"The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"

The idea that the velocity of light is the same no matter in
what reference frame it is measured is fundamental to the modern sceince of
physics. The premise started with the confusion resulting from failure of
the
Michaelson-Morely experiment to reveal an absolute velocity reference for
space
and shortly led to both the unique solution Lorentz Transformation-Aether
Theory
and the general case solution (no Aether) equivalent - the Special Theory of
Relativity. Since the conclusion that the velocity of light was constant in
all
reference frames is based on observation, the necessity of understanding the
methodology of measuring the velocity of light should be apparent to all who
would deal with relativistic phenomena.

Velocity is defined as distance travelled (length) per unit
time. If one wishes to measure the velocity of any entity, be it light or
bullets, one needs in principle, a yardstick to measure the distance
travelled
and a clock to measure the time required for the entity to travel that
distance.
It behooves us then to examine the nature of the instruments which might be
used
in making the required observations.

In principle, all measurements of length require the
equivalent of a yardstick. (It is not suitable, for example, to define
length in
terms a number of wavelengths of light for our purpose since that would
result
in measuring the velocity of light in terms of itself, an obvious
absurdity.)
That yardstick is constructed, in effect, of an array of atomic nuclei
separated
from each other ahd held in place by electromagnetic fields ("virtual
photons"
are one explanation of the operation of those field.) The atomic nuclei
contains
99.95% of the mass(energy) of the atom and are on the order of 10^-15 meters
in
diameter. The atoms in the array are separated by about 10^-10 meters. To
provide some perspective, a scale representation would show that if the
nuclei
were enlarged to the size of a billiard ball, the nominal distance between
nuclei would be about 3.1 miles. Obviously the length of the yardstick is
determined almost entirely by the characteristics of the electromagnetic
forces
acting between its nuclei. Similarly, time is measured by counting the
"ticks"
of a clock or their equivalent. The time between clock "ticks" is measured
by
the period of some type of resonant system. Such a system could be composed
of
the coiled "hairspring" of a watch and a blanace wheel or it could be
composed
of the elasticity of the bond between two atoms and the mass of those atoms.
In
all cases, the period of the resonant system is determined by the spring
constant acting in the resonant system and the significant mass of that
system.
In other words, with regard to relativistic effects, what is true of one
type of
clock is true for all types of clocks!

Let us then consider what would happen if the velocity of
light in free space were to change. Since the atomic nuclei of the yardstick
control their separation by electromagnetic means, the nuclei would sense
that
their separation was now "wrong" and they would move to correct the error.
thus
causing the yardstick to change its length. The stiffness of the clocks
"hairspring" is also determined electromagnetic means and the mass of the
"balance wheel" is determined by the energy represented by that mass and the
velocity of light in accordance with M=E/C^2! The result would be that the
postulated change in the velocity of light should change the calibration of
the
clock. If the Principle of Relativity is applicable, as indeed it must be if
the
Laws of Physics are to be the same in all velocity and elevation reference
frames, then the length of our yardsticks and the speed of our clocks must
change as a result of the postulated change in the free space velocity of
light.
Moreover, that change must be such that a measurement of the velocity of
light
would be produce the same value regardless of the reference frame (velocity,
elevation)in which it was measured. This would occur because the units of
measurement by which the velocity of light is measured would change to
conceal
any actual change in that velocity. Any measurement of the velocity of light
that we may care to make is actually a measurement of the velocity of light
in
terms of the velocity of light. Such a measurement is clearly meaningless.
The
quantity we accept as the velocity of light probably results from the
dimensionaless Fine Structure Constant which reveals the velocity of light
in
terms of the dielectric constant of space.

To add perspective to the discussion. It is axiomatic that
every process which involves obeying physical laws (including the
"constantcy"
of the velocity of light and the length of our "yardsticks" must contain the
following steps.

1:- It must measure the magnitude of the quantity in question.

2:- It must compare the measured quantity with its nominal value.

3:- It must apply the necessary "force" to reduce any error towards
zero.
This is not an invention of the writer. It is a requirement of any
stable process.

The framers of relativity theory missed the boat in not
digging deeply enough. It is not enough to accept the Principle of
Relativity.
The question they should have asked is why does the Principle of Relativity
hold. Such a question leads to the very obvious answer that it holds because
matter uses the velocity of light to control its parameters. One need only
to
add the proviso that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity
of
light and the mysteries of SR vanish (providing one is not too lazy to
follow
the reasoning through to its conclusion). In the case of gravity, the
effects of
a change in the velocity of light between reference frames which differ in
elevation is immediately obvious, it is called gravity. Gravity results
because
proximity to energy causes an increase in the "absolute" permeabilty of the
Aether. All of the known gravitational effects cah be shown to follow from
this
change. Space is not "curved". http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.

Sknil wrote:
"The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"


Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net

Why do you post under a different alias every day? Why is that?

Sam Wormley wrote:
Sknil wrote:
"The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"


Thanks for registering "The Einstein Hoax" at crank dot net.
http://www.google.com/search?q=einst...Awww.crank.net

Why do you post under a different alias every day? Why is that?

He won't answer this, or anthing else you write.

If you directly accuse him of posting SPAM, then he will
soon post a new SPAM explaining why his posts aren't SPAM
even though they are.

That's as close to a response as you'll ever get from Mr. Retic.

-jc

Sknil wrote:

"The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"
[snip ignorant crap]

http://www.freefarts.com/farts.html
Move cursor over blinkers to hear Retic's lecture.

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),

You see yourself this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete6.jpg
The entire remainder of the planet sees you this way,
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/effete3.png

http://www.edu-observatory.org/cranks.html
http://www.pagetutor.com/idiot/idiot.html

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.swf
http://www.****inggoogleit.com/
http://www.meninhats.com/d/20040430.html
http://www.you-moron.com/
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
http://www.firehead.org/~jessh/film/kubrick/Kubrick-Psycho.html
http://www.naturalchild.com/elliott_barker/prisons.html

The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity" (1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999)
[snip]

Hey, stooopid spammer Ernest Wittke - Do you want EVIDENCE? Each of
the 24 GPS satellites carries either four cesium atomic clocks or
three rubidum atomic clocks in orbit, with full relativistic
corrections being applied. NAVSTAR Block II GPS satellites (currently
being launched as replacements) have two rubidium and two cesium
atomic clocks.

Internal inconsistencies in SR (meaning inconsistencies of a purely
mathematical logical nature) automatically lead to contradictions in
number theory, itself, and arithmetic, since the mathematics of
Minkowski geometry is equiconsistent with the theory of real numbers
and with arithmetic.

http://optoelectronics.perkinelmer.com/content/Datasheets/rfs2f.pdf

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
Mathematics of gravitation
http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/update98.pdf
http://www.astro.northwestern.edu/AspenW04/Papers/lorimer1.pdf
http://www.vallis.org/publications/tesidott.pdf
Equivalence Principle testing
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0111236
Geometric structure of reality
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0103044
http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html
Relativity in the GPS system
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
falling light
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/SRtwinParadox.html
http://physics.syr.edu/courses/modules/LIGHTCONE/twins.html
Twin Paradox
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-5/index.html
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp
Deeply relativistic neutron star binaries
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0405160
Black hole evaporation
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
No aether
http://fsweb.berry.edu/academic/mans/clane/
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/17/3/7
No Lorentz violation
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0409089
Spin-2 gravitons have problems
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.strings/msg/ba31a00f5f26277a
(so does the proposal)
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113
http://www.npl.washington.edu/eotwash/pdf/prl83-3585.pdf
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0301024
Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 261101 (2004)
Nordtvedt Effect
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723
WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175
Dark matter candidates
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html
Carroll on what it all means.

Special Relativity is physics on a topologically trivial Lorentzian
manifold with a metric whose curvature tensor is zero. This is a
perfectly diffeomorphism-invariant condition and does not require
any particular coordinate choice. It is invariant under
the full group of diffeomorphisms. The Poincare group is
the group of *isometries* of the metric in special relativity.

The Special Relativity metric is *non-dynamical* (unlike GR). It
defines the coupling *constants* of your theory. If you change the
metric in any nontrivial way you are changing your theory. An
operation can only be called a "symmetry" of a special-relativistic
(non-gravitational) theory if it preserves the metric, and therefore
the symmetry of special-relativistic theories is the Poincare group
only. General Relativity (gravitation) has a dynamic metric.

NIM A 355 537 (1995)
Physics Letters B 328 103 (1994)
Physical Review Letters 64 1697 (1990)
Physical Review Letters 39 1051 (1977)
Physical Review 135 B1071 (1964)
Physics Letters 12 260 (1964)
Europhysics Letters 56(2) 170-174 (2001)
General Relativity and Gravitation 34(9) 1371 (2002)

http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf
Longitudinal and transverse mass
Physics Today 58(3) 34 (2005)
Time passage, equator vs. poles

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0306076
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-3.ASP
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
http://www.trimble.com/gps/index.html
http://sirius.chinalake.navy.mil/satpred/
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm
http://www.schriever.af.mil/gps/Current/current.oa1
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

If anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.

Right, like your head has ever been withdrawn from your ass - even
when you ****.



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

I like variety.