Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly?
in [Physics]
|
From: kenseto on 11 Jan 2010 08:59 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
From: dlzc on 11 Jan 2010 09:47 Dear kenseto: On Jan 11, 6:59 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way > speed of light directly? Because some thought will show it is not possible to do this, except in a TWLS configured space. There have been *many* attempts to measure OWLS by physicists.... but the apparatus was (inadvertently) TWLS configured. > The answer: > The one-way speed of light is physical distance > dependent. Provide a way to disprove this. > BTW that's why they invented a new definition > for a meter length: 1 > meter=1/299,792,458 light second No they did this because the PtIr bar in Paris was lengthening by 1 part in 10^8 per year, and because the wavelengths of light chosen in the 60's was too sloppy to be very helpful. > Using this definition the one-way speed of > light is c by definition. You got that part right, anyway. Nature thinks the "one way speed of light" is a fiction. Sure would be nice if people would stop worrying about it. David A. Smith
From: Igor on 11 Jan 2010 10:23 On Jan 11, 8:59 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. No, you've got it backwards. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant and the meter is defined based on it and the time standard. Whether the speed of electromagnetic radiation in vaccum is actually c is an entirely different issue. Maybe you need to stop confusing the two. One is a convention and the other is physics. Do you understand the difference?
From: Androcles on 11 Jan 2010 10:26 "Igor" <thoovler(a)excite.com> wrote in message news:aec80fae-a01e-41d8-b0a6-1aac46a40b65(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com... On Jan 11, 8:59 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. No, you've got it backwards. The speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant ============================================ Prove it, dumbfuck.
From: Dirk Van de moortel on 11 Jan 2010 11:21
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in message 8818a2f5-3cfb-4429-b8b0-92770c660a9d(a)b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com > Why physicists refuse to measure the one-way speed of light directly? Why imbeciles refuse to listen to given answers directly? > The answer: > The one-way speed of light is physical distance dependent. The answer: The one-way speed of comprehension is physiological brain capacity dependent. Dirk Vdm |