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: kenseto on 1 Jun 2005 20:12 "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1117663045.834718.91710(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > Indeed. See the really excellent summary of SR tests in: > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving- source%20tests > > Here's a small subsection: > > Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources > > Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623. > A moving mirror experiment. > Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, > 260 (1964). > Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 > c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. > Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271. > Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with > center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%. > Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). > - > Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071. > Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) > in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. > Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, > and are consistent with SR. > > Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is > not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their > experiment to avoid extinction." Sigh....all these are two-way experiments. The one-way value with two spatially separated and synchronized clocks was never determined. They performed experiments that confirms the one-way isotropy. But the one-way value for those experiments were not reported. Why? Because the one-way value for those experiments was not c. Ken Seto > > > COMMENT: > > We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities > from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of > passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that > goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's > disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed > re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And > that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. > Conclusion: Einstein was right. > > SBH >
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jun 2005 20:17 kenseto wrote: > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:1117663045.834718.91710(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > >>Indeed. See the really excellent summary of SR tests in: >> >> > > http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving- > source%20tests > >>Here's a small subsection: >> >>Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources >> >>Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623. >> A moving mirror experiment. >>Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, >>260 (1964). >> Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 >>c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. >>Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271. >> Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with >>center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%. >>Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). >> - >>Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071. >> Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) >>in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. >>Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, >>and are consistent with SR. >> >>Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is >>not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their >>experiment to avoid extinction." > > > Sigh....all these are two-way experiments. The one-way value with two > spatially separated and synchronized clocks was never determined. They > performed experiments that confirms the one-way isotropy. But the one-way > value for those experiments were not reported. Why? Because the one-way > value for those experiments was not c. > > Ken Seto > >> >>COMMENT: >> >>We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities >>from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of >>passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that >>goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's >>disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed >>re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And >>that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. >>Conclusion: Einstein was right. >> >>SBH >> > Known xyzt coordinates of GPS satellites. Known xyzt coordinates of GPS Receiver. One can figure (measure) the one way speed of light 24/7.
From: kenseto on 1 Jun 2005 20:19 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117668600.661462.252110(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Martin Hogbin wrote: > > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > > news:1117663045.834718.91710(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities > > > from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of > > > passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that > > > goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's > > > disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed > > > re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And > > > that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. > > > Conclusion: Einstein was right. > > > > Not that I am supporting Ken Seto in any way, but you need > > to be a little careful here. > > > > You cannot measure the one way speed of light without > > making assumptions about clock synchronisation. > > Einstein's second postulate remains exactly that - a > > postulate. A good one in my opinion but nevertheless a > > postulate. > > Although it is clearly impossible to measure OWLS without > making assumptions about clock synchronization, I believe > it to be possible to make measurements of delta-OWLS (i.e. > OWLS anisotropy) that are free of such assumptions. Here's a valid synchronization procedure: Two touching and synchronized clocks and move them simultaneously in the opposite directions at the same speed and then come to a stop simultaneously. SR would say that these two clocks will remain synchronized Ken Seto > > On April 8, I started a thread on this topic: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/094d4ebd8ed24 6d4 > > While I believe that the experimental setup of Gagnon et al. > (1988) provides a true test of delta-OWLS without requiring > assumptions about clock synchronization, please note that both > Tom Roberts and Bill Hobba disagree with me, and believe > Gagnon et al.'s experiment to have hidden clock synchronization > assumptions. I never found their arguments convincing, and I > would appreciate your comments. > > I have reinstated the temporary link that I posted on April 8. > http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm > This link will provide access to a scanned PDF of Gagnon > et al. (1988) > > I will leave this link up for one week (until June 8) after > which I will take it down. This is, after all, copyrighted > material, and I don't want to violate Fair Use. > > Thanks for your comments, > Jerry >
From: Jerry on 1 Jun 2005 20:27 kenseto wrote: > Sigh....all these are two-way experiments. The one-way value with two > spatially separated and synchronized clocks was never determined. They > performed experiments that confirms the one-way isotropy. But the one-way > value for those experiments were not reported. Why? Because the one-way > value for those experiments was not c. If OWLS is isotropic, then OWLS must be equal to TWLS. OWLS is observed to be isotropic. Therefore, OWLS is equal to TWLS. Jerry
From: Jerry on 1 Jun 2005 20:32
kenseto wrote: > Here's a valid synchronization procedure: > Two touching and synchronized clocks and move them simultaneously in the > opposite directions at the same speed and then come to a stop > simultaneously. SR would say that these two clocks will remain synchronized See my response to SBHarris. If you are trying to -test- SR, you don't automatically assume that SR is valid. Jerry |