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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #424486 > unrolled thread

The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse

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

Contents

  The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 23:00 -0700
    Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 23:01 -0700
      Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-10 23:08 -0700
        Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-11 16:06 +0000
          Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-12 08:12 +1000
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Laverne Chandler <unvnh@ednawe.ee> - 2017-07-12 22:26 +0000
          Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-11 18:16 -0700
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Vern Garriott <verg@entweoe.te> - 2017-07-12 17:00 +0000
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 16:37 -0700
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-13 09:58 +1000
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 17:30 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 17:42 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse gregguikema@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 18:23 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-12 18:47 -0700
                  Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse shuba <thailao2558@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 05:11 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-14 09:29 +1000
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-14 19:21 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-15 20:05 -0700
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-17 20:43 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-19 09:30 +1000
            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:11 -0700
              Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 18:37 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-19 18:56 -0700
                  Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 19:21 -0700
                Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 19:23 -0700
                  Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-23 17:32 -0700
                    Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 19:22 -0700
                      Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-23 20:30 -0700
                        Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-23 21:55 -0700
                          Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 19:07 -0700
                            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-07-27 20:09 -0700
                            Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-27 20:45 -0700
    Re: The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-07-28 15:38 +1000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#424486 — The Light Sandwich Experiment and the Solution to Poincare's Curse

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#424487

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305

I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first one way light measure.

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

#424488

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
> 
> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first one way light measure.

We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light. This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise. 

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

#424521

John Gogo wrote:

> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
>> > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
>> 
>> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first
>> one way light measure.
> 
> We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
> This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.

We don't get it.

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

#424553

On 12/07/17 02:06, Vern Garriott wrote:
> John Gogo wrote:
> 
>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
>>>> http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
>>>
>>> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first
>>> one way light measure.
>>
>> We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
>> This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.
> 
> We don't get it.

Gogo still thinks there is an aether.


-- 

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

#424653

HGW... wrote:

>>> We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
>>> This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.
>> 
>> We don't get it.
> 
> Gogo still thinks there is an aether.

Space. What is Space. Space is giving me a sensation of freedom.

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

#424576

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> John Gogo wrote:
> 
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> >> > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
> >> 
> >> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first
> >> one way light measure.
> > 
> > We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
> > This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.
> 
> We don't get it.

Here is the gist of the experiment:

Setup:

In a line of sight experiment:
1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.

Experiment:

1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.
2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated at the same time.
3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.

Theoretical conclusion:
1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed before light source B since light source A is situated closer to the observers because light universally travels 300,000 meters per second.
2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical quantity. 

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

#424625

John Gogo wrote:

>> > We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
>> > This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance
>> > wise.
>> 
>> We don't get it.
> 
> Here is the gist of the experiment: Setup: In a line of sight experiment:
> Theoretical conclusion:

What other form of conclusions are there?

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

#424660

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 12:00:39 PM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> John Gogo wrote:
> 
> >> > We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
> >> > This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance
> >> > wise.
> >> 
> >> We don't get it.
> > 
> > Here is the gist of the experiment: Setup: In a line of sight experiment:
> > Theoretical conclusion:
> 
> What other form of conclusions are there?

c+v, c-v theories- but they have been debunked starting with Michelson.

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

#424663

On 12/07/17 11:16, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:

>> 
>> We don't get it.
> 
> Here is the gist of the experiment:
> 
> Setup:
> 
> In a line of sight experiment: 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers
> from observer. 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the
> observer. 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> 
> Experiment:
> 
> 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and
> light source B and acts as a midpoint. 2) Light source A and light
> source B are thereby illuminated at the same time. 3) Light source A
> and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> 
> Theoretical conclusion: 1) conventional theory assumes light source A
> will be observed before light source B since light source A is
> situated closer to the observers because light universally travels
> 300,000 meters per second. 2) My theory assumes that light source A
> and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same
> time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical
> quantity.

Your theory is insane, like you. If true we would hear satellite TV 
broadcasts instantly.
....and by the way, light travels at 30,000,000 meters per second.



-- 

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

#424665

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:58:56 PM UTC-5, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/07/17 11:16, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> We don't get it.
> > 
> > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > 
> > Setup:
> > 
> > In a line of sight experiment: 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers
> > from observer. 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the
> > observer. 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> > 
> > Experiment:
> > 
> > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and
> > light source B and acts as a midpoint. 2) Light source A and light
> > source B are thereby illuminated at the same time. 3) Light source A
> > and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> > 
> > Theoretical conclusion: 1) conventional theory assumes light source A
> > will be observed before light source B since light source A is
> > situated closer to the observers because light universally travels
> > 300,000 meters per second. 2) My theory assumes that light source A
> > and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same
> > time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical
> > quantity.
> 
> Your theory is insane, like you. If true we would hear satellite TV 
> broadcasts instantly.
> ....and by the way, light travels at 30,000,000 meters per second.
> 
> 
> 
> --

However improbable but true. It does not matter what you or I think in the end. Experiments will be performed and the truth will come out only to be replaced by newer better truths based on experimental observation. Remember, we used to think the moon was made of cheese.

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

#424666

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 6:58:56 PM UTC-5, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/07/17 11:16, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> We don't get it.
> > 
> > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > 
> > Setup:
> > 
> > In a line of sight experiment: 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers
> > from observer. 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the
> > observer. 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> > 
> > Experiment:
> > 
> > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and
> > light source B and acts as a midpoint. 2) Light source A and light
> > source B are thereby illuminated at the same time. 3) Light source A
> > and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> > 
> > Theoretical conclusion: 1) conventional theory assumes light source A
> > will be observed before light source B since light source A is
> > situated closer to the observers because light universally travels
> > 300,000 meters per second. 2) My theory assumes that light source A
> > and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same
> > time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical
> > quantity.
> 
> Your theory is insane, like you. If true we would hear satellite TV 
> broadcasts instantly.
> ....and by the way, light travels at 30,000,000 meters per second.
> 
> 
> 
> --

Don't be afraid to change your logic. As long as you are alive you are potentially valuable.

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

#424672

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 12/07/17 11:16, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> 
> >> 
> >> We don't get it.
> > 
> > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > 
> > Setup:
> > 
> > In a line of sight experiment: 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers
> > from observer. 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the
> > observer. 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> > 
> > Experiment:
> > 
> > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and
> > light source B and acts as a midpoint. 2) Light source A and light
> > source B are thereby illuminated at the same time. 3) Light source A
> > and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> > 
> > Theoretical conclusion: 1) conventional theory assumes light source A
> > will be observed before light source B since light source A is
> > situated closer to the observers because light universally travels
> > 300,000 meters per second. 2) My theory assumes that light source A
> > and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same
> > time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical
> > quantity.
> 
> Your theory is insane, like you. If true we would hear satellite TV 
> broadcasts instantly.
> ....and by the way, light travels at 30,000,000 meters per second.
> 
> 
> 
> --

with all due respect, Einstein's theory that claims time slows down the faster you move sounds insane to me. But most people agree with his theory today. Spatial Relativity and General Relativity are still theories are they not? I agree with Einstein but would like to see more testing to verify his theories.

Light travels at 186,282 miles per second when reflected off an object in the distance. We need to know how fast light travels from a source where it emanates from. 

We do not know if radio waves and light waves travel at the same one way speed. It is a good theory but has not been tested yet (as far as one way light speed is concerned).

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

#424678

On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 8:23:26 PM UTC-5, gregg...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 12, 2017 at 7:58:56 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> > On 12/07/17 11:16, John Gogo wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> > 
> > >> 
> > >> We don't get it.
> > > 
> > > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > > 
> > > Setup:
> > > 
> > > In a line of sight experiment: 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers
> > > from observer. 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the
> > > observer. 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> > > 
> > > Experiment:
> > > 
> > > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and
> > > light source B and acts as a midpoint. 2) Light source A and light
> > > source B are thereby illuminated at the same time. 3) Light source A
> > > and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> > > 
> > > Theoretical conclusion: 1) conventional theory assumes light source A
> > > will be observed before light source B since light source A is
> > > situated closer to the observers because light universally travels
> > > 300,000 meters per second. 2) My theory assumes that light source A
> > > and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same
> > > time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical
> > > quantity.
> > 
> > Your theory is insane, like you. If true we would hear satellite TV 
> > broadcasts instantly.
> > ....and by the way, light travels at 30,000,000 meters per second.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --
> 
> with all due respect, Einstein's theory that claims time slows down the faster you move sounds insane to me. But most people agree with his theory today. Spatial Relativity and General Relativity are still theories are they not? I agree with Einstein but would like to see more testing to verify his theories.
> 
> Light travels at 186,282 miles per second when reflected off an object in the distance. We need to know how fast light travels from a source where it emanates from. 
> 
> We do not know if radio waves and light waves travel at the same one way speed. It is a good theory but has not been tested yet (as far as one way light speed is concerned).

You belong here. There are some of the best minds in the world here. Enjoy.

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

#424712

John Gogo wrote:

> There are some of the best minds in the world here.

Hmm. They must have good reasons for never posting.


         ---Tim Shuba---

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

#424783

On 13/07/17 11:23, gregguikema@gmail.com wrote:

>> Your theory is insane, like you. If true we would hear satellite
>> TV broadcasts instantly. ....and by the way, light travels at
>> 30,000,000 meters per second.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
> 
> with all due respect, Einstein's theory that claims time slows down
> the faster you move sounds insane to me. But most people agree with
> his theory today. Spatial Relativity and General Relativity are still
> theories are they not? I agree with Einstein but would like to see
> more testing to verify his theories.
> 
> Light travels at 186,282 miles per second when reflected off an
> object in the distance. We need to know how fast light travels from a
> source where it emanates from.

It travels at c relative to its source, which is some kind of 'field' 
(usually inside an atom or molecule). According to BaTh, fields are like 
local regions of 'classical aether', which act as a medium for EM wave 
motion as per Maxwell. When a field is disturbed, a wave is set up. Its 
speed is so fast that bits of the field (photons) are ejected at speed c 
relative to the field.
At least I have a theory....nobody else has.....so prove it is wrong.

> We do not know if radio waves and light waves travel at the same one
> way speed. It is a good theory but has not been tested yet (as far as
> one way light speed is concerned).

OWLS can have any practical value. Speeds must always be specified 
relative to some other object.



-- 

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

#424953

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> > John Gogo wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
> > >> 
> > >> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first
> > >> one way light measure.
> > > 
> > > We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
> > > This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.
> > 
> > We don't get it.
> 
> Here is the gist of the experiment:
> 
> Setup:
> 
> In a line of sight experiment:
> 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
> 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
> 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> 
> Experiment:
> 
> 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.
> 2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated at the same time.
> 3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> 
> Theoretical conclusion:
> 1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed before light source B since light source A is situated closer to the observers because light universally travels 300,000 meters per second.
> 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical quantity.

From the point of view of the observer- this is a one-way measure of light.

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

#425103

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 9:21:48 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> > > John Gogo wrote:
> > > 
> > > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > > >> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > > >> > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
> > > >> 
> > > >> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first
> > > >> one way light measure.
> > > > 
> > > > We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
> > > > This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.
> > > 
> > > We don't get it.
> > 
> > Here is the gist of the experiment:
> > 
> > Setup:
> > 
> > In a line of sight experiment:
> > 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
> > 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
> > 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> > 
> > Experiment:
> > 
> > 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.
> > 2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated at the same time.
> > 3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> > 
> > Theoretical conclusion:
> > 1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed before light source B since light source A is situated closer to the observers because light universally travels 300,000 meters per second.
> > 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical quantity.
> 
> From the point of view of the observer- this is a one-way measure of light.

There is no limit to this rule. For instance, the sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead as conventionally accepted.

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

#425422

On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-5, Vern Garriott wrote:
> > John Gogo wrote:
> > 
> > > On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:01:46 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 1:00:04 AM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
> > >> > http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/1305
> > >> 
> > >> I want to talk about this paper because this idea may lead to the first
> > >> one way light measure.
> > > 
> > > We want to know a value of a one way measure when it comes to light.
> > > This will require sizeable objects which are measurable distance wise.
> > 
> > We don't get it.
> 
> Here is the gist of the experiment:
> 
> Setup:
> 
> In a line of sight experiment:
> 1) place a light source A 5 kilometers from observer.
> 2) place a light source B 15 kilometers from the observer.
> 3) place a transmitter C 10 kilometers from the observer.
> 
> Experiment:
> 
> 1) Transmitter C sends two simultaneous signals to light source A and light source B and acts as a midpoint.
> 2) Light source A and light source B are thereby illuminated at the same time.
> 3) Light source A and light source B are both large enough to be SEEN by the observer.
> 
> Theoretical conclusion:
> 1) conventional theory assumes light source A will be observed before light source B since light source A is situated closer to the observers because light universally travels 300,000 meters per second.
> 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will be SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, since I do not believed that observed light contains a physical quantity.

Actually, it was P.W. Bridgman who first suggested that light does not contain a physical quantity, quote from Miller of Bridgman:

From the Lorentz transformations it follows that the self-measured velocity of light is infinite, and so it is not a physical velocity. Bridgman found nothing amiss in this result because it agreed with assuming that light is not a thing traveling and hence need no longer be thought of as having the customary "physical velocity". He proposed no alternative theory of space and time to include an infinite self-measured velocity of light. But he emphasized that this tack could lead to a theory that would be independent of the structure of light, though the "simplicity and mathematical tractability" indigenous to special relativity theory would very likely be lost. Bridgman considered the loss of these qualities to be worthwhile if it led to a theory closer to the requirements of the operational view. In fact, he continued, the "whole problem of the nature of light is now giving the most acute difficulty."

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

#425542

On 18/07/17 13:43, John Gogo wrote:
> On Tuesday, July 11, 2017 at 8:16:41 PM UTC-5, John Gogo wrote:
urce A is situated closer to the observers because light universally
travels 300,000 meters per second.
>> 2) My theory assumes that light source A and light source B will be
>> SEEN INSTANTLY by the observer at the same time, since I do not
>> believed that observed light contains a physical quantity.
> 
> Actually, it was P.W. Bridgman who first suggested that light does
> not contain a physical quantity, quote from Miller of Bridgman:
> 
> From the Lorentz transformations it follows that the self-measured
> velocity of light is infinite, and so it is not a physical velocity.
> Bridgman found nothing amiss in this result because it agreed with
> assuming that light is not a thing traveling and hence need no longer
> be thought of as having the customary "physical velocity". He
> proposed no alternative theory of space and time to include an
> infinite self-measured velocity of light. But he emphasized that this
> tack could lead to a theory that would be independent of the
> structure of light, though the "simplicity and mathematical
> tractability" indigenous to special relativity theory would very
> likely be lost. Bridgman considered the loss of these qualities to be
> worthwhile if it led to a theory closer to the requirements of the
> operational view. In fact, he continued, the "whole problem of the
> nature of light is now giving the most acute difficulty."

This idea is not without merit. BaTh firmly believes that fields 
generally involve at least one unrecognized dimension...and so therefore 
does light. However, The fact that all EM takes time to go from A to B 
in our familiar 3D space gives it a conventional speed.



-- 

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web