Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152719783.086592.56610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152714538.189847.73120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:
"Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152632586.745664.228450@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:
The elapsed time for a division is calibrated with the speed of
light.

No, Ken. It's calibrated with a clock. And I think even you know
how the standard second is defined, and the speed of light
is not involved.

OK but I have problem with the calibration procedure.....

And that procedure is...?

The procedure that you use to determine that the sweep of the signal
accross
the scope is 10 nsec.

Which is that you compare the sweep time with a reference
of 10 nsec, and adjust the sweep time until they agree.

Whereas to calibrate a clock, you compare the tick time
to a reference tick, and adjust the tick time until they agree.

Now explain why these are fundamentally different and why
the first requires the speed of light.

Apparaently you used the eye ball method for the
starting time and the stopping time for the sweep.

No, I didn't calibrate the scope. I described a method for using
a calibrated scope to measure a time difference based on
markings on a grid. Yes, it's an eyeball method.

I think that is not very accurate.

It's not. It's exactly the same as using a tape measure,
which for some reason is for you the ultimate in distance
accuracy but is exactly the same eyeball procedure as using
a scope to measure time.

No I merely said that the two-way speed of light has never been measured as
per Einstein's procedure. You said you did that but then you said that the
you used the scope to measure the flight time and you admitted that your
procedure is not very accurate.

Exactly.

This was a teaching lab experiment. The point isn't to push
the bounds of accuracy. It was more like repeating the 19th
century Fizeau experiment, to give you a feel for what
happens in those types of experiments and how accurate
they are.

The results of those old experiments vary widely. One cannot conclude from
them that the speed of light is a constant.

Ken Seto


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... kenseto wrote: ... OK but I have problem with the calibration procedure..... ... Which is that you compare the sweep time with a reference ... I didn't calibrate the scope. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hiding oscilloscope serial number on eBay
    ... >>> deal about calibration, which is important to me also. ... > accurate, but that the scope can do what ... are way too specialized and technical an item to get away with selling bum ... 100% feedback on 500 transactions is pretty good..... ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: TDS 420 Oscilloscope
    ... > The manual cost me $160 at the time. ... > calibration, using some dedicated calibration equipment, calibration ... > The complete scope is serviced at the modular level only. ... > Jerry Greenberg ...
    (sci.electronics.repair)
  • Re: tektronix 2465B test 04 fail 10
    ... Jim Yanik wrote: ... >> probably scope need calibration or someting is damaged with memory ... > that the microprocessor loads into registers throughout the scope to ... run through the cal process. ...
    (sci.electronics.equipment)
  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... kenseto wrote: ... It's calibrated with a clock. ... OK but I have problem with the calibration procedure..... ... The procedure that you use to determine that the sweep of the signal accross ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)