# Thread: Measuring the One-Way Speed of Light: Special Relativity, and "Test Theories"

1. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
You must be getting really desperate: the same way one measures (k'-k)z one measures (k"+k)z. Ever heard of intereference? No? Try this refresher (again):
http://www.unf.edu/~jgarner/waveinter.html
1. Gagnon measures the phase difference, not the addition or subtraction of any waves.
2. If you measured the addition or subtraction of the waves, you get an oscillating result (unlike measuring the difference in phases). Therefore you need to specify a TIME to state what the PHASE is for the oscillating result. This makes the addition or subtraction of waves useless for this experiment.

Originally Posted by clj4
1. You did bungle your partial equations (again). Out of desperation to get TE mode (Gagnon made a mistake on this one)
Again, if you insist on repeating this incorrect claim. Please answer my direct questions so that we may resolve this.

And, also show your calculations for Gagnon's paper (since you also claim it is incorrect) if you insist on claiming that my calculations are wrong.

Originally Posted by clj4
2. This ATM thread is based on "Aether's" assertion, so I don't have to answer any of your questions, so stop asking. He has to answer (and you as well as his "supporter").
YOU have to answer direct questions if you continue to make against-mainstream claims.

Stop avoiding the questions.

2. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
2. This ATM thread is based on "Aether's" assertion, so I don't have to answer any of your questions, so stop asking. He has to answer (and you as well, as his "supporter").
I started this thread at your request, and stated in the OP that "I do not believe that this is really an ATM concept at all, but recognize that (at first glance) it could have the appearance of being an ATM concept.". It is you who have made all of the against-mainstream claims so far, so I'll also ask for you to please answer our questions in a timely manner and to stop avoiding the questions.

Originally Posted by Gregory9
If we define a coordinate system, and a metric, and describe the physics in the frame with tensor equations (which agree with experiment) ...

1] Do you believe we can experimentally "disprove" some linear coordinate transformations while "proving" others? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

2] Do you believe the tensor equations are only true with some specific coordinate transformations? (if yes, what are your reasons?)
Gregory9, The moderators have suggested that we start a new thread in the General Science section to discuss the issues raised in your "The "real" coordinate systems of the universe" thread. I suggest that you start and host the new thread in that forum to discuss these and related issues. This thread can continue to be used to discuss papers such as Gagnon et al. in view of the facts to be established in the new thread (e.g., agreements reached in the new thread with respect to what is and what isn't "mainstream" may be cited as authoritative references within this thread).

clj4, It's your choice as to whether or not you participate in that new thread, but what is agreed upon there with respect to answering Gregory9's questions shall be considered to be what is "mainsteam" for the purposes of this thread. ok?

3. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
You still don't get it, do you.
The same way you get (k'-k)z out of sin [(k'-k)z] you can get (k'+k)z out of sin[(k'+k)z-wt]. All you need is high frequency filtering. Once you get that, you get a quantity that is directly proportional with v_z.

You can get very clever about it (as Gagnon did) and you can measure the resultant interference pattern every 6 hours.
At 0 AM v_z=v_orbital so phi_0AM=(v_orbital/c)(w/c)+a couple of radicals
At 6 AM v_z=0 so phi_6AM= a couple of radicals
The fringe shift between 0 AM and 6 AM is (v_orbital/c)(w/c), and it can be measured DIRECTLY, exactly as in the MM or KT experiments. Gagnon measured 8*10^-3 degrees displacement
By contrast (v_orbital/c)(w/c) evaluates to 170*10^-3, an effect 21 times bigger. Last time I answer, I have a real ethical issue in terms of debating with sock puppets. This website permits it but it doesn't mean that it is right.

Gregory/Jonny/NotForYou/... bye. This was the last answer you will get.

4. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
You still don't get it, do you.
The same way you get (k'-k)z out of sin [(k'-k)z] you can get (k'+k)z out of sin[(k'+k)z-wt]. All you need is high frequency filtering.
Unfortunately, it is you that does not get it. It is not an issue of frequency filtering.

1. Gagnon measures the phase difference, not the addition or subtraction of any waves.
2. If you measured the addition or subtraction of the waves, you get an oscillating result (unlike measuring the difference in phases). Therefore you need to specify a TIME to state what the PHASE is for the oscillating result. This makes the addition or subtraction of waves useless for this experiment.

If you deny this, then you need to answer our direct questions to continue the discussion.
You are being unreasonable. It is your refusal to answer direct questions that has dragged this on for months.

Originally Posted by clj4
This was the last answer you will get.
So you refuse to retract your mainstream claims, and you refuse to defend them or answer direct questions about them.

Therefore we will have to leave this as, we agree to disagree.
If you wish to leave it as such, then you cannot make these against mainstream claims anymore. Those are your choices:
1. stop stating your against mainstream claims

It appears you have chosen #1. So I guess we are done.

5. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
The fringe shift between 0 AM and 6 AM is (v_orbital/c)(w/c), and it can be measured DIRECTLY, exactly as in the MM or KT experiments.
If the MM experiment illustrates your point in exactly the same way as Gagnon et al. then why are we discussing Gagnon et al. which has been shown to have numerous flaws? Mansouri-Sexl have a section on the MM experiment.

6. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
I started this thread at your request, and stated in the OP that "I do not believe that this is really an ATM concept at all, but recognize that (at first glance) it could have the appearance of being an ATM concept.". It is you who have made all of the against-mainstream claims so far, so I'll also ask for you to please answer our questions in a timely manner and to stop avoiding the questions.
Well, you are stuck with the;

1. 3 papers by Gagnon (yes, I repaired the one that had some math errors)
2. Krisher and C.M.Will
3. C.M.Will
4. The new one, from 2005 by the Berlin group

They are all mainstream, published in Phys.Rev. they all show VALID one way light speed measurements , a thing that both you and Gregory_/Gregory9/NotForYou/Jonny/ and hoever many other sock puppets are out there deny publicly.

Originally Posted by gregory
...because all one way light speed experiments are invalid
Neither of you groks post 54 which states clearly that MS test theory NEEDS AD-HOC ADDITIONAL assumptions in order to be MADE equivalent with SR.
This is the MAINSTREAM position, espoused by C.M.Will and I totally agreee with it.

So, go ahead , open a new thread in GS, I am done with you two guys on this thread.

7. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
They are all mainstream, published in Phys.Rev. they all show VALID one way light speed measurements , a thing that both you and Gregory_/Gregory9/NotForYou/Jonny/ and hoever many other sock puppets are out there deny publicly.
First, stop making accusations.
Second, we have shown you repeatedly that you are misunderstanding those papers. They do not say what you are claiming.

If you would answer questions, we could help show you this. But you clam up and refuse to answer our questions.

Originally Posted by clj4
I am done with you two guys on this thread.
If you refuse to defend your against mainstream views, by forum rules you are not allowed to keep claiming them. Keep this in mind.

If you wish to leave it like that, fine.

8. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
If the MM experiment illustrates your point in exactly the same way as Gagnon et al. then why are we discussing Gagnon et al. which has been shown to have numerous flaws? Mansouri-Sexl have a section on the MM experiment.
Because I repaired Gagnon :-) Such that Gagnon is reinstated as valid. You tried in vain to disprove the first paper in the Gagnon series of 3 published in Phys. Rev but I wouldn't let you, all you achieved in the end is to correct it (we did that together). So now, you have many experiments that disprove your point. The original list is intact. You can open a new thread and you and the master puppeteer can be in total agreement.

9. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
Because I repaired Gagnon :-) Such that Gagnon is reinstated as valid.
Again, if you are not willing to defend your against-mainstream claims, please stop stating them.

If you are willing to defend them, answer our direct questions.

10. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
Neither of you grocks post 54...
Now you're speaking Martian?!? -- http://whatis.techtarget.com/definit...212216,00.html

11. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Gregory9
Again, if you are not willing to defend your against-mainstream claims, please stop stating them.

If you are willing to defend them, answer our direct questions.

Well, this is your start and end point:

Originally Posted by gregory
...because all one way light speed experiments are invalid

12. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
Well, this is your start and end point:
Originally Posted by gregory
Originally Posted by gregory
...because all one way light speed experiments are invalid
And it's a valid point. Have you forgotten that in addition to Mansouri-Sexl I provided this credible reference very early in this discussion? Y.Z. Zhang, Special relativity and its experimental foundations, (1997); http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/3180.html.

In the preface he says this (emphasis added): "The key point in Einstein's theory is the postulate concerning the constancy of the (one-way) velocity of light, which contradicts the classical (nonrelativistic) addition law of velocities. The postulate is needed only for constructing well-defined inertial frames of reference or, in other words, only for synchronizing clocks (i.e., defining simultaneity). It is not possible to test the one-way velocity of light because another independent method of clock synchronization has not yet been found...Of course one could use the experiments to yield limits on the parameters in Robertson's transformations but not on the directional parameter q in Edwards' and MS' theories."

On the back cover Zhang says this (emphasis added): "...In particular, the discussions indicate that the one-way speed of light is not observable in the present laboratories...In the third part, variant types of experiments performed up to now are analyzed and compared to the predictions of special relativity. The analyses show that the experiments are tests of the two-way velocity, but not of the one-way velocity, of light."

On page 10 he says (emphasis added): "We want to stress here that only the two-way speed, but not the one-way speed, of light has been already measured in the experimental measurements, and hence the isotropy of the one-way velocity of light is just a postulate...We shall see from Chap. 6 that a more general postulate, a choice of the anisotropy of the one-way velocity of light, together with the principle of relativity, would give the same physical predictions as Einstein's theory of special relativity."

13. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
Have you forgotten that in addition to Mansouri-Sexl I provided this credible reference very early in this discussion? Y.Z. Zhang, Special relativity and its experimental foundations, (1997); http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/3180.html

In the preface he says this: "The key point in Einstein's theory is the postulate concerning the constancy of the (one-way) velocity of light, which contradicts the classical (nonrelativistic) addition law of velocities. The postulate is needed only for constructing well-defined inertial frames of reference or, in other words, only for synchronizing clocks (i.e., defining simultaneity). It is not possible to test the one-way velocity of light because another independent method of clock synchronization has not yet been found...Of course one could use the experiments to yield limits on the parameters in Robertson's transformations but not on the directional parameter q in Edwards' and MS' theories."

On the back cover Zhang says this: "...In particular, the discussions indicate that the one-way speed of light is not observable in the present laboratories...In the third part, variant types of experiments performed up to now are analyzed and compared to the predictions of special relativity. The analyses show that the experiments are tests of the two-way velocity, but not of the one-way velocity, of light."

On page 10 he says: "We want to stress here that only the two-way speed, but not the one-way speed, of light has been already measured in the experimental measurements, and hence the isotropy of the one-way velocity of light is just a postulate...We shall see from Chap. 6 that a more general postulate, a choice of the anisotropy of the one-way velocity of light, together with the principle of relativity, would give the same physical predictions as Einstein's theory of special relativity."

Yes, so you too end and start in the same point. Zhang is not the Gospel, anyway when he wrote the book this experiment had not been run yet:

S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchuk, H. Müller, A. Peters: "Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005).

Try peddling to Achim Peters and to Holger Muller the quote above....

It is also likely that Zhang hadn't seen the C.M.Will paper.

14. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
Try peddling to Achim Peters and to Holger Muller the quote above....
Here are the author's email addresses given in the paper http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097:

sven.herrmann@physik.hu-berlin.de
achim.peters@physik.hu-berlin.de

Why don't you email the quotes from Zhang to these two guys, and see for yourself what they say? Point them to this thread if you wish, it would be great if they would give their opinion on this here. Until then (Zhang, 1997) stands squarely in opposition to everything you have said so far, and you are against-mainstream.
Last edited by Aether; 2006-Apr-12 at 11:42 PM.

15. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
Here are the author's email addresses given in the paper http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097:

sven.herrmann@physik.hu-berlin.de
achim.peters@physik.hu-berlin.de

Why don't you email the quotes from Zhang to these two guys, and see for yourself what they say? Point them to this thread if you wish, it would be great if they would give their opinion on this here. Until then (Zhang, 1997) stands squarely in opposition to everything you have said so far, and you are against-mainstream.
If you want to make a spectacle of yourself, why don't you email them?
The experiment is exactly in line with the Krisher and with the C.M.Will papers, at a much higher precision:

"Within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl test theory, our measurement restricts the isotropy violation parameter $\beta -\delta -\frac 12$ to $(-2.1\pm 1.9)\times 10^{-10}$, corresponding to an eightfold improvement with respect to previous non-rotating measurements."

Same thing as Krisher. Same as Gagnon. NO anisotropy (very severe limits on the anisotropy parameters). RMS starts with non-zero parameters over SR and it is used as a test tool just to be rejected in the end because the test parameters are restricted to near-zero values.

Actually why don't you email Achim Peters the quote from page 10 of Zhang?Ask him to comment on this:

"We want to stress here that only the two-way speed, but not the one-way speed, of light has been already measured in the experimental measurements, and hence the isotropy of the one-way velocity of light is just a postulate.."

This would be a great way of ending this thread.

16. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
If you want to make a spectacle of yourself, why don't you email them?
If I email them, will you accept what they say as conveyed through me? It's better if you contact them.

The experiment is exactly in line with the Krisher and with the C.M.Will papers, at a much higher precision:

"Within the Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl test theory, our measurement restricts the isotropy violation parameter $\beta -\delta -\frac 12$ to $(-2.1\pm 1.9)\times 10^{-10}$, corresponding to an eightfold improvement with respect to previous non-rotating measurements."

Same thing as Krisher. Same as Gagnon. NO anisotropy (very severe limits on the anisotropy parameters). RMS starts with non-zero parameters over SR and it is used as a test tool just to be rejected in the end because the test parameters are restricted to near-zero values.
I have previously stipulated that this parameter is identically zero in both SR and GGT.

Actually why don't you email Achim Peters the quote from page 10 of Zhang?Ask him to comment on this:

"We want to stress here that only the two-way speed, but not the one-way speed, of light has been already measured in the experimental measurements, and hence the isotropy of the one-way velocity of light is just a postulate.."

This would be a great way of ending this thread.
Why don't you? You chose this reference, and you are disputing the statement from Zhang. There is no point in me contacting them and conveying their comments to you second-hand.

17. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
The experiment is exactly in line with the Krisher and with the C.M.Will papers, at a much higher precision...

Originally Posted by Zhang
We want to stress here that only the two-way speed, but not the one-way speed, of light has been already measured in the experimental measurements, and hence the isotropy of the one-way velocity of light is just a postulate..
Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

Quoting from p. 810 of Mansouri-Sexl: "The mean velocity of light along a closed path has been calculated in equation (36) of Paper I and is independent of the synchronization coefficient \epsilon."

Here's a quote from p. 811 of the same paper which refutes everything you have said so far...point-blank: "Another experiment similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment has been performed by Fox and Shamir [9]. According to these authors this experiment is able to decide between the special theory of relativity and an ether theory incorporating Lorentz contraction and time dilation. As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle."

The paper you cited references these very papers by Mansouri-Sexl.

18. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Stop this.

This has gone on way too long because clj4 will not answer direct questions.

1] Do you now agree that the waveguide mode in question is TE_10? If not, please answer the previous questions relating to this topic.

2] Do you now agree that the phase difference between the two waveguides does not depend on v_z ? If not, please answer the previous questions relating to this topic.

3] You previously agreed that a one-way velocity is a coordinate dependant quantity. Do you still agree with this?

4] Do you agree that we can describe the universe in any coordinate system we choose? (ie we are not limited to just one set of coordinate systems)

If we define a coordinate system, and a metric, and describe the physics in the frame with tensor equations (which agree with experiment) ...

5] Do you believe we can experimentally "disprove" some linear coordinate transformations while "proving" others? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

6] Do you believe the tensor equations are only true with some specific coordinate transformations? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

You are required to defend your against mainstream claims by answering questions in a timely manner. Please do so or stop making these claims.

19. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Gregory9
Stop this.

"Socky"
Try using a civil tone. If you have servants at home, then try remembering that I am not part of your servant crew.

This has gone on way too long because clj4 will not answer direct questions.
Try using a civil tone. Order in your own home, not here.

1] Do you now agree that the waveguide mode in question is TE_10? If not, please answer the previous questions relating to this topic.
No, what you obtained in your "solution" is pure garbage and in the post below I am showing how you bungled the math for a 4-th or 5-th time.

2] Do you now agree that the phase difference between the two waveguides does not depend on v_z ? If not, please answer the previous questions relating to this topic.
Do not be ridiculous. I showed clearly that there is a measurable phase that depends on v_z. I also showed how you can get the information out of the experimental data. Try taking your blinders off.

You are required to defend your against mainstream claims by answering questions in a timely manner. Please do so or stop making these claims.
You need a lesson in civilized behavior.
Last edited by clj4; 2006-Apr-13 at 03:30 AM.

20. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Gregory9
clj4,

I calculated the Gagnon results on my own thank you.

Oh, and for those interested, I updated some calculations here http://www.cu-reviews.com/temp/Gagnon.pdf
It fixes the error I mentioned in post #56 (which didn't affect the final result).
(I borrowed some webspace from a friend, I don't know how long I can use this so grab it now if you want it.)
As in the past, you are big on words and short on math. You are not even solving the right wave equation-the equation of interest is E_z(x,y,z,t). Your solution is incorrect, I am outlining your errors in the attached files. This is the 4-th or 5-th time I correct your math and/or physics errors. Anyways, you don't have a solution so you have no point.Once you start writing equations all your argumentation falls apart. Really, give it a rest.
Last edited by clj4; 2006-Apr-13 at 02:42 PM.

21. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
Your solution is incorrect, I am outlining your errors in the attached files.
Your first complaint is wrong. You are claiming that E=0 (both tangential and parallel components) on the waveguide wall. That is incorrect. And you claim this out of no-where.

Either that or you appear to be using Del . E = 0 (which is not correct in the GGT frame).

You are correct that there are a few typos where I left out the factor i. As can be seen in the calculations these are just typos, not errors as they are not dropped in the result. Also, you make a big complaint about this being "neither TE nor TM". That is not correct. As I have repeatedly explained to you, this is a TE mode ... which means the electric field is transverse to the direction of propagation. Which is true here since E_z=0 and the direction of propagation is z. Please stop making these complaints about TE modes.

Please stop avoiding our direct questions.
You have been dragging this on for months because you refuse to answer any direct questions. Please go back and answer my questions in a detailed manner. Don't just state "Im right, you're wrong". Unless you answer questions, there is no hope of this discussion progressing anywhere.

22. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Gregory9
Your first complaint is wrong. You are claiming that E=0 (both tangential and parallel components) on the waveguide wall. That is incorrect. And you claim this out of no-where.Either that or you appear to be using Del . E = 0 (which is not correct in the GGT frame).
No, you simply don't have the mathematical background to understand your error (s).

You are correct that there are a few typos where I left out the factor i.
Well, thank you. This is only the second time you admitted to an error. The first time was when you announced that your "sock puppet" NotForYou had "convinced" you that you messed up the transformation of the initial conditions of the wave equation?
Remember:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthr...88636&page=360

As can be seen in the calculations these are just typos, not errors as they are not dropped in the result. Also, you make a big complaint about this being "neither TE nor TM". That is not correct. As I have repeatedly explained to you, this is a TE mode ... which means the electric field is transverse to the direction of propagation. Which is true here since E_z=0 and the direction of propagation is z. Please stop making these complaints about TE modes.
You can't compute anything right - you don't even understand your mathematical mistakes (your X(x) function is physically impossible and does NOT conform to TE mode, actually does NOT conform to ANYTHING). You obtained a "solution" that is neither TE (as you claim) , nor TM (as it should be), it is just a physical impossibility because it is a sum of two unrelated complex functions. The error started at (35)(36) as I told you after I had a look at your "creation". And your (56) is not only wrong, it is catastrophical. You have no solution to the problem, therefore you have no say.
Last edited by clj4; 2006-Apr-13 at 05:47 AM.

23. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
No, you simply don't have the mathematical background to understand your error.
Again, you try to use condescension as if it is an answer.
Your first complaint (regarding equation 35,36) is not correct. You are trying to set E_x=0 AND E_y = 0 on ALL the waveguide walls. This is not what the boundary conditions are. Only E_parallel=0.

Equations 35,36 follow directly from eq 34, and the boundary conditions (eq 30,31).

Originally Posted by clj4
You can't compute anything right - you don't even understand your mathematical mistakes (your X(x) function is physically impossible).
It is physically possible. Are you expecting the solution to look the same as in the "lorentz frame"? It won't.

Stop trying to use condescension to make yourself sound correct.

Originally Posted by clj4
You obtained a "solution" that is neither TE (as you claim) , nor TM (as it should be), it is just a physical impossibility because it is a sum of two unrelated complex functions.
It is a TE mode. E_z=0 and the propagation direction is z, that is the definition of a TE mode.

You appear to be throwing around accusations to distract us from the fact that you haven't answered our questions.

1] You previously agreed that a one-way velocity is a coordinate dependant quantity. Do you still agree with this?

2] Do you agree that we can describe the universe in any coordinate system we choose? (ie we are not limited to just one specific set of coordinate systems)

If we define a coordinate system, and a metric, and describe the physics in the frame with tensor equations (which agree with experiment) ...

3] Do you believe we can experimentally "disprove" some linear coordinate transformations while "proving" others? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

4] Do you believe the tensor equations are only true with some specific coordinate transformations? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

You are required to defend your against mainstream claims by answering questions in a timely manner. Please do so or stop making these claims.

24. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
You can't even "engineer" your way into the solution you were "supposed" to get. To quote your own link again:

http://www.ee.bilkent.edu.tr/~microw.../rect/info.htm

You have no solution, therefore you have no say.
Just a bad game of botched math and an unethical game of sock puppets.

25. Member
Join Date
Apr 2006
Posts
23
Originally Posted by clj4
You can't even "engineer" your way into the solution you were "supposed" to get.
Set v=0 and you do indeed get the usual waveguide solution as required. My solution is not flawed, and I don't understand why you keep insisting so without giving specifics.

Stop using condescension as if it is an answer.

You appear to be throwing around accusations to distract us from the fact that you haven't answered our questions.

1] You previously agreed that a one-way velocity is a coordinate system dependant quantity. Do you still agree with this?

2] Do you agree that we can describe the universe in any coordinate system we choose? (ie we are not limited to just one specific set of coordinate systems)

If we define a coordinate system, and a metric, and describe the physics in the frame with tensor equations (which agree with experiment) ...

3] Do you believe we can experimentally "disprove" some linear coordinate transformations while "proving" others? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

4] Do you believe the tensor equations are only true with some specific coordinate transformations? (if yes, what are your reasons?)

You are required to defend your against mainstream claims by answering questions in a timely manner. Please do so or stop making these claims.
Last edited by Gregory9; 2006-Apr-13 at 07:08 AM.

26. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by Gregory9
Stop this.

This has gone on way too long because clj4 will not answer direct questions.
Unless a moderator of this forum objects, then I declare clj4 as being the only visibly against-the-mainstream party to this conversation. So, clj4, please answer Gregory9's direct questions.

27. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
Unless a moderator of this forum objects, then I declare clj4 as being the only visibly against-the-mainstream party to this conversation. So, clj4, please answer Gregory9's direct questions.

See post 54.

Nice move , "Aether".Help me out, isn't the aether theory that you are so keen on proving right the "against the mainstream" concept?
How can I be "against the mainstream" when you two are supporting that the aether theory as indistinguishable from SR?.
You two maintain this the context of my showing you multiple mainstream papers, published in Phys. Rev that show that you need to ADD AD-HOC assumptions in order to make the two theories indistiguishable?Talk about twisting the truth.

Gregory9 does not have a say because he does not have a valid solution to Gagnon's paper. See post 110.
You have no solution either since you abdicated all calculations to Gregory9 long ago.
Both of you deny that one can derive a v-dependent phase measurement from the refurbished Gagnon experiment even though you participated in fixing the Gagnon paper.

Either way, both of you have to deal with a large number of valid one way light speed experiments:
3xGagnon
1xKrisher
1xWill
1xPeters

etc,etc.

So it should be clear for this audience that you, "Aether" and "Gregory9" are the ATM's.

If you object to post 54, then ask drs. Peters/Hermann what they think. If possible, ask them to log in this website and give their opinion. This would prevent cheating. Over and out.
Last edited by clj4; 2006-Apr-13 at 02:17 PM.

28. Member
Join Date
Feb 2006
Posts
67
Originally Posted by clj4
See post 54.

Nice move, "aether". Gregory9 does not have a say because he does not have a valid solution to Gagnon's paper.
You have no solution either since you abdicated all calculations to Gregory9.

Either way, both of you have to deal with a large number of valid one way light speed experiments:
3xGagnon
1xKrisher
1xWill
1xPeters

etc,etc.

If you object to post 54, ask dr. Peters what he thinks. If possible, ask him to log in this website and give his opinion. This would prevent cheating. Over and out.
You have been declared as being the only visibly against-the-mainstream party to this conversation, and therefore any further stalling on your part is not allowed under BAUT rules. So, clj4, please answer Gregory9's direct questions.

29. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
You have been declared as being the only visibly against-the-mainstream party to this conversation, and therefore any further stalling on your part is not allowed under BAUT rules. So, clj4, please answer Gregory9's direct questions.
Declared by whom? By you, "Aether"?
Ask dr. Peters and Hermann what they think about you and Gregory9 declaring "all one way light speed experiments invalid". For your information, I ma not stalling. I gave you the answers to the questions even before you asked them: read my post 54 until you grok it.

30. Banned
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
264
Originally Posted by Aether
If I email them, will you accept what they say as conveyed through me? It's better if you contact them.
I contacted them and asked them to log in directly into the website such there is no cheating.Feel free to contact them as well but no direct mail to you will be trusted. Please drop all your lobbying and give it a few days until they give their opinion.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•