Does the speed of light ONLY partially pass as being ISOTROPIC and that
is all ?

I say partially, because even to this date I know of no actual
measurement methods that do not include either round trip measurements
as part of the test, or do not actually measure speed at all, but
instead perform interference pattern tests as a sort of backup test.

In other words, the speed of light is not being measured
unidirectionally while it is being measured in all directions, and
neither is the speed of light being measured unidirectionally while the
test instruments themselves are moving across space at different test
speeds.


In my search, all I have found so far is an incredibly popular use of
ASSUMPTION.
__________________________________________________ __

-- Einstein's postulate: (a) The speed of light is constant ( The
same in all inertial frames, independent of the motion of the source
and the same in all directions. ).

-- Einstein's postulate: (b) Simultaneity is not an absolute concept
and depends on the frame of reference.

Taking these rules into account, any reliable method used to measure
the speed of light, can not use Simultaneity as part of the test itself
if the test is to be performed in numerous inertial frames.
__________________________________________________ __


The only test I can think of, would be to use two Atomic clocks spaced
far apart on the surface of the earth. Synchronization of the time
readings on these two clocks is not of importance.

At the time when the speed of the earth's orbit around the sun is at
its slowest, one releases photons at the location of Atomic clock # 1.
The time of release is noted. The photons travel across X distance on
the surface of earth, and then reach Atomic clock # 2. The time of
arrival is then also noted.

The difference between the two recorded times readings is noted and is
of final importance. What that the specific difference is in numbers,
is not of importance, but simply the Recording of " a " number, is what
is of value.

At the time when the speed of the earth's orbit around the sun is at
its fastest, the test is repeated. One then checks to see if the
number recorded, being the relative difference between the two time
readings, is still the same as it was when previously measured.

This then determines whether the measurement of the speed of light
produces the same results when the test apparatus is moving at
different velocities across Space.


Does anyone know of any test of this nature has yet been performed ?

THE_ONE

Dear THE_ONE:

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
Does the speed of light ONLY partially pass as being
ISOTROPIC and that is all ?
....
The only test I can think of, would be to use two
Atomic clocks spaced far apart on the surface of
the earth. Synchronization of the time readings
on these two clocks is not of importance.
....
Does anyone know of any test of this nature has
yet been performed ?

Why? It is still a TWLS measurement.

The two clocks are some distance apart. Note distance is TWLS
distance, no other kind is possible.

Then add the fact that your "X" only intersects the surface of
the Earth for one of the clocks. We have non-negligible velocity
around the Earth-Moon barycenter, rotationally, around the Sun,
above and below the plane of the Milky Way, around the Milky Way,
within the supercluster and so on. There is no absolute space.

David A. Smith

OK David, based on your statement of TWLS being the one and only, check
the info at the following web site pages

www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/3_spin.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/4_4d_2.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/4_4d_3.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/6_events.htm

and tell me if you can argue with such claims, and then tell me if you
can prove beyond argument that they are wrong in some way, all this of
course without using circular arguments created by using accepted
theories that have not been proven to be true or correct.

Note:
If a theory is correct, then it is perfect.
If a theory is perfect, it can then be connected to all else.
Therefore, any theory that does not lead to a Grand Unified Theory, is
either a flawed theory, or a perfect theory that is not understood by
imperfect minds.

The above site was written with they idea of starting from scratch,
such that any basics that are already accepted as facts or truths, are
to be cast aside such that one possibly rotten apple will not spoil the
entire basket of apples.

In other words, it was written with the awareness that the human mind
is flawed, and therefore the human mind can reach the point known as
certainty, while it is fact that to be certain of matters, one would
have to know of the complete entirety that surrounds such matters,
since that is the only true way that certainty can be justified.

Until that point is reached, one must depend on probabilities, NOT
false certainties.

Anyhow, tell me what you think.

THE_ONE

THE_ONE wrote:
Does the speed of light ONLY partially pass as being ISOTROPIC and that
is all ?

I say partially, because even to this date I know of no actual
measurement methods that do not include either round trip measurements
as part of the test, or do not actually measure speed at all, but
instead perform interference pattern tests as a sort of backup test.




Does anyone know of any test of this nature has yet been performed ?

THE_ONE

Looks like we got ourselves a new crank:

http://www.outersecrets.com/index.htm

There are a lot of one way light speed experiments. Now you can take
down your "masterpiece" website (it was reported to Cranks dot net).

I am way ahead of you, I already did report it to ( Cranks dot net )
for you LONG AGO, since this is the obvious, predictable, and expected
behavior of lessers, just as was stated by Arthur Schopenhauer.


Now that the predictable is taken care of, Go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG, or
proceed to run for the hills as cowards.

Ta ta.

THE_ONE wrote:
I am way ahead of you, I already did report it to ( Cranks dot net )
for you LONG AGO, since this is the obvious, predictable, and expected
behavior of lessers, just as was stated by Arthur Schopenhauer.


Now that the predictable is taken care of, Go ahead, PROVE ME WRONG, or
proceed to run for the hills as cowards.

Ta ta.

Good, kook.
Try reading the first 3 papers, once you understand them I can send you
more.

http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/

Dear THE_ONE:

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
OK David, based on your statement of TWLS being the
one and only, check the info at the following web site
pages

www.outersecrets.com/real/2_motion.htm

Nothing to do with TWLS. Appears to be total crap. I'll avoid
the rest.

www.outersecrets.com/real/3_spin.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/4_4d_2.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/4_4d_3.htm
www.outersecrets.com/real/6_events.htm

and tell me if you can argue with such claims,

Yes. Your logic.... isn't.

and then tell me if you
can prove beyond argument that they are
wrong in some way,

Yes. Your logic.... isn't.

all this of course without using circular
arguments created by using accepted
theories that have not been proven to be
true or correct.

No problem. Your command of the English language is your
problem.

Note:
If a theory is correct, then it is perfect.

No. A theory is correct if it has not be falsified.

If a theory is perfect,

Nonsequitur.

it can then be connected to all else.

Only if "all else" is pefect.

Therefore, any theory that does not lead
to a Grand Unified Theory, is either a
flawed theory, or a perfect theory that is
not understood by imperfect minds.

Third option: a theory that has a limited and well known domain
of applicability. This is what science is about... knowing your
limitations.

The above site was written with they idea of
starting from scratch,

The website is a joke. And you are the only one who doesn't get
it. I recommend you actually study the topic. Start with
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.

On the plus side, it is a very attractive joke. Meaning it
doesn't look like sh*t.

David A. Smith

The website is a joke. And you are the only one who doesn't get
it. I recommend you actually study the topic. Start with
"Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.

On the plus side, it is a very attractive joke. Meaning it
doesn't look like sh*t.

David A. Smith

It's his own website. He's shopping it to us.

Dear THE_ONE:

"THE_ONE" wrote in message
oups.com...
....
Granted, my English may be unique, but there is
always a reason for everything.

Why do you then insist that you are "starting with a clean
slate", and then posit so much that you have wiped clean?

I spent 8 years fading away into the nowhere and
nowhen. The cause was a nasty case of
Hypoglycemia. The brain was shutting down as
the result of this. Eventually I no longer knew
which was my right hand and which was my left,
which hand held the fork and which hand held
the knife, I no longer knew how to spell my
brothers name, I no longer had the mental
capacity required to tie a pair of shoe laces,
I no longer had any short term memory at all,
if four pills were placed in the palm of my
hand I could not tell you how many were there,
for 3 was now my limitation of visual group
recognition. I also had to read words letter by
letter, and then read a sentence over and over
and over until I could gain some understanding
of the sentence. I no longer had visual depth
perception. And the list goes on, and on, and
on,....

So you are telling me why you could not study before now. You
had plenty of time to whip up a new website, and affect an
attitude, but no time to study what you propose to "wipe clean"?

....
Please, please, hold down the applause. Thank you.

Done.

So, perhaps ( N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)) is correct
about my English, perhaps it does not contain a
suffice amount of conformative and impressive
structure.

Actually, the choice of words is fairly good, but the grasp of
logic is not present. It doesn't flow well. Perhaps with more
"sharpening"...

However, my experience created independent self
taught thinking,

Ah yes. "Everyone else is wrong because I don't understand it."
"I haven't tried to study, so everyone else should wipe the slate
clean too." How noble of you to share this with us.

and
eventually the reaching of my present understandings
that are revealed on my web site. But if I seem to be
a bit behind, perhaps you can understand why.

I understand why. I don't understand why you want to stay
behind. You've "carved your bit of turf", rather than following
any sort of path. There are many kooks who have done just this,
and post lures to get the unwary to come visit them.

Again, I will check the web site you recommended ASAP.

That wasn't me. I recommended a book. Here are my
recommendations:
http://hermes.physics.adelaide.edu.au/~dkoks/Faq/
http://www.motionmountain.net/
http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/sr/sr.shtml
http://www.mastep.sjsu.edu/resources/physics.htm
.... and last but not least ...
http://homepage.mac.com/keith.wilson...2/E1698628328/
.... which could apply either way. ;)

David A. Smith

To: David A. Smith

Thanks David for the recommendations.

The point I was making, is that after my recovery, I was not the same
person at all. The previous me grew up going with the flow. Going
with the flow, creates subtraction.

Beforehand to me, a city was a city. After the recovery of a fully
functioning mind, yet with little memory of the past, it was extremely
apparent to me that the city was designed for right handed people.
Evidence was everywhere, the doors were designed for right handed
people, the elevators have the buttons on the right hand side etc..
Yet before, I had grown up in such an environment therefore not
noticing the obvious.

And so when it comes to understanding the complete mechanics of
reality, this fresh awareness also bypasses any previous subtractions
of awareness of the obvious.

I just don't want to loose what I have gained.

I am moving slowly because I always first try to understand a concept
rather than using mathematics to think for me, meaning I prefer to keep
the works of my mind, within my mind, rather than doing external
mathematics which therefore produce Gaps in my step by step
accumulation of understandings. I don't want to accidentally step over
anything.

Blah Blah Blah.....

ANYHOW, I am now heading over to the web sites you recomended.

Sean