Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:net@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 16:26:59 -0700
Dear Rudolf Drabek:
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151535096.343844.83690@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
....
So I wanted to setup an experiment that is so simple
and clear -for me, but dd1 said its nonsense- ,
that we can discuss it on friendly level until we
hopefully can agree about c +- v or c.
Such an experiment is not possible. The setup cannot invoke
known distances (equivalent to a remote synchronized clock),
because this is already TWLS.
This Universe will not permit determination of OWLS without
instantaneous signalling (I.S.), and I.S. is not possible.
So it becomes a religious debate, about something *completely*
unobservable. You choose one unobservable God or many... doesn't
matter. Unobservables are not Science's strong suite.
But you don't seem to want to retain this, so let's see what kind
of apparatus you come up with...
David A. Smith
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: Rudolf Drabek
- Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- References:
- c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: Rudolf Drabek
- Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: Eric Gisse
- Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: Rudolf Drabek
- c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- Prev by Date: Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- Next by Date: Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
- Previous by thread: Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- Next by thread: Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- Index(es):