Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't they measure the one-way speed of light??

[set...@att.net]

Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
same set of synchronized clocks)??
The answer to this question:
The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
distance dependent.
The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
the two-way speed of light can use this definition. Using this
definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
light is also constant c by definition.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
>Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>same set of synchronized clocks)??

Because light is used to synchronise the clocks. But once synchronised you
can see if something else is faster or slower. Including testing OTHER EMR
to see if they are also c.

>The answer to this question:
>The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
>distance dependent.

And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of light
speed being distance dependent.

And even if it were, you just need to measure it over a known distance and
find out.

> The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
> meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
>the two-way speed of light can use this definition.

It doesn't matter what definition you use for length .. as long as you use
one consistently

>Using this
>definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.

As long as light is travelling at c all the time, yes.

>Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
>isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
>light is also constant c by definition.

If you can show light is isotropic .. and show that it always has speed c ..
then you have absolutely proved that OWLS is also c. Its logic.

[John Gogo]

The key will be in the one-way measure. If this is an accurate one-
way, two-clock measure (neutrino or otherwise) of the event- this
would be an advancement- compared to two-way, one-clock measure.

[John Gogo]

By virtue of the number of clocks.

[Aetherist]

OWLS is c, that does not mean that net OWLS is isotropic. In fact,
logic says it's imposssible for it to be. Consider this, we have a
rod d distance long with a emitter on one end and a receiver on the
other. We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

The rod is moving end on at v.

A B
O----------------------------------O -> v

B flashes a pulse of light. Light moves a c towards B. A moves
toards the pulse at v.

A'<.............................x B'
O----------------------------------O -> v
A B

So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.
Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
of d', not d. BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d. The 'net'
speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or

The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
impossible) to objectively determine this value.

[xxein]

xxein: They can't. Wait a minute. It's only a measure. It's not
distance dependent either. And what did you use to synchonize the
clocks?

You are confusing yourself. Stop making a fool of yourself here.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:u1g0d7tj1ufa58nhc...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:22:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
> OWLS is c, that does not mean that net OWLS is isotropic.

Of course it does. Isotropic means it is the same speed in any direction.
If it is always c it is always the same speed and so is isotropic. You
assertion is refuted.

> In fact,
> logic says it's imposssible for it to be.

Clearly you don't understand logic

> Consider this, we have a
>rod d distance long with a emitter on one end and a receiver on the
>other. We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always
>propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

And so is isotropic

>The rod is moving end on at v.
>
> A B
> O----------------------------------O -> v
>
> B flashes a pulse of light. Light moves a c towards B. A moves
>>toards the pulse at v.

Your description doesn't make sense. The light travels toward A. And A
moves toward the pulse at c+|v|

>
> A'<.............................x B'
> O----------------------------------O -> v
> A B
>
>So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.

Yes .. from where B was when emitted to where A is when detected

>Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
>of d', not d.

The distance doesn't matter for isotropy .. its the speed.

> BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
>d'

He doesn't need to know d'

> he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.

In his frame it did .. at speed c

> The 'net'
>speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
>isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or

No .. from his perspective the speed is c and the distance is d. Simple

>The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
>makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
>impossible) to objectively determine this value.

You really just don't have any idea or Lorentz transform's

[Aetherist]

Then enlighten us...

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:c5l0d7p87pbkg6adf...@4ax.com...
> Then enlighten us...

Learn yourself. Try a physics course, or read some books on the subject. I
don't have time to be your physics tutor .. though i will happily correct
your mistakes and misconceptions.

[Aetherist]

Thought you were all bluff...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation

Since I were NOT! talking about transforming FOR's it irrelevant to
'net' speed distance divided by time. In the case I presented
if one assumes that the light traveled d not d' the transit time
from B to A' is d'/c and net speed is d/(d'/c). Likewise, if
A sent to B it would be d'' and speed would be d/(d''/c). You
explain to us how d/(d'/c) = c UNLESS d' = d, ditto for d/(d''/c)
>

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:2lm0d7lhh791rv1so...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 14:07:14 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:c5l0d7p87pbkg6adf...@4ax.com...
>>> Then enlighten us...
>>
>>Learn yourself. Try a physics course, or read some books on the subject.
>>I
>>don't have time to be your physics tutor .. though i will happily correct
>>your mistakes and misconceptions.
>
>Thought you were all bluff...

Not at all .. I just don't have time to teach morons like you who don't want
to learn

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation
>
>Since I were NOT! talking about transforming FOR's

Yes .. you were .. but you're too ignorant of what that means to see it

>it irrelevant to
>'net' speed distance divided by time.

That is just speed .. and it is c. Always. Which is why it is necessarily
isotopic.

> In the case I presented
>if one assumes that the light traveled d not d'

In which frame? It travels both distances .. one in one frame and one in a
different frame. And the time take is also different in those frames. And
the speed (distance/time_taken) is c.

> the transit time
>from B to A' is d'/c and net speed is d/(d'/c).

No .. it is d'/(d'/c) = d.

You are making the naive student error of frame jumping. You should know
better.

> Likewise, if
>A sent to B it would be d'' and speed would be d/(d''/c). You
>explain to us how d/(d'/c) = c UNLESS d' = d, ditto for d/(d''/c)

You expect me to explain your own mistake? .. I'll leave that to you.

[Aetherist]

Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames. I pointed out what
physically happens, B is an event. Perception is not physical
reality. I could play your silly definition games but choose not
to.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>
> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks.  But once synchronised you
> can see if something else is faster or slower.  Including testing OTHER EMR
> to see if they are also c.

So why they don't they use the same two clocks to test for the one-way
speed of light?

>
> >The answer to this question:
> >The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> >distance dependent.
>
> And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of light
> speed being distance dependent.

There is....that's why they refused to test the one-way speed of light
directly.

>
> And even if it were, you just need to measure it over a known distance and
> find out.

So why did they refuse to do so?

>
> > The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
> > meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
> >the two-way speed of light can use this definition.
>
> It doesn't matter what definition you use for length .. as long as you use
> one consistently
>

Sure it does.....with the current definition for the meter you don't
need to measure the distance at all.....all you need is to measure the
return time and the speed of TWLS is: (return time/return time)
(299,792,458)meter/second

> >Using this
> >definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
>
> As long as light is travelling at c all the time, yes.

No....light can have any value.....TWLS is defined as 1 light-second/1
second.

>
> >Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
> >isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
> >light is also constant c by definition.
>
> If you can show light is isotropic .. and show that it always has speed c ..
> then you have absolutely proved that OWLS is also c.  Its logic.

There is no proof that OWLS is c.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Nov 25, 6:13 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:22:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >wrote in message
> >news:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >>they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >>same set of synchronized clocks)??

How do you think the clocks were synchronized?

> >Because light is used to synchronise the clocks.  But once synchronised you
> >can see if something else is faster or slower.  Including testing OTHER EMR
> >to see if they are also c.

Exactly.

> >>The answer to this question:
> >>The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> >>distance dependent.

That's just silly. BTW, faster per greater distance, or slower? Why?

> >And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of light
> >speed being distance dependent.
>
> >And even if it were, you just need to measure it over a known distance and
> >find out.

Measure its velocity over successive multiples of a known distance
and determine the velocity difference per unit distance. Get a Nobel
(more likely an IgNobel).

> >> The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
> >> meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
> >>the two-way speed of light can use this definition.

Only true if c is isotropic, but it isn't.

> >It doesn't matter what definition you use for length .. as long as you use
> >one consistently

Yes.

> >>Using this
> >>definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
>
> >As long as light is travelling at c all the time, yes.
>
> >>Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
> >>isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
> >>light is also constant c by definition.
>
> >If you can show light is isotropic .. and show that it always has speed c ..
> >then you have absolutely proved that OWLS is also c.  Its logic.
>
> OWLS is c, that does not mean that net OWLS is isotropic.  In fact,
> logic says it's imposssible for it to be.  Consider this, we have a
> rod d distance long with a emitter on one end and a receiver on the
> other.  We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>
> The rod is moving end on at v.

Hold on just a second; without referring to something external to
the rod, neither A nor B will know that the rod is in motion. That's
kinda the definition of motion. As far as A and B are concerned, all
that's relevant to them is that they aren't moving WRT *each other*.

>   A                                  B
>   O----------------------------------O -> v
>
>  B flashes a pulse of light.  Light moves a c towards B.  A moves
> toards the pulse at v.

"v" only has meaning WRT a frame external to the rod.

>      A'<.............................x  B'
>      O----------------------------------O -> v
>   A                                  B
>
> So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.

Only in the previously mentioned external-to-the-rod reference
frame, in which your term "v" has meaning.

In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
the rod.

If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
frame? Different how, and why?

> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or

In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
is zero; there is no d'=d.

How about instead of quibbling over isolated OW and TW absolutes, we
consider sequential OW?

Give A and B identical pulsed lasers and detectors (with a spectral
response that includes the lasers' fundamental plus some). Give them
identical synchronized clocks (start at the middle of the rod and
transport both to opposite ends in the same number of ticks). A will
send a pulse to B at some prearranged time, B will measure time of
flight and spectrum of the pulse. After a prearranged delay B will
send a pulse to A who will similarly record time and spectrum.

If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
won't, and they can't.

> The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
> makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
> impossible) to objectively determine this value.

Consider many external inertial observers in different states of
motion WRT the rod (many external FORs); they will all measure
different values for d' as the rod goes by. Which, if any, is
"correct"?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Aetherist]

On Fri, 25 Nov 2011 20:41:40 -0800 (PST), "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 25, 6:13 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 12:22:57 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >wrote in message
>> >news:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>

>> OWLS is c, that does not mean that net OWLS is isotropic.  In fact,
>> logic says it's imposssible for it to be.  Consider this, we have a
>> rod d distance long with a emitter on one end and a receiver on the
>> other.  We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always
>> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
>> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>>
>> The rod is moving end on at v.
>
> Hold on just a second; without referring to something external to
>the rod, neither A nor B will know that the rod is in motion. That's
>kinda the definition of motion. As far as A and B are concerned, all
>that's relevant to them is that they aren't moving WRT *each other*.

You are correct, there is no observer for 'empty space' itself. Please
note that I said,

"We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

This is a partial quote, verbatum from Einstein's paper. So,
in 'empty space' light popagates a c and is isotropic. Since this
is, 'by definition' irregardless of the motion of the source my
'event' is valid, regardless of A & B knowing they are moving or
not. I you want you can add post "C" sitting motionless in space
to define v by. There is no observer in or at post C.

>>   A                                  B
>>   O----------------------------------O -> v
>>
>>  B flashes a pulse of light.  Light moves a c towards B.  A moves
>> toards the pulse at v.
>
> "v" only has meaning WRT a frame external to the rod.
>
>>      A'<.............................x  B'
>>      O----------------------------------O -> v
>>   A                                  B
>>
>> So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.
>
> Only in the previously mentioned external-to-the-rod reference
>frame, in which your term "v" has meaning.

You mean Einstein's defined 'empty space' and empty means 'empty'
right?

> In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
>"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
>the rod.

I think I said this in my original post. when I said A thinks it
travels d, not d'...

> If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
>enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
>have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
>frame? Different how, and why?

That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?

>
>> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
>> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
>> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
>> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
>> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or
>
> In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
>is zero; there is no d'=d.

My v tern is unknown to 'him' if he can't see post C. It still
is v because, if I take Einstein at his words, empty space' itself
represents a background, by his definition. I can certainly use
the CMBR Doppler to determine if I am moving wrt to it.

> How about instead of quibbling over isolated OW and TW absolutes, we
>consider sequential OW?
>
> Give A and B identical pulsed lasers and detectors (with a spectral
>response that includes the lasers' fundamental plus some). Give them
>identical synchronized clocks (start at the middle of the rod and
>transport both to opposite ends in the same number of ticks). A will
>send a pulse to B at some prearranged time, B will measure time of
>flight and spectrum of the pulse. After a prearranged delay B will
>send a pulse to A who will similarly record time and spectrum.

Won't work. B emits frequency nu which, due to v is red shifted wrt
'empty space'. However, A is moving toward B wrt to the same 'empty
space' and thus nu is exactly blue shifted in this direction by the
very same amount. TWLS is measured as 2D/c so we're back to setting
the clocks...

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Nov 25, 10:32 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

By "empty" Einstein meant free from refraction or other effects due
to the presence of any matter in the beam path.

> I you want you can add post "C" sitting motionless in space
> to define v by.  There is no observer in or at post C.

Fine, although there can be. Note that since we've postulated no
other external points, C can not define his state of motion except WRT
the rod. In that case you must see that v is directly dependent on the
state of motion of C WRT the rod.

> >>   A                                  B
> >>   O----------------------------------O -> v
>
> >>  B flashes a pulse of light.  Light moves a c towards B.  A moves
> >> toards the pulse at v.
>
> >  "v" only has meaning WRT a frame external to the rod.
>
> >>      A'<.............................x  B'
> >>      O----------------------------------O -> v
> >>   A                                  B
>
> >> So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.
>
> >  Only in the previously mentioned external-to-the-rod reference
> >frame, in which your term "v" has meaning.
>
> You mean Einstein's defined 'empty space' and empty means 'empty'
> right?

No, I mean WRT a defined inertial (not accelerating) reference frame
external to the rod; it may be occupied by an observer or not.

"Empty space" is *not* a valid reference frame. Such a frame must be
unaccelerated, IOW moving with constant velocity (the constant can =
zero, of course). It is not possible to assign a velocity to a patch
of empty space, now is it?

> >  In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
> >"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
> >the rod.
>
> I think I said this in my original post. when I said A thinks it
> travels d, not d'...

No, since A can *only* measure d. A can *infer* d' if there is an
external FOR to compare states of motion with, but that value of d'
will only apply to motion WRT that specific external FOR. Multiple
external FORs means d' will not be unique.

> >  If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
> >enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
> >have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
> >frame? Different how, and why?
>
> That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?

Assume they are identical with and without the shield.

> >> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
> >> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
> >> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
> >> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
> >> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or
>
> >  In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
> >is zero; there is no d'=d.
>
> My v tern is unknown to 'him' if he can't see post C.  It still
> is v because, if I take Einstein at his words, empty space' itself
> represents a background, by his definition.  I can certainly use
> the CMBR Doppler to determine if I am moving wrt to it.

No, the CMBR is not a valid background reference frame. Why did you
think it was?

> >  How about instead of quibbling over isolated OW and TW absolutes, we
> >consider sequential OW?
>
> >  Give A and B identical pulsed lasers and detectors (with a spectral
> >response that includes the lasers' fundamental plus some). Give them
> >identical synchronized clocks (start at the middle of the rod and
> >transport both to opposite ends in the same number of ticks). A will
> >send a pulse to B at some prearranged time, B will measure time of
> >flight and spectrum of the pulse. After a prearranged delay B will
> >send a pulse to A who will similarly record time and spectrum.
>
> Won't work.  B emits frequency nu which, due to v is red shifted wrt
> 'empty space'.

Not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other. No
motion, no Doppler shift.

> However, A is moving toward B wrt to the same 'empty
> space' and thus nu is exactly blue shifted in this direction by the
> very same amount.  TWLS is measured as 2D/c so we're back to setting
> the clocks...

Again, not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other.
No motion, no Doppler shift.

Now, this time don't ignore the part below.

> >  If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
> >flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
> >determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
> >won't, and they can't.

There simply is no way to measure any sort of absolute velocity,
period.

> >> The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
> >> makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
> >> impossible) to objectively determine this value.
>
> >  Consider many external inertial observers in different states of
> >motion WRT the rod (many external FORs); they will all measure
> >different values for d' as the rod goes by. Which, if any, is
> >"correct"?

Think that through very carefully.


Mark L. Fergerson

[Aetherist]

Was that the normal, ordinary meaning of the term in physics in 1905?

>> I you want you can add post "C" sitting motionless in space
>> to define v by.  There is no observer in or at post C.
>
> Fine, although there can be. Note that since we've postulated no
>other external points, C can not define his state of motion except WRT
>the rod. In that case you must see that v is directly dependent on the
>state of motion of C WRT the rod.

By definition, motionless 'in space'...

>> >>   A                                  B
>> >>   O----------------------------------O -> v
>>
>> >>  B flashes a pulse of light.  Light moves a c towards B.  A moves
>> >> toards the pulse at v.
>>
>> >  "v" only has meaning WRT a frame external to the rod.
>>
>> >>      A'<.............................x  B'
>> >>      O----------------------------------O -> v
>> >>   A                                  B
>>
>> >> So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.
>>
>> >  Only in the previously mentioned external-to-the-rod reference
>> >frame, in which your term "v" has meaning.
>>
>> You mean Einstein's defined 'empty space' and empty means 'empty'
>> right?
>
> No, I mean WRT a defined inertial (not accelerating) reference frame
>external to the rod; it may be occupied by an observer or not.

Explain how 'empty space' does not meet your criteria...

> "Empty space" is *not* a valid reference frame. Such a frame must be
>unaccelerated, IOW moving with constant velocity (the constant can =
>zero, of course). It is not possible to assign a velocity to a patch
>of empty space, now is it?

How is 'empty space' accelerated?

>> >  In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
>> >"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
>> >the rod.
>>
>> I think I said this in my original post. when I said A thinks it
>> travels d, not d'...
>
> No, since A can *only* measure d. A can *infer* d' if there is an
>external FOR to compare states of motion with, but that value of d'
>will only apply to motion WRT that specific external FOR. Multiple
>external FORs means d' will not be unique.

I don't care, IF light is, by Einstein's own definition, to be taken
as c and isotropic wrt to 'empty space' AND also INDEPENDENT of any
motion then that defines the isotropic light frame... If this is
true, then the basis of SR is fine, if not, then you (not I) have a
problem. If we (I) take this postulate as true, the only remaining
question is, what will be determined (measured) in any other inertial
state. I'll even skip the how come for now... How come brings in
the answers to such questions as what causes the Lorentz contraction,
time dilation, ... etc.

>> >  If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
>> >enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
>> >have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
>> >frame? Different how, and why?
>>
>> That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?
>
> Assume they are identical with and without the shield.

IF & only IF the clock setting were identical down to the very last
digit of precision then, yes, one should be able to 'measured' actual
time of flights. The question is how to verify this. Moving clocks
affects there frequencies, thus settings, So, whether you move the
clocks or set them by signals you cannot be asured of synchrocity.

>> >> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
>> >> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
>> >> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
>> >> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
>> >> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or
>>
>> >  In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
>> >is zero; there is no d'=d.
>>
>> My v tern is unknown to 'him' if he can't see post C.  It still
>> is v because, if I take Einstein at his words, empty space' itself
>> represents a background, by his definition.  I can certainly use
>> the CMBR Doppler to determine if I am moving wrt to it.
>
> No, the CMBR is not a valid background reference frame. Why did you
>think it was?

What criteria does it fail to meet? Funny a quick Google Scholar search
returns 4,700 hits for (Preferred Frame "CMB"). Seems like there are
alot of folks that don't agree with your asscertain...

>> >  How about instead of quibbling over isolated OW and TW absolutes, we
>> >consider sequential OW?
>>
>> >  Give A and B identical pulsed lasers and detectors (with a spectral
>> >response that includes the lasers' fundamental plus some). Give them
>> >identical synchronized clocks (start at the middle of the rod and
>> >transport both to opposite ends in the same number of ticks). A will
>> >send a pulse to B at some prearranged time, B will measure time of
>> >flight and spectrum of the pulse. After a prearranged delay B will
>> >send a pulse to A who will similarly record time and spectrum.
>>
>> Won't work.  B emits frequency nu which, due to v is red shifted wrt
>> 'empty space'.
>
> Not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other. No
>motion, no Doppler shift.

No 'net' doppler which is, of course, is what I said and explained why...

>> However, A is moving toward B wrt to the same 'empty
>> space' and thus nu is exactly blue shifted in this direction by the
>> very same amount.  TWLS is measured as 2D/c so we're back to setting
>> the clocks...
>
> Again, not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other.
>No motion, no Doppler shift.

No 'net' measureable shift... Physically it still happens.

> Now, this time don't ignore the part below.
>
>> >  If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
>> >flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
>> >determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
>> >won't, and they can't.
>
> There simply is no way to measure any sort of absolute velocity,
>period.

What does 'absolute' mean to you. There exist in nature no absolutes
but by my understanding of this term it can only exist as a concept
of man...

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Nov 26, 8:17 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

If you think it isn't please provide a cite indicating otherwise.

Apparently you're conflating Einstein with Ernst Mach; the latter
tried to use the entire universe as a background against which to
define inertia. That failed, too.

> >> I you want you can add post "C" sitting motionless in space
> >> to define v by.  There is no observer in or at post C.
>
> >  Fine, although there can be. Note that since we've postulated no
> >other external points, C can not define his state of motion except WRT
> >the rod. In that case you must see that v is directly dependent on the
> >state of motion of C WRT the rod.
>
> By definition, motionless 'in space'...

Except that definition encloses the false definition of "empty
space" as "the universe as a whole". Nobody but you uses that
definition for the very good reason that it is false.

Stop ducking the issue that C can not define his state of motion
except WRT some other object such as the rod. That state of motion is
what defines your d', not C's state of motion WRT anything else and
certainly not WRT "empty space".

> >> >>   A                                  B
> >> >>   O----------------------------------O -> v
>
> >> >>  B flashes a pulse of light.  Light moves a c towards B.  A moves
> >> >> toards the pulse at v.
>
> >> >  "v" only has meaning WRT a frame external to the rod.
>
> >> >>      A'<.............................x  B'
> >> >>      O----------------------------------O -> v
> >> >>   A                                  B
>
> >> >> So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.
>
> >> >  Only in the previously mentioned external-to-the-rod reference
> >> >frame, in which your term "v" has meaning.
>
> >> You mean Einstein's defined 'empty space' and empty means 'empty'
> >> right?
>
> >  No, I mean WRT a defined inertial (not accelerating) reference frame
> >external to the rod; it may be occupied by an observer or not.
>
> Explain how 'empty space' does not meet your criteria...

Read this paragraph again:

> >  "Empty space" is *not* a valid reference frame. Such a frame must be
> >unaccelerated, IOW moving with constant velocity (the constant can =
> >zero, of course). It is not possible to assign a velocity to a patch
> >of empty space, now is it?

A valid inertial reference frame is one which is in a constant state
of motion. No such state can be defined for a given patch of "empty
space".

> How is 'empty space' accelerated?

That's the point, it isn't. It can't be assigned *any* state of
motion including constant velocity hence can not qualify as an
*inertial* reference frame.

> >> >  In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
> >> >"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
> >> >the rod.
>
> >> I think I said this in my original post. when I said A thinks it
> >> travels d, not d'...
>
> >  No, since A can *only* measure d. A can *infer* d' if there is an
> >external FOR to compare states of motion with, but that value of d'
> >will only apply to motion WRT that specific external FOR. Multiple
> >external FORs means d' will not be unique.
>
> I don't care,

I can see that, but it doesn't change the fact that A can only
measure d, he can not measure d' because there's no Doppler shift
between a source and a receiver that are not in relative motion.
Period.

> IF light is, by Einstein's own definition, to be taken
> as c and isotropic wrt to 'empty space'

It *isn't* taken as isotropic WRT "empty space" as interpreted to
mean "the universe as a whole" by anyone but you. Get that out from
between your teeth; it's bogus.

> AND also INDEPENDENT of any motion

Look, those two criteria are incompatible. If as you insist c is
isotropic only in the reference frame of the universe as a whole, then
it is dependent on the state of motion of its source and receiver WRT
that same frame. THAT DEPENDENCE IS NOT OBSERVED hence one of the
criteria is false. Guess which one?

> then that defines the isotropic light frame... If this is
> true

It is not.

> >> >  If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
> >> >enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
> >> >have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
> >> >frame? Different how, and why?
>
> >> That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?
>
> >  Assume they are identical with and without the shield.
>
> IF & only IF the clock setting were identical down to the very last
> digit of precision then, yes, one should be able to 'measured' actual
> time of flights.

Sorry, did I miss something? I cheerfully stipulated these things in
re your original experiment without mentioning them because they are
standard stipulations in such schemes; did you not assume them? If
not, your experiment and your claims regarding its conclusions are
baseless.

Your response also does not address my question:

"Do you think it (your experiment plus light-tight shield) will have

different results in different states of motion WRT some external
frame? Different how, and why?"

> >> >> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
> >> >> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
> >> >> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
> >> >> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
> >> >> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or
>
> >> >  In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
> >> >is zero; there is no d'=d.
>
> >> My v tern is unknown to 'him' if he can't see post C.  It still
> >> is v because, if I take Einstein at his words, empty space' itself
> >> represents a background, by his definition.

Hold it right there. First you question if that wasn't what he
meant, now you assert that it is what he meant. Please provide a cite.

> >> I can certainly use
> >> the CMBR Doppler to determine if I am moving wrt to it.
>
> >  No, the CMBR is not a valid background reference frame. Why did you
> >think it was?
>
> What criteria does it fail to meet?  Funny a quick Google Scholar search
> returns 4,700 hits for (Preferred Frame "CMB").  Seems like there are
> alot of folks that don't agree with your asscertain...

Simple; we can't unambiguously measure our velocity WRT it.

Besides, you're "moving the goal posts" by appealing to the CMBR.
Your original argument didn't involve it.

> >> >  How about instead of quibbling over isolated OW and TW absolutes, we
> >> >consider sequential OW?
>
> >> >  Give A and B identical pulsed lasers and detectors (with a spectral
> >> >response that includes the lasers' fundamental plus some). Give them
> >> >identical synchronized clocks (start at the middle of the rod and
> >> >transport both to opposite ends in the same number of ticks). A will
> >> >send a pulse to B at some prearranged time, B will measure time of
> >> >flight and spectrum of the pulse. After a prearranged delay B will
> >> >send a pulse to A who will similarly record time and spectrum.
>
> >> Won't work.  B emits frequency nu which, due to v is red shifted wrt
> >> 'empty space'.
>
> >  Not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other. No
> >motion, no Doppler shift.
>
> No 'net' doppler which is, of course, is what I said and explained why...

Not no "net" Doppler, no Doppler at all.

> >> However, A is moving toward B wrt to the same 'empty
> >> space' and thus nu is exactly blue shifted in this direction by the
> >> very same amount.  TWLS is measured as 2D/c so we're back to setting
> >> the clocks...
>
> >  Again, not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other.
> >No motion, no Doppler shift.
>
> No 'net' measureable shift...  Physically it still happens.

So you claim, but if it isn't measurable, in what sense do you claim
it "happens"?

> >  Now, this time don't ignore the part below.
>
> >> >  If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
> >> >flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
> >> >determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
> >> >won't, and they can't.
>
> >  There simply is no way to measure any sort of absolute velocity,
> >period.
>
> What does 'absolute' mean to you.  There exist in nature no absolutes
> but by my understanding of this term it can only exist as a concept
> of man...

In the present discussion it means WRT some reference frame against
which all velocities everywhere may be measured. Your interpretation
of "empty space" as "the universe as a whole", for example.

> >> >> The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
> >> >> makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
> >> >> impossible) to objectively determine this value.
>
> >> >  Consider many external inertial observers in different states of
> >> >motion WRT the rod (many external FORs); they will all measure
> >> >different values for d' as the rod goes by. Which, if any, is
> >> >"correct"?
>
> >  Think that through very carefully.

I note no response. Not done thinking it through?


Mark L. Fergerson

[Aetherist]

If it was clear, I wouldn't have asked for clarification....

There can be a physical difference between measured and reality...

>> IF light is, by Einstein's own definition, to be taken
>> as c and isotropic wrt to 'empty space'
>
> It *isn't* taken as isotropic WRT "empty space" as interpreted to
>mean "the universe as a whole" by anyone but you. Get that out from
>between your teeth; it's bogus.
>
>> AND also INDEPENDENT of any motion
>
> Look, those two criteria are incompatible. If as you insist c is
>isotropic only in the reference frame of the universe as a whole, then
>it is dependent on the state of motion of its source and receiver WRT
>that same frame. THAT DEPENDENCE IS NOT OBSERVED hence one of the
>criteria is false. Guess which one?

Interesting since THAT IS! Einstein's postulate...

"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that LIGHT IS ALWAYS PROPAGATED IN EMPTY
SPACE WITH A DEFINITE VELOCITY C WHICH IS INDEPENDENT
OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY"

Please note that Einstein says what you just said, namely its
seems on it face (logically) irrecociliable.

Likewise Einstein further comments "on the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light" and how the properties of "measuring rods" and
clocks are affected by motion, which results in light speed being a
'measured' constant value in all inertial systems. In fact he goes to
great lengths to emphasize this. He states:

"Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of
co-ordinates with the DETERMINED velocity c, whether the
ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body."

Note the explicit use of the word 'determined'. He does not say is
or actual, he is smart enough to know better.

>> then that defines the isotropic light frame... If this is
>> true
>
> It is not.
>
>> >> >  If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
>> >> >enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
>> >> >have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
>> >> >frame? Different how, and why?
>>
>> >> That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?
>>
>> >  Assume they are identical with and without the shield.
>>
>> IF & only IF the clock setting were identical down to the very last
>> digit of precision then, yes, one should be able to 'measured' actual
>> time of flights.
>
> Sorry, did I miss something? I cheerfully stipulated these things in
>re your original experiment without mentioning them because they are
>standard stipulations in such schemes; did you not assume them? If
>not, your experiment and your claims regarding its conclusions are
>baseless.

Then the answer would be yes, there would be measured net speed
differences. But, unless you can achieve such a precise clock
synch (which is not e-synch) you won't see this. Likewise if you
did sych that way the argument would be that the results are not
meaningful. Seen this game played before...

> Your response also does not address my question:
>
> "Do you think it (your experiment plus light-tight shield) will have
>different results in different states of motion WRT some external
>frame? Different how, and why?"
>
>> >> >> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
>> >> >> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
>> >> >> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
>> >> >> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
>> >> >> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or
>>
>> >> >  In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
>> >> >is zero; there is no d'=d.
>>

>> >> My v term is unknown to 'him' if he can't see post C.  It still

>> >> is v because, if I take Einstein at his words, empty space' itself
>> >> represents a background, by his definition.
>
> Hold it right there. First you question if that wasn't what he
>meant, now you assert that it is what he meant. Please provide a cite.

Done that, above...

>> >> I can certainly use
>> >> the CMBR Doppler to determine if I am moving wrt to it.
>>
>> >  No, the CMBR is not a valid background reference frame. Why did you
>> >think it was?
>>
>> What criteria does it fail to meet?  Funny a quick Google Scholar search
>> returns 4,700 hits for (Preferred Frame "CMB").  Seems like there are
>> alot of folks that don't agree with your asscertain...
>
> Simple; we can't unambiguously measure our velocity WRT it.
>
> Besides, you're "moving the goal posts" by appealing to the CMBR.
>Your original argument didn't involve it.

The CMB is part of 'empty space' no? No matter were you go you
can see it if you look no?

>> >> >  How about instead of quibbling over isolated OW and TW absolutes, we
>> >> >consider sequential OW?
>>
>> >> >  Give A and B identical pulsed lasers and detectors (with a spectral
>> >> >response that includes the lasers' fundamental plus some). Give them
>> >> >identical synchronized clocks (start at the middle of the rod and
>> >> >transport both to opposite ends in the same number of ticks). A will
>> >> >send a pulse to B at some prearranged time, B will measure time of
>> >> >flight and spectrum of the pulse. After a prearranged delay B will
>> >> >send a pulse to A who will similarly record time and spectrum.
>>
>> >> Won't work.  B emits frequency nu which, due to v is red shifted wrt
>> >> 'empty space'.
>>
>> >  Not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other. No
>> >motion, no Doppler shift.
>>
>> No 'net' doppler which is, of course, is what I said and explained why...
>
> Not no "net" Doppler, no Doppler at all.
>
>> >> However, A is moving toward B wrt to the same 'empty
>> >> space' and thus nu is exactly blue shifted in this direction by the
>> >> very same amount.  TWLS is measured as 2D/c so we're back to setting
>> >> the clocks...
>>
>> >  Again, not relevant because A and B *are not moving* WRT each other.
>> >No motion, no Doppler shift.
>>
>> No 'net' measureable shift...  Physically it still happens.
>
> So you claim, but if it isn't measurable, in what sense do you claim
> it "happens"?

If it didn't physically happen there'd be no Doppler at all. Nature
is consistent. If A 'suddenly' broke away and stopped (wrt to C) are
you saying there'd be no Doppler shift? Light still is propagating
at c, right? Why should there be any Doppler at all, the speed of the
wave didn't change at all, eh? Thus, logic says the wave fronts should
still hit B a the very same rate. If not, why not? Remember, by
your definition c is isotropic, unchanged & independent of any motion
of source & receiver..

>> >  Now, this time don't ignore the part below.
>>
>> >> >  If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
>> >> >flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
>> >> >determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
>> >> >won't, and they can't.
>>
>> >  There simply is no way to measure any sort of absolute velocity,
>> >period.
>>
>> What does 'absolute' mean to you.  There exist in nature no absolutes
>> but by my understanding of this term it can only exist as a concept
>> of man...
>
> In the present discussion it means WRT some reference frame against
>which all velocities everywhere may be measured. Your interpretation
>of "empty space" as "the universe as a whole", for example.

For real world examples, take Earth's oceans. Two subs can be 'at rest'
wrt to their local backgrounds and NOT be at rest wrt each other.
likewise a hot air balloon is 'at rest' with the local atmosphere but
not with another which is equally 'at rest' a mile away. Real mediums
are not 'absolute' frames. In GR this would be called curvatures.

>> >> >> The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
>> >> >> makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
>> >> >> impossible) to objectively determine this value.
>>
>> >> >  Consider many external inertial observers in different states of
>> >> >motion WRT the rod (many external FORs); they will all measure
>> >> >different values for d' as the rod goes by. Which, if any, is
>> >> >"correct"?
>>
>> >  Think that through very carefully.
>
> I note no response. Not done thinking it through?

I think I've thought this trough much more carefully than you

> Mark L. Fergerson

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 25, 10:25 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I have read your corrispondence with Mark in this thread and have held
off writing because he is doing a good job of getting some ideas
across. But I am going to stick my 2 cents in because sometimes a
slightly different perspective can help.

In another thread we were discussing how to measure the one way speed
of light. What it came down to was that the result depends entirely
on how you choose to synchronize the two clocks needed to make the
measurement.

Given A and B who are not moving relative to each other, they agree
that light travels at the same speed in either direction. They need
to make some assumption about the speed in order to sync their clocks
and this assumption keeps everything symetric. You wanted to have A
and B moving so you added an observer C moving relative to them. But
that doesn't actually affect their state of motion. In the coordinate
system A and B have constructed they are still at rest, it is C that
is moving. They are moving in the coordinate system of C, but there
is nothing special about C that would convince A and B that they
should consider themselves to be in motion.

We will now add observer D who is not moving relative to C. When they
sync their clocks they assume light travels at c relative to them, not
A and B. They are making the same assumption that A and B did but are
using a different frame of reference so their clocks will be out of
sync with those of A and B.

When A sends a light signal to B they measure the distance traveled
using their own coordinate system and time it with their clocks. When
C and D measure the distance traveled from A to B they get a different
distance because of the motion of A and B in the C and D coordinate
system, but they also get a different time because of the different
clock sync. Both frames will end up measuring the light to travel at
c because both frames assumed light traveled at c relative to them
when they synchronized their clocks.

Bruce

[PD]

On 11/25/2011 7:03 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> same set of synchronized clocks)??
> The answer to this question:
> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> distance dependent.

No, Ken, that's already been ruled out in other measurements. Idiot.

The reason is you can't measure the speed of a signal using clocks
synchronized with the same signal. Idiot.

Furthermore, since the one way speed of light is already completely
determined by experiments done PRIOR TO the redefinition of the meter --
namely measurements of the two way speed of light and of the isotropy of
the speed of light -- there is no rational justification for doing a
one-way light speed measurement. Idiot.

[Aetherist]

Bruce, Please note that I am not (nor ever was) disputing what A
perceives, in fact I commented on this when I said, specifically,

"... BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming

d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."

How much clearer could I be? I was, and am, taking Einstein's postulate
as true, and, verbatium, namely:

"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
namely, that LIGHT IS ALWAYS PROPAGATED IN EMPTY
SPACE WITH A DEFINITE VELOCITY C WHICH IS INDEPENDENT
OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY"

And assumed that by empty space he means a region devoid of matter.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 26, 2:02 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> And assumed that by empty space he means a region devoid of matter.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

So what are you disputing? That perception is reality?

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/25/11 11/25/11 7:03 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> same set of synchronized clocks)??

Because light does not penetrate the earth for 730 km, but neutrinos do.


> [... more of hist usual nonsense]


Tom Roberts

[Aetherist]

That perception IS NOT necessarily reality. All good magicians know
this... I am currently working on a posting which will discuss this
topic in depth. I am arguring that take Einstein postulates verbatium
and you're realize that he to distinguishes perception (as in
determined values) from actual. Thus his early comment on
irreconciliable facts. How does one reconcile two things that are
logically paradoxical? By showing that the tools used to make
measurement aren't telling the truth. Here is an excerpt from that
writeup...

-------------------------------------------------------------------
If we take as true the statement that:

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite
velocity c which is independent of the state of motion..."

and is isotropic, then logic requires us to also accept as fact that
this must represent a physically unique universal background. IOW,
empty space itself is the origin frame for all light propagation.
This also mean light always move distance d = ct, for any time t IN
THE BACKGROUND. Of course this leads directly to:

0 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - (ct)^2

as its identity. This would seem to argue for an universal framework
for both distance and time, who's linkage is tied directly to this
"empty space". It is this inexscapable logic that I beleive forms the
basis for Einstein's later declaration:

"According to the general theory of relativity space without
ether is unthinkable; FOR IN SUCH SPACE THERE NOT ONLY WONLD
BE NO PROPAGATION OF LIGHT, BUT ALSO NO POSSIBILITY OF
EXISTENCE FOR STANDARDS OF SPACE AND TIME (MEASURING-RODS
AND CLOCKS), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the
physical sense."
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For taken in context with the above, that entire comment makes perfect sense...

[mpc755]

On Nov 26, 2:40 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

The rate at which an atomic clock ticks is determined by the state of
the aether in which it exists.

That is why the speed of light is always determined to be 'c' in the
aether.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 26, 2:40 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

In physics our reality is what we agree it must be to make accurate
predictions of what will happen. We don't always know or care what is
happening in the background so long as we can make those accurate
predictions.

> For taken in context with the above, that entire comment makes perfect sense...- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Looking forward to seeing the whole thing.

[mpc755]

On Nov 26, 3:15 pm, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> In physics our reality is what we agree it must be to make accurate
> predictions of what will happen.  We don't always know or care what is
> happening in the background so long as we can make those accurate
> predictions.
>

Which leads to the absurdity of physics today where it is not
understood by mainstream physics that the particle always enters and
exits a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is the physical
wave which enters and exits both.

How did physics get screwed up to the point where every time detectors
are placed at the entrances of the slits the particle is always
detected entering a single slit being denied as evidence the particle
always enters a single slit?

How did physics get screwed up to the point where every time detectors
are placed at the exits of the slits the particle is always detected
exiting a single slit being denied as evidence the particle always
exiting a single slit?

Why is mainstream physics unable to understand the particle always
enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment?

[micro...@hotmail.com]

> Looking forward to seeing the whole thing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Measuring light speed is statistical.

Mitch Raemsch; the prize

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...

>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.

But you are talking about frame-based measurements. When you get it wrong,
you can't just say they don't exist .. that's cheating

> I pointed out what
>physically happens,

And got it wrong

> B is an event. Perception is not physical
>reality.

Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error

> I could play your silly definition games but choose not
>to.

If you don't use definitions, then you can't discuss physics.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:f81d58e9-1f17-49f5...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>
>> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks. But once synchronised
>> you
>> can see if something else is faster or slower. Including testing OTHER
>> EMR
>> to see if they are also c.
>
>So why they don't they use the same two clocks to test for the one-way
>speed of light?

They can .. if they wanted to .. but TWLS is must more accurate. OWLS is
not all that interesting, except to crackpots

>> >The answer to this question:
>> >The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
>> >distance dependent.
>>
>> And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of
>> light
>> speed being distance dependent.
>
> There is....

No .. there isn't

> that's why they refused to test the one-way speed of light
> directly.

It would affect TWLS even more, yet they test that. Your logic fails
totally,

>> And even if it were, you just need to measure it over a known distance
>> and
>> find out.
>
>So why did they refuse to do so?

Its not worth the effort to do mostly .. but it does get done s I
understand.

>> > The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
>> > meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
>> >the two-way speed of light can use this definition.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what definition you use for length .. as long as you
>> use
>> one consistently
>>
>
> Sure it does.....

Nope

>with the current definition for the meter you don't
>need to measure the distance at all.....all you need is to measure the
>return time and the speed of TWLS is: (return time/return time)
>(299,792,458)meter/second

Nonsense. Then you're not doing a measurement.

>> >Using this
>> >definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
>>
>> As long as light is travelling at c all the time, yes.
>
>No....light can have any value.....TWLS is defined as 1 light-second/1
>second.

And if you set up your meter using light .. then measure some OTHER light,
you will only get c if it is travelling at the same speed as the light you
used to set up you metre standard.

>> >Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
>> >isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
>> >light is also constant c by definition.
>>
>> If you can show light is isotropic .. and show that it always has speed c
>> ..
>> then you have absolutely proved that OWLS is also c. Its logic.
>
>There is no proof that OWLS is c.

I just showed you how what you said above proves that it is, moron. You
proved it yourself.

[John Gogo]

I agree that there is no proof of OWLS outside the parameter of one-
clock, two way measure. There are four stages in measuring a line
segment in physics:

One-way, one clock: which is the act of seeing
two-way, one clock which is the act of radar
one-way, two clock is what we are trying presently to perform
two-way, two clock is what Einstein presented in his thought
experiments

[John Gogo]

What about the domain outside the line segment? What about the
triangle- the observation of an event respective of the line segment?

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:31:31 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...
>>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.
>
>But you are talking about frame-based measurements.
>When you get it wrong, you can't just say they don't
>exist .. that's cheating

If you want to call an avent at a single point a frame, ok.
But the flash of light from the B end of the post
propagates from that point isotropicly outward. In the
describe problem there was only the rod, its ends (A & B)
and empty space. Given Einstein claims that light propagates
at c in empty space were is the problem, that is exactly
what I show.

>> I pointed out what physically happens,
>
>And got it wrong

In what sense? Pick the one you think is right...

1. The light from the event does not move from B to A'
2. A does not move to A' with the rod moving at v
3. The distance B to A' equals the distance A to B

>> B is an event. Perception is not physical
>>reality.
>
>Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error

In what sense?

>> I could play your silly definition games but choose not
>>to.
>
>If you don't use definitions, then you can't discuss physics.

Stick to the case illustrated...

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:osh3d7ta03kapq0a7...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:31:31 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...
>>>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.
>>
>>But you are talking about frame-based measurements.
>>When you get it wrong, you can't just say they don't
>>exist .. that's cheating
>
>If you want to call an avent at a single point a frame, ok.

Why would I want to do something as stupid as that .. you have some weird
ideas

>But the flash of light from the B end of the post
> propagates from that point isotropicly outward.

Yes it does .. and every frame will measure it as doing so

> In the
> describe problem there was only the rod, its ends (A & B)
> and empty space.

So?

> Given Einstein claims that light propagates
> at c in empty space were is the problem, that is exactly
> what I show.

Except you claimed it was NOT at c. Did you forget that part? Maybe you
were embarrassed by your mistake?

>>> I pointed out what physically happens,
>>
>>And got it wrong
>
>In what sense? Pick the one you think is right...

In the sense that you said light does NOT propagate isotropically at c

>1. The light from the event does not move from B to A'
>2. A does not move to A' with the rod moving at v
>3. The distance B to A' equals the distance A to B

You need to be consistent and explicit with your definition of A, A' and B
(is there no B'). You seem a bit confused in your descriptions of them

>>> B is an event. Perception is not physical
>>reality.
>>
>>Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error
>
>In what sense?

By changing the subject, moron. How do you think one diverts? Don't answer
that.

>>> I could play your silly definition games but choose not
>>>to.
>>
>>If you don't use definitions, then you can't discuss physics.
>
>Stick to the case illustrated...

You've illustrated your misunderstandings of physics. I'm happy to stick to
that if you are instead of trying to divert away from them

Perhaps you can more explicitly and consistently describe what these A, B,
A' and B' are and how they relate to the rod at different times and the
velocity v. Then I'll point out your errors in how you described light as
not propagating at c.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 26, 2:38 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> On 11/25/11 11/25/11   7:03 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> > they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> > same set of synchronized clocks)??
>
> Because light does not penetrate the earth for 730 km, but neutrinos do.

Why can't they use the same procedure to synch two different clocks on
earth's surface and use them to measure OWLS?????

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 26, 2:01 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/25/2011 7:03 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> > they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> > same set of synchronized clocks)??
> > The answer to this question:
> > The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> > distance dependent.
>
> No, Ken, that's already been ruled out in other measurements. Idiot.
>
> The reason is you can't measure the speed of a signal using clocks
> synchronized with the same signal. Idiot.

Hey idiot...no such experiment that rule out that OWLS is not distance
dependent. Why? Because no OWLS experiment ever been performed.

>
> Furthermore, since the one way speed of light is already completely
> determined by experiments done PRIOR TO the redefinition of the meter --
> namely measurements of the two way speed of light and of the isotropy of
> the speed of light -- there is no rational justification for doing a
> one-way light speed measurement. Idiot.

No idiot no experiment One-way or two-way establishes that TWLS is
constant c. There was one-experiment that show TWLS has value close to
c. That's why they had to redefine the meter to guarantee that TWLS is
c.

[set...@att.net]

Physicists refuse to do any such experiment because OWLS using this
procedure does not have the value of c.

> > two-way, two clock is what Einstein presented in his thought
> > experiments

Using thi sprocedure does not give TWLS a value of c....there is one
experiment that yield a value close to c. That's why they had to
redefine the meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds to guarantee that
TWLS is c.

>

> What about the domain outside the line segment?  What about the

> triangle- the observation of an event respective of the line segment?- Hide quoted text -

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>
> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks.  But once synchronised you
> can see if something else is faster or slower.  Including testing OTHER EMR
> to see if they are also c.

So why don't they use the same procedures to synch the two clocks for
the direcxt OWLS measurement?

>
> >The answer to this question:
> >The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> >distance dependent.
>
> And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of light
> speed being distance dependent.

The value of TWLS is not a constant c.....There was one experiment
that yielded a value close to c. That's why they had to redefine the
meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-second to guarantee the value of TWLS
is c.

>
> And even if it were, you just need to measure it over a known distance and
> find out.
>

> > The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
> > meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
> >the two-way speed of light can use this definition.
>
> It doesn't matter what definition you use for length .. as long as you use
> one consistently
>

> >Using this
> >definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
>
> As long as light is travelling at c all the time, yes.
>

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 26, 5:37 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:f81d58e9-1f17-49f5...@gl2g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>
> >> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks.  But once synchronised
> >> you
> >> can see if something else is faster or slower.  Including testing OTHER
> >> EMR
> >> to see if they are also c.
>
> >So why they don't they use the same two clocks to test for the one-way
> >speed of light?
>
> They can .. if they wanted to .. but TWLS is must more accurate.  OWLS is
> not all that interesting, except to crackpots

No....then tell me why one-way neiutrino speed is interesting??? Why
not use the same procedure to measure OWLS??? That way there is no
arguement which is faster.

> proved it yourself.- Hide quoted text -

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 25, 8:30 pm, John Gogo <jfgog...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Nov 25, 7:03 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> > Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> > they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> > same set of synchronized clocks)??

> > The answer to this question:
> > The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> > distance dependent.

> > The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
> > meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only

> > the two-way speed of light can use this definition. Using this

> > definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.

> > Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
> > isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
> > light is also constant c by definition.
>

> The key will be in the one-way measure. If this is an accurate one-
> way, two-clock measure (neutrino or otherwise) of the event- this
> would be an advancement- compared to two-way, one-clock measure.

They refuse to do any direct one-way measurement for the speed of
light because the value of OWLS is not a constant c....it is distance
dependent. That's why they had to redefine the meter to be
1/299,792,458 light-seconds to guarantee that the value of TWLS or
OWLS is c. This is done to save SR.

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:44:15 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>news:osh3d7ta03kapq0a7...@4ax.com...
>>
>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:31:31 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>>news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...
>>>>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.
>>>
>>>But you are talking about frame-based measurements.
>>>When you get it wrong, you can't just say they don't
>>>exist .. that's cheating
>>
>>If you want to call an avent at a single point a frame, ok.
>
>Why would I want to do something as stupid as that .. you have some weird
>ideas

That's what you've been insisting on, not I. I'm starting
with Einstein's explicit postulate, namely:

"... and also introduce another postulate, which is
only apparently irreconcilable with the former,

namely, that light is always propagated in empty

space with a definite velocity c which is independent

of the state of motion of the emitting body"

So, the light pulse is an event in 'empty space' at
the coordinate of B. Then moves outward at c to point
A'. The question is, did that pulse go d' or d?
Point B is NOT! B' at the instant A is at A'. There are
no observers in 'empty space' but we take Einstein verbatium
for his postulate. This makes 'empty space' the origin
for light propagation 'at c'.

>>But the flash of light from the B end of the post
>> propagates from that point isotropicly outward.
>
>Yes it does .. and every frame will measure it as doing so

Never said otherwise. If you think I have, quote me...
What cannot BE measured it this case, period. OWLS
cannot be independently measured.

>> In the
>> describe problem there was only the rod, its ends (A & B)
>> and empty space.
>
>So?

So nothing, I'm not make an issue of this you seem to be...

>> Given Einstein claims that light propagates
>> at c in empty space were is the problem, that is exactly
>> what I show.
>
>Except you claimed it was NOT at c. Did you forget that part? Maybe you
>were embarrassed by your mistake?

Reads the first three words of my original post, copied in below...

>>>> I pointed out what physically happens,
>>>
>>>And got it wrong
>>
>>In what sense? Pick the one you think is right...
>
>In the sense that you said light does NOT propagate isotropically at c

I said the 'net' speed is anisotropic NOT light's speed. Big difference.

>>1. The light from the event does not move from B to A'
>>2. A does not move to A' with the rod moving at v
>>3. The distance B to A' equals the distance A to B
>
>You need to be consistent and explicit with your definition of A, A' and B
>(is there no B'). You seem a bit confused in your descriptions of them

Read it again, for the first time... Then you'll know the answer...
I'm not one bit confused, you seem to be...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

OWLS is c, that does not mean that net OWLS is isotropic. In fact,
logic says it's imposssible for it to be. Consider this, we have a
rod d distance long with a emitter on one end and a receiver on the

other. We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always

propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is

independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.

The rod is moving end on at v.

A B
O----------------------------------O -> v

B flashes a pulse of light. Light moves a c towards B. A moves
toards the pulse at v.

A'<.............................x B'
O----------------------------------O -> v
A B

So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.

Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
of d', not d. BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d. The 'net'
speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or

--------------------------------------------------------------------

>>>> B is an event. Perception is not physical
>>>reality.
>>>
>>>Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error
>>
>>In what sense?
>
>By changing the subject, moron. How do you think one diverts? Don't answer
>that.

I have never changed the subject. FOR's are not relevant to this issue.

[alie...@gmail.com]

On Nov 26, 10:36 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

I note that you've provided no cite.

What part isn't clear? Not "my" criteria- "Inertial" specifically
means not accelerating. We can't define any state of motion for empty
space. Therefore empty space (no matter which "definition" we're
using) can not be an inertial frame of reference.

> >> >  "Empty space" is *not* a valid reference frame. Such a frame must be
> >> >unaccelerated, IOW moving with constant velocity (the constant can =
> >> >zero, of course). It is not possible to assign a velocity to a patch
> >> >of empty space, now is it?
>
> >  A valid inertial reference frame is one which is in a constant state
> >of motion. No such state can be defined for a given patch of "empty
> >space".
>
> >> How is 'empty space' accelerated?
>
> >  That's the point, it isn't. It can't be assigned *any* state of
> >motion including constant velocity hence can not qualify as an
> >*inertial* reference frame.

I can't think of another way to say it. Empty space simply can not
be an inertial frame of reference.

> >> >> >  In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
> >> >> >"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
> >> >> >the rod.
>
> >> >> I think I said this in my original post. when I said A thinks it
> >> >> travels d, not d'...
>
> >> >  No, since A can *only* measure d. A can *infer* d' if there is an
> >> >external FOR to compare states of motion with, but that value of d'
> >> >will only apply to motion WRT that specific external FOR. Multiple
> >> >external FORs means d' will not be unique.
>
> >> I don't care,
>
> > I can see that, but it doesn't change the fact that A can only
> >measure d, he can not measure d' because there's no Doppler shift
> >between a source and a receiver that are not in relative motion.
> >Period.
>
> There can be a physical difference between measured and reality...

If it isn't measurable, in what sense is it physical?

Do you agree that A will not measure any Doppler shift when not in
motion WRT B and hence will measure only d and not d'?

> >> IF light is, by Einstein's own definition, to be taken
> >> as c and isotropic wrt to 'empty space'
>
> >  It *isn't* taken as isotropic WRT "empty space" as interpreted to
> >mean "the universe as a whole" by anyone but you. Get that out from
> >between your teeth; it's bogus.
>
> >> AND also INDEPENDENT of any motion
>
> >  Look, those two criteria are incompatible. If as you insist c is
> >isotropic only in the reference frame of the universe as a whole, then
> >it is dependent on the state of motion of its source and receiver WRT
> >that same frame. THAT DEPENDENCE IS NOT OBSERVED hence one of the
> >criteria is false. Guess which one?
>
> Interesting since THAT IS! Einstein's postulate...

No, it isn't. You are still equating "empty space" with "the

universe as a whole".

> >> then that defines the isotropic light frame...  If this is
> >> true
>
> >  It is not.
>
> >> >> >  If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
> >> >> >enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
> >> >> >have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
> >> >> >frame? Different how, and why?
>
> >> >> That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?
>
> >> >  Assume they are identical with and without the shield.
>
> >> IF & only IF the clock setting were identical down to the very last
> >> digit of precision then, yes, one should be able to 'measured' actual
> >> time of flights.
>
> >  Sorry, did I miss something? I cheerfully stipulated these things in
> >re your original experiment without mentioning them because they are
> >standard stipulations in such schemes; did you not assume them? If
> >not, your experiment and your claims regarding its conclusions are
> >baseless.
>
> Then the answer would be yes, there would be measured net speed
> differences.

Again, what specifically will A measure in order to conclude the rod
is in motion?

> But, unless you can achieve such a precise clock
> synch (which is not e-synch) you won't see this.  Likewise if you
> did sych that way the argument would be that the results are not
> meaningful.  Seen this game played before...

This is not a game. You proposed a somewhat idealized experiment. I
had no problem with the usual idealizations (clocks being in synch and
so on). I just had problems with some of your premises and
conclusions. But now it seems to me that you are now invalidating your
own experiment as impossible to conduct, and its conclusions as
unsupportable by experiment.

In any case, your response doesn't address my original question:

"Do you think [your original experiment encased in a light-tight
shield] will

have different results in different states of motion WRT some
external
frame? Different how, and why?"

> >> >> >> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
> >> >> >> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
> >> >> >> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
> >> >> >> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
> >> >> >> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or
>
> >> >> >  In A's reference frame it is isotropic because for him your "v" term
> >> >> >is zero; there is no d'=d.
>
> >> >> My v term is unknown to 'him' if he can't see post C.  It still
> >> >> is v because, if I take Einstein at his words, empty space' itself
> >> >> represents a background, by his definition.
>
> >  Hold it right there. First you question if that wasn't what he
> >meant, now you assert that it is what he meant. Please provide a cite.
>
> Done that, above...

No, you have not. Remember this exchange?

me: By "empty" Einstein meant free from refraction or other effects

due
to the presence of any matter in the beam path.

you: Was that the normal, ordinary meaning of the term in physics in
1905?

me: If you think it isn't please provide a cite indicating otherwise.

You have not done so. Please provide a cite of Einstein explicitly
equating the phrase "empty space" with the phrase "the universe as a
whole" (or some equivalent variant).

I am not trying to belittle you, I'm trying to clarify the terms of
this discussion. A simple example of my assertion can be found by
searching Wikipedia for the term "free space" which will direct you to
this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

which has the notation '"Free space" redirects here.' From that
page:

'Physicists often discuss ideal test results that would occur in a
perfect vacuum, which they simply call "vacuum" or "free space", and
use the term partial vacuum to refer to an actual imperfect vacuum as
one might have in a laboratory or in space. The Latin term in vacuo is
also used to describe an object as being in what would otherwise be a
vacuum.'

You may distrust Wikipedia as many do; if that's the case just post
a separate message asking if that's the standard meaning in physics.

> >> >> I can certainly use
> >> >> the CMBR Doppler to determine if I am moving wrt to it.
>
> >> >  No, the CMBR is not a valid background reference frame. Why did you
> >> >think it was?
>
> >> What criteria does it fail to meet?  Funny a quick Google Scholar search
> >> returns 4,700 hits for (Preferred Frame "CMB").  Seems like there are
> >> alot of folks that don't agree with your asscertain...
>
> >  Simple; we can't unambiguously measure our velocity WRT it.
>
> >  Besides, you're "moving the goal posts" by appealing to the CMBR.
> >Your original argument didn't involve it.
>
> The CMB is part of 'empty space' no?  No matter were you go you
> can see it if you look no?

There you go again equating "empty space" with "the universe as a
whole".

And we still can't unambiguously measure our velocity WRT the CMBR.

Of course not; in that case there'd be relative motion between
source and receiver.

> Light still is propagating
> at c, right?  Why should there be any Doppler at all, the speed of the
> wave didn't change at all, eh?  Thus, logic says the wave fronts should
> still hit B a the very same rate. If not, why not? Remember, by
> your definition c is isotropic, unchanged & independent of any motion
> of source & receiver..

c is, but observed frequency and wavelength are not. That's a direct
consequence of the conservation of energy. The photons contain a fixed
amount of energy and motion involves energy. Hence a difference in
motion produces a difference in measured energy, and hence frequency
and wavelength, of the light.

> >> >  Now, this time don't ignore the part below.
>
> >> >> >  If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
> >> >> >flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
> >> >> >determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
> >> >> >won't, and they can't.
>
> >> >  There simply is no way to measure any sort of absolute velocity,
> >> >period.
>
> >> What does 'absolute' mean to you.  There exist in nature no absolutes
> >> but by my understanding of this term it can only exist as a concept
> >> of man...
>
> >  In the present discussion it means WRT some reference frame against
> >which all velocities everywhere may be measured. Your interpretation
> >of "empty space" as "the universe as a whole", for example.
>
> For real world examples, take Earth's oceans.  Two subs can be 'at rest'
> wrt to their local backgrounds and NOT be at rest wrt each other.
> likewise a hot air balloon is 'at rest' with the local atmosphere but
> not with another which is equally 'at rest' a mile away.  Real mediums
> are not 'absolute' frames.  In GR this would be called curvatures.

Specious argument; water is not vacuum; its velocity is measurable.
Same for air.

> >> >> >> The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
> >> >> >> makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
> >> >> >> impossible) to objectively determine this value.
>
> >> >> >  Consider many external inertial observers in different states of
> >> >> >motion WRT the rod (many external FORs); they will all measure
> >> >> >different values for d' as the rod goes by. Which, if any, is
> >> >> >"correct"?
>
> >> >  Think that through very carefully.
>
> >  I note no response. Not done thinking it through?
>
> I think I've thought this trough much more carefully than you

You're descending to ad hominem already? Can we leave that for later
and stick to physics?


 Mark L. Fergerson

[mpc755]

On Nov 27, 7:22 pm, "n...@bid.nes" <alien8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   If it isn't measurable, in what sense is it physical?
>

The physical effects caused by the interaction of matter and the
aether is measurable.

In a double slit experiment the moving particle enters and exits a
single slit and it is the associated aether displacement wave which
enters and exits both.

The ripple created when galaxy clusters collide is an aether
displacement wave.

Curved spacetime is displaced aether.

Pressure exerted by displaced aether toward matter is gravity.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:a285d7pr3p14djdc7...@4ax.com...

>
>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:44:15 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:osh3d7ta03kapq0a7...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:31:31 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>>>news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...
>>>>>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.
>>>>
>>>>But you are talking about frame-based measurements.
>>>>When you get it wrong, you can't just say they don't
>>>>exist .. that's cheating
>>>
>>>If you want to call an avent at a single point a frame, ok.
>>
>>Why would I want to do something as stupid as that .. you have some weird
>>ideas
>
>That's what you've been insisting on, not I.

No .. I haven't at all .. don't lie about what i said.

> I'm starting
>with Einstein's explicit postulate, namely:
>
> "... and also introduce another postulate, which is
> only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
> namely, that light is always propagated in empty
> space with a definite velocity c which is independent
> of the state of motion of the emitting body"
>
>So, the light pulse is an event in 'empty space' at
>the coordinate of B.

The emission of it is an event .. and you are labelling that event B

> Then moves outward at c to point
>A'.

Another event .. yes

> The question is, did that pulse go d' or d?

It depends on who measure it

>Point B is NOT! B' at the instant A is at A'.

A is never A' .. they are difference events. Or is A NOT an event? You
really are confused in your terminology

> There are
>no observers in 'empty space'

irreelvant

> but we take Einstein verbatium
>for his postulate. This makes 'empty space' the origin
> for light propagation 'at c'.

No .. it doesn't. It just says the if light is travelling through empty
space (space devoid of matter) then it will do so at speed c. It does NOT
say empty space is 'the origin for light propagation' (whatever that crap
means)

>>>But the flash of light from the B end of the post
>>> propagates from that point isotropicly outward.
>>
>>Yes it does .. and every frame will measure it as doing so
>
>Never said otherwise. If you think I have, quote me...

You said it was not c

>What cannot BE measured it this case, period. OWLS
>cannot be independently measured.

Independently of what?

>>> In the
>>> describe problem there was only the rod, its ends (A & B)
>>> and empty space.
>>
>>So?
>
>So nothing, I'm not make an issue of this you seem to be...
>
>>> Given Einstein claims that light propagates
>>> at c in empty space were is the problem, that is exactly
>>> what I show.
>>
>>Except you claimed it was NOT at c. Did you forget that part? Maybe you
>>were embarrassed by your mistake?
>
>Reads the first three words of my original post, copied in below...

Reads where you said it is not c

>>>>> I pointed out what physically happens,
>>>>
>>>>And got it wrong
>>>
>>>In what sense? Pick the one you think is right...
>>
>>In the sense that you said light does NOT propagate isotropically at c
>
>I said the 'net' speed is anisotropic NOT light's speed. Big difference.

WTF is net speed then?

>>>1. The light from the event does not move from B to A'
>>>2. A does not move to A' with the rod moving at v
>>>3. The distance B to A' equals the distance A to B
>>
>>You need to be consistent and explicit with your definition of A, A' and B
>>(is there no B'). You seem a bit confused in your descriptions of them
>
>Read it again, for the first time... Then you'll know the answer...
>I'm not one bit confused, you seem to be...

I don't need to .. you are confused in your terminology

>>>>> B is an event. Perception is not physical
>>>reality.
>>>>
>>>>Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error
>>>
>>>In what sense?
>>
>>By changing the subject, moron. How do you think one diverts? Don't
>>answer
>>that.
>
>I have never changed the subject. FOR's are not relevant to this issue.

of course they are, moron

>>>>> I could play your silly definition games but choose not
>>>>>to.
>>>>
>>>>If you don't use definitions, then you can't discuss physics.
>>>
>>>Stick to the case illustrated...
>>
>>You've illustrated your misunderstandings of physics. I'm happy to stick
>>to
>>that if you are instead of trying to divert away from them
>>
>>Perhaps you can more explicitly and consistently describe what these A, B,
>>A' and B' are and how they relate to the rod at different times and the
>>velocity v. Then I'll point out your errors in how you described light as
>>not propagating at c.

I guess you don't want to do that .. thought you were all bluff

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:f7230e43-bc55-4385...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

>Physicists refuse to do any such experiment because OWLS using this
>procedure does not have the value of c.

But if no one has done it .. how do you know?

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:ae54a53b-c20c-445b...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>
>> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks. But once synchronised
>> you
>> can see if something else is faster or slower. Including testing OTHER
>> EMR
>> to see if they are also c.
>
>So why don't they use the same procedures to synch the two clocks for
>the direcxt OWLS measurement?

I just told you why moron. Because the sync will means the clocks must show
the same speed in both directions (which we know is c). It can't give
anything else for light.
If you want to test for speed difference with different frequencies or
wavelength of light, then its easier and more accurate to do so with TWLS
measurement.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:1fb794aa-119a-40d0...@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> No....then tell me why one-way neiutrino speed is interesting???

Because they go one way .. moron

> Why
> not use the same procedure to measure OWLS???

I've told you already

> That way there is no
> arguement which is faster.

There already is no argument. We can measure the speed of neutrinos and see
if its more or less than c.

[Aetherist]

On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:22:56 -0800 (PST), "nu...@bid.nes" <alie...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Nov 26, 10:36 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> Was that the normal, ordinary meaning of the term in physics in 1905?
>>
>> >  If you think it isn't please provide a cite indicating otherwise.
>
> I note that you've provided no cite.

I honestly didn't think it was needed since empty space was the usual
term used to describe a void region containing nothing 'at that period
in time'. Later Einstein writes,

"There is then no empty space, that is, there is no
space without a field"

Einstein, Albert, Foreword to Concepts of Space, by Max Jammer,
Harvard University Press, 1954.

Pretty much confirming that was his intented usage earlier...

[Snip for Brevity...]

>> >> >  No, I mean WRT a defined inertial (not accelerating) reference frame
>> >> >external to the rod; it may be occupied by an observer or not.
>>
>> >> Explain how 'empty space' does not meet your criteria...
>>
>> >  Read this paragraph again:
>>
>> If it was clear, I wouldn't have asked for clarification....
>
>What part isn't clear? Not "my" criteria- "Inertial" specifically
>means not accelerating. We can't define any state of motion for empty
>space. Therefore empty space (no matter which "definition" we're
>using) can not be an inertial frame of reference.

And here I thought a frame of reference was defined coordinate system.
But like Einstein said there is no such thing as truly 'empty space'
all regions have physical properties including those that support
lights very existence like epsilon_not & u_not... If empty space
is not accelerated logic says it is, by definition, inertial.

>> >> >  "Empty space" is *not* a valid reference frame. Such a frame must be
>> >> >unaccelerated, IOW moving with constant velocity (the constant can =
>> >> >zero, of course). It is not possible to assign a velocity to a patch
>> >> >of empty space, now is it?
>>
>> >  A valid inertial reference frame is one which is in a constant state
>> >of motion. No such state can be defined for a given patch of "empty
>> >space".
>>
>> >> How is 'empty space' accelerated?
>>
>> >  That's the point, it isn't. It can't be assigned *any* state of
>> >motion including constant velocity hence can not qualify as an
>> >*inertial* reference frame.
>
> I can't think of another way to say it. Empty space simply can not
>be an inertial frame of reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference

"The motion of a body can only be described relative to
something else - other bodies, observers, OR A SET OF
SPACE-TIME COORDINATES. These are called frames of
reference."

Are you saying that empty space cannot be mapped with a set of coordinate?

>> >> >> >  In the frame of A and B (who are not in motion WRT each other; your
>> >> >> >"v" means nothing to them) the light traveled the entire distance of
>> >> >> >the rod.
>>
>> >> >> I think I said this in my original post. when I said A thinks it
>> >> >> travels d, not d'...
>>
>> >> >  No, since A can *only* measure d. A can *infer* d' if there is an
>> >> >external FOR to compare states of motion with, but that value of d'
>> >> >will only apply to motion WRT that specific external FOR. Multiple
>> >> >external FORs means d' will not be unique.
>>
>> >> I don't care,
>>
>> > I can see that, but it doesn't change the fact that A can only
>> >measure d, he can not measure d' because there's no Doppler shift
>> >between a source and a receiver that are not in relative motion.
>> >Period.
>>
>> There can be a physical difference between measured and reality...
>
> If it isn't measurable, in what sense is it physical?

Why do we 'measure' time dilation' in moving systems? What is the
root cause? It is the physical difference between

c = D/t

And

c = Dg/tg

>Do you agree that A will not measure any Doppler shift when not in
>motion WRT B and hence will measure only d and not d'?

I said that in my original discussion...

>> >> IF light is, by Einstein's own definition, to be taken
>> >> as c and isotropic wrt to 'empty space'
>>
>> >  It *isn't* taken as isotropic WRT "empty space" as interpreted to
>> >mean "the universe as a whole" by anyone but you. Get that out from
>> >between your teeth; it's bogus.
>>
>> >> AND also INDEPENDENT of any motion
>>
>> >  Look, those two criteria are incompatible. If as you insist c is
>> >isotropic only in the reference frame of the universe as a whole, then
>> >it is dependent on the state of motion of its source and receiver WRT
>> >that same frame. THAT DEPENDENCE IS NOT OBSERVED hence one of the
>> >criteria is false. Guess which one?
>>
>> Interesting since THAT IS! Einstein's postulate...
>
> No, it isn't. You are still equating "empty space" with "the
>universe as a whole".

Why do you think and insist on universe as a whole? The local
region suffices.

>> >> then that defines the isotropic light frame...  If this is
>> >> true
>>
>> >  It is not.
>>
>> >> >> >  If you doubt that, encase the rod in a light-tight shield with
>> >> >> >enough room to run the experiment, and run it. Do you think it will
>> >> >> >have different results in different states of motion WRT some external
>> >> >> >frame? Different how, and why?
>>
>> >> >> That depends on the timing and thus clock setup, right?
>>
>> >> >  Assume they are identical with and without the shield.
>>
>> >> IF & only IF the clock setting were identical down to the very last
>> >> digit of precision then, yes, one should be able to 'measured' actual
>> >> time of flights.
>>
>> >  Sorry, did I miss something? I cheerfully stipulated these things in
>> >re your original experiment without mentioning them because they are
>> >standard stipulations in such schemes; did you not assume them? If
>> >not, your experiment and your claims regarding its conclusions are
>> >baseless.
>>
>> Then the answer would be yes, there would be measured net speed
>> differences.
>
> Again, what specifically will A measure in order to conclude the rod
>is in motion?

Where do I say he will know or measure he is moving??? Go back and look again.

>> But, unless you can achieve such a precise clock
>> synch (which is not e-synch) you won't see this.  Likewise if you
>> did sych that way the argument would be that the results are not
>> meaningful.  Seen this game played before...
>
>This is not a game. You proposed a somewhat idealized experiment. I
>had no problem with the usual idealizations (clocks being in synch and
>so on). I just had problems with some of your premises and
>conclusions. But now it seems to me that you are now invalidating your
>own experiment as impossible to conduct, and its conclusions as
>unsupportable by experiment.

Where did I specify an experiment in the original posting? In fact
I said it might be impossible to objectively test.

> In any case, your response doesn't address my original question:
>
> "Do you think [your original experiment encased in a light-tight
>shield] will
> have different results in different states of motion WRT some
>external
> frame? Different how, and why?"

How, measure the value of the electron's magnetic moment and compare
that value to the value given by qh/4pim. Why, motion has physical
affects...

I don't have the problem of understanding empty space was FOR for
Einstein, you seem to be having that problem.

But the question I ask you is light speed is

c = Lz

Where L is wavelength and z is frequency.

Let's take c AS constant NOT just observed/measured as constant.

Then the question remains A breaks from the rod and stops, you BUT
the light in transit at the time can't change its spots HOW does
z change wrt A's new state? The light was in-transit when A changed
states. Light speed is, by your account constant and UNCHANGED thus
Lz is by definition unchanged.

>> >> >  Now, this time don't ignore the part below.
>>
>> >> >> >  If your premise is correct they will both record different times of
>> >> >> >flight and/or Doppler-shifted spectra. They will therefore be able to
>> >> >> >determine their absolute velocity. But of course, it isn't, they
>> >> >> >won't, and they can't.
>>
>> >> >  There simply is no way to measure any sort of absolute velocity,
>> >> >period.
>>
>> >> What does 'absolute' mean to you.  There exist in nature no absolutes
>> >> but by my understanding of this term it can only exist as a concept
>> >> of man...
>>
>> >  In the present discussion it means WRT some reference frame against
>> >which all velocities everywhere may be measured. Your interpretation
>> >of "empty space" as "the universe as a whole", for example.
>>
>> For real world examples, take Earth's oceans.  Two subs can be 'at rest'
>> wrt to their local backgrounds and NOT be at rest wrt each other.
>> likewise a hot air balloon is 'at rest' with the local atmosphere but
>> not with another which is equally 'at rest' a mile away.  Real mediums
>> are not 'absolute' frames.  In GR this would be called curvatures.
>
> Specious argument; water is not vacuum; its velocity is measurable.
>Same for air.

These are physical mediums, aether is a by definition a physical medium.
Why do you this comparing apples to apples specious?

>> >> >> >> The problem is the Lorentz contraction and symmetry of +/-v
>> >> >> >> makes it very difficult (but Ive yet to be convinced
>> >> >> >> impossible) to objectively determine this value.
>>
>> >> >> >  Consider many external inertial observers in different states of
>> >> >> >motion WRT the rod (many external FORs); they will all measure
>> >> >> >different values for d' as the rod goes by. Which, if any, is
>> >> >> >"correct"?
>>
>> >> >  Think that through very carefully.
>>
>> >  I note no response. Not done thinking it through?
>>

>> I think I've thought this through much more carefully than you

>
> You're descending to ad hominem already? Can we leave that for later
>and stick to physics?

No ad hominum was intended, it was an intended statement of fact. I
have thought very carefully through. Your responses do not show such
depth of thinking.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:fu36d79lthaqvvh14...@4ax.com...

>I honestly didn't think it was needed since empty space was the usual
>term used to describe a void region containing nothing 'at that period
>in time'. Later Einstein writes,
>
> "There is then no empty space, that is, there is no
> space without a field"
>
> Einstein, Albert, Foreword to Concepts of Space, by Max Jammer,
> Harvard University Press, 1954.
>
>Pretty much confirming that was his intented usage earlier...

If you think a reference in different context 50 years later has any
relevance .. you're grasping at straws.

[mpc755]

If you think a reference from Einstein describing space does not have
any relevance today then you are as screwed up as the rest of physics.

Are you another one who is unable to understand the particle always
enters and exits a single slit in a double slit experiment and it is
the associated wave which enters and exits both?

[mpc755]

On Nov 27, 11:37 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I honestly didn't think it was needed since empty space was the usual
> term used to describe a void region containing nothing 'at that period
> in time'.  Later Einstein writes,
>
>     "There is then no empty space, that is, there is no
>      space without a field"
>
>   Einstein, Albert, Foreword to Concepts of Space, by Max Jammer,
>   Harvard University Press, 1954.
>

"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

There is then no empty space, that is, there is no space without mass.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 27, 8:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:ae54a53b-c20c-445b...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> wrote in
> >> messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>
> >> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks.  But once synchronised
> >> you
> >> can see if something else is faster or slower.  Including testing OTHER
> >> EMR
> >> to see if they are also c.
>
> >So why don't they use the same procedures to synch the two clocks for
> >the direcxt OWLS measurement?
>
> I just told you why moron.  Because the sync will means the clocks must show
> the same speed in both directions (which we know is c).  It can't give
> anything else for light.

No idiot....it doesn't matter how you synch it you will not get the
value of c if the OWLS is distance dependent.

> If you want to test for speed difference with different frequencies or
> wavelength of light, then its easier and more accurate to do so with TWLS
> measurement.

No idiot I am interested in testing direct OWLS and compare it with
direct one-way neutrino speed.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 27, 8:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:f7230e43-bc55-4385...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

>
> >Physicists refuse to do any such experiment because OWLS using this
> >procedure does not have the value of c.
>
> But if no one has done it .. how do you know?

Your SR brother Tom Roberts said so. Also if they did it and the
result is c you would get a Nobel for it....so I doubt that who ever
did it will keep his results secret.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 27, 8:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:1fb794aa-119a-40d0...@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>
> > No....then tell me why one-way neiutrino speed is interesting???
>
> Because they go one way .. moron
>
> > Why
> > not use the same procedure to measure OWLS???
>
> I've told you already

No you didn't.

>
> > That way there is no
> > arguement which is faster.
>
> There already is no argument.  We can measure the speed of neutrinos and see
> if its more or less than c.

But you were comparing apples with oranges. You are comparing an
artifical defined constant c for OWLS with a direct neutrino
measurement. This is not good science. Good science is comparing
direct measurements.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:8863a73c-f58a-47d3...@u6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 27, 8:23 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:f7230e43-bc55-4385...@o1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >Physicists refuse to do any such experiment because OWLS using this
>> >procedure does not have the value of c.
>>
>> But if no one has done it .. how do you know?
>
>Your SR brother Tom Roberts said so

[snip diverting]

How do you know light does not have OWLS of c if you say no one has measured
it

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:7d5fecea-00e7-4fd0...@20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 27, 8:26 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:ae54a53b-c20c-445b...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> >> wrote in
>> >> messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> >Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>> >> >they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>> >> >same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>
>> >> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks. But once
>> >> synchronised
>> >> you
>> >> can see if something else is faster or slower. Including testing
>> >> OTHER
>> >> EMR
>> >> to see if they are also c.
>>
>> >So why don't they use the same procedures to synch the two clocks for
>> >the direcxt OWLS measurement?
>>
>> I just told you why moron. Because the sync will means the clocks must
>> show
>> the same speed in both directions (which we know is c). It can't give
>> anything else for light.
>
>No idiot....it doesn't matter how you synch it you will not get the
>value of c if the OWLS is distance dependent.

But we know it is not distance dependent because TWLS is not, moron. And we
know TWLS is c

>> If you want to test for speed difference with different frequencies or
>> wavelength of light, then its easier and more accurate to do so with TWLS
>> measurement.
>
>No idiot I am interested in testing direct OWLS and compare it with
>direct one-way neutrino speed.

Why the fuck would you want to do that?

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:8ab42c7b-fbba-49f8...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 27, 8:27 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:1fb794aa-119a-40d0...@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > No....then tell me why one-way neiutrino speed is interesting???
>>
>> Because they go one way .. moron
>>
>> > Why
>> > not use the same procedure to measure OWLS???
>>
>> I've told you already
>
>No you didn't.

Liar

>> > That way there is no
>> > arguement which is faster.
>>
>> There already is no argument. We can measure the speed of neutrinos and
>> see
>> if its more or less than c.
>
> But you were comparing apples with oranges.

No .. I am measuring a speed and comparing it with a known speed. Pretty
simple even for you

[maxwell]

On Nov 25, 5:03 pm, seto...@att.net wrote:
> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> same set of synchronized clocks)??

> The answer to this question:
> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> distance dependent.
> The one-way speed of light cannot use the current definition for the
> meter (1 meter=1/299,792,458 light-seconds) to measure length. Only
> the two-way speed of light can use this definition. Using this
> definition, the two-way speed of light is constant by definition.
> Experimentally the one-way and two-way speed of light is
> isotropic.....that's why physicists claim that the one-way speed of
> light is also constant c by definition.

Theorists don't need experimentalists to measure this quantity - it's
known "in principle" but if you insist, they will do a 'thought
experiment'.

[PD]

On 11/27/2011 1:24 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial"<relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>>> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>>> same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>
>> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks. But once synchronised you
>> can see if something else is faster or slower. Including testing OTHER EMR
>> to see if they are also c.
>
> So why don't they use the same procedures to synch the two clocks for
> the direcxt OWLS measurement?
>

Because it is a stupid and incompetent experimental approach to use the
signal you're trying to measure as a calibration signal.

>>
>>> The answer to this question:
>>> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
>>> distance dependent.
>>
>> And so would then be the two-way speed .. and there is no evidence of light
>> speed being distance dependent.
>
> The value of TWLS is not a constant c.....There was one experiment
> that yielded a value close to c.

That's just plain bullshit, Ken. You think there was only ONE TWLS
measurement? Really?????

[PD]

On 11/27/2011 12:50 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> On Nov 26, 2:01 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/25/2011 7:03 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>>> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>>> same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>> The answer to this question:
>>> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
>>> distance dependent.
>>
>> No, Ken, that's already been ruled out in other measurements. Idiot.
>>
>> The reason is you can't measure the speed of a signal using clocks
>> synchronized with the same signal. Idiot.
>
> Hey idiot...no such experiment that rule out that OWLS is not distance
> dependent. Why? Because no OWLS experiment ever been performed.

Ruled out in OTHER measurements, Ken.

>
>>
>> Furthermore, since the one way speed of light is already completely
>> determined by experiments done PRIOR TO the redefinition of the meter --
>> namely measurements of the two way speed of light and of the isotropy of
>> the speed of light -- there is no rational justification for doing a
>> one-way light speed measurement. Idiot.
>
> No idiot no experiment One-way or two-way establishes that TWLS is
> constant c. There was one-experiment that show TWLS has value close to
> c. That's why they had to redefine the meter to guarantee that TWLS is
> c.

And that's bullshit, Ken. How many TWLS measurements do you think there
have been?

>

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 28, 12:20 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/27/2011 12:50 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 2:01 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >> On 11/25/2011 7:03 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
> >>> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >>> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >>> same set of synchronized clocks)??
> >>> The answer to this question:
> >>> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
> >>> distance dependent.
>
> >> No, Ken, that's already been ruled out in other measurements. Idiot.
>
> >> The reason is you can't measure the speed of a signal using clocks
> >> synchronized with the same signal. Idiot.
>
> > Hey idiot...no such experiment that rule out that OWLS is not distance
> > dependent. Why? Because no OWLS experiment ever been performed.
>
> Ruled out in OTHER measurements, Ken.

No those other measurements are based on faulty assumptions

>
>
>
> >> Furthermore, since the one way speed of light is already completely
> >> determined by experiments done PRIOR TO the redefinition of the meter --
> >> namely measurements of the two way speed of light and of the isotropy of
> >> the speed of light -- there is no rational justification for doing a
> >> one-way light speed measurement. Idiot.
>
> > No idiot no experiment One-way or two-way establishes that TWLS is
> > constant c. There was one-experiment that show TWLS has value close to
> > c. That's why they had to redefine the meter to guarantee that TWLS is
> > c.
>
> And that's bullshit, Ken. How many TWLS measurements do you think there
> have been?

Look it up yourself in the following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
There is only one measurement that give the current value for TWLS.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 28, 8:45 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:7d5fecea-00e7-4fd0...@20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

TWLS is also distance dependent....that's why they had to redefine the
meter to be 1/299,792,458 light-seconds to eliminate the effect of
distance dependency of TWLS.

>
> >> If you want to test for speed difference with different frequencies or
> >> wavelength of light, then its easier and more accurate to do so with TWLS
> >> measurement.
>
> >No idiot I am interested in testing direct OWLS and compare it with
> >direct one-way neutrino speed.
>
> Why the fuck would you want to do that?

Hey idiot to see if the speed of neutrino is faster than the speed of
light by direct measurement comparison.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 28, 9:12 am, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:8ab42c7b-fbba-49f8...@z12g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

There is no known speed for OWLS. There is an assumed speed.

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 8:23 AM, set...@att.net wrote:
> On Nov 28, 12:20 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/27/2011 12:50 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 26, 2:01 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/25/2011 7:03 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>>
>>>>> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
>>>>> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
>>>>> same set of synchronized clocks)??
>>>>> The answer to this question:
>>>>> The value for the one-way speed of light is not constant c.....it is
>>>>> distance dependent.
>>
>>>> No, Ken, that's already been ruled out in other measurements. Idiot.
>>
>>>> The reason is you can't measure the speed of a signal using clocks
>>>> synchronized with the same signal. Idiot.
>>
>>> Hey idiot...no such experiment that rule out that OWLS is not distance
>>> dependent. Why? Because no OWLS experiment ever been performed.
>>
>> Ruled out in OTHER measurements, Ken.
>
> No those other measurements are based on faulty assumptions

Bullshit, Ken.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> Furthermore, since the one way speed of light is already completely
>>>> determined by experiments done PRIOR TO the redefinition of the meter --
>>>> namely measurements of the two way speed of light and of the isotropy of
>>>> the speed of light -- there is no rational justification for doing a
>>>> one-way light speed measurement. Idiot.
>>
>>> No idiot no experiment One-way or two-way establishes that TWLS is
>>> constant c. There was one-experiment that show TWLS has value close to
>>> c. That's why they had to redefine the meter to guarantee that TWLS is
>>> c.
>>
>> And that's bullshit, Ken. How many TWLS measurements do you think there
>> have been?
>
> Look it up yourself in the following link:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
> There is only one measurement that give the current value for TWLS.
>

Ken, I can't help it if you use crap for reference material. Wikipedia
makes no statement that is presenting the whole list of experimental
results that support that answer. It is giving you ONE of MANY.

If you don't know how to use Google to search for two-way-light-speed
measurements, blame yourself, not the rest of the world.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 29, 10:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

Since you claimed that TWLS have been measured directly many times you
should provide us with the references. Remember you can't use the
redefined definition for the meter for any direct TWLS measurements
direct TWLS measurement.

>
> If you don't know how to use Google to search for two-way-light-speed
> measurements, blame yourself, not the rest of the world.

Bullshit is not a valid arguement.

[PD]

Mulligan, Am. J. Phys. 44 no. 10 (1976), pg 960.
Rowley et al., Opt. and Quantum Elect. 8 (1976), pg 1.
Woods et al., Appl. Optics 17 (1978), pg 1048.
Rowley, Opt. Comm. 34 (1980), pg 429.
Baird and Whitford, Opt. Comm. 31 (1979), pg 363, pg 367.
Goldman, J. O. S. A. 70 (1980), 1640.
Jennings et al., J. Res. N.B.S. 92 (1982), pg 11.
Bates, Am. J. Phys. 51 (1983), pg 1003.
Essen and Froome, The Velocity of Light and Radio Waves (1969).
Brown et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 30 no. 16 (1973), pg 763.
Florman, J. Res. N.B.S. 54 (1955), pg 355.
Goldhaber and Nieto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21 no. 8 (1968), pg 567.
Goldhaber and Nieto, Rev. Mod. Phys. 43 no. 3 (1971), pg 277.
Davis et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 no. 21 (1975), pg 1402.
Lakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 no. 9 (1998), pg 1826.
Gintsburg, Sov. Astr., AJ7 (1964), pg 536.
Patel, Phys. Lett. 14 (1965), pg 105.
Williams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26 (1971), pg 721.
Franken, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26 (1971), pg 115.
Hollweg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974), pg 961.
Davis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35 (1975), pg 1402.
Chibisov, S P U 19 (1976), pg 624.

Notice that ALL of these are before the 1983 redefinition of the meter.

>
>>
>> If you don't know how to use Google to search for two-way-light-speed
>> measurements, blame yourself, not the rest of the world.
>
> Bullshit is not a valid arguement.

It's not bullshit. What's bullshit, Ken, is you reading a Wiki article
that cites ONE of MANY experiments, and then you blathering that it is
the only TWLS measurement that's ever been done. THAT, Ken, is bullshit.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 29, 12:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

What were the distances between the sources and the reflecting mirrors
for these experiments. What were the value of TWLS for these
experiments?

>
>
>
> >> If you don't know how to use Google to search for two-way-light-speed
> >> measurements, blame yourself, not the rest of the world.
>
> > Bullshit is not a valid arguement.
>
> It's not bullshit. What's bullshit, Ken, is you reading a Wiki article
> that cites ONE of MANY experiments, and then you blathering that it is

> the only TWLS measurement that's ever been done. THAT, Ken, is bullshit.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[PD]

On 11/29/2011 4:30 PM, set...@att.net wrote:
> On Nov 29, 12:32 pm, PD<thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/29/2011 10:52 AM, seto...@att.net wrote
>>

I've given you a lot of references, Ken. I've cooked the meal and served
it in front of you. Don't ask me to cut your meat for you. Are you a
grown-up? Are you house-bound? Are you legally blind? You have a library
within reach of you. No one owes it to you to indulge your laziness. Off
you go, do some homework on your own. You can do it.

[PD]

And PLEASE don't whine that making you get up and do some library
research is an attempt to keep physics out of the hands of the public.

It IS an attempt to keep physics out of the hands of the incurably lazy,
yes. It IS an attempt to keep physics out of the hands of those who are
so terrified of confronting their shortcomings that they are frozen into
immobility, yes. Rightfully so.

I have zero tolerance for those who believe that physics OWES it to
people to serve up any information they want, upon demand and in the
venue of their choice.

People who want to make a contribution to physics have to accept that
there will be certain activities expected of them, and a certain amount
of personal investment devoted to it. If they decline, then they won't
make a contribution. Same for music, law, medicine, engineering,
architecture, or for that matter ANY professional pursuit.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 27, 3:58 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 16:44:15 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Aetherist"  wrote in message

> >news:osh3d7ta03kapq0a7...@4ax.com...

>
> >>On Sun, 27 Nov 2011 09:31:31 +1100, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"Aetherist"  wrote in message

> >>>news:tln0d79igr080t9ja...@4ax.com...
> >>>>Nature contains no arbitrarily defined frames.
>
> >>>But you are talking about frame-based measurements.
> >>>When you get it wrong, you can't just say they don't
> >>>exist .. that's cheating
>
> >>If you want to call an avent at a single point a frame, ok.
>
> >Why would I want to do something as stupid as that .. you have some weird
> >ideas
>
> That's what you've been insisting on, not I.  I'm starting
> with Einstein's explicit postulate, namely:
>
>     "... and also introduce another postulate, which is
>      only apparently irreconcilable with the former,
>      namely, that light is always propagated in empty
>      space with a definite velocity c which is independent
>      of the state of motion of the emitting body"
>
> So, the light pulse is an event in 'empty space' at
> the coordinate of B.  Then moves outward at c to point
> A'.  The question is, did that pulse go d' or d?
> Point B is NOT! B' at the instant A is at A'.  There are
> no observers in 'empty space' but we take Einstein verbatium
> for his postulate.  This makes 'empty space' the origin
> for light propagation 'at c'.
>
> >>But the flash of light from the B end of the post
> >> propagates from that point isotropicly outward.
>
> >Yes it does .. and every frame will measure it as doing so
>
> Never said otherwise.  If you think I have, quote me...
> What cannot BE measured it this case, period.  OWLS
> cannot be independently measured.
>
> >>  In the
> >> describe problem there was only the rod, its ends (A & B)
> >> and empty space.
>
> >So?
>
> So nothing, I'm not make an issue of this you seem to be...
>
> >>  Given Einstein claims that light propagates
> >> at c in empty space were is the problem, that is exactly
> >> what I show.
>
> >Except you claimed it was NOT at c.  Did you forget that part?  Maybe you
> >were embarrassed by your mistake?
>
> Reads the first three words of my original post, copied in below...
>
> >>>>  I pointed out what physically happens,
>
> >>>And got it wrong
>
> >>In what sense?  Pick the one you think is right...
>
> >In the sense that you said light does NOT propagate isotropically at c
>
> I said the 'net' speed is anisotropic NOT light's speed.  Big difference.
>
> >>1.  The light from the event does not move from B to A'
> >>2.  A does not move to A' with the rod moving at v
> >>3.  The distance B to A' equals the distance A to B
>
> >You need to be consistent and explicit with your definition of A, A' and B
> >(is there no B').  You seem a bit confused in your descriptions of them
>
> Read it again, for the first time...  Then you'll know the answer...
> I'm not one bit confused, you seem to be...
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> OWLS is c, that does not mean that net OWLS is isotropic.  In fact,
> logic says it's imposssible for it to be.  Consider this, we have a
> rod d distance long with a emitter on one end and a receiver on the
> other.  We take Einstein's postulate as fact, light's speed is always
> propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
> independent of the state of motion of the emitting body.
>
> The rod is moving end on at v.
>
>   A                                  B
>   O----------------------------------O -> v
>
>  B flashes a pulse of light.  Light moves a c towards B.  A moves
> toards the pulse at v.
>
>      A'<.............................x  B'
>      O----------------------------------O -> v
>   A                                  B
>
> So, light traveled from B to A' a distance of d' = d - vdt at c.

> Certainly light 'traveled at isotropic c' but only a distance
> of d', not d.  BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming
> d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d.  The 'net'
> speed then from his perspective is d/(d'/c) which IS NOT
> isotropic (since A to B is d'' = d + vdt or d/(d''/c) or

> --------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner but I have been busy.

Looking at your setup you have observers A and B stationary and they
agree that the ends of the rod passed them at the same instant.

Observers A' and B' are riding on the ends of the rod, so B and B'
cooincided at the instant the pulse of light was emitted from B.

You wrote "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
light traveled the whole distance d." Why should he think that? A'
is somewhere between A and B so A knows that the light traveled less
than d to get to A'. If you meant to look at things from the
perspective of A', the light was emitted from B when he cooincided
with B'. B has since moved closer but the light had to have started
its trip from the location of B', not B. Also don't forget that even
in LET you will be dealing with different local times (clock sync) for
the two frames.




> >>>> B is an event.  Perception is not physical
> >>>reality.
>
> >>>Didn't say it was .. you are just trying to divert from your error
>
> >>In what sense?
>
> >By changing the subject, moron.  How do you think one diverts?  Don't answer
> >that.
>
> I have never changed the subject.  FOR's are not relevant to this issue.
>
>
>
> >>>>  I could play your silly definition games but choose not
> >>>>to.
>
> >>>If you don't use definitions, then you can't discuss physics.
>
> >>Stick to the case illustrated...
>
> >You've illustrated your misunderstandings of physics.  I'm happy to stick to
> >that if you are instead of trying to divert away from them
>
> >Perhaps you can more explicitly and consistently describe what these A, B,
> >A' and B' are and how they relate to the rod at different times and the
> >velocity v.  Then I'll point out your errors in how you described light as
> >not propagating at c.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:7345616a-c61b-4123...@y6g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
> TWLS is also distance dependent

assertion is not a valid argument. you need to cite evidence

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:327c4f15-3892-4095...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>> No .. I am measuring a speed and comparing it with a known speed. Pretty
>> simple even for you
>
>There is no known speed for OWLS. There is an assumed speed.

c is a known speed. It has a precise value. we can compare the speeds of
other things to it. It doesn't matter if c is 'assumed' or 'defined'. It
still ahs a specific well-defined value. This is not that difficult.

[Inertial]

"Bruce Richmond" wrote in message
news:5ef6a916-4bdc-4360...@da3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Which, of course, means that A, B, A' and B' are not events. There are, of
course, events when A and A' coincide, for example.

>You wrote "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
>light traveled the whole distance d." Why should he think that? A'
>is somewhere between A and B so A knows that the light traveled less
>than d to get to A'. If you meant to look at things from the
>perspective of A', the light was emitted from B when he cooincided
>with B'. B has since moved closer but the light had to have started
>its trip from the location of B', not B. Also don't forget that even
>in LET you will be dealing with different local times (clock sync) for
>the two frames.

Indeed. We are in agreement here.

[Aetherist]

On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:22:00 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 27, 3:58 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Snip for Brevity]

I'm sorry if the illustration is confusing A & B were/are in the
picture to show the displacement (vt) it is where A was when B
emitted the pulse. A' & B' are where A & B 'are' where the light
meets A at the A' position. In context of the original presentation
there is only the rod with ends designated A & B. There don't
'have' to be observers. That's why I said.:

"BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
light traveled the whole distance d."

I should have put it as:

"BUT, if 'an' observer was rod end A he has no means of

deteriming d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."

Hopefully this clarifies this.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:ga3bd7h233hivtfv4...@4ax.com...

>I'm sorry if the illustration is confusing A & B were/are in the
>picture to show the displacement (vt) it is where A was when B
>emitted the pulse. A' & B' are where A & B 'are' where the light
>meets A at the A' position. In context of the original presentation
>there is only the rod with ends designated A & B. There don't
>'have' to be observers. That's why I said.:
>
> "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
> light traveled the whole distance d."
>
>I should have put it as:
>
> "BUT, if 'an' observer was rod end A he has no means of
> deteriming d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."
>
>Hopefully this clarifies this.

It clarifies that you don't know what an event is as you claimed B was an
event and it is not in your clarified description.

And it shows I was right in asking you to clarify what your terms mean.

[Aetherist]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_%28relativity%29

"... an event indicates a physical situation or occurrence,
located at a specific point in space and time... "

Seems to me an a 'flash of light" from B at some time t is unique to a
specific point in space and time. I really do not understand you logic.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:3obbd7tct7uorbfsj...@4ax.com...

>
>On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:25:51 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>"Aetherist" wrote in message
>>news:ga3bd7h233hivtfv4...@4ax.com...
>>>I'm sorry if the illustration is confusing A & B were/are in the
>>>picture to show the displacement (vt) it is where A was when B
>>>emitted the pulse. A' & B' are where A & B 'are' where the light
>>>meets A at the A' position. In context of the original presentation
>>>there is only the rod with ends designated A & B. There don't
>>>'have' to be observers. That's why I said.:
>>>
>>> "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
>>> light traveled the whole distance d."
>>>
>>>I should have put it as:
>>>
>>> "BUT, if 'an' observer was rod end A he has no means of
>>> deteriming d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."
>>>
>>>Hopefully this clarifies this.
>>
>>It clarifies that you don't know what an event is as you claimed B was an
>>event and it is not in your clarified description.
>>
>>And it shows I was right in asking you to clarify what your terms mean.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_%28relativity%29
>
> "... an event indicates a physical situation or occurrence,
> located at a specific point in space and time... "

That's right .. but B is not a specific point in space and time. B is the
endpoint of a rod which moves.

> Seems to me an a 'flash of light" from B at some time t is unique to a
> specific point in space and time.

A pulse of light being emitted at B at a particular time is an event. But
you said B is an event. It is not.

That is why I asked you to clarify what you were saying and to be clear on
your terminology.

> I really do not understand you logic.

That you don't understand logic is very clear.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 29, 5:40 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

You have been known to try to send me to a wild goose chase. So I am
not taking your bait and waste my time. Since you have these articles
I don't see why you can't answer my questions.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 29, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:327c4f15-3892-4095...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

Sigh....you have to measure OWLS directly with your measuring system.
You can't just say that c is a known speed. Since you got a mean to
measure the one-way speed of neutrino then you should also be able to
measure the one-way speed of light directly.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:f8f360b6-3ab6-4265...@v8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 29, 8:46 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:327c4f15-3892-4095...@v5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> No .. I am measuring a speed and comparing it with a known speed.
>> >> Pretty
>> >> simple even for you
>>
>> >There is no known speed for OWLS. There is an assumed speed.
>>
>> c is a known speed. It has a precise value. we can compare the speeds
>> of
>> other things to it. It doesn't matter if c is 'assumed' or 'defined'.
>> It
>> still ahs a specific well-defined value. This is not that difficult.
>
>Sigh....you have to measure OWLS directly with your measuring system.

No .. I don't have to. We are talking about measuring neutrino speed .. not
OWLS. So i don't need to measure OWLS

> You can't just say that c is a known speed.

Yes I can. Because it is . it is a well defined known speed

> Since you got a mean to
> measure the one-way speed of neutrino then you should also be able to
> measure the one-way speed of light directly.

Indeed you can .. and just like neutrino speed it will be dependent on clock
sync. If you use the same light that you used to sync the clocks, then the
OWLS must be the same as TWLS. If not, then you might get a different value
(if OWLS were not isotropic) but all test show OWLS *is* isotropic and so be
the same as TWLS.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 30, 12:56 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:f8f360b6-3ab6-4265...@v8g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

No idiot....TWLS includes delay time at the reflecting mirror. Whereas
OWLS does not include such delay time.
The synch clock use for the one-way neutrino are deep underground so
how did they synch those two clocks using light?

[Aetherist]

I think you are just beinga argumentative. The point B is the end point
of the rod. I could have said that the flash originated from the right
end of the rod. But, that flash IS! positioned at the point where that
end of the rod was at the time, it is, and always was, an event 'at the
position B was at the time'

>> Seems to me an a 'flash of light" from B at some time t is unique to a
>> specific point in space and time.
>
>A pulse of light being emitted at B at a particular time is an event. But
>you said B is an event. It is not.

One has to wonder about your reading comprehension ability. What part of

"... at the coordinate of B"
>
in the context of a pulse (flash) of light can be mistaken for B???

>That is why I asked you to clarify what you were saying and to be clear on
>your terminology.

Which I did, and still am...

>> I really do not understand you logic.
>
>That you don't understand logic is very clear.

I'd say this thread proves the reverse, you cannot understand simply
sentence construction...

[PD]

Ken, you asked for references and I provided them to you. If you are not
prepared to look up references, for WHATEVER excuse you might fabricate,
then don't ask for references. And if you're not interested in what
experimental data exists, then don't pretend to do physics. I have NEVER
sent you on a wild goose chase. That's bullshit. What's been true is
that you have often declined to look up what I've suggested to you,
because you think it MIGHT be a wild goose chase. That's on you.

Doing library research is not a waste of any physicist's time. If you
don't want to do library research, then you cannot be effective as a
physicist. Sorry, that's a requirement.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 28, 12:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 11/27/2011 1:24 PM, seto...@att.net wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 25, 8:22 pm, "Inertial"<relativ...@rest.com>  wrote:
> >> wrote in messagenews:052a06f8-81ae-4ca1...@r28g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Question: If they can measure the one-way speed of neutrino why can't
> >>> they measure the one-way speed of light using the same procedure (the
> >>> same set of synchronized clocks)??
>
> >> Because light is used to synchronise the clocks.  But once synchronised you
> >> can see if something else is faster or slower.  Including testing OTHER EMR
> >> to see if they are also c.
>
> > So why don't they use the same procedures to synch the two clocks for
> > the direcxt OWLS measurement?
>
> Because it is a stupid and incompetent experimental approach to use the
> signal you're trying to measure as a calibration signal.
>

Actually this isn't as stupid as it first sounds. The clocks in the
experiment weren't synced by sending signals directly back and forth.
As I understand it the proceedure involved a pulse emitted by a GPS
satelite somewher between them. Why not use the same proceedure to
sync two clocks that can be checked by sending line of sight signals?

[snip]

[Bruce Richmond]

Correct, and if you notice I called them observers, not events.

> >You wrote "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
> >light traveled the whole distance d."  Why should he think that?  A'
> >is somewhere between A and B so A knows that the light traveled less
> >than d to get to A'.  If you meant to look at things from the
> >perspective of A', the light was emitted from B when he cooincided
> >with B'.  B has since moved closer but the light had to have started
> >its trip from the location of B', not B.  Also don't forget that even
> >in LET you will be dealing with different local times (clock sync) for
> >the two frames.
>

> Indeed.  We are in agreement here.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

We are in agreement on most things, except when you're wrong ;-) Just
kidding.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:j03dd7527hj5o12t4...@4ax.com...

>
>On Thu, 1 Dec 2011 00:35:19 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:
>
>>That's right .. but B is not a specific point in space and time. B is the
>>endpoint of a rod which moves.
>
> I think you are just beinga argumentative. The point B is the end point
> of the rod.

No .. just need to know what you mean

A and B and A' and B' could be events that correspond to the rod position at
two different times
OR A and B could correspond to the ends of the rods (not events) and they
move so at a given time they are at A' and B'
They are quite different ideas and what you wrote was confused between those
notions

I think you would be better off with A and B being the rod end points. A1,
B1 and A2, B2 being events where that rod is at two times. A1,B1 being
where it is when flash is emitted from B and A2,B2 being where it is when
flash arrives at A

>Light is emitted at I could have said that the flash originated from the

>right
>end of the rod. But, that flash IS! positioned at the point where that
>end of the rod was at the time, it is, and always was, an event 'at the
>position B was at the time'

I know .. but that's not what you were saying .. in part of your desc B was
an event, in others a location on a rod. Very confused

As above..

I think you would be better off with A and B being the rod end points. A1,
B1 and A2, B2 being events where that rod is at two times. A1,B1 being
where it is when flash is emitted from B and A2,B2 being where it is when
flash arrives at A

>>> Seems to me an a 'flash of light" from B at some time t is unique to a
>>> specific point in space and time.
>>
>>A pulse of light being emitted at B at a particular time is an event. But
>>you said B is an event. It is not.
>
>One has to wonder about your reading comprehension ability.

Its your ability to express yourself clearly that is the problem

> What part of
>
> "... at the coordinate of B"
>
> in the context of a pulse (flash) of light can be mistaken for B???

You said B was an event and argued strongly that it was, even though it
wasn't in you initial description. That showed you were confused.

I am trying to get your example well written and consistent so we can look
at it without any possible confusion

If you don't want to do that .. then why both posting?

>>That is why I asked you to clarify what you were saying and to be clear on
>>your terminology.
>
>Which I did, and still am...
>
>>> I really do not understand you logic.
>>
>>That you don't understand logic is very clear.
>
>I'd say this thread proves the reverse, you cannot understand simply
>sentence construction...

I can .. but you were not consistent in your description

As above..

I think you would be better off with A and B being the rod end points. A1,
B1 and A2, B2 being events where that rod is at two times. A1,B1 being
where it is when flash is emitted from B and A2,B2 being where it is when
flash arrives at A

How about you start with that .. where endpoint and events are clearly
demarcated and then explain what your point is.

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:c46c0f75-4d45-4503...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

> No idiot....TWLS includes delay time at the reflecting mirror.

That is factored into the calculations and error bars.

> Whereas
> OWLS does not include such delay time.

But it depends on clock sync, so it is nowhere near as accurate

>The synch clock use for the one-way neutrino are deep underground so
>how did they synch those two clocks using light?

Ask them if you are concerned. There are other known-speed signals that can
be used, btw. Regardless .. the result one gets depends on the clock sync.
If clock sync is wrong, then result is wrong. The error bars for the
experiment would have to take into account any imperfection in clock sync.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Nov 29, 9:04 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >the two frames.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Usually you have observers associated with events. In fact you even
wrote "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming". And observers
usually have clocks with them to record the time coordinate of events
that happen at their location. Specifying the observer tells us the
space coordinates of the event since the observer is at a fixed point
in the coordinate system of his rest frame.

You say the rod is moving at v, but A has no reason to believe he and
B are moving. Even if you put stationary observers in A has no reason
to consider himself to be moving. It is those other observers that
are moving. As for how far the light traveled, in the coordinate
system of the rod it traveled at c from B to A. In the coordinates of
you stationary system it traveled at c for the shorter distance d'.
Keep in mind that each frame uses its own set of clocks to measure the
travel time, and the two frames do not agree on that either. That is
how they both measure light to travel at c.

[Inertial]

"Bruce Richmond" wrote in message

news:3876c1f0-4dc2-4854...@t16g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

>We are in agreement on most things, except when you're wrong ;-) Just
>kidding.

:) :)

[Aetherist]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 17:02:15 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr...@my-deja.com> wrote:

>On Nov 29, 9:04 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 17:22:00 -0800 (PST), Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sorry if the illustration is confusing A & B were/are in the
>> picture to show the displacement (vt) it is where A was when B
>> emitted the pulse.  A' & B' are where A & B 'are' where the light
>> meets A at the A' position.  In context of the original presentation
>> there is only the rod with ends designated A & B.  There don't
>> 'have' to be observers.  That's why I said.:
>>
>>     "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming d' he thinks
>>      light traveled the whole distance d."
>>
>> I should have put it as:
>>
>>     "BUT, if 'an' observer was rod end A he has no means of
>>      deteriming d' he thinks light traveled the whole distance d."
>>
>> Hopefully this clarifies this.
>>

>Usually you have observers associated with events. In fact you even
>wrote "BUT, if observer A has no means of deteriming". And observers
>usually have clocks with them to record the time coordinate of events
>that happen at their location. Specifying the observer tells us the
>space coordinates of the event since the observer is at a fixed point
>in the coordinate system of his rest frame.
>
>You say the rod is moving at v, but A has no reason to believe he and
>B are moving. Even if you put stationary observers in A has no reason
>to consider himself to be moving. It is those other observers that
>are moving. As for how far the light traveled, in the coordinate
>system of the rod it traveled at c from B to A. In the coordinates of
>you stationary system it traveled at c for the shorter distance d'.
>Keep in mind that each frame uses its own set of clocks to measure the
>travel time, and the two frames do not agree on that either. That is
>how they both measure light to travel at c.

Yes, indeed I do say the rod is moving. As you say, I also say that 'an
observer' at A (the left end of the rod) IF! there was one, would not
know it. The observer is ancillary to the point. This IS NOT! a
philosophical debate of SR v LET but what is actually physically
happening given BOTH Einstein's assumptions and Faraday/Maxwell's
model. I am glad to see that progress is being made herein and even
Tom Roberts has now acknowledged that, while convient to us, nature
itself DOE NOT HAVE 'frames' of reference. I am soooo tired of dealing
minutia at the expense of getting to the real issues.

[Aetherist]

If that floats your boat, fine. The whole point was that a pulse
of light moving 'at c' physically travels distance ct, period.
Thus anything moving wrt the source 'point' affects a 'physical'
change in said light actul travel distance. If the movement is
towards the source then d = (c - v)t and if away it d = (c + v)t.
Since c = d/t the 'net speed in these cases are clearly NOT!
isotropic or c itself. HOWEVER!!! if one does not know anything
about said movement and ASSUMES!!! that the distance is some fixed
value based upon a measurement taken from a co-moving position then
'they' will nievely conclude that c 'appears' invariant.

[set...@att.net]

On Nov 30, 7:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> wrote in messagenews:c46c0f75-4d45-4503...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

No if you use the same procedure to synch the two clocks to measure
the one-way speed of neutrino and OWLS then you have a valid
comparison between the two speed measurements.

[Inertial]

"Aetherist" wrote in message
news:pu4fd75plntcf6ook...@4ax.com...

And you now go on to completely ignore it .. gees

> The whole point was that a pulse
> of light moving 'at c' physically travels distance ct, period.

Distance and time are frame dependent notions though. But it does travel
some interval from source to destination, yes

> Thus anything moving wrt the source 'point' affects a 'physical'
> change in said light actul travel distance.

Only if that 'anything' if the destination for the light .. other things
moving don't make a different unless they get in the way

> If the movement is
> towards the source then d = (c - v)t

So is that the distance of the object from the source when the light pulse
reaches where the object WAS when the pulse was emitted? Or do you have
some different interpretation for what d is ? You haven't said really what
it means at all.

> and if away it d = (c + v)t.
>
> Since c = d/t the 'net speed

Seeing you've not said what distance d describes here, so I don't know what
speed or rate you are measuring. Nor have you defined what you mean by a
'net speed'.

> in these cases are clearly NOT!
> isotropic or c itself.

I have no idea what it is you are talking about .. so nothing really is
clear yet.

But the speed of light is always c and always isotropic. If you are talking
about closing speeds (or opening speeds) then they are not c, and are frame
dependent values. Regardless .. the speed of light is c. That some other
object is moving as well does not change the speed of light, and the rate of
change of distance between the moving object and the light pulse certainly
is not the same notion as the speed of light, and is certainly not supposed
to be c.

> HOWEVER!!! if one does not know anything
>about said movement and ASSUMES!!! that the distance is some fixed
>value based upon a measurement taken from a co-moving position then
>'they' will nievely conclude that c 'appears' invariant.

Its nothing about assumptions .. its about measurement .. and about what the
speed of light actually is .. which is c

[Inertial]

wrote in message
news:f6da1ee4-781a-4253...@q30g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

>
>On Nov 30, 7:41 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> wrote in
>> messagenews:c46c0f75-4d45-4503...@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > No idiot....TWLS includes delay time at the reflecting mirror.
>>
>> That is factored into the calculations and error bars.
>>
>> > Whereas
>> > OWLS does not include such delay time.
>>
>> But it depends on clock sync, so it is nowhere near as accurate
>>
>> >The synch clock use for the one-way neutrino are deep underground so
>> >how did they synch those two clocks using light?
>>
>> Ask them if you are concerned. There are other known-speed signals that
>> can
>> be used, btw. Regardless .. the result one gets depends on the clock
>> sync.
>> If clock sync is wrong, then result is wrong. The error bars for the
>> experiment would have to take into account any imperfection in clock
>> sync.
>
>No

Its not no

> if you use the same procedure to synch the two clocks to measure
> the one-way speed of neutrino and OWLS then you have a valid
> comparison between the two speed measurements.

Indeed you could. If the clock sync is correct (ie esync), you must get c
for OWLS. If you don't then the sync is not correct.

Also note that such measurements have been done in the past.

Also not that the value you get for the speeds depends on the clock sync ..
both for the neutrino speed and OWLS.

[Aetherist]

On Fri, 2 Dec 2011 03:12:00 +1100, "Inertial" <relat...@rest.com> wrote:

>"Aetherist" wrote in message

>news:pu4fd75plntcf6ook...@4ax.com...

>>
>>>How about you start with that .. where endpoint and events are clearly
>>>demarcated and then explain what your point is.
>>
>> If that floats your boat, fine.
>
>And you now go on to completely ignore it .. gees

IT IS NOT IMPORTANT TO THE POINT!

>> The whole point was that a pulse of light moving 'at c' physically
>> travels distance ct, period.
>
>Distance and time are frame dependent notions though. But it does travel
>some interval from source to destination, yes

Yes, at speed c, which is set by u & z at that local.

Our definitions OF time and length is, but it not for nature. There are
no rulers & clocks in nature. As for local values, Lorentz's system tied
to the CMBR background is just as valid as SR's. THAT IS NOT! the point.

>> Thus anything moving wrt the source 'point' affects a 'physical'
>> change in said light actul travel distance.
>
>Only if that 'anything' if the destination for the light .. other things
>moving don't make a different unless they get in the way

I 'could' get pedantic and say the sphere of light expands to
infinity but, again, not the point.

>> If the movement is towards the source then d = (c - v)t
>
>So is that the distance of the object from the source when the light pulse
>reaches where the object WAS when the pulse was emitted? Or do you have
>some different interpretation for what d is ? You haven't said really what
>it means at all.

Time t is the transit time from source to target.

>> and if away it d = (c + v)t.
>>
>> Since c = d/t the 'net speed
>
>Seeing you've not said what distance d describes here, so I don't know what
>speed or rate you are measuring. Nor have you defined what you mean by a
>'net speed'.

Ah Come'on why are you being ascine? I just said d will either be (c - v)t,
(c + v)t, OR! if v = 0, ct.

>> in these cases are clearly NOT! isotropic or c itself.
>
>I have no idea what it is you are talking about .. so nothing really is
>clear yet.
>
>But the speed of light is always c and always isotropic.

I agree...

>If you are talking about closing speeds (or opening speeds) then they are not
>c, and are frame dependent values. Regardless .. the speed of light is c.
>That some other object is moving as well does not change the speed of light,
>and the rate of change of distance between the moving object and the light
>pulse certainly is not the same notion as the speed of light, and is certainly
>not supposed to be c.

YES! the net speed IS the opening/closing speed.

>
>> HOWEVER!!! if one does not know anything
>>about said movement and ASSUMES!!! that the distance is some fixed
>>value based upon a measurement taken from a co-moving position then
>>'they' will nievely conclude that c 'appears' invariant.
>
>Its nothing about assumptions .. its about measurement .. and about what the
>speed of light actually is .. which is c

No, sadly, it is not just about measurement. It should be all about
understanding the actual physical processes.

[Bruce Richmond]

On Dec 1, 9:48 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

Moving relative to what? If this was your way of saying "moving
relative to the aether and we have no idea of what velocity v is I can
buy that.

> As you say, I also say that 'an
> observer' at A (the left end of the rod) IF! there was one, would not
> know it.

I can buy that too, since there are no identifying points in the
aether to allow you to determine your velocity relative to it.

> The observer is ancillary to the point.  This IS NOT! a
> philosophical debate of SR v LET but what is actually physically
> happening given BOTH Einstein's assumptions and Faraday/Maxwell's
> model.

OK

> I am glad to see that progress is being made herein and even
> Tom Roberts has now acknowledged that, while convient to us, nature
> itself DOE NOT HAVE 'frames' of reference. I am soooo tired of dealing

> minutia at the expense of getting to the real issues.- Hide quoted text -

[mpc755]

On Dec 1, 9:48 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:

Einstein's original, correct, assumption was the aether has mass.

"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf

"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

The above more correctly stated as the following.

The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely
proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html

"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
disregarding the causes which condition its state."

The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
state of displacement of the aether.

> I am glad to see that progress is being made herein and even
> Tom Roberts has now acknowledged that, while convient to us, nature
> itself DOE NOT HAVE 'frames' of reference. I am soooo tired of dealing
> minutia at the expense of getting to the real issues.

Now, if you could get Tom to realize geometry is mathematics and
mathematics are used to represent what occurs physically in nature and
does not cause what occurs physically in nature then we would be
getting somewhere.

[Aetherist]

Aether consists of energetic 'entities', thus has momentum.
If the RMS is c then:

m = p/c

so, each has a computed or derived 'mass'. A photon also
has a 'derived mass' but no 'rest mass'. Just like this
the aetheron cannot be stopped it too has, 'by definition'
no 'rest mass'...

>"Einstein's 'First Paper'"
>http://www.worldscibooks.com/etextbook/4454/4454_chap1.pdf
>
>"The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
>elastic forces which cause [its] propagation, and inversely
>proportional to the mass of the aether moved by these forces."

Why the heck do you think this is something Einstein thought
up? It was quantified long before this. Hell Maxwell used
it in his 1861 work. And, BTW it NOT! mass its density, that
is,

c^2 = M/z

Where M is your elastic 'modulus' and z the density...

>The above more correctly stated as the following.
>
>The velocity of a wave is proportional to the square root of the
>elastic forces which cause its propagation, and inversely
>proportional to the mass of the aether displaced by these forces.

In your 'dreams'...

>Ether and the Theory of Relativity - Albert Einstein'
>http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
>
>"the state of the [ether] is at every place determined by connections
>with the matter and the state of the ether in neighbouring places, ...
>disregarding the causes which condition its state."
>
>The state of the aether at every place determined by connections with
>the matter and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the
>state of displacement of the aether.

Yes, because matter is nothing but artifacts made up of aether aether...

>> I am glad to see that progress is being made herein and even
>> Tom Roberts has now acknowledged that, while convient to us, nature
>> itself DOE NOT HAVE 'frames' of reference. I am soooo tired of dealing
>> minutia at the expense of getting to the real issues.
>
>Now, if you could get Tom to realize geometry is mathematics and
>mathematics are used to represent what occurs physically in nature and
>does not cause what occurs physically in nature then we would be
>getting somewhere.

Good luck with that. For his ilk the equation dictates how nature
behaves rather than the reverse, a.k.a. behavior dictates the form
of the equations. Form follows from function.

[mpc755]

I am soooo tired of dealing with those incapable of understanding if
aether physically occupies three dimensional space, which it does,
then it is physically displaced by matter. I am soooo tired of dealing