0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I may be missing something here.Either the (good, precise) data we have on the position of the moon is derived from laser/ radar ranging, or it isn't,.If it's from something else, that's interesting. How else do we measure it (with that sort of precision)?If it is measured by laser ranging then, regardless of any hypothetical adjustments made by the high priests, the argument about using it to disprove the speed of light is circular and contradictory.
One may wonder how mainstream scientists accept such correction of first order effects and think that this is consistent with relativity. This has always been a point of debate between supporters and opponents of relativity. But relativists have never been completely sure about it.
Quote from: Hal on 06/03/2021 04:22:46One may wonder how mainstream scientists accept such correction of first order effects and think that this is consistent with relativity. This has always been a point of debate between supporters and opponents of relativity. But relativists have never been completely sure about it.Do you have the raw data showing this uncorrected first order effects?
To compute the lunar distance precisely, many factors must be considered in addition to the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds.These factors include, . . . , the relative motion of Earth and the Moon, Earth's rotation, . . . "
Note also that the Silvertooth experiment has been repeated independently:" A Replication of the Silvettooth Experiment", Doug Marett
Quote from: Hal on 28/02/2021 14:46:02Note also that the Silvertooth experiment has been repeated independently:" A Replication of the Silvettooth Experiment", Doug MarettAre you sure about that? I read up on his work on that experiment and he debunked it - he found that the apparatus was acting as a thermometer and was merely recording the lab heating up during the day and cooling down at night.
Just imagine that the experiment is done at ten different locations and all the experiments give maximum 'temperature' effects when the axes of their devices are aligned with Leo.
Quote from: Hal on 07/03/2021 08:19:07Just imagine that the experiment is done at ten different locations and all the experiments give maximum 'temperature' effects when the axes of their devices are aligned with Leo.Just imagine that they don't.The point remains; if you can't show that the predicted effect of random (or diurnal) temperature variation is smaller than the effect you are looking for then you have not done a good enough experiment.It's even more absurd if you are relying on the constancy of the speed of light to show variations in the speed of light
My impression so far is that relativity theory explains phenomena only after the fact, in most cases.
The point still remains that, if the only reason that we know the position of the Moon is that the speed of light is constant, then you can't use our understanding of where the Moon is to show that the speed of light is not constant.
We have synchronized clocks
the distance between the source and the observer is D.
Quote from: Hal on 09/03/2021 02:53:52We have synchronized clocksHow?How did we synchronise them and by which definition are they in synchrony?Quote from: Hal on 09/03/2021 02:53:52the distance between the source and the observer is D.From whose point of view?
If the only way you have for measuring the distance to the moon is to assume the constancy of the speed of light then you still can't use the distance to the moon to measure the speed of light.In the same way, if you start with the distance to the Moon (as deduced by lidar) and you measure the speed of light compared to the value you use to establish where the Moon actually is, then you should get a ratio of exactly 100%If you get an answer other than 100% you have not shown that the speed of light has changed; you have shown that you made a mistake.
The distance to the moon is not derived directly from the time delay of the light pulses, as you know.
Consider a hypothetical terrestrial light speed experiment. Assume that the speed of light is constant in the reference frame of the Earth. For you it is an inertial reference frame and for me it is an absolute reference frame.There is a sationary light source at some point on the Earth.
I think since v is much smaller than c so that gamma factor is almost equal to one, clock synchronization is not a problem.
A distant observer is moving directly away from the source with velocity V , along the line connecting the source and the observer.
We have synchronized clocks both at the source and at the observer.
The light source emits a short light pulse. At the instant of emission, the distance between the source and the observer is D.
My question is, according to special relativity, what will be the time interval between emission and detection of the light pulse? Is it D/c or D / ( c - V ) ?
You cannot claim that we would not be able to know the distance to the moon if it was not for special relativity.
Quote from: Hal on 09/03/2021 13:53:00The distance to the moon is not derived directly from the time delay of the light pulses, as you know.Well... how far would they get trying to make the measurements if they had no idea of the speed of light?Imagine that they thought it was 200,000,000 m/s rather than 300,000,000 m/sWhat would that do to their value for the distance to the moon?I recognise that there are other factors but if you get c wrong then you get D wrong whether you subtract v from it or not.
If I have understood your argument , but I doubt I haven't. I will come back when I get your point