Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Physics]
|
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 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.)
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~~ |