In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted:
"The speed of light being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical statement", it is an objective, empirically verifiable fact."

Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been verified? In Logic 101 we are taught that if Q implies P and you determine that P is true you cannot conclude that Q must also be true. This is known as "affirming the consequent". Every experiment I have heard about with relativity involves affirming the consequent. For example the Michelson-Morley experiment is explained by Einstein's concepts but we all know that the experiment can also be explained by using the simple vector addition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the light source. Is there any know experiment where the hypothesis "Q" is verified and not just consequences of the theory?
Thanks,
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

On 11/12/21 10:58 AM, sepp623@yahoo.com wrote:
> In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted: "The speed of light
> being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is
> at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical statement", it is
> an objective, empirically verifiable fact."
>
> Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been
> verified?

https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html

For more details, read the metrology literature for the measurements
leading up to the redefinition of the meter in 1983.

Tom Roberts

Op 12-nov.-2021 om 17:58 schreef sepp623@yahoo.com:
> In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted: "The speed of light
> being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is
> at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical statement", it is
> an objective, empirically verifiable fact."
>
> Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been
> verified? In Logic 101 we are taught that if Q implies P and you
> determine that P is true you cannot conclude that Q must also be
> true. This is known as "affirming the consequent". Every
> experiment I have heard about with relativity involves affirming the
> consequent. For example the Michelson-Morley experiment is explained
> by Einstein's concepts but we all know that the experiment can also
> be explained by using the simple vector addition of the velocity of
> light with the velocity of the light source. Is there any know
> experiment where the hypothesis "Q" is verified and not just
> consequences of the theory?

Yes. The experiment is called "sci.physics.relativity".
It was designed as a trap for relativity crackpots.
And it caught on beautifully.

Dirk Vdm

On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 19:00:18 UTC+1, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:

> Yes. The experiment is called "sci.physics.relativity".
> It was designed as a trap for relativity crackpots.
> And it caught on beautifully.

Sure; you, Tom, Jan and many minor ones - are all
trapped here.

sepp623@yahoo.com <sepp623@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted:
> "The speed of light being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which
> the traveler is at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical
> statement", it is an objective, empirically verifiable fact."
>
> Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been verified?
> In Logic 101 we are taught that if Q implies P and you determine that P
> is true you cannot conclude that Q must also be true. This is known as
> "affirming the consequent". Every experiment I have heard about with
> relativity involves affirming the consequent. For example the
> Michelson-Morley experiment is explained by Einstein's concepts but we
> all know that the experiment can also be explained by using the simple
> vector addition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the light
> source. Is there any know experiment where the hypothesis "Q" is verified
> and not just consequences of the theory?
> Thanks,
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX
>

A couple of points that are relevant here.

1. Science has a strong inductive component and doesn’t rely solely on
deductive logic. This is one thing that distinguishes it from math or
formal logical calculus. In this inductive component, a principle can be
hypothesized without proof or argument, and indeed the hypothesis can be
arrived at by intuition, synthesis, analogy, pattern recognition, esthetic
instinct, or sheer guess. What happens then is that this premise is
developed deductively into predicted observations or predicted values of
measurable outcomes. It’s important to isolate those predictions that
distinguish this hypothesis from competing hypotheses. These predictions
are then compared to observation and experimental measurements. If the
comparison is favorable, then we say that experiment *supports* the
hypothesis. As you point out, the hypothesis is not logically *proven* by
the favorable comparison. But what is true in science is that the
hypothesis that is most successful in the match between predictions and
measurement is provisionally accepted (NOT proven) as the leading
explanation of nature. So your claim that some logical fallacy is in play
here, is out of place, as it’s not the intent of science to “prove” a
hypothesis based on experiment. It never has been.

2. In the particular case you’re talking about, though — the invariance of
the speed of light in vacuum — this has been tested LOTS of different ways,
including ways that are far more direct than the indirect support afforded
by the Michelson Morley experiment. As a simple example of this, there are
facilities like the Advanced Photon Source that make high energy photons by
passing a tightly collimated bunch of photons in a circular beam line
through a wiggler magnet that causes the emission of photons. These photons
then pass down a different beam line to target areas. The time of
generation of the photons is measured to sub-nanosecond precision, the
arrival of the photons at the target area is measured to sub-nanosecond
precision, and the distance between photon source and photon target is very
well surveyed. So you have a very direct measurement of the speed of light
(distance over interval of time) from a moving source, in an earthbound
lab. It’s hard to imagine a more direct measurement of speed of light, I’m
sure you’ll agree.

3. As you mention, there is no one experiment that singles out relativity
as favored over all other explanations. Indeed, any one experiment may be
consistent with more than one explanation. This is why the ENTIRE BODY of
experiments is needed to see which theories survive all of them. To date,
only relativity survives comparison with ALL the experiments. But this is
also why it is a pointless exercise to cast doubt on a single experiment as
though it is the lynchpin for acceptance of the theory. Lots of amateurs
still believe that Michelson Morley is that lynchpin experiment, when in
fact relativity would still be the provisional “winner” today even if
Michelson and Morley had never done this experiment.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 8:58:14 AM UTC-8, sep...@yahoo.com wrote:
> In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted: "The speed of light being 1 in terms
> of the inertial coordinates in which the traveler is at rest at any given instant is not
> a "hypothetical statement", it is an objective, empirically verifiable fact."
>
> Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been verified?

Yes, the single essential experiment is of the Kaufmann type, showing that the inertia of a particle depends on its kinetic energy in such that the localized energy E has inertia corresponding to E/c^2. This signifies that inertia-based coordinate systems (in which the laws of physics take their homogeneous and isotropic form) are related by Lorentz transformations, which preserve light speed. This is not a matter of convention, it has unambiguous empirical meaning, namely, if we construct two grids of standard rulers and clocks at rest and synchronized in two different states of motion, those systems are physically related by Lorentz transformation. That's what the Kaufmann type experiments show.

You see, the principle of relativity (Galileo) itself is supported by mountains of experiment evidence, and once you accept that, there is really only a single degree of freedom in the relationship between inertia-based coordinates, so any single observation that fixes the value of that free parameter suffices to empirically establish special relativity.

Special Relativity: 845 .... Barnpole Dave: 0

On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 20:34:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> sep...@yahoo.com <sep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted:
> > "The speed of light being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which
> > the traveler is at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical
> > statement", it is an objective, empirically verifiable fact."
> >
> > Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been verified?
> > In Logic 101 we are taught that if Q implies P and you determine that P
> > is true you cannot conclude that Q must also be true. This is known as
> > "affirming the consequent". Every experiment I have heard about with
> > relativity involves affirming the consequent. For example the
> > Michelson-Morley experiment is explained by Einstein's concepts but we
> > all know that the experiment can also be explained by using the simple
> > vector addition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the light
> > source. Is there any know experiment where the hypothesis "Q" is verified
> > and not just consequences of the theory?
> > Thanks,
> > David Seppala
> > Bastrop TX
> >
> A couple of points that are relevant here.
>
> 1. Science has a strong inductive component and doesn’t rely solely on
> deductive logic.

The most important for science are assertion of a poor idiot
woodworker.

> distinguish this hypothesis from competing hypotheses. These predictions
> are then compared to observation and experimental measurements.

And as the clocks of the real world keep measuring t'=t, just like
all serious clocks always - good bye, The Shit.

> 2. In the particular case you’re talking about, though — the invariance of
> the speed of light in vacuum — this has been tested LOTS of different ways,

Even your idiot guru, however, wasn't mad enough to insist on
such an idiocy for a long time, and his GR shit had to reject it.

On Friday, November 12, 2021 at 11:59:26 PM UTC-8, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, 12 November 2021 at 20:34:15 UTC+1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > sep...@yahoo.com <sep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In response to one of my posts, Al Coe posted:
> > > "The speed of light being 1 in terms of the inertial coordinates in which
> > > the traveler is at rest at any given instant is not a "hypothetical
> > > statement", it is an objective, empirically verifiable fact."
> > >
> > > Does anyone know of an experiment in which that fact has been verified?
> > > In Logic 101 we are taught that if Q implies P and you determine that P
> > > is true you cannot conclude that Q must also be true. This is known as
> > > "affirming the consequent". Every experiment I have heard about with
> > > relativity involves affirming the consequent. For example the
> > > Michelson-Morley experiment is explained by Einstein's concepts but we
> > > all know that the experiment can also be explained by using the simple
> > > vector addition of the velocity of light with the velocity of the light
> > > source. Is there any know experiment where the hypothesis "Q" is verified
> > > and not just consequences of the theory?
> > > Thanks,
> > > David Seppala
> > > Bastrop TX
> > >
> > A couple of points that are relevant here.
> >
> > 1. Science has a strong inductive component and doesn’t rely solely on
> > deductive logic.
> The most important for science are assertion of a poor idiot
> woodworker.
> > distinguish this hypothesis from competing hypotheses. These predictions
> > are then compared to observation and experimental measurements.
> And as the clocks of the real world keep measuring t'=t, just like
> all serious clocks always - good bye, The Shit.
> > 2. In the particular case you’re talking about, though — the invariance of
> > the speed of light in vacuum — this has been tested LOTS of different ways,
> Even your idiot guru, however, wasn't mad enough to insist on

Who's guru was that?