Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Tom Roberts on 6 Feb 2010 11:48 spudnik wrote: > and, remember, > Michelson & Morely and their successors did NOT > get "null results." Hmmm. A more accurate statement is that Michelson & Morley obtained results consistent with with no aether drift, with an accuracy about 6 km/s. Other related experiments obtain results consistent with zero, reducing the errorbar down to <1 m/s. These results completely refute any simple aether model in which the aether is "at rest". The prevalent theory in 1887 was of that type, which of course is what motivated Michelson to perform such experiments. Tom Roberts
From: glird on 7 Feb 2010 10:30 On Feb 6, 11:48 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > spudnik wrote: > > and, remember, > > Michelson & Morely and their successors did NOT > > get "null results." > > Hmmm. A more accurate statement is that Michelson & Morley obtained results > consistent with with no aether drift, with an accuracy about 6 km/s. Other > related experiments obtain results consistent with zero, reducing the errorbar > down to <1 m/s. > These results completely refute any simple aether model in which the aether > is "at rest". The prevalent theory in 1887 was of that type, which of course > is what motivated Michelson to perform such experiments. How do these results, which are "consistent with no aether drift", refute a "model in which the aether is 'at rest'"? glird
From: BURT on 7 Feb 2010 18:41 On Jan 11, 5:59 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly? > The answer: > The one-way speed of light is physical distance dependent. > BTW that's why they invented a new definition for a meter length: 1 > meter=1/299,792,458 light second > Using this definition the one-way speed of light is c by definition. > > Ken Seto Fly behind light at just below light speed and continue to accelerate directly behind it. You can keep light inching ahead of you for some time. Mitch Raemsch
From: spudnik on 7 Feb 2010 22:32 look at Cahill's graph of these "zero" results, or continue to insist on Einsteinmania *or* aether. (I do not say any thing of such, or assume that it is implied by the results!) > How do these results, which are "consistent with no aether drift", > refute a "model in which the aether is 'at rest'"? thus: "sound particles" are known as "phonons," but this is clearly a "quantization" of sound that is not striclty analagous to the usual one that is applied to the photoelectrical dffect -- the only aspect of light that might seem corpuscular -- and it does not have to, at all. > From my personal and direct experience with airplanes flying over > radar stations (the target) it is obvious that the speed of the sound > transmitted by the aircraft varies drastically, but this should be > verified by sound experiments. thus: what a crock; there is *nothing* about light (or, one simple thing) that is pertinent to a corpuscular theory; Young et al completely rid us of that theory, which also had that denser media had faster light). maybe it is an unconsidered acceptance that "quantum" means "particle," your other Einstein's rock from the train; gah! come on: there are no photons, there are no Rocks of Light. --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com
From: glird on 9 Feb 2010 13:26
On Jan 23, 11:05 am, Tom Roberts wrote: > >< Experiments show that the INTRINSIC rate of a clock does not depend on its velocity v, up to at least v ~ 0.9999 c; it does not depend on a (= dv/dt), up to at least a ~ 10^18 g. Both are of course measured relative to a locally inertial frame. > In the two weeks since that was posted nobody challenged Tom's statement. I waited, expecting him to reply to any challenge as follows: Challenge to Tom: that's not true, Tom. Myriad experiments have shown that everything obeys STR, INCLUDING a change in rates of moving clocks. Tom's grinning reply: That only proves that the Minkowski rotations occur; which causes the PROJECTION of moving lengths and clock-rates to appear changed despite the fact that the INTRINSIC rate of a clock does not depend on its velocity! Whether or not his initial reply was a deliberate ploy to let him reply as I suggested my real challenge follows this. TR: ><An inertial observer will MEASURE the rate of a moving clock as slowed down by the gamma factor of SR, but this does not mean the clock ITSELF is affected; indeed the clock itself CANNOT be affected by either v or a in order for the theory to agree with experiments. ... Fortunately both atomic transitions and muon decays are highly robust clocks. > The Hafale-Keating Pan Am experiment showed that the INTRINSIC rates of atomic clocks did change as a consequence of their velocity relative to the Sun. How do you explain THAT, Tom? Noe to readers: The change in rates of the atomic clocks were NOT measured while the clocks were flying -- i.e. while Tom's mythical uncaused rotations were present. They were measured when the three relevant clocks were mutually AT REST on the ground, after two were flown around the Earth in opposite directions. The one flown in the direction of Earth's daily rotation ran slowest, the one flown against the grain ran fastest, and the one kept at rest on the ground ran neither slowest or fastest. That proved at least two things: 1. That reality doesn't permit us to chose ANY GIVEN system as our "frame of reference" because if we chose the Earth as our "stationary" frame the experimental results prove us wrong. 2. That if we choose the Sun as our privileged referent -- whereupon the clock moving in the same direcdtionas Earth rotated flew fastest, the one on the ground flew at a middle speed and the one flying against the grain flew slowest -- that would explain the HK results like this: The intrinsic rate of a clock is a function of its absolute velocity. Since the speed of a clock moving in the same direction as the surface of earth is v + v', where v is the speed of the surface and v' the speed of the aircraft; and the speed of the clock on the ground is v; while the speed of clock 3 was v - v'; the "time" of clock 1 ran slowest; the "time" of clock 3 ran fastest; and the intrinsic rate of clock 2 was between that of the other two. The phuies "explain" item 1 by claiming that the Sun is the referent for the speed of the aircraft. Though partially correct, it ignores the fact that the Sun is neither stationary nor inertially moving. Worse yet, it ignores the fact that the clock-rates were compared by checking their simultaneous settings when they were together again on the ground. Therefore any claim that the change in rates of things on the aircraft were due to Minky-math rotations (supposedly a function of the relative v of the viewed system) is as meaningless wrt the H&K results as it always was wrt reality. Which reminds me of something else Tom wrote. I willlook it up and reply in another posting. glird |