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://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm.


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) located at http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
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.

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.

Deretsiger16 wrote:
The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light

Utter balderdash. Ole Roemer measured the speed of light in the 17-th
century. Armand Fizeau, Abraham Michelson and others on into modern times.

See
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...measure_c.html

Bob Kolker

Deretsiger16 wrote:

The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
[snip]

Ignorant idiot.

1) Lightspeed is a defined quantity,
http://physics.nist.gov./cgi-bin/cuu...ll+values.y=18

2) Phys. Rev. Lett. 88(1) 010401 (2002)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 060403 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 42(9) 549 (1979)
Phys. Bull. 21 255 (1970)
Europhysics Lett. 56(2) 170 (2001)
Gen. Rel. Grav. 34(9) 1371 (2002)

Psychotic ineducable boring spammer retic (Ernest Wittke),
http://b5.sdvc.uwyo.edu/bab5/snds/argcstpd.wav
http://w0rli.home.att.net/youare.swf
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/sunshine.jpg
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.

http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0307140
GR structure, especially Part 4/p. 7
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume4/2001-4will/index.html
Experimental constraints on General Relativity.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://rattler.cameron.edu/EMIS/journals/LRG/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/index.html
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
Relativity in the GPS system

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
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/Paper6.pdf
http://users.powernet.co.uk/bearsoft/LPHrel.html
Longitudinal and transverse mass

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)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

Deretsiger16 wrote:

The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light


Fowler, M. "The Speed of Light"
http://www.phys.virginia.edu/classes.../spedlite.html

Crank Information
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...uthor%3Awittke
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3AHERetic3
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...thor%3Aretiche
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...hor%3Areticher
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=gr...or%3Areticher1

"Deretsiger16" wrote in message
...
The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light


It used to be possible to measure the speed of light, and has been done by a
very large number of people over a number of centuries.
At present, it is no longer possible, since the speed of light is now a
defined quantity.

Franz

"Deretsiger16" wrote in message
...
The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light


It used to be possible to measure the speed of light, and has been done by a
very large number of people over a number of centuries.
At present, it is no longer possible, since the speed of light is now a
defined quantity.

Franz

Nope, you can still measure the speed of light. and it is not just defined.


Smart's Alt. Physics News Group
http://pub39.bravenet.com/forum/show...20272813&cpv=1
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/

"S. Enterprize Company" wrote:

Franz Heymann wrote:

It used to be possible to measure the speed of light, and has been done by a
very large number of people over a number of centuries.
At present, it is no longer possible, since the speed of light is now a
defined quantity.

Franz

Nope, you can still measure the speed of light. and it is not just defined.


Actually you would either be measuring distance or time, as the speed of light
is a fundamental constant of nature. One could always make the assumption, as
an academic exercise, that your distance and time measuring devices were "standards"
and confirm the velocity of light. However both of those measures are defined
by the velocity of light. See: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.html

PLANETS ORBIT THE SUN TO CONSERVE TOTAL ENERGY
THE FORCE OF GRAVITY IS AN ILLUSION
Copyright 1984-2003 Allen C. Goodrich

Gravitational effect is the result of an acceleration
of mass. Galileo demonstrated this. Newton assumed
that this was caused by a force of gravity between
all masses. Was this a correct assumption? Einstein
and many other scientists felt that there must be
more to gravitation than an attraction at a distance.
Action at a distance was considered to be impossible
in the absence of a transfer of energy at the speed
of light.

Hubble then showed that the distant Galaxies were
moving away from the earth and that the universe
was expanding in all directions. If this is true ,
What else must be true?

1. The potential energy of the rest of the universe
must be decreasing relative to the mass of the earth.

It has long been assumed that the first law of
thermodynamics, which says that the total energy of
the universe is a constant, was a fact of nature.
If this is true what then.

2. The kinetic energy of the universe must be
increasing at the same rate that the potential
energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

How is this possible? Masses must be accelerating,
because, kinetic energy change is the result of an
acceleration. But all orbital masses are
accelerating toward the center of the earth or
some other mass. Why would this occur otherwise?

3. Orbital motion could then be the result of the
expansion of the universe. The Gravitational
illusion could be the result.

Based on the first law of thermodynamics
The total mass energy of the universe is a constant.
(total kinetic (mass) energy plus total potential
energy is a constant).
m(2 pi L)^2 / t^2 + G (M-m)m / L = A constant.
m is any mass say that of the earth.

From this equation the equation
Delta m (2 pi L)^2 / t^2 = - Delta G (M-m)m/L
follows mathematically.
From this equation the equation
Delta m 4 pi^2 L /t^2 = Delta - G (M-m)m / L^2
or the modified Newton equation for gravity can
be derived,but only when L is the orbital distance.
The earth orbit is a result of an energy equilibrium,
( the absence of a change of total energy )
and not the result of a force of gravity between masses.
Force of gravity is the resulting illusion
assumed by Newton to be a force.

If a planet (say earth) moved away from the sun
its potential energy would decrease as L increased.
Its kinetic energy would decrease because it is
no longer accelerating toward the sun in orbital
motion. Total energy would have to decrease. A very
great change of total energy would have to take place.

POTENTIAL ENERGY = G(M-m)m/L
KINETIC ENERGY = m(2 pi L)^2/t^2
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + G(M-m)m/L = A constant = M
G= Gravitational constant; M = total energy
of the universe (or effective universe) ;
m = mass in question.
t = time ; L = radial distance.

No mechanism exists for this to occur rapidly.
So it could not happen. The magnitudes of kinetic
and potential energies of planets and moons
travelling in orbital motion are equal and any
increase or decrease of orbital distance L results
in an equal change in magnitude of both.This is
the only value of L where no change of total energy
will occur if the value of L changes. At any other
distance L, an increase of kinetic energy will be at a
different rate than potential energy desreases.
Orbital motion conserves total energy.
Force of gravity isn't needed to explain orbital
motion or any other motion at a distance.



GRAVITY MECHANICS AND
RESEARCH ON ASTRONOMICAL OCEAN TIDES
Copyright 1984 to 2002 Allen C. Goodrich

An examination of United States Coast and Geodetic
Survey Tidal Data, which was gathered by extensive
measurements over long periods of time,was compared
with astronomical data showing the phases of the
moon at corresponding times for many years. This
correlation of the two sets of data revealed a
very interesting fact, in a manner that had never
before been mentioned in the literature.
It is invariably and exactly
the lowest tide that exists directly under the
full and new moons at deep ocean ports.

This was a very interesting discovery because
current physics,based on the gravitational theory,
discussed in the following U.S.Gov. documents:
PREDICT THE OCEAN TIDES
http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
SEE PHASES OF THE MOON FROM EARTH
http://space.jpl.nasa.gov/
,would lead one to believe that,except for many
possible reasons, the highest tides tend to be
under the full and new moons. The dictionary and
encyclopedia as well as physics texts predict this
with pictures of the earth and oceans bulging on
the side facing the full moon. Of course it never
happens as the gravitational theory predicts,
and many reasons are given for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION:
No discrepancies were found in the occurence of
exactly the lowest tide directly under the full
and new moons, at deep ocean ports.

SIGNIFICANCE:
One must admit that this is beyond
question one of the most important discoveries
of modern physics research. It indicates that a
change must be made in the theory of gravitation.
One can no longer assume that a force between
the moon and the water of the earth's oceans,
is causing the ocean tides. The force of
gravity must be an illusion caused by some other,
more basic, reason. What would this be?
If the total energy ( kinetic and potential ) of
the universe is assumed to be a constant,from this
fundamental equation, many interesting things follow.
If the rest of the universe is expanding ( potential
energy decreasing) relative to masses, the masses
must be shrinking ( increasing in kinetic energy )
(gravitation) relative to the rest of the universe.

THE FIRST LAW OF MOTION-(GOODRICH)

Copyright 1984 to 2002 ALLEN C. GOODRICH

A body (m) continues in a state of rest (equilibrium)
or motion in a straight or curved line (equilibrium)
as long as no change occurs in its total (kinetic and
potential) energy, relative to the rest of the
effective universe (M-m),

Delta m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 = - Delta K(M-m)m/L

equilibrium = no change in the total energy
relative to the rest of the effective universe (M-m).

^ = to the power of.
Orbital motion complies with this equation.
This equation is derived from the fundamental
equation of the universe which states that
the total energy of the universe is a constant.
The sum of kinetic and potential energies is a
constant.
m(2 pi L)^2/t^2 + K(M-m)m/L = A constant.

SEE
THE UNIVERSE- A GRAND UNIFIED THEORY OF MASS ENERGY
SPACE TIME FRAME MECHANICS-APPEARING IN NEWSLETTER
"SPECTRUM" OF THE BUFFALO ASTRONOMICAL ASSOCIATION
INC. NOV.1996 TO FEB.1997
See http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan.../business.html
FUNDAMENTAL EQUATION OF THE UNIVERSE
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...e/profile.html
TIDES AND GRAVITY MECHANICS
http://ourworld.cs.com/gravitymechan...ge/resume.html

A new theory of gravitation is given, which
predicted, stimulated the above research,and is
consistent with, the new findings.

In sci.physics, Deretsiger16

wrote
on 16 Dec 2003 15:48:15 GMT
:
The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light

[rest snipped]

Dude. They stopped using shutter lanterns centuries ago.

:-)

--
#191, -- insert random upgrade here
It's still legal to go .sigless.