Silly Einstein

[Aardwolf]

In addition, if I were to introduce c into its own inertial reference frame, xcy, with x placed 2 ft in front of c and y placed 2 ft behind, all moving in the same direction, then after 2 ns from origin you can see from your updated diagram below, that y is within the ab sphere and has already observed the strobe, while x is outside the ab sphere and is yet to observe it.

-6____-5_____-4_____-3_____-2_____-1_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
_a__________________c_____a ______c_________________b_______________________b
_a_____x____________x ____________y___________y_____________________________b

This is in contradiction to your sentence from page 3 of this thread;

However, all observers in the source inertial frame, fixed at a given distance from the source, will all see the flash at the same time.

I am sorry everyone, sorry Aardwolf: I have been ambiguous with my lettering. There should be a black "c" under the original origin. The blue observers should not be labeled "a" and "b," since they are all together different observers. If you are cursing me for not making sense, I can not blame you.

This scheme makes better sense:

-6____-5_____-4_____-3_____-2_____-1_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
-b__________________c_____-a _____c______c__________+a______________________+b.

The top line depicts the rays of light expanding each direction from the strobe at 0. Imagine observers at each whole number. Each pair ("-" and "+") are equal distances from the origin, and both at that point in the expansion see the pulse at the same time. As the two directions of the pulse leave these observers, the pulse reaches the next pair of observers in line. The wave fronts of the pulse are traveling away from each other at 2 times the speed of light.

The bottom line represents the second origin (moving @ ½ the speed of light) at three positions in time, color coded. Black is t=0 nanoseconds, Red is t= 2nanoseconds, Blue is t=6 nanoseconds. Moving origin "c" was at +½ foot, at one nanosecond before the flash.

Observers +a and -a are not symmetrical around the origin in "c," Aardwolf. That is the whole point. If you look at the two axis lines they are symmetrical around the original origin. At six nanoseconds "-b" and "+b" are symmetrical around the original origin, but again not around the "c" origin. There is no source in the moving coordinate system for the observers in that system to see.

You have to keep in mind that the "c" coordinate system is moving to the left while the wave fronts are expanding (both to the left and right) in the original coordinate system. This is what the "Galilean Transform" does not consider.

If one does not examine one single light pulse one has no idea where it is in relation to other points of interest. The at rest with the strobe observers at a given distance will always have the same light latency. Moving observers have varying latencies since their distances are continually changing. If one does not understand that separate observers are required in ether/both systems, at each moment, to observe the single pulse, confusion reigns.

If one cobbles up one's own diagram confusion reigns! Hopefully you will forgive the faux pas.

My original problem had 2 frames of moving observers and a single flash which I incorporated into your example. I dont see how then changing your example and switching to 12 observers in one frame and 2 seperate moving light sources is going to help anyone understand.

[Aardwolf]

I am editing two sentences in the previous post for more clarity and to remove some ambiguity:

In addition, if I were to introduce c into its own inertial reference frame, xcy, with x placed 2 ft in front of c and y placed 2 ft behind, all moving in the same direction, then after 2 ns from origin you can see from your updated diagram below, that y is within the ab sphere and has already observed the strobe, while x is outside the ab sphere and is yet to observe it.

-6____-5_____-4_____-3_____-2_____-1_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
_a__________________c_____a ______c_________________b_______________________b
_a_____x____________x ____________y___________y_____________________________b

This is in contradiction to your sentence from page 3 of this thread;

However, all observers in the source inertial frame, fixed at a given distance from the source, will all see the flash at the same time.

I am sorry everyone, sorry Aardwolf: I have been ambiguous with my lettering. There should be a black "c" under the original origin. The blue observers should not be labeled "a" and "b," since they are all together different observers. If you are cursing me for not making sense, I can not blame you.

This scheme makes better sense:

-6____-5_____-4_____-3_____-2_____-1_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
-b__________________c_____-a _____c______c__________+a______________________+b.

The top line depicts the rays of light expanding each direction from the strobe at 0. Imagine observers at each whole number. Each pair ("-" and "+") are equal distances from the origin, and both [ unique pairs of observers regardless which system] at that point in the expansion see the pulse at the same time. As the two directions of the pulse leave these observers, the pulse reaches the next pair of observers in line. The wave fronts of the pulse are traveling away from each other at 2 times the speed of light.

The bottom line represents the second origin (moving @ ½ the speed of light) at three positions in time, color coded. Black is t=0 nanoseconds, Red is t= 2nanoseconds, Blue is t=6 nanoseconds. Moving origin "c" was at +½ foot, at one nanosecond before the flash.

Observers +a and -a are not symmetrical around the origin in "c," Aardwolf. That is the whole point. If you look at the two axis lines they are symmetrical around the original origin. ["they" is referring to the observers in both systems: both the fixed with the source observers; and the "moving observers" except the moving observers see the duration of the pulse being shorter on the right side of the source: longer on the left side. Both sets of observers at a given point in nanosecond time are looking at the same wavefront edge in the source system]

At six nanoseconds "-b" and "+b" are symmetrical around the original origin, but again not around the "c" origin. There is no source in the moving coordinate system for the observers in that system to see. The "c" origin becomes a ghost point after the flash.

You have to keep in mind that the "c" coordinate system is moving to the left while the wave fronts are expanding (both to the left and right) in the original coordinate system. This is what the "Galilean Transform" does not consider.

If one does not examine one single light pulse one has no idea where it is in relation to other points of interest. The at rest with the strobe observers at a given distance will always have the same light latency. Moving observers have varying latencies since their distances are continually changing. If one does not understand that separate observers are required in ether/both systems, at each moment, to observe the single pulse, confusion reigns.

If one cobbles up one's own diagram confusion reigns! Hopefully you will forgive the faux pas.

Aardwolf: I assume your added observers are "in" the moving system. If so, the blue "x" on the left will see the flash at 5 nanoseconds from the initial pulse; the red "x" will see the pulse at 3 nanoseconds from the initial pulse; both of your "y" observers will see the pulse at 1 nanosecond from the initial pulse. None of the observers in either system get to see the pulse more that once.

Yes they are moving towards the left at 0.5 ly in a fixed frame with c. However blue x and red x are the same x at different points in time so I don't understand why you think they will see the pulse twice. I think you need to explain what you meant the second origin to be. I assumed it to be a moving entity paassing the origin of the light pulse at time=0.

[Aardwolf]

I'm soo glad you understand this! Do you know how hard it is to get all those letters and numbers to line up using just text?

So I assume you agree there is only one single shared origin.

Your assumption is wrong. The two origins share the same place and time in space; for an instant. If you insist upon another origin where the pulse flashed, but this origin measures each of the other two receding origins' recession velocity at ¼ the speed of light, from that origin I'll grant you that. Now you have three origins. At least in my world!

If two cars pass each other on a road and clip their wing mirrors are you going to state that incident can have two seperate origins that just happened to share the same time and space just for an instant?

[Goldminer]

I'm soo glad you understand this! Do you know how hard it is to get all those letters and numbers to line up using just text?

So I assume you agree there is only one single shared origin.

Your assumption is wrong. The two origins share the same place and time in space; for an instant. If you insist upon another origin where the pulse flashed, but this origin measures each of the other two receding origins' recession velocity at ¼ the speed of light, from that origin I'll grant you that. Now you have three origins. At least in my world!

If two cars pass each other on a road and clip their wing mirrors are you going to state that incident can have two seperate (sic) origins that just happened to share the same time and space just for an instant?

The answer is very simple my friend, and you already know my answer! Each car has an origin and coordinates, each car's measurements are unchanging with respect to said origin and coordinates. Those origins and coordinates of one car move with respect to the other car's origin and coordinates!

The real question you are asking is where do the shards of the mirrors fall? They fall on the ground below where the mirrors struck each other. This is the origin of the third system. The one labeled in green above! The other two origins may be plotted in this coordinate system; approaching and departing this origin.

Granted you can show both cars in this system, and this system can be in place before the cars meet. Sometimes this third coordinate system is useful, so don't discard it. But when one of the cars is emitting light waves, which have velocities related to both a group of cars moving in the same direction and speed, as well as another group of cars moving at a different speed; the third, "ground" frame of reference is superfluous. It just complicates the drawing. You can think of this reference as absolute with the surface of Earth, but it won't fly with being absolute with the aether.

[Goldminer]

Sorry Aardwolf, I missed this post of yours:

In addition, if I were to introduce c into its own inertial reference frame, xcy, with x placed 2 ft in front of c and y placed 2 ft behind, all moving in the same direction, then after 2 ns from origin you can see from your updated diagram below, that y is within the ab sphere and has already observed the strobe, while x is outside the ab sphere and is yet to observe it.

-6____-5_____-4_____-3_____-2_____-1_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
_a__________________c_____a ______c_________________b_______________________b
_a_____x____________x ____________y___________y_____________________________b

This is in contradiction to your sentence from page 3 of this thread;

However, all observers in the source inertial frame, fixed at a given distance from the source, will all see the flash at the same time.

I am sorry everyone, sorry Aardwolf: I have been ambiguous with my lettering. There should be a black "c" under the original origin. The blue observers should not be labeled "a" and "b," since they are all together different observers. If you are cursing me for not making sense, I can not blame you.

This scheme makes better sense:

-6____-5_____-4_____-3_____-2_____-1_____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
-b__________________c_____-a _____c______c__________+a______________________+b.

The top line depicts the rays of light expanding each direction from the strobe at 0. Imagine observers at each whole number. Each pair ("-" and "+") are equal distances from the origin, and both at that point in the expansion see the pulse at the same time. As the two directions of the pulse leave these observers, the pulse reaches the next pair of observers in line. The wave fronts of the pulse are traveling away from each other at 2 times the speed of light.

The bottom line represents the second origin (moving @ ½ the speed of light) at three positions in time, color coded. Black is t=0 nanoseconds, Red is t= 2nanoseconds, Blue is t=6 nanoseconds. Moving origin "c" was at +½ foot, at one nanosecond before the flash.

Observers +a and -a are not symmetrical around the origin in "c," Aardwolf. That is the whole point. If you look at the two axis lines they are symmetrical around the original origin. At six nanoseconds "-b" and "+b" are symmetrical around the original origin, but again not around the "c" origin. There is no source in the moving coordinate system for the observers in that system to see.

You have to keep in mind that the "c" coordinate system is moving to the left while the wave fronts are expanding (both to the left and right) in the original coordinate system. This is what the "Galilean Transform" does not consider.

If one does not examine one single light pulse one has no idea where it is in relation to other points of interest. The at rest with the strobe observers at a given distance will always have the same light latency. Moving observers have varying latencies since their distances are continually changing. If one does not understand that separate observers are required in ether/both systems, at each moment, to observe the single pulse, confusion reigns.

If one cobbles up one's own diagram confusion reigns! Hopefully you will forgive the faux pas.

My original problem had 2 frames of moving observers and a single flash which I incorporated into your example. I dont (sic) see how then changing your example and switching to 12 observers in one frame and 2 seperate (sic) moving light sources is going to help anyone understand.

You mean this diagram:
-6____-5_____-4_____-3_-2½_-2_-1½_-1_-½__0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
-b__________________c_____-a ______c_____c__________+a______________________+b
-b____-z____________-x __c______c__-y__c__c_____+y_________+x__________+z____+b

I am trying to explain my point of view. Actually there are 10 observers in the moving frame, and 10 more counting those in the stationary frame. I didn't insert another light source, apparently you have, although I can't figure out where you put it. The only light source is at the black zero in the top number-line. If you insist upon two sources you will not understand my point of view. I explicitly stated that there is only one strobe and it is on the stationary number-line, the top abscissa. One source and one expanding sphere of light from a short pulse of light from the strobe.

Einsteinians never examine the fact that there is a sphere of expanding light waves which appear on the black abscissa as distances from zero in both directions from zero in that frame. Zero in the top frame is where the strobe is located. It is there in all my posts, even those that were ambiguous as to the various observers. There are separate observers in this "stationary frame," observing the expanding sphere. The ones I have chosen for examination are in blue and red. You added 6 more (actually 6 more since there is a complimentary observer moving to the right for each one moving to the left in the moving frame,) which means there are an additional six more points of interest on the stationary abscissa. One of your "x's has to be a different observer on the left side. One observer cannot be in two different places on this number-line. That is why I labeled it "z."

You ignored the fact that the origin of the moving frame, "c" takes up a new position at each "stop motion" of time, color coded to the observers under examination. The "c" positions noted on the stationary number-line are in italic to denote that they are not observers there. If a separate coordinate system were drawn with "c" fixed to the paper, instead of 0 (zero) then 0 would be the origin taking up a new location with each stop motion.

Also, I am dealing in light nanoseconds and feet distances, you keep thinking in terms of lightyears and spaceships. Do you just not want to understand my point of view?

[david barclay]

Goldminer...I like your thread, there is no reason why light should have a speed other than to limit our knowledge of universe, which is obviously electric.

Light is said to be in linear motion and mush faster than a speeding bullet or even superman and yes there is a time differential between any two systems in motion but that does necessitate or even suggest light itself to be in motion...you view distant objects at a distance.

The constancy of light speed was originally based on Einstein's perception of a static universe, which he admitted was an error. It was also based on static terms of reference attempting to define the limits of what turned out to be a dynamic universe experiencing accelerated expansion.

If the electrical universe is driven by an underlying force of energy we might consider this same force to be responsible for gravity as well and if so the controlled modulation of this underlying force would allow for instantaneous communication and transport without any further consideration to the limiting factor of light speed intent on convincing us that such a thing should be impossible and or pure fantasy.

It is contrary to logic to suggest the past existing at a linear distance from an observers location allows pictures of very ancient events to be photographed through the lens of a telescope. This is funny stuff if you can see the humor in all the straight faces anticipating a glossy pic of the universe at the moment of conception.

If we were waiting on light speed to determine the age and size of universe it would never arrive...the concept of light speed keeps your perception within the limits of a well defined box.

[Goldminer]

Goldminer...I like your thread, there is no reason why light should have a speed other than to limit our knowledge of universe, which is obviously electric.

I am pleased you like my comments, but I am only the original poster; it is not my thread. Feel free to disagree or whatever!

Electric, yes!

I'm not sure what you mean here, Dave. Do you mean speed limit as in nothing can go faster than? Two objects approaching or receding from a central point reference at 3/4 the speed of light are exceeding the speed of light half again with respect to each other, unless you are an Einsteinian. Light has a latency with respect to distance, otherwise the electronic distance measuring equipment would not work, unless you can explain another way for them to produce the measurements that they do.

So, no I do not regard "c" as a limit. That's my story and I'm stick'in to it!

Light is said to be in linear motion and mush faster than a speeding bullet or even superman and yes there is a time differential between any two systems in motion but that does necessitate or even suggest light itself to be in motion...you view distant objects at a distance.

Do you mean "mush faster" as in dog sledding? Just kidding here, I never do mistakes like that. Want a Walnetto?

The time differential exists whether things are in motion or at rest with each other. For things at rest with each other, the differential is the always quoted speed of light "constant." For things in motion with each other the "speed of light" depends upon whether the motion is a linear collision course,or non intersecting courses. I am discussing non accelerating motion here. Experiments with one way measurements of this speed are at odds with the Einsteinian view point.

In one respect, "Light" itself is an abstraction of our senses. Yet, cameras yield two dimensional copies of what we experience. Waves travel through their medium without the medium traveling from place to place itself. So in a sense the waves do travel. Yes, we do see distant objects at a distance, and up close objects up close. This is why I insist upon using only a short pulse of light in my "gedankens." Only a pulse from a known source at a given distance can be used to measure the latency of that pulse from being emitted to its detection.

Two short pulses from two sources one close and the other distant from a detector will reveal the time latency between the arrival of the two signals. Contrary to Einsteinians, no problem exists in producing the two pulses simultaneously. In fact this latency was a problem for routed packets on the internet, since some took a longer course than others and would get out of order at the destination. (Internet traffic runs at the speed of light other than the processing at routers and servers.)

The point being that you do indeed perceive both distant and near signals at the same time, however, the more distant were emitted first and are older.

The constancy of light speed was originally based on Einstein's perception of a static universe, which he admitted was an error. It was also based on static terms of reference attempting to define the limits of what turned out to be a dynamic universe experiencing accelerated expansion.

Actually, I agree with Einstein's first pinion, that the local Universe is pretty much static, and not accelerating, out to about as far as we can see with our current equipment, but then I am partial to Halton Arp's observations. Have you read his books?

If the electrical universe is driven by an underlying force of energy we might consider this same force to be responsible for gravity as well and if so the controlled modulation of this underlying force would allow for instantaneous communication and transport without any further consideration to the limiting factor of light speed intent on convincing us that such a thing should be impossible and or pure fantasy.

I don't have much of an opinion on this; which is unusual for an out spoken old man like me!

It is contrary to logic to suggest the past existing at a linear distance from an observers location allows pictures of very ancient events to be photographed through the lens of a telescope. This is funny stuff if you can see the humor in all the straight faces anticipating a glossy pic of the universe at the moment of conception.

I disagree with your first sentence, here. The Light from further away is from earlier events. Hate to be so grumpy about this. However,I do agree with your second sentence. The light from a "Big Bang" (a fantasy in/unto itself) would have come and gone at the "bang." only by exceeding the speed of light by infinity would one be able to "see the bang it self;" and then it would be "seen" at such a distance that you still couldn't see it!

If we were waiting on light speed to determine the age and size of universe it would never arrive...the concept of light speed keeps your perception within the limits of a well defined box.

[/quote]

It would never arrive for several reasons, one being as I stated above, said light has already come and gone, this being true where ever you went to look! IMHO, the box is the preconceived opinion that Einstein has the last word!

[Goldminer]

This figure is what happens when the moving observer frame is moving to the left at the speed of light:

-6____-5_____-4____-3_____-2_____-1____0_____1_____2_____3_____4_____5_____6
-b_______________________-a __________c___________+a______________________+b
-c_______________________-c __________c____________________________________

This is what Einstein should have imagined, while "riding the light pulse." He imagined the situation on the left. Notice that he never imagined another observer in this moving frame, going the same direction, and meeting the outgoing pulse head on!

Both the observer and the origin "c" are traveling with the wave front on the left.

The top line depicts the rays of light expanding each direction from the strobe at 0. Imagine observers at each whole number. Each pair ("-" and "+") are equal distances from the origin, and both [ unique pairs of observers regardless which system] at that point in the expansion see the pulse at the same time. As the two directions of the pulse leave these observers, the pulse reaches the next pair of observers in line. The wave fronts of the pulse are traveling away from each other at 2 times the speed of light.

The middle line represents the second origin (moving @ the speed of light) at three positions in time, color coded. Black is t=0 nanoseconds, Red is t= 2nanoseconds, Blue is t=6 nanoseconds. Moving origin "c" was at +1 foot, at one nanosecond before the flash.

The bottom line shows where the "c"origin is when the "c" coordinate system is moving to the left at the speed of light.

Observers +a and -a are not symmetrical around the origin in "c." That is the whole point. If you look at the two axis lines they are symmetrical around the original origin. ["they" is referring to the observers in both systems: both the fixed with the source observers; and the "moving observers" except the moving observers see the duration of the pulse being shorter on the right side of the source: longer, to the point that the pulse cannot be seen, on the left side. Both sets of observers at a given point in nanosecond time are looking at the same wavefront edge in the source system]

At six nanoseconds "-b" and "+b" are symmetrical around the original origin, but again not around the "c" origin. There is no source in the moving coordinate system for the observers in that system to see. The "c" origin becomes a ghost point after the flash.

You have to keep in mind that the "c" coordinate system is moving to the left while the wave fronts are expanding (both to the left and right) in the original coordinate system. This is what the "Galilean Transform" does not consider.

If one does not examine one single light pulse one has no idea where it is in relation to other points of interest. The at rest with the strobe observers at a given distance will always have the same light latency. Moving observers have varying latencies since their distances are continually changing. If one does not understand that separate observers are required in ether/both systems, at each moment, to observe the single pulse, confusion reigns.

[Goldminer]

All that Albert is examining is the latency; or finite speed of a wave train over a given distance, which in the source frame, is measured at about a foot per nanosecond. He finds something magical in contemplating moving observers.

An observer in the source frame, that is an observer at rest with the source, will remain at the same distance from the source as the wave train washes over him/her. A pulse of light of 10 nanoseconds will be visible for 10 nanoseconds.

On the other hand, a moving observer traveling on a linear course through the source at 1/2 foot per nanosecond will find either that the duration of the light pulse is 5 nanoseconds approaching the wave train, as the wave train and the observer mutually move past each other; or a duration of 15 nanoseconds as the wave train washes over him/her from behind.

So, the truth is that a moving observer can experience apparent dilation of time or contraction of time just depending which direction the wave train's motion is relative the observer's motion! The change in the duration of the visible pulse has nothing to do with the shortening or lengthening of the distance between the start and end of the wave train!

[webolife]

Or, from another gedanken:
1. The "speed of light" = 0
2. 2 X the "speed of light" = 0
3. There is no time dilation or contraction.
4. We see distance things as they are, not were.

Can you prove otherwise?

[Goldminer]

Or, from another gedanken:
1. The "speed of light" = 0
2. 2 X the "speed of light" = 0
3. There is no time dilation or contraction.
4. We see distance things as they are, not were.

Can you prove otherwise?

Gedankens are exercises done basically "in one's mind," hopefully with logic and some evidence. I would say that they are mainly metaphysical. Now, I have gone into great detail over several tens of posts to explain my view point and compare it with the Emperor, Albert E.

I have no idea what your "gedanken" is, so I have no comment. Not to say that I wouldn't be interested in trying to follow your reasoning.

Perhaps you find some agreement with David Barclay's post here. (Re: Silly Einstein,Post by David Barclay » Sat Mar 03, 2012 2:36 am)

And my response here (Re: Silly Einstein, Post by Goldminer » Sat Mar 03, 2012 8:59 pm)

I have revealed my viewpoint pretty much in my response above, not to mention the antecedent remainder of the thread.

I would suggest that if you have some alternate theory, go ahead and contrast it with mine. Your tone seems to be similar to Nereid's, in that you expect me to do all the work. It's not in my job description!

So the answer to your question: "Can you prove otherwise? is most likely yes; but rather up to you to demonstrate my lack of understanding since, I was here first. I suggest another thread about "silly Goldminer."

I work with electronic distance measuring equipment all the time and understand the principles that seem to make them work. (They work rather well) Those principles seem to disprove your thesis. So, it is your turn to describe how they work using your thesis. I don't have a clue how you explain your theory of how EDM equipment works. Please do!

[Goldminer]

Or, from another gedanken:
1. The "speed of light" = 0
2. 2 X the "speed of light" = 0
3. There is no time dilation or contraction.
4. We see distance things as they are, not were.

Can you prove otherwise?

I work with electronic distance measuring equipment all the time and understand the principles that seem to make them work. (They work rather well) Those principles seem to disprove your thesis. So, it is your turn to describe how they work using your thesis. I don't have a clue how you explain your theory of how EDM equipment works. Please do!

The Multilateration invention used to make the Global positioning System (GPS) work, depends upon the distance/latency ratio caused by the finite speed of light. Webbolife, can you describe how this system works from your Centropic Pressure Field Theory?

The "unit speed of sound" is about a foot per millisecond. A similar set of charts can be drawn for the situation for a source, stationary observers, and moving observers using foot distance and millisecond latency. However, the situation is more complicated since the third frame of reference must be taken into account. The third frame of reference is the medium; the atmosphere, which "transmits" the pressure waves.

If the atmosphere is at rest with the source, the situation with respect to distance/latency and observers works the same as the speed of light diagrams except the speed is a million times slower.

If the atmosphere is at rest with the observers, then the speed of sound does not depend upon the source. This is Einstein's "second postulate," with respect to light. Experiments with respect to latency in the at rest frame show that the speed of light is dependent on the source in the rest frame.

If the atmosphere is not at rest with either the source or moving observers, then the speed of sound, and corresponding latency, does not depend upon either source or moving observers.

With sound, the motion of the medium is easily detected, along with other factors that affect the speed such as temperature, atmospheric pressure and humidity.

With EMR, the motion of the medium (aether) has never been detected, although temperature, atmospheric pressure, particulate concentration (haze and smog) and humidity do affect the latency and refraction of light in the atmosphere.

[webolife]

Goldminer,
Please do not mistake my tone as being anything other than challenging of premises. I really don't mean to be Nereid-like, although I found that she made me think very deeply about my premises and conclusions. You took my challenge and responded well.

I am very interested in your experience with survey equipment and other EDM technologies. I spoke at length with a veteran surveyor working on my property, who when asked, gave me the usual "speed of light" explanation that "seemed" [as you also said] to make sense, but when I asked how the timing technology work he admitted that it was a refractive difference that was being measured by the sensors, and not the time between send/receive pulses... survey equipment works on very short distances as well as long, so timing actual delay of light signals at the c-rate is not feasible. That said, how do you think the EDM's actually work, and be careful of parroting the "c-rate" explanation without being able to show me the actual measurement technology. I'm guessing that a careful review of computer program algorithms used to interpret signal results might incorporate the constant c is such a way that were it removed there would be no effect on the measurement outcome. I am very interested to know what you can find out about this. I've checked into police radar technology and found that it is not a c-dependent system. "Doppler" radar also appears to be a refraction based system rather than c-dependent, despite the story usually told to the common folk that somehow light pulses are being tracked at 3X10^8m/s. By refraction, I'm pointing at the inference of light speed from the position of a received light signal relative to it's assumed return position. Help me out here, 'Miner, because I really do want to understand this, and GPS system technology as well. Remember to avoid "seeming" explanations and point to the actual apparatus and measurement algorithm.

Because the CPF theory does not recognize wavelength but rather the actual angular relationship of color to the central line of sight [from which wavelength was originally, I believe incorrectly, inferred by Young, et.al.], the use of the lambda constant in c-rate algorithms may be misleading. Thus the ratio of frequency to c-rate becomes a self-fulfilling aspect of refraction computations. Planck's constant is a physical fudge factor used to make a relationship between the three work mathematically. So what I need and want to know more about is the actual technology used to make the necessary detections of light reflection that are delivered as a distance to object.

[Goldminer]

Goldminer,
Please do not mistake my tone as being anything other than challenging of premises. I really don't mean to be Nereid-like, although I found that she made me think very deeply about my premises and conclusions. You took my challenge and responded well.

I am very interested in your experience with survey equipment and other EDM technologies. I spoke at length with a veteran surveyor working on my property, who when asked, gave me the usual "speed of light" explanation that "seemed" [as you also said] to make sense, but when I asked how the timing technology work he admitted that it was a refractive difference that was being measured by the sensors, and not the time between send/receive pulses... survey equipment works on very short distances as well as long, so timing actual delay of light signals at the c-rate is not feasible. That said, how do you think the EDM's actually work, and be careful of parroting the "c-rate" explanation without being able to show me the actual measurement technology. I'm guessing that a careful review of computer program algorithms used to interpret signal results might incorporate the constant c is such a way that were it removed there would be no effect on the measurement outcome. I am very interested to know what you can find out about this. I've checked into police radar technology and found that it is not a c-dependent system. "Doppler" radar also appears to be a refraction based system rather than c-dependent, despite the story usually told to the common folk that somehow light pulses are being tracked at 3X10^8m/s. By refraction, I'm pointing at the inference of light speed from the position of a received light signal relative to it's assumed return position. Help me out here, 'Miner, because I really do want to understand this, and GPS system technology as well. Remember to avoid "seeming" explanations and point to the actual apparatus and measurement algorithm.

Yeah, I've gotten grumpy with some posters here that proclaim to be "open minded" and yet admit to being intransigent with respect to their own opinions. One cannot see another's perspective without temporarily adopting their presumptions. Sometimes the presumptions are so preposterous and tightly held that discussion with them is impossible! I try to maintain an open but not empty mind.

That said, I have had very interesting discussions with various people that regard light as motionless. One of them is Rebis, who is a moderator on the General Science Journal Forum, here. I think if you make yourself known there, (you have to sign in for all the features just as you must do here,) you will find him to be willing to start a discussion. If you can figure out how to contact him, and start a discussion, make me a part of it.

A search on"Time Delay Reflectometry" will be worth your while. For example. (You have to believe that light pulses can be detected and turned into electrical pulses for analysis.)

As for me explaining all that I know about GPS and EDM, and light in general, you are asking a bit much. I can come up with references, I do all the time, but so can you! It's something you do on your own. You have to study it as a separate discipline along with developing your own theory, I guess. It's what I do, anyway.

Because the CPF theory does not recognize wavelength but rather the actual angular relationship of color to the central line of sight [from which wavelength was originally, I believe incorrectly, inferred by Young, et.al.], the use of the lambda constant in c-rate algorithms may be misleading. Thus the ratio of frequency to c-rate becomes a self-fulfilling aspect of refraction computations. Planck's constant is a physical fudge factor used to make a relationship between the three work mathematically. So what I need and want to know more about is the actual technology used to make the necessary detections of light reflection that are delivered as a distance to object.

OK, Here is what I think about the "Planck's constant:" (I have stated this elsewhere on the forum, maybe in this very thread) Wave length is in the space domain. the "three dementioal

[webolife]

The farce disturbance seems to have interupted your post.

TDR seems to be a relay delay error compensation or adjustment protocol for optical transmission systems.
I looked at several returns to that search, and none of them actually addresses the time delay as a transmission speed of light issue.