Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 14 Jan 2010 18:59 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > For instance, if a moving source (MS) OWLS experiment was to be carried > out over 3000 metres the travel time would be around 10^-5 seconds. If the > source were subsequently made to move at 30 m/s, the travel time would > change by only 1 part in 10^7...so the travel time has to be measured to > considerably better that 1 part in 10^12 to be meaningful. > Since this type of experiment involves TWO synched clocks, this is asking > quite a lot. Its' been done, a fact that you are clearly unaware. Such precision is easily attainable, and you gave a really slow source velocity. That you aren't interested in the literature simply means you don't care about science. [snip rest]
From: Inertial on 14 Jan 2010 19:49 "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hiob58$l5k$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > > [...] > >> For instance, if a moving source (MS) OWLS experiment was to be carried >> out over 3000 metres the travel time would be around 10^-5 seconds. If >> the >> source were subsequently made to move at 30 m/s, the travel time would >> change by only 1 part in 10^7...so the travel time has to be measured to >> considerably better that 1 part in 10^12 to be meaningful. >> Since this type of experiment involves TWO synched clocks, this is asking >> quite a lot. > > Its' been done, a fact that you are clearly unaware. > > Such precision is easily attainable, and you gave a really slow source > velocity. That you aren't interested in the literature simply means you > don't care about science. > > [snip rest] Of course, what Henry doesn't understand (apart from most of physics), is that one doesn't need OWLS to refute ballistic theories. For example, we know experimentally that (two-way) light speed is constant despite velocity of moving sources .. ie there is no c+v .. whereas ballistic theories says that it will not be.
From: eric gisse on 14 Jan 2010 20:07 Inertial wrote: > > "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:hiob58$l5k$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> For instance, if a moving source (MS) OWLS experiment was to be carried >>> out over 3000 metres the travel time would be around 10^-5 seconds. If >>> the >>> source were subsequently made to move at 30 m/s, the travel time would >>> change by only 1 part in 10^7...so the travel time has to be measured to >>> considerably better that 1 part in 10^12 to be meaningful. >>> Since this type of experiment involves TWO synched clocks, this is >>> asking quite a lot. >> >> Its' been done, a fact that you are clearly unaware. >> >> Such precision is easily attainable, and you gave a really slow source >> velocity. That you aren't interested in the literature simply means you >> don't care about science. >> >> [snip rest] > > Of course, what Henry doesn't understand (apart from most of physics), is > that one doesn't need OWLS to refute ballistic theories. For example, we > know experimentally that (two-way) light speed is constant despite > velocity of moving sources .. ie there is no c+v .. whereas ballistic > theories says that it will not be. Which does not even BEGIN to deal with kinematics, electromagnetic theory, and other such observations. Henri can only make his idiocy work in his own mind by considering binary stars to the exclusion of _everything_ else, and even that doesn't work. He knows it doesn't work. His ego will implode one of these days and I hope to be there when it does because it will be a show for the ages. Androcles' final detachment from reality was pretty spectacular, and I'm firmly convinced that it was this newsgroup that gave him the final push over the edge of sanity.
From: Inertial on 14 Jan 2010 23:01 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:9qpvk556marg8udfn26e8ototiictgun02(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:40:46 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:ndgvk5l86fp77tkc0imfba9v7d0k36448v(a)4ax.com... >>> On Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:45:07 +1100, "Inertial" <relatively(a)rest.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>"kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message >>>>news:ecf06cbb-bd26-43b9-b1a5-af13143a794a(a)e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com... >>>>> On Jan 11, 8:13 pm, Javi <vze13y...(a)verizon.net> wrote: >>>>>> kenseto wrote: >>>>>> > On Jan 11, 12:48 pm, Tom Roberts <tjrob...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >>>> >>>>Its been measured .. and its c >>> >>> Yes. TWLS has been measured using components that are MAR. In such >>> experiments, >>> because light is ballistic, TWLS = OWLS = c. >> >>The source is NOT at rest, however. so ballistic theory says TWLS <> c, >>but >>we find TWLS = c > > Oh? Who is this 'we'? Those who understand physics and read experimental results. So don't worry, its not you.
From: Androcles on 15 Jan 2010 05:44
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:igc0l5t069648rljsggbuhfoc3iv9u2ro7(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 06:17:09 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:7ovvk5hfoq32jijs85ofont4a5a6v37m52(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 05:20:06 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> >>> wrote: > >>> whether you like it or not, Einstein fluked the correct BaTh way to >>> synch >>> two >>> MAR clocks. >>> >>Whether you like it or not, your WET BaTh and WaSh is SoAp; it is >>not even close to emission theory. That bigot Kennaugh is trying to tell >>the world about transverse Doppler as if he had a clue and you want >>to back him up. He's fucked off now, he couldn't answer my question >>so he snipped it. > > I didn't back him up. I pointed out his glaring mistake...but he's too > superior > and religious to read my messages anyway. I don't read many of his either > because they are usually too long and rambling. > However, there is a case for transverse doppler from an orbiting source. I > gave > the reason. Why don't you look at it. There is no case for tick fairy doppler. If you want the simple explanation then make the radius of the orbit vary. > >>'There is nothing so easy but that it becomes difficult when you do it >>with >>reluctance.'- Marcus Tullius Cicero |