Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478927

Re: One way speed of light

Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Date	2018-12-03 11:57 -0800
References	(12 earlier) <g6fn0kFsajdU1@mid.individual.net> <4e6d8166-8e5c-4e1c-97c4-8c60686a31fa@googlegroups.com> <g6i2o7FdlrlU1@mid.individual.net> <6cb2fe24-5bfc-41d8-8b0d-118f4b55480f@googlegroups.com> <g6ki1dFu7csU1@mid.individual.net>
Message-ID	<89eeaa28-4899-4aba-bfcd-a55a05a086da@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: One way speed of light
From	Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 4:23:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>
> Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> >
> > The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting
> > point (A) and the ending point (B).  There are two ways to do it:  the
> > Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport
> > method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of
> > them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes
> > it.
> > 
> > > (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried
> > > to show in my OP.)
> > 
> > How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine?
> > SR predicts that you don't.
> 
> The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the 
> stripes on both wheels.

It the same problem as synchronization by light signals.  You DO realize
that e/m forces govern "rigid" matter, don't you?

> Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a 
> little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any  input.

Oh, the problem is greater than mere torsion.

> The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This 
> frequency is constantly measured at on wheel.
> 
> This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one 
> in the experiment.

Since it's not on the wheels, then you really don't know what the sync is.

> > > If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out,
> > > whether or not there is an ether (or not).
> > 
> > BAloney!
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can
> > demonstrate.
> 
> The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of 
> light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light 
> (on the way towards and back).
> 
> But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to 
> distinguish between both possibilities.
> 
> Reason:
> both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost 
> the same result.
> 
> There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very 
> small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give 
> us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000
> 
> > That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the
> > mirror is from the source.
> 
> That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only 
> 1.3m (used four times).

One can only conclude that you are completely oblivious to the science
behind the MMX.

> > > 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.
> > 
> > Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? Lots...
> 
> But these 16ns is not the measured result.

The MMX doesn't measure time.  It measures phase shift.

> The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are 
> added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way 
> towards the mirror than on the way back.

That is total bull plop.  It's obvious that you are completely oblivious
to the science behind the MMX.

> On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These 
> cancel out.

In the absence of an ether, yes.

> [Baloney deleted]

Thread

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

csiph-web