Re: Who is who?
- From: rvallshg@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:42:41 -0700 (PDT)
On 27 jun, 22:03, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear rvallshg:I continue without seeing any TWLS. To divide a time difference by a
<rvall...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f33c4571-18c0-4d49-8c20-a3965b2552bd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
...
... By the way, if we go to
history, the first measurements of light
speed were OWLS, Römer and Bradley
astronomical ones.
No. A known distance was used. Automatically
makes it TWLS measurement.
Why? I don’t see any light ray returning to
its origin that can be considered "a
second way".
They inferred a speed by... measuring the difference in time...
and dividing that into *a known distance*.
known distance is the more normal way to measure an OWLS.
A known distance is only that, a known distance. Read at the beginningTo know some parameter is a very common
resource in any kind of measurements.
... which carries a "payload" you are apparently not aware of, or
not willing to accept. A known distance is a "remote Einstein
synchronized clock", hence a TWLS measurement must result. So
you can only look for anisotropy.
of paragraph 1 of the 1905 Einstein’s Jun30 paper how he uses
Newtonian mechanics, Euclidean geometry and Cartesian co-ordinates.
Yes, Einstein established a procedure to synchronize two clocks
situated in any two different points of Euclidean space, but the
distance between the points exist with independence of if you
synchronize or not clocks in them. Your assertion about a known
distance being a “remote Einstein synchronized clock” is totally out
of place (I understand know why are you saying that a known distance
is related with a TWLS measurement).
You were the one introducing here TWLS and OWLS, claiming it as yourResuming, possible or not an OWLS, this
is not for me a valid argument against
1905 Einstein’s Relativity theory.
Good, because this still is not at issue.
I don’t understand your short comment,
I get tired of being dragged away from the OPs "question", into
your interminable and single-minded discussion of a paper 103
years old.
solution of the Ops question about 1905 SRT, and I accepted to discuss
it with you. And now you feel dragged away from the Ops question?
Notice you only now that the OP never put a second post? Now you saidmaybe owed to my deficient English. My
intention was to write “possible or not an
OWLS measurement”, and I have some
doubt about the meaning of the "at issue"
part. Please, clear it to me if you consider
necessary in a next post.
You cease to discuss the OPs question, and insist on discussing
something you feel to be related. I do not feel it to be
related, and the OP has stopped responding on this thread. I
have lost interest.
that TWLS and OWLS have nothing to be with the OP question, being you
precisely the one who introduced them here to solution the Ops
question? And after accepting me to discuss with you about what surely
you feel related, you then accuse me for doing what you do?
David A. Smith
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Who is who?
- From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)
- Re: Who is who?
- Prev by Date: Re: Space cannot possibly be curved under any circumstances, no way !!!
- Next by Date: Re: Relativity predicts itself false !!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Universal Velocity 1
- Next by thread: Re: Who is who?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
