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 10:36 The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length is the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second = 299,792,458m/1 second Ken Seto
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 1 Jun 2005 12:00 In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:36:08 GMT <sJjne.12045$XA6.6852(a)tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: > The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between > the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite > directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a > light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length is > the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: > The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second > Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m > Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second > = > 299,792,458m/1 second > > Ken Seto > And the reason for this is because...? -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 1 Jun 2005 12:04 "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:e911n2-sei.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... > In sci.physics, kenseto > <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > wrote > on Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:36:08 GMT > <sJjne.12045$XA6.6852(a)tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: > > The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between > > the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite > > directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a > > light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length is > > the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: > > The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second > > Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m > > Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second > > = > > 299,792,458m/1 second > > > > Ken Seto > > > > And the reason for this is because...? .... he just gave the reason in the World famous Seto-Why-Clause: | "Why? Using light-second to measure length is | the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: | The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second | Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m | Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second | = 299,792,458m/1 second" Dirk Vdm
From: Sam Wormley on 1 Jun 2005 12:45 kenseto wrote: > The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between > the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite > directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a > light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length is > the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: > The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second > Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m > Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second > = > 299,792,458m/1 second > > Ken Seto > > In a way Seto reminds me of Shead--inability to learn and being hung up on units. Poor sod. The speed of light is so well tested that it has become a *defined* constant of nature! It's that same for all observers. GPS sends signals one way. GPS offers an accessible laboratory for confirmation of many SR and GTR predictions. There has never been an observation (to date) that has contradicted a prediction of SR and GTR.
From: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com on 1 Jun 2005 17:57
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." 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 |