3 ms·
I also feel like there is a hidden assumption here, that people were interested in the one-way-speed to see if it is Newtonian additive, like it is "c +/- a tin
by floxy 3y ago
I also feel like there is a hidden assumption here, that people were interested in the one-way-speed to see if it is Newtonian additive, like it is "c +/- a tiny little bit from the earth's motion around the sun". It seems like with a sufficiently slow separation of the two clocks, you should be able to see if the you get "0.1c" in one orientation, and "1.9c" in the other. Especially since the Lorentz factor is non-linear [ √(1 - (v²/c²)) ]. Right? ???
- dilyevsky 3y agoYou seem to be consistently missing the fact that the act of “seeing” is bound by c
- floxy 3y agoHmm, I don't follow your assertion. For the case under consideration, there is no "seeing" at a distance.
- dilyevsky 3y ago> It seems like with a sufficiently slow separation of the two clocks, you should be able to see if the you get "0.1c" in one orientation, and "1.9c" in the other. No you wouldn’t be able to “see” it. If your clocks are off you dont know that and by how much until you bring it back and compare. That's Special Relativity