special relativity's second postulate is invalid

[SRdude]

An arbitrary inertial frame moves to the right relative to a light
source S. The distance between the frame's two clocks is x per an at-
rest ruler.

The second postulate demands that the right-hand clock read x/c
whenever it is started by the light ray that is emitted at S when the
left-hand clock reads zero.

Inertial Frame
[0]------------x-----------[x/c]-->
S~>light

Inertial Frame
-----------[?]------------x-----------[x/c]-->
S---------------------------------------->light

Although the light ray's travel distance relative to the frame was x
(the ray was observed to go from one clock to the other), this does
not take into account the fact that during the light ray's journey,
the clocks moved relative to the light source. This means that the
clocks could also have moved relative to the ray, thereby making the
ray's travel time different from x/c.

In other words, there is no justification for postulating a start time
of x/c on the right-hand clock.

We can add support to this conclusion by simply adding another frame,
and letting this frame move to the right relative to the first frame.

Frame A
[0]----------x---------[x/c]-->
S~>light
[0]----------x---------[x/c]--->
Frame C


Frame A
----------[?]----------x---------[x/c]-->
S--------------------------------->light
---------------------[0]----------x---------[x/c]--->
Frame B

According to the definition of light-like events, the two clock-
starting events that occur will happen at absolutely different times,
which we can label t1 and t2.

Why these different times?

Because, as explained above, each frame moved differently relative to
the light source S, so each frame moved differently relative to the
light ray, causing the ray to take different travel times in each
frame, as shown above.

Per the above simple experiment, here are light's one-way speeds:

Frame A: light's one-way speed = x/t1 ≠ c

Frame B: light's one-way speed = x/t2 ≠ c

Forcing the clocks to read the same start time x/c when they are in
fact started at different times is an invalid procedure, but this is
what special relativity's second postulate calls for, and it is also
what Einstein's definition of "synchronization" entails.

The second postulate is wrong because light's one-way speed is not
invariant. Einstein's definition of "synchronization" is wrong because
it assumes invariance. It is also wrong because it produces
asynchronous clocks.

Asynchronous clocks cannot agree with experiment. This should be
obvious.

Also, asynchronous clocks cannot correctly measure time spans. This,
too, should be obvious. The emperor has no clothes.

---SRdude---

[rotchm]

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:23:08 PM UTC-5, SRdude wrote:
> An arbitrary inertial frame moves to the right relative to a light
> source S. The distance between the frame's two clocks is x per an at-
> rest ruler.

First problem: You are using "distance" in a way different from the physicist (and SR) definition. You are defining distances via ruler, a "rigid rod". In physics, distances are defined via a twls procedure. Rulers are *then* calibrated from this twls procedure. So when *you* are tlaking about distances in your post, you are not using the same notions as we are; you are mixing up different things with same words. You are not analyzing SR.

Second problem. It is unclear of what your distance x represents. Is it the distance x between the two clocks as measured by the moving inertial frame or by the frame of the source, the "at rest ruler" ?

[SRdude]

The distance between the frame's clocks can be 1 light-year per the on-
board observers measured in any way that's legit for current flat
space-time physics. It is whatever distance these observers would use
in current flat space-time physics to measure light's one-way speed
per two clocks. This speed necessarily includes a measured distance
and a recorded time. Is this clear enough for you? I am not trying
to mix things up. That is the last thing that I want to do. It is
also the distance that would be used (2X) in the round-trip light
speed measurement, the one that you said controlled the rulers.
Hmmm....

[dlzc]

Dear SRdude:

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 7:23:08 PM UTC-7, SRdude wrote:
...

> The second postulate is wrong because light's
> one-way speed is not invariant.

OWLS is assured to be invariant, by Maxwell.

> Einstein's definition of "synchronization" is
> wrong because it assumes invariance.

Which is the *result* of one of the laws of physics, namely Maxwell's relations.

> It is also wrong because it produces asynchronous
> clocks.

Since Nature does not let us measure OWLS, you have proposed something that cannot be disproven. So it is not Science. Try again.

David A. Smith

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/3/13 1/3/13 - 8:23 PM, SRdude wrote:
> [... much nonsense]

If what you claim were actually true in the world we inhabit, the GPS could not
work. It does. Your claims are wrong.

[Remember that the earth occupies many different inertial
frames (in the sense of SR) during a year, and the GPS works
in every one of them. The GPS is designed around the FACT
that the one-way speed of light in its ECI coordinates is
isotropically c to high accuracy.]

The underlying error in your description is intermixing observations from
different frames, which yields nonsense.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 4, 12:12 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> The GPS is designed around the FACT that the one-way speed
> of light in its ECI coordinates is isotropically c to high
> accuracy.

Think again, Tom. If the speed of light were to vary by an amount
described below, there would still be no consequence in the final
accuracy of GPS. This is because this tiny variation if exists is not
accumulative. <shrug>

** C = c (1 + d)

Where

** C = Speed of light at a point in space
** c = Constant
** d = Varied amount
** 1 >> d

Also, your ECI is totally undistinguishable from the model of the
absolute frame of reference where time dilation is based on the local
value in the speed of light. <shrug>

> The underlying error in your description is intermixing observations from
> different frames, which yields nonsense.

Tom, you need to stop spreading more myths about but engage more
scientific investigations into SR. <shrug>

[rotchm]

> The distance between the frame's clocks can be 1 light-year per the on-
> board observers measured in any way that's legit for current flat
> space-time physics. It is whatever distance these observers would use

Again, your description is very ambiguous to me. I have no idea what you are talking about. I will assume you mean:

Let S be a (coordinated) inertial frame. The origin is labeled zero. Another point over there is labeled D. This particular point "over there" has been constructed (labeled) by the following operational definition (coordination procedure). From x=0 sent an EM to_reflected_back to x=0. Let T = The time lapsed on the clock at x = 0 for this emission/reception. Reset the clock at x=0 to zero and resend an EM to D. Upon reception, D will set itsef to time = T/2 and D = 299792458*T/2. This latter is the distance of the point D is from the origin. Do this for all points in the inertial frame. The i-frame is thus said to be coordinated.

Now, what is the SoL? : Send again an EM from x=0 to this D, a "one way" signal. The speed is dist/time = [299792458*T/2] / [T/2] = 299792458 !! Constant by construction. Although we sent an EM signal one way from x=0 to D, the construction of the coordinates at D used a twls process and makes it such that the "owls" of the signal is always 299792458. We symbolize this constant by "c".

[Jimmy Kesler]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> [Remember that the earth occupies many different inertial
> frames (in the sense of SR) during a year, and the GPS works in
every
> one of them. The GPS is designed around the FACT that the one-way
> speed of light in its ECI coordinates is isotropically c to high
> accuracy.]

that synchronisation must be fictional, since there is no atomic clock
near earths centre, thus they must use a multitude of base stations
spread around to world, in order to synchronize those satellites as close
as possible

[Jimmy Kesler]

dlzc wrote:

> Since Nature does not let us measure OWLS, you have proposed something
> that cannot be disproven. So it is not Science. Try again.

then the speed of light is not a speed, and does not travel, since you
cant travel by no speed

[SRdude]

On Jan 4, rotchm wrote:
> Again, your description is very ambiguous to me. I have no idea
> what you are talking about. I will assume you mean:

<<snip 1983 definition of length>>

Here is what I'm talking about:

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

It simply is not possible to separate OWLS
from the method of clock synchronization.
Different methods of synchronization can yield
different values of OWLS, but the standard
methods of synchronization all yield OWLS = TWLS.

Tom Roberts

The above is an excerpt from the thread
"A Proposed Experiment to test OWLS"
======================================

Einstein said that observers using the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics will get
a variable one-way light speed.

[Quoting Einstein:]
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have

w = c - v.

The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative
to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.

But this result comes into conflict with the principle
of relativity.... For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo
must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when
the rails are the body of reference."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

This is not a closing velocity because Einstein claims
that it conflicts with the principle of relativity, and
a closing velocity would not do this.

Also, no mere closing velocity could have given Einstein
a headache.

And no mere closing velocity could have caused the creation
of the theory of special relativity.

The only way to get c and c - v prior to special relativity
would be by using classical physics' absolute synchronization.
======================================

Clearly, the one-way light speed is experimentally independent of the
two-way speed.

But let's begin again using your stuff.

Observers in Inertial Frame A time a light ray's round-trip using one
clock at the origin and a mirror at the end of the trip. The round-
trip time = 2 years per the origin clock. Out of sheer desperation
(due to their lack of absolute clock synchronization), they are forced
to force the distant clock to read the time 1 year when the light ray
makes a one-way trip to it from the origin clock (which read zero when
the light ray left it).

Now let the observers in another frame (B) do the same thing.

Now let both observers compare their coordinate systems experimentally
using a single light source S, as follows:

Frame A
origin clocks start but both right-hand clocks are unstarted
[0]------------------x------------------[1yr]-->
S~>light emitted
[0]------------------x------------------[1yr]--->
Frame B

Note: A moves to the right relative to S, and B moves to the right
relative to A.

Note: It is not critical that the two distant clocks be perfectly
aligned as shown; all that matters is that the observers in each frame
have separately measured their own distance between their own clocks
to be x, as was given. (For example, x in each frame could be 1 light-
year.)

Related note: In no case does any observer in either frame measure any
distance that is not in his own frame. (No "cross-measurements" are
involved.)

Frame A A's right-hand clock starts now
--------[?]-----------x-----------[1yr]-->
S----------------------------------->light
--------------------[?]-----------x-----------[1yr]--->
Frame B B's right-hand clock still unstarted

If one wishes to have *correct* time measurements, then one must
acknowledge the simple fact that clock synchronization is not subject
to mere definition. This is because there is only ONE way to relate
clocks that will yield *correct* measurement, and that way is absolute
synchronization.

Therefore, any other clock-setting method must *conflict* with
experiment, as did Einstein's as shown by the above simple diagrams.

These diagrams show that Einstein's defined "c-invariance" directly
conflicts with experiment by invalidly having the distant clocks read
the same start time when they were in fact started at absolutely
different times. (We know that they were started at absolutely
different times because the two clock-starting events are light-like,
and such events have an absolute before and after. We are not
invoking absolute time here, only an absolute time difference between
two events.)

Both Einstein's second postulate and his definition of clock
"synchronization" are flawed because they attempt to define
synchronization. Man cannot do this. Synchronization (or
simultaneity) exists independently of man and his mere definitions.

All that man can do is attempt to correctly measure simultaneous
events (or any other events). For example, if two stars explode, then
the only way to correctly determine if they exploded simultaneously or
not is by placing two truly synchronous clocks at the clocks prior to
the explosions. This cannot be done by mere definition. The clocks
must be correctly related experimentally. No definition!

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/5/13 1/5/13 11:15 AM, SRdude wrote:
> Einstein said that observers using the absolutely
> synchronous clocks of classical physics will get
> a variable one-way light speed.

Just saying something does not mean it is physically possible.

We now KNOW that it simply is not possible to obtain "absolutely synchronized
clocks", in the sense of clocks synchronized in every inertial frame (as is
automatic in Newtonian physics).

The world is not Newtonian, it is locally Minkowskian, in that SR is a MUCH
better local model of the world we inhabit than is NM.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 5, 8:36 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 1/5/13 1/5/13 11:15 AM, SRdude wrote:
>
> > Einstein said that observers using the absolutely
> > synchronous clocks of classical physics will get
> > a variable one-way light speed.
>
> Just saying something does not mean it is physically possible.

Just like you have been mentioning the proper time thing? <shrug>

> We now KNOW that it simply is not possible to obtain "absolutely synchronized
> clocks", in the sense of clocks synchronized in every inertial frame (as is
> automatic in Newtonian physics).

This is so only under SR. Other hypotheses may not have this
limitation. <shrug>

> The world is not Newtonian, it is locally Minkowskian, in that SR is a MUCH
> better local model of the world we inhabit than is NM.

The so-called Minkowskian manifests all sorts of mathematical
inconsistencies in which we have addressed almost all of them in the
past. It is a very safe bet that the world cannot be Minkowskian.
Get real, Tom. <shrug>

[SRdude]

On Jan 5, 11:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On 1/5/13 1/5/13 11:15 AM, SRdude wrote:
>
> > Einstein said that observers using the absolutely
> > synchronous clocks of classical physics will get
> > a variable one-way light speed.
>
> Just saying something does not mean it is physically possible.
>

> We now KNOW that it simply is not possible to obtain "absolutely synchronized
> clocks", in the sense of clocks synchronized in every inertial frame (as is
> automatic in Newtonian physics).

It must be admitted that it is certainly no easy task to truly
synchronize clocks, but the laws of logic say that it is not possible
to prove a negative, so no one can prove that absolute synchronization
is impossible.

This immediately raises the critical question How do you KNOW that it
simply is not possible to obtain truly synchronous clocks? What is
your evidence?

> The world is not Newtonian, it is locally Minkowskian, in that SR is a MUCH
> better local model of the world we inhabit than is NM.
>

> Tom Roberts

Well, there are two problems here, one being that SR is a failed model
because its clocks do not match reality (as my simple diagrams clearly
show), and even though the world is not purely Newtonian, it *is*
neoNewtonian (with the added twists of intrinsic distortions such as
mass increase and clock slowing plus the possibility of absolute
universal time via correct clock synchronization.)

SR is not a scientific theory because it makes no scientific
predictions. It did not predict intrinsic clock slowing because this
was given by the round-trip null results. It did not predict one-way
light speed invariance; it merely attempted to do this via mere
definition, but, as I showed, this cannot work.

List one prediction of SR.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/4/13 1/4/13 - 2:04 PM, dlzc wrote:
> > Since Nature does not let us measure OWLS [...]

Jimmy Kesler wrote:
> then the speed of light is not a speed, and does not travel, since you
> cant travel by no speed

You both use words funny.

Using standard definitions of the words, light does indeed travel, has speed in
vacuum equal to c, and we can easily measure its one-way speed.

The issue dlzc seems to be trying to get at is really: There are many different
theories in which the one-way speed of light is not isotropic, and yet they are
not refuted by any measurements or experiments -- one can obtain any value for
OWLS by merely selecting a corresponding method of synchronizing clocks (all of
which are unusual and HIGHLY artificial, except Einstein's).

These theories are members of the class of theories that are
experimentally indistinguishable from SR. At base, they all have
the round-trip speed of light isotropically equal to c in every
inertial frame, and differ only in the way coordinate clocks are
synchronized. They all (except SR) are based on an aether or a
unique inertial frame which is completely undetectable.


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/6/13 1/6/13 - 3:11 PM, SRdude wrote:
> On Jan 5, 11:36 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 1/5/13 1/5/13 11:15 AM, SRdude wrote:
>>> Einstein said that observers using the absolutely
>>> synchronous clocks of classical physics will get
>>> a variable one-way light speed.
>> Just saying something does not mean it is physically possible.
>> We now KNOW that it simply is not possible to obtain "absolutely synchronized
>> clocks", in the sense of clocks synchronized in every inertial frame (as is
>> automatic in Newtonian physics).
>
> It must be admitted that it is certainly no easy task to truly
> synchronize clocks, but the laws of logic say that it is not possible
> to prove a negative, so no one can prove that absolute synchronization
> is impossible.

This is not logic or math, this is PHYSICS. "Proof" is neither possible nor
necessary.

Nevertheless, we KNOW that it simply is not possible to obtain "absolutely

synchronized clocks", in the sense of clocks synchronized in every inertial
frame (as is automatic in Newtonian physics).

> This immediately raises the critical question How do you KNOW that it
> simply is not possible to obtain truly synchronous clocks? What is
> your evidence?

The GPS works [#]. The thousands of accelerators designed using SR work. The
hundreds of experimental tests of SR have confirmed its predictions, not refuted it.

[#] The fact that its satellite clocks had to be modified is
direct evidence against your claim.

> Well, there are two problems here, one being that SR is a failed model

> because its clocks do not match reality [...]

You use "reality" to mean "my personal hopes and dreams" -- you have rather
serious mental and psychological issues here.

In fact, SR is not "failed", it is a HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL model -- EVERY ONE of the
clocks used in experimental tests of SR behaves in a manner consistent with the
predictions of SR. That _IS_ what the rest of us mean by "matching reality".


Tom Roberts

[Jimmy Kesler]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> These theories are members of the class of theories that are
> experimentally indistinguishable from SR. At base, they all have
the
> round-trip speed of light isotropically equal to c in every
inertial
> frame, and differ only in the way coordinate clocks are
synchronized.
> They all (except SR) are based on an aether or a unique inertial
frame
> which is completely undetectable.

we are blind in the speed of light from A to B, we know nothing but
assume ((A2B)+(B2A))/2 constant, right?

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Hi everyone.

The speed of light can only be measured if we are given the x in c=x/t. Only after you have the distance between the source-receiver and the mirror established you can emit light, wait for it to come back, and compare the distance with the time of reception to get enough information to determine c.

Clock sync'ing is done by taking the distance between clocks and sending light from one to the other at T=0. When the other clock receives the signal, we have c from previous experiment, and we have been given x (this x can be determined either classicaly - walking the distance - or relativisticaly - with EM radiation). Now we calculate the time it took the signal emitted from one clock to reach the other by t=x/c. Now we know that the first clock was at T=0 some t seconds ago, so we set the second clock to T=0+t and we have them in sync. This is as absolute as sync'ing distant clocks goes, except maybe in the case where they are right next to each other.

This is all very consistent, and is based on pure empirical data, but it only works if both clocks are at rest relative to each other. Eistein, and everyone else who worked in developing SR, were very clear that c is only measurable with a roundtrip experiment, so we couldn't say with certainty that light propagates at c in a one-way trip. Einstein said that we could assume that it does for simplicity and hence c for the one-way trip became a convention (not a law). There are SR-equivalent theories that get similar results with c applied only to the roundtrip (i.e.Edward's theory). But SR was elected the best candidate because of it's simplicity.
The main difference is that in SR we have to vary the "size" of the units of length and time to keep c constant (time dilation and length contraction), while in some of the other equally succesfull theories we kept the units of x and t but had a varying speed of light, which made the transforms between frames more complex and some problems were not possible to resolve while in SR they were (if the results were correct or not is up for debate, since many predictions can't be verified, like measurements of how far away are distant galaxies, etc).

[alterg...@gmail.com]

>we are blind in the speed of light from A to B, we know nothing but
assume ((A2B)+(B2A))/2 constant, right?

yes. It is assumed because the light postulate is interpreted to mean that light moves at c relative to any frame. If you want to be really rigorous, by analising the development of SR following Einstein's logic, you will notice that in every case where c enters the transforms, it is applied to light that reaches some observer directly, for it is the very light that brings information from the observed event to the observer. Actually, if the speed is always c as measured from any inertial frame, regardless of the speed of the source, it implies that c is valid for any measurement of 'observed' light, or 'detected' light. Since light can only be detected by contact, the receiver can always be assumed to measure c, in agreement with experiment. But no experiment (that I know of) has been able to measure the speed of distant, undetected (or indirectly detected) light.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

>we are blind in the speed of light from A to B, we know nothing but
assume ((A2B)+(B2A))/2 constant, right?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

A. Moron wrote in message
news:7624c049-77bd-43c2...@googlegroups.com...

Hi everyone.

The speed of light can only be measured if we are given the x in c=x/t.

================================================
Hi moron.
The speed of a car can only be measured if we are given the sign post or
bridge number and the name of the road in v = dx/dt.

-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Moron? That was uncalled for.

"If the distance between mirrors is h, the time between the first and second reflections on the rotating mirror is 2h/c (c = speed of light)"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau–Foucault_apparatus

What seems to be the problem?

Either add to the discussion or please, take your frustration somewhere else. Online agression can be a sign of real life insecurity, and you shouldn't make it so obvious.

Best regards.

[SRdude]

> On Jan 7, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

<<some stuff>>

SRdude asks:

As for GPS, how are the clocks synchronized?

As for SR - I repeat - please list one SR prediction.
(You must be talking about your personal hopes & dreams
when you speak of SR "predictions.") <shrug>)

---SRdude---

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

the sole determinant of the speed (not velocity) of light,
is the index of refraction of the medium,
viz Snell's law.

the classsical problem was Liebniz's *brachistochrone," although
one has to realize that the ray-tracing idealization is not a natter
of importance; nerely of interpretation ... and
teh same applies to Minkowskian ligthconeheads, like Feynman.

thus:
read the original write-up of the "two-pihole experiment"
by Young, which totally exposed Newton's untheory
of "corpuscles" of light, a 100 years after he screwed-up Snell's law
-- just like Descartes, did.

see http://science.larouchepac.com/fermat/

thus:
my main concern, for using diadians (or tau) is that
the simplicity of (viz) radar distances is obscured;
also, how to avoid confusion with radians (or "pi+pi"),
since pi is generally considered to be a dimensionless constant,
by some argument or other.

--yay; a new proof of Fermat's 'little' theorm!

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/7/13 1/7/13 8:32 PM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> the sole determinant of the speed (not velocity) of light,
> is the index of refraction of the medium,
> viz Snell's law.

That's backwards. Or circular. We determine the index of refraction of an
optical medium by measuring the speed of light in it, either directly or indirectly.


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

A. Moron wrote in message

news:6dd3631d-72c0-44ca...@googlegroups.com...

Moron? That was uncalled for.

"If the distance between mirrors is h, the time between the first and second
reflections on the rotating mirror is 2h/c (c = speed of light)"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau–Foucault_apparatus

What seems to be the problem?

===================================
Hi Moron.
You don't have a name and a name is called for. "A. Moron" is as good as any
other, I'll call you that.
This is the problem:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img11.gif

In neither case is the speed of light c, nor would it be c if seen from a
plane flying over any Fizeau–Foucault_apparatus.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/7/13 1/7/13 3:50 PM, alterg...@gmail.com wrote:
> The speed of light can only be measured if we are given the x in c=x/t. Only
> after you have the distance between the source-receiver and the mirror
> established you can emit light, wait for it to come back, and compare the
> distance with the time of reception to get enough information to determine
> c.

OK. You have omitted some additional caveats, such as the source, mirror, and
detector must all be at rest in a single inertial frame, and the light path must
be in vacuum and long enough so any delay in the mirror can be neglected. This
is, of course, a round-trip measurement of the speed of light.

Note also that using the ISO definitions of SI units, it simply is not possible
to measure the vacuum speed of light, because the meter is defined such that the
vacuum speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.

> Clock sync'ing is done by taking the distance between clocks and sending
> light from one to the other at T=0. When the other clock receives the signal,
> we have c from previous experiment, and we have been given x (this x can be
> determined either classicaly - walking the distance - or relativisticaly -
> with EM radiation). Now we calculate the time it took the signal emitted from
> one clock to reach the other by t=x/c. Now we know that the first clock was
> at T=0 some t seconds ago, so we set the second clock to T=0+t and we have
> them in sync. This is as absolute as sync'ing distant clocks goes, except
> maybe in the case where they are right next to each other.

This is not "absolute" in any meaningful sense; this only applies in the
inertial frame in which the components are all at rest.

> This is all very consistent, and is based on pure empirical data, but it only
> works if both clocks are at rest relative to each other.

In an inertial frame.

For instance it does not work for clocks at rest on the surface
of the earth, one in a valley and one on a mountaintop.

> Eistein, and
> everyone else who worked in developing SR, were very clear that c is only
> measurable with a roundtrip experiment, so we couldn't say with certainty
> that light propagates at c in a one-way trip.

Not true. The speed of light is definitely measurable in a one-way experiment
[*], but the result depends on how you synchronize the clocks.

[*] Using the pre-1983 definition of the meter.

Note however that the round-trip speed of light is measured to be ISOTROPIC to
very high accuracy, and that puts strong constraints on how one models its
one-way speed. This is in an inertial frame, in which space itself is isotropic,
and it would be folly to choose a synchronization method that makes the one-way
speed of light be anisotropic.

> Einstein said that we could
> assume that it does for simplicity and hence c for the one-way trip became a
> convention (not a law). There are SR-equivalent theories that get similar
> results with c applied only to the roundtrip (i.e.Edward's theory). But SR
> was elected the best candidate because of it's simplicity.

And because of its intellectual elegance -- SR is the only one of these theories
based on symmetry principles, and not rather strange, ad hoc assumptions [#].
Besides, those "Edwards frames" are VERY difficult to compute with -- nobody in
their right mind would use them, given they are experimentally indistinguishable
from SR.

[#] Note that modern derivations of SR don't need Einstein's
original second postulate. The symmetry principle known as the
PoR and experimental evidence are sufficient.

> The main
> difference is that in SR we have to vary the "size" of the units of length
> and time to keep c constant (time dilation and length contraction),

This is just plain not so. The units used in SR are the same in all inertial
frames. This is ensured by the PoR. In SR, "time dilation" and "length
contraction" are aspects of geometrical projection, not varying units.

Until this point it seemed to me that you had a fairly good
understanding of SR (most people do not know about "Edwards
frames"). But this reveals a major and fundamental
misunderstanding on your part.

> while in
> some of the other equally succesfull theories we kept the units of x and t
> but had a varying speed of light, which made the transforms between frames
> more complex and some problems were not possible to resolve while in SR they
> were (if the results were correct or not is up for debate, since many
> predictions can't be verified, like measurements of how far away are distant
> galaxies, etc).

Measurements of cosmic-scale distances have other difficulties, but varying
units in relativity is not one of them.

Perhaps you should learn the ACTUAL structure of SR before attempting to lecture
about it.


Tom Roberts

[Poutnik]

Tom Roberts posted Tue, 08 Jan 2013 00:59:00 -0600

> Note also that using the ISO definitions of SI units, it simply is not
> possible to measure the vacuum speed of light, because the meter is
> defined such that the vacuum speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per
> second.
>
>

He can measure,
if path of particular light per 1/299,792,458 s is 1 meter.

--
Poutnik

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 7, 10:59 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 1/7/13 1/7/13 3:50 PM, altergnos...@gmail.com wrote:

> > The speed of light can only be measured if we are given the x in c=x/t. Only
> > after you have the distance between the source-receiver and the mirror
> > established you can emit light, wait for it to come back, and compare the
> > distance with the time of reception to get enough information to determine
> > c.
>
> OK. You have omitted some additional caveats, such as the source, mirror, and
> detector must all be at rest in a single inertial frame, and the light path must
> be in vacuum and long enough so any delay in the mirror can be neglected. This
> is, of course, a round-trip measurement of the speed of light.
>
> Note also that using the ISO definitions of SI units, it simply is not possible
> to measure the vacuum speed of light, because the meter is defined such that the
> vacuum speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second.

Tom and PD really know how to strike up an act of their own. <shrug>

> > Clock sync'ing is done by taking the distance between clocks and sending
> > light from one to the other at T=0. When the other clock receives the signal,
> > we have c from previous experiment, and we have been given x (this x can be
> > determined either classicaly - walking the distance - or relativisticaly -
> > with EM radiation). Now we calculate the time it took the signal emitted from
> > one clock to reach the other by t=x/c. Now we know that the first clock was
> > at T=0 some t seconds ago, so we set the second clock to T=0+t and we have
> > them in sync. This is as absolute as sync'ing distant clocks goes, except
> > maybe in the case where they are right next to each other.
>
> This is not "absolute" in any meaningful sense; this only applies in the
> inertial frame in which the components are all at rest.

Gee, Tom! What a not useful comment. It leaves Koobee Wublee without
a comment on how useless your statement is. <shrug>

> > This is all very consistent, and is based on pure empirical data, but it only
> > works if both clocks are at rest relative to each other.
>
> In an inertial frame.
>
> For instance it does not work for clocks at rest on the surface
> of the earth, one in a valley and one on a mountaintop.

At rest relative to each other should also imply next to each other.
Is Tom now only capable of doing so-called scientific works by playing
with the meaning of the wordings? <shrug>

> > Eistein, and
> > everyone else who worked in developing SR, were very clear that c is only
> > measurable with a roundtrip experiment, so we couldn't say with certainty
> > that light propagates at c in a one-way trip.
>
> Not true. The speed of light is definitely measurable in a one-way experiment
> [*], but the result depends on how you synchronize the clocks.
>
> [*] Using the pre-1983 definition of the meter.

So, how many valid ways can one synchronize the clocks? <shrug>

> Note however that the round-trip speed of light is measured to be ISOTROPIC to
> very high accuracy, and that puts strong constraints on how one models its
> one-way speed. This is in an inertial frame, in which space itself is isotropic,
> and it would be folly to choose a synchronization method that makes the one-way
> speed of light be anisotropic.

Tom is once again jumping into conclusions heavily biased by what he
personally believes in. <shrug>

> > Einstein said that we could
> > assume that it does for simplicity and hence c for the one-way trip became a
> > convention (not a law). There are SR-equivalent theories that get similar
> > results with c applied only to the roundtrip (i.e.Edward's theory). But SR
> > was elected the best candidate because of it's simplicity.
>

> And because of its intellectual elegance – SR

Intellectual elegance? What a beautiful phrase, no? Yes, when
something is as fvcked up as SR both in terms of mathematics and
experimental verifications, it certainly would help your cause by
calling SR “intellectual elegance” just like the literatures from any
bibles in any religions. <shrug>

Excuse Koobee Wublle. Koobee Wublee needs to go to pewk on the
intellectual elegance of SR. <shrug>

> is the only one of these theories
> based on symmetry principles, and not rather strange, ad hoc assumptions [#].

Tom would call the principle of relativity not ad hoc assumption.
Koobee Wublee would call that making your own laws of physics rather
than investigating through scientific methods. Again, what does
Koobee Wublee knows anyway? <shrug>

> Besides, those "Edwards frames" are VERY difficult to compute with -- nobody in
> their right mind would use them, given they are experimentally indistinguishable
> from SR.

Edwards who? When your brainchild is ever so sadly beaten, it helps
to bring in on more reinforcement. <shrug>

> [#] Note that modern derivations of SR don't need Einstein's
> original second postulate. The symmetry principle known as the
> PoR and experimental evidence are sufficient.

Right, Tom. From what you are saying, sound waves should be invariant
too, but it is experimentally shown that soundwaves are not.
Postulates without backing from experiments are indistinguishable from
making your own laws of physics. <shrug>

> > The main
> > difference is that in SR we have to vary the "size" of the units of length
> > and time to keep c constant (time dilation and length contraction),
>
> This is just plain not so. The units used in SR are the same in all inertial
> frames. This is ensured by the PoR. In SR, "time dilation" and "length
> contraction" are aspects of geometrical projection, not varying units.
>
> Until this point it seemed to me that you had a fairly good
> understanding of SR (most people do not know about "Edwards
> frames"). But this reveals a major and fundamental
> misunderstanding on your part.

It looks like Tom is having a good mood tonight. Despite being an
Illini alumni, he is probably a Crimson Tide fan just happy to see the
tides routing out the impotent (offensively speaking) Irish tonight.
<shrug>

> > while in
> > some of the other equally succesfull theories we kept the units of x and t
> > but had a varying speed of light, which made the transforms between frames
> > more complex and some problems were not possible to resolve while in SR they
> > were (if the results were correct or not is up for debate, since many
> > predictions can't be verified, like measurements of how far away are distant
> > galaxies, etc).
>
> Measurements of cosmic-scale distances have other difficulties, but varying
> units in relativity is not one of them.

It never ceases to amaze Koobee Wublee that the fate of the universe
would be decided on faulty mathematical models --- not to mention
Nobel prizes. <shrug>

> Perhaps you should learn the ACTUAL structure of SR before attempting to lecture
> about it.

PD already got them memorized but failed to understand them as usual.
That is why he is no longer a professor of physics. <shrug>

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

thanks!

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:51:06 -0600, Tom Roberts
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 1/4/13 1/4/13 - 2:04 PM, dlzc wrote:
>> > Since Nature does not let us measure OWLS [...]
>
>Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>> then the speed of light is not a speed, and does not travel, since you
>> cant travel by no speed
>
>You both use words funny.
>
>Using standard definitions of the words, light does indeed travel, has speed in
>vacuum equal to c, and we can easily measure its one-way speed.
>

One way?
Is there a way to measure the one-way speed?

Jupiter moons are fine to watch, but the experimental
accuracy and resolution are limited.
Measurements must be better than 1m/sec,
to challenge the NIST value.
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

Before they fixed it, there was a
tolerance delta of +/- 1m/sec written behind the number.

w.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Tom, you are right that I omited some important details, and yes, what I said only applies to inertial frames.
One thing to notice, though, is that measuring the one-way speed of light depends on clock synchronisation, but to synchronize clocks at a distance you need to use c in the first place, or, if you sync them right next to each other and then move one of them away, it undergoes acceleration to start moving from rest, and no experiment has been able to overcome the difficulties that makes one-way measurements uncertain.

Regarding the units, you must aknowledge that, if different frames measure different lengths and times for bodies in relative motion, keeping the speed of light constant between those frames imply that x/t have not changed accordingly. Either the x and t in c represent some underlying absolute frame or they must change somehow to fit into different measurements of length and time. There are several arguments against SR because if this fact, especially because length contraction and time dilation were originally thought of as effects of the aether on matter in relative motion, and SR states that LC and TD apply to space itself. In the first case, it's L and T of a body, relative to the absolute aether, that changes. In the second case, it is the L and T of space that changes relative to the L and T measured in a rest frame. But if L and T of space itself changes, c=x/t would implicitly change as well.
Think about the light clock problem. The diagonal that the beam describes in the moving frame has a larger x than the distance between mirrors in the rest frame, but the beam reaches the top mirror at the same time in both cases. This is explained by LC and TD, but the transforms don't apply to light itself (c causes the transforms). The magnitude of x/t can only remain constant, if the underlying x and t of space are contracted and dilated, by scaling the units of c instead of changing the values of x and t directly. If we wanted to keep the length of the diagonal path uncontracted, the speed of light would have to vary, so we scale it to keep the proportionality between x and t of c.
Admitedly, this is not widely recognized, but the issue is answered either by defending that there is no change in units or by saying this is a mathematical "trick" that may or may not represent reality but works neverheless. Here one such crticism:
http://www.helmut-hille.de/units.html

Also important is the fact that no experiment has verified the speed of a distant (not directly detected) light beam, so actually we have no direct evidence that light moves at c as measured by an observer in relative motion, where such light dies not reach him directly.
Hence, the only experimental evidence is that light propagates at c as measured from the inertial or rest frame when it moves directly towards the observer and is directly detected. A diagonal like in the light clock has never been verified from a frame in relative motion.

And, although Edwards theory is too complex to be put in practice, it's predictions are mainly correct and yield no paradoxes. I also like Poincare's view of local time, where SR effects are all just apparent and not physical. In any case, stating that SR is a failed model (like has been said in this discussion) has no grounds whatsoever, even if it needed corrections, it's just like saying that newton's gravitation is a failed model.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/8/13 1/8/13 - 3:01 AM, Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 12:51:06 -0600, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Using standard definitions of the words, light does indeed travel, has speed in
>> vacuum equal to c, and we can easily measure its one-way speed.
>
> One way?
> Is there a way to measure the one-way speed?

Sure. Use a pulsed light source, two identical detectors, two identical cables,
and one clock that measures the time difference between two signals. Put one
detector near the light source such that it intercepts less than half the light
beam; put the other detector on a movable platform so its distance from the
first detector can be varied; connect the two detectors via identical cables to
the clock. Now make measurements of the time-of-flight of the light for varying
distances between the detectors, recording both the distance between the
detectors and the time of flight (distance measured via meter sticks or
equivalent). From these data the one-way speed of light can easily be
calculated. For a 100 meter path, modern instruments could give a value with an
accuracy of a few parts per million.

That is a one-way measurement using the standard meanings of the words. Yes, if
one has a theory in which the one-way speed of light is not isotropic then one
must consider the anisotropic speed of propagation in the cables. But for all
theories with anisotropic OWLS that are not already refuted, the prediction for
this measurement is 299,792,458 m/s (in vacuum) -- identical to SR's. That's
because those theories are all experimentally indistinguishable from SR.

> Measurements must be better than 1m/sec,
> to challenge the NIST value.
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c

It is not possible to "challenge" the NIST/ISO value, because it is really a
DEFINITION of what "1 meter" means.


Tom Roberts

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Tom: "Sure. Use a pulsed light source, two identical detectors, two identical cables,

and one clock that measures the time difference between two signals. Put one
detector near the light source such that it intercepts less than half the light
beam; put the other detector on a movable platform so its distance from the
first detector can be varied; connect the two detectors via identical cables to
the clock. Now make measurements of the time-of-flight of the light for varying
distances between the detectors, recording both the distance between the
detectors and the time of flight (distance measured via meter sticks or
equivalent). From these data the one-way speed of light can easily be calculated".

The problem with such a setup is that it assumes that the speed of light is constant to start with. In other words, it can only be a valid measurement of the 'constant' speed of light because previous roudtrip measurements have shown that it is constant. If that is not enough, there's also the issue that you are measuring the speed of light 'with' light signals in the cables, which are themselves subject to measurement. If you don't know the speed EM waves travel inside the cables from previous experiment (and if it varies), your logic is circular. The speed of light in the cables can't be measured by a similar setup, right? That would be pointless. How else can you measure the speed inside the cables? A roundtrip measurement.

This is all to say that every single attempt in history to measure the one-way speed of light has failed. Look it up.

[SRdude]

On 1-8-2013, Tom Robts. posted the following
(to altergnos...@gmail.com):

>Note that modern derivations of SR don't need Einstein's
>original second postulate. The symmetry principle known
>as the PoR and experimental evidence are sufficient.

Nope and nope.

The problem with the "symmetry principle" (the special
principle of relativity, the PR) is that it does not forbid
the detection of absolute motion, but SR does, so SR
cannot rely solely on the PR. (For example, If all inertial
observers find the same one-way light speed law w = c±v,
then the PR will not be violated, and yet this particular
cute little law permits absolute motion detection.)

As for "experimental evidence," there can be none
because SR per se makes no scientific predictions.

The entire "theory" is based solely on a mere
definition of "synchronization," and no mere
definition is scientifically testable.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

---SRdude---

[SRdude]

On Jan 8, 6:24 am, altergnos...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip a bit>

> In any case, stating that SR is a failed model (like has
> been said in this discussion) has no grounds whatsoever,
> even if it needed corrections, it's just like saying that
> newton's gravitation is a failed model.

So what do you think about someone stating the fact that SR
is not a scientific theory because it makes zero testable
predictions? (That's zero, nada, none, not a one!)

Dare to you list just one. (Maybe Roberts can help you?)

---SRdude---

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/8/13 1/8/13 2:45 PM, alterg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom Roberts said: "Sure. Use a pulsed light source, two identical detectors,

> two identical cables, and one clock that measures the time difference between
> two signals. Put one detector near the light source such that it intercepts
> less than half the light beam; put the other detector on a movable platform
> so its distance from the first detector can be varied; connect the two
> detectors via identical cables to the clock. Now make measurements of the
> time-of-flight of the light for varying distances between the detectors,
> recording both the distance between the detectors and the time of flight
> (distance measured via meter sticks or equivalent). From these data the
> one-way speed of light can easily be calculated".
>
> The problem with such a setup is that it assumes that the speed of light is
> constant to start with.

Hmmm. Such a setup would make a full set of measurements in less than an hour.
If the speed of light varied on such a time scale, physics itself would be
impossible.

But, of course, existing measurements show that it is constant to better than 1
m/s, so your objection is irrelevant.

> there's also the issue that
> you are measuring the speed of light 'with' light signals in the cables,
> which are themselves subject to measurement.

That's why the cables are identical. And they are electrical signals, not light.

> If you don't know the speed EM
> waves travel inside the cables from previous experiment (and if it varies),
> your logic is circular.

But we DO know the speed of SIGNALS in the cables (not light). That is easily
measured.

> The speed of light in the cables can't be measured by
> a similar setup, right?

Sure it could: replace the detectors and vacuum light path with a set of cables
with varying lengths so you can move the second cable just as you moved the
second detector in the initial description.


> That would be pointless.

Well yes, your whole discussion is indeed pointless, because existing
measurements cover this ground completely. Not with one-way measurements, but
with equivalent measurements -- one set of (pre-1983) measurements showed the
round-trip vacuum speed of light is isotropically 299,792,458 +- 1 m/s; other
sets of measurements show the round-trip speed of light is isotropic to ~ 0.001
m/s, and a third set of measurements show the one-way speed of light is
isotropic to ~ 1 m/s (using clock synchronization via slow clock transport).

References are in the FAQ.

As is often the case, one can measure variations in a quantity much more
accurately than the quantity itself (e.g. variations in the speed of light as
orientation is varied).

> This is all to say that every single attempt in history to measure the
> one-way speed of light has failed.

They haven't "failed", they merely have quite low accuracy compared to the
measurements I just mentioned. And they require model-dependent interpretation
(unlike the model-independent round-trip measurements).


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/8/13 1/8/13 7:18 PM, SRdude wrote:
> The problem with the "symmetry principle" (the special
> principle of relativity, the PR) is that it does not forbid
> the detection of absolute motion,

Sure it does. It almost explicitly states that no inertial frame can be present
in the equations of a valid law of physics.

> As for "experimental evidence," there can be none
> because SR per se makes no scientific predictions.

Nonsense. I have no idea why you think this -- it is grotesquely wrong. You
CLEARLY do not know what "scientific" means.

SR unequivocally predicts that no signal can travel faster than c relative to
any inertial frame. It also makes zillions of other predictions, and there have
been hundreds of experiments that explicitly tested one or more of its predictions.


Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 8, 5:18 pm, SRdude wrote:
> On 1-8-2013, Tom Robts. Posted:

> > Note that modern derivations of SR don't need Einstein's
> > original second postulate. The symmetry principle known
> > as the PoR and experimental evidence are sufficient.
>
> Nope and nope.
>
> The problem with the "symmetry principle" (the special
> principle of relativity, the PR) is that it does not forbid
> the detection of absolute motion, but SR does, so SR
> cannot rely solely on the PR.

Under Larmor’s transform, one of the two observers has to be the
absolute frame of reference, and all observations have to fall back to
the absolute frame of reference. When both of the observers are
moving in parallel against the back ground of the absolute frame of
reference, Larmor’s transform becomes the Lorentz transform in this
very special case. It is this very special case --- a divine
phenomenon --- that a religion known as SR was born. <shrug>

Thus, this symmetry only occurs in a very special case. Thus, the
Lorentz transform cannot be a valid mathematical model of nature.
<shrug>

> (For example, If all inertial
> observers find the same one-way light speed law w = c±v,
> then the PR will not be violated, and yet this particular
> cute little law permits absolute motion detection.)

You are correct. It does. FitzGerald’s length contraction alone
without the postulate in the invariance of the speed of light is
sufficient to explain the null results of the MMX. Under FitzGerald’s
transform, the one-way speed of light depends on the absolute
motions. However, the roundtrip becomes invariant due to this length
contraction. FitzGerald’s transform does not manifest any time
anomaly better known as the twins’ paradox. However, it cannot
predict why muons have longer decay time than expected. <shrug>

> As for "experimental evidence," there can be none
> because SR per se makes no scientific predictions.

Since the Lorentz transform is fudged out of Larmor’s transform which
supports the absolute frame of reference, anything the Lorentz
transform predicts would be totally indistinguishable from what
Larmor’s transform predicts under current investigative technologies.
We have to go to high-speed to tell them apart. <shrug>

You are also very correct that time dilation can be a phenomenon due
to absolute motion. In this case, it is also indistinguishable from
SR at the absolute speed of the observer --- us here on earth ---
which is very low. <shrug>

Thus, when Tom come out boasting SR predictions have agreed with all
experimental results, he is very correct. However, Tom does not
understand scientific method. Under scientific method, if the
antithesis of the hypothesis you are trying to validate also can be
validated by the same experiment, you need to find another experiment
that would specially and only specially validate SR but not its
antithesis. In this case, one of the antitheses to SR is Larmor’s
transform which says the Aether must exist. Tom should know better
since he is a professional experimental physicist. However, he is
deeply entangled in the garbage of SR. His professional career would
fall apart if he finally embraces the truth. Thus, his ego is
vigorously defending the garbage of SR. It is becoming a religion to
him. However, his sub conscience would occasionally reach out for
help. This “DR. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” struggle has been going on for
years within Tom as far as Koobee Wublee can remember. At this
moment, it appears that Mr. Hyde is keeping a very tight lock down on
Dr. Jekyll. His time for salvation is indeed running out. Dr. Jekyll
in Tom must be very frustrated. <shrug>

[alterg...@gmail.com]

---

> The speed of light in the cables can't be measured by
> a similar setup, right?

Tom: Sure it could: replace the detectors and vacuum light path with a set of cables

with varying lengths so you can move the second cable just as you moved the
second detector in the initial description.

---

You misinterpret my statement, of course you "can" measure the speed of light (or electrical pulses) in a cable in such a setup, but it is meaningless because it is circular, because you are using the assumption that cable signals travel at a constant speed to start with, and using cable signals to measure cable sugnals. That's assuming what you are trying to prove. And if you use a different signal to send detection times to a clock, then again you'd end up with infinite regression. One could argue that the irientation of the setup relative to the rotation of the earth may interfere with the results, or that the time the signals take to reach the clock hides a variation in c, etc. It's not that it can't be done, but that it's not conclusive and that the assumptions can be easily contested, which is not the case with a two-way measurement because we simply double distance and directly get the times of emission and reception at the point of detection. This leaves open the possibility that c is only an average and that each segment can have a varying velocity of light, which was aknowleged by Einstein and everyone else

---

> That would be pointless.

Tom: Well yes, your whole discussion is indeed pointless, because existing

measurements cover this ground completely. Not with one-way measurements, but
with equivalent measurements -- one set of (pre-1983) measurements showed the
round-trip vacuum speed of light is isotropically 299,792,458 +- 1 m/s; other
sets of measurements show the round-trip speed of light is isotropic to ~ 0.001
m/s, and a third set of measurements show the one-way speed of light is
isotropic to ~ 1 m/s (using clock synchronization via slow clock transport).

---

Like I said above, you can't use only the last (one-way) experiment to determine the speed of light conclusively. It has limited scientific value, and only because it is supported by roundtrip experiments. Roundtrip experiments do not require the assumptions a one-way measurement does and, as you pointed out later on, are independent of a chosen model. They are direct measurements that give us raw data.

---

> This is all to say that every single attempt in history to measure the
> one-way speed of light has failed.

Tom: They haven't "failed", they merely have quite low accuracy compared to the

measurements I just mentioned. And they require model-dependent interpretation
(unlike the model-independent round-trip measurements).

---

Well, the attempts to make a conclusive, model independent, direct measurement of the speed of light with a one-way trip have 'failed' because in every single case it was later concluded that none of them are true one-way tests for one reason or another (most because of the inhability to independently synchronize clocks). I say 'failed' because in such cases the experimenters thought their setup was conclusive, but further objections made it clear that none of them were.

---

Tom: SR unequivocally predicts that no signal can travel faster than c relative to
any inertial frame.

---

That's not an SR prediction, but an after-the-fact assumption, based on the results of experiments such as the Michelson-Morley Interferometer.


SRdude,
SR predictions are not that great in number, as Einstein stated only a few in his first books and admited that it was hard to come up with predictions that were different than the predictions of aether theories and other theories of relativity, like clock retardation and length contraction. But all of these are true predictions of SR nonetheless, and one or two predictions to validate SR over other contesting theories is enough, I believe. One such prediction is the twin paradox, which is not a prediction per se because it wasn't intended as one and was perceived as a problem in the theory even by Einstein, but since it has been accepted as part of the theory and not as a true paradox, it can be categorized as a prediction. It is also widely accepted that it has been verified.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 5:05:18 AM UTC-2, Koobee Wublee wrote:

>You are correct.  It does.  FitzGerald’s length contraction alone
without the postulate in the invariance of the speed of light is
sufficient to explain the null results of the MMX.

The idea of length contraction was developed to fit the aether model with experimental results showing no change in the speed of light in the first place, but we could also "solve" this by simply ditching the aether model altogether, including length contraction, and apply the addition of velocities to the problem, where light carries the v component of the source with it. That would also yield a null result in MMX. You would have problems with Maxwell, but you could just as well postulate the the speed of light is always the same as measured from the source/detector and get on with it. Problem is, there's no indication of an aether, no justification for an absolute frame (since our observations are never absolute in that sense), no physical description of what causes the twin paradox and so forth.
All of these models have their problems and are, like every physical theory, incom

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Like all physical theories, my previous post was also incomplete... Sorry!

[kenseto]

On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:51:06 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/4/13 1/4/13 - 2:04 PM, dlzc wrote:
>
> > > Since Nature does not let us measure OWLS [...]
>
>
>
> Jimmy Kesler wrote:
>
> > then the speed of light is not a speed, and does not travel, since you
>
> > cant travel by no speed
>
>
>
> You both use words funny.
>
>
>

> Using standard definitions of the words, light does indeed travel, has speed in
>
> vacuum equal to c, and we can easily measure its one-way speed.

Then why don't you measure OWLS directly? You can use the same
synch procedure that you used to measure one-way speed of neutrino.
>
>
>
> The issue dlzc seems to be trying to get at is really: There are many different
>
> theories in which the one-way speed of light is not isotropic, and yet they are
>
> not refuted by any measurements or experiments -- one can obtain any value for
>
> OWLS by merely selecting a corresponding method of synchronizing clocks (all of
>
> which are unusual and HIGHLY artificial, except Einstein's).
>
>
>
> These theories are members of the class of theories that are
>
> experimentally indistinguishable from SR. At base, they all have
>
> the round-trip speed of light isotropically equal to c in every
>
> inertial frame, and differ only in the way coordinate clocks are
>
> synchronized. They all (except SR) are based on an aether or a
>
> unique inertial frame which is completely undetectable.
>
>
>
>
>
> Tom Roberts

[SRdude]

Nope. That is not by any means a scientific prediction because
it is merely the result of a mere definition.

Try again.

---SRdude---
(you are wasting our time here)

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/9/13 1/9/13 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:51:06 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Using standard definitions of the words, light does indeed travel, has speed in
>> vacuum equal to c, and we can easily measure its one-way speed.
>
> Then why don't you measure OWLS directly? You can use the same
> synch procedure that you used to measure one-way speed of neutrino.

_I_ did not measure the neutrinos' speed, the OPERA experiment did so, using
thousands of dollars worth of equipment, which I don't have.

They used the GPS in common view to synchronize their clocks. This is GUARANTEED
to obtain the value c for the one-way speed of light in the ECI coordinates.

If you give me $500,000, I will purchase the necessary equipment and perform the
measurement, but over a MUCH shorter path than OPERA used. No normal funding
agency would fund this, because the scientific value is essentially zero. Most
of that price is to compensate me for my time.


Tom Roberts

[Bud Fudlacker]

Milord Tom Roberts wrote:

> They used the GPS in common view to synchronize their clocks. This is
> GUARANTEED to obtain the value c for the one-way speed of light in the
> ECI coordinates.
>
> If you give me $500,000, I will purchase the necessary equipment and
> perform the measurement, but over a MUCH shorter path than OPERA used.
> No normal funding agency would fund this, because the scientific value
> is essentially zero. Most of that price is to compensate me for my time.

how is this not a waste of money, opera as well, since you intend
measuring something by using that something itself

circularity and redundancy every places

[Henry Wilson]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 7:45:35 AM UTC+11, alterg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Tom: "Sure. Use a pulsed light source, two identical detectors, two identical cables,

> The problem with such a setup is that it assumes that the speed of light is constant to start with. In other words, it can only be a valid measurement of the 'constant' speed of light because previous roudtrip measurements have shown that it is constant. If that is not enough, there's also the issue that you are measuring the speed of light 'with' light signals in the cables, which are themselves subject to measurement. If you don't know the speed EM waves travel inside the cables from previous experiment (and if it varies), your logic is circular. The speed of light in the cables can't be measured by a similar setup, right? That would be pointless. How else can you measure the speed inside the cables? A roundtrip measurement.

> This is all to say that every single attempt in history to measure the one-way speed of light has failed. Look it up.

Nonsense.
Measuring OWLS is a simple matter.
There is NO aether and good clocks are not affected by movement.

Synchronize both the rates and readings of two good clocks A and B whilst they are adjacent. Move them symmetrically 30 metres away along a flat surface, preferably in a vacuum.
Send a light pulse from A to B, recording the readings when the pulse arrives. Subtract one reading from the other calculate L/t.
In case either clock has drifted slightly during the movement, perform the experiment in the opposite direction, for B to A.

Since light moves at c wrt its source, the result will be the same as that of any TW measurement, to within the known accuracy of the clocks and detectors, wind etc. The original synchronization of the clocks needs no checking. It can be assumed...and the results themselves will verify that.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/9/13 1/9/13 12:40 PM, Bud Fudlacker wrote:
> Milord Tom Roberts wrote:
>> They used the GPS in common view to synchronize their clocks. This is
>> GUARANTEED to obtain the value c for the one-way speed of light in the
>> ECI coordinates.
>>
>> If you give me $500,000, I will purchase the necessary equipment and
>> perform the measurement, but over a MUCH shorter path than OPERA used.
>> No normal funding agency would fund this, because the scientific value
>> is essentially zero. Most of that price is to compensate me for my time.
>
> how is this not a waste of money,

I thought I made it clear that this would be a waste of money. But if kenseto
wants to waste his money by giving it to me, I have no objection, and will give
him what he wants in return.

> opera as well, since you intend
> measuring something by using that something itself
> circularity and redundancy every places

No, there is no "circularity" in the OPERA measurement, as they measured the
speed of NEUTRINOS, while using the GPS and it electromagnetic signals for clock
synchronization.


Tom Roberts

[rotchm]

> >to measure the one-way speed?
>
>

> Sure. Use a pulsed light source, ...
> ...its distance from the first detector can be varied...

Distance measurements is a TWLS process. You are again using the word owls in a different manner from others here. I todl you in the past not to use the expression 'owls' unless you specify to the readers what *you* mean by it. Others mean a process that did not involve a TWLSignal for the synch procedure, the distances measurements or other.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

here is an easy Gedanken, which one of the other bashers
of the "big professor from Germany" could not answer:
what is the theoretical limit of the speed of the wind,
at (say) sea level?

folks, please give Kooby Doo a minute to attempt it;
thank you.

[1treePetrifiedForestLane]

there was no "null result" of MandM;
the actual anamoly is mentioned on page one of the paper.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/9/13 1/9/13 8:15 PM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
> there was no "null result" of MandM;

Michelson and Morley obtained a result that is not significantly different from
null. They contented themselves with putting an upper bound on the relative
velocity of the earth and the ether.

> the actual anamoly is mentioned on page one of the paper.

Not if you mean: Am. Jour. Sci., 3rd series, XXXIV, 203 (Nov, 1887).

Their actual result is stated in the first paragraph on page 341.

Today, we know why their plot looks like a sinusoid of the correct period --
their data averaging is a comb filter that aliases most of their noise into the
same Fourier bin as a signal would be. We also know that their background is not
at all linear as they assumed. And we know that the errorbars on their plot are
MUCH larger than the variation seen.

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 (Appendix 1).


Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/9/13 1/9/13 7:32 PM, rotchm wrote:
>>> to measure the one-way speed?
>> Sure. Use a pulsed light source, ... ...its distance from the first
>> detector can be varied...
>
> Distance measurements is a TWLS process.

There is NOTHING "TWLS" about using a ruler. Remember to do this one MUST use

the pre-1983 definition of the meter.

> You are again using the word owls in
> a different manner from others here.

No, I am not. I described a one-way measurement, in EXACTLY the same way a
100-meter dash is timed as a one-way measurement. I cannot help it if this is
not very useful. I cannot help it if the post-1983 definition of the meter
guarantees the result.

> I todl you in the past not to use the
> expression 'owls' unless you specify to the readers what *you* mean by it.

I mean a measurement of one-way light speed, in that the light travels only one
direction. Yes, other signals necessarily travel other directions in my method,
but that is not light.

> Others mean a process that did not involve a TWLSignal for the synch
> procedure, the distances measurements or other.

Then they are requiring more than one-way light speed, they are also requiring
one-way synchronization, which cannot possibly be done via light without already
knowing its one-way speed, but slow clock transport will do it. There is nothing
"TWLS" about slow clock transport.


Tom Roberts

[Henry Wilson]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:32:44 PM UTC+11, rotchm wrote:
> > >to measure the one-way speed?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sure. Use a pulsed light source, ...
>
> > ...its distance from the first detector can be varied...
>
>
>

> Distance measurements is a TWLS process. You are again using the word owls in a different manner from others here. I told you in the past not to use the expression 'owls' unless you specify to the readers what *you* mean by it. Others mean a process that did not involve a TWLSignal for the synch procedure, the distances measurements or other.

If you don't know the difference between OWLS and TWLS you shouldn't be posting here.

The world's length standard is still based on a metal rod, whether you like it or not. Any drift in its length can be accurately monitored by comparing it with the absolute wavelength of light. That wavelength was originally calculated by a comparison with the standard rod and is considered more stable. The rod certainly doesn't reveal any of Einstein's expected contractions as it moves with the Earth, when checked against light wavelength.

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/9/13 1/9/13 10:16 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> The world's length standard is still based on a metal rod,

This is just plain not true. The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) defines the meter:

"the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a
time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."


Tom Roberts

[Poutnik]

Tom Roberts posted Wed, 09 Jan 2013 23:47:06 -0600

..and before that a multiple of specific Krypton spectrum wavelength.

--
Poutnik

[Henry Wilson]

There's nothing slow about sending GPS clocks in to orbit but you people swear they don't change in any way.

> Tom Roberts

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 9, 12:13 am, PD’s altered ego wrote:

> On Wednesday, January 9, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> >You are correct. It does. FitzGerald’s length contraction alone
>
> without the postulate in the invariance of the speed of light is
> sufficient to explain the null results of the MMX.

You have not understood what Koobee Wublee wrote. Try again, PD. The
rest of PD’s asinine pranks snipped. <shrug>

[Koobee Wublee]

On Jan 9, 5:23 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

> I thought I made it clear that this would be a waste of money. But if kenseto
> wants to waste his money by giving it to me, I have no objection, and will give
> him what he wants in return.

Tom and other fellow engineers and physicists had really fvcked up
royally at Lucent. As a stockholder, Koobee Wublee has lost a lot of
money because of these clowns. Never again. <shrug>

> No, there is no "circularity" in the OPERA measurement, as they measured the
> speed of NEUTRINOS, while using the GPS and it electromagnetic signals for clock
> synchronization.

Oh, after fvcking up the whole company, he chose to run away
disguising as retirement. Gee! Who is Tom kidding? <shrug>

After reading Tom’s posts, now Koobee Wublee has understood why Lucent
was designed to fail despite all the publicities. The whole $hit was
a con just like Tom peddling SR and GR while he knows nothing about
the basic mathematics and the most basic of scientific method. What a
shame! With these past failures, that is why he is working so hard to
polish his already tarnished image up and down these forums. His word
salad arguments are shallow and not worth paying anything for.
<shrug>

Don’t give these clowns any more money, or you will be really sorry.
<shrug>

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Henry, the problem with your setup is that you think there's no need to check the synchronicity of the clocks, it can be assume. Under that assumption, you are correct. But only under that assumption. That is why any one-way experiment is not definitive. Only with a two-way measurement you can get rid of such an assumption. The biggest concern is not even if the time of emission in one clock compared with the time of reception in the other agree or not with c, but that we can't even define absolute simultaenity in SR, so the theory itself makes your assumption meaningless. In SR there is a fundamental necessity to check the times of the clocks from a single origin. You can't move the origin of a frame in SR to another observer, you must perform all your measurements from the irigin of the rest frame. Once you choose a clock to make your readings on, you can't change to the other, you have to get the time of the other clock from your rest frame, which has been defined as either the point of emission or of reception at the beginning of the solution. That's one of the reasons the synchronisation method is thought to be the key to making one-way measurement possible.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Rotchm: Distance measurements is a TWLS process.

That's not true. Twls is one of the ways to determine distance, but in measuring the speed of light, of course you can't measure distance with light and expect to be taken seriously. That would mean you are given the speed of light to measure the speed of light.
In such cases, the distances are measured directly, with rigid rods, or by walking the distance, always making local measurements.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Tom:

Then they are requiring more than one-way light speed, they are also requiring
one-way synchronization, which cannot possibly be done via light without already
knowing its one-way speed, but slow clock transport will do it. There is nothing
"TWLS" about slow clock transport.

-----

I think that's as good as it gets, but to be consistent with SR, all measurements must be done from the origin of a single rest frame all the way through the experiment, otherwise "symultaneous" (and logically "synchronous") becomes meaningless. Slow clock transport may be the best way around to make the clocks' synchronicity assumption as believeble as possible, but it is still an assumption. TWLS contains no such assumption, since only one clock is needed. A definitive ONLS experiment would have a setup so clever that the synchronization is no longer assumed, and not even questionable.

One experiment that should be

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Sorry. Continuing the previous post:
One follow up experiment that should be performed and that hasn't even been attempted (as far as I know), is the measurement of a light beam from point A to point B as measured from the point C in relative motion.


Tom:

This is just plain not true. The International Organization for Standardization
(ISO) defines the meter:
     "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a
      time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

---

That still implies a meter rod, Tom. Light had to travel the length of a predefined rod. It is more precise and varies a lot less than the rod, but the distance travelled by light was as the length of the rod that defined the meter in the first place, so, in that way, it is still based on a metal rod, it is just a more stable reestatement of the length of the original rod.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/9/2013 10:16 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>
> The world's length standard is still based on a metal rod, whether you like it or not.

'i reject your reality and substitute my own!'

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/10/2013 2:15 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

> On Jan 9, 12:13 am, PD�s altered ego wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 9, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>

>>> You are correct. It does. FitzGerald�s length contraction alone

>>
>> without the postulate in the invariance of the speed of light is
>> sufficient to explain the null results of the MMX.
>
> You have not understood what Koobee Wublee wrote. Try again, PD. The

> rest of PD�s asinine pranks snipped. <shrug>
>

this pd must be the bogeyman for you. you see him everywhere, haunting
your every waking moment. wow. sad.

[kenseto]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 10:37:08 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/9/13 1/9/13 8:32 AM, kenseto wrote:
>
> > On Monday, January 7, 2013 1:51:06 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>
> >> Using standard definitions of the words, light does indeed travel, has speed in
>
> >> vacuum equal to c, and we can easily measure its one-way speed.
>
> >
>
> > Then why don't you measure OWLS directly? You can use the same
>
> > synch procedure that you used to measure one-way speed of neutrino.
>
>
>
> _I_ did not measure the neutrinos' speed, the OPERA experiment did so, using
>
> thousands of dollars worth of equipment, which I don't have.
>
>
>
> They used the GPS in common view to synchronize their clocks. This is GUARANTEED
>
> to obtain the value c for the one-way speed of light in the ECI coordinates.

No....my question is: Why don't you phycists measure the OWLS directly using the same procedure as they meaured the speed of neutrino.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/10/2013 8:57 AM, kenseto wrote:

> No....my question is: Why don't you phycists measure the OWLS directly using the
> same procedure as they meaured the speed of neutrino.

anybody who measures a signal using the same signal to calibrate the
measuring apparatus is a complete ignoramus and an experimental fraud.

[Henry Wilson]

ssess

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:46:43 PM UTC+11, alterg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Henry, the problem with your setup is that you think there's no need to check the synchronicity of the clocks, it can be assume. Under that assumption, you are correct. But only under that assumption. That is why any one-way experiment is not definitive. Only with a two-way measurement you can get rid of such an assumption.

If my experiment reveals OWLS to be 299 792 459 m / s in one direction and 299 792 457 m / s in the other, would anyone be silly enough to claim from that that OWLS was different from TWLS in this instance?
If however, the experiment was immediately repeated using moving light sources and the results were 299 792 468 m / s and 299 792 448 m / s, what would you conclude?

The biggest concern is not even if the time of emission in one clock compared with the time of reception in the other agree or not with c, but that we can't even define absolute simultaenity in SR, so the theory itself makes your assumption meaningless. In SR there is a fundamental necessity to check the times of the clocks from a single origin.

Simultaneity has nothing whatsoever to do with light. Einstein's concern came directly from aether theory.
Clocks can be synched mechanically, in which case their synch relationship cannot be frame dependent.

You can't move the origin of a frame in SR to another observer, you must perform all your measurements from the origin of the rest frame. Once you choose a clock to make your readings on, you can't change to the other, you have to get the time of the other clock from your rest frame, which has been defined as either the point of emission or of reception at the beginning of the solution. That's one of the reasons the synchronisation method is thought to be the key to making one-way measurement possible.

There are several ways to measure one way speed. A two clock OWLS procedure is only one of them...and of course the answer produced is ENTIRELY dependent on the synchronization between the two. Einstein deliberately desynched his clocks in order to support his second postulate when he derived his RoS. He made his clocks lie.
A car speedometer effectively uses a single on-board clock and a not very accurate tyre circumference value.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/10/2013 11:59 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:

>
> If my experiment reveals OWLS to be 299 792 459 m / s in one direction and 299 792 457 m / s in the other,
> would anyone be silly enough to claim from that that OWLS was different from TWLS in this instance?
> If however, the experiment was immediately repeated using moving light sources and the results were
> 299 792 468 m / s and 299 792 448 m / s, what would you conclude?
>

that depends on the design precision of your experiment in both cases.

[Bud Fudlacker]

kenseto wrote:


> No....my question is: Why don't you phycists measure the OWLS directly
> using the same procedure as they meaured the speed of neutrino.

simply because presence of inherent circularity of relativity, end of
story

they need a higher speed than that of speed of light, and those are not
allowed by the standard community :)

[Bud Fudlacker]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Today, we know why their plot looks like a sinusoid of the correct
> period -- their data averaging is a comb filter that aliases most of
> their noise into the same Fourier bin as a signal would be. We also know
> that their background is not at all linear as they assumed. And we know
> that the errorbars on their plot are MUCH larger than the variation
> seen.
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 (Appendix 1).

"No authors of physics/0608238 can endorse"

why?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/10/2013 1:27 PM, Bud Fudlacker wrote:

>
> "No authors of physics/0608238 can endorse"
>
> why?
>

because endorsers of papers on this archive have to be someone other
than the author of the paper. doh.

[Bud Fudlacker]

Koobee Wublee wrote:

> As a stockholder, Koobee Wublee has lost a lot of money because of these
> clowns. Never again. <shrug>

this has nothing to do with anything; all those goes down because rotten
capitalism, what do you expect; as stockholder, not to forget

dont like your own medicine!?

[Bud Fudlacker]

Absolutely Vertical wrote:


>> "No authors of physics/0608238 can endorse"
>>
>> why?
>>
>>
> because endorsers of papers on this archive have to be someone other
> than the author of the paper. doh.

so what, are they not? doh :) lol

are you telling that none of the tuff guys read this paper; i mean,
really interesting paper, that proves a historical experiment and aether
wrong

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/6/2013 3:11 PM, SRdude wrote:

> It must be admitted that it is certainly no easy task to truly
> synchronize clocks, but the laws of logic say that it is not possible
> to prove a negative, so no one can prove that absolute synchronization
> is impossible.
>
> This immediately raises the critical question How do you KNOW that it
> simply is not possible to obtain truly synchronous clocks? What is
> your evidence?
>

so let me see if i understand your thinking.

since it is not possible to prove a negative, that means that nothing
can be declared impossible. this means that anything is possible, and an
example of that is absolute synchronization. at least as far as you're
concerned.

of course, one could say the same thing about reactions that violate
momentum conservation, spontaneous generation of net electric charge,
gravitational screening, objects changing their motion without the
application of an external force, net decreases in entropy in closed
systems, or anything else that violates known laws of physics.

what we can say is that we have observed certain laws of nature that
seem to always hold and that there has never been an observed exception
to date. and that there are certain outcomes or processes that would be
incompatible with those laws as we know them, and are therefore
considered not possible within the framework of those laws.

within the laws of electrodynamics and all the evidence which supports
them and the lack of evidence counter to them, it is not possible to
produce absolutely synchronous clocks. that incompatibility has been
demonstrated in many, many in-depth explanations you can find.

of course it is possible that those laws of physics are wrong. just like
it is possible that energy is not conserved or that atoms with one
proton and 319 neutrons are possible. Crazy talk, but possible.

[Henry Wilson]

Obviously the experiment would be repeated several times with stationary and moving sources to get an assessment of clock drift.

[Absolutely Vertical]

it would be good to know ahead of time what the experimental accuracy
should be, before the first measurement is taken. otherwise the
investment in the experiment would be ... imprudent.

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Henry:

If my experiment reveals OWLS to be 299 792 459 m / s in one direction and 299 792 457 m / s in the other, would anyone be silly enough to claim from that that OWLS was different from TWLS in this instance?

If I measure a stick's length to be one meter long at rest and my very distant friend measures it to be one meter long when moving towards me at 150000km/s, would anyone be silly to say that it's length is not one meter long? Or, if light behaves like a wave, who would be silly enough to say that it doesn't need a medium?
That's not an argument. You have to define synchronicity (or simultaneity) in such a way that it is not an assumption, otherwise your measurement will never have the same empirical value of a roundtrip measurement.

Henry:

Clocks can be synched mechanically, in which case their synch relationship cannot be frame dependent.

What about the twin paradox? Or gps? To sync them mechanically, you have to do so locally, in order to avoid the delay due to the time separation between the moment of observation of your clock's time and the moment of observation of the distant clock's time. Then, to proceed with the experiment, you would have to move one of them away, in which case it has been subject to acceleration and your assumptions start to fall apart. Slowly moving them apart will or will not help, depending on the model your are defending. Either way, all you can say is that the clocks were in sync when you last checked and argument why they must still be in sync. I may or may not agree with you, but if simeone asks if I am certain they are still in sync at the moment of detection, I can't say that I am. On the other hand, with a roundtrip experiment, I don't have to sync clocks, nor measure the distance travelled. The distance is given, and there's only one clock.
The one-way absolute constancy of c is still just a convention. Especially regarding light beams that are not detected directly, like a beam that goes from A to B as "seen" by an observer at C. He doesn't even see such beam, let alone measure it's speed. Still, it is conventionalized that the beam would be observed to move at c, like in the moving light-clock problems, which don't even bother to define the position of the observer because it is assumed it doesn't matter.
These one-way lightspeeds are all conventions. The only unquestionable fact is that the speed of light will be always measured as c in any roundtrip experiment.

Henry:

Einstein deliberately desynched his clocks in order to  support his second postulate when he derived his RoS. He made his clocks lie

How, exactly?

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

wrote in message
news:2e3384bc-4ff5-4f01...@googlegroups.com...

==============================================
If my experiment reveals OWLS to be 299 791 459 m / s in one direction and
299 793 457 m / s in the other, would anyone be fucking stupid enough to
claim from that that OWLS was the same from TWLS in this instance?

The only unquestionable fact is you are mathematically illiterate, a
babbling shithead of the first magnitude.


-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

[Henry Wilson]

....I don't think that meaningless outburst will improve your reputation here. If you wish to keep Wabbie onside you should mind your language..

[Henry Wilson]

On Friday, January 11, 2013 11:12:59 AM UTC+11, alterg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Henry:
>
> If my experiment reveals OWLS to be 299 792 459 m / s in one direction and 299 792 457 m / s in the other, would anyone be silly enough to claim from that that OWLS was different from TWLS in this instance?
>
>
>
> If I measure a stick's length to be one meter long at rest and my very distant friend measures it to be one meter long when moving towards me at 150000km/s, would anyone be silly to say that it's length is not one meter long? Or, if light behaves like a wave, who would be silly enough to say that it doesn't need a medium?
>
> That's not an argument. You have to define synchronicity (or simultaneity) in such a way that it is not an assumption, otherwise your measurement will never have the same empirical value of a roundtrip measurement.

My experiment measures OWLS in opposite directions. The clocks can be reunited to check any drift.
The point I am making is that it is quite easy to measure OWLS to within certain accuracy limits. Modern clocks could easily pick up any anisotropy due to the earth's movement through the eather if there was such a thing... which of course there isn't

> Henry:
>
> Clocks can be synched mechanically, in which case their synch relationship cannot be frame dependent.

> What about the twin paradox? Or gps? To sync them mechanically, you have to do so locally, in order to avoid the delay due to the time separation between the moment of observation of your clock's time and the moment of observation of the distant clock's time. Then, to proceed with the experiment, you would have to move one of them away, in which case it has been subject to acceleration and your assumptions start to fall apart. Slowly moving them apart will or will not help, depending on the model your are defending.

Keeping all GPS clocks in absolute synch is a big problem but is being achieved continuously to acceptable limits.

Either way, all you can say is that the clocks were in sync when you last checked and argument why they must still be in sync. I may or may not agree with you, but if someone asks if I am certain they are still in sync at the moment of detection, I can't say that I am. On the other hand, with a roundtrip experiment, I don't have to sync clocks, nor measure the distance travelled. The distance is given, and there's only one clock.

TW light speed experiments, using a source at rest with the mirror and detector and performed in flat gravity will produce the right value of the universal constant c, which also happens to be the speed of light relative to its own source.

In case you aren't aware, light is ballistic like anyhting else. Einstein's theory is pure nonsense from start to finish.

>
> The one-way absolute constancy of c is still just a convention. Especially regarding light beams that are not detected directly, like a beam that goes from A to B as "seen" by an observer at C. He doesn't even see such beam, let alone measure it's speed. Still, it is conventionalized that the beam would be observed to move at c, like in the moving light-clock problems, which don't even bother to define the position of the observer
because it is assumed it doesn't matter.

You don't still believe that stuff do you.

> These one-way lightspeeds are all conventions. The only unquestionable fact is that the speed of light will be always measured as c in any roundtrip experiment.

The speed of light will not be measured as c if the light source is moving relative to the apparatus. The speed of light can have any value from 0 to infinity. It is the universal constant c that has the value 2.997...E8 m/s.
According to ballistic theory, any good TWLS experiment will indeed produce the right value of c.
Nobody has measured the OW speed of light from a moving source. Einstein's second postulate has never been verufied.

> Henry:
>
> Einstein deliberately desynched his clocks in order to  support his second postulate when he derived his RoS. He made his clocks lie

> How, exactly?

Read the first two sections of his 1905 paper, particularly his RoS derivation. He said he moving clocks were out of synch in their own frame because they disagreed with his P2. In other words, he said they had to be artificially adjusted to bring them into correct synch.
In reality, they were perfectly synched as they were AND HIS P2 IS NONSENSE.

[kenseto]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:47:06 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:

> On 1/9/13 1/9/13 10:16 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > The world's length standard is still based on a metal rod,
>
>
>

> This is just plain not true. The International Organization for Standardization
>
> (ISO) defines the meter:
>
>
>
> "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a
>
> time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

This definition for the meter is designed to maintain the constancy of the speed of light. In our daily life the metal meter stick is used.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/11/2013 8:23 AM, kenseto wrote:

>>
>> "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a
>>
>> time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."
>
> This definition for the meter is designed to maintain the constancy of the speed of light.
> In our daily life the metal meter stick is used.
>

what you use in daily life is not what counts as the standard. people
use wooden yardsticks and tape measures and things like that, because
reproducibility and stability are not important. for scientific use,
these things won't serve as standards. you may want everything to be
accessible to the laypeople and reduced to the quality that the common
public is accustomed to, but that won't serve purpose.

[Poutnik]

Dne pátek, 11. ledna 2013 15:23:44 UTC+1 kenseto napsal(a):

> This definition for the meter is designed to maintain the constancy of the
> speed of light. In our daily life the metal meter stick is used.

This definition is designed to bypass the fact
the major source of light speed determination error
became inaccuracy of previous meter definition.

[kenseto]

Using light speed as a meauring stick is circula and gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes. Wavelength is a better standard for length measurement.
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2012unification.pdf
of a source can be used as measuring stick.

[kenseto]

LOL......so they measure light speed with light speed?

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/11/2013 10:00 AM, kenseto wrote:

>> what you use in daily life is not what counts as the standard. people
>> use wooden yardsticks and tape measures and things like that, because
>> reproducibility and stability are not important. for scientific use,
>> these things won't serve as standards. you may want everything to be
>> accessible to the laypeople and reduced to the quality that the common
>> public is accustomed to, but that won't serve purpose.
>
> Using light speed as a meauring stick is circula and gives rise to all sorts of paradoxes.

no it isn't circular.
what was true before was that distance was primary and speed was a
derived unit. now speed is primary and distance is derived from it. what
you use as primary units and which are derived from them is a matter of
arbitrary choice.
notice that an ampere is a coulomb per second, but the primary unit in
the units system is the ampere, and the coulomb is derived from the ampere.

> Wavelength is a better standard for length measurement.

no, it's not stable or precise enough. that's why it's not used anymore.

[Absolutely Vertical]

no, measuring light speed is finished. now you measure distance with
light speed. you don't measure light speed with light speed now.

[Henry Wilson]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:47:06 PM UTC+11, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 1/9/13 1/9/13 10:16 PM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > The world's length standard is still based on a metal rod,
>
>
>
> This is just plain not true. The International Organization for Standardization
>
> (ISO) defines the meter:
>
>
>

> "the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

Yes, but that figure was originally determined as the best estimate of the length of the metal rod previously used, at a particular date.
The use of light travel time or its wavelength is obviously a far more stable and practical method than the rod, so long as the light source is at rest with the rest of the apparatus.
It seems that land surveying and range finding in general is now routinely achieved by measuring the two way travel time of IR light.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 1/10/13 1/10/13 - 2:22 PM, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> [... lots of outrageously unlikely scenarios]
> of course it is possible that those laws of physics are wrong. [...]

Science is about what _IS_ and how we model it, not what might be possible.

At any given time, scientists use and apply the theories they have, and test
them with experiments that are possible AT THAT TIME. So around 1800, Newtonian
physics was used, applied, tested, and found consistent with all experiments;
engineers of the day used it to usher in the industrial revolution. So around
1880, Maxwellian physics was used, applied, tested, and found consistent with
all experiments; engineers of the day used it to implement new and amazing
produced such as radio. (But in 1887 - 1920 experiments started showing hints of
failures in both Newtonian and Maxwellian physics...)

Today, Newtonian physics is KNOWN to be invalid, and is merely an approximation
to relativity, because that is what TODAY'S experiments show. TODAY, relativity
is used, applied, tested, and found consistent with all experiments; engineers
have used it to implement systems far beyond peoples' wildest imaginations 200
years ago, such as the GPS and the thousands of particle accelerators around the
world. TODAY, the standard model has similarly replaced Maxwellian physics;
engineers have not yet come up with useful applications.

The "relativity deniers" around here are not scientists, and
are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single
one of them has ever provided any information that could lead
to the refutation of relativity; rather, they have all given
ample evidence of their personal ignorance.

Whatever might happen in the future, including new experiments and new theories,
that is NOT part of science today. This OUGHT to be obvious. It is certainly
possible that future experiments will refute relativity, but that is unlikely to
happen anytime soon. It is QUITE CLEAR that none of the "relativity deniers"
will be involved.


Tom Roberts

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message news:PJadncvr0N-...@giganews.com...

The "relativity deniers" around here are not scientists, and
are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single
one of them has ever provided any information that could lead
to the refutation of relativity; rather, they have all given
ample evidence of their personal ignorance.

Tom Roberts
==========================================================
The "relativity preachers" around here, such as Roberts, are not scientists,

and are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single one of

them has ever provided any information or mathematical argument that could
lead to the refutation of Newtonian Physics; rather, they have all given

ample evidence of their personal ignorance.

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:28:35 AM UTC+11, Absolutely Vertical wrote:

> > LOL......so they measure light speed with light speed?

> no, measuring light speed is finished. now you measure distance with light speed. you don't measure light speed with light speed now.

So we just assume light speed equals c because the idiot Einstein said so.

That's OK when measuring distances over flat surfaces. However a problem arises if it is not flat because light speed is affected by gravity like anything else.
For instance a GPS signal increases speed by exactly 0.1598 m/s while falling from 26560km to Earth.
In fractional terms:

0.1595/2.997E8 = 5.32E-10

..Which is identical to 'gravitational component' of the GR 'correction factor' that relativists wrongly insist is necessary for the operation of the system.

[Helmut Wabnig]

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:57:36 -0000, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of

1905 is too modern for Androcles, too young is the physics of the 20th
century, Andro lives in reverse, the older he gets, the more backwards
in time he wanders.

You know, Andro, how Newton denied the possibility of making
achromatic lenses and how he tried to ruin the life of the inventor.
Newton acted like an asshole and he was one, and you Andro
may put him on the same shelf with the all known wife-beater.

w.

[Absolutely Vertical]

On 1/11/2013 11:10 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:28:35 AM UTC+11, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
>
>>> LOL......so they measure light speed with light speed?
>
>> no, measuring light speed is finished. now you measure distance with light speed. you don't
>> measure light speed with light speed now.
>
> So we just assume light speed equals c because the idiot Einstein said so.

no. we assume light speed equals c because it was measured a zillion
times in many different ways, both before einstein published a thing and
continuing on until the 1980's, at which point the measurement thing was
considered pounded into the ground thoroughly. of course, if you want to
diddle with it further, you are free to propose replicating other
people's work with inferior results of your own.

>
> That's OK when measuring distances over flat surfaces. However a problem arises if it is
> not flat because light speed is affected by gravity like anything else.

no, it isn't. wavelength is affected, frequency is affected, speed is
not affected. this has been checked.

[Bud Fudlacker]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> science is about what _IS_ and how we model it, not what might be
> possible.

all models are wrong, some of them though, kinda useful

> The "relativity deniers" around here are not scientists, and are
> largely unaware of the relevant experiments.

an advantage?

--
s² = Δx²+Δy²+Δz²-c²Δt²

[Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway]

"Helmut Wabnig" wrote in message
news:ukh0f81rmdj0lfe9u...@4ax.com...

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:57:36 -0000, "Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of
Medway" <LordAn...@Januaryr2013.edu> wrote:

>"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
>news:PJadncvr0N-...@giganews.com...
>
>The "relativity deniers" around here are not scientists, and
>are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single
>one of them has ever provided any information that could lead
>to the refutation of relativity; rather, they have all given
>ample evidence of their personal ignorance.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
>==========================================================
>The "relativity preachers" around here, such as Roberts, are not
>scientists,
>and are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single one of
>them has ever provided any information or mathematical argument that could
>lead to the refutation of Newtonian Physics; rather, they have all given
>ample evidence of their personal ignorance.
>
>-- This message is brought to you from the keyboard of
>Lord Androcles, Zeroth Earl of Medway.
>When I get my O.B.E. I'll be an earlobe.

1905 is too modern for Androcles, too young is the physics of the 20th
century, Andro lives in reverse, the older he gets, the more backwards
in time he wanders.

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

Yeah, we know, Pythagoras's right triangle theorem a^2 + b^2 = c^2 needs to
be multiplied by the modern sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to be properly accurate, doesn't
it, you stupid little Hitler?

The "relativity preachers" around here, such as Wabnigger, are not
scientists,
and are largely unaware of mathematics. Not a single one of them has ever

provided any information or mathematical argument that could lead to the
refutation of Newtonian Physics; rather, they have all given ample evidence
of their personal ignorance.

Wabnigger lives with his head up his arse, the older he gets the further it
goes and the more shit he can see.

Special relativity's second postulate is invalid, you crazy bastard, and
without it
special relativity has no physics, just very bad attempts at mathematics
which give
no answers at all.

Fuck off, you stupid little worm, read what you relativist pal Shuba said.

-- "shuba" <t...@sh.uba> wrote in message
news:k33rcs$sv2$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
blah blah splutter babble
---Tim Shuba---

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 4:48:39 AM UTC+11, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> On 1/11/2013 11:10 AM, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:28:35 AM UTC+11, Absolutely Vertical wrote:
> >> no, measuring light speed is finished. now you measure distance with light speed. you don't
> >> measure light speed with light speed now.

> > So we just assume light speed equals c because the idiot Einstein said so.

> no. we assume light speed equals c because it was measured a zillion
> times in many different ways, both before einstein published a thing and
> continuing on until the 1980's, at which point the measurement thing was
> considered pounded into the ground thoroughly. of course, if you want to
> diddle with it further, you are free to propose replicating other
> people's work with inferior results of your own.

'c' is a universal constant with dimensions L/T.
According to BaTh, light initially moves at c wrt its source, for reasons that I have given in my thesis.
According to BaTh, the speed of light when measured in any good TWLS experiment will produce the same correct value of c.
That is what happens....which is fully supportive of BaTh.

Light from a source that is moving wrt an observer does not arrive at that observer at c.

> > That's OK when measuring distances over flat surfaces. However a problem arises if it is
> > not flat because light speed is affected by gravity like anything else.

> no, it isn't. wavelength is affected, frequency is affected, speed is
> not affected. this has been checked.

HAHAHAHAHHHAA! YOU really are a dreamer Diaper. Nobody has checked that. The apparent 'wavelength change is due to speed change.' The frequency you refer to is wavecrest arrival rate, f = (c+v)/lambda

[alterg...@gmail.com]

Henry:

TW light speed experiments, using a source at rest with the mirror and detector and performed in flat gravity will produce the right value of the universal constant c, which also happens to be the speed of light relative to its own source.
In case you aren't aware, light is ballistic like anyhting else.

Indeed, the two-way constancy of lightspeed can be explained with emission theory, but many experiments have shown no ballistic properties of light. Do you know of any experiment that indicates otherwise?

[hanson]

... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA.. Too much! ... ROTFLMAO...
>
"Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> wrote:
> John Parker, the Porker's "Load in Analdorkles' g/Earl/y Medbay"
> <LordAn...@Januaryr2013.edu> wrote:

>
Einstein Dingleberry "Tom Roberts" wrote:
The "relativity deniers" around here are not scientists, and
are largely unaware of the relevant experiments. Not a single
one of them has ever provided any information that could lead
to the refutation of relativity; rather, they have all given
ample evidence of their personal ignorance.
>>

Androcles Parker wrote

The "relativity preachers" around here, such as Roberts, are not
scientists, and are largely unaware of the relevant experiments.
Not a single one of them has ever provided any information or
mathematical argument that could lead to the refutation of
Newtonian Physics; rather, they have all given ample evidence
of their personal ignorance.
>

Helmut wabniggered ferociously & wrote:
1905 is too modern for Androcles, too young is the physics
of the 20th century, Andro lives in reverse, the older he gets,
the more backwards in time he wanders.
>
You know, Andro, how Newton denied the possibility of making
achromatic lenses and how he tried to ruin the life of the inventor.
Newton acted like an asshole and he was one, and you Andro
may put him on the same shelf with the all known wife-beater.
>

hanson wrote:
Wabie.... ahahahahaha... Don't be so pedestrian with John. You
should have been more explicit to Andro with your reference to
a "known wife-beater" and be more specific like with using this link.
. <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
> .
Maybe Porker-John got mad at you over that issue as you may have
touched a raw nerve in him, which one may suspect when one sees
how John stuffed his Androcies (pink unisex underware, made in GB)
up you ass and potifficated:... (which serves you right, Wabie)

>
Androcies John Porker wrote:
Yeah, we know, Pythagoras's right triangle theorem a^2 + b^2 = c^2
needs to be multiplied by the modern sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) to be properly

accurate, doesn't it, .... Wabnig, you stupid little Hitler? .....
>
The "relativity preachers" around here, such as Wabnigger, are not
scientists, and are largely unaware of mathematics. Not a single

one of them has ever provided any information or mathematical
argument that could lead to the refutation of Newtonian Physics;
rather, they have all given ample evidence of their personal ignorance.
>

Wabnigger lives with his head up his arse, the older he gets the
further it goes and the more shit he can see.

Special relativity's second postulate is invalid, you crazy bastard,
and without it special relativity has no physics, just very bad attempts
at mathematics which give no answers at all.

Fuck off, Wabnig, you stupid little worm & read what you relativist
pal Shuba said (which does apply to you):" You must be completely
delusional if you actually think that anyone seriously believes you
have even a cursory understanding of the basics of special relativity".

[Henry Wilson]

On Saturday, January 12, 2013 9:13:45 AM UTC+11, alterg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Henry:
>
> TW light speed experiments, using a source at rest with the mirror and detector and performed in flat gravity will produce the right value of the universal constant c, which also happens to be the speed of light relative to its own source.
>
> In case you aren't aware, light is ballistic like anyhting else.
>
>
>

> Indeed, the two-way constancy of light speed can be explained with emission theory, but many experiments have shown no ballistic properties of light. Do you know of any experiment that indicates otherwise?

No experiment has disagreed with ballistic light.
Every known experiment is fully supportive of light being ballistic.
My main interest has been the matching of variable star curves with ballistic light, this being about the only practical way to test whether or not light speed is source dependent. It obviously IS!

Here are some typical computer simulations of observed Kepler Mission curves and others based on varying c+v:
http://www.scisite.info/K2441151.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/aph73196605.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/k6352430.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/km1.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/km2.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/10117806.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/4639738.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/aph210.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/aph73196605.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/fig5.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/fig6.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/fig7.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/fig8.jpg
http://www.scisite.info/fig10.jpg

The Kepler boys cannot explain most of their observed curves. I can, using BaTh.
Similarly the 'Planet Hunters' mob are jubilant if they find something resembling a transit. In fact they are finding thousands of planets without being aware.

If you want to change your life forever and see the full story, read my (evolving) thesis:
http://www.scisite.info/The_Revised_Ballistic_Theory_of_Light.html