Re: OWLS Without Absolute Synchronization
- From: "Sorcerer" <Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 22:53:28 GMT
"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
news:vklef2hiqunbmfuh4s12dsohqu6vusoan2@xxxxxxxxxx
| On Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:11:47 GMT, "Sorcerer"
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
| wrote:
|
| >
| >"Henri Wilson" <HW@..> wrote in message
| >news:fc7cf2hohks1lf7da6mbt7b083dce4b9n8@xxxxxxxxxx
| >| On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 23:15:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
| >| <paul.b.andersen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
| >|
| >| >Henri Wilson wrote:
| >| >> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:13:19 GMT, tb2@xxxxxxx (TymBuk2) wrote:
| >| >>
| >| >>> .......OWLS Without Absolute Synchronization.......
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Place Clocks 1 and 2 at two nearby points*
| >| >>> on Earth's equator.**
| >| >>> *(e.g., the points can be 50 miles apart)
| >| >>> **(see crude diagram)
| >| >>>
| >| >>> . * .
| >| >>> - -
| >| >>> * * to Sun
| >| >>> + + /\
| >| >>> + + !
| >| >>> + + !
| >| >>> + @ +
| >| >>> + Earth's No. Pole + --------> orbit
| >| >>> + +
| >| >>> + +
| >| >>> + + /|
| >| >>> + + / clockwise
| >| >>> + + / rotation
| >| >>> + _ _ +
| >| >>> | |
| >| >>> 1 2
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Send a light signal eastward from Clock 1 to Clock 2,
| >| >>> having Clock 1 start on zero as the signal is sent, and
| >| >>> having Clock 2 start on zero when the signal arrives.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Wait 12 hours (per Clock 2) as Earth rotates 180 degrees,
| >| >>> then send a light signal back from Clock 2 to Clock 1.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> The signals travel one way in the same direction in space.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Compute the speed of light from the net elapsed time
| >| >>> shown by Clock 1 after subtracting 12 hours for the hold
| >| >>> period, and you will get the one-way speed of light for
| >| >>> a given direction in space.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Synchronization of clocks is irrelevant in this experiment.
| >| >>> The clocks need not be synchronized. They merely need to
| >| >>> have same rate, so the 12-hour hold period can be
| >| >>> precisely accounted for.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> Physicists need to show why this one-way speed of
| >| >>> light would not vary directly with Earth velocity.
| >| >>>
| >| >>> TymBuk2
| >| >>> tb2@xxxxxxx
| >| >>
| >| >>
| >| >> Why go to all this trouble? You are bound to get the answer: OWLS =
| >'c'.
| >| >>
| >| >> Light moves at c wrt its source. It moves at c-v towards an object
| >moving at v
| >| >> in the source frame.
| >| >>
| >| >> Since your clocks are in the same (supposedly inertial) frame, light
| >from
| >| >> either will move at c wrt the other.
| >| >>
| >| >> OWLS can never be directly measured (with absolute confidence).
However
| >it is
| >| >> possible to COMPARE light speed from differently moving sources by
| >measuring
| >| >> the time taken for their light to simultaneously traverse the same
| >spatial
| >| >> distance.
| >| >>
| >| >> For the only known practical way to do this, see:
| >| >> www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/moonrelay.jpg
| >| >
| >| >Why go to all that trouble?
| >| >The BaT MUST be correct.
| >|
| >| At least I've finally managed to get THAT truism into your brain.
| >|
| >| >If an experiment says otherwise, it must be because it is wrong.
| >| >A lot of wrong experiments are made. Not a single one got it right!
| >| >So why bother?
| >| >There is obviously no point in doing experiments.
| >|
| >| Yes there is. We obtain light curves like the dots in this.
| >| www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/lmc1.jpg
| >|
| >| Then we see how the BaTh predicts them so easily (red curve).
| >
| >A nice array of dots.
|
| Andersen is a dot worshipper...
|
| >Androcles
Have a nice array of rotating dots:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Wilson/RotateMickeyLarge.gif
.
- Prev by Date: Re: OWLS Without Absolute Synchronization
- Next by Date: Re: A Symmetric Twins Conundrum
- Previous by thread: Re: OWLS Without Absolute Synchronization
- Next by thread: Re: OWLS Without Absolute Synchronization
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
