Education Forums
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
dlzc
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:04 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
 |
|
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 27, 5:23 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 25 jun, 17:46,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we
can do is look for anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility
to measure an OWLS in very different ways.
For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate,
|
No. Einstein's postulate was entirely covered by the first
postulate. It was not "inadequate", it was superfluous.
| Quote: |
but for me it is precisely the contrary,
an argument in favour of the presence of
that postulate. This is not a new type
of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence
of the absolute space and time as a
pre-condition assumed valid, like a
postulate, even accepting him that it is
out of any possible experimental
measurement. By the way, if we go to
history, the first measurements of light
speed were OWLS, Römer and Bradley
astronomical ones.
|
No. A known distance was used. Automatically makes it TWLS
measurement.
| Quote: |
Resuming, possible or not an OWLS, this
is not for me a valid argument against
1905 Einstein’s Relativity theory.
|
Good, because this still is not at issue.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:19 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 7:04 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
No. Einstein's postulate was entirely covered by the first
postulate. It was not "inadequate", it was superfluous.
|
As an aside, there is apocriphical claim that there are some good
papers covering this subject. Allegedly David Mermin also wrote on the
subject. I could never find one, can you recommend any? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 2:40 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 27 jun, 07:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174948af-3a6b-4405-b75c-7e081f10ee7c@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein’s Relativity theory.
David A. Smith
(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
=========================================> Why would you respect a fuckhead like Smiffy?
Oh wait... you are just another fuckhead.
You know that this is my usual behaviour in this group. I respect the |
opinions or decisions of any person here, including yours. I never
insult a person or take into account an insult to me. By the way,
among the things that David doesn’t continue addressing with me are
the c ± v expressions in Jun30 1905 Einstein’s paper, the ones that
you are continually referring here. Why you reject to discuss this
topic with me? I remember yet our two months long dialogue that you
stopped precisely in this point some years ago, and I remain still
open to continue it.
- Ocultar texto de la cita -
| Quote: |
- Mostrar texto de la cita -
|
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174948af-3a6b-4405-b75c-7e081f10ee7c@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in |
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein’s Relativity theory.
(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
==========================================
Why would you respect a fuckhead like Smiffy?
Oh wait... you are just another fuckhead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dlzc
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:01 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 27 jun, 09:03, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Jun 27, 6:42 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am very curious about the Sun’s trajectory around the Earth’s centre
at rest. Don’t forget to describe it for me in your next post!
No, old imbecilic fart, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.
You asked if you could USE a frame of reference (ECI) tied to the
Erath in order to describe the relative motion between the Earth and
the Sun. Yes, you can, imbecile.
From where to you take the phrase “in order to describe the relative |
motion between the Earth and the Sun”? If we are using the ECI as the
reference inertial system, the Earth’s centre is known to be at rest
in it, without any mention at all to the Sun (or any other body in the
Universe). You where the one asserting that Sun’s movement can be
described in the ECI (re-read if necessary your corresponding own
post). Then, it is your unique responsibility to describe that
movement. And I will remain demanding you to do that.
| Quote: |
Are you trying to vindicate Ptolomeus? Even the
catholic church recognizes today that Galileo was right!
No , old fart, any inertial reference frame is as good as any other.
Describe the movement of the Sun in the ECI. How do you know that the |
Sun not revolve around the Earth? You made already the computations?
Can you advance me something about the trajectory? Maybe the Sun
remain always at rest? I maintain my curiosity!
| Quote: |
You will be very famous for your contribution about Ptolomeus system
being an inertial one!
And you are already a very famous imbecile, Rafaelshito!
If you can’t describe the Sun’s movement in the ECI, maybe the simple |
cause is that the ECI has not this possibility, contrary to what you
claim. But if you prefer to maintain the error, this is your problem.
I will try to help you. Hint: In any centre of mass inertial system,
you can’t describe the movement of a body not taken into account when
computing the centre of mass. A trivial example, in the 1913 N.Bohr
model for an hydrogen atom, you can only describe the movement of the
proton and the electron forming the H atom.
| Quote: |
Make a GPS in the Moon, including of course GR contribution. Surely
you will select for it the Moon’s centre inertial system
Stop, you cretin. If the GPS transmitter is on the moon, and this is a
GPS for the Earth, you still need to use the frame of reference
attached to the Earth (ECI) if you want an easy descrption of the
phaenomenat. What a cretin!
What I had in mind when referring to a GPS in the Moon was some Moon |
satellites near it to determine positions in its surface (or near it).
Why you skip my phrase “(or in Mars, Mercury, or in any other place of
our Universe)”? You pretend to use also de ECI for “an easy
description” in all those places? By the way, even for the case you
mention, the ECI can’t be used! You MUST use the centre of mass
inertial system corresponding to a body set that includes the Earth
and the Moon. And as you surely know, The Earth-Moon centre of mass,
even remaining always inside the Earth, is pretty far from the Earth’s
centre.
For any place in the whole Universe, you MUST compute always the
centre of mass inertial system corresponding to the bodies involved.
In this case, AND ONLY IN THIS CASE, the formulas of 1905 Relativity
will match the experimental measurements. Take this if you want as a
prediction, but not my one, it was known well before 1905 Relativity
that the centre of mass corresponding to any determined body set is
unique.
| Quote: |
You ARE retired from the KGB, otherwise Raoul and Fidel wouldn't let
you use the internet, fartso.
You failed to describe the Sun's movement in the ECI! Let me make the |
prediction that you will continue in that situation for the rest of
your life (the same as karandash2 trying to say what type of energy is
E_0 in the Sep27 1905 Einstein's paper).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:04 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 11:03 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear Dono:
On Jun 27, 7:19 am, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
On Jun 27, 7:04 am,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
No. Einstein's postulate was entirely
covered by the first postulate. It was
not "inadequate", it was superfluous.
As an aside, there is apocriphical claim
that there are some good papers covering
this subject. Allegedly David Mermin also
wrote on the subject. I could never find
one, can you recommend any?
No OWLS:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/9b8f8de58cf...
... possibly referring to this Zhang ...http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/374db19e1db...
Second postulate superfluous:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4a8068f0698...
... click on "More options" then "View thread"
|
Thank you, Dave
This post by Stephen Speicher is just great:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/633644ebe48287d0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:11 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 12:01 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| Quote: |
On 27 jun, 09:03, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:> On Jun 27, 6:42 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
I am very curious about the Sun’s trajectory around the Earth’s centre
at rest. Don’t forget to describe it for me in your next post!
No, old imbecilic fart, the Sun does not revolve around the Earth.
You asked if you could USE a frame of reference (ECI) tied to the
Erath in order to describe the relative motion between the Earth and
the Sun. Yes, you can, imbecile.
From where to you take the phrase “in order to describe the relative
motion between the Earth and the Sun”? If we are using the ECI as the
reference inertial system, the Earth’s centre is known to be at rest
in it, without any mention at all to the Sun (or any other body in the
Universe). You where the one asserting that Sun’s movement can be
described in the ECI (re-read if necessary your corresponding own
post). Then, it is your unique responsibility to describe that
movement. And I will remain demanding you to do that.> > Are you trying to vindicate Ptolomeus? Even the
catholic church recognizes today that Galileo was right!
No , old fart, any inertial reference frame is as good as any other..
Describe the movement of the Sun in the ECI. How do you know that the
Sun not revolve around the Earth? You made already the computations?
Can you advance me something about the trajectory? Maybe the Sun
remain always at rest? I maintain my curiosity!> > You will be very famous for your contribution about Ptolomeus system
being an inertial one!
And you are already a very famous imbecile, Rafaelshito!
If you can’t describe the Sun’s movement in the ECI, maybe the simple
cause is that the ECI has not this possibility, contrary to what you
claim. But if you prefer to maintain the error, this is your problem.
I will try to help you.
|
How dumb are you, Rafaelshito? Don't you know that all motion is
realtive?
Relax, you don't have to answer that, from what you have been posting
the answer is quite obvious.
| Quote: |
Stop, you cretin. If the GPS transmitter is on the moon, and this is a
GPS for the Earth, you still need to use the frame of reference
attached to the Earth (ECI) if you want an easy descrption of the
phaenomenat. What a cretin!
What I had in mind when referring to a GPS in the Moon was some Moon
satellites near it to determine positions in its surface (or near it).
|
So?
| Quote: |
Why you skip my phrase “(or in Mars, Mercury, or in any other place of
our Universe)”?
|
So?
| Quote: |
You pretend to use also de ECI for “an easy
description” in all those places?
|
Yes, old fart, you can always find the appropriate frame of reference
that allows you to describe
the motion in the most convenient way.
| Quote: |
By the way, even for the case you
mention, the ECI can’t be used! You MUST use the centre of mass
inertial system corresponding to a body set that includes the Earth
and the Moon.
|
What gives you this very bright idea?
| Quote: |
And as you surely know, The Earth-Moon centre of mass,
even remaining always inside the Earth, is pretty far from the Earth’s
centre.
|
True, but it has nothing to do with GPS.
| Quote: |
For any place in the whole Universe, you MUST compute always the
centre of mass inertial system corresponding to the bodies involved.
|
Says who? You?
| Quote: |
In this case, AND ONLY IN THIS CASE, the formulas of 1905 Relativity
will match the experimental measurements.
|
Bzzt, no.
| Quote: |
Take this if you want as a
prediction, but not my one, it was known well before 1905 Relativity
that the centre of mass corresponding to any determined body set is
unique.
|
True. So what?
| Quote: |
You failed to describe the Sun's movement in the ECI!
|
I leave this to you as the dullest imbecile approaching Ken Shito's
IQ.
| Quote: |
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
|
So, when did you retire from the Securidad, Rafaelshito? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
dlzc
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:13 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 2:04 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
...
Yes. Stephen was a treasure trove, and is missed.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Dono
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 9:52 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 2:13 pm, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Sigh  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On 27 jun, 09:04, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 27, 5:23 am, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 jun, 17:46,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:
...
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we
can do is look for anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility
to measure an OWLS in very different ways.
For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate,
No. Einstein's postulate was entirely covered by the first
postulate. It was not "inadequate", it was superfluous.
I don’t agreed. You can’t deduce in any way postulate 2 from postulate |
1, owed to the definition about what time is it made in paragraph 1
and included in postulate 2 at the beginning of paragraph 2. That
definition is just the contrary of “superfluous”, it is “essential”.. I
know the argument behind your assertion (if vacuum light speed is c in
some frame, the ether, it can be considered a Nature law, and then the
same in all frames by postulate 1; hence postulate 2 is derived from
postulate 1). The flaw in that deduction is that the result is in
contradiction with the prevailing ideas in 1905 about what time is it.
Vacuum light speed in all the inertial frames different from the ether
has in 1905 values different from c (used in the design of the M&M
experiment). With the new definition about what time is it and
included in postulate 2, Einstein makes compatible postulate 2 with
postulate 1, very different to deriving 2 from 1.
| Quote: |
but for me it is precisely the contrary,
an argument in favour of the presence of
that postulate. This is not a new type
of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence
of the absolute space and time as a
pre-condition assumed valid, like a
postulate, even accepting him that it is
out of any possible experimental
measurement. By the way, if we go to
history, the first measurements of light
speed were OWLS, Römer and Bradley
astronomical ones.
No. A known distance was used. Automatically makes it TWLS
measurement.
Why? I don’t see any light ray returning to its origin that can be |
considered "a second way". To know some parameter is a very common
resource in any kind of measurements.
| Quote: |
Resuming, possible or not an OWLS, this
is not for me a valid argument against
1905 Einstein’s Relativity theory.
Good, because this still is not at issue.
I don’t understand your short comment, maybe owed to my deficient |
English. My intention was to write “possible or not an OWLS
measurement”, and I have some doubt about the meaning of the "at
issue" part. Please, clear it to me if you consider necessary in a
next post.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Androcles
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:31 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5c10e94d-83ab-4d68-a11d-80969c2f2d9d@l28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
On 27 jun, 07:53, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics> wrote:
| Quote: |
rvall...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:174948af-3a6b-4405-b75c-7e081f10ee7c@h1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On 25 jun, 17:46, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
Dear rvall...:
On Jun 25, 12:47 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
On 20 jun, 11:13,dlzc<dl...@cox.net> wrote:> Dear rvallshg:
...
For me has no sense at all to demand a
measurement of something DEFINED and
incorporated in a postulate.
There are many here that disagree with
you. Better to allow it, and let Nature
be the arbiter.
You said before that only TWLS measurements
are possible. Then, how can we know about
the Nature decision if it is a constant
vacuum light speed in any inertial frame?
As I have already said, we can't. All we can do is look for
anisotropy.
We are evaluating the supposed impossibility to measure an OWLS in
very different ways. For you it is an argument to support the
inadequacy of Einstein’s second postulate, but for me it is precisely
the contrary, an argument in favour of the presence of that postulate.
This is not a new type of problem in Physics. Since Newton’s
“Principia…” he considered the existence of the absolute space and
time as a pre-condition assumed valid, like a postulate, even
accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement.
By the way, if we go to history, the first measurements of light speed
were OWLS, Römer and Bradley astronomical ones. Resuming, possible or
not an OWLS, this is not for me a valid argument against 1905
Einstein’s Relativity theory.
David A. Smith
(I notice that you skip many things of my last post, considered by me
very important ones, but I respect your decisions).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
==========================================
Why would you respect a fuckhead like Smiffy?
Oh wait... you are just another fuckhead.
You know that this is my usual behaviour in this group. I respect the |
opinions or decisions of any person here, including yours. I never
insult a person or take into account an insult to me. By the way,
among the things that David doesn’t continue addressing with me are
the c ± v expressions in Jun30 1905 Einstein’s paper, the ones that
you are continually referring here. Why you reject to discuss this
topic with me? I remember yet our two months long dialogue that you
stopped precisely in this point some years ago, and I remain still
open to continue it.
===============================================
Mathematics has nothing to do with respect, opinion or decision, and
everything to do with proof.
IF Einstein said
some function of x'/(c+v) is equal to that same function of x'/(c-v)
THEN
Einstein was an idiot who didn't understand mathematics.
ELSE ... (there is no else, he did say it).
Talking about actual experiments are irrelevant.
As far as you are concerned, you just want to argue and
your arguments get increasingly ridiculous as they go further
into mysticism and away from logic and mathematics.
Einstein's THIRD postulate, which you are too stupid to recognise
IS a postulate (and false) is:
QUOTE
the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it
requires
to travel from B to A.
UNQUOTE
Now what possible opinion could you have that can change that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:04 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
On Jun 27, 9:04 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
No. A known distance was used. Automatically makes it TWLS
measurement.
|
Surely in Romer's measurement the light only goes One Way making it
an OWLS measurement.
If you define OWLS measurements as light going only one way AND
traversing an unknown distance, then it's for sure an impossible task.
By the same token, I don't know how to measure the TWLS by reflecting
light off a mirror on the moon if I don't know how far away the moon
is.
I guess I could measure the time as, say, 3 seconds and say the moon
was 1.5 "light seconds" away and do the following calculation:
d = 3 light seconds = 3 x c x t
t = 3 seconds
v = d/t = 3ct/3t = c
But that doesn't really get me very far!
How do YOU measure the speed of light (or anything) travelling an
unkown distance?
Love,
Jenny |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear rvallshg:
<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f33c4571-18c0-4d49-8c20-a3965b2552bd@w1g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
....
| Quote: |
... By the way, if we go to
history, the first measurements of light
speed were OWLS, Römer and Bradley
astronomical ones.
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Why? I don’t see any light ray returning to
its origin that can be considered "a
second way".
|
They inferred a speed by... measuring the difference in time...
and dividing that into *a known distance*.
| Quote: |
To know some parameter is a very common
resource in any kind of measurements.
|
.... which carries a "payload" you are apparently not aware of, or
not willing to accept. A known distance is a "remote Einstein
synchronized clock", hence a TWLS measurement must result. So
you can only look for anisotropy.
| Quote: |
Resuming, possible or not an OWLS, this
is not for me a valid argument against
1905 Einstein’s Relativity theory.
Good, because this still is not at issue.
I don’t understand your short comment,
|
I get tired of being dragged away from the OPs "question", into
your interminable and single-minded discussion of a paper 103
years old.
| Quote: |
maybe owed to my deficient English. My
intention was to write “possible or not an
OWLS measurement”, and I have some
doubt about the meaning of the "at issue"
part. Please, clear it to me if you consider
necessary in a next post.
|
You cease to discuss the OPs question, and insist on discussing
something you feel to be related. I do not feel it to be
related, and the OP has stopped responding on this thread. I
have lost interest.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: Who is who? |
|
|
Dear Yuancur:
<Yuancur@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d589abe2-7190-4927-9ba0-271d244c5d00@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 27, 9:04 am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
....
| Quote: |
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Surely in Romer's measurement the light only
goes One Way making it an OWLS measurement.
|
How did the distance get known? Two (and more for accuracy)
successive measurements, and clocks to determine velocity, and
angles to establish where in the trajectory. Jupiter becomes a
remote synchronized clock. The distance becomes a TWLS
established value.
A known distance carries a payload you either ignore by choice,
or are not aware of. Which is it for you?
The fact that the light from Jupiter's moons arrives to us on a
one way path, does not mean that we have not already laid the
problem out such that it can only return c for the speed of
light.
And understand, I am not arguing that light speed is not c over a
one way path. It is just that Nature is telling us that such
"mental masturbation" is a waste of time. We cannot know what it
"really" is over that path.
David A. Smith |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
97 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
