Henri Wilson wrote:
> On 26 Mar 2006 23:58:04 -0800, "George Dishman" <[email protected]>
> >Henri Wilson wrote:
> >> Wilson does not agree with Einstein.
> >> Wilson agrees with Ritz..... who effectively said that in any one frame,
> >> TWLS =
> >> OWLS = c.
> >Careful Henry, not "in any one frame", only "in the rest
> >frame of the source" and only if the other equipment
> >is also at rest. Bounce the light off a moving mirror for
> >example and the reflected one-way speed will probably
> >be affected but with those qualifications you are right.
> I have made it quite clear before that by 'any one frame' I mean everything in
> the experiment is in the one frame. That naturally implies source, mirror and
> detector are mutually at rest.
That may be what you mean but it's not what the words
say, which is why you need to be careful about how you
express it. The "any" in "any one frame" means it
doesn't matter what frame you use as long as all the
measurements are stated in the same frame, you just
need to say "the rest frame of the equipment" to clarify
that. What you intended is fine, it's just the words that
may cause confusion.
> Even Androcles should be able to understand that.
I'm sure he can find a way to fail to understand. He
finally had to admit Jeff had been correct all along
but he's still whingeing and hasn't apologised.
> Incidentally, this is only true in flat gravity. If for instance the
> were carries out vertically, average OWLS would still equals average TWLS but
> would have a value less than the constant c.
Yes, the same goes for SR of course.
> The 'hushed-up' Venus radar experiment verified this.
I didn't take you for a conspiracy nut. See the recent
announcement on possible measurement of the
"gravitomagnetic London moment" for the way news
of a conflict between experiment and GR is received.
If it is confirmed, that's definitely Nobel stuff, and you
have to wonder whether it would affect the determination
of dark matter/ dark energy values.