Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: "rotchm@xxxxxxxxx" <rotchm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2007 14:40:15 -0000
MMX for instance showed the speed of light in two different directions was
the same .. but it didn'tneed to know what that speed was
To be more precise, it showed that the *twls* was isotropic. It did
not show that the speed of light (owls) was the same in all directions
& frames.
Thee is plenty of evidence to support constant speed of light .. nothing the
refutes it. You know that as well as i do.
There is (to my knowledge) no evidence to support constant owls.
Around the 1900rds, Poincare realized that the *then* procedures to
synch clocks (and measure time) did not permit to measure the speed of
light (owls). Those procedures permitted to only measure the twls.
Nonetheless, those procedures became the standard way to measure.
Since then (Einstein) and today (definition of meter), physicist have
redefined "time" (and "meter") in such a way that the *now* speed of
light (twls) is always c. If an experiment does not yield c, then that
experiment is no good by definition.
Speed *then* and speed *now* have different meanings.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Tom Roberts
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Dono
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- References:
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: bsr3997@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- From: Jeckyl
- Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Prev by Date: Re: So... Lerentz Contractions are *physical* not observered?
- Next by Date: Re: Relativity Paradoxes Explained
- Previous by thread: Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Next by thread: Re: "Relativity and Reasonableness Tests"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|