Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

> Mike Fontenot wrote:
>> At any given instant "tau" in the life of a given INERTIAL observer
>> (he), it's clear that there is just a single answer to the question "How
>> old is that particular distant person (she) right now […]
>
> Actually, that is not clear because that is not so. It is a matter of
> definition because two different ages must be distinguished:
>
> 1. The age of the distant person that the inertial observer observes.
> This is the age that the distant person *had* when the light had been
> emitted that the inertial observer receives "now" . Because light
> travels at the speed c < ∞.
>
> 2. The age that the distant observer has when the light reaches the
> inertial observer. This age is necessarily larger than the age in
> definition 1 for the same reason as described in definition 1.

To illustrate, and for my relaxation:

c t c t'
^ ^
: /
+- - - - - - - + age 2 (assumed)
:^. /
: `.light /
: `. /
: `. /
+- - - - -+ age 1 (observed)
: /
: /
: /
: / inertially moving, distant person
: /
: /
: / __
: / |PE
:/
'---------------------------------------> x
^
:
inertial observer at relative rest

PointedEars
--
Q: What happens when electrons lose their energy?
A: They get Bohr'ed.

(from: WolframAlpha)

On Thursday, 21 April 2022 at 04:57:18 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> > Mike Fontenot wrote:
> >> At any given instant "tau" in the life of a given INERTIAL observer
> >> (he), it's clear that there is just a single answer to the question "How
> >> old is that particular distant person (she) right now […]
> >
> > Actually, that is not clear because that is not so. It is a matter of
> > definition because two different ages must be distinguished:
> >
> > 1. The age of the distant person that the inertial observer observes.
> > This is the age that the distant person *had* when the light had been
> > emitted that the inertial observer receives "now" . Because light
> > travels at the speed c < ∞.
> >
> > 2. The age that the distant observer has when the light reaches the
> > inertial observer. This age is necessarily larger than the age in
> > definition 1 for the same reason as described in definition 1.
>
> To illustrate, and for my relaxation:
>
> c t c t'
> ^ ^
> : /
> +- - - - - - - + age 2 (assumed)
> :^. /
> : `.light /
> : `. /
> : `. /
> +- - - - -+ age 1 (observed)
> : /
> : /
> : /
> : / inertially moving, distant person
> : /
> : /
> : / __
> : / |PE
> :/
> '---------------------------------------> x
> ^
> :
> inertial observer at relative rest

And in the meantime in the real world, forbidden
by your insane religion TAI keep measuring t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.

On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >
> > Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.

No he was not right. That's why he had to invent new set of measuring tool to satisfy his constant light speed postulate. And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Jan
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>
>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
>
> No he was not right.

Your fantasized history means nothing to the real world.

> That's why he had to invent new set of measuring tool to satisfy his
> constant light speed postulate. And you guys (scientists) were so
> desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate
> violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
>

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

On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>
>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
>
> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent new set of measuring tool to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.

He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
redefined until over a decade after he died.

> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.

No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
of all speeds being observer dependent. Einstein's success was based in
part that a constant speed of light was likely a law of nature of some
sort, so should be considered a postulate.

On Friday, 22 April 2022 at 01:16:29 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >>>
> >>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
> >> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
> >
> > No he was not right. That's why he had to invent new set of measuring tool to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
> redefined until over a decade after he died.
> > And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> came along.

No, stupid Mike. Only such an idiot can believe such
an impudent lie.

Michael Moroney wrote:

> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
> of all speeds being observer dependent. Einstein's success was based in
> part that a constant speed of light was likely a law of nature of some
> sort, so should be considered a postulate.

But I start loving Trump already. What a proper punch line, ignored by
everybody that time.

TRUMP TELLS NAZI ZELENSKY https://www.bitchute.com/video/USkUUfltydCA/

of course not, the nazi homo zelenske can't do that, when the nazi liberal
capitalist western europe, are providing him with *cocaine* etc etc and
etc, not easy to find.

Why capitalist western europe are using the nazis? Because no sober
citizen would fight with his life, for sake of the oligarchs enslaving
them for decades now. The sober "ukrainian" citizen sees the russian army
as *liberators*. Imagine being a citizen in fucking nazi "ukraine", living
near a *bio_weapon_laboratory*, which can be above the surface, in a
building, or underground. The last thing you'll do is to give your life
for the sake of the nazi zelenske and the oligarchs. What an impertinent
indolent idiot.

On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >>>
> >>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
> >> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
> >
> > No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
> redefined until over a decade after he died.
> > And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
>
Stupid moron Mike:
Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his theory work. But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make his 2nd postulate workable.
>
> came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
> of all speeds being observer dependent. E
You give us an example what speed is observer independent.....you can't.

>instein's success was based in
> part that a constant speed of light was likely a law of nature of some
> sort, so should be considered a postulate.

Make up stuff is not science.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
>>
> Stupid moron Mike:
> Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his
> theory work. But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer
> dependent that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make
> his 2nd postulate workable.

One way or another, they bombed your country with two atomic bombs, you
never forget.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 5:59:01 PM UTC-4, Kye Egonidis wrote:
> Ken Seto wrote:
>
> >> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> >>
> > Stupid moron Mike:
> > Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his
> > theory work. But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer
> > dependent that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make
> > his 2nd postulate workable.
> One way or another, they bombed your country with two atomic bombs, you
> never forget.

Moon, my country never been bombed by atomic bombs......gee you are stupid.

Ken Seto wrote:

>> >> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE
>> >> Einstein
>> >>
>> > Stupid moron Mike:
>> > Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his
>> > theory work. But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer
>> > dependent that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make
>> > his 2nd postulate workable.
>> One way or another, they bombed your country with two atomic bombs, you
>> never forget.
>
> Moon, my country never been bombed by atomic bombs......gee you are
> stupid.

or you rather want to forget.

On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
>>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
>>>
>>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
>> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
>> redefined until over a decade after he died.
>>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
>>
> Stupid moron Mike:
> Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his theory work.

Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.

> But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent

No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
INdependent. He was also inspired by Fizeau's speed of light in moving
water experiment, which turned out to be an example of relativistic
speed combination.

> that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make his 2nd postulate workable.

That's a rather bizarre way of stating length contraction and time dilation.
>>
>> came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
>> of all speeds being observer dependent. E
> You give us an example what speed is observer independent.....you can't.

Light. You lose.
>
>> instein's success was based in
>> part that a constant speed of light was likely a law of nature of some
>> sort, so should be considered a postulate.
>
> Make up stuff is not science.

So why do you continue to promote your made up Muddle Mechanics, with
its make believe E Strings and S Particles? Aren't you a bit too old to
play make believe?

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 01:01:33 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
> INdependent.

Onbly such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie, stupid
Mike.

Michael Moroney wrote:

>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such
>> nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that
>> all speeds are observer dependent.
>
> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
> of all

illucid, was known NOT to be constant.

On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
> >>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
> >>>
> >>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
> >> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
> >> redefined until over a decade after he died.
> >>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
> >> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> >>
> > Stupid moron Mike:
> > Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his theory work.
> Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
> all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.
> > But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent
> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
> INdependent.
Stupid moron Mike, at Einstein's time no clock is accurate enough to measure light speed. You are a lying piece of shit.

>He was also inspired by Fizeau's speed of light in moving
> water experiment, which turned out to be an example of relativistic
> speed combination.
> > that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make his 2nd postulate workable.
> That's a rather bizarre way of stating length contraction and time dilation.
> >>
> >> came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
> >> of all speeds being observer dependent. E
> > You give us an example what speed is observer independent.....you can't..
> Light. You lose.
> >
> >> instein's success was based in
> >> part that a constant speed of light was likely a law of nature of some
> >> sort, so should be considered a postulate.
> >
> > Make up stuff is not science.
> So why do you continue to promote your made up Muddle Mechanics, with
> its make believe E Strings and S Particles? Aren't you a bit too old to
> play make believe?

Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
>>>>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of
>>>>> measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
>>>> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
>>>> redefined until over a decade after he died.
>>>>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept
>>>>> such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of
>>>>> nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
>>>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
>>>>
>>> Stupid moron Mike:
>>> Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his theory work.
>> Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
>> all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.
>>> But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent
>> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
>> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
>> INdependent.
> Stupid moron Mike, at Einstein's time no clock is accurate enough to
> measure light speed. You are a lying piece of shit.

Any clock is accurate to some degree. And that will be reflected in the
accuracy of the measurement of the speed of light.

On the other hand, no measurement is exact.

>
>> He was also inspired by Fizeau's speed of light in moving
>> water experiment, which turned out to be an example of relativistic
>> speed combination.
>>> that's why he had to invent flexible time and ruler to make his 2nd postulate workable.
>> That's a rather bizarre way of stating length contraction and time dilation.
>>>>
>>>> came along. That was nature telling us that there is no law of nature
>>>> of all speeds being observer dependent. E
>>> You give us an example what speed is observer independent.....you can't.
>> Light. You lose.
>>>
>>>> instein's success was based in
>>>> part that a constant speed of light was likely a law of nature of some
>>>> sort, so should be considered a postulate.
>>>
>>> Make up stuff is not science.
>> So why do you continue to promote your made up Muddle Mechanics, with
>> its make believe E Strings and S Particles? Aren't you a bit too old to
>> play make believe?
>

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

Le 23/04/2022 à 20:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit :

> the measurement of the speed of light.

3.10^8m/s

R.H.

On 4/23/2022 1:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
>>>>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
>>>>>
>>>>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
>>>> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
>>>> redefined until over a decade after he died.
>>>>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
>>>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
>>>>
>>> Stupid moron Mike:
>>> Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his theory work.
>> Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
>> all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.
>>> But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent
>> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
>> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
>> INdependent.
> Stupid moron Mike, at Einstein's time no clock is accurate enough to measure light speed. You are a lying piece of shit.

Stupid Ken, they did have clocks accurate enough. How else did Einstein
know the speed of light was a constant in 1905? Even inaccuracies don't
prevent measurement, it is just that the accuracy of the result may be
affected by the accuracy of the clock. Or they use a method such as
fringe shift which doesn't depend on the accuracy of the clock. (like
M-M, it was really an attempt to measure differences in the speed of
light at right angles to each other and attribute the "difference" to
the aether wind. The experiment "failed" because there was no difference
in the speed of light in different directions)

Even Rømer measured the one way speed of light with the inaccurate
clocks of the 1600s, but I think his results were more affected by the
estimates of Jupiter's and Earth's orbits.

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/04/2022 à 20:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>
>> the measurement of the speed of light.
>
> 3.10^8m/s
>
> R.H.
>

Notice that you’ve quoted only 1 significant figure. It’s been measured to
much better.

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

On Saturday, 23 April 2022 at 21:13:27 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 4/23/2022 1:24 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>>>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >>>>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
> >>>>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn’t accepted until that happened.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
> >>>> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
> >>>> redefined until over a decade after he died.
> >>>>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
> >>>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> >>>>
> >>> Stupid moron Mike:
> >>> Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be constant to make his theory work.
> >> Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
> >> all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.
> >>> But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent
> >> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
> >> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
> >> INdependent.
> > Stupid moron Mike, at Einstein's time no clock is accurate enough to measure light speed. You are a lying piece of shit.
> Stupid Ken, they did have clocks accurate enough. How else did Einstein
> know the speed of light was a constant in 1905?

Stupid Mike, he couldn't and he didn't. You're just a
fanatic idiot fabricating "for the cause is just".

Le 23/04/2022 à 21:20, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>> Le 23/04/2022 à 20:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>
>>> the measurement of the speed of light.
>>
>> 3.10^8m/s
>>
>> R.H.
>>
>
> Notice that you’ve quoted only 1 significant figure. It’s been measured to
> much better.

c = 299 792 458 m/s

Elle court très vite, en fait.

R.H.

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >>>> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
> >>>>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
> >>>>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
> >>>>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn't accepted until that
> >>>>>>happened.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of
> >>>>> measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
> >>>> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
> >>>> redefined until over a decade after he died.
> >>>>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept
> >>>>> such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of
> >>>>> nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
> >>>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
> >>>>
> >>> Stupid moron Mike: Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be
> >>> constant to make his theory work.
> >> Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
> >> all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.
> >>> But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent
> >> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
> >> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
> >> INdependent.
> > Stupid moron Mike, at Einstein's time no clock is accurate enough to
> > measure light speed. You are a lying piece of shit.
>
> Any clock is accurate to some degree. And that will be reflected in the
> accuracy of the measurement of the speed of light.

Certainly, eventually.
But the inaccuracy of those early measurements of the speed of light
was not caused by clock inaccuracy. (or length inaccuracy)

> On the other hand, no measurement is exact.

Right. Nowadays the speed of light is exact,
because it is no longer a measured quantity,

Jan

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
[-]
> Stupid Ken, they did have clocks accurate enough. How else did Einstein
> know the speed of light was a constant in 1905? Even inaccuracies don't
> prevent measurement, it is just that the accuracy of the result may be
> affected by the accuracy of the clock. Or they use a method such as
> fringe shift which doesn't depend on the accuracy of the clock. (like
> M-M, it was really an attempt to measure differences in the speed of
> light at right angles to each other and attribute the "difference" to
> the aether wind. The experiment "failed" because there was no difference
> in the speed of light in different directions)
>
> Even Rømer measured the one way speed of light with the inaccurate
> clocks of the 1600s, but I think his results were more affected by the
> estimates of Jupiter's and Earth's orbits.

Huygens', and hence Roemer's pendulum clocks were accurate
to better than one second/day.
Roemer could have measured the AU to that accuracy.
(but he made some trivial mistakes in calculation, iirc)

The uncertainty of the final result was caused
by the poorly known value of the AU in terrestrial length units.
(measured by parallax of Mars)

Jan

Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
> Le 23/04/2022 à 21:20, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>> Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> wrote:
>>> Le 23/04/2022 à 20:58, Odd Bodkin a écrit :
>>>
>>>> the measurement of the speed of light.
>>>
>>> 3.10^8m/s
>>>
>>> R.H.
>>>
>>
>> Notice that you’ve quoted only 1 significant figure. It’s been measured to
>> much better.
>
> c = 299 792 458 m/s

And prior to the definition that made that number exact, what was the
precision of the measurement?

>
> Elle court très vite, en fait.
>
> R.H.
>

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

J. J. Lodder <nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Friday, April 22, 2022 at 7:01:33 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 4/22/2022 5:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>> On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:16:29 PM UTC-4, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/21/2022 2:20 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thursday, April 7, 2022 at 3:25:46 PM UTC-4, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ken Seto <seto...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 2:12:40 PM UTC-4, JanPB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, April 5, 2022 at 9:20:57 AM UTC-7, kenseto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The only time exists is absolute time. Absolute time is ticking
>>>>>>>>>>> constantly and it is not affected by gravity or motion.
>>>>>>>>>> Physics is a science, it's not decided by fiat.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then why do you accept Einstein's fiat?
>>>>>>>> Because science showed him right. It wasn't accepted until that
>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No he was not right. That's why he had to invent a new set of
>>>>>>> measuring tools to satisfy his constant light speed postulate.
>>>>>> He never invented anything like that, Stupid Ken. The second wasn't
>>>>>> redefined until over a decade after he died.
>>>>>>> And you guys (scientists) were so desperate and welling to accept
>>>>>>> such nonsense even though such postulate violate the law of
>>>>>>> nature......that all speeds are observer dependent.
>>>>>> No, Stupid Ken. The constant speed of light was known BEFORE Einstein
>>>>>>
>>>>> Stupid moron Mike: Einstein knew that the speed of light had to be
>>>>> constant to make his theory work.
>>>> Not quite, Stupid Ken. He knew if the speed of light was constant, as
>>>> all experiments showed, his theory would be correct.
>>>>> But he also knew that all speeds are source and observer dependent
>>>> No, he did not "know" that. He knew the experimental results were all
>>>> inertial observers measured the same speed of light, observer
>>>> INdependent.
>>> Stupid moron Mike, at Einstein's time no clock is accurate enough to
>>> measure light speed. You are a lying piece of shit.
>>
>> Any clock is accurate to some degree. And that will be reflected in the
>> accuracy of the measurement of the speed of light.
>
> Certainly, eventually.
> But the inaccuracy of those early measurements of the speed of light
> was not caused by clock inaccuracy. (or length inaccuracy)

That’s right.

>
>> On the other hand, no measurement is exact.
>
> Right. Nowadays the speed of light is exact,
> because it is no longer a measured quantity,

Also true. Nor does it need to be.

>
> Jan
>
>

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