OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Sam Wormley on 3 Jun 2005 23:39 The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > In sci.physics, Sam Wormley > <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> > wrote > on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:16:11 GMT > <%u_ne.9801$_o.6035(a)attbi_s71>: > >>kenseto wrote: >> >>>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message >>>news:reZne.9383$x96.8840(a)attbi_s72... >>> >>> >>>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS satellites. >>>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS Receiver. >>>> One can figure (measure) the one way speed of light 24/7. >>> >>> >>>That's the reason I call you a runt of the SRians. In order to >>>know the xyzt coordinates you need to use an assumed one-way >>>speed of light. >>> >>>Ken Seto >>> >>> >> >> Wrong again Seto--Satellite xyzt coordinates are determined >> from ephemeris data and Receiver xyzt coordinates can be >> had from previous survey data. >> > > > All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. > There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does > make the above somewhat self-defeating. Since distance is defined by light speed... you are essentially condemning *all* measurements of the speed of light as self- defeating?
From: Paul Stowe on 3 Jun 2005 23:42 On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:39:14 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote: >The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley >> <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >> wrote >> on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:16:11 GMT >> <%u_ne.9801$_o.6035(a)attbi_s71>: >> >>> Wrong again Seto--Satellite xyzt coordinates are determined >>> from ephemeris data and Receiver xyzt coordinates can be >>> had from previous survey data. >> >> All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. >> There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does >> make the above somewhat self-defeating. > > Since distance is defined by light speed... you are essentially > condemning *all* measurements of the speed of light as self- > defeating? By Jove Ghost, I think he's 'got it'! And the circle closes... Paul Stowe
From: russell on 4 Jun 2005 06:21 shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > shevek wrote: > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > It simply is not possible to measure any sort of one-way speed using a > > > > > > single clock. No matter what you do you must arrange for the start and > > > > > > stop signals to both reach the clock, and that necessarily involves a > > > > > > closed path for the signals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would such a thing be possible if you had knowledge (from another > > > > > source) of the local rest state of the aether? > > > > > > > > How? You would still have to synchronize two clocks, or > > > > alternatively do a TWLS measurement and infer OWLS from > > > > theory. Arguably that inference would seem more natural, > > > > but it would still be an inference. > > > > > > Yes, it would be an inference. Of course if your knowledge of local > > > aether flow speed is justified, the inference and measurement of OWLS > > > is justified. > > > > How are you going to measure the local aether flow without > > two clocks? You have the same problem. Note that Roberts > > said *any* one-way velocity measurement; he wasn't limiting > > his comments to light. > > Good question, I guess this was the point all along of trying to > measure OWLS. > > It doesn't have to be light and clocks.. some kind of sensitive effect > on the metric tensor for example, or a quantum mechanical effect. The > symmetries of the Lorentz transform do not prove that nobody we cannot > know the velocity of the aether. I think you still missed my point. There is *no* way you can eliminate the issue of clocks. The best you can do is state what your synchronization convention is, and what the one-way speed of the aether (or light, or a bullet, or a standard snail or whatever) is *wrt* that convention. Some conventions of course are more natural than others, I don't deny that.
From: rotchm@gmail.com on 4 Jun 2005 11:19 >When two clocks are synchronized they will read the same if you can compare >them directly. The procedure use for such synchronization is the same as I >described before. What do you meand by "directly"? The procedure you proposed is a synch procedure. But how do you define the concept of synchronized clocks? In other words, when the two clocks are far away, how do you define and how do you verify that the clocks are (still) syncronized? >Assertion is not an arguement. SR says that the clocks remains synchronized. Correct. SR *says* that they remain synch. The verification procedure is to send a light signal from one clock (Ta on A) to the other. If the other receives it a time Tb then Tb must = Ta + 2L/c to conclude that they are in synch. That is what i am askng you above, what synch verification procedure you are refering to when you say that they remain in synch? >All the OWLS experiments done so far only tested for OWLS isotropy. >2L/(Tb-Ta) will not have the value of 299,792,458m/second. That I would like to see. Have you any references on that (or equivalent) experiments? I have not seen any and perhaps they hide the results as you claim... >Both theories do not predict the same. Assertion is not an argument. >The ether theory does not predict >OWLS to have the value of 299,792,458m/sec if the clocks are synchronized >the way I described it and the length between the two clocks is measured >with a physical ruler. Yes it does predict again the value of 288972458. I would like to see your math where it does not predict that value. I can show you my math where it predict that value. But then again, what ether theories are we refering too...? On the next rainy days, I will do the math and send it to you.
From: Jerry on 4 Jun 2005 12:02
Jerry wrote: > For the receiver at the far end of the first waveguide to be > synchronized with the oscillator, the precise value of n must be > known. As I have shown above, the precise value of n does not need > to be known for the apparatus to be capable of detecting changes > in the value of OWLS. Since knowledge of the the precise value of n > is not necessary for the apparatus to work, the receiver at the far > end of the first waveguide is can not be considered synchronized > with the source oscillator. Another important distinction, is that the receiver is not an independent oscillator. Rather, it is forced to oscillate at a rate determined by the signal emergent from the waveguide. The receiver in effect provides a remote readout of source oscillator "o". Because of this, the receiver does not behave the way an independent clock would. To demonstrate this, let me return to my previous illustration, introducing clock "c", which was synchronized with the source oscillator "o" and slowly transported to a position next to "a". c ==============================Â===================== a o > ------------------------------ÂÂ--------------------- b ------------------------------ÂÂ--------------------- Initially, clock "c" and receiver "a" run at the same rate. But let us now tilt the first waveguide upward: c a || || || || || || || || || o Clock "c" and receiver "a" no longer run at the same rate. Receiver "a" continues to oscillate at a frequency determined by source oscillator "o". However, clock "c", being higher in Earth's gravitational potential, runs faster. Receiver "a" is clearly not equivalent to a synchronized clock. Tom's argument, that receiver "a" is a "stand-in" for a synchronized clock, does not appear to be valid. Jerry |