kenseto wrote:


"Kermit" wrote in message
oups.com...

So when the meter equaled 1/10,000,000 of the distance from the
equator to the north pole through Paris and we measured the speed of
light, it was accurate?

I have no idea what you are talking about.


That explains a lot!

I have a wooden meter stick in my room right
now. It is made of wood, and probably not accurate to more than a few
mm. If we were to measure the speed of light using this as the
standard, would its speed in a vacuum vary (within the accuracy of the
measure)?

Again I have no idea what yopu are talking about.

That too.



--
"It was the laugh of the Elder Gods observing their creature man and noting
their omissions, miscalculations and mistakes." Fritz Leiber

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:33:33 -0000, PD wrote:

On Jun 20, 6:50 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
roups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto

Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.


In other words: "I'm free to speculate anything I want about
quantities that are too small to presently measure, and convey my
complete confidence in that speculation while I'm at it."

....isn't that what Einstein did?
He knew nobody would be able to measure OWLS in HIS lifetime.

PD



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:38:00 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a
measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance that
light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is
measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the speed
of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world, and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto



Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two
quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.

Time flow is absolute and the same in all frames.



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:54:21 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:


When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.




The speed of light is the same for all observers, c.

wrt what, wormy?



www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:48:43 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:54:21 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.



The speed of light is the same for all observers, c.

wrt what, wormy?



The speed of light is the same for all observers, c. Every
observer measures the speed to be the same with respect to
observer. Is that a hard concept for you Henri?

Prove it, Wormy.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:52:20 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:


Time flow is absolute and the same in all frames.



Oooh, Henri, major problem! Measured time is affected by
relative velocity and gravitation. Space and time are both
malleable.

When you say 'measured time' do you mean 'time instant', 'time interval' or
'time flow'?


www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:48:43 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:54:21 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

kenseto wrote:

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that
the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a
second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light
in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's
frame.



The speed of light is the same for all observers, c.

wrt what, wormy?



The speed of light is the same for all observers, c. Every
observer measures the speed to be the same with respect to
observer. Is that a hard concept for you Henri?

So now you are saying that the speed of light is not defined? If evrybody
measures the speed to be c....what is the measuring procedure used? How do
they measure the distance? Do they use the current definition for a
meter.....that the meter is the distance light travel in 1/299,792,458
second? So that means that you are using the speed of light to measure the
speed of light.....right?

Prove it, Wormy.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin
mother.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 08:38:00 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:19:11 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

kenseto wrote:
"Kermit" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 17, 6:37 am, kenseto wrote:

Hey idiot anytime you use light speed to measure light speed is
circular. If you don't understand that then you are an
indoctinated
idiot.
"How tall is that tree?"
Gets tape measure and protractor and calculator
"32.4 meters, give or take a few centimeters."

Ah you are talking about measuring the height of the tree using a
measuring
tape. But
we are talking about using the speed of light to measure the speed
of
light. The current definition for a meter length is the distance
that
light
travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds. This means that yoy don't even have
to
measure the distance with a measuring tape. All you have to do is
measuring
the transit time.
Do you know why physicists refuse to measure the speed of light
using a
measuring tape? The answer: using a measuring tape to measure the
speed
of
light (one-way or two- way) will not give the speed of light equal
to a
constant c..
How is this circular? You measure a phenomenon in the real world,
and
get a value. IANAPhysicist, but this doesn't seem like a tricky
idea.

It is circular see above.

Ken Seto



Seto forgets that the speed of light (a constant of nature) is now
defined!
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/phys...edofLight.html

That's the speed wrt the apparatus which takes the readings of mu and
e.

What you don't understand Wormy, is that the values of these two
quantities
differ, when measured at the same point by relatively moving observers.

You wont find this written up anywhere because no experiment has been
sufficiently precise to be able to detect these differences.

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a
second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in
A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.

Time flow is absolute and the same in all frames.

Here you are talking about absolute time.....the rate of flow of absolute
time is the same in all frames.. However, clock time flows at different
rates in different frames. The passage of a clock second in A's frame does
not correspond to the passage of a clock second in B's frame. That's why a
clock second contains a different amount of absolute time in different
frames.

On Jun 22, 3:41 am, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:48:43 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:54:21 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.

The speed of light is the same for all observers, c.

wrt what, wormy?

The speed of light is the same for all observers, c. Every
observer measures the speed to be the same with respect to
observer. Is that a hard concept for you Henri?

Prove it, Wormy.


There is no proof in science. There is, however, experimental
evidence, Henri. Of course, since you refuse to let experimental
evidence sway you, then you're basically at sea without a canoe.

PD

In sci.physics.relativity, HW@....(Henri Wilson)
HW@
wrote
on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:41:25 GMT
:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 23:48:43 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007 12:54:21 GMT, Sam Wormley wrote:

kenseto wrote:

When mu and e are measured by different observers it is assumed that the
second is an interval of universal time. It is not. The passage of a second
in A's frame does not correspond to the passage of a second in B's
frame.....even SR agrees to that. That means that the speed of light in A's
frame cannot be compared directly with the speed of light in B's frame.



The speed of light is the same for all observers, c.

wrt what, wormy?



The speed of light is the same for all observers, c. Every
observer measures the speed to be the same with respect to
observer. Is that a hard concept for you Henri?

Prove it, Wormy.


There is no proof lightspeed is constant everywhere --
just very solid evidence. But one cannot prove lightspeed
is invariant any more than one can prove that a car can go
0-60 in 3 seconds while the car and the erstwhile prover
are standing in a dealer's parking lot.

In fact, for lightspeed it's worse; the only way to prove
lightspeed is constant everywhere is to measure lightspeed
everywhere, including the interiors of black holes (good
luck getting out) and stars (good luck getting *in*).
And once outside the parking lot one can't see what's
really going on.

Nevertheless, there are other derived phenomena (e.g.,
supernova) which can be introduced as evidence, and
Ockham's Razor can be used to slice away theories that
don't explain the facts -- scientific data gathered by
the community.




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's virgin mother.


--
#191,
Linux. An OS which actually, unlike certain other offerings, works.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com