Light speed invariance proof is circular!

"Vilas Tamhane" wrote in message
...
Speed of light has to be constant with respect to some frame.

Why does it have to be? Of course, experimental results are consistent with
that being the case. But not just for some PARTICULAR frame .. for ALL
inertial frames.

In absence of ether, we can say that light has constant speed with
respect to universal frame.

No .. wrt EVERY inertial frame

In that case, light has to be independent
of the velocity of the source.

Light speed .. yes

This is of course experimentally
observed.

Yes it is

But in that case electrodynamics differs from material
mechanics.

No. But it differs from the simplistic Galilean/Newtonian approximates that
are 'good enough' most of the time.

Every frame has some velocity w.r.t. frame of light.

There is no inertial (rest) frame for light, btw. Light cannot be at rest
in any inertial frame.

Therefore velocity of light cannot be same in every inertial frame.

But it is. You cannot says it 'cannot be' if it is

"kenseto" wrote in message
...

On Jun 6, 8:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
abzorba wrote:
[...]

The re-definition of the meter in 1983 was based on extensive measurements
that
showed that the speed of light is indeed constant. Those experiments used
pre-1983 definitions that were not circular.

Sure it is circular.....the one-way speed of light never been
determined experimentally.

Why do you think it needs to be? Do you think that when people talk about a
definition being circular or not, that you think that means like goes in a
'circle' back to the start .. so you cannot have a non-circular definition
unless you have a one way measurement? Oh dear Ken, that would just be TOO
funny.

kenseto wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
abzorba wrote:
[...]
The re-definition of the meter in 1983 was based on extensive measurements that
showed that the speed of light is indeed constant. Those experiments used
pre-1983 definitions that were not circular.

Sure it is circular.....

No, it isn't. Your claims do not establish this; not even close.


the one-way speed of light never been
determined experimentally.

Yes. But the fact that the one-way speed of light in any inertial frame is
isotropic in every lab in which it has been tested, and the fact that the
round-trip speed of light is c in every lab in which it has been measured,
directly imply that the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in these labs.
These labs are all located on earth, and are "moving" relative to just about any
global coordinates that are sensible.


Phycists refused to do such measurements
because they know that the value for the one way speed of light is not
a constant c as claimed by SR.

Nonsense! It has not been measured directly because the errorbars inherent in
such a measurement would not be small enough to determine anything useful.
Measurements of one-way isotropy are VASTLY more accurate than a measurement of
its value; measurements of round-trip speed are VASTLY more accurate than
one-way measurements would be.

You have been told this many times. Please learn how to read, and how to remember.


[... further unwarranted speculation, that basically makes no sense]


Tom Roberts

On Jun 7, 8:14*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
kenseto wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
abzorba wrote:
[...]
The re-definition of the meter in 1983 was based on extensive measurements that
showed that the speed of light is indeed constant. Those experiments used
pre-1983 definitions that were not circular.

Sure it is circular.....

No, it isn't. Your claims do not establish this; not even close.

the one-way speed of light never been
determined experimentally.

Yes. But the fact that the one-way speed of light in any inertial frame is
isotropic in every lab in which it has been tested,

If your theory posits that the one-way speed of light is c then you
should at least make an attempt to measure it directly. The fact that
you refused to make such an attempt show me that you knew that OWLS is
not c.
Instead of measuring OWLS directly you skirt around it by measuring
TWLS with one clock and then redefine the meter to be 1/299,792,458
light-second. This allows you to disregard the effect of the physical
distance between the source and the detector on the one-way speed of
light.
Furthermore, if you can measure the isotropy of OWLS accurately why
can you go one step further by giving the value for OWLS???

Another point: Why can't you use two e-synched clocks and measure the
physical distance between these two clocks with measuring tape to get
a direct value for OWLS????

Another point OWLS istroppy does not mean constant value for OWLS.

Ken Seto


and the fact that the
round-trip speed of light is c in every lab in which it has been measured,
directly imply that the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in these labs.
These labs are all located on earth, and are "moving" relative to just about any
global coordinates that are sensible.

Phycists refused to do such measurements
because they know that the value for the one way speed of light is not
a constant c as claimed by SR.

Nonsense! It has not been measured directly because the errorbars inherent in
such a measurement would not be small enough to determine anything useful..
Measurements of one-way isotropy are VASTLY more accurate than a measurement of
its value; measurements of round-trip speed are VASTLY more accurate than
one-way measurements would be.

You have been told this many times. Please learn how to read, and how to remember.

[... further unwarranted speculation, that basically makes no sense]

Tom Roberts

On Jun 8, 8:47*am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 7, 8:14*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:



kenseto wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
abzorba wrote:
[...]
The re-definition of the meter in 1983 was based on extensive measurements that
showed that the speed of light is indeed constant. Those experiments used
pre-1983 definitions that were not circular.

Sure it is circular.....

No, it isn't. Your claims do not establish this; not even close.

the one-way speed of light never been
determined experimentally.

Yes. But the fact that the one-way speed of light in any inertial frame is
isotropic in every lab in which it has been tested,

If your theory posits that the one-way speed of light is c then you
should at least make an attempt to measure it directly.

No, Ken, that would be a waste of resources, as Tom and others have
pointed out to you repeatedly. If a direct measurement yields a
precision that is inferior to those by the combination of other
experiments, then there is no point to doing it. It provides no new
information of better quality.

The fact that
you refused to make such an attempt show me that you knew that OWLS is
not c.

Your paranoia and complete ignorance of the importance of experimental
precision are not really of concern to proper scientific methods.

Instead of measuring OWLS directly you skirt around it by measuring
TWLS with one clock and then redefine the meter to be 1/299,792,458
light-second. This allows you to disregard the effect of the physical
distance between the source and the detector on the one-way speed of
light.

Such an effect has already been ruled out in experiment.

Furthermore, if you can measure the isotropy of OWLS accurately why
can you go one step further by giving the value for OWLS???

Another point: Why can't you use two e-synched clocks and measure the
physical distance between these two clocks with measuring tape to get
a direct value for OWLS????

Another point OWLS istroppy does not mean constant value for OWLS.

Ken Seto

and the fact that the
round-trip speed of light is c in every lab in which it has been measured,
directly imply that the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in these labs.
These labs are all located on earth, and are "moving" relative to just about any
global coordinates that are sensible.

Phycists refused to do such measurements
because they know that the value for the one way speed of light is not
a constant c as claimed by SR.

Nonsense! It has not been measured directly because the errorbars inherent in
such a measurement would not be small enough to determine anything useful.
Measurements of one-way isotropy are VASTLY more accurate than a measurement of
its value; measurements of round-trip speed are VASTLY more accurate than
one-way measurements would be.

You have been told this many times. Please learn how to read, and how to remember.

[... further unwarranted speculation, that basically makes no sense]

Tom Roberts

On Jun 6, 9:56*am, dlzc wrote:
Of course, why did I not see this
myself??!! Now the whole metric system is
diddled to prop up this fershlugginer
bunch of Satanic lies!!!!
When has Satan ever lied to anybody ?-)
Now Ken Seto ....

On Jun 8, 10:26*am, PD wrote:
On Jun 8, 8:47*am, kenseto wrote:





On Jun 7, 8:14*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

kenseto wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
abzorba wrote:
[...]
The re-definition of the meter in 1983 was based on extensive measurements that
showed that the speed of light is indeed constant. Those experiments used
pre-1983 definitions that were not circular.

Sure it is circular.....

No, it isn't. Your claims do not establish this; not even close.

the one-way speed of light never been
determined experimentally.

Yes. But the fact that the one-way speed of light in any inertial frame is
isotropic in every lab in which it has been tested,

If your theory posits that the one-way speed of light is c then you
should at least make an attempt to measure it directly.

No, Ken, that would be a waste of resources, as Tom and others have
pointed out to you repeatedly. If a direct measurement yields a
precision that is inferior to those by the combination of other
experiments, then there is no point to doing it. It provides no new
information of better quality.

No physicists refused to make direct OWLS measurement because they
can't use light to measure the distance between the source and the
detector.
With TWLS physicists can ignore the effect of distance on light speed.
Why? Because the distance is simply the product of the return time
multiply by 299,792,458 meters.

Ken seto





The fact that
you refused to make such an attempt show me that you knew that OWLS is
not c.

Your paranoia and complete ignorance of the importance of experimental
precision are not really of concern to proper scientific methods.

Instead of measuring OWLS directly you skirt around it by measuring
TWLS with one clock and then redefine the meter to be 1/299,792,458
light-second. This allows you to disregard the effect of the physical
distance between the source and the detector on the one-way speed of
light.

Such an effect has already been ruled out in experiment.



Furthermore, if you can measure the isotropy of OWLS accurately why
can you go one step further by giving the value for OWLS???

Another point: Why can't you use two e-synched clocks and measure the
physical distance between these two clocks with measuring tape to get
a direct value for OWLS????

Another point OWLS istroppy does not mean constant value for OWLS.

Ken Seto

and the fact that the
round-trip speed of light is c in every lab in which it has been measured,
directly imply that the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in these labs.
These labs are all located on earth, and are "moving" relative to just about any
global coordinates that are sensible.

Phycists refused to do such measurements
because they know that the value for the one way speed of light is not
a constant c as claimed by SR.

Nonsense! It has not been measured directly because the errorbars inherent in
such a measurement would not be small enough to determine anything useful.
Measurements of one-way isotropy are VASTLY more accurate than a measurement of
its value; measurements of round-trip speed are VASTLY more accurate than
one-way measurements would be.

You have been told this many times. Please learn how to read, and how to remember.

[... further unwarranted speculation, that basically makes no sense]

Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 9, 9:01*am, kenseto wrote:
On Jun 8, 10:26*am, PD wrote:



On Jun 8, 8:47*am, kenseto wrote:

On Jun 7, 8:14*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

kenseto wrote:
On Jun 6, 8:17 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
abzorba wrote:
[...]
The re-definition of the meter in 1983 was based on extensive measurements that
showed that the speed of light is indeed constant. Those experiments used
pre-1983 definitions that were not circular.

Sure it is circular.....

No, it isn't. Your claims do not establish this; not even close.

the one-way speed of light never been
determined experimentally.

Yes. But the fact that the one-way speed of light in any inertial frame is
isotropic in every lab in which it has been tested,

If your theory posits that the one-way speed of light is c then you
should at least make an attempt to measure it directly.

No, Ken, that would be a waste of resources, as Tom and others have
pointed out to you repeatedly. If a direct measurement yields a
precision that is inferior to those by the combination of other
experiments, then there is no point to doing it. It provides no new
information of better quality.

No physicists refused to make direct OWLS measurement because they
can't use light to measure the distance between the source and the
detector.

Don't be ridiculous. You don't know the first thing about experimental
design.

With TWLS physicists can ignore the effect of distance on light speed.
Why? Because the distance is simply the product of the return time
multiply by 299,792,458 meters.

What???? How exactly do you think a two-way light SPEED MEASUREMENT
works, Ken?
What are the measured parameters you use to determine the SPEED?


Ken seto



The fact that
you refused to make such an attempt show me that you knew that OWLS is
not c.

Your paranoia and complete ignorance of the importance of experimental
precision are not really of concern to proper scientific methods.

Instead of measuring OWLS directly you skirt around it by measuring
TWLS with one clock and then redefine the meter to be 1/299,792,458
light-second. This allows you to disregard the effect of the physical
distance between the source and the detector on the one-way speed of
light.

Such an effect has already been ruled out in experiment.

Furthermore, if you can measure the isotropy of OWLS accurately why
can you go one step further by giving the value for OWLS???

Another point: Why can't you use two e-synched clocks and measure the
physical distance between these two clocks with measuring tape to get
a direct value for OWLS????

Another point OWLS istroppy does not mean constant value for OWLS.

Ken Seto

and the fact that the
round-trip speed of light is c in every lab in which it has been measured,
directly imply that the one-way speed of light is isotropically c in these labs.
These labs are all located on earth, and are "moving" relative to just about any
global coordinates that are sensible.

Phycists refused to do such measurements
because they know that the value for the one way speed of light is not
a constant c as claimed by SR.

Nonsense! It has not been measured directly because the errorbars inherent in
such a measurement would not be small enough to determine anything useful.
Measurements of one-way isotropy are VASTLY more accurate than a measurement of
its value; measurements of round-trip speed are VASTLY more accurate than
one-way measurements would be.

You have been told this many times. Please learn how to read, and how to remember.

[... further unwarranted speculation, that basically makes no sense]

Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 6, 5:22*pm, abzorba wrote:
Kenseto pointed out (on another thread) re the alleged invariance of
light speed:

This is a postulate....never been proven.

You don't need to prove a postulate. Nothing in physics is proven.

But if you can refute it, then the theory derived from it fails.

The postulates of SR have been tested and have not yet been refuted.

The speed of light is a
defined constant.

The speed of light is a property of our universe. We don't define
it. What we define are a system of units of measure and we use those
to give a numerical value to it (the actual value depends on the
units). The value of the speed of light is not a special numerical
constant like pi or e or 1 or 0 .. the value for the speed can be
anything you want by just picking an appropriate system of units.

[snip further misunderstandings]