Recent content by randyu

Thanks for the distinction. Seems like using the term isotropic or anisotropic in the same sentence as two-way light speed is a bit meaningless or at least confusing. And that the author quoted in the OP must have been talking about one-way light speed. But, in general I would be comfortable...

Thanks for the great reference. I found this part particularly useful experiments also confirm agreement between clock synchronization by slow transport and Einstein synchronization.[2] Even though some authors argued that this is sufficient to demonstrate the isotropy of the one-way speed of...

I'm confused by something I read, that said: Ref: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988AmJPh..56..811B What does that last statement (underlined by me) mean, "any anisotropy in the speed of light is contrived and not physically significant". Why is it not physically significant? I thought...

Thanks guys.

WannabeNewton, thanks for your input. It helps. Do you agree with the previously quoted: "Experiment reveals that, on the basis of symmetry in physical law, any anisotropy in the speed of light is contrived and not physically significant". That's a hard statement for me to comprehend...

Or is c just a constant in the equation. Which reminds me, in E=mc2, is c just a constant or fundamental to the equation. By fundamental, I mean it's not just a units correction, but falls out from the derivation.

Thanks again. I think I get what you are describing about tidal effects, accelerating frame and gravity. But, I do think light speed fundamental behavior is tied together with the geometric formulation of gravity. G =\ 8πG/(c*4)\ \times\ T (sorry for the mess, I need...

wow, thanks guys, thanks PeterDonis, I realize that it doesn't sound like I'm doing my reading, but I am. Thanks for your patience. thanks D H, A.T and m4r35n357, your input has been valuable to me. I say wow, because it's all starting to make some better sense to me now. So then, when...

In a spaceship frame at constant acceleration (no rotation) vertically upward, if I weigh the ball on the ground level, shouldn't I get the same weight at any other place vertically upward? I'm in the spaceship, I weigh the ball, I move up the ladder, the ball weighs the same. I conclude I'm...

So how should one interpret that change in spatial coordinates with time as something different than speed? I've heard the universe's spatial behavior labeled as "cosmic expansion", not using the word speed. But that begs my question, what is cosmic expansion if not coordinate velocity? For a...

Maybe I'm confused, but I'm not talking about changing acceleration or jerk. I'm talking about constant steady-state acceleration. Do your comments still apply? Okay, I must really be confused. Are you saying that on Earth if I drop 2 objects at the same time, they will NOT remain at rest...

Thanks DH, I didn't really realize the principle was based on locality (guess I really must not have thought about it that much). Thought I might have an original thought; not really but. So how does this nonlocality tie in with light being locally c, and the expansion of the universe...

I have a question. I am in a frame. I construct a spring scale and weigh a ball to be 200 lbs on the floor. I feel no forces on my motions other than a gravitational field like being on the surface of the earth. I climb a very very tall ladder and weigh the ball again and find it to be 100...

thanks guys, I got it now

Thanks George, humm... I'll need to think about those. To clarify, in my setup frame x' is moving at +.6c, v=+.6c the clock in x is moving to the left at -.99c then @ t=1, x=-.99 Δt'= γ(Δt-vx/c2) Δt' = 1.25 (1 - 0.6 (-.99)/1²) = 1.9925 ≈ 2 still wrong I guess but why?