Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Relativity]
|
From: spudnik on 10 Feb 2010 01:58 very nice, although spacetime "rotations" are effluvia -- let Minkowski be remembered for his *other* stuff, please! > 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. thus: please, do not top-post; thank you! thus quoth: if some relatively large part of the primes follows the unpreferred residue type distribution then it follows that mertens holds by sieving methods. in other words if JSH residue axiom ( or whatever he calls it ) holds for 90 % than Mertens constant 'already' follows. ( if the axiom fails , mertens STILL FOLLOWS btw ) thus: dammit Jim; you just made that word, "neoteric", write-up ?!? > > And it is a corollary of Chebotarev's Density Theorem. No need to postulate it. thus: for a given system? > Godel proved that the set of true wffs is not the same as the set of > provable wffs. Hilbert's system would require that they coincide. thus: Russell wrote in the *Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists*, while the USA had the only hydrogen bombs, that we should bomb them "into the stone age;" search on the LaRouchiac website. just because Einstein et al were not perfect, it does not imply that there are any phenomenon that require faster-than-light effects -- other than "travelin' in time" i.e. science fiction. well, unless one believes in "rocks of light" per the EPR gedankenspiel. "MMX" did not get no results; that is just the einsteinmaniac say-so, beginning with herr doktor-professor Albert, himself, his one brief visit at Caltech -- his lovely office! > Einsten the bungler became the greatest ever scientist! However, with my > discovery of the true relationship between mass and energy, published > several years ago and widely reported too, that shred of respectability is > lost too. 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 |