Does light have a tail?

[tieman55]

Your assuming arguments not made. I said "Mirrors don't have to be used in my idea"

 

[Right Divider]

Your assuming arguments not made. I said "Mirrors don't have to be used in my idea"

You're

I was simply pointing out the obvious based on this: "I mention mirrors only because Einstein never said that the mirror used in the round trip speed of light was not problematic,"

Of course it's not problematic because it measures the TWO WAY speed of light, which can be measured. "Round trip" means TWO WAY.

 

[tieman55]

You're

I was simply pointing the obvious based on this: "I mention mirrors only because Einstein never said that the mirror used in the round trip speed of light was not problematic,"

Of course it's not problematic because it measures the TWO WAY speed of light, which can be measured. "Round trip" means TWO WAY.

Your answer explains a lot. You are not aware of the argument that Bob Enyart made on RSR last year? I suggest you go the RSR achieves and listen to it.

The argument: Some Christians say that light is instant going one direction and 1/2 C on the way back. The reason they can get away with that belief is using Einstein convention as cover.

The rotating of a laser easily disproves that with no use of a clock.

 

[Right Divider]

Your answer explains a lot. You are not aware of the argument that Bob Enyart made on RSR last year? I suggest you go the RSR achieves and listen to it.

The argument: Some Christians say that light is instant going one direction and 1/2 C on the way back. The reason they can get away with that belief is using Einstein convention as cover.

It has nothing to do with "cover". The video what Clete posted clearly explains why the one way speed of light CANNOT be measured. You can fight that all that you want.

 

[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.

Doesn't seem relevant.

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.

And I am responding in kind.

If you use a single clock, you cannot measure the one way speed of light. It will always be the round trip speed of light.
If you use two clocks then those clocks have to be synchronized in order to measure the one way speed of light but you cannot synchronized them without knowing the one way speed of light which is what you're trying to measure.

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.

The use of clocks is not the problem, per se. No measurement of speed is possible without using some form of clock.
The issue is in either figuring out how to use one clock without ending up actually measuring the round trip speed of light or in synchronizing two clocks without knowing the one way speed of light. Either way you go, the result is the same, there is no known way to measure the one way speed of light.

Also, there was more than once when you directly stated that there was no need for a clock at all. Each time you did so, you contradicted yourself. You either used a clock and weren't realizing it or you weren't measuring speed. Either way, it was a contradiction. Any perception on your part of our objection to the use of clocks is generated by this line of reasoning. It isn't the use of clocks we object too. It's your implied attempt to both have and not have a clock involved in the measurement.

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.

There's more than one problem with this question. First of all, clocks do not measure distance. If you are using a clock to measure distance what you are doing is measuring the time it takes for something to travel between to points. That works great if whatever is doing the traveling is going at a known speed but that is exactly what is not known here. The question being asked is "Does light travel at the same speed in all directions?" or "What is the one way speed of light?" if the answer to that question is not known then any use of a clock begs the question[sup*[/sup] (i.e. it presumes the answer to the question at hand).

Also, another valid response to your question is, "Which clock are you talking about?"
If there's only one then how are you not measuring the round trip speed of light?
If there are two clocks then which one are you asking about?
If you say they are the same, then how do you know that they're the same? (i.e. How did you synchronize them?)

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.

Well, that's just precisely the entire point. There is no such firm foundation when it comes to clocks because of the way motion effects how fast they tick. It isn't a question of whether the clocks work, it's a question of being able to tell wether they are in sync with each other.

Clete

* The fallacy of Begging the Question occurs when an argument's premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.

 

[Clete]

Your answer explains a lot. You are not aware of the argument that Bob Enyart made on RSR last year? I suggest you go the RSR achieves and listen to it.

The argument: Some Christians say that light is instant going one direction and 1/2 C on the way back. The reason they can get away with that belief is using Einstein convention as cover.

The rotating of a laser easily disproves that with no use of a clock.

How?

Explain it to me again.

My bet is that any such rotating laser experiment uses at least one clock.

Also, if you can find a link to that RSR episode, please post it. I'd like to listen to it. (Never mind! I just found it!)

 

[Clete]

Your answer explains a lot. You are not aware of the argument that Bob Enyart made on RSR last year? I suggest you go the RSR achieves and listen to it.

I just listened to that episode. I can see no reason why their proposed experiment would fail to measure the one way speed of light. (My inability to see a reason, doesn't mean there isn't one.)

The argument: Some Christians say that light is instant going one direction and 1/2 C on the way back. The reason they can get away with that belief is using Einstein convention as cover.

The rotating of a laser easily disproves that with no use of a clock.

So my question from my previous post stands on this point. How would your rotating laser experiment disprove that the speed of light in one direction is no different than it is in another?

 

[Clete]

Your answer explains a lot. You are not aware of the argument that Bob Enyart made on RSR last year? I suggest you go the RSR achieves and listen to it.

So, the more I think about Bob's proposed experiment, the more I think it does sneak in the two-way speed of light.

The mirror that they have at one end of the bottle isn't the only mirror in the experiment. In fact, every particle of milk in the slightly milky water is a mirror and every photon of light that reaches those cameras is reflected light. As such, the experiment leaves us with the same basic problem as was described in the Veritasium video. There's no way to know whether the light travels at the same speed to the milk particle as it travels from the milk particle to the camera. And the fact that it goes from right to left and then from left to right doesn't help because the effect would simply be reversed but at exactly the inverse ratio and so it would look the same in both directions whether it actually was or not.

Now, there is the issue of running the experiment again with water vapor instead of milky water. I understand that the speed of light is faster in water vapor than it is in water but I fail to see how this would solve the problem described above. Regardless of the medium, you'd still be using reflected light to take a measurement of its speed and it would therefore be a two-way speed, by definition.

How am I wrong? (If I am wrong, it has something to do with the fact that the light is being reflected off to one side rather than straight back to the source. - I'm still letting this marinate in my brain for now.)

Clete

P.S. How do I collect my Chick-fil-A gift card?

 

[tieman55]

So, the more I think about Bob's proposed experiment, the more I think it does sneak in the two-way speed of light.

The mirror that they have at one end of the bottle isn't the only mirror in the experiment. In fact, every particle of milk in the slightly milky water is a mirror and every photon of light that reaches those cameras is reflected light. As such, the experiment leaves us with the same basic problem as was described in the Veritasium video. There's no way to know whether the light travels at the same speed to the milk particle as it travels from the milk particle to the camera. And the fact that it goes from right to left and then from left to right doesn't help because the effect would simply be reversed but at exactly the inverse ratio and so it would look the same in both directions whether it actually was or not.

Now, there is the issue of running the experiment again with water vapor instead of milky water. I understand that the speed of light is faster in water vapor than it is in water but I fail to see how this would solve the problem described above. Regardless of the medium, you'd still be using reflected light to take a measurement of its speed and it would therefore be a two-way speed, by definition.

How am I wrong? (If I am wrong, it has something to do with the fact that the light is being reflected off to one side rather than straight back to the source. - I'm still letting this marinate in my brain for now.)

Clete

P.S. How do I collect my Chick-fil-A gift card?

I am not talking about Bob's idea, I never mentioned Bob's idea, this post is only about my proposed idea. I only mentioned the RSR show so you would discover the debate topic, and that is, that some Christians are claiming the one-way-speed of light is instant, to get around certain scripture. As you were completely unaware of that point.

Get informed on the topic of debate, Get informed about my solution and then maybe you can ask an intelligible question on my conceptual model.

 

[Clete]

I am not talking about Bob's idea, I never mentioned Bob's idea, this post is only about my proposed idea. I only mentioned the RSR show so you would discover the debate topic, and that is, that some Christians are claiming the one-way-speed of light is instant, to get around certain scripture. As you were completely unaware of that point.

I wasn't unaware of it at all.

I don't buy it but I also don't know of any Christians who believe it and so I tend to discount the whole notion as being, at best, a red herring. It's usually thrown out what amount to a poisoning the well fallacy, implication both that the belief is common among Christians and that, therefore, Christians are stupid.

Get informed on the topic of debate, Get informed about my solution and then maybe you can ask an intelligible question on my conceptual model.

Well, you're a jerk, aren't you!

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list!

Clete

 

[Clete]

@Right Divider,

Is there a thread that discusses that episode of RSR?

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Right Divider,

Is there a thread that discusses that episode of RSR?

When did the show air?

 

[Right Divider]

@Right Divider,

Is there a thread that discusses that episode of RSR?

Not that I'm aware.

 

[Clete]

Not that I'm aware.

I just posted one....

Real Science Radio: One Way Speed of Light Measurement Proposal​

 

[tieman55]

I wasn't unaware of it at all.

I don't buy it but I also don't know of any Christians who believe it and so I tend to discount the whole notion as being, at best, a red herring. It's usually thrown out what amount to a poisoning the well fallacy, implication both that the belief is common among Christians and that, therefore, Christians are stupid.


Well, you're a jerk, aren't you!

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list!

Clete

No, I don't believe that I am a jerk . . . and your "unaware"ness need not be an obstacle to finding the truth.

Most people on this forum live in an echo chamber that appears doomed, like all echo's, to fade away.

My observation, from outside this bubble, is that you are all trying, very unsuccessfully, to imitate Bob Enyart. Having known Bob very well he would be ashamed of your behavior as you reject arguments without debate and replace them with your insults. And in the end, your solution is to ignore? That will only lead to ignorance.

Clete, your insults matter not . . . . humble yourself, think anew and then come to the table with reason and logic. It will benefit us all, but mostly you.

If anyone cares to debate my conceptual model on the merits, I will gladly do so, any time, any person . . . as I don't live in fear of the truth, right or wrong the truth will likely be known with a vigorous debate.