Consistency of the speed of light

[clj4]

I must admit, I am a naive sucker. No matter how many times clj4 claims he'll "believe it if you show proof" ... well, I keep hoping that this time will be the time where he actually steps back and discusses the material with the intent to learn. Please clj4, this has gone on for way too many posts now.

Yes, it hos gone a lot of posts because you kept producing bogus "proofs" . The one that you just did is the first one that is correct and you produced it only after some prodding and prompting.

I only went so far as obtaining omega_c. It is indeed the same as in SR (as has been proved before). Once these calculations are accepted, I would like to pause to see why we should have expected this all along (ie the simple proofs given by me and others).

Congratulations! You finally removed your gratuitous hack X(x)=const from post 361 and you obtained the correct result. I obtained it two days ago.

For closure : can you show via a simple calculation how does the new/corrected version of k affect Gagnon eq (9)? (see my post 416).

 

[clj4]

If we get a different answer than Gagnon, will you believe that Gagnon is wrong, or believe that we made a mistake?

Besides, we are starting all over to resolve it. So why not solve it the easier way? Do the calculations in the "special frame" where SR and GGT agree. It is not necessary to solve gagnon eq 5.

Yes, it was , as you could see. But you have one more step (albeit a much simpler one). See post 416.

 

[gregory_]

Yes, it hos gone a lot of posts because you kept producing bogus "proofs" . The one that you just did is the first one that is correct and you produced it only after some prodding and prompting.

Hey, it was YOU that kept insisting that people find WHERE Gagnon's error was, remember? I had shown what the correct result was long ago by working out the prediction in the "special frame" that agrees with SR, but you refused to even consider that (you wouldn't even discuss it, or prove it wrong). But we COULDN'T show exactly where Gagnon's error was, since his first result was wrong (the dispersion relation) and he didn't explain his work explicitly enough. It took quite awhile till someone figured out how to even reproduce Gagnon's incorrect results.

This was because of YOUR demands to find WHERE Gagnon's error is.
I am glad you have finally learned that Gagnon is wrong, but don't you dare make it sound like this is our fault.

If you had actually stepped back and thought about it from the "special frame", as we continually pleaded with you to do, you would have seen that Gagnon was wrong many many posts ago.


So let's pause and look at one of those proofs you claim is bogus. Back up your claims, where is NotForYou's proof wrong? You will find that it is not wrong. It is correct, and has been correct, as has my similar proof.

For closure : can you show via a simple calculation how does the new/corrected version of k affect Gagnon eq (9)? (see my post 416).

Of course I can do a simple subtraction, and so can you. The phase is independent of the velocity.

 

[gregory_]

Congratulations! You finally removed your gratuitous hack X(x)=const from post 361 and you obtained the correct result. I obtained it two days ago.

You say this as if you agreed Gagnon was wrong the whole time. And you say it as if you weren't still arguing that Gagnon was right two days ago.

(And also let me remind you that the "hack X=const" was the only way NotForYou could find to reproduce Gagnon's incorrect results... the intention was to show WHERE Gagnon's error was. He, nor I, were ever claiming that was the correct answer.)

But it is nice to hear that you worked through it yourself to see the correct answer. Maybe you can read through those other papers with a clear head now and teach yourself the rest.

 

[clj4]

Of course I can do a simple subtraction, and so can you. The phase is independent of the velocity.

Recalculate (9) with the new values for k. Come on, don't be bashful. You are almost there...

 

[clj4]

So let's pause and look at one of those proofs you claim is bogus. Back up your claims, where is NotForYou's proof wrong? You will find that it is not wrong. It is correct, and has been correct, as has my similar proof.

You forget the bogus claim you made on the transformation of the boundary conditions? you know, the one your "twin" NotForReal, "convinced" you (yourself?) that you were wrong?

Anyways, humor the many people that watch this thread and finish your work. Recalculate (9) with the new values for k. Show us how phase difference does not depend on v_z.

 

[clj4]

But it is nice to hear that you worked through it yourself to see the correct answer. Maybe you can read through those other papers with a clear head now and teach yourself the rest.

...as to the papers of Krisher, Will, Mansouri, I studied them very carefully, thank you. I will continue to study them. We may get to discuss them. After you finish your disproof of Gagnon. Have you studied them? Do you still maintain that:

...the one way light speed experiments are invalid..

and that:

...there are aether theories that are indistinguishable from special relativity...

?

 

[NotForYou]

Of course I can do a simple subtraction, and so can you. The phase is independent of the velocity.

Recalculate (9) with the new values for k. Come on, don't be bashful. You are almost there...

Haha gregory! I told you he wouldn't do the subtraction on his own. You owe me a free dinner.


clj4, I don't understand why you fight everything every step of the way. I really can't figure out what is just your stubborness (unwilling to look at it yourself) and what is your ignorance (actually not knowing how to do it yourself). This is a site to learn. I encourage you to participate in the discussion, ie a two way conversation. If you know something, share it ... if you don't, admit it and ask a question to learn more. And if you expect people to answer your questions, please answer theirs as well.

This whole conversation could have been incredibly shortenned if you were less combative and seriously thought and considered what people have said.

 

[clj4]

Y

(And also let me remind you that the "hack X=const" was the only way NotForYou could find to reproduce Gagnon's incorrect results... the intention was to show WHERE Gagnon's error was. He, nor I, were ever claiming that was the correct answer.)

Yeah, right. From post 361:

We are looking for the lowest frequency mode, so we want $$\nabla^2 E_x$$ and $$\nabla E_x$$ to be a minimum (out of whose b..tt did this one come from?). Since X(x) is unconstrained, the result is X(x) = constant for the lowest frequency mode.

It took you thtee requests from me to do the things right. By then, I already had the correct solution for k. A few days later, you got is as well (as a nit, stop claiming that the Gagnon equation is TE mode, it is TM. This is pretty straightforward since the starting equation is the standard equation for TM mode. And, for your information, the boundary conditions on E is all you need. It is TM mode, remember? ) . Now, since I like doing things thoroughly, I took the new/corrected expression for k to recalculate eq (9). Would you please do the same? See what you get.

 

[clj4]

Haha gregory! I told you he wouldn't do the subtraction on his own. You owe me a free dinner.clj4, I don't understand why you fight everything every step of the way. I really can't figure out what is just your stubborness (unwilling to look at it yourself) and what is your ignorance (actually not knowing how to do it yourself). This is a site to learn. I encourage you to participate in the discussion, ie a two way conversation. If you know something, share it ... if you don't, admit it and ask a question to learn more. And if you expect people to answer your questions, please answer theirs as well.

This whole conversation could have been incredibly shortenned if you were less combative and seriously thought and considered what people have said.

Try calculating it yourself? Out of curiosity how come you and gregory are never logged in this website at the same time?

Do you really believe that;

...the one way light speed experiments are invalid..

and that:

...there are aether theories that are indistinguishable from special relativity...

?

 

[clj4]

Haha gregory! I told you he wouldn't do the subtraction on his own. You owe me a free dinner.clj4, I don't understand why you fight everything every step of the way. I really can't figure out what is just your stubborness (unwilling to look at it yourself) and what is your ignorance (actually not knowing how to do it yourself). This is a site to learn. I encourage you to participate in the discussion, ie a two way conversation. If you know something, share it ... if you don't, admit it and ask a question to learn more. And if you expect people to answer your questions, please answer theirs as well.

This whole conversation could have been incredibly shortenned if you were less combative and seriously thought and considered what people have said.

Try keeping your ad-hominem attacks in check, will you?
I can say the same thing about you: why do you persist when you know full well the stronger papers of Krisher, C.M.will, etc?

 

[chroot]

Give it up, kids. Gregory's sock-puppets have been banned, and I want to see you stay out of petty arugments, clj4. Also, quit whining to the mentors about arguments that you are voluntarily participating in.

This entire thread is pretty much completely in violation of our posting guidelines, anyway. Locked.

- Warren