Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 17 Jan 2010 03:10 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:j465l5d0m5omrlrt9msblt68dlh0ib5un4(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:02:24 -0000, "Androcles" > <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_r> > wrote: > >> >>"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.) > > I didn't. I said there is NO transverse doppler shift in BaTh ...except > when > the source is in orbit around the observer. bad. 0/10 > If you investigate you might see why. I'm not interested in your WET BaTh WaSh, it's SoAp. There is no transverse doppler shift in Nature, period. No exceptions. stupid old sheep shagger...
From: eric gisse on 17 Jan 2010 14:45 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > There are no tick fairies. The frequency of ticks emitted by an orbiting > clock must be the same as that received by an observer on the ground. What is it called when you believe in things that are proved to be not true? [...]
From: Da Do Ron Ron on 19 Jan 2010 15:13 PD confusingly stated: >Isotropy is not a OWLS measurement. One-way isotropy was the subject at hand. We all know that experiment has shown round-trip isotropy, so your ref. is useless. Specifically, the subject at hand is one-way light speed invariance. But no experiment has shown this. It cannot simply be assumed at the start because this means nothing. PD incorrectly stated: >Synchronization is a condition that is only satisfied in one frame >anyway. You cannot have one-way light speed invariance unless observers in _all_ frames obtain the same speed for light's one-way speed, and this means that clocks in _all_ frames must be set per Einstein's definition. And by refusing to complete the given task, you have blocked yourself from understanding Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. Here, again, are the rules: 1. At least two frames must be used (for invariance). 2. Only one light source must be used (to separate the frames). 3. The proper version of the definition must be used. (This is the one that can be applied to two or more frames using a single light source.) Anyone who ignores any one of these bedrock rules will not be able to grasp the full physical significance of Einstein's definition. Here, again, is the task that you must complete in order to fully comprehend that definition: Frame A [0]---------x----------[?] Source S~~>light [0]---------x----------[?] -->v Frame B Why are you afraid to fill in the blanks? Forget about everything else, and do this now. Only then will you see the truth. Guaranteed. ~~RA~~
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 15:20 On Jan 19, 2:13 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > PD confusingly stated: > > >Isotropy is not a OWLS measurement. > > One-way isotropy was the subject at hand. We all know that experiment > has shown round-trip isotropy, so your ref. is useless. Specifically, > the subject > at hand is one-way light speed invariance. But no experiment has shown > this. > It cannot simply be assumed at the start because this means nothing. > > PD incorrectly stated: > > >Synchronization is a condition that is only satisfied in one frame > >anyway. > > You cannot have one-way light speed invariance unless observers in > _all_ frames obtain the same speed for light's one-way speed, and > this > means that clocks in _all_ frames must be set per Einstein's > definition. > > And by refusing to complete the given task, you have blocked yourself > from understanding Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. > > Here, again, are the rules: > > 1. At least two frames must be used (for invariance). > > 2. Only one light source must be used (to separate the frames). > > 3. The proper version of the definition must be used. > (This is the one that can be applied to two or more frames > using a single light source.) > > Anyone who ignores any one of these bedrock rules will not be able > to grasp the full physical significance of Einstein's definition. > > Here, again, is the task that you must complete in order to fully > comprehend that definition: > > Frame A > [0]---------x----------[?] > Source S~~>light > [0]---------x----------[?] -->v > Frame B > > Why are you afraid to fill in the blanks? > Forget about everything else, and do this now. > Only then will you see the truth. > Guaranteed. > > ~~RA~~
From: PD on 19 Jan 2010 15:22
On Jan 19, 2:13 pm, Da Do Ron Ron <ron_ai...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > PD confusingly stated: > > >Isotropy is not a OWLS measurement. > > One-way isotropy was the subject at hand. We all know that experiment > has shown round-trip isotropy, so your ref. is useless. http://edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests > Specifically, > the subject > at hand is one-way light speed invariance. But no experiment has shown > this. > It cannot simply be assumed at the start because this means nothing. > > PD incorrectly stated: > > >Synchronization is a condition that is only satisfied in one frame > >anyway. > > You cannot have one-way light speed invariance unless observers in > _all_ frames obtain the same speed for light's one-way speed, and > this > means that clocks in _all_ frames must be set per Einstein's > definition. No, that is incorrect. Each frame has its OWN set of clocks, and in EACH frame THAT set is synchronized according to the Einstein procedure. In EACH frame, then, the speed of light will have the same value. This does NOT mean that the clocks in one frame are synchronized along with the clocks in a different frame, and in general this will NOT be the case. > > And by refusing to complete the given task, you have blocked yourself > from understanding Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. No, I'm sorry, but Einstein was quite clear. > > Here, again, are the rules: > > 1. At least two frames must be used (for invariance). > > 2. Only one light source must be used (to separate the frames). > > 3. The proper version of the definition must be used. > (This is the one that can be applied to two or more frames > using a single light source.) > > Anyone who ignores any one of these bedrock rules will not be able > to grasp the full physical significance of Einstein's definition. > > Here, again, is the task that you must complete in order to fully > comprehend that definition: > > Frame A > [0]---------x----------[?] > Source S~~>light > [0]---------x----------[?] -->v > Frame B > > Why are you afraid to fill in the blanks? > Forget about everything else, and do this now. > Only then will you see the truth. > Guaranteed. > > ~~RA~~ |