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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #380020 > unrolled thread

Re: Differences between LET and SR.

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

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-23 20:45 -0700
    Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-24 19:57 +1100
      Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 05:50 -0700
        Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-25 08:00 +1100
          Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-24 15:41 -0700
            Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-27 20:50 +1100
              Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 06:19 -0700
                Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-28 09:14 +1100
                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-27 20:54 -0700
                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-28 04:38 +0000
                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-29 10:09 +1100
                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-03-29 04:50 +0000
                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-29 11:03 +0200
                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-03-30 09:12 +1100
                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-30 08:55 -0500
                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 09:22 -0500
                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-30 18:24 +0200
                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-31 07:44 +1100
                                Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-31 19:37 +0200
                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-01 08:21 +1100
                                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-03-31 21:28 -0700
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-01 20:15 +1100
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 05:12 -0700
                                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-01 18:59 +0200
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:04 +0000
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:07 +0000
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-01 10:11 -0700
                                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:15 +0000
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 10:14 -0700
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-01 17:22 +0000
                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-02 08:28 +1100
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 16:48 -0500
                                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-02 14:39 +0200
                                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 13:05 +0000
                                          Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-03 10:23 +1000
                                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 22:00 -0500
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-03 21:23 +1000
                                                Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-04 06:33 -0700
                                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-06 09:55 -0700
                                                    Re: Differences between LET and SR. kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:44 -0700
                                                      Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-08 13:01 -0700
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-04 00:02 -0700
                                            Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-03 13:25 +0200
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-03 08:16 -0700
                                              Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-04-04 03:47 +1000
                                                Re: Differences between LET and SR. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-04-04 19:36 +0200
                                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. HGW <xxx@....> - 2016-04-05 07:54 +1000
                                  Re: Differences between LET and SR. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-04-01 08:49 -0700
                        Re: Differences between LET and SR. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 11:57 -0500

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

#380593

On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:21:18 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
> On 01/04/16 04:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
> >>
> >> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
> >> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
> >> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything
> >> else.
> >>
> >> All experimental evidence supports that fact.
> >
> > OK, Ralph.
> > Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
> > that support the invariance of the speed of light:

> > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> 
> ...Ah! the latest edition of Paul B. Andersen's famous fairy tales...

Nice scientific response, Ralph, which only goes to show that you haven't any bullets left in your arsenal...

> > Now it's your turn.
> > Please specify some of "all the experimental
> > evidence" that support that the speed of light
> > depend on the speed of the source.

Of course, for you, this would be impossible. You have no such evidence...

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

#380605

On 01/04/16 15:28, pnalsing@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2016 at 2:21:18 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>> On 01/04/16 04:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>> On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
>>>> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
>>>> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything
>>>> else.
>>>>
>>>> All experimental evidence supports that fact.
>>>
>>> OK, Ralph.
>>> Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
>>> that support the invariance of the speed of light:
>
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>
>> ...Ah! the latest edition of Paul B. Andersen's famous fairy tales...
>
> Nice scientific response, Ralph, which only goes to show that you haven't any
> bullets left in your arsenal...

I have replied to Paul's silly list so many times already I can't see 
any point in doing it again, He simply cannot accept the truth. Not one 
of those experiments is believable. Even if any of it were true, it 
would simply confirm Lorentz's theory and the existence of an absolute 
frame.

>>> Now it's your turn.
>>> Please specify some of "all the experimental
>>> evidence" that support that the speed of light
>>> depend on the speed of the source.
>
> Of course, for you, this would be impossible. You have no such evidence...

variable star curves demonstrate quite convincingly that light moves at 
c wrt its source and at c+v relative to an observer. The fact that all 
TWLS measurements produce the same answer. The MMX, Sagnac....in fact 
every known experiment proves light speed is source dependent like 
everything else.
>

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

#380617

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 3:14:54 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> I have replied to Paul's silly list so many times already

And all of "Henry's" replies were pure balderdash

> I can't see any point in doing it again,

Nor can I

> He[nry] simply cannot accept the truth.

> Not one of those experiments is believable.

Funny, all rational physicists KNOW they refute BaThWater.

> Even if any of it were true, it would simply confirm Lorentz's theory
> and the existence of an absolute frame.

Now "Henry" goes down the dishonesty trail again.  He knows it like the
back of his hand.

> variable star curves demonstrate quite convincingly that light moves at
> c wrt its source and at c+v relative to an observer.

Only irrational nutjobs are convinced that interference effects can produce variations in light output from what is essentially a blackbody source.

> The fact that all TWLS measurements produce the same answer.

Yes, they do.  They support invariant light speed and refute ballistic light.

> The MMX, Sagnac....in fact every known experiment proves

Complete, lobotomized baloney-headed twaddle.  No true scientist would say
that the MMX "proves" anything since it supports invariant light speed,
ballistic theory and entrained aether hypothesis.  The only thing that the
MMX refuted was an undragged classical aether.

> light speed is source dependent like everything else.

Completely delusional bullcrap.  No one with an ounce of gray matter
believes that.

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

#380645

On 31.03.2016 23:21, HGW wrote:
> On 01/04/16 04:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
>>> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
>>> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything
>>> else.
>>>
>>> All experimental evidence supports that fact.
>>
>> OK, Ralph.
>> Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
>> that support the invariance of the speed of light:
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>
> ...Ah! the latest edition of Paul B. Andersen's famous fairy tales...

I see.
Real experiments performed in the real world are
fairy tales down under where everything is upside down.

>> Now it's your turn.
>> Please specify some of "all the experimental
>> evidence" that support that the speed of light
>> depend on the speed of the source.

I see.
The list of experimental evidence supporting
that the speed of light depend on the speed
of the source is extremely short! :-D

So your statement should have been:
"All the non-existing experimental evidence supports that fact."

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#380647

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> The list of experimental evidence supporting that the speed of light
> depend on the speed of the source is extremely short! :-D

Short is good enough to us. I see no reason why a speed should not be 
dependent of the motion of its source. This is like putting 2 and 2 
together

    2 + 2 = 4

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

#380649

Bimpy wrote:

> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> 
>> The list of experimental evidence supporting that the speed of light
>> depend on the speed of the source is extremely short! :-D
> 
> Short is good enough to us. I see no reason why a speed should not be
> dependent of the motion of its source. This is like putting 2 and 2
> together
> 
>     2 + 2 = 4

Also, please remark that

    2 + 1 < 4                                 (i)

and

    2 + 3 > 4                                 (ii)

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

#380652

On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:04:18 AM UTC-6, Bimpy wrote:
>
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >
> > The list of experimental evidence supporting that the speed of light
> > depend on the speed of the source is extremely short! :-D
> 
> Short is good enough to us. I see no reason why a speed should not be 
> dependent of the motion of its source.

That's because you don't reason, you just shoot of your mouth without your
brain in he circuit.

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

#380656

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 11:04:18 AM UTC-6, Bimpy wrote:
>>
>> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> >
>> > The list of experimental evidence supporting that the speed of light
>> > depend on the speed of the source is extremely short! :-D
>> 
>> Short is good enough to us. I see no reason why a speed should not be
>> dependent of the motion of its source.
> 
> That's because you don't reason, you just shoot of your mouth without
> your brain in he circuit.

I beg to differ. You just hate me because you are capitalist in physics.

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

#380655

W dniu piątek, 1 kwietnia 2016 18:59:28 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:
> On 31.03.2016 23:21, HGW wrote:
> > On 01/04/16 04:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
> >>>
> >>> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
> >>> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
> >>> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything
> >>> else.
> >>>
> >>> All experimental evidence supports that fact.
> >>
> >> OK, Ralph.
> >> Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
> >> that support the invariance of the speed of light:
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
> >
> > ...Ah! the latest edition of Paul B. Andersen's famous fairy tales...
> 
> I see.
> Real experiments performed in the real world are
> fairy tales down under where everything is upside down.
> 
> >> Now it's your turn.
> >> Please specify some of "all the experimental
> >> evidence" that support that the speed of light
> >> depend on the speed of the source.
> 
> I see.
> The list of experimental evidence supporting
> that the speed of light depend on the speed
> of the source is extremely short! :-D
> 
> So your statement should have been:
> "All the non-existing experimental evidence supports that fact."
> 
> -- 
> Paul
> 
> https://paulba.no/

Do not improvise imbecile.

The SR assume c = inv, thus because that the formulas of SR must preserve this unconditionaly, like in the example:

c (+) v = (c +- v) / (1 + cv/c^2) = c (1+v/c) / (1+v/c) = c

the real speed of light: c + v i simply normalsed
by the same speed, which is in the SR/GR defined
as an unit of speed, namely: light-speed = c;

Thus there is: c+v rescaled to c,
because you idiot assumed the light speed = c,
therefore you debil must everywery ti normalse it to the c,
just that:
c+v / c+v = 1 == c.
c-v / c-v = 1 == c.
ect.

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

#380657

alsor wrote:

>> Paul
>> 
>> https://paulba.no/
> 
> Do not improvise imbecile.
> 
> The SR assume c = inv, thus because that the formulas of SR must
> preserve this unconditionaly, like in the example:
> 
> c (+) v = (c +- v) / (1 + cv/c^2) = c (1+v/c) / (1+v/c) = c
> 
> the real speed of light: c + v i simply normalsed by the same speed,
> which is in the SR/GR defined as an unit of speed, namely: light-speed =
> c;
> 
> Thus there is: c+v rescaled to c,
> because you idiot assumed the light speed = c,
> therefore you debil must everywery ti normalse it to the c,
> just that:
> c+v / c+v = 1 == c.
> c-v / c-v = 1 == c.  ect.

Hahahahaa, good point monsiour alsor. The guy you are laughing at can't 
even manage to make this simple observation

    2 + 2 = 4                         (i)
    2 + 1 < 4                         (ii)
    2 + 3 > 4                         (iii)


aHhahahaah, thanks for the laught. Physics is so much phun these days.

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

#380691

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:59:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
wrote:

>On 31.03.2016 23:21, HGW wrote:

>>> Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
>>> that support the invariance of the speed of light:
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>
>> ...Ah! the latest edition of Paul B. Andersen's famous fairy tales...
>
>I see.
>Real experiments performed in the real world are
>fairy tales down under where everything is upside down.
>
>>> Now it's your turn.
>>> Please specify some of "all the experimental
>>> evidence" that support that the speed of light
>>> depend on the speed of the source.
>
>I see.
>The list of experimental evidence supporting
>that the speed of light depend on the speed
>of the source is extremely short! :-D

There are two reasons for the lack of evidence...the same reasons why SR has
not been tossed out years ago..; 1) Until very recently, it has been impossible
to do so and 2) anyone who now applies for funding to do it now will be
declared a crackpot by the dingleberry physics establishment and locked out of
the physics community so the name Einstein will remain as the world's symbol of
genius. .

>So your statement should have been:
>"All the non-existing experimental evidence supports that fact."

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

#380698

On 4/1/2016 4:28 PM, HGW wrote:
> There are two reasons for the lack of evidence...the same reasons why SR has
> not been tossed out years ago..; 1) Until very recently, it has been impossible
> to do so and 2) anyone who now applies for funding to do it now will be
> declared a crackpot by the dingleberry physics establishment and locked out of
> the physics community so the name Einstein will remain as the world's symbol of
> genius. .

So Henry maintains that the interesting experimental work in this area 
has not been done and will not be done by scientists. Therefore his 
assertions will never be put to experimental test. It is therefore 
unfalsifiable, but nevertheless true!

Henryism at its finest.
Aussie idiot: 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-2W88cVdkLtE/T6AV4lGRq-I/AAAAAAAAImo/VAdMkgax1dE/s1600/headtattoopete01.png

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

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

#380743

On 01.04.2016 23:28, HGW wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:59:25 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
>> On 31.03.2016 23:21, HGW wrote:
>>> On 01/04/16 04:37, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> On 30.03.2016 22:44, HGW wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There can be no evidence that a speed cannot be frame dependent for the
>>>>> obvious reason that the very definitions of 'speed' and 'frame' prohibit
>>>>> such a possibility. Therefore light must be ballistic like everything
>>>>> else.
>>>>>
>>>>> All experimental evidence supports that fact.
>>>>
>>>> Here is some of the vast amount of experimental evidence
>>>> that support the invariance of the speed of light:
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
>>>> https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Now it's your turn.
>>>> Please specify some of "all the experimental
>>>> evidence" that support that the speed of light
>>>> depend on the speed of the source.
>>
>> No Answer!
>> I see.
>> The list of experimental evidence supporting
>> that the speed of light depend on the speed
>> of the source is extremely short! :-D
>
> There are two reasons for the lack of evidence...the same reasons why SR has
> not been tossed out years ago..; 1) Until very recently, it has been impossible
> to do so and 2) anyone who now applies for funding to do it now will be
> declared a crackpot by the dingleberry physics establishment and locked out of
> the physics community so the name Einstein will remain as the world's symbol of
> genius. .

So you admit that there is no experimental evidence supporting
that the speed of light depend on the speed of the source.

Why did you then say:
"All experimental evidence supports that fact."
when you know that there is no experimental evidence
that support what you call the 'fact'?

And why do you believe in something for what there is
no experimental evidence?
Isn't that a religious belief?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#380745

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> So you admit that there is no experimental evidence supporting
> that the speed of light depend on the speed of the source.

You see that speed as constant, since Light is using to make that 
Observation possible. However, reality is more complex than simple Light. 
Fact is that HGW is perfectly right. Light HAS to be dependent on its 
source, and the proof for this is that Light speed is measured 3e8 m/s by 
the Source (the Source's point of view). Enytime everywhere. You have much 
to learn about physics, my friend.

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

#380785

On Sat, 2 Apr 2016 14:39:54 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
wrote:

>On 01.04.2016 23:28, HGW wrote:

>>> No Answer!
>>> I see.
>>> The list of experimental evidence supporting
>>> that the speed of light depend on the speed
>>> of the source is extremely short! :-D
>>
>> There are two reasons for the lack of evidence...the same reasons why SR has
>> not been tossed out years ago..; 1) Until very recently, it has been impossible
>> to do so and 2) anyone who now applies for funding to do it now will be
>> declared a crackpot by the dingleberry physics establishment and locked out of
>> the physics community so the name Einstein will remain as the world's symbol of
>> genius. .
>
>So you admit that there is no experimental evidence supporting
>that the speed of light depend on the speed of the source.

The speed of light, like the speed of anything that is not detemined by a
medium of some kind, MUST be frame dependent.

Devising a bogus method of measurement that ensures light speed will always
have the same value is sheer folly. 

>Why did you then say:
>"All experimental evidence supports that fact."
>when you know that there is no experimental evidence
>that support what you call the 'fact'?

Lack of evidence does not imply a COMPLETE lack.
All known and believable evidence certainly supports BaTh and refutes SR.
Take Sagnac for instance. The SR explanation requires that emitted light
somehow 'knows' immediately that is will be sent around a loop. ...so it moves
at c+v and c-v relative to its source... Don't you see how laughable that is?
Einstein's photons can see into the future!!! HAHHAHHAHA!

BaTh simply say that the two beams move at c in the source frame and have the
same wavelength in the source frame no matter what it is doing. What else would
any normal person expect?


>And why do you believe in something for what there is
>no experimental evidence?
>Isn't that a religious belief?

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

#380787

On 4/2/16 4/2/16   7:23 PM, HGW wrote:
> The speed of light, like the speed of anything that is not detemined by a
> medium of some kind, MUST be frame dependent.

Hmmm. The METHOD of measuring the speed is of course frame dependent. But the 
VALUE obtained need not be, and for light in vacuum it ISN'T.


> Devising a bogus method of measurement that ensures light speed will always
> have the same value is sheer folly.

What you consider "bogus" and "folly" is THE WAY REAL INSTRUMENTS BEHAVE IN THE 
WORLD WE INHABIT. But then YOU would not know about that because you carefully 
keep yourself COMPLETELY IGNORANT about actual experiments in the real world.


Tom Roberts

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

#380801

On 03/04/16 13:00, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 4/2/16 4/2/16   7:23 PM, HGW wrote:

>
>> Devising a bogus method of measurement that ensures light speed will
>> always
>> have the same value is sheer folly.
>
> What you consider "bogus" and "folly" is THE WAY REAL INSTRUMENTS BEHAVE
> IN THE WORLD WE INHABIT. But then YOU would not know about that because
> you carefully keep yourself COMPLETELY IGNORANT about actual experiments
> in the real world.

To measure one-way light speed, two synched clocks are needed. Einstein 
defined synched clocks as those that will measure OWLS as being c. If 
they don't, they are not in synch. So if any dingleberry measures OWLS, 
he must first adjust his clocks so they will guarantee the answer c.

Even you should be able to see the joke....

> Tom Roberts

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

#380872

On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:23:04 AM UTC-4, HGW wrote:
> On 03/04/16 13:00, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > On 4/2/16 4/2/16   7:23 PM, HGW wrote:
> 
> >
> >> Devising a bogus method of measurement that ensures light speed will
> >> always
> >> have the same value is sheer folly.
> >
> > What you consider "bogus" and "folly" is THE WAY REAL INSTRUMENTS BEHAVE
> > IN THE WORLD WE INHABIT. But then YOU would not know about that because
> > you carefully keep yourself COMPLETELY IGNORANT about actual experiments
> > in the real world.
> 
> To measure one-way light speed, two synched clocks are needed. Einstein 
> defined synched clocks as those that will measure OWLS as being c. If 
> they don't, they are not in synch. So if any dingleberry measures OWLS, 
> he must first adjust his clocks so they will guarantee the answer c.
> 
> Even you should be able to see the joke....
> 

I agree. Besides the OWLS never been measured directly.

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

#381039

W dniu poniedziałek, 4 kwietnia 2016 15:33:31 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
> On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:23:04 AM UTC-4, HGW wrote:
> > On 03/04/16 13:00, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > On 4/2/16 4/2/16   7:23 PM, HGW wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >> Devising a bogus method of measurement that ensures light speed will
> > >> always
> > >> have the same value is sheer folly.
> > >
> > > What you consider "bogus" and "folly" is THE WAY REAL INSTRUMENTS BEHAVE
> > > IN THE WORLD WE INHABIT. But then YOU would not know about that because
> > > you carefully keep yourself COMPLETELY IGNORANT about actual experiments
> > > in the real world.
> > 
> > To measure one-way light speed, two synched clocks are needed. Einstein 
> > defined synched clocks as those that will measure OWLS as being c. If 
> > they don't, they are not in synch. So if any dingleberry measures OWLS, 
> > he must first adjust his clocks so they will guarantee the answer c.
> > 
> > Even you should be able to see the joke....
> > 
> 
> I agree. Besides the OWLS never been measured directly.

Realy?
So, you should to measure it... after all, hehe!

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

#381095

On Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at 12:55:15 PM UTC-4, al...@interia.pl wrote:
> W dniu poniedziałek, 4 kwietnia 2016 15:33:31 UTC+2 użytkownik kenseto napisał:
> > On Sunday, April 3, 2016 at 7:23:04 AM UTC-4, HGW wrote:
> > > On 03/04/16 13:00, Tom Roberts wrote:
> > > > On 4/2/16 4/2/16   7:23 PM, HGW wrote:
> > > 
> > > >
> > > >> Devising a bogus method of measurement that ensures light speed will
> > > >> always
> > > >> have the same value is sheer folly.
> > > >
> > > > What you consider "bogus" and "folly" is THE WAY REAL INSTRUMENTS BEHAVE
> > > > IN THE WORLD WE INHABIT. But then YOU would not know about that because
> > > > you carefully keep yourself COMPLETELY IGNORANT about actual experiments
> > > > in the real world.
> > > 
> > > To measure one-way light speed, two synched clocks are needed. Einstein 
> > > defined synched clocks as those that will measure OWLS as being c. If 
> > > they don't, they are not in synch. So if any dingleberry measures OWLS, 
> > > he must first adjust his clocks so they will guarantee the answer c.
> > > 
> > > Even you should be able to see the joke....
> > > 
> > 
> > I agree. Besides the OWLS never been measured directly.
> 
> Realy?
> So, you should to measure it... after all, hehe!

No such direct measurement of OWLS ever been performed.

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

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

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

csiph-web