"Androcles" Androcles@ MyPlace.org wrote in message
. uk...

"Tim" wrote in message
...


| If we are discussing the correct usage of English, I might point out
| that it should be "... to whom would he write?" and "None of his
friends
| could understand him."
|
'All You' won't understand that.
Androcles.

Apparently, neither did you, ****tard.

In sci.physics.relativity, PD

wrote
on 25 Oct 2005 08:31:32 -0700
.com:

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Kenseto is slightly confused again, but it might have
been me. :-) In any event, scientists have measured TWLS
a fair number of times (correctly or incorrectly, I'm
not sure which -- probably a mixture of both, from the
high-precision measurements performed by various modern
scientific endeavors using lasers and mirrors to the
almost laughable (apocryphal?) attempt by Galileo using
shutter-lanterns and an assistant on a hillside somewhere
in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic
(I don't know the error but it's small). It is possible
but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not
equal to c; the main issue would be the time it takes for
light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be
easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different
mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS.

A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
(Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.

And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
and GPS design specifications.

I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.


PD


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

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Tom Roberts??
BTW if TWLS or OWLS have been measure since 1986 (?) what were the results??
What were the results for TWLS and OWLS before 1986(?)....ie before the
definition for a meter was define as 1/299,792 458 light-second?

Ken Seto

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

wrote
on 25 Oct 2005 08:31:32 -0700
.com:

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Kenseto is slightly confused again, but it might have
been me. :-) In any event, scientists have measured TWLS
a fair number of times (correctly or incorrectly, I'm
not sure which -- probably a mixture of both, from the
high-precision measurements performed by various modern
scientific endeavors using lasers and mirrors to the
almost laughable (apocryphal?) attempt by Galileo using
shutter-lanterns and an assistant on a hillside somewhere
in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic
(I don't know the error but it's small).

So what were the results by all these measurements?????

It is possible
but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not
equal to c; the main issue would be the time it takes for
light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be
easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different
mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS.

Wrong. It is possible for OWLS to be isotropic for any specific distance but
the value of OWLS can vary with distance of separation of the two
synchronized clcoks. That's the reason why SRians refused to measure OWLS
directly. They just measure the isotropy of OWLS and assume that OWLS equal
to TWLS by isotropy.

Ken Seto

A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
(Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.

And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
and GPS design specifications.

I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.


PD


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

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

wrote
on 25 Oct 2005 08:31:32 -0700
.com:

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Kenseto is slightly confused again, but it might have
been me. :-) In any event, scientists have measured TWLS
a fair number of times (correctly or incorrectly, I'm
not sure which -- probably a mixture of both, from the
high-precision measurements performed by various modern
scientific endeavors using lasers and mirrors to the
almost laughable (apocryphal?) attempt by Galileo using
shutter-lanterns and an assistant on a hillside somewhere
in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic
(I don't know the error but it's small). It is possible
but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not
equal to c;

It is impossible for TWLS to be c AND for OWLS to be isotropic AND for
OWLS to not be equal to c.


the main issue would be the time it takes for
light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be
easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different
mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS.

Or comparing two extant experiments with different baselines, and
plotting the value of time of flight vs lever arm, the intercept of
that linear plot being the mirror delay. I've already pointed that out
to Seto, but he doesn't seem to grasp the notion.


A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
(Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.

And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
and GPS design specifications.

I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.


PD


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

kenseto wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Tom Roberts??
BTW if TWLS or OWLS have been measure since 1986 (?) what were the results??
What were the results for TWLS and OWLS before 1986(?)....ie before the
definition for a meter was define as 1/299,792 458 light-second?

Ken, I've already responded in another thread how particle accelerators
have clearly measured a One Way Limiting Speed. Roberts has already
indicated to you where to find literature on the measurement of the
speed of light prior to the restandardization of the meter (said
restandardization being justified by those light measurements).


Ken Seto

"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Tom Roberts??
BTW if TWLS or OWLS have been measure since 1986 (?) what were the
results??
What were the results for TWLS and OWLS before 1986(?)....ie before the
definition for a meter was define as 1/299,792 458 light-second?

Ken, I've already responded in another thread how particle accelerators
have clearly measured a One Way Limiting Speed.

No you said it measures time dilation. In order to measure OWLS you have to
have two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.

Roberts has already
indicated to you where to find literature on the measurement of the
speed of light prior to the restandardization of the meter (said
restandardization being justified by those light measurements).

He didn't give any reference. He sent me to a wild goose chase.

Ken Seto

"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

wrote
on 25 Oct 2005 08:31:32 -0700
.com:

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Kenseto is slightly confused again, but it might have
been me. :-) In any event, scientists have measured TWLS
a fair number of times (correctly or incorrectly, I'm
not sure which -- probably a mixture of both, from the
high-precision measurements performed by various modern
scientific endeavors using lasers and mirrors to the
almost laughable (apocryphal?) attempt by Galileo using
shutter-lanterns and an assistant on a hillside somewhere
in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic
(I don't know the error but it's small). It is possible
but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not
equal to c;

It is impossible for TWLS to be c AND for OWLS to be isotropic AND for
OWLS to not be equal to c.

It is only impossible for an indoctrinated SRian. OWLS can be isotropic for
any specfic distance but the value of OWLS can be different than c. Much
like I walk isotropically at speed v1 and than I walk isotropically at speed
v2.

Ken Seto


the main issue would be the time it takes for
light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be
easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different
mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS.

Or comparing two extant experiments with different baselines, and
plotting the value of time of flight vs lever arm, the intercept of
that linear plot being the mirror delay. I've already pointed that out
to Seto, but he doesn't seem to grasp the notion.


A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
(Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.

And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
and GPS design specifications.

I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.


PD


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

kenseto wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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

wrote
on 25 Oct 2005 08:31:32 -0700
.com:

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Kenseto is slightly confused again, but it might have
been me. :-) In any event, scientists have measured TWLS
a fair number of times (correctly or incorrectly, I'm
not sure which -- probably a mixture of both, from the
high-precision measurements performed by various modern
scientific endeavors using lasers and mirrors to the
almost laughable (apocryphal?) attempt by Galileo using
shutter-lanterns and an assistant on a hillside somewhere
in Italy), and OWLS has been shown to be largely isotropic
(I don't know the error but it's small). It is possible
but extremely unlikely for TWLS to be c and OWLS to be not
equal to c;

It is impossible for TWLS to be c AND for OWLS to be isotropic AND for
OWLS to not be equal to c.

It is only impossible for an indoctrinated SRian. OWLS can be isotropic for
any specfic distance but the value of OWLS can be different than c. Much
like I walk isotropically at speed v1 and than I walk isotropically at speed
v2.

Isotropic means "same regardless of direction".
What this means is that if you have a light path from A to B and then
back from B to A, then if the speed of light is v1 from A to B, then it
is v1 from B to A, those two paths differing only in direction.

I think perhaps you are confused what "isotropic" means.


Ken Seto


the main issue would be the time it takes for
light to reflect off the mirror -- and that time can be
easily measured by moving the mirror (or using a different
mirror of identical make) and re-performing the TWLS.

Or comparing two extant experiments with different baselines, and
plotting the value of time of flight vs lever arm, the intercept of
that linear plot being the mirror delay. I've already pointed that out
to Seto, but he doesn't seem to grasp the notion.


A c'=c+v hypothesis has many problems -- starting with
various astronomical observations. Of course Androcles
trots out Aql1493 on a regular basis as though it means
something. I'm not sure what it means, but doubt that it's
proof of much without a lot more substantiating information
from other star systems -- one of which would be the double
neutron star system J0737-3039, which among other things
confirms general relativity very nicely. There's also Algol
(Beta Persei) and Delta Cephei to explain properly. SR does
the job reasonably well in both cases, AFAIK.

And then there's the lab experiments, LHC design specifications,
and GPS design specifications.

I'm not seeing any particular inconsistency regarding c'=c here.


PD


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

kenseto wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
ups.com...

kenseto wrote:
"PD" wrote in message
oups.com...

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??

Ken Seto

Which SRian is that?

Tom Roberts??
BTW if TWLS or OWLS have been measure since 1986 (?) what were the
results??
What were the results for TWLS and OWLS before 1986(?)....ie before the
definition for a meter was define as 1/299,792 458 light-second?

Ken, I've already responded in another thread how particle accelerators
have clearly measured a One Way Limiting Speed.

No you said it measures time dilation. In order to measure OWLS you have to
have two spatially separated and synchronized clocks.

No. From 10/25, and I quote myself:
=====================
Well, let's define the measurement a little differently. I would argue
that we have lots of OWLS measurements where L stands for "limiting".
One simple example is the particle accelerator, either linear or
circular. Here you have particles that are going ONE WAY and despite
gammas of a thousand or more, do not exceed that limiting speed. The
speed is tracked by knowing the distance (either the length or the
circumference) of the track and the elapsed time for the particle to
make that trip. In the case of the circular track, only one clock is
required to make the time measurement. Note also that stochastic beam
cooling inherently relies on this limiting speed.

Once one identifies the limiting speed as being the asymptote of all
measured velocities of massive particles (take a plot of measured
energy versus measured speed and extrapolate that curve to infinite
energy), then one can ask if this speed is comparable to the measured
TWLS where L here stands for "light".


By the way, as I've repeated pointed out, we can measure light speed by

simultaneously measuring frequency (frequency comb) and wavelength
(diffraction grating), and do so for any source or observer motion.
Moreover, the time of flight and path length for light itself is
measured as part of standard beam instrumentation at sources like the
Advanced Light Source.


===================================


Roberts has already
indicated to you where to find literature on the measurement of the
speed of light prior to the restandardization of the meter (said
restandardization being justified by those light measurements).

He didn't give any reference. He sent me to a wild goose chase.

Ken Seto