| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"kenseto" |
| Date: |
16 Oct 2005 11:33:02 AM |
| Object: |
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion as follows:
1. Length and flight time are measured by one clock and one measurement.
2. Suppose the measure length is 1 light-second by a clock the flight time
is 1 second by the same clock.
3. What this mean is that the speed of light is a constant ratio of (1
light-second/1 second). Since the speed of light is a constant ratio
measured this way it can have any value. Why? Because a light second can be
defined as containing any number of meters
4. Does this definition sound absurd and circular? You bet.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 07:49:11 AM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96F3C24307BCBWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:Hed5f.58526$Hs.32343@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same
frame will remain synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even
SR agrees to that. It appears that it is impossible only for the runts
of the SR experts.
Ken Seto
Two rulers of the same height are moved slowly apart.
Do they appear the same height to all observers in that frame of reference
or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects the line
connecting them?
Two clocks of the same rate are syncronized and moved slowly apart.
Do they appear to tick at the same time to all observers in that frame of
reference or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects the
line connecting them?
Hey idiot....in SR two synchronized clcoks moving apart at the same speed
and come to rest again will remain synchronized. These two clocks can be
used to measure OWLS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:06:30 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:bhr5f.81969$tD4.29678@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96F3C24307BCBWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:Hed5f.58526$Hs.32343@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same
frame will remain synchronized for all observers in that
frame.....even SR agrees to that. It appears that it is impossible
only for the runts of the SR experts.
Ken Seto
Two rulers of the same height are moved slowly apart.
Do they appear the same height to all observers in that frame of
reference or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects
the line connecting them?
Two clocks of the same rate are syncronized and moved slowly apart.
Do they appear to tick at the same time to all observers in that frame
of reference or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects
the line connecting them?
Hey idiot....in SR two synchronized clcoks moving apart at the same
speed and come to rest again will remain synchronized. These two clocks
can be used to measure OWLS.
Calling people names does not enhance your arguments.
I agree that two syncronized clocks (what is a clcok?) moved apart and
back together so that they cover the same distance during their motion
will remain 'syncronized'. I will grant that for some definitions of OWLS,
such clocks can be used to measure OWLS.
That does not negate the fact that two such clocks will NOT appear to be
syncronized at all times to all observers in their FoR. While they are
apart, only observers on the plane that bisects the line joining the two
clocks will observe the two clock to be syncronized.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:44:08 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96F3C24307BCBWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:Hed5f.58526$Hs.32343@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same
frame will remain synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even
SR agrees to that. It appears that it is impossible only for the runts
of the SR experts.
Ken Seto
Two rulers of the same height are moved slowly apart.
Do they appear the same height to all observers in that frame of reference
or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects the line
connecting them?
Two clocks of the same rate are syncronized and moved slowly apart.
Do they appear to tick at the same time to all observers in that frame of
reference or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects the
line connecting them?
Hey idiot....in SR two synchronized clcoks moving apart at the same speed
and come to rest again will remain synchronized.
Nope. According to SR, it's not the clock's speeds that determine
whether they'll be synchronized when they stop separating, but rather
the manner in which they stop separating (i.e. how they accelerate).
These two clocks can be
used to measure OWLS.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 09:02:41 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:35s5f.2056$AO5.779@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns96F3C24307BCBWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in
news:Hed5f.58526$Hs.32343@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com:
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same
frame will remain synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even
SR agrees to that. It appears that it is impossible only for the runts
of the SR experts.
Ken Seto
Two rulers of the same height are moved slowly apart.
Do they appear the same height to all observers in that frame of
reference
or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects the line
connecting them?
Two clocks of the same rate are syncronized and moved slowly apart.
Do they appear to tick at the same time to all observers in that frame
of
reference or only so to observers that lie on the plane that bisects the
line connecting them?
Hey idiot....in SR two synchronized clcoks moving apart at the same
speed
and come to rest again will remain synchronized.
Nope. According to SR, it's not the clock's speeds that determine
whether they'll be synchronized when they stop separating, but rather
the manner in which they stop separating (i.e. how they accelerate).
They can accelerate and decelerate as described in the following link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
18 Oct 2005 06:09:31 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Impossible [spatially separted clocks in the same frame that
are synchronized for all observers in that frame] Seto!
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite directions
with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same frame will remain
synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even SR agrees to that.
It appears that it is impossible only for the runts of the SR experts.
A moving observer and a stationary observer inside the frame will
see events differently.
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 07:45:52 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Lgf5f.442716$x96.181814@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Impossible [spatially separted clocks in the same frame that
are synchronized for all observers in that frame] Seto!
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions
with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same frame will
remain
synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even SR agrees to that.
It appears that it is impossible only for the runts of the SR experts.
A moving observer and a stationary observer inside the frame will
see events differently.
Hey idiot no body is moving. The synchronized clocks and the observer are at
rest in the lab frame.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:02:46 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Lgf5f.442716$x96.181814@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Impossible [spatially separted clocks in the same frame that
are synchronized for all observers in that frame] Seto!
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions
with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same frame will
remain
synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even SR agrees to that.
It appears that it is impossible only for the runts of the SR experts.
A moving observer and a stationary observer inside the frame will
see events differently.
Hey idiot no body is moving. The synchronized clocks and the observer are at
rest in the lab frame.
Ken Seto
An observer on one side of the room will not be in agreement with an
observer on the other side of the room.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:10:58 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Wtr5f.443613$x96.223880@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Lgf5f.442716$x96.181814@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Impossible [spatially separted clocks in the same frame that
are synchronized for all observers in that frame] Seto!
Why?? Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite
directions
with the same velocity and come to rest again in the same frame will
remain
synchronized for all observers in that frame.....even SR agrees to
that.
It appears that it is impossible only for the runts of the SR experts.
A moving observer and a stationary observer inside the frame will
see events differently.
Hey idiot no body is moving. The synchronized clocks and the observer
are at
rest in the lab frame.
Ken Seto
An observer on one side of the room will not be in agreement with an
observer on the other side of the room.
You are a stupid runt. Both observers will agree that the clocks are
synchronized. Besides, all they do is read what the clocks say for departure
time and arrival time. In fact they can designe a syatem such that the
clocks can record the departure time and arrival time automatically.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:22:22 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
You are a stupid runt. Both observers will agree that the clocks are
synchronized. Besides, all they do is read what the clocks say for departure
time and arrival time. In fact they can designe a syatem such that the
clocks can record the departure time and arrival time automatically.
Why don't you see your error, Ken?
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:55:41 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:iMr5f.447474$_o.439256@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
You are a stupid runt. Both observers will agree that the clocks are
synchronized. Besides, all they do is read what the clocks say for
departure
time and arrival time. In fact they can designe a syatem such that the
clocks can record the departure time and arrival time automatically.
Why don't you see your error, Ken?
Because you are a runt???
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 09:24:25 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Why don't you see your error, Ken?
Because you are a runt???
Doesn't have anything to do with me. Seto, you don't understand
simultaneity and the lack thereof. Come on, it's been a hundred
years now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 04:06:25 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tGs5f.447534$_o.399566@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Why don't you see your error, Ken?
Because you are a runt???
Doesn't have anything to do with me. Seto, you don't understand
simultaneity and the lack thereof. Come on, it's been a hundred
years now.
Simultaneity got nothing to do with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 05:13:01 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tGs5f.447534$_o.399566@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Why don't you see your error, Ken?
Because you are a runt???
Doesn't have anything to do with me. Seto, you don't understand
simultaneity and the lack thereof. Come on, it's been a hundred
years now.
Simultaneity got nothing to do with it.
That exactly part of you misunderstanding!
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 10:09:26 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Nxz5f.444661$x96.385469@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tGs5f.447534$_o.399566@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Why don't you see your error, Ken?
Because you are a runt???
Doesn't have anything to do with me. Seto, you don't understand
simultaneity and the lack thereof. Come on, it's been a hundred
years now.
Simultaneity got nothing to do with it.
That exactly part of you misunderstanding!
ROTFLOL......wormy don't know *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
17 Oct 2005 10:48:46 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:kZR4f.441081$x96.265436@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
In otherwords c within 0.9 m/s
That's not measuring OWLS. That's measuring isotropy.
You are probably just being stooopid. There were many OWLS measurements
and in different directions. Not only did the agree with c, but the
agreed with c and each other in different directions (isotropy).
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
18 Oct 2005 09:19:38 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:yg_4f.445325$_o.198092@attbi_s71...
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:kZR4f.441081$x96.265436@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
In otherwords c within 0.9 m/s
That's not measuring OWLS. That's measuring isotropy.
You are probably just being stooopid. There were many OWLS measurements
and in different directions. Not only did the agree with c, but the
agreed with c and each other in different directions (isotropy).
Wormy is a brainless runt of the SR experts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
18 Oct 2005 09:56:16 AM |
|
|
For Seto:
There were many OWLS measurements and in different directions. Not
only did the agree with c, but the agreed with c and each other in
different directions (isotropy).
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Stowe" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
17 Oct 2005 11:14:49 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 03:48:46 GMT, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:kZR4f.441081$x96.265436@attbi_s72...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s.
In otherwords c within 0.9 m/s
That's not measuring OWLS. That's measuring isotropy.
You are probably just being stooopid.
No, you are...
There were many OWLS measurements and in different directions.
Not only did the agree with c, but the agreed with c and each
other in different directions (isotropy).
See:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/18b3259fdbf0cd07?dmode=source&hl=en
and perhaps you can show us where the speed c is actually measured...
Paul Stowe
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
17 Oct 2005 01:33:41 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
17 Oct 2005 05:13:57 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any experiment to
determine the true value of OWLS.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
18 Oct 2005 08:03:34 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any experiment to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
18 Oct 2005 09:01:37 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
It depends on the following:
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the reflecting
mirror?
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
4. So All of the answers below are wrong. The only way to determine the one
way speed of ***** and Jane is by measuring the distance between NY and
Washington and divide the time it takes them to reach Washington.
Ken Seto
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS
experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 08:10:06 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
4. So All of the answers below are wrong. The only way to determine the one
way speed of ***** and Jane is by measuring the distance between NY and
Washington and divide the time it takes them to reach Washington.
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS
experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 09:09:15 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results
consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only
valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the
reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of
light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
Why should I waste any more time on this?? It is not the same as the TWLS or
OWLS measurement.
4. So All of the answers below are wrong. The only way to determine the
one
way speed of ***** and Jane is by measuring the distance between NY and
Washington and divide the time it takes them to reach Washington.
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS
experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 09:19:44 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results
consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only
valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the
reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of
light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
Why should I waste any more time on this?? It is not the same as the TWLS or
OWLS measurement.
The key aspects of both problems are *exactly* the same. Compare them.
1. TWLS = c, and OWLS is isotropic (i.e. the same in both directions).
What is OWLS?
2. TWD&JS = 50 MPH, and OWD&JS is the same in both directions (i.e.
isotropic). What is OWD&JS?
Do you recognize the similarity?
4. So All of the answers below are wrong. The only way to determine the
one
way speed of ***** and Jane is by measuring the distance between NY and
Washington and divide the time it takes them to reach Washington.
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS
experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
19 Oct 2005 04:05:13 PM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:sCs5f.2057$AO5.775@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results
consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that
measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only
valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any
experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the
reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of
light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
Why should I waste any more time on this?? It is not the same as the
TWLS or
OWLS measurement.
The key aspects of both problems are *exactly* the same. Compare them.
1. TWLS = c, and OWLS is isotropic (i.e. the same in both directions).
What is OWLS?
TWLS includes the delay at the reflecting mirror and a direct OWLS
measurement does not include any delay. Also OWLS can be isotropic but have
different value than c.
2. TWD&JS = 50 MPH, and OWD&JS is the same in both directions (i.e.
isotropic). What is OWD&JS?
OWD&JS stop at Washington as does the light front experience a delay at the
reflecting mirror??
In any case refusing to do any direct OWLS measurement is a sign that of a
coward. Don't you SRians have any pride?
Ken Seto
Do you recognize the similarity?
4. So All of the answers below are wrong. The only way to determine the
one
way speed of ***** and Jane is by measuring the distance between NY and
Washington and divide the time it takes them to reach Washington.
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS
experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
20 Oct 2005 07:56:18 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:sCs5f.2057$AO5.775@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results
consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that
measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only
valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any
experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the
reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of
light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
Why should I waste any more time on this?? It is not the same as the
TWLS or
OWLS measurement.
The key aspects of both problems are *exactly* the same. Compare them.
1. TWLS = c, and OWLS is isotropic (i.e. the same in both directions).
What is OWLS?
TWLS includes the delay at the reflecting mirror and a direct OWLS
measurement does not include any delay. Also OWLS can be isotropic but have
different value than c.
Nobody with more than half a brain would fail to account for reflection
delay when measuring TWLS or the directional dependence of OWLS. If
this is the basis for your thinking that an isotropic OWLS could be
different from TWLS, think again.
2. TWD&JS = 50 MPH, and OWD&JS is the same in both directions (i.e.
isotropic). What is OWD&JS?
OWD&JS stop at Washington as does the light front experience a delay at the
reflecting mirror??
In any case refusing to do any direct OWLS measurement is a sign that of a
coward. Don't you SRians have any pride?
Ken Seto
Do you recognize the similarity?
4. So All of the answers below are wrong. The only way to determine the
one
way speed of ***** and Jane is by measuring the distance between NY and
Washington and divide the time it takes them to reach Washington.
A. 25 MPH
B. 50 MPH
C. 670,000,000 MPH (approximately)
D. The true value can only be determined by conducting a OWD&JS
experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
20 Oct 2005 08:24:54 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:7uM5f.2180$AO5.1882@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:sCs5f.2057$AO5.775@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results
consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that
measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only
valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you
physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any
experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an
average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to
Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the
reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of
light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected
it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way
to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
Why should I waste any more time on this?? It is not the same as the
TWLS or
OWLS measurement.
The key aspects of both problems are *exactly* the same. Compare them.
1. TWLS = c, and OWLS is isotropic (i.e. the same in both directions).
What is OWLS?
TWLS includes the delay at the reflecting mirror and a direct OWLS
measurement does not include any delay. Also OWLS can be isotropic but
have
different value than c.
Nobody with more than half a brain would fail to account for reflection
delay when measuring TWLS or the directional dependence of OWLS. If
this is the basis for your thinking that an isotropic OWLS could be
different from TWLS, think again.
Accounting for the reflection delay will require measurement. How are you
going to do that?? Where are the references that past TWLS experiments
include the reflection time delay? There are other reasons why we need to
measure OWLS directly as follows:
1. The absolute motion of the distant clock is moving in the vertical
direction.
2. The size of the detector.
3. The need to know if a direct measurement of OWLS is equal to c.
4. The fact that physicists refuse to do any direct OWLS measurement speaks
volume.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "jem" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
20 Oct 2005 08:50:56 AM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:7uM5f.2180$AO5.1882@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:sCs5f.2057$AO5.775@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
kenseto wrote:
So what is the value of OWLS in all these experiments??????????
Given that all searches for anisotropy in OWLS yield results
consistent
with zero anisotropy, the value for OWLS is the same as that
measured
for TWLS, i.e. c.
The rest of us can do the algebra that shows
isotropic OWLS => OWLS=TWLS
even if you cannot. <shrug>
We went through this before. You can assume all you want. The only
valid
test for OWLS is by measuring it with two spatially separated and
synchronized clocks in the same frame. It's funny that you
physicists
did
all sort of OWLS isotropy experiments but refused to do any
experiment
to
determine the true value of OWLS.
***** and Jane drove from New York to Washington and back at an
average
speed of 50 MPH. If their average speed was the same in both
directions, what was their average speed from New York to
Washington?
It depends on the following:
I've got to admit Ken, you certainly have an uncanny knack for zeroing
in on exactly what's needed to solve tough Physics problems like this
one; I simply have no excuse for failing to include the important
details you ask for below.
1. Did ***** and Jane stopped at Washington as light did at the
reflecting
mirror?
They stayed in Washington for 5 days; it was a family vacation.
2. Did Washington moved as the mirror did in the case of the speed of
light
measurement?
No, Washington couldn't have moved; it was right where they expected
it
to be.
3. Did NY moved as the source did in the case of the speed of light
measurement?
On the way back they did think that New York had moved, but then Jane
realized they made a wrong turn in New Jersey.
Perhaps it might also help you to know that it was raining on the way
to
Washington, but not on the way back, and that they stopped for 12
minutes on the way back to get gas. Oh, and they drove in a red car.
You should now have enough information to solve the problem. Can you?
Why should I waste any more time on this?? It is not the same as the
TWLS or
OWLS measurement.
The key aspects of both problems are *exactly* the same. Compare them.
1. TWLS = c, and OWLS is isotropic (i.e. the same in both directions).
What is OWLS?
TWLS includes the delay at the reflecting mirror and a direct OWLS
measurement does not include any delay. Also OWLS can be isotropic but
have
different value than c.
Nobody with more than half a brain would fail to account for reflection
delay when measuring TWLS or the directional dependence of OWLS. If
this is the basis for your thinking that an isotropic OWLS could be
different from TWLS, think again.
Accounting for the reflection delay will require measurement. How are you
going to do that?? Where are the references that past TWLS experiments
include the reflection time delay?
Check out the procedures used in specific TWLS measurements if you're
interested in details. Measuring the reflection delay should be fairly
easy - a non-zero delay would mean there's a component of the round-trip
time that's a function of the distance between source and reflector.
There are other reasons why we need to
measure OWLS directly as follows:
1. The absolute motion of the distant clock is moving in the vertical
direction.
2. The size of the detector.
I tried to get you to see how nonsensical your "vertical motion" idea
is, but that went nowhere since you wouldn't answer the questions that
were aimed at getting you to see it.
3. The need to know if a direct measurement of OWLS is equal to c.
I see. An OWLS measurement is needed in order to find the measurement
of OWLS. Actually that makes more sense than a lot of your stuff.
4. The fact that physicists refuse to do any direct OWLS measurement speaks
volume.
For those who can appreciate logic, the measuremnt of TWLS together with
a determination of OWLS isotropy *is* a sufficiently direct OWLS
measurement.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion |
20 Oct 2005 09:36:45 AM |
|
|
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message news:lhN5f.2182$AO5.1806@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:7uM5f.2180$AO5.1882@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:sCs5f.2057$AO5.775@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:aBr5f.2055$AO5.533@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:9p65f.1957$AO5.1183@dukeread01...
kenseto wrote:
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dj0qq7$4nt@netnews.net.lucent.com...
it
to be.
1. TWLS = c, and OWLS is isotropic (i.e. the same in both directions).
What is OWLS?
TWLS includes the delay at the reflecting mirror and a direct OWLS
measurement does not include any delay. Also OWLS can be isotropic but
have
different value than c.
Nobody with more than half a brain would fail to account for reflection
delay when measuring TWLS or the directional dependence of OWLS. If
this is the basis for your thinking that an isotropic OWLS could be
different from TWLS, think again.
Accounting for the reflection delay will require measurement. How are
you
going to do that?? Where are the references that past TWLS experiments
include the reflection time delay?
Check out the procedures used in specific TWLS measurements if you're
interested in details.
NO....you check it out and let us know.
Measuring the reflection delay should be fairly
easy - a non-zero delay would mean there's a component of the round-trip
time that's a function of the distance between source and reflector.
This is nonsense. Measuring the reflection delay will involve the assumption
of the speed of light equal to c. The delay is not a function of the
distance between the source and the reflector.
There are other reasons why we need to
measure OWLS directly as follows:
1. The absolute motion of the distant clock is moving in the vertical
direction.
2. The size of the detector.
I tried to get you to see how nonsensical your "vertical motion" idea
is, but that went nowhere since you wouldn't answer the questions that
were aimed at getting you to see it.
My idea is based on the experimental results of the MMX and the Pound and
Rebka experiments. Your nonsense is based on your naive understanding of
nature. There is no contest.
3. The need to know if a direct measurement of OWLS is equal to c.
I see. An OWLS measurement is needed in order to find the measurement
of OWLS. Actually that makes more sense than a lot of your stuff.
For your information Roberts admitted that OWLS can have any value.
4. The fact that physicists refuse to do any direct OWLS measurement
speaks
volume.
For those who can appreciate logic, the measuremnt of TWLS together with
a determination of OWLS isotropy *is* a sufficiently direct OWLS
measurement.
You arguement is not based on any logic. You have assertion based on
religious belief.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
