Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Relativity]
|
From: eric gisse on 15 Jan 2010 15:54 kenseto wrote: [...] > If there is no c+v then why did Einstein said that M' is rush toward > the light from the front of the train (c+v). What possible point would there be in explaining this to you? > > > - Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 15 Jan 2010 17:00 PD noted: >It is nevertheless the method that Einstein proposed. But Einstein also obscured the truth. The only way to see it is to use the honest and open description given by John A. Wheeler & Edwin F. Taylor in their book _Spacetime Physics_. PD also noted: >But fortunately, we don't have to measure v to arrive at a number. >All we have to do is to assure isotropy, and neither of these requires >either a TWLS or OWLS measurement. So how can we assure isotropy? As Tom said, two clocks must be used in the one-way light speed case. And these clocks must be synchronized. PD also noted: >Note that synchronization is inherently a statements about clocks >that are at rest relative to each other, and so there is no need for >multiple frames, and in fact a multiple frame scenario is discouraged. You missed the simple fact that my clocks are _not_ moving relative to each other. You also missed the fact that invariance calls for at least two frames. ~~RA~~
From: PD on 15 Jan 2010 17:33 On Jan 15, 4:00 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > PD noted: > > >It is nevertheless the method that Einstein proposed. > > But Einstein also obscured the truth. > The only way to see it is to use the honest and open > description given by John A. Wheeler & Edwin F. Taylor > in their book _Spacetime Physics_. I disagree. Wheeler and Taylor's description (from section 2-6) is fast but *assumes* the speed of light has the *value* c, which is more than isotropy. This is reflected by the one-way transmission in their method. Einstein's original (which I outlined to you) assumes no value for the signal, and in fact any isotropic signal speed will work, and is therefore more general. Specifically, Einstein's method does not *require* light to work, though light is a handy choice to satisfy the criteria. See the difference? > > PD also noted: > > >But fortunately, we don't have to measure v to arrive at a number. > >All we have to do is to assure isotropy, and neither of these requires > >either a TWLS or OWLS measurement. > > So how can we assure isotropy? Isotropy is not a OWLS measurement. If you google "experimental basis of relativity" you will find a list of experimental papers, including those that have measured isotropy. > As Tom said, two clocks must be used in the one-way light > speed case. And these clocks must be synchronized. > > PD also noted: > > >Note that synchronization is inherently a statements about clocks > >that are at rest relative to each other, and so there is no need for > >multiple frames, and in fact a multiple frame scenario is discouraged. > > You missed the simple fact that my clocks are _not_ > moving relative to each other. I saw that, and so there is no need for multiple frames. Synchronization is a condition that is only satisfied in one frame anyway. > You also missed the > fact that invariance calls for at least two frames. > > ~~RA~~
From: Androcles on 16 Jan 2010 05:18 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:gfp2l5puoh66q7rq3t04gpre34k2438sgt(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:06:09 -0800, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nospam(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > >>..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>>>I understand bbbbuuuulllllllssssshhhhhhiiiiiiitttttt, I don't have to >>>>eat >>>>it. >>>>Kennaugh's an iiiidddddiiiiiiooooootttttttt and so are you. >>>> >>>> >> >>Remember Henry, Androcles is the closest thing to a colleague you have. > > Remember, little eric, diaper, wormey, andersen, inertial, van de merde, > dougie, dono, YBM, etc., are ALL good colleagues of yours. > Sheep and geese gather in flocks and herring in shoals trying to get the centre of the group. That way when a predator comes along they expect to lose one at the edge. Little eric is a goose, you old sheep-shagger. He honks constantly. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/SR.GIF You and I can hunt alone, we've plenty of kills to record.
From: Androcles on 16 Jan 2010 19:02
"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:2hg4l5pi2skcnfp33qtn495lmq0vn9jkoc(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 20:42:40 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message >>news:rr74l51kn9vusimfcqk68maof0kr3etjvd(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 10:06:33 -0000, "Androcles" >>> <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > >>>>You haven't said what the other speed is, not that it matters to answer >>>>the question. One wheelbase, of course. >>> >>> The TIME interval I meant, not the SPATIAL interval. >> >>That's not a speed. One speed is 60 mph, what's the other speed? >> >>>> http://www.desertrides.com/reference/images/terms/wheelbase.gif >>>>How long is a piece of string? >>> >>> What is the time interval between the instant the front wheel passes a >>> point >>> and the back wheel does the same? >> >>Oh, you mean the time it takes for ONE point on the ground to travel >>between >>TWO points on the car. >>That's easy: t = wheelbase/v. > > good. 10/10 > >>> THAT is equivalent to your 'photon oscillation period'. >> >>Nah, the point on the ground doesn't oscillate. >> >>> The number of cars passing per second is constant in all speed zones but >>> the >>> time interval for each pair of wheels to pass a point decreases with >>> increasing >>> car speed. >> >>Nonsense, cars don't change their length just because they change speed. >>If you want to change the car's frequency without changing it's speed >>fit bigger or smaller wheels on it. RPM is a frequency. > > ...stubborn old pom....knows he's wrong.... Yeah, I know Kennaugh and his transverse shift are completely wrong and I agree, he is a silly old pom. mediocre. 5/10 (You lost 5 points for getting it wrong the first time around.) |