Speed of light

[Razia]

Why is the speed of light constant?
All experiments show that the velocity of light
has the same value for all observers,
even if they are moving with respect to each other
or with respect to the light source.
Why is it so?

[Tyler Dresden]

http://books.google.com/books?id=RUDTFBbb7jAC&lpg=PA274&ots=n-t_h8l8C1&dq=%22sound%20energy%20density%22%20%2C%20%22per%20cubic%20centimeter%22&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=%22sound%20energy%20density%22%20,%20%22per%20cubic%20centimeter%22&f=false

[Androcles]

"Razia" wrote in message
news:afdfd188-a1b6-4603...@googlegroups.com...

===============================================
Because idiots don't understand Doppler or mathematics
and believe the idiot Einstein's magic, that's why.
The speed of light is measurable by its Doppler shift and
it is NOT constant, it varies with the relative speed of the
source. Usually the source's speed is only a tiny fraction
of the speed of the light it emits, so it is barely noticable.
Similarly, the speed of sound varies with the speed of the
listener moving through air, and varies with the speed of the
wind as the wind howling through the eaves clearly
demonstrates.

[kunz]

Because light propagates without a medium in empty space. As soon as
light leaves its source it is alone in vacuum and lost all information
about the relative speed between source and observer.

Anybody measuring the speed of light in vacuum sees the same generic
process of light propagating in empty space. A moving vacuum is the same
as 'vacuum at rest'. The rest of physics (and your intuition) have to
adapt to this fact.

The only thing that can be different about the process of light
propagation in emtpy space is frequency or wavelength.

[Big Dog]

The first hurdle is to acknowledge that it is so, and it appears you are
clearing that hurdle. Some people say, I don't understand how it can be
that way, and so I don't believe it is that way.

The second hurdle is to identify EXACTLY why it is that you find it
surprising. From the tone of your question, I am guessing -- just
guessing -- that you would expect the measured speed of light to be
something like c+v or c-v depending on the v between the source and
observer. This allows you to identify the assumption that makes the
result surprising -- here the assumption would be that velocities just
add with a simple sum. Once you have that assumption identified, then
you can ask, why do I believe that velocities should just simply add?
This is really the crux of the matter, because it turns out that
velocities do not add with a simple sum.

Really take the time to inspect your thinking here. If you believe you
have an argument why velocities should just add with a simple sum, then
try to formulate that argument. That's where you can find the parts that
are weak. It isn't enough to say, "because that's the intuitive answer".
No, it's only intuitive because it appears to work. But there are lots
of cases where an *approximation* works pretty well, and so BECOMES
intuitive through long-standing use of the rule of thumb. But
approximations are only approximations, and it really doesn't matter how
long you've used that approximation successfully and how intuitive it
has become to use that coarse rule of thumb. If the *real* answer is
different than the approximation, then the intuitiveness associated with
habit is not really a sound indicator of truth.

It's pretty easy to show that the real answer for how velocities combine
is by a rule like this:
v' = (v+u)/(1+(u/c)(v/c))
That is, if you've got something that is traveling at v with respect to
some source, and the observer is moving at u with respect to the source,
then v' is how fast it will be moving as seen by the observer.
Once you have this in place, you can then ask how this works for light.
In this case, v=c and you can just plug in to see what v' will be for
that light:
v' = (c+u)/(1+(u/c)(c/c)) = (c+u)/(1+(u/c)) = c (c+u)/(c+u) = c
And so here you can see that even though the observer is moving at u
with respect to the source, the speed of that light as seen by the
observer will STILL be c!

Now the next question you should ask is, why is the rule for the
velocities what it is?

[Poutnik]

Possibly
Razia posted Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:57:58 -0700 (PDT)

>
> Why is the speed of light constant?

If it were not, wouldn't you ask why it is NOT constant ?

> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

Because all inertial frames follow the same rules.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Possibly
Androcles posted Thu, 12 Jul 2012 12:33:52 +0100

Once you have claimed you stick with observations,
not being interested in weird theories.

Why than not now ?

And, how can you compare it to speed of sound,
with influence of relative motion of source and observer
wrt sound transferring medium ?

--
Poutnik

[Androcles]

"kunz" wrote in message news:jtmfbf$9ur$1...@dont-email.me...

Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

Because light propagates without a medium in empty space. As soon as
light leaves its source it is alone in vacuum and lost all information
about the relative speed between source and observer.

===================================================

Bullets propagate without a medium in empty space. As soon as
a bullet leaves its gun it is alone in vacuum and lost all information
about the relative speed between gun and target, and if you believe
that I've got a tower in Paris I'll sell you at a knock down price, you
babbling idiot.

[dlzc]

Dear Razia:

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 2:57:58 AM UTC-7, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?

Science cannot answer "why" questions.

An aetherist will point out that you and your rulers are the size they are, because of c-moderated forces. If you move in one direction or other, the 2-way speed of light must always measure c, even in that direction.

> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,

Velocity, no. Speed, yes. Please use the correct terminology.

> even if they are moving with respect to each
> other or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

Because Nature says so.

David A. Smith

[Poutnik]

Possibly
Androcles posted Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:50:01 +0100

Bullet does not manifest behavior
moving by same speed wrt to all who would observe it.

OTOH light speed constancy is measured with such a precission,
that even meter was redefined because of that,
as major error was caused by inaccuracy of meter definition.

Stick with observations.

--
Poutnik

[kunz]

Androcles wrote:
> Bullets propagate without a medium in empty space. As soon as a bullet
> leaves its gun it is alone in vacuum and lost all information about the
> relative speed between gun and target, and if you believe
> that I've got a tower in Paris I'll sell you at a knock down price, you
> babbling idiot.

The crucial difference is that light is not matter, but a wave. Whenever
there is an electromagnetic wave in vacuum, you will find that it
propagates with a definite speed.

There is only one kind of electromagnetic wave in vacuum. Whether it is
generated in a lab by moving charges or coming out of the night sky it
is the same physical process.

In other words, you can replace a wave caught from a fast moving stellar
object by a one locally generated with the same frequency and it is the
same thing.

[Androcles]

"kunz" wrote in message news:jtmn4j$md8$1...@dont-email.me...

Androcles wrote:
> Bullets propagate without a medium in empty space. As soon as a bullet
> leaves its gun it is alone in vacuum and lost all information about the
> relative speed between gun and target, and if you believe
> that I've got a tower in Paris I'll sell you at a knock down price, you
> babbling idiot.

The crucial difference is that light is not matter, but a wave.

=========================================================
Rubbish, light is a photon stream and it takes a bit over a second to
reach the Moon, 1.25 hours to reach Saturn in all frames of reference.
Bullets wave when they rotate, look down a rifle barrel; seen sideways
on it's a wave. The crucial difference is there is no difference.

[kunz]

Androcles wrote:
> Rubbish, light is a photon stream and it takes a bit over a second to
> reach the Moon, 1.25 hours to reach Saturn in all frames of reference.
> Bullets wave when they rotate, look down a rifle barrel; seen sideways
> on it's a wave. The crucial difference is there is no difference.

You can create a bullet in empty space with different speeds. The speed
of a light wave is determined by how fast a change in the electric field
generates a change in the magnetic field and vice versa. In empty space
the scenario for this is always the same.

[Androcles]

"kunz" wrote in message news:jtmq13$ad5$1...@dont-email.me...

==================================================
The question was :

> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

The answer you gave is false, as is the assumption in the question.
The speed of light is NOT the same for all observers as Doppler shift
clearly shows, or else police radar guns wouldn't work.
The speed of the outgoing signal c minus the speed of the return
signal c+v gives the speed of the car v and a speeding ticket to the
driver, and it doesn't need any vacuum anymore than a bullet does,
either.

[Poutnik]

Androcles posted Thu, 12 Jul 2012 16:52:26 +0100

> The question was :
> > Why is the speed of light constant?
> > All experiments show that the velocity of light
> > has the same value for all observers,
> > even if they are moving with respect to each other
> > or with respect to the light source.
> > Why is it so?
>
> The answer you gave is false, as is the assumption in the question.
> The speed of light is NOT the same for all observers as Doppler shift
> clearly shows, or else police radar guns wouldn't work.

It just shows your misunderstanding of light propagation.

Light Doppler effect is not the same as medium wave Doppler effect.

E.g. take asymmetrical effect concerning
relative movement of source and detector wrt to medium.

If source is moving wrt medium and observer doesnt,
incoming sound wave has changed frequency and wavelength,
with speed constant.

If observer is moving wrt medium and source doesnt,
incoming sound wave has changed speed and frequency,
with wavelength constant.

At light you observer the former, but never the latter.

> The speed of the outgoing signal c minus the speed of the return
> signal c+v gives the speed of the car v and a speeding ticket to the
> driver, and it doesn't need any vacuum anymore than a bullet does,
> either.

Even particles going by 0.99x c speed
are not able to produce photons faster than c.
That is measured.

--
Poutnik

[Razia]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 6:32:53 PM UTC+5:30, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/12/2012 4:57 AM, Razia wrote:

> > Why is the speed of light constant?
> > All experiments show that the velocity of light
> > has the same value for all observers,
> > even if they are moving with respect to each other
> > or with respect to the light source.
> > Why is it so?
> >

>
> The first hurdle is to acknowledge that it is so, and it appears you are

> clearing that hurdle. Some people say, I don't understand how it can be
> that way, and so I don't believe it is that way.

>
> The second hurdle is to identify EXACTLY why it is that you find it
> surprising. From the tone of your question, I am guessing -- just
> guessing -- that you would expect the measured speed of light to be
> something like c+v or c-v depending on the v between the source and
> observer. This allows you to identify the assumption that makes the
> result surprising -- here the assumption would be that velocities just
> add with a simple sum. Once you have that assumption identified, then
> you can ask, why do I believe that velocities should just simply add?
> This is really the crux of the matter, because it turns out that
> velocities do not add with a simple sum.
>
> Really take the time to inspect your thinking here. If you believe you
> have an argument why velocities should just add with a simple sum, then

> try to formulate that argument. That's where you can find the parts that
> are weak. It isn't enough to say, "because that's the intuitive answer".
> No, it's only intuitive because it appears to work. But there are lots

> of cases where an *approximation* works pretty well, and so BECOMES
> intuitive through long-standing use of the rule of thumb. But

> approximations are only approximations, and it really doesn't matter how
> long you've used that approximation successfully and how intuitive it

> has become to use that coarse rule of thumb. If the *real* answer is
> different than the approximation, then the intuitiveness associated with
> habit is not really a sound indicator of truth.
>

> It's pretty easy to show that the real answer for how velocities combine

> is by a rule like this:

> v' = (v+u)/(1+(u/c)(v/c))
> That is, if you've got something that is traveling at v with respect to

> some source, and the observer is moving at u with respect to the source,

> then v' is how fast it will be moving as seen by the observer.

> Once you have this in place, you can then ask how this works for light.

> In this case, v=c and you can just plug in to see what v' will be for
> that light:
> v' = (c+u)/(1+(u/c)(c/c)) = (c+u)/(1+(u/c)) = c (c+u)/(c+u) = c

> And so here you can see that even though the observer is moving at u
> with respect to the source, the speed of that light as seen by the
> observer will STILL be c!
>
> Now the next question you should ask is, why is the rule for the
> velocities what it is?

Thank you very much. I came across VSL concept and in wiki it says

"The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light
in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant in most cases."

"The photon, the particle of light which mediates the
electromagnetic force is believed to be massless.
The so-called Proca action describes a theory of a massive photon.
Classically, it is possible to have a photon which is extremely light
but nonetheless has a tiny mass, like the neutrino."

This gives a provision for the velocities to add up doesn't it?

"These photons would propagate at less than the speed of light
defined by special relativity and have three directions of polarization.
However, in quantum field theory, the photon mass is not consistent
with gauge invariance or renormalizability and so is usually ignored.
However, a quantum theory of the massive photon can be considered
in the Wilsonian effective field theory approach to quantum field theory,
where, depending on whether the photon mass is generated by a
Higgs mechanism or is inserted in an ad hoc way in the
Proca Lagrangian, the limits implied by various
observations/experiments may be different."

"So therefore, the speed of light is not constant."

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

[Razia]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:03:52 PM UTC+5:30, Androcles wrote:
> "Razia" wrote in message

> news:afdfd188-a1b6-4603...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?
>
> ===============================================

> Because idiots don't understand Doppler or mathematics
> and believe the idiot Einstein's magic, that's why.

> The speed of light is measurable by its Doppler shift and
> it is NOT constant, it varies with the relative speed of the

> source. Usually the source's speed is only a tiny fraction

> of the speed of the light it emits, so it is barely noticable.
> Similarly, the speed of sound varies with the speed of the
> listener moving through air, and varies with the speed of the
> wind as the wind howling through the eaves clearly
> demonstrates.

Are you referring to VSL theory here?
Alexander Unzicker (2007).
"The VSL Discussion: What Does Variable Speed of Light Mean
and Should we be Allowed to Think About ?"


On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:03:52 PM UTC+5:30, Androcles wrote:
> "Razia" wrote in message

> news:afdfd188-a1b6-4603...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?
>
> ===============================================

> Because idiots don't understand Doppler or mathematics
> and believe the idiot Einstein's magic, that's why.

> The speed of light is measurable by its Doppler shift and
> it is NOT constant, it varies with the relative speed of the

> source. Usually the source's speed is only a tiny fraction

> of the speed of the light it emits, so it is barely noticable.
> Similarly, the speed of sound varies with the speed of the
> listener moving through air, and varies with the speed of the
> wind as the wind howling through the eaves clearly
> demonstrates.

When you say speed of light is NOT constant
Are you referring to VSL?
I came across this article few years back
not sure whats the latest on this..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html?full=true

"A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's
theory of relativity, and would undermine
much of traditional physics.
But some physicists believe it would
elegantly explain puzzling
cosmological phenomena such as the nearly
uniform temperature of the universe.
It might also support string theories
that predict extra spatial dimensions."

[Yousuf Khan]

I used to wonder about this at one time too, and until recently I didn't
really receive a satisfactory answer as to why 186,282 miles/sec or
299,792 km/s is supposed to be such a magic number.

Then I learned about Natural Units, or Planck Units. The Planck units
are supposed to be the most fundamental units in the universe. The
Planck Length (1.616×10^-35 meters) is the smallest unit of length
possible in the universe, while the Planck Time (5.391×10^-44 seconds)
is the smallest unit of time. The interpretation of these Planck units
is that these are the smallest grains of length and time available in
the universe, and that the universe isn't fundamentally continuous but
discrete. When you convert the speed of light into Planck units, you
find that it becomes simply 1 (i.e. 1 Planck Length divided by 1 Planck
Time). The speed of light being 1 makes more sense as to why it would be
a fundamental constant, when looked at in Natural Units.

Yousuf Khan

[Androcles]

"Razia" wrote in message
news:d3821e05-2784-4d1a...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:03:52 PM UTC+5:30, Androcles wrote:
> "Razia" wrote in message
> news:afdfd188-a1b6-4603...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?
>
> ===============================================
> Because idiots don't understand Doppler or mathematics
> and believe the idiot Einstein's magic, that's why.
> The speed of light is measurable by its Doppler shift and
> it is NOT constant, it varies with the relative speed of the
> source. Usually the source's speed is only a tiny fraction
> of the speed of the light it emits, so it is barely noticable.
> Similarly, the speed of sound varies with the speed of the
> listener moving through air, and varies with the speed of the
> wind as the wind howling through the eaves clearly
> demonstrates.

Are you referring to VSL theory here?
Alexander Unzicker (2007).
"The VSL Discussion: What Does Variable Speed of Light Mean
and Should we be Allowed to Think About ?"

======================================================

No, I'm talking about observation, I don't deal in crackpot theories.
If a source of light moves in a circle and it is far enough enough away,
what happens to its light which leaves it at c? If you don't know, look
up at the stars.

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:03:52 PM UTC+5:30, Androcles wrote:
> "Razia" wrote in message
> news:afdfd188-a1b6-4603...@googlegroups.com...
>
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?
>
> ===============================================
> Because idiots don't understand Doppler or mathematics
> and believe the idiot Einstein's magic, that's why.
> The speed of light is measurable by its Doppler shift and
> it is NOT constant, it varies with the relative speed of the
> source. Usually the source's speed is only a tiny fraction
> of the speed of the light it emits, so it is barely noticable.
> Similarly, the speed of sound varies with the speed of the
> listener moving through air, and varies with the speed of the
> wind as the wind howling through the eaves clearly
> demonstrates.

When you say speed of light is NOT constant
Are you referring to VSL?

==========================================
No, I'm talking about observation, I don't deal in crackpot theories.
If a source of light moves in a circle and it is far enough enough away,
what happens to its light which leaves it at c? If you don't know, look
up at the stars.

I came across this article few years back
not sure whats the latest on this..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6092-speed-of-light-may-have-changed-recently.html?full=true

"A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's
theory of relativity,

==========================================
Good, it's a load of mumbo-jumbo and should contradicted.

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Don't say he didn't, either.

[Androcles]

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message news:4fff174a$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...

======================================================
Funny it has a full range of frequencies in a continuous spectrum.

[dlzc]

Dear Razia:

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:48:13 AM UTC-7, Razia wrote:
...

> Thank you very much. I came across VSL concept
> and in wiki it says
>
> "The variable speed of light (VSL) concept
> states that the speed of light in a vacuum,
> usually denoted by c, may not be constant in
> most cases."

The maximum possible rest mass of a visible light photon is 18 orders of magnitude smaller than its energy (we looked). A photon with *any* rest mass, violates conservation of charge.

We need to keep looking, but theories that depend on VSL in the currently visible Universe are simply wasted sperm.... a masturbatory exercise.

David A. Smith

[shuba]

Razia wrote:

[quoting from Wikipedia]

> "The photon, the particle of light which mediates the
> electromagnetic force is believed to be massless.
> The so-called Proca action describes a theory of a massive photon.
> Classically, it is possible to have a photon which is extremely light
> but nonetheless has a tiny mass, like the neutrino."

> This gives a provision for the velocities to add up doesn't it?

No. The composition of velocities (often somewhat inappropriately
named the "addition of velocities") is a feature of the geometry of
flat spacetime. It applies to all classical particles, massive or
not. If you click on the link to 'Proca action' you will see it is
defined in Minkowski spacetime.

I'm afraid you are doing little but spinning your wheels, Razia,
and there is minimal chance you will understand modern relativity
with your current approach. You *must* come to grips with the
basics before you delve into ideas like the Proca lagrangian.


---Tim Shuba---

[Big Dog]

On 7/12/2012 12:48 PM, Razia wrote:

>
> Thank you very much. I came across VSL concept and in wiki it says
>
> "The variable speed of light (VSL) concept states that the speed of light
> in a vacuum, usually denoted by c, may not be constant in most cases."
>
> "The photon, the particle of light which mediates the
> electromagnetic force is believed to be massless.
> The so-called Proca action describes a theory of a massive photon.
> Classically, it is possible to have a photon which is extremely light
> but nonetheless has a tiny mass, like the neutrino."
>
> This gives a provision for the velocities to add up doesn't it?

No, not really.

The velocity rule comes from the structure of space and time, which is
not something I've discussed with you at this point. This structure says
that ANYTHING MASSLESS will travel with a speed equal to the natural
speed limit and this will be the same for any source, regardless of
relative motion between source and observer.

The Proca action simply contemplates the possibility that light isn't
one of those massless things. If this turns out to be true, then light's
speed would be observer dependent. BUT the dependency would STILL follow
the rule I described to you. In fact, everything does, massless or not.
Remember that rule is
v' = (v+u)/(1+(u/c)(v/c)).
It's pretty easy to show that if you're talking about things with mass,
then v is going to be less than c, and then v' will be different than v.
But for things without mass, v = c and then you find that this SAME rule
tells you that v'=c too.

Again, it's not LIGHT that drives this, it's the rule for velocity
addition. Even if light were not massless, this velocity addition rule
would still apply -- but the result would be that the speed of light
would be slightly different for different observers.

It just so happens, though, that every stick of experimental evidence we
have says that light has no measurable mass, and then completely
consistent with this velocity addition rule one expects that light's
speed is measurably the same for all observers -- which is what we also
observe.

I want to underscore this point: There is no saving the simple sum rule
for velocities. We know from measuring the speed of lots of things (not
just light) that the simple sum rule just does not work.

[Tyler Dresden]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:05:59 AM UTC-5, Tyler Dresden wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 4:57:58 AM UTC-5, Razia wrote:

> > Why is the speed of light constant?
> > All experiments show that the velocity of light
> > has the same value for all observers,
> > even if they are moving with respect to each other
> > or with respect to the light source.
> > Why is it so?
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=RUDTFBbb7jAC&lpg=PA274&ots=n-t_h8l8C1&dq=%22sound%20energy%20density%22%20%2C%20%22per%20cubic%20centimeter%22&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=%22sound%20energy%20density%22%20,%20%22per%20cubic%20centimeter%22&f=false

The Sound energy density in ergs per cubic centimeter.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RUDTFBbb7jAC&lpg=PA274&ots=n-t_h8l8C1&dq=%22sound%20energy%20density%22%20%2C%20%22per%20cubic%20centimeter%22&pg=PA274#v=onepage&q=%22sound%20energy%20density%22%20%2C%20%22per%20cubic%20centimeter%22&f=false

[wugi]

You can think of matter as "monitoring" its internal spatial and temporal
coherence with inner clocks and rods. Even our man-built clocks and rods
have to depend upon their proper inner clocks and rods. The ultimate
elementary clock-and-rod is the lightclock.
So, an inertial system can be defined as any system wherein matter keeps its
inner clocks and rods "in pace" with some set of light clocks.
And, inertial systems moving wrt each other are set to comparing each
others' light clocks, defining equal rod lengths and times for "equal" light
clocks. Conclusion: light speed = constant, as it is the "ticking speed" of
any light clock.

Reasoning this way, ie putting forward a few intuitive axioms about light
clocks (and develop calculations), you see that we do get constancy of light
speed as an explainable result, by way of a theorem, rather than having to
put it forward as a counter-intuitive axiom, the way Einstein did. Still,
the end result is the same: SRT...

See more under the axioms discussed under § MySRT at my page
http://home.scarlet.be/~pin12499/paratwin.htm#MySRT.

guido

[Yousuf Khan]

On 12/07/2012 2:38 PM, Androcles wrote:
> Funny it has a full range of frequencies in a continuous spectrum.

How sensitively has that been tested?

Yousuf Khan

[Big Dog]

Essen and Froome, 1969. Speed of light is uniform over frequencies
ranging seven orders of magnitude, to one part in 100,000.

[Androcles]

"wugi" wrote in message news:jtndk2$t5p$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

=======================================================
What a load of old and very ignorant bollocks.
Question for you, fuckwit:

Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

And don't say he didn't, imbecile.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Question/QUESTION.htm

[Androcles]

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message news:4fff...@news.bnb-lp.com...

==============================================
See for yourself:
http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hr/graphics/Spectral_lines_en.png
See any gaps for your "Planck Time" or your "Planck Wavelength" (distance)
?
Light is not digital as you suppose, it is analogue.
Answer this:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Question/QUESTION.htm

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/12 7/12/12 4:57 AM, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?

In our current best theories, this is due to a confluence of two different, but
related facts:
1. The local structure of the spacetime manifold is Minkowskian, and
this geometry has symmetries which give it a universal speed,
commonly notated c.
2. Electromagnetic radiation in vacuum propagates with the symmetry speed
of spacetime; the speed of light is also commonly notated c.
The fact that these two quite different speeds are notated the same can hide the
underlying theoretical structure to inexperienced eyes; but it's OK to do so, as
the two speeds have exactly the same value.

The c of #1 is the c in the Lorentz composition of velocities.
The c of #2 is the c in Maxwell's equations, and in QED.

> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.

Yes.


> Why is it so?

A "1 level deep" explanation is: because the structure of the world we inhabit
makes this so (see above). The deeper question of why the world happens to have
this structure is the sort of question that science cannot answer.


One can also ask: How does this happen?

For differently moving observers, their clocks and rulers are oriented
differently in spacetime. Making a measurement of a time or distance interval is
necessarily a PROJECTION onto the measurement apparatus, and the different
orientations of clocks and rulers are PRECISELY what it takes to make their
ratio for the vacuum speed of light be the universal constant c, for every
observer. At base, this is the most important of the symmetries I mentioned above.

Remember that the geometry of modern physics is spaceTIME. A
clock has a worldline through spacetime, and the tangent 4-vector
to its worldline is the "orientation" I mentioned above. Similarly
for rulers.


Tom Roberts

[Big Dog]

On 7/12/2012 1:03 PM, Razia wrote:

> "A varying speed of light contradicts Einstein's
> theory of relativity, and would undermine
> much of traditional physics.
> But some physicists believe it would
> elegantly explain puzzling
> cosmological phenomena such as the nearly
> uniform temperature of the universe.
> It might also support string theories
> that predict extra spatial dimensions."
>

That's ok. String theory is just about dead so no one really cares what
supports it. No supersymmetry -> no string theory.

Not to fret. The internet is slow to catch up. Lots of antiquated
crapola out there.

Hell, there even stuff like this:
http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Holy whiskers! If it's on the internet, there must be a germ of truth to
it!!

[micro...@hotmail.com]

E=MC Squared can be used to solve for C or light speed.
The square root of energy divided by mass mathematically defines
the universal speed limit or constant limit in empty space.

Mitchell Raemsch

[ron_...@hotmail.com]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?

> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.

> Why is it so?

Your information is invalid.

No experiment has shown that light's one-way speed is invariant.

(I am talking about a properly performed experiment, i.e., one that does not use either rotated or transported clocks (because such clocks run slow).)

You might ask yourself why no experiment has ever shown the invariance of the one-way speed of light.

You might even ask yourself why this misinformation is epidemic.

~RA~

[dlzc]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:59:22 PM UTC-7, (unknown) wrote:
...

> No experiment has shown that light's one-way
> speed is invariant.
>
> (I am talking about a properly performed
> experiment, i.e., one that does not use either
> rotated or transported clocks (because such
> clocks run slow).)
>
> You might ask yourself why no experiment has
> ever shown the invariance of the one-way speed
> of light.
>
> You might even ask yourself why this
> misinformation is epidemic.

You might even ask yourself why the issue of "one way speed of light" is brought up, since it is not possible to measure it. Any distance measure is simply an Einstein synchronized clock...

David A. Smith

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/12 7/12/12 7:59 PM, ron_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> No experiment has shown that light's one-way speed is invariant.

Hmmm. No experiment has measured the one-way speed of light with resolution
anywhere close to that of the round-trip speed. In all cases the systematic
errors due to clock drift are enormous.

> (I am talking about a properly performed experiment, i.e., one that does not
> use either rotated or transported clocks (because such clocks run slow).)

Your notion of "properly performed" is downright silly. Any one-way measurement
requires a pair of SYNCHRONIZED clocks. The result of the experiment depends
directly on the synchronization method used, and your limitation is an
unreasonable restriction on the choice of method.

If you think that "moving clocks run slow", then it's easy
to deal with this: make sure their motion is symmetric.
While they won't remain synchronized with a clock that remained
at rest, they will remain synchronized with each other, which
is all that is required.

Of course clock synchronization is frame dependent, so the above
procedure must be carried out with respect to some inertial frame.

> You might ask yourself why no experiment has ever shown the invariance of the
> one-way speed of light.

Simple: because the one-way speed is CONVENTIONAL -- it depends on the
synchronization convention used. Also, as I said above, the systematic errors
are enormous, and no significant results can be obtained.

> You might even ask yourself why this misinformation is epidemic.

Because it does not really cause any harm (except that it confuses people like
yourself who refuse to understand modern physics).


Tom Roberts

[Uncle Ben]

On Jul 12, 5:57 am, Razia <razia.kha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is  it so?

Razia, as you learn more modern physics, you will find that there
are many things that have been discovered that we believe to be true
about nature that nobody "understands." Nature does not have to
explain itself to us in simple terms.

So we have to settle for successful ways to predict the outcomes of
experiments in spite of not understanding why they work. They just
do.

If you can't accept this, go to some other universe where physics is
simpler!

Cheers!

Uncle Ben

[Big Dog]

You may even ask yourself how light's one-way speed could possibly be
variant, given that the two-way speed is measurably invariant AND both
one-way and two-way speed is measurably isotropic.

Then you can ask yourself why you ever wasted your time wondering
whether light's one-way speed is invariant.

Ass.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/12/12 7/12/12 - 10:26 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/12/12 7/12/12 7:59 PM, ron_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> No experiment has shown that light's one-way speed is invariant.
>
> Hmmm. No experiment has measured the one-way speed of light with resolution
> anywhere close to that of the round-trip speed. In all cases the systematic
> errors due to clock drift are enormous.

As Big Dog reminded me, a combination of experiments does indeed show that the
one-way speed of light is invariant:
* multiple experiments showing that the round-trip speed of light
has the same value in any inertial frame occupied by a lab on earth
* multiple experiments showing that the one-way speed of light is
isotropic in any inertial frame occupied by a lab on earth

These measurements are accurate enough that they have excluded any and all
theories proposed so far, except those that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR.

I suppose one must include several other experiments to exclude
"aether drag" and other unusual theories. There are literally
hundreds of experiments confirming SR:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html


Tom Roberts

[Y]

On Thursday, 12 July 2012 19:57:58 UTC+10, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

I think speed is not just v=d/t. My view is that velocity is a balance of displacing mass-energies with a distance relationship.

For the same car...

A) 1.2liters of fuel is used to move 5km.
B) 1.6lites of fuel is used to move 5km.
-----
B) moves faster.

If you make a see-saw by placing a plank over the fulcrum, put weights at each end.

A) 10kgs ------/.\------- 10.5kg's
B) 10kgs ------/.\------- 15kg's
-----

10.5 kg's will drop to ground, but 15kg's will accelerate to a faster speed, and the more weight I add, the closer to 9.8m/s/s the greater mass will accelerate to the ground.

Measured from the space of negative charge (our space), a photon has no mass. It also has no volume. Because it has these properties, nothing can put a lever to it; making it change its energy trend or speed. It's possible that the speed of light is also due to the amount of something in the universe. As light is essentially displacing energy, something might be squeezing it like toothpaste from a tube.

-y

[ken...@att.net]

On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant. The one-way speed of light (OWLS) never been measured directly. Why? Because the value for the OWLS is not a constant it is distant dependent. In order to overcome this deficiency and maintain the viability of SR, physicists invented a new standard for the meter length as follows:
1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light-second
This definition for the meter length guarantees that the speed of light is constant in all frames. However physicists cannot use this new definition for the meter length to measure the OWLS. Why? Because they don't have a way to absolutely synch two spatially separated clocks which are needed to measure OWLS.
Physicists found that the two-way speed of light (TWLS) and the OWLS are isotropic. The TWLS can use this new definition for measure light speed....simply by measuring the (return time/return time) and multipy by 299,792,458 meter/sec. Since TWLS and OWLS are isotropic in all frames then OWLS is constant c by definition.

It turns out that the incoming one-way speed of light is relative velocity dependent as follows:
The universal wavelength of an elementary source such as sodium is 589 nm
Speed of incoming sodium light = (measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(universal wavelength of sodium light 589 nm)

The incoming sodium light becomes a new light source in the observer's frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. The speed of light from this new light source is as follows:
Speed of light for this new light source = c = (measured frequency of of this new light source)(measured wavelength of this new light source)

A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the idea of universal wavelength for elementary source such as sodium instead of constant speed of light. IRT includes the math of SR as subset. However unlike the msth of SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all enviroments, including gravity. A pape ron IRT is available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Y]

On Thursday, 12 July 2012 23:02:53 UTC+10, Big Dog wrote:

> On 7/12/2012 4:57 AM, Razia wrote:
> &gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
> &gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
> &gt; has the same value for all observers,
> &gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
> &gt; or with respect to the light source.
> &gt; Why is it so?

Velocity is the balance of two mass-energies displacing over a distance.

-y

[ken...@att.net]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 10:32:19 AM UTC-4, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:

> &gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
> &gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
> &gt; has the same value for all observers,
> &gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
> &gt; or with respect to the light source.
> &gt; Why is it so?

>
> The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant. The one-way speed of light (OWLS) never been measured directly. Why? Because the value for the OWLS is not a constant it is distant dependent. In order to overcome this deficiency and maintain the viability of SR, physicists invented a new standard for the meter length as follows:
> 1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light-second

> This definition for the meter length guarantees that the speed of light is constant in all frames. However physicists cannot use this new definition for the meter length to measure the OWLS. Why? Because they don&#39;t have a way to absolutely synch two spatially separated clocks which are needed to measure OWLS.

> Physicists found that the two-way speed of light (TWLS) and the OWLS are isotropic. The TWLS can use this new definition for measure light speed....simply by measuring the (return time/return time) and multipy by 299,792,458 meter/sec. Since TWLS and OWLS are isotropic in all frames then OWLS is constant c by definition.
>
> It turns out that the incoming one-way speed of light is relative velocity dependent as follows:
> The universal wavelength of an elementary source such as sodium is 589 nm
> Speed of incoming sodium light = (measured incoming frequency of sodium light)(universal wavelength of sodium light 589 nm)
>

> The incoming sodium light becomes a new light source in the observer&#39;s frame and the grating defines a new wavelength for this new light source. The speed of light from this new light source is as follows:

> Speed of light for this new light source = c = (measured frequency of of this new light source)(measured wavelength of this new light source)
>
> A new theory of relativity called IRT includes the idea of universal wavelength for elementary source such as sodium instead of constant speed of light. IRT includes the math of SR as subset. However unlike the msth of SRT the equations of IRT are valid in all enviroments, including gravity. A pape ron IRT is available in the following link:
> http://www.modelmechanics.org2011irt.dtg.pdf

Sorry the correct link is as follows:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2011irt.dtg.pdf

[Y]

On Friday, 13 July 2012 00:57:09 UTC+10, Androcles wrote:
> &quot;kunz&quot; wrote in message news:jtmn4j$md8$1...@dont-email.me...
>
> Androcles wrote:
> &gt; Bullets propagate without a medium in empty space. As soon as a bullet
> &gt; leaves its gun it is alone in vacuum and lost all information about the
> &gt; relative speed between gun and target, and if you believe
> &gt; that I&#39;ve got a tower in Paris I&#39;ll sell you at a knock down price, you
> &gt; babbling idiot.
>
> The crucial difference is that light is not matter, but a wave.
>
> =========================================================
> Rubbish, light is a photon stream and it takes a bit over a second to
> reach the Moon, 1.25 hours to reach Saturn in all frames of reference.
> Bullets wave when they rotate, look down a rifle barrel; seen sideways
> on it&#39;s a wave. The crucial difference is there is no difference.

Andro tried this one at home. He lost part of his brain, and the acquired brain injury caused him a form of tourettes. If he calls you an idiot, its just his tourettes, he doesn't actually mean it...

-y

[Big Dog]

On 7/13/2012 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:
>> Why is the speed of light constant?
>> All experiments show that the velocity of light
>> has the same value for all observers,
>> even if they are moving with respect to each other
>> or with respect to the light source.
>> Why is it so?
>
> The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant. The one-way speed of light (OWLS) never been
> measured directly. Why? Because the value for the OWLS is not a constant it is distant dependent.

No, it's not. Distance dependence is RULED out by the class of many
two-way light-speed measurements.

ASS.

[Y]

On Friday, 13 July 2012 04:30:24 UTC+10, dlzc wrote:
> Dear Razia:
>
> On Thursday, July 12, 2012 10:48:13 AM UTC-7, Razia wrote:
> ...

> &gt; Thank you very much. I came across VSL concept
> &gt; and in wiki it says
> &gt;
> &gt; &quot;The variable speed of light (VSL) concept
> &gt; states that the speed of light in a vacuum,
> &gt; usually denoted by c, may not be constant in
> &gt; most cases.&quot;

>
> The maximum possible rest mass of a visible light photon is 18 orders of magnitude smaller than its energy (we looked). A photon with *any* rest mass, violates conservation of charge.

> David A. Smith

What if a photon is comprised of a positron-electron pair, and one or the other has a greater charge ? Could mass be unevenly displaced from zero ?

-y

[Androcles]

"Y" wrote in message
news:27581517-1c6b-498d...@googlegroups.com...

On Thursday, 12 July 2012 19:57:58 UTC+10, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is it so?

I think speed is not just v=d/t.

=====================================
Too bad, that's what it is.

[Androcles]

"Y" wrote in message
news:6fcbd1fd-a2c9-40c7...@googlegroups.com...

==========================================================
Tourettes Syndrome is spontaneous and the sufferer has no control,
rather like sneezing.
On the other hand when I call you a fucking idiot that is very controlled
and deliberate and I mean it because you are a fucking idiot and I like
to speak the truth, you stupid fucking idiot.

[Androcles]

"Y" wrote in message
news:cd128f40-5724-41d5...@googlegroups.com...

======================================================
Here's your answer.
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/E%5E2/DeriveMC2.htm

[Yousuf Khan]

So not very sensitively, then? The Planck scale is over 40 orders of
magnitude smaller than the metric scale.

Yousuf Khan

[Yousuf Khan]

On 12/07/2012 5:49 PM, Androcles wrote:
>
>
> "Yousuf Khan" wrote in message news:4fff...@news.bnb-lp.com...
>
> On 12/07/2012 2:38 PM, Androcles wrote:
>> Funny it has a full range of frequencies in a continuous spectrum.
>
> How sensitively has that been tested?
>
> Yousuf Khan
> ==============================================
> See for yourself:
> http://astro.unl.edu/naap/hr/graphics/Spectral_lines_en.png
> See any gaps for your "Planck Time" or your "Planck Wavelength"
> (distance) ?
> Light is not digital as you suppose, it is analogue.

There is no way that you nor I could detect a Planck scale gap, even
using the best microscopes.

Yousuf Khan

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant.

This is just plain wrong, as is everything else you wrote. The speed of light
was MEASURED to be isotropic and constant in many standards laboratories around
the world, back in 1980-1983. The limit to accuracy was determined to be in the
definition of the meter. Because of compelling theoretical arguments, and
because of the MEASURED constancy of the speed of light, in 1983 the meter was
redefined in terms of a defined constant for the speed of light and the second.

Such redefinition could not have happened unless the MEASUREMENTS supported it.

You will continue to get everything wrong, until you sit down and STUDY modern
physics. Learn how to read first, however.


Tom Roberts

[Androcles]

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message news:50003f6b$1...@news.bnb-lp.com...

=============================================================
Can't detect what doesn't exist. There is no way that you nor I
could detect an Easter Bunny's left middle tit, even using the
best tweezers. How many Planck angels dance on the head of
a pin, Khan? You are free to use the best microscope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_dance_on_the_head_of_a_pin%3F

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jul 13, 7:02 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> These measurements are accurate enough that they have excluded any and all
> theories proposed so far, except those that are experimentally indistinguishable
> from SR.
>

> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

Why are you peddling this tripe?

There are an infinite such mathematical models besides SR (namely the
Lorentz transform) that also satisfy any of the experiments you can
point out. Except that these models supports the absolute frame of
reference which means the AETHER MUST EXIST. SR, on the other hand,
says the Aether even if exist cannot be detected. So, basically these
experiments have absolutely no values in deciding if SR is valid or
not. <shrug>

Even PD and many other self-styled physicists have now acknowledged
that there are indeed such infinite numbers of mathematical models
that satisfy these experiments including the null results of the MMX.
Why is Tom Robert continuing to sell snake oil? It is wrong. It is
immoral. It has no scientific values. <shrug>

[dlzc]

Dear Y:

On Friday, July 13, 2012 8:01:03 AM UTC-7, Y wrote:
...

> What if a photon is comprised of a
> positron-electron pair, and one or the
> other has a greater charge ?

Visible light photons have less than 2eV of energy. Not in excess of 1 GeV. Whatever works, has to work for all photons.

> Could mass be unevenly displaced from zero ?

Non sequitur.

David A. Smith

[Big Dog]

Name four such mathematical models besides SR that also satisfy ALL of
the experiments listed in the link, and show that the results are
consistent with three of them. What you say is flat fucking bullshit,
and you fucking know it. <Shruggetyshruggetyshrugshrug>

Bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting is an exercise for fucking
idiots and fucking children.

[Vilas Tamhane]

On Jul 12, 2:57 am, Razia <razia.kha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?
> All experiments show that the velocity of light
> has the same value for all observers,
> even if they are moving with respect to each other
> or with respect to the light source.
> Why is  it so?

We don’t know yet why it is so.
Those who say they know are cheating.
What Newton observed holds good today. To account for the sharpness of
shadows, he arrived at the corpuscular nature of light.
In any case when you are measuring velocity of light, you must
consider light pulse and not light wave. Wave is continuous
propagation and so frequency-wavelength are involved. Think of it as a
bullet and then you can measure velocity of light.
Whatever might be the nature of light, like a bullet, pulse of a
bunch of photons can be fired in space. Now move along with it with a
speed of v and you must measure its velocity as c-v.
But if you try to measure its velocity in any experiment involving its
wave nature then you will find its velocity as c.

[hanson]

The unemployed, but loud, Schweinehund "Pig Dog"
aka "Big Dog" <big.fi...@gmail.com> who portrays
himself as a mutt, aka a "Koeter", which comes from
the word "Kot" which means (dog)-shit, barked into the
night at a distant noise he knows nothing about... and

so he wrote:
>
>
Tom Roberts wrote:
These measurements are accurate enough that they have
excluded any and all theories proposed so far, except
those that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>

> _______
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
Tom, why are you peddling this tripe?

There are an infinite such mathematical models besides SR
(namely the Lorentz transform) that also satisfy any of the
experiments you can point out. Except that these models
supports the absolute frame of reference which means the
AETHER MUST EXIST. SR, on the other hand, says the
Aether even if exist cannot be detected. So, basically these
experiments have absolutely no values in deciding if SR is
valid or not. <shrug>
>>

Even PD (Prof. Paul Draper) and many other self-styled

physicists have now acknowledged that there are indeed
such infinite numbers of mathematical models that satisfy
these experiments including the null results of the MMX.
Why is Tom Robert continuing to sell snake oil? It is wrong.
It is immoral. It has no scientific values. <shrug>

> ________

>
"Big Dog" got aroused, barked so he wrote:
Name four such mathematical models besides SR that
also satisfy ALL of the experiments listed in the link, and
show that the results are consistent with three of them.
What you say is flat fucking bullshit, and you fucking
know it. <Shruggetyshruggetyshrugshrug>
Bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting is an exercise for
fucking idiots and fucking children.
>

hanson wrote:
Now poster "Big Dog" come across as a pedophile
with his "exercise for fucking children"... Sheesh!....
... besides Koeter "Pig Dog" 's dog-shit of above
in which he conveniently forgot to mention that in link
< http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/lengths.html >
Bunghole-Baez also says:
---- "we fiddle around" & "forget that darn '2' " ---
which is how these story tellers produce their models.
>
"Big Dog"'s Dawgshit also omits to mention that Roberts
already said "uncle" to KW & then puts rather eloquently:
. ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"____, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
ROTFLMAO over your Dawgshit, though, you Koeter.
Thanks for the laughs you Dreidel.... ahahahahanson

[Big Dog]

On 7/13/2012 12:55 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:

> We don�t know yet why it is so.

> Those who say they know are cheating.
> What Newton observed holds good today. To account for the sharpness of
> shadows, he arrived at the corpuscular nature of light.
> In any case when you are measuring velocity of light, you must
> consider light pulse and not light wave. Wave is continuous
> propagation and so frequency-wavelength are involved. Think of it as a
> bullet and then you can measure velocity of light.
> Whatever might be the nature of light, like a bullet, pulse of a
> bunch of photons can be fired in space. Now move along with it with a
> speed of v and you must measure its velocity as c-v.
> But if you try to measure its velocity in any experiment involving its
> wave nature then you will find its velocity as c.
>

T'ain't so, McGee. We can measure the time of flight of *photons*, which
are those light bullets you talk about. This has in fact been done in
oodles of experiments, such as the one done back in the 1960s by
Filippas and Fox but lots of others since then as well. And those
experiments were *specifically* designed to see if bullets of light
travel in the way you think they should (c-v). And they do not.

Do not continue to try to find excuses or gaps in the study of light
that will let you believe light behaves in the way you think it ought
to. At least find out what studies have been done first.

That is, check whether there is shit on your shoe before you stick it in
your mouth.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jul 13, 9:48 am, Big Dog <big.fing....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 7:02 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> > > These measurements are accurate enough that they have excluded
> > > any and all theories proposed so far, except those that are
> > > experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
>
> > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>

> > Why are you [Tom Roberts still] peddling this [same old] tripe?

>
> > There are an infinite such mathematical models besides SR (namely the
> > Lorentz transform) that also satisfy any of the experiments you can
> > point out. Except that these models supports the absolute frame of
> > reference which means the AETHER MUST EXIST. SR, on the other hand,
> > says the Aether even if exist cannot be detected. So, basically these
> > experiments have absolutely no values in deciding if SR is valid or
> > not. <shrug>
>
> > Even PD and many other self-styled physicists have now acknowledged
> > that there are indeed such infinite numbers of mathematical models
> > that satisfy these experiments including the null results of the MMX.
> > Why is Tom Robert continuing to sell snake oil? It is wrong. It is
> > immoral. It has no scientific values. <shrug>
>
> Name four such mathematical models besides SR that also satisfy ALL of
> the experiments listed in the link, and show that the results are
> consistent with three of them. What you say is flat fucking bullshit,
> and you fucking know it. <Shruggetyshruggetyshrugshrug>

Take a look at Lorentz’s work in 1904 below.

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

There are an infinite numbers of them. What Larmor has discovered was
just one out of these infinite numbers. All of these including
Larmor’s transform satisfy the null results of the MMX. However, they
all support the absolute frame of reference which means THE AETHER
MUST EXIST. They also mean the principle of relativity is not valid
in general. <shrug>

> Bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting is an exercise for fucking
> idiots and fucking children.

Koobee Wublee never bluffs, bullshits, or lies unlike you, Einstein
Dingleberries, and self-styled physicists where the following
definitively sum up Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

** FAITH IS LOGIC
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** FICTION IS THEORY
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** PRIESTHOOD IS TENURE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** HANDWAVING IS REASONING
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** FRAUDULENCE IS FACT
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
** INCONSISTENCY IS CONSISTENCY
** INTERPRETATION IS VERIFICATION

<shrug>

[Big Dog]

So you've found ONE alternative that satisfies ONE experiment out of the
list above.
Read what I said. Name four such mathematical models besides SR that

also satisfy ALL of the experiments listed in the link, and show that

the results are consistent with them.

The evidence for SR is the COLLECTIVE FUCKING BODY of experiments, you
whiny bitch. No single experiment is the basis for its acceptance. Any
competing model has to satisfy EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE of the
observations listed.

> However, they
> all support the absolute frame of reference which means THE AETHER
> MUST EXIST. They also mean the principle of relativity is not valid
> in general. <shrug>
>
>> Bullshitting for the sake of bullshitting is an exercise for fucking
>> idiots and fucking children.
>
> Koobee Wublee never bluffs, bullshits, or lies unlike you, Einstein
> Dingleberries, and self-styled physicists where the following
> definitively sum up Einstein Dingleberries. <shrug>

Bullshruggetyshruggetyshrugshit. You just bullshitted and filled up the
paper bag you can't fight your way out of.

Ass.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 11:48 AM, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> On Jul 13, 7:02 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>> These measurements are accurate enough that they have excluded any and all
>>> theories proposed so far, except those that are experimentally indistinguishable
>>> from SR.
>>> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>> Why are you peddling this tripe?
>> There are an infinite such mathematical models besides SR (namely the
>> Lorentz transform) that also satisfy any of the experiments you can

>> point out. [...]

>
> Name four such mathematical models besides SR that also satisfy ALL of the
> experiments listed in the link, and show that the results are consistent with
> three of them. What you say is flat fucking bullshit, and you fucking know it.

Actually, in this (almost unique) case, what he says here is not false, though
he almost surely does not understand it.

There is an infinite class of theories that are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR, and every member of the class satisfies all of those experiments, in
that the predictions of the theory agree with the results. This class of
theories is characterized by:
1. The round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial
frame.
2. There is one inertial frame in which the one-way speed of light is
isotropically c.
3. In every inertial frame, space is isotropic and homogeneous and
time is homogeneous.

Except for SR and LET, the members of this class do not satisfy the PoR.

The only members of this class of theories that have names
which I know are: Special Relativity, Lorentz Ether Theory,
and the Tangherlini transforms. A decade or so ago I posted
a series of three articles to this newsgroup about "Theories
Equivalent to SR", in which I gave a parametrization of the
class (which in some sense "names" each of the theories). This
class is also enumerated by the various test theories of SR:
Robertson, Rev. of Mod. Phys. 21, pg 378 (1949).
Edwards, Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963), pg 482.
Mansouri and Sexl, Gen. Rel. Grav. 8 (1977), pg 497, pg 515,
pg 809.
Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_

It turns out that the ONLY difference between any member of this class and SR is
in the synchronization of clocks [#]. In all members except SR and LET, the
synchronization procedure is equivalent to applying a position-dependent offset
to clocks synchronized in the SR sense (i.e. synchronized via slow clock
transport or via light signals). It is rather a stretch to call these
"synchronized".

[#] Clock synchronization is conventional, and one can arbitrarily
select how to do it. Hence the experimental indistinguishability
of these theories: any experiment uses some procedure which must
be included in the analysis, removing any vestige of the theory's
nominal procedure.

If one cares little about historical accuracy or precision in word and thought,
one could call the frame of #2 an "aether frame". But that frame is not
"absolute" in most senses of the word; in particular, no possible measurement
can determine which frame it is, and ANY arbitrary choice will yield the same
predictions. SR is the only member which satisfies the PoR, and to which this
does not apply.

And, of course, the existence of other theories that are consistent with the
data does nothing to reduce the validity of SR.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 12:55 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2:57 am, Razia <razia.kha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why is the speed of light constant?
>> All experiments show that the velocity of light
>> has the same value for all observers,
>> even if they are moving with respect to each other
>> or with respect to the light source.
>> Why is it so?
>
> We don’t know yet why it is so.

Not true. See my earlier post. We have EXCELLENT models that explain this.

> Those who say they know are cheating.

No. As least some of those who say they do, such as myself, merely know more
about the subject than you do. (That is faint praise.)


> [... fantasies that do not correspond to the world we inhabit]


Tom Roberts

[ken...@att.net]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:37:57 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> &gt; The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant.

>
> This is just plain wrong, as is everything else you wrote.

It's not wrong at all. The TWLS was measured by reflecting the light between rotating reflecting mirrors....such procedure assumes that there is no delay time in the reflecting mirrors. Also the results obtained was not constant c....different TWLS experiments gave slightly different results. Also such procedure assumes that the lead photon will follow a straight line from the source to the detector....this means that you assumed that the position and the velocity of the lead photon is known simultaneously.....a violation of the uncertainty principle.

The OWLS can be measured directly by measuring its wavelength and frequency directly. However such procedure produced results that were not constant c but rather OWLS is distance dependent and that's why physicists abundoned such approach to measure OWLS and came up with the redefinition of the meter length to guarantee the OWLS is c.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 2:35 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> Except for SR and LET, the members of this class do not satisfy the PoR.

Typo: LET does not satisfy the PoR either.


Tom Roberts

[Helmut Wabnig]

#####################################################

> (i.e. synchronized via slow clock
>transport or via light signals). It is rather a stretch to call these
>"synchronized".

###################################################

>
> [#] Clock synchronization is conventional, and one can arbitrarily
> select how to do it. Hence the experimental indistinguishability
> of these theories: any experiment uses some procedure which must
> be included in the analysis, removing any vestige of the theory's
> nominal procedure.
>
>If one cares little about historical accuracy or precision in word and thought,
>one could call the frame of #2 an "aether frame". But that frame is not
>"absolute" in most senses of the word; in particular, no possible measurement
>can determine which frame it is, and ANY arbitrary choice will yield the same
>predictions. SR is the only member which satisfies the PoR, and to which this
>does not apply.
>
>And, of course, the existence of other theories that are consistent with the
>data does nothing to reduce the validity of SR.
>
>
>Tom Roberts

I have not found yet an explanation what the relativity authors mean
by "slow clock transport" and why it has to be slow. Everyone
mentiones that, but not one author bothers to explain.

w.

[Androcles]

"Helmut Wabnig" wrote in message
news:k62108l2rf9plk1fj...@4ax.com...

===============================================
Well, you see, Wabbie, when they rushed Cassini to Saturn, taking
seven years to get there, JPL asked it what time its atomic clocks
were reading and they are one hour and 20 minutes slow because
clocks slow down by relativistic speeds.

It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the
definition of “time” by substituting “the position of the small hand of my
watch” for “time.” And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are
concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is
located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time
series of events occurring at different places, or—what comes to the same
thing—to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the
watch, yada yada yada -- Albert Fuckwit Einstein.

[Big Dog]

On 7/13/2012 3:02 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:37:57 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>> &gt; The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant.
>>
>> This is just plain wrong, as is everything else you wrote.
>
> It's not wrong at all. The TWLS was measured by reflecting the light between rotating reflecting
> mirrors..

That is ONE measurement technique. You must be blissfully unaware of the
OTHER methods that do not use rotating mirrors.

>..such procedure assumes that there is no delay time in the reflecting mirrors.

No, it is not assumed. That delay is a number that is MEASURABLE by
comparing speeds over different lever arms. I've already described how
this is done. The result is that the delay time is NEGLIGIBLE! Get hold
of the data and look for yourself, you ass.

> Also the
> results obtained was not constant c....different TWLS experiments gave slightly different results.

Bullshit! CITE the results you claim are slightly different.

> Also such procedure assumes that the lead photon will follow a straight line from the source to the
> detector....this means that you assumed that the position and the velocity of the lead photon is known
> simultaneously.....a violation of the uncertainty principle.

Bullshit! Do you know how big the deflection due to the uncertainty
principle would be? If you aim a FUCKING FLASHLIGHT on the ground in
front of you, does it go where you point it? Does this OBVIOUS AND
SIMPLE OBSERVATION violate the uncertainty principle, you ass? If you
hold a laser pointer and point it at the wall, does the spot appear
where you point it? Does this OBVIOUS AND SIMPLE OBSERVATION violate the
uncertainty principle, you ass?

>
> The OWLS can be measured directly by measuring its wavelength and
frequency directly. However such
> procedure produced results that were not constant c but rather OWLS is distance dependent

Bullshit! Cite the results that say that the OWLS is distance-dependent.
If you say it is in existing experimental data, then put up or shut the
fuck up. CITE!!

> and that's
> why physicists abundoned such approach to measure OWLS and came up with the redefinition of the meter
> length to guarantee the OWLS is c.
>

All you've done is flung false and unsubstantiated bullshit. If you have
documented FACTS to back any of these claims, then produce them.

[ken...@att.net]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:00:38 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:
> &gt;&gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
> &gt;&gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
> &gt;&gt; has the same value for all observers,
> &gt;&gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
> &gt;&gt; or with respect to the light source.
> &gt;&gt; Why is it so?
> &gt;
> &gt; The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant. The one-way speed of light (OWLS) never been
> &gt; measured directly. Why? Because the value for the OWLS is not a constant it is distant dependent.
>
> No, it&#39;s not. Distance dependence is RULED out by the class of many
> two-way light-speed measurements.

If you do direct one-way the value for OWLS is distance dependent. That's why physicists refused to measure OWLS directly. BTW the TWLS is also distance dependent. The TWLS's done so far show different values.

>
> ASS.
>
> &gt; In order to overcome this deficiency and maintain the viability of SR, physicists invented a new
> &gt; standard for the meter length as follows:
> &gt; 1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light-second

[Big Dog]

On 7/13/2012 5:34 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:00:38 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
>> On 7/13/2012 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
>> &gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:
>> &gt;&gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
>> &gt;&gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
>> &gt;&gt; has the same value for all observers,
>> &gt;&gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
>> &gt;&gt; or with respect to the light source.
>> &gt;&gt; Why is it so?
>> &gt;
>> &gt; The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant. The one-way speed of light (OWLS)
> never been
>> &gt; measured directly. Why? Because the value for the OWLS is not a constant it is distant dependent.
>>
>> No, it&#39;s not. Distance dependence is RULED out by the class of many
>> two-way light-speed measurements.
>
> If you do direct one-way the value for OWLS is distance dependent. That's why physicists
> refused to measure OWLS directly. BTW the TWLS is also distance dependent.

BULLSHIT! Zero, and I mean ZERO, evidence of distance dependence. If you
think otherwise, CITE!

> The TWLS's done so far show different values.

Bullshit. CITE!

>
>>
>> ASS.

[Tonico]

> <shrug>-


Idiot

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Thu, 12 Jul 2012 02:57:58 -0700 (PDT), Razia <razia....@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:

>Why is the speed of light constant?

it isn't. ALL speeds are frame dependent BY DEFINITION.

>All experiments show that the velocity of light

>has the same value for all observers,

They do not. There has never been a proper measuremnt of OW light speed from
a moving source.
You are probably referiung to TW light speed experiments, which SHOULD get
the same value for c if light is ballistic.

>even if they are moving with respect to each other

>or with respect to the light source.

>Why is it so?

It is not so.
Einstein's silly second postulate merely replaced a condition of Lorentz's
equally silly aether theory.

[Henry Wilson DSc.]

On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 14:38:53 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:

>On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 12:55 PM, Vilas Tamhane wrote:
>> On Jul 12, 2:57 am, Razia <razia.kha...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> Why is the speed of light constant?
>>> All experiments show that the velocity of light
>>> has the same value for all observers,
>>> even if they are moving with respect to each other
>>> or with respect to the light source.
>>> Why is it so?
>>
>> We don’t know yet why it is so.
>
>Not true. See my earlier post. We have EXCELLENT models that explain this.

We have even better models to explain why it is untrue.

>> Those who say they know are cheating.
>
>No. As least some of those who say they do, such as myself, merely know more
>about the subject than you do. (That is faint praise.)

HAHAHAHHHAHA!

Have you ever bothered to learn how the brightness of an star in orbit would
be expected to vary if its light travelled to Earth at c+v?

Roberts you are as ignorant as a Dodo.

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jul 13, 12:35 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 11:14 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > On Jul 13, 7:02 am, Tom Roberts wrote:

> > > These measurements are accurate enough that they have
> > > excluded any and all theories proposed so far, except
> > > those that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.
> > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
>

> > There are an infinite such mathematical models besides SR
> > (namely the Lorentz transform) that also satisfy any of the
> > experiments you can point out. [...]
>

> Actually, in this (almost unique) case, what he [Koobee Wublee]

> says here is not false, though he almost surely does not
> understand it.

We shall see. <shrug>

> There is an infinite class of theories that are experimentally
> indistinguishable from SR, and every member of the class satisfies
> all of those experiments, in that the predictions of the theory
> agree with the results.

What Tom Roberts refers to as “an infinite class of theories” mirror
what Koobee Wublee has said about these infinite numbers of
transformations or mathematical models. Thus, it looks like Tom
Roberts is beginning to understand the issue at hand. <shrug>

> This class of theories is characterized by:
> 1. The round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in every inertial
> frame.
> 2. There is one inertial frame in which the one-way speed of light is
> isotropically c.
> 3. In every inertial frame, space is isotropic and homogeneous and
> time is homogeneous.

According to the mathematics, #1 and #2 are the same. <shrug>

> Except for SR and LET, the members of this class do not satisfy
> the PoR.

This also is exactly what Koobee Wublee has been saying. <shrug>

> The only members of this class of theories that have names
> which I know are: Special Relativity, Lorentz Ether Theory,
> and the Tangherlini transforms. A decade or so ago I posted
> a series of three articles to this newsgroup about "Theories
> Equivalent to SR", in which I gave a parametrization of the
> class (which in some sense "names" each of the theories). This
> class is also enumerated by the various test theories of SR:
> Robertson, Rev. of Mod. Phys. 21, pg 378 (1949).
> Edwards, Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963), pg 482.
> Mansouri and Sexl, Gen. Rel. Grav. 8 (1977), pg 497, pg 515,
> pg 809.
> Zhang, _Special_Relativity_and_its_Experimental_Foundations_

Considering Tom Roberts just recently realizes what Koobee Wublee has
been saying all along, Tom Roberts’ understanding of this issue in the
past must be very murky indeed.
Is this an attempt to “save-face” on Tom’s part? Let’s hear more
about what Tom has to say. <shrug>

> It turns out that the ONLY difference between any member of this
> class and SR is in the synchronization of clocks [#].

Synchronization of clock is a man-made procedure. How can a procedure
be associated with one mathematical model but not to another? <shrug>

> In all members except SR and LET, the synchronization procedure is
> equivalent to applying a position-dependent offset to clocks synchronized
> in the SR sense (i.e. synchronized via slow clock transport or via light
> signals). It is rather a stretch to call these "synchronized".

Tom Roberts must not be very coherent at this moment since the biggest
difference among these mathematical models is in the mathematics
(transformations themselves). MATH IS DIFFERENT which would give
different results at extreme boundary conditions. This means one can
always be able to design experiments to tell these mathematical models
apart. Granted the measurable differences would only occur at high
absolute speeds of the observers. <shrug>

> [more nonsense about attaching a man-made procedure to a set of
> mathematical model snipped]

> If one cares little about historical accuracy or precision in word
> and thought, one could call the frame of #2 an "aether frame".

Nonsense! Tom Roberts needs to study more about these infinite
numbers of transformations that also satisfy the null results of the
MMX. In doing so, he will find out the one-way speed of light is the
same as the Lorentz transform. Thus, #1 and #2 are the same just as
mentioned Koobee Wublee above. <shrug>

> But that frame is not "absolute" in most senses of the word;

According to the very mathematics of these infinite transformations,
THE ABSOLUTE FRAME OF REFERENCE MUST EXIST since all observations must
reference back to this absolute frame of reference. All observations
are dependent of what the observer’s absolute velocity is at the
moment when the observation is done. If the observer has low speed
relative to the speed of light, these observations appears to obey the
principle of relativity, and all experiments cannot tell one model
from the others apart. This is all in the VERY BASIC MATHEMATICS.
Why is Tom having such trouble comprehending? <shrug>

> in particular, no possible measurement can determine which frame it
> is, and ANY arbitrary choice will yield the same predictions.

Tom Roberts is wrong again. According to these infinite
transformations, if an observer is able to move at very high absolute
speed and back to low speeds again, he can compare the observations
and easily determine what the absolute frame of reference is. Tom
needs to study more. <shrug>

> SR is the only member which satisfies the PoR, and to which this
> does not apply.

Under SR, there is no absolute frame of reference. So, what Tom
Roberts is saying does not even apply. <shrug>

The Lorentz transform does not reflect any real-life experiment. It
is a modified transformation first discovered by Larmor. In Larmor’s
transformation, the absolute frame of reference vanishes when the two
observers are moving in parallel to each other against the absolute
frame of reference. Poincare fudged Larmor’s transform into the
Lorentz transform from this mathematical mistake. Thus, the Lorentz
transform IS NOT VALID in general. <shrug>

> And, of course, the existence of other theories that are consistent
> with the data does nothing to reduce the validity of SR.

The mathematical models are drastically different where all support
the EXISTENCE OF THE AETHER while only SR does not. Within the domain
of where the mathematics diverges, one can always design experiments
to tell each apart. If an experiment cannot tell them apart, that
experiment IS SURE USELESS. Supporting one model over the others
becomes very unprofessional, grossly misleading, and just plain old
stupid. <shrug>

This must be a very bad “save-face” speech by Tom Roberts (a
professional experiment physicist) in which the following thoroughly
explains why. <shrug>

[shuba]

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

> I have not found yet an explanation what the relativity authors
> mean by "slow clock transport" and why it has to be slow.
> Everyone mentiones that, but not one author bothers to explain.

The Newtonian limit is reached as (v/c)^2 --> 0. So slow clock
transport is v<<c and the synchronization will be better as the
relative speed between two initially synched clocks decreases.


---Tim Shuba---

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/13/12 7/13/12 3:51 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> I have not found yet an explanation what the relativity authors mean
> by "slow clock transport" and why it has to be slow. Everyone
> mentiones that, but not one author bothers to explain.

Consider an inertial frame with two clocks a distance L apart that are at rest
and synchronized in this frame. Now take a third clock, synchronize it with one
clock, accelerate it quickly to speed v relative to the frame, have it travel to
the other clock at speed v and decelerate it quickly to be at rest adjacent to
it [#]. This third clock will not be synchronized with the second clock, due to
"time dilation"; the difference depends on both L and v. The difference is
linear in L and quadratic in v; for a given L it goes to zero as v approaches
zero (i.e. slower transport). So the error in using such transport to
synchronize clocks can be made arbitrarily small by transporting sufficiently
slowly.

[#] The accelerations must not break the clock.

"Slow clock transport" merely means transporting the clock slowly enough so the
effect of "time dilation" is smaller than the measurement resolution. For modern
atomic clocks separated by a kilometer, 60 MPH is slow enough; for several
hundred kilometers one must travel more slowly. Since the difference is linear
in L but quadratic in v, for a given resolution and value of L there is always a
value of v that is slow enough.


Tom Roberts

[Vilas Tamhane]

Inadequate theory is better than irrational and impossible theory.

[Dono.]

On Jul 13, 7:21 pm, Persistent Cretin Vilas Tamhane
<vilastamh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>snip imbecilities<

[Y]

On Saturday, 14 July 2012 00:39:56 UTC+10, Y wrote:
> On Thursday, 12 July 2012 23:02:53 UTC+10, Big Dog wrote:
> &gt; On 7/12/2012 4:57 AM, Razia wrote:
> &gt; &amp;gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
> &gt; &amp;gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
> &gt; &amp;gt; has the same value for all observers,
> &gt; &amp;gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
> &gt; &amp;gt; or with respect to the light source.
> &gt; &amp;gt; Why is it so?
> &gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt;
> &gt; The first hurdle is to acknowledge that it is so, and it appears you are
> &gt; clearing that hurdle. Some people say, I don&amp;#39;t understand how it can be
> &gt; that way, and so I don&amp;#39;t believe it is that way.
> &gt;
> &gt; The second hurdle is to identify EXACTLY why it is that you find it
> &gt; surprising. From the tone of your question, I am guessing -- just
> &gt; guessing -- that you would expect the measured speed of light to be
> &gt; something like c+v or c-v depending on the v between the source and
> &gt; observer. This allows you to identify the assumption that makes the
> &gt; result surprising -- here the assumption would be that velocities just
> &gt; add with a simple sum. Once you have that assumption identified, then
> &gt; you can ask, why do I believe that velocities should just simply add?
> &gt; This is really the crux of the matter, because it turns out that
> &gt; velocities do not add with a simple sum.
> &gt;
> &gt; Really take the time to inspect your thinking here. If you believe you
> &gt; have an argument why velocities should just add with a simple sum, then
> &gt; try to formulate that argument. That&amp;#39;s where you can find the parts that
> &gt; are weak. It isn&amp;#39;t enough to say, &amp;quot;because that&amp;#39;s the intuitive answer&amp;quot;.
> &gt; No, it&amp;#39;s only intuitive because it appears to work. But there are lots
> &gt; of cases where an *approximation* works pretty well, and so BECOMES
> &gt; intuitive through long-standing use of the rule of thumb. But
> &gt; approximations are only approximations, and it really doesn&amp;#39;t matter how
> &gt; long you&amp;#39;ve used that approximation successfully and how intuitive it
> &gt; has become to use that coarse rule of thumb. If the *real* answer is
> &gt; different than the approximation, then the intuitiveness associated with
> &gt; habit is not really a sound indicator of truth.
> &gt;
> &gt; It&amp;#39;s pretty easy to show that the real answer for how velocities combine
> &gt; is by a rule like this:
> &gt; v&amp;#39; = (v+u)/(1+(u/c)(v/c))
> &gt; That is, if you&amp;#39;ve got something that is traveling at v with respect to
> &gt; some source, and the observer is moving at u with respect to the source,
> &gt; then v&amp;#39; is how fast it will be moving as seen by the observer.
> &gt; Once you have this in place, you can then ask how this works for light.
> &gt; In this case, v=c and you can just plug in to see what v&amp;#39; will be for
> &gt; that light:
> &gt; v&amp;#39; = (c+u)/(1+(u/c)(c/c)) = (c+u)/(1+(u/c)) = c (c+u)/(c+u) = c
> &gt; And so here you can see that even though the observer is moving at u
> &gt; with respect to the source, the speed of that light as seen by the
> &gt; observer will STILL be c!
> &gt;
> &gt; Now the next question you should ask is, why is the rule for the
> &gt; velocities what it is?
>
>
> Velocity is the balance of two mass-energies displacing over a distance.
>
> -y



_
___ __.-----' __.---._//
< `----' _____,---' ___ //
\--.____.--' ___,--' y/
\_ __.-----' __,--//
>`----' _____,---' _//
.'-.____,--',,,,, ___,--n//_
.'.__ __/ \' ___,/(_/
< `----' \ C '\-' .'//
`----.____.---) _| .' //
.'=. (--'/|//
| \)`-\.' __/
\ \ ,' ///
;. ' ///
| `._,'//
\ //
)===//]
/ |_// |
\_ (/ |
\ |\
\ __ | \
|[__]| \
||__|/ /
\ | /
| |/
/| |
/\| |
/`.|____|
`=.\____/
) '`--.
`='===='

MOTION = |---MASS-ENERGY / DISTANCE----|

Something must be displacing light. Something must be pushing it through space. Why else does light move in a particular direction ? Something must complete this work.

Consider this equation.

Motion = mass-energy/distance

Not only does this equation relate to a simple transfer of mass-energy from one point in space to another. The equation can also be used to explain two aspects of motion events.

For example..

A car travels 621km across an even plane, with constant efficiency. With fuel, the car weighs 1500kg. Without fuel, the car weighs 1451kg. By the end of the journey, using all it's fuel to complete 621km, the car weighs 1451kg. It used 49kg of fuel for the journey.

The car moved fuel into exhaust at a rate of 49kg/621km. 0.08kg of fuel was moved into exhaust per 1km. Approx 80grams of fuel per km.

We can also use the equation elsewhere,

Between the first and second km, the car was moving at a rate of 1499.92kg/km.

Between the 150km and 151km mark, the car was moving at approx 1488kg/km and so on.

All things displace mass and energy in order to move. Clearly, using our foot peddle, with a car we can control the 'balance' of displacing mass-energies, and this equates to speed.

Because light has no mass, or volume it doesn't require that the thing that moves it, weighs anything has any mass or volume. Space weighs nothing. Without a relation of points, space also has no volume.

An Aether, or a super fluid is not required to move light. Because light has no mass or volume - simple space is enough. I'm now ditching any Aether ideas from my thoughts, and I suggest others do the same.

In the above example, I have shown how 80 grams of something can push 1.451 tonnes of something. Ants can lift 20-50 times their body weight.

With light we can see the great distances it travels throughout the visible universe.

/| |___|___|___|___|___|
.| |/| | |...| | |
/ | / |___|_.///\\\\._|___|
.'| |/|/| | |//. .`\| | |
/| |,| / |___|_|| L ||_|___|
/ | / |/|.' ____|| -=- ||____ `.
/| |'| / |'.'_.--||) -(||--._`.`.
| |/| |'|.'/.' ."^|. `"`. `.\`.
| / |/| / // / / `\ Y \ \ \\_\_
|/| / |/ // oo'` ` " ' ` ^"' '` | \
| |/| / // .o. '""` o8o \ __\
| / |/ // .o88o .oooO Oooo. ". \|\ \
|/| / /_ ` .( | | ) . \ \
| |/ _(')= o8. '"^"'` '"' `'" oo / \
| / (___)._________________________.-' \
|/_________________________________________\
| |
| Water Level with ------- |
| |
| |
| Water Level without ------- |
| |
|___________________________________________|


-y

[Koobee Wublee]

It depends if LET is an interpretation to Larmor’s or the Lorentz
transform. <shrug>

Koobee Wublee has not come across any historic references to this
issue since the self-styled physicists cannot even tell a difference
between Larmor’s and the Lorentz transforms in which all literatures
show the same confusions. <shrug>

So, is Tom offering his awakened realization by noticing a difference
between these two transforms? It is like an amoeba suddenly
understands existentialism. Wow! To Koobee Wublee, this moment
represents a very exciting and pivoting moment in the history of
science when amoebas suddenly realize existentialism through the
helping hand of Koobee Wublee. Wait a minute! Is anyone concluding
that Koobee Wublee is a God? Ahahahaha...

[Helmut Wabnig]

SR dilatation is not affected by velocity, but only by integral(ds).
(The longer distance in spacetime).
So this does no apply and all clocks are affected regardless
of their velocity in x,y,z.

GR dilatation is numerically opposite to SR as far as I know,
and by chosing a suitable v, dilatation could be zeroed
in principle, as could be done by choosing satellite altitude,
for example, to cancel SR and GR effects.

Who is the inventor of "slow clock transport" and where
was it used the first time? I want to find an explanation
from the horse's mouth.

Does "slow clock transport" really mean cancelling out
the SR and GR effects or is it based on false assumptions,
hogwash and other physical fairy tale fashion trends?
I am asking because the sources and texts I have in my collection
make use of this term as if it was a cemented wisdom from kindergarten
and as if it were approbated daily routine everywhere.

To me it looks rather demented.

If there is anyone out there who thinks he knows what
"slow clock transport" actually means and he believes to know
how to do it in real life, I will join him with my camera in hand.
Mumbling magic phrases like "abacadabra" and "slow clock transport"
is not the solution, it is the problem.
w.

[Alfonso]

On 12/07/12 10:57, Razia wrote:
> Why is the speed of light constant?

> All experiments show that the velocity of light

> has the same value for all observers,

> even if they are moving with respect to each other

> or with respect to the light source.

> Why is it so?

Is this so? On a purely historical perspective there was absolutely no
experimental evidence for this when Einstein produced his theory so
where did his second postulate come from? It's very simple although you
won't find it in a text book. In 1905 and for a considerable period
afterwards the state of play is as described below.

Maxwell's Theory had:

FAILED - prediction of the outcome of the MMX wrong.
FAILED - prediction of black body radiation wrong.
FAILED - Light shown to be particulate which is totally inconsistent
with Maxwell's theory based upon continuous fields.

Despite those failures Einstein treated Maxwell as impeccable. SR is
based on a failed theory. According to Maxwell the MMX was capable of
detecting movement w.r.t the aether. The null result was interpreted as
showing that for some reason there was no movement w.r.t the aether. The
second postulate simply describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the
aether will observe and in effect says "an observer always finds himself
stationary w.r.t the aether".

The alternative explanation of the MMX result was that there is no
aether and therefore the speed of light cannot be constant w.r.t the
aether as per Maxwell and must be referenced to the source - there being
no feasible causality whereby the observer can influence the speed at
which light leaves the source. This fits particularly well with the fact
that light was shown to be particulate. In general the process which
sends a particle on its way determines its speed. Unfortunately to
accept this conclusion was to accept that physics had been wrong for 200
year. That Newtons Corpuscular (Emission) theory was correct after all
and not the aether theory.

SR had the advantage that it said that physics wasn't actually wrong -
merely incomplete. Of course experimental evidence was needed to base
the faith on and that was provided by DeSitter. His evidence was still
being quoted in 1964 as being the most convincing evidence which is
strange because any 6th form student should have been able to see that
it is fatally flawed.

De-Sitter 1913 is easily dismissed.

What you have is a distant star system at a point O.
You have no independent verification of what is actually there only data
as systems capable of showing the effect are too far away to resolve
into two objects. They are described as spectroscopic binaries.

De-Sitter assumed relativity to be correct and worked out a description
of what was at O consistent with relativity (this is fairly easy to do).

Lets us describe that description as Dr (the description of what is
there based on the assumption of the truth of relativity)

What De-Sitter wrongly assumed was that Dr is an accurate description of
what was is at O. If Dr is an accurate description and if Emission
theory were true it would not produce the data - so emission theory
can't be true. A totally circular argument but very welcome to those who
wanted their beliefs to be confirmed.

To test if Emission theory could be correct it is necessary to try and
discover a different description De of what is at O which if emission
theory is true would result in the known data. This is exceedingly
difficult. It requires that one makes a guess at what is at O, calculate
what data would result, compare it with the actual data then by an
iterative process modify one's guess to get a better match until you get
De a description of what is at O which if emission theory is true would
give a match with the data. This process is hard enough when you have a
computer. DeSitter didn't!

Scandalously emission theory was totally ignored after the death of Ritz
in i910. When Fox examined the evidence against emission theory in 1964
he concluded that none of it stood up to close scrutiny. It was not a
change of heart. Not a serious attempt to re-appraise an alternative
theory it was an attempt to boost his own experiment to show that the
speed of light was independent of the speed of the source. Whether he
did, or he didn't I am not qualified to say but no one in physics is
likely to look at it critically.

As Essen pointed out, Science involved measurement and measurement
requires a system of units which need to be carefully chosen such that
they inter work even in different disciplines. A cardinal rule in
measurement theory is that you do not duplicate units (two or more
different ways of giving an answer). Only a unit of measurement can be
made constant by definition.

When Einstein produced his theory the units of distance and time were
defined as constants and velocity was something measured in terms of
these units - a derived unit. The idea that a 1m measuring stick can
vary in length is a contradiction in terms as a 1m measuring stick is
what you use to determine length. In making the speed of light constant
*by definition* Einstein broke the cardinal rule of measurement theory
in duplicating units. As Essen points out what Einstein actually did was
to simply create a new set of units where the units of time and distance
are assumed to vary with v^2/c^2 so as to make the speed of light
constant when it is measured using these new units. Thus time and space
are inter-related by definition and not due to some inherent property of
nature. As Essen says it is possible to make such a system of units work
but it does not constitute a "theory" and serves no useful purpose.

Alfonso

[Tyler Dresden]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:15:32 AM UTC-5, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> On Jul 13, 1:52 pm, Tom Roberts &lt;tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net&gt; wrote:
> &gt; On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 2:35 PM, Tom Roberts wrote:
> &gt;
> &gt; &gt; Except for SR and LET, the members of this class do not satisfy the PoR.
> &gt;
> &gt; Typo: LET does not satisfy the PoR either.

>
> It depends if LET is an interpretation to Larmor’s or the Lorentz

> transform. &lt;shrug&gt;

>
> Koobee Wublee has not come across any historic references to this
> issue since the self-styled physicists cannot even tell a difference
> between Larmor’s and the Lorentz transforms in which all literatures

> show the same confusions. &lt;shrug&gt;

>
> So, is Tom offering his awakened realization by noticing a difference
> between these two transforms? It is like an amoeba suddenly
> understands existentialism. Wow! To Koobee Wublee, this moment
> represents a very exciting and pivoting moment in the history of
> science when amoebas suddenly realize existentialism through the
> helping hand of Koobee Wublee. Wait a minute! Is anyone concluding
> that Koobee Wublee is a God? Ahahahaha...

What ever you try to measure the (phase shift or synchronized clock shift or ETC) with, will not detect it because what ever you make the measurement with is made of the same stuff of the universe, which will all have the same shift.

phase shifted object b will cause a counter balencing shift in object a

[Androcles]

"Alfonso" wrote in message news:uJ-dnUXB7OwapJzN...@bt.com...

========================================================
Fox only tackled Walther Ritz's emission theory and that is clouded by
Ritz's mathematics.

The intensity of light from a variable star is proportional
to dt/dT which is Wilson time dilation, defined here:
http://androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doolin'sStar.GIF
dT can be negative.
Wilson can be credited with noticing dT differs from dt, although
he gives no equation and has spent years trying to make them the
same with his unifuckation theory. He also insists dT must be positive
which is the bone of contention between us. Perhaps he objects
to me describing his idea mathematically.

DeSitter suffered from the faith that what he saw was what was happening,
which is emotionally intuitive but illogical when what we see is affected
by the light. Sticks are seen to bend in water, but they don't and nobody
would seriously claim the do; two fish can be seen in the corner of tank,
but there is only one fish there.
Variable stars don't really vary intrinsically either, the effect is a
result of
the speed of light, distance and the speed of the star.
Moreover, all DeSitter's observations are spectroscopic, he completely
ignores variation in magnitude. And so we have stars that blow themselves
to smithereens, settle down to normal and then blow up again, stars that
that puff up and down like blowfish and are off the Hertzsprunge-Russell
main sequence, stars that play peek-a-boo behind dark companions and
stars that emit short term solar flares brighter than the star itself.

-- Androcles

[ken...@att.net]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 6:40:58 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 5:34 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> &gt; On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:00:38 AM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> &gt;&gt; On 7/13/2012 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; On Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:57:58 AM UTC-4, Razia wrote:
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;&amp;gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;&amp;gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;&amp;gt; has the same value for all observers,
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;&amp;gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;&amp;gt; or with respect to the light source.
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;&amp;gt; Why is it so?
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt;
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant. The one-way speed of light (OWLS)
> &gt; never been
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; measured directly. Why? Because the value for the OWLS is not a constant it is distant dependent.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; No, it&amp;#39;s not. Distance dependence is RULED out by the class of many
> &gt;&gt; two-way light-speed measurements.
> &gt;
> &gt; If you do direct one-way the value for OWLS is distance dependent. That&#39;s why physicists
> &gt; refused to measure OWLS directly. BTW the TWLS is also distance dependent.

>
> BULLSHIT! Zero, and I mean ZERO, evidence of distance dependence. If you
> think otherwise, CITE!

The results of the two way experiments done so far are not constant.
>
> &gt; The TWLS&#39;s done so far show different values.
>
> Bullshit. CITE!

You look it up.

>
> &gt;
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; ASS.
>
> ASS.
>
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; In order to overcome this deficiency and maintain the viability of SR, physicists invented a new
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; standard for the meter length as follows:
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; 1 meter = 1/299,792,458 light-second
> &gt;

[G=EMC^2]

Photons never change speed,nor do they bounce. TreBert

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Sat, 14 Jul 2012 05:25:30 -0700 (PDT), "G=EMC^2"
<herbert...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Photons never change speed,

(in vacuum)

>nor do they bounce. TreBert


what is a "photon bounce"?
never heard of.


w.

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/14/12 7/14/12 3:15 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012 19:13:44 -0500, Tom Roberts

>> "Slow clock transport" merely means transporting the clock slowly enough so the
>> effect of "time dilation" is smaller than the measurement resolution. For modern
>> atomic clocks separated by a kilometer, 60 MPH is slow enough; for several
>> hundred kilometers one must travel more slowly. Since the difference is linear
>> in L but quadratic in v, for a given resolution and value of L there is always a
>> value of v that is slow enough.
>
> SR dilatation is not affected by velocity, but only by integral(ds).
> (The longer distance in spacetime).

Hmmmm. While the above-mentioned clock difference is indeed computed by
integral(ds) for each clock, that integral is PATH DEPENDENT and in this case
depends on the velocity of the clock relative to the inertial frame used for the
integral. That is, the value will be larger for the two clocks at rest in the
frame than for the clock moving wrt the frame.

(An inertial frame is not required, but in this example one is used.)

> So this does no apply and all clocks are affected regardless
> of their velocity in x,y,z.

What I said does apply; I don't know what you mean by the rest.

> GR dilatation is numerically opposite to SR as far as I know,

No. For instance, in any situation accurately modeled by SR (i.e. gravitation
can be neglected), GR gets the same result as SR for the elapsed proper time of
any clock. "Time dilation" is the measured difference between clocks, and is
likewise the same for SR and GR when gravitation is negligible.

It is primarily in one specific instance, Haefle and Keating and similar
physical situations (e.g. satellites), in which the sign of the gravitational
term is opposite to that of the velocity term. H&K called these the "GR term"
and the "SR term", but those are misnomers: GR includes them BOTH.

> and by chosing a suitable v, dilatation could be zeroed
> in principle, as could be done by choosing satellite altitude,
> for example, to cancel SR and GR effects.

The two terms can be made to cancel in that specific physical situation. This is
not a general capability, it is related to the specific physical situation of a
clock in orbit.

> Who is the inventor of "slow clock transport" and where
> was it used the first time? I want to find an explanation
> from the horse's mouth.

I don't know. It would be sometime between 1905 and about 1911 or so. It might
have been Einstein.

> Does "slow clock transport" really mean cancelling out
> the SR and GR effects or is it based on false assumptions,
> hogwash and other physical fairy tale fashion trends?

Neither. GR is irrelevant in essentially all cases in which it is discussed, as
it is usually used in the context of SR. It is not "false assumptions, hogwash
and other physical fairy tale fashion trends", it is an APPROXIMATION. A valid
one when done properly (i.e. with quantitative awareness of the approximation
involved).

> I am asking because the sources and texts I have in my collection
> make use of this term as if it was a cemented wisdom from kindergarten
> and as if it were approbated daily routine everywhere.
>
> To me it looks rather demented.

Look again, and consider how valid the approximation is. If one synchronizes two
atomic clocks a few kilometers apart by carrying a clock between them at a few
m/s, the error due to the slow clock transport is considerably less than the
systematic errors due to clock drift.

Moreover, if the error is larger than is acceptable, one can correct for it. The
various standards organizations around the world routinely carry clocks between
their laboratories via airplanes and cars; they track the vehicle's motion and
altitude, and correct for it.

They also use GPS common view.

> If there is anyone out there who thinks he knows what
> "slow clock transport" actually means and he believes to know
> how to do it in real life, I will join him with my camera in hand.
> Mumbling magic phrases like "abacadabra" and "slow clock transport"
> is not the solution, it is the problem.

It's not nearly as bad as you think. But it is an APPROXIMATION, and must be
properly understood.


Tom Roberts

[ken...@att.net]

On Friday, July 13, 2012 5:26:28 PM UTC-4, Big Dog wrote:
> On 7/13/2012 3:02 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> &gt; On Friday, July 13, 2012 11:37:57 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> &gt;&gt; On 7/13/12 7/13/12 - 9:32 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> &gt;&gt; &amp;gt; The speed of light is a defined constant....not a measured constant.
> &gt;&gt;
> &gt;&gt; This is just plain wrong, as is everything else you wrote.
> &gt;
> &gt; It&#39;s not wrong at all. The TWLS was measured by reflecting the light between rotating reflecting
> &gt; mirrors..

>
> That is ONE measurement technique. You must be blissfully unaware of the
> OTHER methods that do not use rotating mirrors.
>

> &gt;..such procedure assumes that there is no delay time in the reflecting mirrors.

>
> No, it is not assumed. That delay is a number that is MEASURABLE by

> comparing speeds over different lever arms. I&#39;ve already described how

> this is done. The result is that the delay time is NEGLIGIBLE! Get hold
> of the data and look for yourself, you ass.
>

> &gt; Also the
> &gt; results obtained was not constant c....different TWLS experiments gave slightly different results.

>
> Bullshit! CITE the results you claim are slightly different.
>

> &gt; Also such procedure assumes that the lead photon will follow a straight line from the source to the
> &gt; detector....this means that you assumed that the position and the velocity of the lead photon is known
> &gt; simultaneously.....a violation of the uncertainty principle.

>
> Bullshit! Do you know how big the deflection due to the uncertainty
> principle would be?

Do you know? The answer: you don't know.....All I know is that you can't know the position and the velocity of the lead photon simultaneously. Since SR does make such assertion then SR violates the Uncertainty Principle.

>If you aim a FUCKING FLASHLIGHT on the ground in
> front of you, does it go where you point it? Does this OBVIOUS AND
> SIMPLE OBSERVATION violate the uncertainty principle, you ass? If you
> hold a laser pointer and point it at the wall, does the spot appear
> where you point it? Does this OBVIOUS AND SIMPLE OBSERVATION violate the
> uncertainty principle, you ass?
>

> &gt;
> &gt; The OWLS can be measured directly by measuring its wavelength and
> frequency directly. However such
> &gt; procedure produced results that were not constant c but rather OWLS is distance dependent

>
> Bullshit! Cite the results that say that the OWLS is distance-dependent.
> If you say it is in existing experimental data, then put up or shut the
> fuck up. CITE!!

It is well known that the frequency of a radio source is reduced with increasing distance....this means that the OWLS from a receding source is decreased with increasing distance from the source as follows:
Universal wavelength of the source = L_s
Measured incoming frequency = F_i
Therefore the measured speed of incoming light = (F_i)(L_s)



>
> &gt; and that&#39;s
> &gt; why physicists abundoned such approach to measure OWLS and came up with the redefinition of the meter
> &gt; length to guarantee the OWLS is c.
> &gt;
>
> All you&#39;ve done is flung false and unsubstantiated bullshit. If you have

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/14/12 7/14/12 4:19 AM, Alfonso wrote:
> On 12/07/12 10:57, Razia wrote:
>> Why is the speed of light constant?
>> All experiments show that the velocity of light
>> has the same value for all observers,
>> even if they are moving with respect to each other
>> or with respect to the light source.
>> Why is it so?
>
> Is this so? On a purely historical perspective there was absolutely no
> experimental evidence for this when Einstein produced his theory so where did
> his second postulate come from?

From a consideration of Maxwell's equations. In later life he said he had tried
several different candidates for the second postulate, and decided the one he
used was most acceptable. Remember that in the then-popular aether theories it
is obviously valid (his ACTUAL postulate, not common simplifications).

> It's very simple although you won't find it in a
> text book. In 1905 and for a considerable period afterwards the state of play is
> as described below.
>
> Maxwell's Theory had:
>
> FAILED - prediction of the outcome of the MMX wrong.
> FAILED - prediction of black body radiation wrong.
> FAILED - Light shown to be particulate which is totally inconsistent with
> Maxwell's theory based upon continuous fields.

By 1905 there were a half dozen other experiments that failed to find the aether
rest frame.


> [... an outrageously biased discussion that falls far short of historical accuracy.
> For instance, your (and Essen's ?) claims about units are factually wrong and logically
> incorrect. The redefinition took place in 1983 and did not have the error you claim.]

SR is a highly accurate model of physical phenomena over a rather large domain.
It does not really matter how it was originally derived, as today the best
derivations do not have those flaws. Indeed there is no need for any version of
the second postulate; a modern derivation of SR uses:
1. the PoR
2. the definition of inertial frames
3. space is homogeneous and isotropic; time is homogeneous
4. clocks and rulers have no memory
5. group theory
6. experimental results that refute the Euclid and Galilean groups

(Items 2-4 were "hidden postulates" of Einstein's original derivation, as he
acknowledged in 1907.)


Tom Roberts

[ken...@att.net]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 10:19:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/14/12 7/14/12 4:19 AM, Alfonso wrote:

> &gt; On 12/07/12 10:57, Razia wrote:
> &gt;&gt; Why is the speed of light constant?
> &gt;&gt; All experiments show that the velocity of light
> &gt;&gt; has the same value for all observers,
> &gt;&gt; even if they are moving with respect to each other
> &gt;&gt; or with respect to the light source.
> &gt;&gt; Why is it so?
> &gt;
> &gt; Is this so? On a purely historical perspective there was absolutely no
> &gt; experimental evidence for this when Einstein produced his theory so where did
> &gt; his second postulate come from?
>
> From a consideration of Maxwell&#39;s equations. In later life he said he had tried

> several different candidates for the second postulate, and decided the one he
> used was most acceptable. Remember that in the then-popular aether theories it
> is obviously valid (his ACTUAL postulate, not common simplifications).
>
>

> &gt; It&#39;s very simple although you won&#39;t find it in a
> &gt; text book. In 1905 and for a considerable period afterwards the state of play is
> &gt; as described below.
> &gt;
> &gt; Maxwell&#39;s Theory had:
> &gt;
> &gt; FAILED - prediction of the outcome of the MMX wrong.
> &gt; FAILED - prediction of black body radiation wrong.
> &gt; FAILED - Light shown to be particulate which is totally inconsistent with
> &gt; Maxwell&#39;s theory based upon continuous fields.

>
> By 1905 there were a half dozen other experiments that failed to find the aether
> rest frame.
>
>

> &gt; [... an outrageously biased discussion that falls far short of historical accuracy.
> &gt; For instance, your (and Essen&#39;s ?) claims about units are factually wrong and logically
> &gt; incorrect. The redefinition took place in 1983 and did not have the error you claim.]

>
> SR is a highly accurate model of physical phenomena over a rather large domain.
> It does not really matter how it was originally derived, as today the best
> derivations do not have those flaws. Indeed there is no need for any version of
> the second postulate; a modern derivation of SR uses:
> 1. the PoR
> 2. the definition of inertial frames
> 3. space is homogeneous and isotropic; time is homogeneous
> 4. clocks and rulers have no memory

This is wrong....clocks certainly have memory. Clocks inrelative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

> 5. group theory
> 6. experimental results that refute the Euclid and Galilean groups
>

> (Items 2-4 were &quot;hidden postulates&quot; of Einstein&#39;s original derivation, as he

[hanson]

"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:

-- <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
>
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
I have not found yet an explanation what the relativity

(SR/GR) authors mean by _"slow clock transport"__

and why it has to be slow. Everyone mentiones that,
but not one author bothers to explain.

> ___________

>
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Consider an inertial frame with two clocks a distance L
apart that are at rest and synchronized in this frame.
Now take a third clock, synchronize it with one clock,
accelerate it quickly to speed v relative to the frame,
have it travel to the other clock at speed v and decelerate
it quickly to be at rest adjacent to it [#].

-- [#] The accelerations must not break the clock.

This third clock will not be synchronized with the second
clock, due to "time dilation"; the difference depends on
both L and v.
The difference is linear in L and quadratic in v; for a given L
it goes to zero as v approaches zero (i.e. slower transport).
So the error in using such transport to synchronize clocks
can be made arbitrarily small by transporting sufficiently
slowly.

"Slow clock transport" merely means transporting the clock
slowly enough so the effect of "time dilation" is smaller
than the measurement resolution. For modern atomic clocks
separated by a kilometer, 60 MPH is slow enough; for several
hundred kilometers one must travel more slowly.
Since the difference is linear in L but quadratic in v, for a given
resolution and value of L there is always a value of v that is
slow enough.

> _______

>
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
SR dilatation is not affected by velocity, but only by

integral(ds). (The longer distance in spacetime). [1]

So this does no apply and all clocks are affected
regardless of their velocity in x,y,z.
>
GR dilatation is numerically opposite to SR as far as I know,
and by chosing a suitable v, dilatation could be zeroed
in principle, as could be done by choosing satellite altitude,
for example, to cancel SR and GR effects.
>
Who is the inventor of "slow clock transport" and where
was it used the first time? I want to find an explanation
from the horse's mouth.

> __________
>
hanson wrote:
Excellent!, Helmut. Although your initial sentence [1]
in you para above is not very clear, it can be clearly said
that you will not find an originator for the "slow clock
transport".
It evolved, just like environmentalism did, due to fanatical
emotional support of a SOCIAL BELIEF system. You must
go back to the days following 1907, after Einstein apologized
publicly for his theft of E=mc^2, in his (Maric's?) 1905 paper.
>
At this juncture one of the early Einstein Dingleberries came
to Albert's rescue (suggesting a "slow clock transport") using
the standard Jewish confusion tactic which is outlined in the
<http://tinyurl.com/The-HW-Rosenthal-interview-XT>
by the eminent Jewish scholar Harold Wallace Rosenthal.
>
Fast forward to Tom Roberts [TR:], who saw the light
like you did, when he posted a few days back:
[TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow:
. ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow:
. ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______.
>
But now, Roberts has suffered from a relapse into the
mental disease of Einstein Dingleberryism. Tom simply
weaseled, confused and converted your question of
"slow-vs.-fast transport", v= L/T, by multiplying it with
T and lamented on L, as the "Near-vs.-far field" problem,
which too has a different size and meaning for every
"observer" aka "Believer" aka "Einstein Dingleberry...
... ahahaha....
>
Inadvertently, Tom introduced still more additional
"crutches" to keep the Gedanken-cripple-concept of
SR/GR hobbling along. Tom brings along a brand new
__3rd clock__ and conditions the silly SR/GR procedure
by making it dependant on "the clocks' material and
construction properties".... ahahaha... like a "chicken
in every pot" is a "clock for every Einstein Dingleberry".
> ________

>
Helmut Wabnig continued & wrote:
Does "slow clock transport" really mean cancelling out
the SR and GR effects or is it based on false assumptions,
hogwash and other physical fairy tale fashion trends?
I am asking because the sources and texts I have in my collection
make use of this term as if it was a cemented wisdom from
kindergarten and as if it were approbated daily routine

everywhere. ----- To me it looks rather demented.

>
If there is anyone out there who thinks he knows what
"slow clock transport" actually means and he believes
to know how to do it in real life, I will join him with my
camera in hand. Mumbling magic phrases like "abacadabra"
and "slow clock transport" is not the solution, it is the problem.

> _________
>
hanson wrote:
You are right, again, Helmut. And you have the full
support of the SR/GR originator, Einstein himself, who
in his final years became an outspoken SR/GR denier.
>
Early on Einstein knew & hinted that not all was kosher
in Relativity-Land, by him saying about his 1095 paper:
||AE|| The secret to creativity is knowing
|| AE|| how to hide your sources....
by which Einstein referred to the issue that the 1905 paper
was really the intellectual property of his wife Mileva Maric
to whom he, later on, had to fork over all of his Nobel loot,
as __HUSH MONEY__ to keep Mileva from singing!... ahaha...
>
Einstein started off in the 1905 paper & wrote:
||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays
|||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
>
Then, during the next 3 decades when Einstein was riding
high on his Zionist financed wake that put and kept him
in the lime light it became clearer that
>
== Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what
== Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art,
namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts & lunacies
like:
||| AE:: "People like us, who **believe** in physics,
||| AE:: know that the distinction between the
||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly
||| AE:: persistent illusion."
|||AE:: "Space &time are NOT conditions in which we
||AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think."
>
That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes.
<http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... and Einstein
never had the guts to prove his SR/GR by him simply
jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the
curvature of space & handling space- time, to avoid him
being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving
his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said.
>
But towards the end of his life, Einstein became clean
& he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that
>
||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have
||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] no nearer to the answer
||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons.
>
and furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the
wall, when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his
Jewish friend Besso:
>
|||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to
|||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they
|||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality."
>
|AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact
|||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?"
>
|AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be
|||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous
|||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire
|||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included."

|||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber".
|||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)]
<http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> & so, ergo:
>
. ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and
. ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____.
>
Up-shot:
Why then is SR/GR still so popular?
People hang onto & fanatically believe in all kind of
shit, which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like "UFO's",
"Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" and
etc, etc... The list is long and like Einstein said:
||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live;
||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think."
>
Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags,
which are escapes from harsh reality, people do
built that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it
and defend it with their lives!!!.....
___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____
>
Good show & thanks for the laughs, Helmut, Tom
and guys... ahahaha.... ahahahahanson

[hanson]

.... ahahahahahasa... ROTFLMAO... AHAHAHA...
>
"Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snip more of Tom's weaseling> except for Tom's
new conditioner to rescue SR/GR,which according
to him is that ... " it is an APPROXIMATION, and
must be properly understood. -- Tom Roberts
> ________

>
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
I have not found yet an explanation what the relativity

(SR/GR) authors mean by _"slow clock transport"__

and why it has to be slow. Everyone mentiones that,
but not one author bothers to explain.

> ___________
>
Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Consider an inertial frame with two clocks a distance L
apart that are at rest and synchronized in this frame.
Now take a third clock, synchronize it with one clock,
accelerate it quickly to speed v relative to the frame,
have it travel to the other clock at speed v and decelerate
it quickly to be at rest adjacent to it [#].

-- [#] The accelerations must not break the clock.

This third clock will not be synchronized with the second
clock, due to "time dilation"; the difference depends on
both L and v.
The difference is linear in L and quadratic in v; for a given L
it goes to zero as v approaches zero (i.e. slower transport).
So the error in using such transport to synchronize clocks
can be made arbitrarily small by transporting sufficiently
slowly.

"Slow clock transport" merely means transporting the clock
slowly enough so the effect of "time dilation" is smaller
than the measurement resolution. For modern atomic clocks
separated by a kilometer, 60 MPH is slow enough; for several
hundred kilometers one must travel more slowly.
Since the difference is linear in L but quadratic in v, for a given
resolution and value of L there is always a value of v that is
slow enough.

> _______

>
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
SR dilatation is not affected by velocity, but only by

integral(ds). (The longer distance in spacetime). [1]

So this does no apply and all clocks are affected
regardless of their velocity in x,y,z.
>

GR dilatation is numerically opposite to SR as far as I know,

and by chosing a suitable v, dilatation could be zeroed
in principle, as could be done by choosing satellite altitude,
for example, to cancel SR and GR effects.
>

Who is the inventor of "slow clock transport" and where
was it used the first time? I want to find an explanation
from the horse's mouth.

Does "slow clock transport" really mean cancelling out
the SR and GR effects or is it based on false assumptions,
hogwash and other physical fairy tale fashion trends?

I am asking because the sources and texts I have in my collection
make use of this term as if it was a cemented wisdom from
kindergarten and as if it were approbated daily routine

everywhere. ----- To me it looks rather demented.

>
If there is anyone out there who thinks he knows what
"slow clock transport" actually means and he believes
to know how to do it in real life, I will join him with my
camera in hand. Mumbling magic phrases like "abacadabra"
and "slow clock transport" is not the solution, it is the problem.

[Tom Roberts]

This is meant in the sense that their INSTANTANEOUS rate is independent of their
history; all that matters is their CURRENT physical situation. That is clearly
true, in modern physics, and even in self-inconsistent worldviews like yours.

The PUNS you use in your description makes it difficult to decipher.
But I think you will agree that it does not matter how it happened
that the clocks are moving differently. That is ALL this is claiming.


Tom Roberts

[Ron-boy]

On Jul 12, 11:26 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 7/12/12 7/12/12 7:59 PM, ron_ai...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > No experiment has shown that light's one-way speed is invariant.
>
> Hmmm. No experiment has measured the one-way speed of light with resolution
> anywhere close to that of the round-trip speed. In all cases the systematic
> errors due to clock drift are enormous.
>

Since the subject is theoretical physics (SR = theory), you should
have realized that I was speaking of a perfect or ideal experiment,
one in which there are zero systematic errors.

Objection overruled.

> > (I am talking about a properly performed experiment, i.e., one that does not
> > use either rotated or transported clocks (because such clocks run slow).)
>
> Your notion of "properly performed" is downright silly. Any one-way measurement
> requires a pair of SYNCHRONIZED clocks. The result of the experiment depends
> directly on the synchronization method used, and your limitation is an
> unreasonable restriction on the choice of method.
>
> If you think that "moving clocks run slow", then it's easy
> to deal with this: make sure their motion is symmetric.
> While they won't remain synchronized with a clock that remained
> at rest, they will remain synchronized with each other, which
> is all that is required.

Problem: One cannot "make sure their motion is symmetric" without
first having truly or absolutely synchronous clocks. (Einstein
referred to this as a "logical circle.")
http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html

Apparently, you need to study up on SR.
(If two clocks move in opposite directions after being perfectly
synchronized when touching, then they may become asynchronous due to
their different motions in space. This is just one of the reasons
that we do NOT have absolute time or truly synchronous clocks that are
spatially separated. But any serious SR student should know this.)

> Of course clock synchronization is frame dependent, so the
above
> procedure must be carried out with respect to some inertial frame.

You meant to say "Of course clock *asynchronization* is frame
dependent," because, as everyone knows, any and all clocks of any
current theory (including SR) are NOT absolutely or truly synchronous,
but are in fact asynchronous.

True clock synchronization is neither merely a convention nor is it
frame dependent. This is why it's called "absolute" synchronization.

True clock synchronization is not merely a convention because it is
the only type of synchronization that agrees with reality. For
example, when two stars explode truly or absolutely simultaneously,
only truly or absolutely synchronous clocks will reflect this.

> > You might ask yourself why no experiment has ever shown the invariance of the
> > one-way speed of light.
>
> Simple: because the one-way speed is CONVENTIONAL -- it depends on the
> synchronization convention used. Also, as I said above, the systematic errors
> are enormous, and no significant results can be obtained.

No. As I just explained, since truly synchronous clocks are NOT merely
conventional, any results given by them are also nonconventional,
including the one-way speed of light, which, as Einstein stated
mathematically, will VARY with frame velocity.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

> > You might even ask yourself why this misinformation is epidemic.
>
> Because it does not really cause any harm (except that it confuses people like
> yourself who refuse to understand modern physics).
>
> Tom Roberts

Modern physics, as I just said (via Einstein's book), says that GIVEN
absolutely synchronous clocks, light's one-way speed will VARY with
frame velocity. Why you do not seem to realize this is perplexing.

~RA~

[Ron-boy]

D A Smith wrote:

> You might even ask yourself why the issue of
>"one way speed of light" is brought up,
> since it is not possible to measure it.

Then why did you recently post this:

Razia:

>> All experiments show that the velocity of light

>> has the same value for all observers,

Smith:
> Velocity, no. Speed, yes. Please use the correct terminology.

~RA~

[ken...@att.net]

On Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:17:20 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 7/14/12 7/14/12 9:35 AM, ken...@att.net wrote:

> &gt; On Saturday, July 14, 2012 10:19:20 AM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
> &gt;&gt; 4. clocks and rulers have no memory
> &gt;
> &gt; This is wrong....clocks certainly have memory. Clocks inrelative motion accumulate clock seconds at different rates.

>
> This is meant in the sense that their INSTANTANEOUS rate is independent of their
> history;

This is wrong....their instantaneous rates (intrinsic rates) are dependent on their history. An accelerated clock will run at a slower intrinsic rate compared to a clock that have not been accelerated.

>all that matters is their CURRENT physical situation. That is clearly
> true, in modern physics, and even in self-inconsistent worldviews like yours.

My world view in consistent with my theory of IRT. Your world view is consistant with the incomplete theory of SR. That means that your claim is bogus.

>
> The PUNS you use in your description makes it difficult to decipher.
> But I think you will agree that it does not matter how it happened
> that the clocks are moving differently. That is ALL this is claiming.
>

It does matter how it happend....IRT says that clocks in relative motion accumulate clock secoond differently because a clock second represents a different amount of absolute time in different frames.

[dlzc]

Dear Ron-boy:

What do you not understand about the two way *speed* of light? I never said anything about the "one way speed of light" in that quote.

David A. Smith

[Alfonso]

On 14/07/12 15:19, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 7/14/12 7/14/12 4:19 AM, Alfonso wrote:
>> On 12/07/12 10:57, Razia wrote:
>>> Why is the speed of light constant?
>>> All experiments show that the velocity of light
>>> has the same value for all observers,
>>> even if they are moving with respect to each other
>>> or with respect to the light source.
>>> Why is it so?
>>
>> Is this so? On a purely historical perspective there was absolutely no
>> experimental evidence for this when Einstein produced his theory so
>> where did
>> his second postulate come from?
>
> From a consideration of Maxwell's equations.

Rubbish. In the absence of aether the c in Maxwell's equations is the
solution to an unknown problem. It has units of speed and therefore must
be referenced to something. Nothing in the equations can

In later life he said he
> had tried several different candidates for the second postulate, and
> decided the one he used was most acceptable. Remember that in the
> then-popular aether theories it is obviously valid (his ACTUAL
> postulate, not common simplifications).

His wording might have been original but according to Sir Edmund
Whittiaker the concept was generally accepted at the time.

>
>
>> It's very simple although you won't find it in a
>> text book. In 1905 and for a considerable period afterwards the state
>> of play is
>> as described below.
>>
>> Maxwell's Theory had:
>>
>> FAILED - prediction of the outcome of the MMX wrong.
>> FAILED - prediction of black body radiation wrong.
>> FAILED - Light shown to be particulate which is totally inconsistent with
>> Maxwell's theory based upon continuous fields.
>
> By 1905 there were a half dozen other experiments that failed to find
> the aether rest frame.
>
>
>> [... an outrageously biased discussion that falls far short of
>> historical accuracy.

Doing your usual trick of snipping something you cannot deal with.
It is completely accurate until you *show* otherwise.

>> For instance, your (and Essen's ?) claims about units are factually
>> wrong and logically
>> incorrect.

Essen was the leading expert on measurement theory and the inventor of
the atomic clock.

“Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement”
Essen

Einstein was not an expert in measurement theory and neither are you.
You should read up on Essen he was an interesting and brilliant character.

Essentially the idea that a ruler changes its length is a
contradiction in terms. A ruler is what you measure length with.

As Essen says only a unit of measurement can be made constant *by
definition* any other constant is such because when measured - using
standard units - it doesn't vary. What Einstein did was to define the
speed of light as a constant and base his maths on that definition. In
order for it to be a constant in all circumstances you have to assume
that time and distance both change by a factor involving v^2. But time
and distance are fundamental units and were constant *by definition*. If
the units of time and the units of distance are universal constants you
have to assume the speed of light varies.

Quite simply you can fix the speed of light in which case distance and
time units vary in accordance with gamma or you fix distance and time
units in which case the speed of light using those units varies.

A statement that 'the speed of light is constant' is meaningless as it
depends on what units you use to measure it with. Einstein defined it as
a constant.

Alfonso

[Alfonso]

I just had an image flash into my brain of Tom Roberts with his eyes
shut and hands over his ears repeating "hear no evil, see no evil, hear
no evil, see no evil......" or perhaps "Get thee behind me Androcles" :o)

[Tom Roberts]

On 7/14/12 7/14/12 1:42 PM, ken...@att.net wrote:
> On Saturday, July 14, 2012 12:17:20 PM UTC-4, tjrob137 wrote:
>> 4. clocks and rulers have no memory

>> This is meant in the sense that their INSTANTANEOUS rate is independent of
>> their history;
>
> This is wrong....their instantaneous rates (intrinsic rates) are dependent on
> their history. An accelerated clock will run at a slower intrinsic rate
> compared to a clock that have not been accelerated.

You're not listening. I said their HISTORY does not matter, but their CURRENT
PHYSICAL SITUATION does matter. That is, it does not matter how a given clock
achieved its current physical state. Consider:

* Clock A is accelerated to a speed 1000 km/s relative to earth
toward Sirius.
* Clock B is accelerated to a speed 2000 km/s relative to earth
toward Sirius, and then is slowed down to a speed 1000 km/s
relative to earth toward Sirius.
* Clock C is accelerated to a speed 500 km/s relative to earth
toward Sirius, and is then accelerated to a speed 1000 km/s
relative to earth toward Sirius.
* Clock D is accelerated to a speed 1000 km/s relative to earth
AWAY from Sirius, and is then accelerated be at rest again, and
then to a speed 1000 km/s relative to earth toward Sirius.

ALL that statement 4 says is that clocks A, B, C, and D will all have the same
instantaneous rate after their accelerations are completed. If you believe that
position matters, arrange things so they attain their final speeds adjacent to
each other.

As you have a history of not listening, let me repeat: this is INSTANTANEOUS
tick rate, and not any value accumulated over time.

In relativity, all clocks tick at their standard instantaneous
rate, regardless of their history or their current state.
But that is NOT what statement 4 (alone) says, that is a
consequence of the entire theory. The "instantaneous rate"
of a clock is of course measured by the clock itself.


Tom Roberts