Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 18:30:00 UTC No. 16431508

You can measure the one way speed of light by measuring the speed across a medium interface

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:46:17 UTC No. 16431778

>>16431508
No you can't.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:49:56 UTC No. 16431791

>>16431778
why not

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:50:55 UTC No. 16431795

>>16431486
While strictly true it is meaninglessly pedantry. There is no theory or experiment that would indicate C isn't constant in every direction, it would also be a very strange universe that went out of its way just to fuck with us.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 20:58:43 UTC No. 16431807

>>16431486
>stand near a black hole
>send a light beam
>it comes back from the other direction
simple as
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_sphere

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:00:39 UTC No. 16431816

>>16431795
>There is no theory or experiment that would indicate C isn't constant in every direction
There is the hypothesis that light coming towards Earth is infinite and while moving away from Earth is 1/2 C which comports with observational astronomy.
What you said was more of a non sequitur than a logical justification for assuming C is constant in all directions.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:04:28 UTC No. 16431822

>>16431795
Mmmmmmh actually it is a very nontrivial problem. Sure, the most logical conclusion is that light is the same in every direction, but that doesn't appear to be necessitated by the universe.

Perhaps it is like asking the "wrong" question. Like asking how to solve the halting problem, as in light doesnt have the properties which allow you to define direction in a meaningful sense.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:06:16 UTC No. 16431824

>>16431816
Perform an experiment on Earth that continuously measures the speed of light. Run it for an entire year as the planet does a full rotation around the sun. Our measurement of c is constant. But... but... we can't know for sure.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:08:08 UTC No. 16431830

>>16431486
It's trivial to measure the speed of light. Just put a stationary light source where it can be viewed intermittently through a window on a plate attached to an axle. A second, identical plate is attached to the axle at a fixed distance. Spin the axle until the light is no longer visible. You can determine the speed of light from the geometry of the device and the speed of the rotation.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:11:58 UTC No. 16431837

>>16431830
> Spin the axle until the light is no longer visible
Ask yourself what is involved in "seeing" that.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:14:00 UTC No. 16431843

>>16431822
>Sure, the most logical conclusion
Being the most overt conclusion doesn't make it more logical.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:18:43 UTC No. 16431852

>>16431843
Occam's Razor would say otherwise.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:22:46 UTC No. 16431862

>>16431852
Occam's Razor is a fallacy, moreover it doesn't state that the more overt something is, the more likely it is to be true.
I'm not making anymore assumptions than you are regarding C, therefore Occam's Razor doesn't even apply here.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:24:06 UTC No. 16431864

>>16431486
He doesn't understand general relativity.
Laugh at this user;
Hahahahahaha!

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:25:43 UTC No. 16431868

>>16431862
Ah, I see. You're just an idiot.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:25:57 UTC No. 16431869

>>16431864
What's the speed of light in a shadow?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:27:11 UTC No. 16431871

>>16431868
You appealed to Occam's Razor in this scenario and call me an idiot, incredible.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:27:31 UTC No. 16431873

>>16431843
You actually can't come to any conclusion in the first place. That's the entire point of special relativity. That being said we usually want measuring sticks that dont change when you turn them around.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:37:17 UTC No. 16431885

>>16431873
>You actually can't come to any conclusion in the first place
yeah, exactly. I'm just pointing out that relativity comports with an alternative stipulation for C.
>we usually want measuring sticks that dont change when you turn them around
which makes your conventional stipulation pragmatic rather than logical. It still may or may not be true.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:43:59 UTC No. 16431896

Why though??

If I have a material which slows light down so much I can go faster in a car, then I will have time to start the light beam and drive past the material and catch the same light beam won't I?

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 21:55:11 UTC No. 16431909

Light is quantum mechanical. The speed of a photon depends on whether it propagates as a particle or a wave. Consciousness changes the speed of light. See double slut experiment.

Anonymous at Mon, 14 Oct 2024 22:03:18 UTC No. 16431916

>>16431909
Could you not verify if concousness colapses the waveform and rule out the Von Neumann–Wigner interpretation by doing the double slit experiment with an alive mouse and again with a very recently desceased mouse as the observer.

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 01:57:21 UTC No. 16432197

>>16431486
the 2 clock method hasnt been disproven

Anonymous at Tue, 15 Oct 2024 22:50:46 UTC No. 16433569

>>16431909
>The speed of a photon depends on whether it propagates as a particle or a wave
>t. I said it therefore it's true

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 01:24:43 UTC No. 16433725

>>16431909
This isn't science go back into the books and stop mumbling useless jargon

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 12:08:41 UTC No. 16434255

>>16431791
trust me bro

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 13:59:05 UTC No. 16434386

>>16431837
A light detector or your eyes.

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 14:24:26 UTC No. 16434411

>>16431896
>your friend can run 2x faster than you
>you make your friend run through a corn maze while you run next to the maze
>"Whoah, why am I so much faster now?"

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 16:54:50 UTC No. 16434661

>>16431486
>~300km/s
lol

Anonymous at Wed, 16 Oct 2024 17:01:27 UTC No. 16434674

>>16431486
> You literally CAN'T know the one way speed of light.
Just measure frequency and wave length. Unfortunately it proves the ether. So you have to scam tons of BS in every media to hide that simple thing.

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 01:17:06 UTC No. 16435589

>>16431486
>300km/s
missing a few zeros there bud

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 04:34:42 UTC No. 16435758

>>16434661
>>16435589
yeah you know what I meant

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 07:47:54 UTC No. 16435926

Couldnt you measure the speed of light by measuring how much heat comes from the sun over a period of time?
It would imply a specific one way speed

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 08:56:29 UTC No. 16435990

>>16435589
>>16434661
IN A MATERIAL WITH N=1000 THO

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 08:58:19 UTC No. 16435991

>The "one-way" speed of light, from a source to a detector, cannot be measured independently of a convention as to how to synchronize the clocks at the source and the detector

How is this not solved by doing this?>>16431896
Please explain why??

Anonymous at Thu, 17 Oct 2024 17:22:40 UTC No. 16436596

>>16431909
>double slut experiment
Please share results to i can try to replicate

Anonymous at Fri, 18 Oct 2024 01:57:41 UTC No. 16437317

>>16431486
All energy and material can have properties and tendencies altered given specific conditions or influences.