Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Physics]
|
From: spudnik on 5 Feb 2010 20:53 Herman Minkowski was a great geometer, but he totally ****-up the simple idea of phase-spaces (a la Hamiltonians, Lagrangians etc.); then, he died. > (Clue: If you adhere to his Minkowski-denying assumption, this is > impossible,) > thus: the gist seems to be that Schoenfeld did prove that his thing was equivalent (iff) to RH; so, what are you going to do about it? thus: problem is that the Arhcimedean Valuation has its own daffynition of "inductive versus deductive" proofs, although they are strictly isomorphic. the real problem seems to be one of an unacknowledged attainment in English as a Second Language; thereby, most of his reults are pidgin (like Korbyzinski's joke- language, E-prime .-) thus: well, that seems rather to dyspoze of the whole issue, viz-a-vu. and, like I said, in January, like that Magadin said, about primes of the form 4n +/- 1 (-1 is not a second power mod 4 ?-) thus quoth: Mertens's Theorem is in fact a rigorous proof that they're not independent in the sense you need them to be). --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop the quagmire retread in Afghanistan; see "The Most Dangerous Man" on Feb.12 opening at Music Hall Theater on Wilshire in Beverley Hills! http://www.laemmle.com/viewmovie.php?mid=5177
From: spudnik on 5 Feb 2010 20:59 and, remember, Michelson & Morely and their successors did NOT get "null results." thank you!
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 |