Thunderbolts Forum (v2.0)

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:And you are wrong Gold. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light without two clocks. Without a clock at the source and one at the receiver, how would you know what time the beam was sent and what time it was received? With only one clock you can only measure the two way speed of light, never the one way speed. You assume the two way speed is the same as the one way doubled, yet you want outside influences to affect its propagation speed and must then assume this interference is the exact same in both directions. More assumptions, upon assumptions.

I have already explained it several times. It is very easy to do. I'll think about explaining it again just for you. Or maybe not.

You have one clock. You send out a light pulse, it hits the detector located one mile away, the detector must then send out a signal back to you so you know when it arrived, since you and your clock can not be in two places at once. The signal sent back makes it a measurement of the two way speed of light, not the one way. Try again.

sjw40364 wrote:

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:And you are wrong Gold. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light without two clocks. Without a clock at the source and one at the receiver, how would you know what time the beam was sent and what time it was received? With only one clock you can only measure the two way speed of light, never the one way speed. You assume the two way speed is the same as the one way doubled, yet you want outside influences to affect its propagation speed and must then assume this interference is the exact same in both directions. More assumptions, upon assumptions.

I have already explained it several times. It is very easy to do. I'll think about explaining it again just for you. Or maybe not.

You have one clock. You send out a light pulse, it hits the detector located one mile away, the detector must then send out a signal back to you so you know when it arrived, since you and your clock can not be in two places at once. The signal sent back makes it a measurement of the two way speed of light, not the one way. Try again.

You continue to ignore anything being discussed. The question is whether the speed of light from a source in relation to a relatively moving detector incorporates the additional relative speed. There is no problem when detector and source are at rest with each other. There is no relative speed in that case. Duh!

All that is required is a speed trap. This requires only one clock. (The measurement requires a very short light pulse. A pulse sent directly from the source is more dependable than one created by chopping the incoming beam, since the actual length of the pulse will depend upon the actual speed of the light being investigated if the latter method is used.)

The speed trap can have many different designs, as far as the details, i.e. whether fiber optic cables or coaxial cable. The measured distance between entrance and exit can be any length, longer will allow a longer elapsed time to be measured. As long as both photo detectors and the two cable lengths are exactly equal with regard to the internal latencies of each, the measurement will be accurate.

What people fail to understand is that the signals from the entrance and exit photo detectors will take longer to reach the counter (clock) than the actual pulse takes to traverse the speed trap. This is irrelevant, since it is the elapsed time between when each detector registers, relative the clock, that is measured. As long as the speed of the signal pulses from each detector, through each respective cable, are identical, the speed of them through the cables does not matter. The difference between their instant of arrival times at the clock will be that same as the detected times at the detectors, relative the clock, the only clock needed. The clock measures the elapsed time between the entrance of the light pulse to the speed trap, and its exit.

Knowing the actual distance traveled and the elapsed time allows the velocity to be computed, get it?

This speed trap measures the one way speed of any light pulse whether the source in moving relative to it or not, with one clock. Now do you get it?

Measuring the speed of so called "neutrinos" could use this same type of one way speed trap and eliminate all the baloney the supposed scientists have erected around their measurements.

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:And you are wrong Gold. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light without two clocks. Without a clock at the source and one at the receiver, how would you know what time the beam was sent and what time it was received? With only one clock you can only measure the two way speed of light, never the one way speed. You assume the two way speed is the same as the one way doubled, yet you want outside influences to affect its propagation speed and must then assume this interference is the exact same in both directions. More assumptions, upon assumptions.

I have already explained it several times. It is very easy to do. I'll think about explaining it again just for you. Or maybe not.

You have one clock. You send out a light pulse, it hits the detector located one mile away, the detector must then send out a signal back to you so you know when it arrived, since you and your clock can not be in two places at once. The signal sent back makes it a measurement of the two way speed of light, not the one way. Try again.

You continue to ignore anything being discussed. The question is whether the speed of light from a source in relation to a relatively moving detector incorporates the additional relative speed. There is no problem when detector and source are at rest with each other. There is no relative speed in that case. Duh!

All that is required is a speed trap. This requires only one clock. (The measurement requires a very short light pulse. A pulse sent directly from the source is more dependable than one created by chopping the incoming beam, since the actual length of the pulse will depend upon the actual speed of the light being investigated if the latter method is used.)

The speed trap can have many different designs, as far as the details, i.e. whether fiber optic cables or coaxial cable. The measured distance between entrance and exit can be any length, longer will allow a longer elapsed time to be measured. As long as both photo detectors and the two cable lengths are exactly equal with regard to the internal latencies of each, the measurement will be accurate.

What people fail to understand is that the signals from the entrance and exit photo detectors will take longer to reach the counter (clock) than the actual pulse takes to traverse the speed trap. This is irrelevant, since it is the elapsed time between when each detector registers, relative the clock, that is measured. As long as the speed of the signal pulses from each detector, through each respective cable, are identical, the speed of them through the cables does not matter. The difference between their instant of arrival times at the clock will be that same as the detected times at the detectors, relative the clock, the only clock needed. The clock measures the elapsed time between the entrance of the light pulse to the speed trap, and its exit.

Knowing the actual distance traveled and the elapsed time allows the velocity to be computed, get it?

This speed trap measures the one way speed of any light pulse whether the source in moving relative to it or not, with one clock. Now do you get it?

Measuring the speed of so called "neutrinos" could use this same type of one way speed trap and eliminate all the baloney the supposed scientists have erected around their measurements.

That's just it Gold, YOU still fail to get it. If the clock is at the reciever, then you must first send a signal to the emitter so it knows when to send the pusle, (or does it just happen to know to send it at 12pm when it has no clock?), the emitter then sends the light pulse to the reciever. Time elapsed, is time for the signal to first reach the emitter, then time of pulse to reach the reciever, i.e. two way speed of light. If the clock is at the emitter it is in reverse. No matter how you do it it requires the two way speed of light with only one clock.

sjw40364 wrote:

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:And you are wrong Gold. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light without two clocks. Without a clock at the source and one at the receiver, how would you know what time the beam was sent and what time it was received? With only one clock you can only measure the two way speed of light, never the one way speed. You assume the two way speed is the same as the one way doubled, yet you want outside influences to affect its propagation speed and must then assume this interference is the exact same in both directions. More assumptions, upon assumptions.

I have already explained it several times. It is very easy to do. I'll think about explaining it again just for you. Or maybe not.

You have one clock. You send out a light pulse, it hits the detector located one mile away, the detector must then send out a signal back to you so you know when it arrived, since you and your clock can not be in two places at once. The signal sent back makes it a measurement of the two way speed of light, not the one way. Try again.

You continue to ignore anything being discussed. The question is whether the speed of light from a source in relation to a relatively moving detector incorporates the additional relative speed. There is no problem when detector and source are at rest with each other. There is no relative speed in that case. Duh!

All that is required is a speed trap. This requires only one clock. (The measurement requires a very short light pulse. A pulse sent directly from the source is more dependable than one created by chopping the incoming beam, since the actual length of the pulse will depend upon the actual speed of the light being investigated if the latter method is used.)

The speed trap can have many different designs, as far as the details, i.e. whether fiber optic cables or coaxial cable. The measured distance between entrance and exit can be any length, longer will allow a longer elapsed time to be measured. As long as both photo detectors and the two cable lengths are exactly equal with regard to the internal latencies of each, the measurement will be accurate.

What people fail to understand is that the signals from the entrance and exit photo detectors will take longer to reach the counter (clock) than the actual pulse takes to traverse the speed trap. This is irrelevant, since it is the elapsed time between when each detector registers, relative the clock, that is measured. As long as the speed of the signal pulses from each detector, through each respective cable, are identical, the speed of them through the cables does not matter. The difference between their instant of arrival times at the clock will be that same as the detected times at the detectors, relative the clock, the only clock needed. The clock measures the elapsed time between the entrance of the light pulse to the speed trap, and its exit.

Knowing the actual distance traveled and the elapsed time allows the velocity to be computed, get it?

This speed trap measures the one way speed of any light pulse whether the source in moving relative to it or not, with one clock. Now do you get it?

Measuring the speed of so called "neutrinos" could use this same type of one way speed trap and eliminate all the baloney the supposed scientists have erected around their measurements.

That's just it Gold, YOU still fail to get it. If the clock is at the reciever, then you must first send a signal to the emitter so it knows when to send the pusle, (or does it just happen to know to send it at 12pm when it has no clock?), the emitter then sends the light pulse to the reciever. Time elapsed, is time for the signal to first reach the emitter, then time of pulse to reach the reciever, i.e. two way speed of light. If the clock is at the emitter it is in reverse. No matter how you do it it requires the two way speed of light with only one clock.

Maybe in YOUR world, Steve. All I can say is that you don't get it.

When the signal is sent is irrelevant. The signal can be coming from some star 10 lightyears away. No signal has to be sent to the source. Get it? The emitter is the source. Get it? The emitter/source is not the entrance to the speed trap, Steve, get it?

The clock is not at the emitter or the source, it is not necessarily at the entrance or the exit of the speed trap, either. Get It? If the cables are long enough, the clock can be anywhere. Get It? The pulse of light makes a one way pass through the speed trap. Get it, Steve?

The clock is essentially between the entrance and the exit of the speed trap, but doesn't have to be actually there. Get it?

Get it? There is nothing two way about it.

You are still up to your old method of making irrelevant, straw arguments.

Not irrelevant, and not made of straw, and not illogical. But perhaps incomprehensible to you?
Goldminer, your speed trap "clock" has a reaction time that must be slower than the presumed speed of light.
Look at that femtophotography video again if you dare... the alleged "pulse" of light appears in the camera alone and nowhere else. At no time in the slowed framing do you see a bundle of light in the bottle or on the table, it's all in the camera. The processed directioning of the lighting effect shows that different portions of the coke bottle respond at different times to the light action in relation to their distance from it; the same is true of the various reflections. The camera may also be reacting slower to the weakened vectors than to the original pulse, recording them at a slightly delayed time.

webolife wrote:Not irrelevant, and not made of straw, and not illogical. But perhaps incomprehensible to you?
Goldminer, your speed trap "clock" has a reaction time that must be slower than the presumed speed of light.
Look at that femtophotography video again if you dare... the alleged "pulse" of light appears in the camera alone and nowhere else. At no time in the slowed framing do you see a bundle of light in the bottle or on the table, it's all in the camera. The processed directioning of the lighting effect shows that different portions of the coke bottle respond at different times to the light action in relation to their distance from it; the same is true of the various reflections. The camera may also be reacting slower to the weakened vectors than to the original pulse, recording them at a slightly delayed time.

I get what Steve thinks and I get what you think. Neither of you get what I think, and what actual experiments will show.

The light speed trap is within the means of current technology, but not within my resources. Steve's supposed experiments are all without possibility of actual performance.

Your comments in this post reveal a lack of understanding of what is actually taking place. I just don't know where to start with either of you. No matter how precise and exact I try to phrase my comments to either of you, you always surprise me with the off the wall understanding you get from what I post!

For example, quote Webo: "At no time in the slowed framing do you see a bundle of light in the bottle or on the table, it's all in the camera."

Goldminer replies: Are you being serious? How would one see a "bundle of light in the bottle or on the table?" The only way we have of "seeing" is for the light waves to be absorbed and processed by our eyes, or within the camera. You are being nonsensical.

Oh, hey didn't you see the femtophotography video claiming to show a pulse of light moving in slow motion at the c-rate? That video is the one I was describing. Without that context, of course my comment would be out of place. But if you saw the video then you would understand that the processing does not show a pulse of light in motion as claimed.

webolife wrote:Oh, hey didn't you see the femtophotography video claiming to show a pulse of light moving in slow motion at the c-rate? That video is the one I was describing. Without that context, of course my comment would be out of place. But if you saw the video then you would understand that the processing does not show a pulse of light in motion as claimed.

I have seen the video, several times in fact. The video is a multiple exposure, in order to get enough light recorded to make the video visible. You don't understand how the video was made. Now, how many times have I asked you to explain how your theory would change the numbers I present in the first diagram in my essay, the one about the source being at rest with all the observers? Silence . . . , You haven't answered Corpuscles questions here. Before challenging me again with stuff with which I cannot agree, why don't you give Steve's questions some attention? Are you one of Nereid's children? Remember? She had a habit of ignoring inconvenient questions.

I saw and replied to Corpuscles questions just before seeing this post.

It sounds to me like your understanding of the video processing and mine are the same.

Could you redirect me to that diagram and question? I am lousy at navigating this complex of threads, pages and posts... I am sure that I attempted to answer your question, but perhaps you thought I was being evasive?
If so, it was unintentional... you have oft repeated that I don't answer your questions, but I have actually tried to...
if you think I'm just being illogical, I can get that, because to you it is only logical that light moves across space, and not possible for it to have simultaneous action at two distant points.

webolife wrote:I saw and replied to Corpuscles questions just before seeing this post.

It sounds to me like your understanding of the video processing and mine are the same.

Could you redirect me to that diagram and question? I am lousy at navigating this complex of threads, pages and posts... I am sure that I attempted to answer your question, but perhaps you thought I was being evasive?
If so, it was unintentional... you have oft repeated that I don't answer your questions, but I have actually tried to...
if you think I'm just being illogical, I can get that, because to you it is only logical that light moves across space, and not possible for it to have simultaneous action at two distant points.

The link to my diagrams is Right here.

The EPR Thought experiment is another gin-up of the establishment. Two photons have never been found separated anywhere, with proof that they are somehow related. You can't distinguish one from another whether or not, they are radiated from the same source, especially going off in different directions. Getting a source to just emit one "photon" is quite a feat. So even this is imaginary "action at a distance." Let alone your theory which provides no reasons for your imagined "instantaneous, related "actions."

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:

Goldminer wrote:

sjw40364 wrote:And you are wrong Gold. It is impossible to measure the one way speed of light without two clocks. Without a clock at the source and one at the receiver, how would you know what time the beam was sent and what time it was received? With only one clock you can only measure the two way speed of light, never the one way speed. You assume the two way speed is the same as the one way doubled, yet you want outside influences to affect its propagation speed and must then assume this interference is the exact same in both directions. More assumptions, upon assumptions.

I have already explained it several times. It is very easy to do. I'll think about explaining it again just for you. Or maybe not.

You have one clock. You send out a light pulse, it hits the detector located one mile away, the detector must then send out a signal back to you so you know when it arrived, since you and your clock can not be in two places at once. The signal sent back makes it a measurement of the two way speed of light, not the one way. Try again.

You continue to ignore anything being discussed. The question is whether the speed of light from a source in relation to a relatively moving detector incorporates the additional relative speed. There is no problem when detector and source are at rest with each other. There is no relative speed in that case. Duh!

All that is required is a speed trap. This requires only one clock. (The measurement requires a very short light pulse. A pulse sent directly from the source is more dependable than one created by chopping the incoming beam, since the actual length of the pulse will depend upon the actual speed of the light being investigated if the latter method is used.)

The speed trap can have many different designs, as far as the details, i.e. whether fiber optic cables or coaxial cable. The measured distance between entrance and exit can be any length, longer will allow a longer elapsed time to be measured. As long as both photo detectors and the two cable lengths are exactly equal with regard to the internal latencies of each, the measurement will be accurate.

What people fail to understand is that the signals from the entrance and exit photo detectors will take longer to reach the counter (clock) than the actual pulse takes to traverse the speed trap. This is irrelevant, since it is the elapsed time between when each detector registers, relative the clock, that is measured. As long as the speed of the signal pulses from each detector, through each respective cable, are identical, the speed of them through the cables does not matter. The difference between their instant of arrival times at the clock will be that same as the detected times at the detectors, relative the clock, the only clock needed. The clock measures the elapsed time between the entrance of the light pulse to the speed trap, and its exit.

Knowing the actual distance traveled and the elapsed time allows the velocity to be computed, get it?

This speed trap measures the one way speed of any light pulse whether the source in moving relative to it or not, with one clock. Now do you get it?

Measuring the speed of so called "neutrinos" could use this same type of one way speed trap and eliminate all the baloney the supposed scientists have erected around their measurements.

That's just it Gold, YOU still fail to get it. If the clock is at the reciever, then you must first send a signal to the emitter so it knows when to send the pusle, (or does it just happen to know to send it at 12pm when it has no clock?), the emitter then sends the light pulse to the reciever. Time elapsed, is time for the signal to first reach the emitter, then time of pulse to reach the reciever, i.e. two way speed of light. If the clock is at the emitter it is in reverse. No matter how you do it it requires the two way speed of light with only one clock.

Maybe in YOUR world, Steve. All I can say is that you don't get it.

When the signal is sent is irrelevant. The signal can be coming from some star 10 lightyears away. No signal has to be sent to the source. Get it? The emitter is the source. Get it? The emitter/source is not the entrance to the speed trap, Steve, get it?

The clock is not at the emitter or the source, it is not necessarily at the entrance or the exit of the speed trap, either. Get It? If the cables are long enough, the clock can be anywhere. Get It? The pulse of light makes a one way pass through the speed trap. Get it, Steve?

The clock is essentially between the entrance and the exit of the speed trap, but doesn't have to be actually there. Get it?

Get it? There is nothing two way about it.

You are still up to your old method of making irrelevant, straw arguments.

Maybe I can simplify this for you. Then, again, maybe I should keep this a secret, patent, it and get rich, since nobody seems to get it.

Let's say we requisition two exact same identical lengths of fiber optic cable; Say, 1000 feet long. Let's lay them side by side, parallel across some real estate. At one end we flash a very short pulse of laser light. At the other end are very fast acting photo detectors. These are hooked up to a very short time division, dual channel recording oscilloscope. Is there any doubt in your mind that the light pulse will reach both detectors and be registered on the 'scope simultaneously? If not, please explain why.

Now, let's move one cable so that the cables are end to end, with the 'scope and detectors in the middle. Let's arrange the opposite (outside) ends of the cables so that both ends can accept the light pulse coming from one direction. This is our one way speed trap. Pretty simple, eh?

It does not matter what the speed of the pulse is in the fiber optic cables. The pulses arriving at the 'scope will take more time than the pulse traveling through the speed trap, will it not it? This makes no difference in the time delay appearing at the 'scope, since it is elapsed time difference between the entry end of the trap and the exit end that we use to compute the speed of the pulse, along with the exact distance (2000 feet) between the ends of the optic fiber.

I predict that any source of light pulse, at rest with the speed trap, will measure a speed of about a foot per nanosecond. I further predict that any light pulse from a source in rectilinear motion approaching the speed trap will measure a speed proportionately faster than the at rest source's pulse. Likewise, any light pulse from a source in rectilinear motion receding from the speed trap will measure a speed proportionately slower than the speed of the at rest source's pulse.

The short light pulse is required in order to investigate the speed of light. Analyzing a continuous beam of light will reveal where it came from and where it is going, but the pulse acts like a particle. One can determine a particle's location. A beam acts like a train whose engine travels on forever, yet the caboose never leaves the station, and every car of the train is identical, so no distinction can be determined concerning when a particular car left the station.

Had Einstein stopped to determine where the light pulse/particle would appear at several instants, as it traversed the path between the mirrors in his gedankin, his theory might have come closer to reality .

Goldminer wrote:The short light pulse is required in order to investigate the speed of light. Analyzing a continuous beam of light will reveal where it came from and where it is going, but the pulse acts like a particle. One can determine a particle's location. A beam acts like a train whose engine travels on forever, yet the caboose never leaves the station, and every car of the train is identical, so no distinction can be determined concerning when a particular car left the station.

Had Einstein stopped to determine where the light pulse/particle would appear at several instants, as it traversed the path between the mirrors in his gedankin, his theory might have come closer to reality .

You might be interested in this talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_ ... econd.html

One-way vs two-way light... [I'll repost this on the AAAD=Fiction? thread as well.]
Not wishing to overly burden Silly Einstein with these comments.

I agree with the concept that there is only "one-way" light -- it is a vector directed toward the center, the centroid of the lighting system [sun, star, or lamp filament]. It is minimally necessary for a finite pulse to be generated,as there is no phenomenality to light without duration. Light detected from a distance star has only one referent, the point of detection, photosensory cell etc. This is clearly "one-way light" which when you see it it is "here", you never get to see it "along the way", let alone "when it left". Without a theory to redirect your thinking, there is no reason to believe the light took any time to "get here"; except that with "ordinary matter", it is ludicrous to believe an object can be shot from one location and immediately reach its destination. Force, ie. Impulse, works differently however: In a Newton's cradle, the impact of steel ball A against the left surface of ball B is immediately felt by the surface of ball C to the right of ball B, as well as by balls D and E. Unavoidable inelasticity in this non-ideal situation causes net loss/entropy of energy across the distance from the the left of A to the right of E, but no measurable delay of time. The necessary presupposition in this case is that Ball A left is connnected to Ball E right.

"Two-way" light must refer to the case when a pulse is generated from a local source centroid toward a reflector, then the reflected ray is detected, by a nearby detector. Actually this is still "one-way light" with a reflection mid-path. Synchronicity between source, reflector and detector must be presumed, inferred, ignored, or otherwise surmised, but is not confirmable, thus it matters where clocks are placed and upon what assumptions they are synchronized -- if a pulse has finite length and is presumed to be identical at any part of the pulse, synchronizing using a c-based formula will yield a result that affirms a c-based delay; what is known without any uncertainty is that light has been detected by the sensor. "Latency" to be accounted for may consist of delays caused [by inertia?] at [the atomic level of] the reflecting surface, perhaps further delays caused by interactions with a medium [an aetheric interaction at an atomic scale, if there is one], and a delay caused [by inertia in] the sensor surface [also at the atomic level]. In addition the widening beam of light reflected to the sensor creates a gradient of pressure, which will affect the resulting reception of that light by an amount determined by the part[s] of the gradient which are being measured and the sensitivity calibrations of the device. Some of redshift may be attributable to this as an aberration. Intensity and angle/gradient of the light are both affected by if not dependent or proportional to the distance of the reflector, and would cause delays independent of inherent c-rate latency.

saul wrote:

Goldminer wrote:The short light pulse is required in order to investigate the speed of light. Analyzing a continuous beam of light will reveal where it came from and where it is going, but the pulse acts like a particle. One can determine a particle's location. A beam acts like a train whose engine travels on forever, yet the caboose never leaves the station, and every car of the train is identical, so no distinction can be determined concerning when a particular car left the station.

Had Einstein stopped to determine where the light pulse/particle would appear at several instants, as it traversed the path between the mirrors in his gedankin, his theory might have come closer to reality .

You might be interested in this talk:

http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_ ... econd.html

Yes thanks, Saul. Appreciated.

Several links to similar videos of femto-second photography have been posted on several threads here at the T-Bolt forum. They leave no doubt in my mind that light has a wave nature. He stated that "light comes in femto second bursts." I doubt it. When the ability to film at yocto-second rates, they will say it comes in yocto-second bursts.

This ability shows that the scenarios diagrammed in my essay are practical and can be actually performed.

Where have you been? I've been anticipating your comments upon several of my posts.