Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR

On Sep 11, 10:24 am, kenseto <kens...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 10, 12:59 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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?

The evidences are:
1. SR is based on the OWLS being a universal constant but they refused
to do any direct measurement of OWLS.
2. SR had to invent a new circular definition for a meter length
(1 meter = the length light travel in 1/299,792,458 seconds)to
guarantee that the measured speed is c. This circular definition
eliminates the effect of absolute motion and any clock drift. Also
this definition is amount to using the speed of light to measure the
speed of light.
3. Physicists refused to use physical measuring tape to measure
distance when they are measuring the TWLS.
4. Physicists knew that the OWLS and TWLS are isotropic in the same
gravitational potential so they spend billions of dollars to validate
the one thing that can be validated experimentally about SR.

Sorry, Ken, those aren't reasons. Let me explain again what I'm
looking for.
1. You say physicists refuse to do certain things you want to see
done.
2. You then say that the reasons they refuse to do certain things is
that they knew -- that is, they had reason to believe -- that the
results would be surprising.
3. I asked you what evidence there is -- that is, what reason they had
to believe -- that the results would be surprising.
4. You respond that your evidence is that they refuse to do the things
you want to see done.

So you're telling me that the SOLE EVIDENCE you have that the results
would be surprising is that physicists refuse to do what you want to
see done?


Instead of hiding behind circular definitions why don't you SRians man
enough to do the experiments in the following link to proof the
validity of SR once and for all???http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf


I've already given you the answers repeatedly, and you seem to have
difficulty absorbing them.

1. A physical measuring tape will not produce a measurement value that
is of comparable quality or precision to measurement values obtained
by indirect means. You say that is irrelevant. Any experimental
physicist on the planet would disagree with you. Any experimentalist
reading an experimental proposal that dismisses the relevancy of that
will round-file the proposal directly just because of that alone.
2. The redefinition of the meter occurred AFTER the measurement of
TWLS and OWLS isotropy was performed with sufficient quality and
precision that a direct OWLS measurement with a tape measure would not
be able to improve on that result. There was no need to redefine the
meter to prevent that direct measurement -- it was already established
that the direct measurement would not be able to improve the result.
3. You say physicists have spent BILLIONS experimentally verifying SR.
You certainly have no data supporting that financial claim (as it is
wrong), and your apparent ignorance about how to fund experiments of
your own, let alone understand the cost of experiments already done,
is another good reason to round-file a proposal where you can provide
no sensible financial plan.


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.

But we measure all speed of any object directly so why do we have to
invent a circular procedure to measure light speed....IOW why do we
have to use the speed of light to measure the speed of light?????

We DON'T. We ALREADY measured the speed of light, BEFORE the
redefinition of the meter. We NO LONGER HAVE TO measure the speed of
light, as there is concensus that there is no direct measurement
method (least of all one involving a measuring tape) that would
improve on the measurements ALREADY DONE. You have certainly not
demonstrated that your method will improve the quality and the
precision of the measurement above those measurements ALREADY DONE.

There has NEVER been a measurement of the speed of light that has
relied on the definition of the meter in terms of the speed of light.

What you say is a flawed method of measuring the speed of light HAS
NEVER BEEN USED.


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.

But the distances of separation between the mirror and the clock were
determined geometrically using light.

No sir. Using light as a LINE reference in NO WAY makes reference to
how fast the light is moving. A geometrical optical survey ONLY relies
on the *straightness* of the beam of light, not on how long it took to
get from one point to another. It uses light because it is straighter
than a clothesline. If you have an experimental method to survey the
distance between two mountains that uses a physical rod or line that
is straighter than a light beam, then you should certainly recommend
it. Do you think a measuring tape is straighter than a light beam?

This eliminatesd the effect of
absolute of the distant object.

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.

So inventing circular defintion for a meter length is not laughable?


Not if the speed of light has ALREADY been measured with a precision
that can't be improved by a physical tape measure, and not as long as
any measurement of the speed of light doesn't use the definition of
the meter based on the speed of light.

Both of these being the case, no, it's not laughable at all.


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.

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.

Just as I thought any experiment that could potentially refute the
claim of SR is regarded as not rational. The are experiments that are
rational are the one that support SR....such as the isotropy
experiments.







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.

But the distances of separation for those were determined using the
faulty assummed geometric properties of light.

What geometric properties of light do you think need to be assumed for
a geometric survey?

For example SR assumes
that the leading edge of a light ray will hit the distant target.


No, it doesn't. Neither does a geometric survey.

PD

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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: 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: 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)
Loading