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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #390489

Re: Question....Good Question.

Show all headers | View raw

On 21.08.2016 11:28, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 21/08/16 17:07, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> 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_.

The point which some ignorant people may have managed to miss is:

The statement:
  "Since the same people claim that light moves at c relative
   to the Earth's ECI frame, rather than to its source"
suggests that "the same people" claim that the speed of light
is not c relative to its source which is moving in the ECI frame.

But "the same people" don't claim that. They claim:

   The speed of light is isotropic c in the ECI frame,
   _and_ it is isotropic c in the momentarily comoving inertial
   frame of the source.

Or more loosely:

   Light moves at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame,
   AND it moves at c relative 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
>>
>
> Here is a quote from Tom Roberts, today: The GPS demonstrates that the
> vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI frame, which is the
> LOCALLY inertial frame centered on the earth (so it does not rotate with
> the planet, but does orbit the sun with it).

Quite.
The GPS is another ever ongoing experiment which
is confirming that the speed of light is isotropically c
in the ECI frame.

> Are you agreeing that Tom sprouts endless bullshit?...or is it you who
> does?

After 35+ years of operation of the GPS Tom's statement above
is a trivial truth, so what is your point?

>>
>>> 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.
>
> According to Tom Roberts, you are talking bullshit.

Good grief. :-D
You are actually claiming that Tom would say
I am talking bullshit when I claim that according
to SR the speed of light in vacuum is invariant!

Congratulation, Ralph.
I think you must have broken some kind of a record.

>>
>> 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