Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR

On Sep 10, 10:12 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 8, 3:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Ah, and what experimental history are you referring to in support of
this conclusion? Got any references to papers wherein can be found
puzzling experimental results from attempts to measure OWLS?

The supporting evidence is that no direct OWLS or TWLS measurements
were performed.

That's not evidence of a puzzling result. What evidence do you have
that they "gave up"?

They realized that SR can only claim the isotropy of the speed of
light in the same gravitational potential and that the value of of the
OWLS or TWLS is dependent on the distance of separation between the
clocks or between the clock and the reflecting mirror. That's why they
refused to do any direct measurement of TWLS or OWLS.

What evidence do you have of this realization? Is it written anywhere
in any paper by those experimentalists? Are there any data that drove
them to that realization?


By direct measurement I mean that the distance of
separation between the clocks was measure with a physical measuring
tape.

What kind of precision can you get from a physical measuring tape,
Ken? 1 part per thousand? 1 part per million? 1 part per billion?
How does that precision compare with the precision obtained by NOT
using a measuring tape?

That's irrelevant. What is relevant is that no direct measurement of
TWLS or OWLS were performed.

No sir, you have it precisely backwards, and I suggest you do some
basic readings about the methodology of science in general. There is
no defensible justification for doing a direct measurement in science
UNLESS it is demonstrable that doing so will improve the quality or
precision of the result. What you claim is irrelevant is in fact the
crucial lynchpin for proposing and performing experiments.

BTW what kind of precision do you get using the definiition of
1 meter= the distance light travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds?

This definition was not used when the experiments were performed.

How do you account for the clock drift in different frames????

If you have questions about how things are accounted for in indirect
measurements, then you read the papers to see how they were accounted
for. Experimental papers are very careful to go over sources of
experimental error and imprecision and how those are accounted for.

You saying, "Just do the direct experiment and you don't have to worry
about sources of experimental error and imprecision," would just draw
laughter from experimentalists.

IOW,does this definition varying in distance because a clock second in
different frames has different duration (different time
ciontent)?????????????

Using geometry to determine distance will eliminate the effect
of absolute motion.

Or are
you supposing that physicists don't want to publish puzzling
experimental results (heck, that might risk winning a Nobel prize --
can't have that) and so they will instead bury and conspiratorially
suppress puzzling results?

I don't know why. But it speaks volume that SR is based on the
constantancy of the one-way speed of light and no attempt was made to
measure it directly. You gave the excuses that the indirect procedure
is more accurate.

Not an excuse. Accuracy is essential for a proper experimental
proposal. Without that, the proposal is garbage.

It is an excuse....when SR asserts that the OWLS and TWLS is a
universal constant and physicists refused to do any direct
measurement. Instead they do istropy experiments because they know
that will agree with SR. The accuracy issue can be resolved after the
direct measurements are done.



But you failed to realize that all indirect
procedure involve assumption that eliminate the effect of absolute
motion.

You haven't demonstrated that. You've only claimed it. Repeatedly.
Without demonstration.

That's why you need to do the proposed experiments in the following
link to confirm my assertion:http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

Sorry, but an empty claim without a rationale or even any gleams of
experimental evidence at all is not a solid motive for an experiment.








The proposed experiments in the following link will measure OWLS and
TWLS directly.http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf

That's why they concentrtaed on measuring the
isotropy of the OWLS.

Ah, again you seem to have historical insight. Were you there?

No?

Also that's why they invented a circular
definition for a meter length - (1 meter = the distance light travel
in 1/299,792,458 second)- This circular definition garantees that the
speed of light is c as measured by all observers.

And that's the reason why they had to redefine the meter AFTER all
those measurements of OWLS isotropy and TWLS.

Isotropy of OWLS and TWLS does not mean that the values of OWLS and
TWLS are constant. I can walk isotropically at 3 miles/Hr or I can run
isotropically 10 miles/hr.

But if you walk in two directions and you measure your TW average
speed to be 8 miles/hr, then your one way speed in one direction can't
be 6 miles/hr, because then your one way speed in the other direction
would have to be 10 miles/hr for the average to be 8. But that would
be inconsistent with the isotropy experiment that says that the
difference in speed in one direction compared with the speed in the
other direction is zero.

You missed my point completely. I said that the value of both TWLS and
OWLS are distance dependent when the distance of separation is
measured with a physical ruler. So confirming OWLS and TWLS are
isotropic does not mean that TWLS and OWLS have the same values at all
distances of separation between the clock or between the clock and the
mirror

See below. You are unfamiliar with the experimental evidence, it
seems.




The ONLY way you can have a TW speed measurement of 8 miles/hr AND a
measured anisotropy of zero, is if the OW speed (unmeasured or not) is
ALSO 8 miles/hr.

The value of TWLS is distance dependent when the distance of
separation between the mirror and the clock is measured with a
physical ruler.


This is counter to experimental results. Multiple TWLS measurements
were done (BEFORE the redefinition of the meter), and they all had
different distances of separation, and they all produced
experimentally identical values of TWLS. I don't know what evidence
you have that there is any distance dependence of TWLS at all. In
fact, the evidence in says that TWLS is INdependent of throw distance.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Who is who?
    ... I continue without seeing any TWLS. ... known distance is the more normal way to measure an OWLS. ...  hence a TWLS measurement must result. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... OWLS or TWLS is dependent on the distance of separation between the ... refused to do any direct measurement of TWLS or OWLS. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... OWLS or TWLS is dependent on the distance of separation between the ... refused to do any direct measurement of TWLS or OWLS. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... OWLS or TWLS is dependent on the distance of separation between the ... refused to do any direct measurement of TWLS or OWLS. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Relativity
    ... the theory will always be proved true. ... To measure a speed, you need a distance. ... distance, you use TWLS. ... or whether or not it is possible to measure OWLS. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast