Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally.
From: Cadwgan Gedrych (cadwgan_gedrych_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 12/04/04
- Next message: Daniel Weston: "Re: Time and Proper Time."
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- In reply to: ande452_at_attglobal.net: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 4 Dec 2004 09:53:06 -0800
ande452@attglobal.net wrote in message news:<41AAB181.7A46@attglobal.net>...
-snip-
>
> Relativity never claims that you can measure OWLS
> unambiguously.
>
> John Anderson
Hmmm ... what about SR's 2nd postulate?
"2. Any ray of light moves in the "stationary"
system of coordinates with the determined
velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a
stationary or by a moving body. Hence
velocity = light path/time interval
where time interval is to be taken in the sense
of the definition in Section 1."
A coordinate system indicates measurement - a one-way
measurement of the speed of light relative to any standard
inertial reference frame.
Doesn't SR depend upon one-way isotropy/invariance?
On the other hand, you have the following little thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&threadm=5e1797c9.0412030653.7de01eaa%40posting.google.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26lr%3D%26group%3Dsci.physics
- Next message: Daniel Weston: "Re: Time and Proper Time."
- Previous message: jahn: "Re: O'Barr 27 Nov 2004: Reasons for an ether."
- In reply to: ande452_at_attglobal.net: "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Next in thread: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Reply: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\): "Re: How to Measure OWLS Equal to c Experimentally."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|