Re: Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy

On Mar 21, 6:43 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
Dear xray4abc:

"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3ff69dc1-b2d5-4aa8-a6a4-5d8ed3d23523@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 21, 3:18 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx>
wrote:





Dear xray4abc:

"xray4abc" <lemhen...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:abcf10f2-27f1-4a78-9909-3df143fc5aa4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 20, 11:45 pm, dlzc <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
...
OK. Now by your knowledge, which of those
experiments does not use 2-way propagation
or reflections of light ? (Reflections falsify the
speed of light measurements!)

This is not correct. *Any* determination of
speed *requires* two-way measurement. Note
that any "standard distance" confers "two-way"
to any measurement.
Than should I conclude that there is no
real, direct experimental, evidence validating
the c=const. postulate?

If by your question you meant "one way", correct.  You should
also note that SR's second postulate is not required, since
Maxwell requires a constant speed of light as a result (not a
postulate), and Maxwell is covered in the first of special
relativity's postulates.

I am working right now with Maxwell's equations.
I'll let you know if I find something different.
Until now I took it as given the usual interpretation.
I have learnt from Jefimenko that things can be seen from
different angles and in different ways.
So, wish me luck! :-)

        Do not forget, I am just interested in
the subject of speed-constancy here and not
the speed value itself!  Note that, should the
light have "any" speed with respect to the
observer, this would not have any impact on
the measured frequency !  As such, the
speed of light is not an issue for me right now.

OK.

      ( On the other hand I doubt that " any
determination of speed requires 2-way
measurement" as you state above.

It is fact.

I sense a, kind of, "circus vicious" here.
But let's forget about it ,as it is not the point
here!)
   I am aiming to understand how c=const
can happen.

Learn Maxwell.  You will a "how", but not a "why".

But then, I want to make sure that I am
dealing with an experimental fact and not
just a postulate meant to build a theory!

Postulate not required, as previously stated.

  The fact that this theory gives good results
here and there does not impress me any
more.

I am sorry.

-(-1)=1 You know what I mean! (2 mistakes
can cancel each other giving a correct result!)

All theories we have are wrong.  They just happen to give useful
results oever a certain domain.  The domain for special
relatiivty is fairly broad.  Two mistakes cannot cancel
themselves out over the whole domain.

...

This increase of the mean lifetime is
supposed to follow the increase in energy,
so that the ratio of "disintegration" states
to the number of "relatively stable states"
is dropping .

The muon "sees" no difference in its energy
levels. How does it know how much energy
others see it having?
You think so?
               O/\/\/\/\/\/\O <--------F
Then, if you push the system of 2 bodies,
would they "know" how much energy they
should get?

Do you know *anything* about muons, and how they are formed?
They are formed in a single "impulse", there is no "acceleration
history".

Note that muons do not "live longer" if high
speed protons are shot past them... except
to the protons of course.
    My bottom line is : The muon behaviour
probably will be explained by quantum
mechanics without any SRT involved!

So you don't know any quantum mechanics either.
Probably not as much as you do!
But I understand it , and I feel it.
I have a great imagination at least, I have physics and
mathematics in my blood if not at the tip of my pen.
 *That* muons
have a "halflife" is described by quantum mechanics.  That is
halflife is some proportion of some other unstable system's
halflife is covered by quantum mechanics.  That the halflife is
so many microseconds in a rest frame... quantum mechanics can't
go there.
I would not be so sure!
Laws like the disintegration -law depend after all on the internal
structures of the entities involved, not as form but as constants.
This is where some work could be done!
Did they find the halflife, based on a study of the structure of
muons ?
I doubt that. You may be better informed!

 >Relativity, being classical, does.

I feel that it could be done without any relativity involved.
But, then why the headache? If no questions...no headaches!
You must be a happy man! Or not?

David A. Smith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Regards, LL
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Layman Q: wave funtion and measurement
    ... >> being a linear combination of eigenstates. ... choose a basis for it doesn't mean that such basis cannot itself ... > under an appropriate measurement. ... you say that we need the addition of the collapse postulate to ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: .Simple SR question...
    ... There is not a single measurement that demonstrates the ... postulate, very closely related, which says it just a bit more ... but it removes you from science or from ... though he had absolutely no experimental evidence of that mechanism, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Quantum Cryptography can not work
    ... measurement is given by the formula for the expectation value of the ... contradiction with the basic postulates of quantum mechanics. ... Not at all, the only "postulate" they contradict is Postulate 3, ... therefore the theory on which you are basing your predictions is not ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Who is who?
    ... incorporated in a postulate. ... accepting him that it is out of any possible experimental measurement. ... Einstein was an idiot who didn't understand mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Testing the oneway lightspeed constancy
    ... speed *requires* two-way measurement. ... also note that SR's second postulate is not required, ... So you don't know any quantum mechanics either. ... have a "halflife" is described by quantum mechanics. ...
    (sci.astro)