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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390475

Re: Question....Good Question.

Show all headers | View raw

On 21.08.2016 01:19, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> It has been claimed by some people here that because light speed has
> been defined accurately, lengths can be now measured with accuracies
> better than 9 significant figures.
>
> Since the same people claim that light moves at c relative to the
> Earth's ECI frame, rather than to its source,

Some ignorant people claim that SR say that light moves at
c relative to the Earth's ECI frame, _rather than to its source_.

It is not a matter of opinion what SR say,
it's a matter of fact.

This is what SR say:
https://paulba.no/div/Is_c_invariant.pdf

And what SR say is experimentally well confirmed:

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


> does this not mean that a
> rod standardized at the equator would have a different length depending
> on the direction used in the measuring procedure?

Yes, that does not mean this.

It is remarkable that some ignorant people are
unable to learn that SR say that the speed of
light is invariant.

Down under logic:
SR say the speed of light in vacuum is invariant.
But my blind faith is that the speed of light
can't be invariant.
Therefore must SR say that the speed of light
is not invariant.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 09:19 +1000
  Re: Question....Good Question. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2016-08-20 21:12 -0400
    Re: Question....Good Question. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-20 22:28 -0500
  Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 09:07 +0200
    Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-21 19:28 +1000
      Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 13:31 +0200
        Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 07:20 +1000
          Re: Question....Good Question. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 05:38 -0700
            Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-23 05:46 +1000
              Re: Question....Good Question. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-08-22 14:30 -0700
                Re: Question....Good Question. "HGW." <hw@....> - 2016-08-23 08:11 +1000
                Re: Question....Good Question. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-08-22 18:41 -0700
          Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-22 23:07 +0200
      Re: Question....Good Question. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-08-23 09:35 -0500
    Re: Question....Good Question. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-08-21 11:48 +0200
      Re: Question....Good Question. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-08-21 14:05 +0200
      Re: Question....Good Question. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-08-22 07:22 +1000

csiph-web