studiot

I posted a reply based on half angle formulae, yesterday and it seems to have disappeared, along with the post from DS that I replied to. What is happening please?

So explain the observation.

The end of the quantum theory for the man with the disgusting pink avatar??

Its seems that screen time is bad for youngsters but good for oldsters. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-34139196 http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/interactive/news/brains-are-aging-slower-due-to-modern-technology-id801799556-t116.html Comments?

I don't consider anything as 'absolute'. But what I did say a few posts back was that any 'correction' due to relativity would have been dwarfed by experimental errors (note how accurate Blondlot was compared to the modern value.) The same applies to Romer's value, I mentioned before. The relative speeds of Jupiter and the Earth make for negligable corrections compared to the few seconds of time he could measure to. However, I have never really thought about your synchronisation issue in the past and I agree that it is a ticklish one, which was why I separated out your two issues and, again as I said before, I am still thinking about it. The main point about it I have made so far is how to avoid it - by choosing experimental methods that make it insignificant or by choosing an experimental method where another means of measurement is available for comparison.

Here is an 1893 one way determination without a single clock.

I am suprised at your responses to my post, Sensei. You are normally the one who comes up with simple homebru experiments to illustrate points of physics. I noticed this effect when testing a construction laser prior to use. The laser is designed to focus the beam in as parallel a manner as practicable and is used by producing a spot on a special target. Perhaps the english expression waxing and waning caught you out. What I meant was that the spot diameter varies periodically with distance from the laser, from a few mm to perhaps one cm and back.

I'm not the one arguing against Einstein. Apologies this line in post#66 should have read I have used the capital delta to emphasise that all these are segment properties, not point properties.

It's normal inverse square law. https://en.wikipedia...erse-square_law Definitely not so. FYI optically focussed beams are not subject to the inverse square law. Read carefully what I said again. I am not sure if the periodic variation is due to the modulation in the beam rather than the red laser light frequency.

I am sorry you can't include your diagram, have you asked a mod (eg swansont) for help? If you can email it to me I will post it for you. As regards the other part of your reply, I feel I am wasting my time discussing since I have addressed each and every one of your points as well as offering some of my own. So far all I have received in return is a derogatory comment about my understanding. I have seen nothing to indicate that you understand the difference between homogeny and isotropy in you use of the terms and you have not replied to my pointing this out. As an example, the pressure in my glass of beer is isotropic but not homogeneous.

Neither agree nor disagree until you publish some maths as requested.

You can see for yourself what happens with a standard construction laser. Point the laser in some safe but convenient direction. Move a target along in the beam. The laser line will impact the target as a small disk of light. This diameter of this disk waxes and wanes as you move the target along in the beam. When using such as laser for levelling or alignment purposes you need to take this phenomenon into account.

In order to perform more detailed maths it is necessary to distinguish clearly Between point properties such as isotropy and interval segment or region properties such as homegeny. The intimate link between space and time which is embodied in Einstein's work Synchronisation is a point property. Point properties should not be treated as segment properties and vice versa. Which led to the equation for the four dimensional invariant [math]\Delta {s^2} = {c^2}\Delta {t^2} - \Delta {x^2} - \Delta {y^2} - \Delta {z^2}[/math] I have emphasised that this all these are segment properties, not point properties. Both ends of Segments need to be measured in the same reference frame. Einstein avoids this neatly using swansont's slow transfer method in the Train Thought Experiment. What is meant by 'the speed of light' phase or group velocity? The path of the light signal, the physical nature of the light and the interaction between the two. Note in particular the stipulation in c (ii) for pulses of light ( as used in Einstein's analysis, but he does not distinguish the difference) We should always remember that all these equations are just models and be sure about their applicability and constraints, and whether these constraints lead to greater errors than our clevel, but over simple model.

Let us at least get our terminology correct, perhaps English is not your first language. Can time or a timelike axis be isotropic or anisotropic or is that reserved for space and spacelike continua since they have more than one axis. Should you not be using the term homogeneous? The contention that we must assume or declare time and timelike axes to be homogeneous is correct to ensure that transit time for A to B is the same as for B to A or the midpoint if you want to use the formula mentioned earlier.

Why are you being so rude about this? I may be missing something vital, in which case I would be only to pleased to have it pointed out in a technical manner. I did my Geodesy in an era before GPS although we thought we had it easy (and we did compared to Everest for instance). We effected a considerable amount of distance measurement using various forms of EDM, which relies on the speed of light. It was always good practice to calibrate equipment against a known premeasured distance (or a distance measured by other means) and I have seen instances where serious errors occurred when this was not done. In effect this calibration is a one way measurement of the speed of light. Oh, and if you are thinking that this requires time measurement and synchronisation, think again. For some types of EDM this would indeed be true. But not for a Tellurometer, which does not measure time, but phase. Further as swansont has already indicated, you should not be measuring time, but time difference.

I suggest you go back to the drawing board and think again. Given the above definition any finite system that included a continuum would have infinite entropy. Here's a hint. Wat are the units of Entropy if you look in standard entropy tables? And what are the units of 'number of specific ways' ? and ask yourself why they are different.

Since you made the claim, it is up to you to offer substantive proof that your claim is correct. As to the difference between Newtonian and /Einstinian speed, or correction from one to the other, I don't see that the relative speeds of the objects make sufficient difference to outweigh other experimental errors of the time. Even today, over 300 years later, we do not have the technology to make a two way determination to Jupiter.

I didn't discuss simultaneity, just commented that the first known measurement of the speed of light was one way and not a bad estimate for 1697 at 3.5 x 108 metres per second. There were two significant claims in the first post and this one was incorrect. The second one is a very good question and I am still thinking about it.

I'm sorry are you saying Romer did not measure the speed of light? There is no question in my mind that it was a one way measurement, are you disputing this?

Wasn't Romer's measurement a one way method?

There are no locks at this point but here is Cheshire Canal passing over a road in an iron trough.

Are you a member of the younger generation just bitching that you have to do your bit? Half the population of the world is female and traditionally has been denied the opportunity to participate in your wondrous schemes. Get real and consider others.

Entropy is certainly quantifiable in finite systems. I am not convinced that the same applies to 'life' or its properties. Further, as Strange pointed out, all entropy behave is the same way, again this does not apply to all life. Perhaps this is becasue entropy is a single well defined 'thing' that does not have 'properties' but life is a many faceted thing. How can a chemical reaction be lost? The statement lacks clarity of meaning, again Strange has also picked this up.

Here is the ultimate piledriver quieting system. https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/cFb0nLCKypg?rel=0

There are several more pension types and situations. Further you cannot divorce the pension from the circumstances and history around the recipient. I would seriously warn any (particularly young) person reading this that georgi is ignoring all the artificial rules and hoops that control pension action and any government contribution to pension or tax implications of any particular action. All of this can seriously affect your eventual pension.