Re: Why SR? (was: Source Independency of Light Speed Without an Aether???????)

On Jul 2, 11:00 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 2, 3:02 am, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:9d2fd128-0fe3-43db-8f8e-634275ca04f9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

On Jul 1, 11:49 pm, "Whoever" <no...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bruce Richmond" <bsr3...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:3b21d130-b93e-4e7e-8486-9fe5c6ae61bd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




If it was possible to show that light speed is isotropic (perhaps comparing
wavelength and frequency of light going in opposite directions?) without
using remote clocks, then that would 'prove' the clock sync as 'correct' ??

I thought in science you could prove something correct, you could only
show what was not correct.  The fact that I can do experiments that
are in agreement with LET does not prove LET correct and SR wrong ;)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That should have read "could *not* prove something correct"
.

Quantcast