Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group


N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) schrieb:

Dear Rudolf Drabek:

"Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1151574564.789199.150040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) schrieb:

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.

But you don't seem to want to retain this,
so let's see what kind of apparatus you come
up with...

I thought the description is clear.
1. Two antennas at a cerrtain distance

Distance = Remote synchronized clock.
If I understand you right you say : one clock generator connected to
both antennas is the same as 2 synchronized clocks at the antennas.
O.k. but with my setup I have synch. with no drift between the clocks
(temperature differences of the fibres excluded and I have not
calculated the influence).
Originally I started the setup with 2 clocks but later for simplicity I
changed to one clock in the middle.

great enough to have a resolution a
magnitude greater than the wanted
detectable v, chosen to be +3 km/sec.
So if the distance is 9 km light needs 30 us.
This distance need not to be very accurate,
because it's calibrated out, using a non
moving signal source on Earth, with a
resolution of 1ppm is 9mm according.
If c+v would be possible, then it would
need 9/300003 is 30 us - 0.3ns = 9cm
deviation

|> Finding an anisotropy is one thing. Going from the anisotropy to
|> "c+/-v" requires knowing the distance. Distance is TWLS.
I think here I did a trick: At the starting post there are the
formulas.
Both signals are using the same distance. It is only necessary that for
both signals (spacecraft and calibration) the distance is the same and
not an exact defined distance.
For clarification again:

spacecraft | measuring distance |
or cal. signal antenna1 +9km antenna2
*------->--------------------------|---------------------------|
if cal. signal te = s/c =
30us
if spacecraft with some v tn = s/(c+-v)

if c+-v would be possible then tn = te(1 +-v/c) for v<<c
What we wait for is that tn is always te.
Even with an unaccurate clock I can reach sufficient accuracy.
The clock signal is always the same at both locations.

Is there still something I have overseen?
Thanks for your patience.
Rudi


How does light know how to travel at a certain speed in a
medium... like the air envelope around the surface of the Earth?
|> Do you think that will affect what you will measure?
To cancel this effect I can use the spacecraft itself for calibration
at certain time of the year, when Doppler is Zero. Then the
athmossphere should have no effect.

2. At each antenna there are 2 oscilloscopes
supplied with time marks of 1 ns. These time
marks are delivered from one non moving
source at equal distance to the both
oscilloscopes (practically half way between the
antennas) All devices on same sea level.

"Same TWLS distance."

The key of the experiment is to observe the
difference of propagation time of the sacecraft
signal and the calibration signal between the
2 antennas.

|> The moving spacecraft could only be "read" when it passed the
|> midplane.
I don't understand what you mean with that. The antennas are one behind
the other seen from the spacecraft or the cal. signal. Clear, this
condition is only valid for a short time per day.

|>There would be a continuum of "time offsets" as it
|> continued to orbit.

As I already said, I'm convinced of c = const,
so no time difference should be measured.
The Non Sirians, if they agree on the setup,
would no longer have an argument against
c = const.

There is no difference between SR and LET in this respect. So
the only people you are trying to get through to is the
ballistic-photon and dragged-aether folks. They do not respond
to logic, in case you hadn't noticed.

David A. Smith

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
    ... We are now in a position to measure this exactly with radio signals ... On Earth simply two antennas are placed at some distance, ... Measurements are done ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
    ... don't know the distance. ... We are now in a position to measure this exactly with radio signals ... On Earth simply two antennas are placed at some distance, ... If there is a difference Einstein is wrong ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
    ... Einstein fits good to the majority of effects in nature. ... don't know the distance. ... We are now in a position to measure this exactly with radio signals ... On Earth simply two antennas are placed at some distance, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • c = constant is still under discussion in this group
    ... We are now in a position to measure this exactly with radio signals ... On Earth simply two antennas are placed at some distance, ... Measurements are done ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
    ... don't know the distance. ... We are now in a position to measure this exactly with radio signals ... On Earth simply two antennas are placed at some distance, ... If there is a difference Einstein is wrong ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)