Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.

kenseto wrote:

"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:%Z7rg.519$nK.434@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:


"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:qAPqg.29245$FR1.10109@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


kenseto wrote:



"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:NGOqg.29244$FR1.13907@xxxxxxxxxxxxx



kenseto wrote:




Hey idiot.....how do you know what the average number of eggs in each

basket


is 10 without counting the number of eggs in each basket to figure out

the


average????

What difference does it make HOW I know? The point is that IF I know,
then counting them is redundant.


Hey idiot the point is that you don't know.


What do you think a test for one-way
isotropy is, Seto? Do you not realize that it's a test of the equality
of the speed of light in different directions?


I am walking isotropically in all directions does that mean that I am
walking at the speed of light? Do you realize that OWLS and TWLS can be
isotropic and can still have different values for light speed at

different

distance of separation between the source and the detector??????????

And you think this happens because the light stops for lunch at the
reflector? Have you done any research on experiments that measure
reflective delays? If the delay time were significant then it
*certainly* would have been factored out of the total round-trip time
when TWLS was determined.


No..... I think that the detector is in a state of absolute motion
vertically. This causes the leading portion of the light ray to miss the
detector and thus causes the transit time to be longer than what it is if
the leading edge had hit the detector. The longer transit time recorded
gives a lower value for the speed of light. This is the reason why the value
of OWLS is distance dependent. This also means that the value of TWLS is
even more distance dependent.

Of course that's pure nonsense, but it's also irrelevant to the issue of whether OWLS=TWLS (unless perhaps you think the light knows which of the two measurements is being made and behaves differently depending on which it happens to be).

As to why what you just said is nonsense, consider a reference frame in which a light source is located at the point (0,0,0) and a reflector is located at (L,0,0). SR specifies that the trajectory of the front end of a light pulse that's directed toward the reflector at t=0 will be P(t)=(ct,0,0) for 0<=t<=L/c, and P(t)=(2L-ct,0,0) for L/c<t<=L/c.

1. Do you think that won't necessarily be the trajectory?

2. Do you realize that if your theory says it won't necessarily be the trajectory then your theory contradicts SR, which means SR can't be a subset of your theory?

3. What different trajectory do you suppose the light pulse might follow? (Assume anything you want for the "absolute motion" of the light source and reflector).


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... The first two postulates of IRT are exactly the same as that of SR so SR ... of SRT. ... Seto, you claim to have a theory that says the trajectory of light is different than what SR says it is, but your inability to specify what that different trajectory is, ought to make it clear to you that you don't know what you're talking about. ... light source and reflector). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... I think that the detector is in a state of absolute motion ... which a light source is located at the point and a reflector is ... What SR specified is wrong if there is absolute motion in the vertical direc ... Do you think that won't necessarily be the trajectory? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... I think that the detector is in a state of absolute motion ... which a light source is located at the point and a reflector is ... SR specifies that the trajectory of the front end ... What SR specified is wrong if there is absolute motion in the vertical direc ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast