates the theory that
"distance( Helios P_at_aphelion ) will equal three times
distance( Helios P_at_perihelion )
in all trials in which they'll ever be measured".
But I use to emphasize that
the notions in terms of which these theories were expressed
must have been defined in terms of reproducible measurement procedures
_before and without_ having any of them falsified, or corroborated,
through particular experimental results.
> > > If these are local systems (I believe they are near us),
> > > then we can see an angular displacement of these systems [...]
> > If you meant that "angular displacement" were to be _measured_,
> > as a real number value, such that all (signalling, and/or receiving)
> > observers involved were able to understand and agree on the value
> > obtained in any particular trial, at least in principle,
> > then you should _define how_ to measure such a value,
> > in terms of what each individually saw and counted
> > (of the corresponding others).
> > For this to be accomplished, a definition of (how to measure)
> > "distance" might be a useful prerequisit.
> Would a red or blue shift be sufficient?
Well -- can you define (how to measure) "red" or "blue" and "shift"
in terms of _counts_,
which everyone should equally be able to understand and agree on ?
In particular, could you give such a definition without
already presuming and using the measurement procedures of SR;
e.g. in order to define and determine whether any two sources
were of "properly equal color" in the first place ??
> Certainly with a 0.001c velocity, the shifts should be verifiable,
> or at least the variance between "advancing" and "retarding".
Can you define (how to measure) "velocity" to begin with,
in particular such as to obtained result values
of the form "<real number> c" ??
How else might "velocity" enter into the discussion at all,
other than through Schreier et al.'s "interesting formula" definition ?
> > [...]
> > why not refer to the conventional (i.e. Einstein's SR) definition
> > of the value of "distance" of A and B wrt each other as
> > 1/2 speed_of_light calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval ==
> > 1/2 speed_of_light { A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled, A_signalled } ==
> > 1/2 speed_of_light { B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled, B_signalled },
> > [... After all, and most important for a measuement:
> > this particular procedure guarantees that those who are
> > characterized by this measure (i.e. A and B, by the value
> > of their distance wrt each other) are mutually able to
> > understand and agree on the result, in each trial;
> > at least in principle, provided each can individually
> > observe, compare, and count.]
> Doesn't apply, since there is no evidence that our signals were being
> observed by the binary star system!
That doesn't stop anyone from _anyways_ considering and applying
procedures precisely such that results can be obtained
in mutual agreement, at least in principle;
especially, in order for the results not having to be discarded
_if_ such mutual observation became evident later.
And this doesn't allow anyone to sell just any unilateral
assertions derived from observations,
as science, i.e. as statements of reproducible measurements.
> Like a metal detector on the beach... you just never know.
Like a physicist (on the beach :) ...
you just never know "that" without knowing how to determine "whether".
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> > This is the number I've seen published.
>
> Really ? (where ??) -- I've only seen the more ideosynchratic version:
On the internet, some clever search for references to his paper. Mr. Gates
decided to stop printing web addresses on pages now. so the link is lost.
It was expressed loosely, as 0.001c.
> > There _should_ only be ~10^-10 difference between them.
>
> If Brecher and Schreier et al. meant the same by
> "lightspeed" and "speed_of_light"
> (but just having differed in their choice of symbols
> for abbreviations, namely "c'" vs. "c")
> then their difference should be exactly zero; a priori.
I was referring to the secular change in c for this period (hadn't been
standardized yet). I have no doubt they were referring to the same
constant.
> > And it should not affect the differential between readings,
> > since they occur over a much shorter span than 5 years.
>
> Your comment seems over my head enough to be unable to
> understand and comment on it besides asking you to
> please elaborate, if you care.
The source data was published in 1972. Brecher's paper was published 5
years later. c was measured to have different values in this period. Twice
in 1967 (just prior to publish), twice in 1972, twice in 1973, and once in
1974, and not again until 1978.
> > Would a red or blue shift be sufficient?
>
> Well -- can you define (how to measure) "red" or "blue" and "shift"
> in terms of _counts_,
> which everyone should equally be able to understand and agree on ?
>
> In particular, could you give such a definition without
> already presuming and using the measurement procedures of SR;
> e.g. in order to define and determine whether any two sources
> were of "properly equal color" in the first place ??
Never mind. I don't know enough about the data set to tell if the burst
goes through any sort of wavelength change from start to finish of a single
cycle (burst). You validly point out that I would use SR to try and prove
the second postulate, so that would get me precisely nowhere anyway.
Thanks for the interesting discussion, and you are well and good over my
head. So stop on this thread.
David A. Smith
Frank Wappler
David A. Smith wrote:
> > > [...] And it should not affect the differential between readings,
> > > since they occur over a much shorter span than 5 years.
> Frank Wappler [wrote]:
> > Your comment seems over my head enough to be unable to
> > understand and comment on it besides asking you to
> > please elaborate, if you care.
> The source data was published in 1972.
> Brecher's paper was published 5 years later.
Well, thanks for pointing out how this particular span entered your
comment -- I had been quite unable to follow how Schreier et at.'s
measurement and/or Brecher's conclusions (irreproducible as they are)
might have qualitatively dependend on whether counts of Uhuru's
observations of Cen X-3 were collected in many more or much fewer bins
than 5 * 86400 * 365 / 0.096 =approx= 5/3 billions.
> c was measured to have different values in this period.
> Twice in 1967 (just prior to publish), twice in 1972, twice in 1973,
> and once in 1974, and not again until 1978.
Certainly there's been no measurement of
"c (the speed of light, in a region which was measured optically empty)".
Instead, there may have been measurements of
- whether or to which accuracy some particular region
had been optically empty, in some particular trial, and/or
- which particular geometric relations various sets of observers called
"meter", and/or "second", and/or "parsec" and/or "year" and/or
"astronomical unit" etc., and/or
- whether or to which accuracy some particular observers had been
"at a temperature of 0 K", and/or "undisturbed by external fields"
or at least "equally disturbed by external fields".
You may want to reference and review these various experiments
in more detail to figure out just which applied. In any case,
"c, the speed of light" is a reproducible definitional notion
to begin with, which doesn't require nor admit measurement of itself,
but which is an integral element of measurement procedures
for the derivation of experimental results in the first place;
e.g. for determining the (distribution of) "refractive index"
in some particular region, in some particular trial.
> > [...] can you define (how to measure) "red" or "blue" and "shift"
> > in terms of _counts_,
> > which everyone should equally be able to understand and agree on ?
> > In particular, could you give such a definition without
> > already presuming and using the measurement procedures of SR;
> > e.g. in order to define and determine whether any two sources
> > were of "properly equal color" in the first place ??
> [...] I don't know enough about the data set to tell if the burst
> goes through any sort of wavelength change from start to finish
> of a single cycle (burst).
I've been trying to ask you a more profound question:
Can you even express what you or anyone else _might want to_
"know about the data set", in principle, in order to define and decide
_whether_ "the burst went through any sort of wavelength change" ??,
i.e. in order for everyone to reproduce what, if anything particular,
you might have meant by "wavelength change" in the first place;
i.e. in order for everyone else to imagine as you imagined ??
> You validly point out that I would use SR to try and prove the
> second postulate, so that would get me precisely nowhere anyway.
Exactly. Unfortunately, your above claims of "measurements of c"
make me wonder whether you and/or whether I understand
your statement well enough to call it an agreement between us.
> Thanks for the interesting discussion
You're welcome.
> and you are well and good over my head.
That would be contrary to my intention of engaging in such discussions,
namely to identify what I can ask about, express to, and agree on,
with everyone who can (individually) observe, compare, and count,
at least in principle;
i.e. to identify what I understand and to practise expressing it.
> So stop on this thread.
If you're unable and/or unwilling to reference
more explicitly and detailed just which aspects of my correspondence
are well and good over your head,
then I'm sorry that we didn't learn much from each other here.
But I still intend to express my questions and points in reference
to your assertions for the benefit of, and ideally to benefit from,
any other readers; and/or including yourself in some other trial.
HenriWilson
<CUTw...@telocity.com> wrote:
>Hi Henri,
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:3d471fa8...@news.bigpond.com...
>> On Mon, 29 Jul 2002 14:10:50 -0400, "William Bliss"
>> <CUTw...@telocity.com> wrote:
>>
>> >"Ken Seto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote
>> >[...]
>> >> Einstein knew that the one way speed of light is not
>> >> c as measured by two spatially separated synchronized
>> >> clocks.
>> >
>> >Why do you say this, Ken?
>> >If A.E. knew this then why did he propose his second SR principle?
>>
>> Ken is correct.
>> The whole of SR follows directly from AE's definition of clock synch.
>
>I wasn't aware that AE proposed any new method of synchronizing
>clocks in one's own inertial frame. On the contrary, I thought AE rather
>liked the old way, you know, walk slowly carrying a master clock...?
No, he synchs clocks a,b by making Ta-Tb=Tb-Ta.
That also ensures that OWLS=TWLS.
He then went on to describe how the universe would appear to different
observers on that basis.
>
>> He effectively made OWLS equal to TWLS by always adjusting his clocks so
>> taht it must.
>
>Wouldn't "adjusting his clocks" be paramount to measuring one's
>speed throught the aether? If it was that easy to detect the aether
>why didn't AE do so. Everyone was looking for a means to detect
>the earth's speed through the aether and, it seems to me that, anyone
>who succeeded would've got the Nobel prize. If I was a low level
>clerk that's the research direction I would've taken. :)
>
>>
>> What he didn't realize was that one day clocks would be available to check
>> that out.
>
>It seems to me that the Fizeau spinning wheel experiment could
>easily be modified to simulaneously measure both OW and TW
>light speed, and do so using just one clock. So, I'm still a tad
>confused about your theory.
>
>>
Fizeau's experiment epitomizes TWLS measurements.
>> There are two alternative explanations that I can see.
>
>Whoa! Slow down there Henri. What exactly is it that you are
>trying to explain?
>
>>
>> 1. the 'turbulent aether' concept. Light is conveyed through a medium that
>> has no absolute spatial properties.
>> .
>> The light travel time for a two way trip is L/(c+v)+L(c-v) where c is the
>> prevailing 'true local OWLS'. v is the apparatus velocity wrt the frame
>> defined by that value of 'true OWLS'
>
>Seems to me your model has two unkowns c & v. How do you pin
>down one or the other of these two speeds?
>
>>
>> So TWLS=2Lc/(1-(v/c)^2)
>
>I suspect you mean TWLS=2L/(c(1-(v/c)^2)). :)
yes I corrected that in my other thread.
>
>>
>> If we take the CMBR as a spatial reference frame and assume that the earth
>> is moving about c/1000 then [...]
>
>Sorry! I'm not ready to make such a leap of faith. It seems to me that
>even an aether based cosmology could allow the CMBR to be anisotropic
>with respect to this aether.
I'm not a staunch advocate for using the CMBR as an absolute reference
frame.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
> I've been trying to ask you a more profound question:
> Can you even express what you or anyone else _might want to_
> "know about the data set", in principle, in order to define and decide
> _whether_ "the burst went through any sort of wavelength change" ??,
And as is the case with almost any published document, they are limited in
the space of publication. Therefore you get only the results, and not the
data.
> > You validly point out that I would use SR to try and prove the
> > second postulate, so that would get me precisely nowhere anyway.
>
> Exactly. Unfortunately, your above claims of "measurements of c"
> make me wonder whether you and/or whether I understand
> your statement well enough to call it an agreement between us.
Your intent (at least) was clear. If you assume c is constant in all
inertial frames, how can you use formulae based on this theory to show it in
error?
> > So stop on this thread.
>
> If you're unable and/or unwilling to reference
> more explicitly and detailed just which aspects of my correspondence
> are well and good over your head,
> then I'm sorry that we didn't learn much from each other here.
You won't learn much of substance from me. My contributions to this group
are at the lowest level. I have a little more persistence than some
posters, and am willing to "wear the hat" of others theories to some extent.
> But I still intend to express my questions and points in reference
> to your assertions for the benefit of, and ideally to benefit from,
> any other readers; and/or including yourself in some other trial.
I look forward to it.
David A. Smith
Daniel Weston
OWSL?
The reason I ask the question is that often it is stated that measuring
the OWSL is impossible in principle.
Stephen Speicher
I do not know how often it is stated -- it still seems not to be
known by many -- but yes, the direct experimental measurement of
OWLS is, in principle, not possible by means of light signals.
The very claim to measuring OWLS can always be shown to depend
upon a definition of simultaneity, and such a measurement would
only be possible if there existed an absolute reference frame.
I assume you refer to Roemer's experiment, where Roemer
determined the speed of light from the occulation of Jupiter's
moons. Indeed, in that experiment two clocks were used, where the
Jupiter system was the second clock, as the equivalence to a
slowly-transported clock. However, as I discussed in previous
posts, slow transport of clocks can be shown to be the equivalent
of E-sync, and therefore imbeds the same definition of
simultaneity which makes E-sync assume what you want to measure.
The Roemer experiment was the _equivalent_ of a two-way light
speed measurement.
I can present this in detail as I did with the Alvager
experiment, but it is a waste of time and effort. If you
understand the principles involved, then you will see why every
one of these experiments _must_ always be a measurement of TWLS,
not OWLS. If you want to see a detailed analysis of the
experiment, read the Zhang book which I keep referencing.
However, it is best to understand the principles involved, and
not feel compelled to apply them to each and every experiment
which comes along. The one-way speed of light is, in principle,
impossible to measure by means of light signals.
xxein
xxein: Are you drunk or what? Come another day, re-read what you
posted here. Else, you are reallly not cognizant of even SR.
Frank Wappler
David A. Smith wrote:
> Your intent (at least) was clear.
> If you assume c is constant in all inertial frames,
> how can you use formulae based on this theory to show it in error?
No -- my intent is better summed up in a (sort of) rhetorical
question like this:
If you had to _define and determine whether_
some observer "at the start" and some other observer "at the finish"
had belonged together to one and the same "inertial frame",
and whether some particular auxiliary observer had constituted
"the middle between" the former two,
could such a measurement procedure be any more direct and unambiguous
than being formulated in terms what these three saw of each other,
and in terms of which light signals each one of them saw together ??
And of course, to begin with:
If you care to predict, and theorize about, experimental results,
aren't you first of all _define unambiguously how_
to derive them from given observations, i.e. how to measure them ??
Wappler@acunix2.albany.edu Frank Wappler
Daniel Weston wrote:
> Why is not the measuring of light speed
> by using one of Jupiter's moons, OWSL?
Generally, and (as you surely agree) per definition,
a measurement of "(average) speed" would have to be derived
from commensurate values of the "distance between start and finish",
and of the "(time) interval { arrived_at_the_finish, left_the_start }",
which had to be measured (separately) to begin with.
But, also per the conventional definition of "distance",
measured values of distance are obtained in the form
"c/2 calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval", i.e.
"c/2 { A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled, A_signalled }" as well as
"c/2 { B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled, B_signalled }"
where calibration is by Einstein's procedure
(i.e. that a state of one observer, e.g. someone "A, at the start",
and a state of another observer, e.g. someone "B, at the finish",
are calibrated too each other as "simultaneous" in reference
to light signals to and from an auxiliary "middle between" these two;
provided of course they did succeed identifying some particular
auxiliary as "middle between" each other at all),
and if A and B indeed thus succeeded calibrating their states
"A_signalled" and "B_signalled" to each other,
"A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled" and "B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled" to each other,
as well as each of their states within their individually observed
lightsignal roundtrip intervals
{ A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled, A_signalled }, and
{ B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled, B_signalled }.
If so, then these two individually observed lightsignal roundtrip
intervals are called and defined as "equal" to each other;
further, the calibrated lightsignal singletrip intervals
{ A_calibrated( B_saw_A_signalled ), A_signalled },
{ A_saw_B_saw_A_signalled, A_calibrated( B_saw_A_signalled ) },
{ B_calibrated( A_saw_B_signalled ), B_signalled },
{ B_saw_A_saw_B_signalled, B_calibrated( A_saw_B_signalled ) },
are all called and defined as "equal" to each other as well;
and finally, A and B are said having belonged together
to one and the same "frame", in this trial.
(These SR procedures for calibration and determination of distance,
are considered conventional as far, and only as far,
as everyone who can themselves observe and count, at least in principle,
can understand them unambiguously,
i.e. as far as these are reproducible measurement procedures.
IOW, if you'd prefer other procedures and definitions,
it would be up to _you_ to state them explicitly
for everyone else to understand that they were at least as
unambiguous as procedures and definitions of SR;
and/or you'd have to point out just which aspects of the
SR procedures might not be reproducible after all,
at least to motivate consideration of unambiguous alternatives.)
These definitions together imply that if the speed of a lightsignal
which two particular observers exchanged is actually measured,
then its value is _necessarily_ obtained as "c";
which is therefore, not surprisingly, called "the speed of light".
Consequently, there isn't any meaningful measurement "of light speed"
to begin with; "one-way", or otherwise.
Instead, it is surely meaningful and interesting and perhaps even
challenging to measure in the first place, trial by trial:
- the distances of Jupiter (J), one of Jupiter's moons (M),
and some third-party observer (T);
or (failing any or all pairs among J, M, and T having been able
to identify some axuliaries as "middles between" each other)
the distances between three suitable observers that _did_
measure having all belonged together to one and the same "frame",
such that one of them met J, another met M, and a third met T
at least momentarily, and (as they succeed measuring) simultaneously,
- whether, or to which accuracy, any two intervals were equal
between successive observations by T that "T_saw_J_obscured_M",
- the refractive index "n" in the region containing J, M, and T,
(which can be defined and measured in terms of mutually measured
speeds of at least three observers wrt each other.
Measured values of n can be taken to _subsequently_ rescale "c",
and consequently measured values of "distance" and of "speed"),
- the curvature in the region containing J, M, and T
(which can be defined and measured in terms of
measured distance ratios of at least five observers wrt each other),
etc.
> The reason I ask the question is that often it is stated
> that measuring the OWSL is impossible in principle.
The distinction between "one-way" and "roundtrip" is surely relevant,
since only the latter can be directly compared
by any one individual observer him/her/itself.
For instance, the definition of (how to identify some auxiliary M as)
the "middle between" two particular observers, A and B,
can be expressed entirely in terms of comparison
(simply of "sameness", _not_ of the derived notion "equality")
between lightsignal roundtrip intervals, i.e. in terms of what
any one individual observer can do and understand, in principle,
namely (roughly):
M constitutes the "middle between" A and B, in some particular trial, if
- M finds a lightsignal roundtrip interval to A same as to B,
- A finds two consecutive lightsignal roundtrip intervals to M
same as one to B, and
- B finds two consecutive lightsignal roundtrip intervals to M
same as one to A.
However, per above SR definitions,
_any_ sort of "light speed measurement" claim can simply be refuted
by asking whether and how
"distance" (of sending and receiving observer with each other) or
"refractive index" (in the region containing them)
was, or ought to be, reproducibly determined to begin with.
josX
Ofcourse it can be measured. Set a laser in A, set a detector in
B, and route signals from A and B to a clock while you know these
signals will take the same time, for instance by using to evenly
long path and use sound, or even use light where conditions are
the same for A->clock and B->clock. 'Relativity of simultaneity'
is just nonsense (read Einsteins book) and any phycisist talking
about it while doing the experiment can be ignored.
If it is true that OWLS has not yet been measured, then the evidence
supporting relativity has crumbled away completely because it
assumes the constancy of light as OWLS while such a thing is not
supported by experiments showing the natural result of constancy
in TWLS experiments.
I guess that was the final straw for Einstein then.
--
jos
HenriWilson
Wap...@acunix2.albany.edu> wrote:
Frank, it is pretty hard to tell from your mesages whether you are a genius
or a complete idiot.
Whatever, you have very poor communicative ability.
Henri Wilson.
Applied Physicist.
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
HenriWilson
Absolute crap Speicher.
I have told you how to measure OWLS, many times.
You are scared of the result because you know your whole world will
collapse when the truth emerges.
Robert J. Kolker
HenriWilson wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Aug 2002 18:54:29 -0700, Stephen Speicher
> You are scared of the result because you know your whole world will
> collapse when the truth emerges.
Even when a theory fails, the -facts- remain intact. Every
experimentally supported prediction of STR will remain true.
When it turned out that Newtonian gravity wasn't quite right, did the
planets fly out of their orbits?
Bob Kolker
Stephen Speicher
I hardly ever look at that moron Henry's postings; was he
addressing the above to me? If so, what exactly was the "result"
which I am supposed to be "scared" of?
Frank Wappler
Henri Wilson wrote:
> Frank Wappler wrote:
> > Daniel Weston wrote:
> > > Why is not the measuring of light speed
> > > by using one of Jupiter's moons, OWSL?
> > Generally, and (as you surely agree) per definition,
> > a measurement of "(average) speed" would have to be derived
> > from commensurate values of the "distance between start and finish",
> > and of the "(time) interval { arrived_at_the_finish, left_the_start }",
> > which had to be measured (separately) to begin with.
> > But, also per the conventional definition of "distance",
> > measured values of distance are obtained in the form
> > "c/2 calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval" [...]
> > > The reason I ask the question is that often it is stated
> > > that measuring the OWSL is impossible in principle.
> > The distinction between "one-way" and "roundtrip" is surely relevant,
> > since only the latter can be directly compared
> > by any one individual observer him/her/itself. [...]
> > However, per above SR definitions,
> > _any_ sort of "light speed measurement" claim can simply be refuted
> > by asking whether and how
> > "distance" (of sending and receiving observer with each other) or
> > "refractive index" (in the region containing them)
> > was, or ought to be, reproducibly determined to begin with.
> [...] it is pretty hard to tell from your [messages]
> whether you are a genius or a complete idiot.
> Whatever, you have very poor communicative ability.
I appreciate your acknowledgment of our communication,
and of my communicative ability, poor as you may have preceived it.
In fact, since perceptions about individual communicative abilities
are generally irreproducible (for instance, I'd characterize
my own communicative ability as "not so bad at all"),
I use to formulate my communications as replies to what I observed,
indicating what I believe I understood of it (usually incl. some
presentation of how I understood it), and asking in turn
about what I believe I didn't understand of it.
Thereby, hopefully, the observer(s) to whom I replied should be able
to recognize aspects of the own statements, and if and how I was
able to reproduce them, and proceed correspondingly in turn.
Would you consider such an approach and hope as "genius",
or "complete idiot", or can you express your presumptions
about those who communicate even more gradually ?
Paul Cardinale
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
<snip>
> > The one-way speed of light is, in principle,
> >impossible to measure by means of light signals.
>
> Ofcourse it can be measured. Set a laser in A, set a detector in
> B, and route signals from A and B to a clock while you know these
> signals will take the same time, for instance by using to evenly
> long path and use sound, or even use light where conditions are
> the same for A->clock and B->clock.
<snip>
Does anyone (other than josx) not see the error?
Paul Cardinale
helmut...@gmx.de
> dl...@aol.com (formerly) <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:in019.70103$L02.3...@news1.west.cox.net...
> > Dear Stephen:
> >
> > > David, permit me to point out that a better alternative to
> > > presenting experiments which need to be "explained" is to first
> > > in learning the _principle_ is that one need not feel compelled
> > > experiment which comes along.
> >
> > You've probably answered this a billion times. Where can someone who can
> no
what do you mean exactly with your last statement? Why is the constancy of_absolute-transits of light wrt to inertial systems just another way of saying that light speed is source dependent and not source dependent in the same breath?
Can you explain this saying in more detail?
Regards
Helmut