Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152293802.077764.109160@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:
"jem" <xxx@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:etsrg.4060$nK.2382@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
kenseto wrote:

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

kenseto wrote:


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).

If that's the relevant issue then why don't you SRians do direct OWLS
and
TWLS measurements?? That would settle a lot of arguements.

The only one that is arguing about a direct OWLS measurement is you.
Nearly everyone else recognizes that it is a completely unnecessary
experiment, replicating previous results and measured much more
sensitively using methods more imaginative than your proposal.

The presence of one poorly informed individual who doesn't understand
this or doesn't accept this, is generally not considered sufficient
grounds for performing an experiment.


Yeah ....here's what you are saying: Even though that we (SR) posit that
OWLS is c but we don't want to measure that directly because we have other
arguement that says that OWLS is c. Don't you realize how insecure you
sound??

Ken Seto


.