|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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 .... |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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 - |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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 - |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Light speed invariance proof is circular!
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] |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
FR Bending of Light -- Proof | oriel36[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 25th 10 08:14 PM |
Is speed of sound higher then the speed of light??? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | September 9th 08 12:48 AM |
Why is the Speed of Light the Limiting Speed. | [email protected] | Misc | 20 | September 4th 06 06:34 PM |
parllel universe have diffrent speed of light 128 168 300 299 thats how you find diffrent universe i'm from the planet earth that is the 7th from the sun stuck on one that the planet is 3rd from the sun the speed of light is 128 and 32 dimentions | Roger Wilco | Misc | 1 | December 30th 03 10:15 PM |
Missing: Proof the speed of light extrapolates. | ralph sansbury | Astronomy Misc | 11 | November 6th 03 04:10 AM |