Does light have a tail?

[Right Divider]

LOL, Lets see if this can get the tooth out... Mr. Anonymous: Can/does a Tachometer measure the approximate number of rotation's in time?

My name is not "Mr. Anonymous".

Dare I risk the tooth came out OK, I dare.

Do you object to the use of an "accurate" tachometer, that is demonstrably accurate/acceptable to you, in the context of a conceptual model to discover the one way speed of light.

YOU are the one that brought up the term "accurate".

FYI Accuracy is not a part of conceptual modeling. Accuracy comes in to play in latter phases of a project.

Then why did you bring up the term?

In the conceptual phase of development accuracy is assumed to be within the range of acceptable error. During the phase of engineering and or construction the feasibility of the project will be likely discovered. If the model does not meet the accuracy and or is technologically out of reach, the concept may or may not survive as viable. At this point I am only arguing the concept, nothing more.

So why did you use the term "accurate"?

 

[tieman55]

So, can we agree that accuracy is not important at this stage?

My name is not "Mr. Anonymous".

YOU are the one that brought up the term "accurate".

Then why did you bring up the term?

So why did you use the term "accurate"?

Staff Edit - Real names are not permitted unless you are a public figure - now stop it.

I brought up the term "accuracy" as I was foolishly sucked into one of your purposefully evasive responses, I will struggle not to do that again.

Why do you avoid straight forward questions: Like, is the use of a tachometer in the conceptual model for discovering the one way speed of light objectionable?

 

[Right Divider]

[Staff Edit]

I'm Right Divider on an Internet Forum.

Why do you avoid straight forward questions: Like, is the use of a tachometer in the conceptual model for discovering the one way speed of light objectionable?

You still have the fundamental issue of clock synchronization.

 

[tieman55]

I'm Right Divider on an Internet Forum.

You still have the fundemental issue of clock synchronization.

Right Divider? [Staff Edit]

Fundemental? maybe you should turn on your spell checker.

BTW, so much for you reading my conceptual idea. "clock synchronization" is not applicable in my conceptual model.

I use only use one clock, so there is no synchronization. and the one clock measures zero time. Using one clock has many advantages, you can measure before and after the predicted time, a negative time, so to speak.

If you would just answer my extremely easy and straight forward questions, we can get to clocks one baby step at a time.

Is using a tachometer, defined by you, acceptable in a conceptual model, of a rotating laser, in an attempt to discover the one way speed of light? that is me praying for a yes or a no.

 

[Right Divider]

Right Divider? Do I address you as Ms or Mr. ? I can't quite stomach the thought of asking you your pronouns, so I will not do so.

My pronouns are Cheech and Chong.

Fundemental? maybe you should turn on your spell checker.

You expect spelling perfection on an Internet Forum. You are special.

BTW, so much for you reading my conceptual idea. "clock synchronization" is not applicable in my conceptual model.

Sorry.

I use only use one clock, so there is no synchronization. and the one clock measures zero time. Using one clock has many advantages, you can measure before and after the predicted time, a negative time, so to speak.

If you would just answer my extremely easy and straight forward questions, we can get to clocks one baby step at a time.

Is using a tachometer, defined by you, acceptable in a conceptual model, of a rotating laser, in an attempt to discover the one way speed of light? that is me praying for a yes or a no.

I hope that your idea works out. Since you'll be the first and celebrated by all.

 

[tieman55]

My pronouns are Cheech and Chong.

You expect spelling perfection on an Internet Forum. You are special.

Sorry.

I hope that your idea works out. Since you'll be the first and celebrated by all

Thank you.

The idea behind posting my concept here, was for an on point critical analysis, I still have hope of finding some on TOL. So please, with all sincerity, if you see, know problems with my concept, please let me know, I would love to hear them . . . as I don't see them.

 

[Sherman]

Staff Notice.

This is not Facebook. This is the last time I am going to say this. No real names unless you run a show on here such as Dominic Enyart Live. I am going to start handing out infractions for disruptive behavior if you do not stop picking at members about their usernames.

 

[tieman55]

Staff Notice.

This is not Facebook. This is the last time I am going to say this. No real names unless you run a show on here such as Dominic Enyart Live. I am going to start handing out infractions for disruptive behavior if you do not stop picking at members about their usernames.

In an effort to understand your comment, am I in violation of the TOL rules, if I point out as I have said and as Bob Enyart taught that "anonymity" leads to bad things?

Am I in violation for using my real name in a post?

Am I in violation for encouraging, in a Christian way, the use of real names?

Thanks for your time,

Staff Edit

Please do not post personal info on the public boards.

 

[Sherman]

You are being a troll by bothering users about this. Right now this site is in flux because Bob passed and is now in the hands of his son Dominic. I am one of the policy makers on this site. TOL is not going to become Facebook. We will remove you as a troll if you keep bothering members about this. I have been deleting your name, because you are using it to troll and set yourself above others.

Your being pest about names does violate part of rule three.

3. Thou SHALL NOT be intentionally blasphemous or unnecessarily disruptive. Emphasis on "unnecessarily disruptive." We will ban you if you are presenting yourself as an unneeded distraction (yes this is subjective - live with it). Be mindful of the spirit of the discussion.


And at the bottom:

Please do not marginalize TOL threads or TOL members, the topics and threads that interest some TOL members might not interest you. Just ignore threads and TOL members that do not interest you.

You are marginalizing members because they do not want to give out personal information including their names. Real names can lead to things such as online stalking.

This topic is done. Do not bring it up again. It will lead to infractions and even a ban from the site.

 

[Clete]

Do you object to using a clock to measure revolutions' of a laser?

It's not that I object, it's that it means your experiment doesn't overcome the issue of measuring the one way speed of light. So long as ANY clock is involved, it cannot be done. The point I'm making is that you aren't understanding the problem, not that you can't design experiments.

 

[Clete]

LOL, Lets see if this can get the tooth out... Right Divider, Can/does a Tachometer measure the approximate number of rotation's in time?

Dare I risk the tooth came out OK, I dare.

Do you object to the use of an "accurate" tachometer, that is demonstrably accurate/acceptable to you, in the context of a conceptual model to discover the one way speed of light.

FYI Accuracy is not a part of conceptual modeling. Accuracy comes in to play in latter phases of a project. In the conceptual phase of development accuracy is assumed to be within the range of acceptable error. During the phase of engineering and or construction the feasibility of the project will be likely discovered. If the model does not meet the accuracy and or is technologically out of reach, the concept may or may not survive as viable. At this point I am only arguing the concept, nothing more.

Staff edit - please use the correct member usernames - this is not facebook.

It wouldn't work! A tachometer is a clock, or more accurately, it uses a clock.

Look man, you really need to watch this video. It explains the issue as clearly as it is possible to explain it. If you skip the ad at the end, ti'll only take 17 minutes and it'll save us all a bunch of needless back and forth. At the 8:30 mark, he talks about how scientists have been trying to figure out how to measure the one way speed of light for over a hundred years and have failed, even when they thought they'd succeeded. At 11:24 he states what is the bottom line...

"We need synchronized clocks in order to measure the one way speed of light but you need to know the one way speed of light in order to synchronize our clocks."

 

[tieman55]

The video says nothing about a tachometers.

In the video, Clocks are used to measure the round trip speed of light.

Do you object to clocks being used to measure the round trip speed of light?

 

[Right Divider]

In the video, Clocks are used to measure the round trip speed of light.

The video shows why clocks CANNOT be used to measure the ONE WAY speed of light.

Do you object to clocks being used to measure the round trip speed of light?

So you completely missed the point of the video... round trip is NOT a problem... ONE WAY is.

 

[tieman55]

A very very, extremely sincere question, why is everyone on TOL so defensive?

The purpose of the question was in a sincere effort to discover which clocks are objectionable to you, and which clocks are acceptable to you. Or if all clocks are objectionable you can go with that.

If you would so kindly go through the list of six different uses of clocks below and answer which clocks are acceptable to use in the format they are associated with and ONLY in their context.

Clocks that are used in GPS? or in other words, is GPS to some degree accurate?

Clocks used in range finders? or in other words are range to some degree accurate?

A Clock that is used to measure the round trip speed of light?

Clocks that are used in a tachometer? or in other words are tachometers to some degree accurate?

Clocks that are used in a laser beam? in other words do lasers operate at a certain frequency range?

Clocks that measure a sequence of events? in other words can you use a clock to measure what
event happened first, second, third and so on.

It is hereby stipulated that synchronizing clocks at any distance is problematic and not acceptable to calculate the one way speed of light.

It is further stipulated that the use of a single mirror is also an unknown and therefor is also problematic.

With all sincerity, as one Christian to another, I humbly ask for a sincere response.

 

[Clete]

The video says nothing about a tachometers.

Tachometers are clocks.

Do you understand what a clock is?

In the video, Clocks are used to measure the round trip speed of light.

Do you object to clocks being used to measure the round trip speed of light?

Of course not.

 

[tieman55]

Of course not.

So you only object so certain uses of clocks, with all sincerity, can you please let me know what other clocks you object to.

Do you object to the use of in the context of the only the use mentioned:

Clocks that are used in GPS? or in other words, is GPS to some degree accurate?

Clocks used in range finders? or in other words are range finders to some degree are accurate?

Clocks that are used in GPS? or in other words, is GPS to some degree accurate?

A Clock that is used to measure the round trip speed of light? You said this one is acceptable.

Clocks that are used in a tachometer? or in other words are tachometers to some degree accurate?

Clocks that are used in a laser beam? in other words do lasers operate at a certain frequency range?

Clocks that measure a sequence of events? in other words can you use a clock to measure what
event happened first, second, third and so on.

 

[Clete]

A very very, extremely sincere question, why is everyone on TOL so defensive?

Who's being defensive?

Do you like it when you have to repeat yourself over and over again?
Do you like it when most of the substance of your posts go ignored?
Do you like it when direct questions go unanswered?
Do you like it when you get asked questions that could not be asked if the subject matter was understood?

The purpose of the question was in a sincere effort to discover which clocks are objectionable to you, and which clocks are acceptable to you. Or if all clocks are objectionable you can go with that.

No one has any problem with clocks!

Are you ever going to understand the issue?

If you would so kindly go through the list of six different uses of clocks below and answer which clocks are acceptable to use in the format they are associated with and ONLY in their context.

Clocks that are used in GPS? or in other words, is GPS to some degree accurate?

Not relevant to the subject. GPS systems ASSUME Einstein's synchrony convention (i.e. it assumes that light travels the same speed in all directions.)

Clocks used in range finders? or in other words are range to some degree accurate?

Range finders measure the round trip speed of light.

A Clock that is used to measure the round trip speed of light?

Once again, the issue isn't about the use of clocks per se. The issue is that such a use does not get the answer your proposed experiment is intended to answer. You seem to be trying to measure speed without the use of a clock, which is a contradiction.

Clocks that are used in a tachometer? or in other words are tachometers to some degree accurate?

Tachometers are clocks. Their accuracy is not relevant to the question at hand.

Clocks that are used in a laser beam? in other words do lasers operate at a certain frequency range?

Not sure what you're referring to here but it doesn't matter because no matter what you're getting at, it is not relevant to the question at hand.

Clocks that measure a sequence of events? in other words can you use a clock to measure what event happened first, second, third and so on.

Clocks are great for doing this for everything other than measuring the one way speed of light because, as was clearly explained in that video,...

"We need synchronized clocks in order to measure the one way speed of light but you need to know the one way speed of light in order to synchronize our clocks."

It is hereby stipulated that synchronizing clocks at any distance is problematic and not acceptable to calculate the one way speed of light.

Great! Progress!

How then does that not nullify your experiment?

It is further stipulated that the use of a single mirror is also an unknown and therefor is also problematic.

How so?

Are you suggesting multiple mirrors somehow negates that problem?

If so, how so?

With all sincerity, as one Christian to another, I humbly ask for a sincere response.

That's all you've been getting from me. I don't read every post so if someone else has been doing something different then I suggest you ignore them.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

A very very, extremely sincere question, why is everyone on TOL so defensive?

We are not. Your perception is wrong.

 

[tieman55]

Who's being defensive?

Do you like it when you have to repeat yourself over and over again?
Do you like it when most of the substance of your posts go ignored?
Do you like it when direct questions go unanswered?
Do you like it when you get asked questions that could not be asked if the subject matter was understood?


No one has any problem with clocks!

Are you ever going to understand the issue?


Not relevant to the subject. GPS systems ASSUME Einstein's synchrony convention (i.e. it assumes that light travels the same speed in all directions.)


Range finders measure the round trip speed of light.


Once again, the issue isn't about the use of clocks per se. The issue is that such a use does not get the answer your proposed experiment is intended to answer. You seem to be trying to measure speed without the use of a clock, which is a contradiction.


Tachometers are clocks. Their accuracy is not relevant to the question at hand.


Not sure what you're referring to here but it doesn't matter because no matter what you're getting at, it is not relevant to the question at hand.


Clocks are great for doing this for everything other than measuring the one way speed of light because, as was clearly explained in that video,...

"We need synchronized clocks in order to measure the one way speed of light but you need to know the one way speed of light in order to synchronize our clocks."


Great! Progress!

How then does that not nullify your experiment?


How so?

Are you suggesting multiple mirrors somehow negates that problem?

If so, how so?


That's all you've been getting from me. I don't read every post so if someone else has been doing something different then I suggest you ignore them.

Clete

I mention mirrors only because Einstein never said that the mirror used in the round trip speed of light was not problematic, so one, in my opinion has to consider that Einstein may have had that in the back of his mind. I believe whether or not entertained by Einstein, I believe mirrors are problematic, reflection/ deflection time. Mirrors don't have to be used in my idea, but it is open to the engineering.

Why do you assume arguments not made? These are not trick questions. The questions are only for the purpose to discuss the concept of my idea to measure the one way speed of light, just the concept.

It has been asserted by a few on this thread that you can't use a clocks in any manner, now I know that is an overstatement but I find many objections to the use of clocks were they are not relevant. I am trying preempt those arguments by getting to what clocks are allowed and which are not allowed.

Example: In my model/idea you have to know the distance at the time of the test of the targets. I am not asking if that is possible and please don't tell me it is or it isn't possible, that is an engineering problem, the only question I asking is the clock used in a device to measure the distance and just the clock, is that clock objected to.

All of the questions are in the same vain, if we can agree that clocks work in the devices they are used in. Then we can move on. These are not trick question they only asked to set a firm foundation on what is acceptable going forward.

 

[Right Divider]

I mention mirrors only because Einstein never said that the mirror used in the round trip speed of light was not problematic, so one, in my opinion has to consider that Einstein may have had that in the back of his mind. I believe whether or not entertained by Einstein, I believe mirrors are problematic, reflection/ deflection time. Mirrors don't have to be used in my idea, but it is open to the engineering.

Reflecting light back is a TWO WAY situation. Again ... not a ONE WAY speed of light.