Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478177 > unrolled thread

One way speed of light

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-26 16:01 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-26 15:50 +0000
    Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-26 21:48 +0100
      Re: One way speed of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-27 07:07 -0800
        Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:09 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 13:04 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 21:29 +0000
        Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 15:31 +0100
          Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 15:59 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 16:26 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-27 16:47 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:54 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 18:01 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 00:55 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-28 05:14 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:13 +0000
          Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 +0000
            Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-28 16:34 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:40 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:20 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-29 20:43 +0100
                  Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:53 +0000
                  Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-29 22:21 +0100
                    Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:15 +0100
                      Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
                        Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-30 17:23 -0600
                      Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:34 +0100
                        Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
                          Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:17 +0100
                            Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:32 -0800
                              Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-02 13:50 +0100
                                Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 05:11 -0800
                                  Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-03 12:23 +0100
                                    Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:53 +0000
                                      Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:25 -0800
                                      Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-04 13:04 +0100
                                    Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 11:57 -0800
                                      Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800
                                        Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 13:56 -0800
                                          Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 14:13 -0800
                                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:44 +0100
                                Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-02 07:13 -0800
                                Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:28 -0600
                                  Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:42 +0000
                                  Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-02 11:08 -0800
                                Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:49 +0000
                                  Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:57 +0000
                                    Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:58 +0000
                                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 21:23 +0000
                            Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:20 +0100
                  Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-29 16:03 -0600
                    Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 15:03 -0800
                    Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:18 +0100
                      Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
                      Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:58 +0100
                  Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-29 23:38 +0000
                    Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 16:40 -0800
                      Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
                        Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:41 -0500
                          Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:13 +0000
                        Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:21 +0100
                          Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-30 22:10 +0100
                            Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:26 +0100
                          Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 23:01 +0000
                          Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
                          Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:43 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:01 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:04 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-26 15:51 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-26 18:53 -0800
        Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-27 09:49 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 15:11 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:19 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:36 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:28 -0500
      Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 20:08 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:10 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-30 12:48 -0800
      Alex Sorokin, persistent imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:34 -0800

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#478754

Thomas Heger wrote:

> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.

You don’t know anything.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-way_speed_of_light#Experiments_that_can_be_done_on_the_one-way_speed_of_light>

> (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment

It is.

> as I have tried to show in my OP.)

You are far from original.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478758

On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 4:50:18 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.12.2018 um 16:32 schrieb Dono,:
> > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
> >>
> >> But the MMX was conducted more than a hundred years ago with technology
> >> not even then state of the art.
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > Crank,
> > 
> > There re literally hundreds of MMX re-enactments with ever increasing precision and modernized technology. Learn. Stop posting idiocies.
> > 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.
> 

Lying cretin

The issue was that, contrary to your shameless lying, there have been hundreds of modern re-enactments of MMX. THAT was the issue. 



 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478768

On 12/2/18 6:50 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.

That's merely due to your IGNORANCE, and your STUPIDITY in refusing to 
study the topic.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478782

Tom Roberts wrote:

> On 12/2/18 6:50 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> As far as I know, there was never any
>> 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.
> 
> That's merely due to your IGNORANCE, and your STUPIDITY in refusing to
> study the topic.

Just wonderful, no need for proofs with comma separated many places of 
decimals accuracy. In relativity. Any other theory needs rigorous 
scrutiny, predominated by errorbars as large as possible, emphasising the 
points that are to be made.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478788

W dniu niedziela, 2 grudnia 2018 17:28:36 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał:
> On 12/2/18 6:50 AM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.
> 
> That's merely due to your IGNORANCE, and your STUPIDITY in refusing to 
> study the topic.
> 
> Tom Roberts

Indeed.
You both are correct:

1. the one-way speed has been never measured,
2. due to obvious gigantic ignorance of the mainstream (pseudo)scientists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478783

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes:

>The reason:
>if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would 
>have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from 
>the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same 
>amount on the way back.

>There is only a tiny difference, since the light needs more additional 
>time on the way to the mirror, than what is gained on the way back.

>Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a 
>little more time.

>The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from 
>light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns.

>The arm-length was about 1.2 m, but the beam was reflected four times, 
>what resulted in 11m light-path. That takes about 32 ns and the half  is 
>16ns.

>Within this 16 ns the beam is about 2,2 km/s slower (and about 2,2 km/s 
>faster on the way back for 16ns- 16ns/150,000) than the usual speed of 
>light in air.

>This does not add up perfectly, since for 16 ns light is actually moving 
>2km/s slower, hence uses on average more time on the way to the mirror 
>than on the way back.

>ONLY: this effect is extremely small, since you need to multiply the 
>ratio 1/150,000 (as effect of ether drift) by an also extremely small 
>ratio as outcome of the very short interval (16 ns).

You have been told many times how this is wrong, yet you repeat your
error. Why?

The secret is to measure the DIFFERENCE in speeds, via the interference
pattern. Doable (and done) with late 1800s technology.

It is true that direct measurement of the speed to the resolution
needed is quite difficult.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478785

Michael Moroney wrote:

>>ONLY: this effect is extremely small, since you need to multiply the
>>ratio 1/150,000 (as effect of ether drift) by an also extremely small
>>ratio as outcome of the very short interval (16 ns).
> 
> You have been told many times how this is wrong, yet you repeat your
> error. Why? 
> The secret is to measure the DIFFERENCE in speeds, via the interference
> pattern. Doable (and done) with late 1800s technology.

This usenet relativity beleiver is even modifying for what the _speed_ 
cover over in science and technology. Here would imply marking, labelling 
a moving target, a crest of the wave moving (actually the valley, to 
increase accuracy), or a photon in this context, which is plainly 
impossible. Dream on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478786

Mole Santiago wrote:

> Michael Moroney wrote:
> 
>>>ONLY: this effect is extremely small, since you need to multiply the
>>>ratio 1/150,000 (as effect of ether drift) by an also extremely small
>>>ratio as outcome of the very short interval (16 ns).
>> 
>> You have been told many times how this is wrong, yet you repeat your
>> error. Why?
>> The secret is to measure the DIFFERENCE in speeds, via the interference
>> pattern. Doable (and done) with late 1800s technology.
> 
> This usenet relativity beleiver is even modifying for what the _speed_

the terminology, modifying it. To serve his agenda.

> cover over in science and technology. Here would imply marking,
> labelling a moving target, a crest of the wave moving (actually the
> valley, to increase accuracy), or a photon in this context, which is
> plainly impossible. Dream on.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478804

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 01.12.2018 um 16:32 schrieb Dono,:
>> On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> 
>>> But the MMX was conducted more than a hundred years ago with technology
>>> not even then state of the art.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Crank,
>> 
>> There re literally hundreds of MMX re-enactments with ever increasing
>> precision and modernized technology. Learn. Stop posting idiocies.
>> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.

It’s been done as far back as the 1680s. See Roemer. 

> 
> (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried 
> to show in my OP.)
> 
> If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, 
> whether or not there is an ether (or not).
> 
> The reason:
> if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would 
> have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from 
> the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same 
> amount on the way back.
> 
> There is only a tiny difference, since the light needs more additional 
> time on the way to the mirror, than what is gained on the way back.
> 
> Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a 
> little more time.
> 
> The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from 
> light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns.
> 
> The arm-length was about 1.2 m, but the beam was reflected four times, 
> what resulted in 11m light-path. That takes about 32 ns and the half  is 
> 16ns.
> 
> Within this 16 ns the beam is about 2,2 km/s slower (and about 2,2 km/s 
> faster on the way back for 16ns- 16ns/150,000) than the usual speed of 
> light in air.
> 
> This does not add up perfectly, since for 16 ns light is actually moving 
> 2km/s slower, hence uses on average more time on the way to the mirror 
> than on the way back.
> 
> ONLY: this effect is extremely small, since you need to multiply the 
> ratio 1/150,000 (as effect of ether drift) by an also extremely small 
> ratio as outcome of the very short interval (16 ns).
> 
> In a geometric analogy: the arc-length is longer than the sinus. But if 
> the angle of the arc/the corresponding triangle is very small, the 
> difference is very small.
> 
> And this small difference needs to be compared to the speed of light, 
> since what the interferometer tries to measure is a shift of 
> interference patterns.
> 
> TH
> 
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478694

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 01.12.2018 um 00:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin:
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote:
>>> Thomas Heger wrote:
>>>> The [MMX] was not remotely as precise and they could not
>>>> possibly measure anything at all.
>>> Bullshit.
>>
>> It’s remarkable that people like Thomas are just boggled by the idea of a
>> measurement good to a ppb. In their mind, unless it’s an effect larger than
>> a part in a thousand, then it’s just impossible.
> 
> No, not at all.
> 
> But the MMX was conducted more than a hundred years ago with technology 
> not even then state of the art.

Bullshit.  Albert A. Michelson was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics 1907
for the invention of the interferometer and other optical instruments,
because they enabled many other discoveries.

<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1907/summary/>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478459

On 11/29/18 1:43 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
> independent from the rotation of the Earth.

Not at all! Metrologists and physicists have known how to do that for 
many decades: Define the second in terms of the frequency of an atomic 
transition.

This of course applies in the locally inertial rest frame of the atom, 
which must be small enough so that spacetime curvature (gravitation) 
does not affect anything. This is completely independent of the earth, 
but can be applied anywhere, including in labs on the surface of the earth.

> We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual 
> environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth.

Yes and no, it depends on WHICH measurements you mean. Note the units 
are not affected at all.

> So there is a conceptual difficulty to define space and time without 
> reference to our home planet.

Only in YOUR mind. Metrologists and physicists have known how to do this 
for nearly a century.

> IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an 
> 'ether wind'?

With respect to the measuring apparatus, of course. Nothing else is 
possible.

You are attempting to understand the world we inhabit by IGNORING what 
is already known and just making stuff up and pretending it is true. 
THAT'S HOPELESS.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478483

On Thursday, 29 November 2018 23:04:05 UTC+1, tjrob137  wrote:
> On 11/29/18 1:43 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
> > Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
> > independent from the rotation of the Earth.
> 
> Not at all! Metrologists and physicists have known how to do that for 
> many decades: Define the second in terms of the frequency of an atomic 
> transition.

As we can see at GPS, however - even your bunch 
of idiots is not stupid enough to treat this 
concept seriously.
So, the problem exists.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478612

Am 29.11.2018 um 23:03 schrieb Tom Roberts:
> On 11/29/18 1:43 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
> 
> Not at all! Metrologists and physicists have known how to do that for 
> many decades: Define the second in terms of the frequency of an atomic 
> transition.


Sure..

But if you do not have an Earth as reference: what do you do with the 
term 'day'.


TH

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478688

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote:
> Am 29.11.2018 um 23:03 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> On 11/29/18 1:43 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
>>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
>> 
>> Not at all! Metrologists and physicists have known how to do that for 
>> many decades: Define the second in terms of the frequency of an atomic 
>> transition.
> 
> 
> Sure..
> 
> But if you do not have an Earth as reference: what do you do with the 
> term 'day'.

Leave it out of science.

> 
> 
> TH
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478755

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 29.11.2018 um 23:03 schrieb Tom Roberts:
>> On 11/29/18 1:43 PM, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
>>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
>>
>> Not at all! Metrologists and physicists have known how to do that for 
>> many decades: Define the second in terms of the frequency of an atomic 
>> transition.
> 
> Sure..
> 
> But if you do not have an Earth as reference: what do you do with the 
> term 'day'.

You define it either as 86'400 s (using the *convention* of 60 seconds per
minute, 60 minutes per hour, and 24 hours per *standard* day) or based on
one rotation of the subject of reference (say, Mars) relative to an object
of reference (say, Sol [the Sun]).  (That would then be a Martian mean solar
day, or “sol”.)

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_(day_on_Mars)>

It is a hopeless endeavor to understand the world by ignoring what is known
about the world.

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478496

Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes:

>> And for the same reason, if you have a 2-way light speed measurement such
>> as the MMX, then even if there were a luminiferous ether that the apparatus
>> was moving through, so that upstream speed is c-v and downstream speed is
>> c+v, the average speed for the round trip will not be c.
>> 
>> Thus, though this was not technically available in 1887, it is now quite
>> easily attainable to simply do a 2-way light traverse over, say, a couple
>> hundred meters and TIME the flight of a light pulse and see if the time is
>> different than c. Because if there were an ether that the apparatus was
>> moving through with speed v, you’d expect to measure an average speed of c’
>> = c(1-(v/c)^2). For v/c = 1/20, then c’ would differ from c by 1/4%, which
>> for a total distance of, say, 400 m, corresponds to a time resolution of
>> 3ns, which is VERY doable. No one does it today of course, because the
>> matter is already settled. But YOU could do it with a pulsed laser in a
>> long darkened pipe with a couple mirrors, a photodiode, and an
>> oscilloscope.


>Light moves round the Earth 7.5 times per second and Earth rotates once 
>per day.

>The ratio is WAY smaller than 1/20.

>E.g: we have 86400 s per day to travel 40,000 km (for one rotation along 
>the equator - for instance). That is 2,16 km/s.
>2,16/300,000= 0,0000072

>The error between a river at rest and a river flowing slowly (or in this 
>case Earth rotating or not) is similar to a VERY narrow triangle, which 
>is not exactly symmetric, but slightly lopsided.

>The difference is obviously dependent on the geometry of such a triangle 
>or in this case on the ration between speed of light and rotational 
>velocity of the Earth.

>I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what 
>we could measure even today.

So you admit you have no support for your claim that light would move at
c+v one way and c-v the other way. So why make something like that up?

Regardless, M-M and later tests were looking for light speed differences
as the earth orbited the sun, which is much faster than the surface
rotational speed. It's more like .0001c, which would produce a difference
from a round trip speed of c that was enough to produce an interference
fringe shift. Michelson and Morley could detect a fringe shift even from
the slower rotation of the earth, which is why they attempted their
experiment in the first place.

>Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
>independent from the rotation of the Earth.

"Try"? They already did that over 50 years ago! They use the transition 
of a cesium atom, which is much more stable than earth's rotation.

>We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual 
>environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth.

Scientific experiments certainly don't. For many, the earth's rotation
just isn't stable enough, and it is slowing slightly.  Every once in a
while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
cesium clocks. They even measured the tiny rotation change rate caused by
the change in the moment of inertia of the earth caused by the 2004
earthquake/tsunami.

>So there is a conceptual difficulty to define space and time without 
>reference to our home planet.

Why should we define such things in reference to some big rock in space?
Science has been trying to change fundamental units to fundamental 
constants. Just recently they redefined the kilogram so that it is no
longer defined as the mass of a chunk of platinum in Paris.

>So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is?

The period of radiation from a cesium atom, for one. That's how the second
has been defined for over 50 years. All Cs-133 atoms are identical and
don't change, more stable than the earth.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478501

On Friday, 30 November 2018 00:38:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:

> >Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
> >independent from the rotation of the Earth.
> 
> "Try"? They already did that over 50 years ago! They use the transition 
> of a cesium atom, which is much more stable than earth's rotation.

Mike, poor idiot. You're enchanting the reality.
As anyone can check at GPS, even morons like
you are unable to treat this concept seriously.


> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
> cesium clocks.

:) And can you explain why they bother to
adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time 
of Earth's rotation?

> Why should we define such things in reference to some big rock in space?


Being a poor idiot without common sense you have
absolutely no Chance to comprehend it. Sorry.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478507

<mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
> On Friday, 30 November 2018 00:38:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:
> 
>>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second 
>>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
>> 
>> "Try"? They already did that over 50 years ago! They use the transition 
>> of a cesium atom, which is much more stable than earth's rotation.
> 
> Mike, poor idiot. You're enchanting the reality.
> As anyone can check at GPS, even morons like
> you are unable to treat this concept seriously.
> 
> 
>> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
>> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
>> cesium clocks.
> 
> :) And can you explain why they bother to
> adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time 
> of Earth's rotation?

They don’t. They adjust the length of the day, or the length of a year. 
They don’t change the second. 

> 
>> Why should we define such things in reference to some big rock in space?
> 
> 
> Being a poor idiot without common sense you have
> absolutely no Chance to comprehend it. Sorry.
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478511

On 11/29/2018 10:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>> On Friday, 30 November 2018 00:38:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:
>>
>>>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second
>>>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
>>>
>>> "Try"? They already did that over 50 years ago! They use the transition
>>> of a cesium atom, which is much more stable than earth's rotation.
>>
>> Mike, poor idiot. You're enchanting the reality.
>> As anyone can check at GPS, even morons like
>> you are unable to treat this concept seriously.
>>
>>
>>> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
>>> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
>>> cesium clocks.
>>
>> :) And can you explain why they bother to
>> adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time
>> of Earth's rotation?
> 
> They don’t. They adjust the length of the day, or the length of a year.
> They don’t change the second.

Odd even when you actually have some knowledge you can't manage to use 
words to explain it. How about giving us the math? Can you handle that?

What they do is add a leap second when needed at zero hours UTC 
(Universal Coordinated Time in French) when needed. Hence that day and 
that year have a length longer by one second. They DO NOT "adjust the 
length of the day" which is to say the length of all days in the year.
This keeps common time (like when noon occurs) from slowly drifting.

>>> Why should we define such things in reference to some big rock in space?
>>
>>
>> Being a poor idiot without common sense you have
>> absolutely no Chance to comprehend it. Sorry.

Name calling and derision is a sure sign the derider has no knowledge of 
the subject.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#478537

benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/29/2018 10:22 PM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <mlwozniak@wp.pl> wrote:
>>> On Friday, 30 November 2018 00:38:17 UTC+1, Michael Moroney  wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second
>>>>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
>>>> 
>>>> "Try"? They already did that over 50 years ago! They use the transition
>>>> of a cesium atom, which is much more stable than earth's rotation.
>>> 
>>> Mike, poor idiot. You're enchanting the reality.
>>> As anyone can check at GPS, even morons like
>>> you are unable to treat this concept seriously.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> while they add (or subtract; hasn't happened yet) a leap second to keep
>>>> the slightly wobbly time of earth's rotation in line with more accurate
>>>> cesium clocks.
>>> 
>>> :) And can you explain why they bother to
>>> adjust precise clocks to this wobbly time
>>> of Earth's rotation?
>> 
>> They don’t. They adjust the length of the day, or the length of a year.
>> They don’t change the second.
> 
> Odd even when you actually have some knowledge you can't manage to use 
> words to explain it. How about giving us the math? Can you handle that?
> 
> What they do is add a leap second when needed at zero hours UTC 
> (Universal Coordinated Time in French) when needed. Hence that day and 
> that year have a length longer by one second. They DO NOT "adjust the 
> length of the day" which is to say the length of all days in the year.

Adjust the day doesn’t mean adjust all the days in the year. “The” is
singular. The one day is adjusted. 

Come on. 

> This keeps common time (like when noon occurs) from slowly drifting.
> 
>>>> Why should we define such things in reference to some big rock in space?
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Being a poor idiot without common sense you have
>>> absolutely no Chance to comprehend it. Sorry.
> 
> Name calling and derision is a sure sign the derider has no knowledge of 
> the subject.
> 
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web