The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:43:20 GMT
:
The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why
are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all
inertial observers??

Ken Seto


It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how we should properly
measure OWLS? Or would you prefer TWLS?

Especially since there's an inherent lightspeed dependency
in the standard ruler? After all, those copper atoms (to
pick an element at random; one could just as easily use
iron, iron-carbon mix [steel], carbon-hydrogen-oxygen mix
[wood], or any other material sufficiently solid, really)
bind to each other using metallic or covalent bonds
(or, if one's weird enough to postulate a ruler made of
a crystal of sodium chloride or similar such material,
ionic), which are from electrons...

So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly
define, say, a meter?

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

xxein: I congratulate you. Now figure out the reality of it all.

"Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "sue jahn" suzysewnshow wrote in message
| news | | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto
| wrote:
| |
| | The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been
| measured.
| | Why
| | are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be
c
| by all
| | inertial observers??
| |
| | I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement
| | doen't not appear untrue.
|
| Wow! a TRIPLE negative.
| "the statement does not appear true."
|
| LOL!
| I just knew you'd be the one the catch that.
| Wait'll ya see my skating videos where I am
| doing a triple clutz. )

Is that a Tonya Harding half-axle across the kneecaps?
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4637276.pdf

| Sue...
|
| Androcles.
|

"Rod Ryker" wrote in message
...
|
|
| "Sue..." wrote in message
oups.com...
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "sue jahn" suzysewnshow wrote in message
| news | | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto
| wrote:
| |
| | The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been
| measured.
| | Why
| | are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to
be c
| by all
| | inertial observers??
| |
| | I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement
| | doen't not appear untrue.
|
| Wow! a TRIPLE negative.
| "the statement does not appear true."
|
| LOL!
| I just knew you'd be the one the catch that.
| Wait'll ya see my skating videos where I am
| doing a triple clutz. )
|
| Sue...
|
| Rod: It's free right?
| I mean, where do I get it?!
| Hey Androcles, A-man, share with your old
| friend, err me anyway, c'mon buddy, whatayasay, huh?


Dang, the bag is out of the cat now.
Androcles


| --
| Rod Ryker...
| The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
|
| Androcles.
|
|
|

"Will Janoschka" wrote in message
news | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:50:54, "Sue..."
| wrote:
|
|
| Androcles wrote:
| "sue jahn" suzysewnshow wrote in message
| news | | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto
| wrote:
| |
| | The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been
| measured.
| | Why
| | are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to
be c
| by all
| | inertial observers??
| |
| | I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement
| | doen't not appear untrue.
|
| Wow! a TRIPLE negative.
| "the statement does not appear true."
|
| LOL!
| I just knew you'd be the one the catch that.
| Wait'll ya see my skating videos where I am
| doing a triple clutz. )
|
| Sue...
|
| Androcles.
|
|
| Sue: reasoning with Androcles or Kenseto is like
| reasoning with a barrel. -will-

Only a barrel would listen to your brand of "reason", but you
are welcome to try and convince me this star blows up twice
in three months.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

Seto might believe you, he's an ectoplasmist.

Androcles.

Rod Ryker wrote:
"Sue..." wrote in message oups.com...

Androcles wrote:
"sue jahn" suzysewnshow wrote in message
news | On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto
wrote:
|
| The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been
measured.
| Why
| are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c
by all
| inertial observers??
|
| I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement
| doen't not appear untrue.

Wow! a TRIPLE negative.
"the statement does not appear true."

LOL!
I just knew you'd be the one the catch that.
Wait'll ya see my skating videos where I am
doing a triple clutz. )

Sue...

Rod: It's free right?
I mean, where do I get it?!
Hey Androcles, A-man, share with your old
friend, err me anyway, c'mon buddy, whatayasay, huh?
--
Rod Ryker...

Not a problem. I have a two year supply of insults
for anyone that thinks they can study the
isotropy_of_nothing 'till a printing press appears in the
bell-hop's pocket to explain imagined electromagnetic
phoney-omena and the extra dollar. )

Sue...

The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.

Androcles.

In sci.physics.relativity,

wrote
on 23 Oct 2005 18:02:06 -0700
.com:

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:43:20 GMT
:
The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have
nver been measured. Why are they keep on lying that
the speed of light is measured to be c by all inertial
observers??

Ken Seto


It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how we should properly
measure OWLS? Or would you prefer TWLS?

Especially since there's an inherent lightspeed dependency
in the standard ruler? After all, those copper atoms (to
pick an element at random; one could just as easily use
iron, iron-carbon mix [steel], carbon-hydrogen-oxygen mix
[wood], or any other material sufficiently solid, really)
bind to each other using metallic or covalent bonds
(or, if one's weird enough to postulate a ruler made of
a crystal of sodium chloride or similar such material,
ionic), which are from electrons...

So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly
define, say, a meter?

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

xxein: I congratulate you. Now figure out the reality of it all.


I was asking Kenseto. However, you are also free to "correctly"
define a reference-length.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

sue jahn wrote:
On Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:43:20 -0400, kenseto wrote:

The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured.
Why
are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all
inertial observers??

I can't speak for creatures from planet SR but the statement
doen't not appear untrue.

An inertial observer can not be party to any forces so must be
co-moving with any nearby matter.

A fascinating statement ....................


The relation:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Images/alphaeq.gif from:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/alpha.html

*seems* well confirmed for this condition.
You think maybe the standard's labs are pushing
rubber rulers off on an unsuspecting public ?

Sue...



Ken Seto





--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:43:20 GMT
:
The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured.
Why
are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by
all
inertial observers??

Ken Seto


It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c.

Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how we should properly
measure OWLS? Or would you prefer TWLS?

Especially since there's an inherent lightspeed dependency
in the standard ruler? After all, those copper atoms (to
pick an element at random; one could just as easily use
iron, iron-carbon mix [steel], carbon-hydrogen-oxygen mix
[wood], or any other material sufficiently solid, really)
bind to each other using metallic or covalent bonds
(or, if one's weird enough to postulate a ruler made of
a crystal of sodium chloride or similar such material,
ionic), which are from electrons...

So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly
define, say, a meter?

Use the metal bar in the Paris Standard lab?
In any case that's what we use everyday to measure length and speed of
anything. So why do we have to have a special rubeer ruler (light-second )
to measure length for light.

Ken Seto

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:43:20 GMT
:
The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why
are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all
inertial observers??

Ken Seto


It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c.

The speed of light is not *defined* as c. c is defined as the speed of light.
The speed of light is what it is.

c is expressed in terms of the ratio of given units of distance to given units
of time. And so the question remains how that ratio can be established *if*
OWLS or TWLS have never been measured.


Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how we should properly
measure OWLS? Or would you prefer TWLS?

Why is that his responsibility in the context of his question? The issue isn't
whether or not he knows how to perform such measurements, but rather, what he
perceives as the inconsistency of establishing the speed of light at a specific
ratio when it's never been measured.

Especially since there's an inherent lightspeed dependency
in the standard ruler? After all, those copper atoms (to
pick an element at random; one could just as easily use
iron, iron-carbon mix [steel], carbon-hydrogen-oxygen mix
[wood], or any other material sufficiently solid, really)
bind to each other using metallic or covalent bonds
(or, if one's weird enough to postulate a ruler made of
a crystal of sodium chloride or similar such material,
ionic), which are from electrons...

So now, the question is an obvious one: how does one properly
define, say, a meter?


It seems to me that's the crux of the problem. With no way to properly define a
meter or a second, how does one establish the speed of light?

"AllYou!" wrote in message ...

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
...
In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:43:20 GMT
:
The SRians now admitted that the OWLS or TWLS have nver been measured. Why
are they keep on lying that the speed of light is measured to be c by all
inertial observers??

Ken Seto


It is not measured as c. It is *defined* as c.

The speed of light is not *defined* as c. c is defined as the speed of light.
The speed of light is what it is.

c is expressed in terms of the ratio of given units of distance to given units
of time. And so the question remains how that ratio can be established *if*
OWLS or TWLS have never been measured.

Nice one: "Musings on the speed of light:"
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/di...s/Musings.html

Long time no see.
Did they kick you out from misc.taxes again?
Did you put too many followups to alt.morons again?

Ha, by the way:
http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/second.html
"The second is the duration of 9192631770 periods of the
radiation corresponding to the transition between the two
hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/meter.html
"The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second"

Dirk Vdm