Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: "Martin Hogbin" <goatREMOVETHIS123@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 09:31:49 +0100
"Rudolf Drabek" <newsrudy@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:1151535390.609929.231830@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
You are wasting your time trying to measure OWLS.
So please tell me where is my fault in the setup .
In my view it's a OWLS measurement solution.
[Hogbin]
I am not going to analyse every mad scheme to measure
the one way speed of light. Better to give you some
ideas so that you can do it yourself.
To measure the speed of something, you need to
measure the time it takes to travel a known
distance. To measure one-way speed you
_must_ have a clock at the start and the finish,
that is to say two clocks.
By 'clock' I do not necessarily mean something
with a dial that ticks but any means to measure the
time. It could be an atomic clock, a quartz clock,
or even a clock that relies on the receipt of a signal
from somewhere else. Your two clocks need to be
synchronised with one another for the time-of-flight
measurement to be meaningful.
In your experiment, you need to ask yourself what
are the clocks and how are they synchronised.
Then ask what assumptions you are making in the
synchronisation process.
When you have done that, try this one. It is well
known that, if you sweep a laser across the surface
of the moon, you can make the spot travel faster
than c. In fact you can make it travel as fast as you
like. You can easily calculate the speed at which the
spot moves from the angular velocity at which you
sweep the laser and the distance to the moon.
Set up two clocks on the moon and use the spot of
laser light to synchronise them. Then use those two
clocks to measure the one-way speed of light.
My question. What is the hidden assumption in the
above experiment?
Martin Hogbin
.
- 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: Martin Hogbin
- Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: Rudolf Drabek
- Re: c = constant is still under discussion in this group
- From: Martin Hogbin
- 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: Why don't protons attract due to gluons and only with neutrons?
- Next by Date: Re: Is there anything everyone can agree on in this group?
- 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):
Relevant Pages
|
|