SR and one-way light speed tests

I am in discussion with other forums on the subject of this test and I hope to convince someone that it is worth carrying out. I will keep you posted of developments.

wisp

I can't find any evidence that GPS satellites have been measured accurately using optical checks. The US dept of defence uses radar (not optical) to map satellite positions relative to reference points on the Earth. As far as I can see satellite positions are predicted from equations that set the speed of light to a constant value of c.
This shows that GPS is not proof that the speed of light is constant when measured one-way, as so it cannot be used to dismiss this one-way test.
I think an accurate optical check on a GPS satellite will show an error.


wisp

- particles of nothingness

Wisp,

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><b>As far as I can see satellite positions are predicted from equations that set the speed of light to a constant value of c.
This shows that GPS is not proof that the speed of light is constant when measured one-way, as so it cannot be used to dismiss this one-way test.</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I've found a simular tendancy of Relavists in the case of Quasar proper velocity. We observe fragments of exploding Quasars moving orthogonal (no relative velocity to us) with velocities as high as 5,200 c.

Instead of taking observation as indicting a flaw in Relativity they developed a series of mathematical conjectures "Based in the first instance that v = c is indeed a velocity limit) which compensates what we observe and measure and results in the velocity being less than v =c.

It is another form of the "Velocity Addition Formula" which has the purpose of insuring nothing goes FTL. When in reality it is logical that FTL is only a limit on velocity of "Relative" motion no absolute motion.


Knowing to believe only half
of what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe can make you
a genius.

Mac
On a larger scale I believe FTL is possible. Suppose that light is fixed at constant velocity c relative to its "local" ether frame.
In terms of an absolute reference there may be very large movements in ether frames due to rotation effects across different parts of the universe. And so the quasar's speed may have two components, the ether motion + lights speed through its "local" ether. And there is no reason to doubt that this can be FTL.
So FTL relative to our reference frame is possible when there is any motion of the ether in a different location.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

To somehow make a case for FTL, but not to alienate Relativists in the process, we could ask the question how fast space-time itself is moving. No?

Jan,


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><b>To somehow make a case for FTL, but not to alienate Relativists in the process,....</b><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


I generally don't like the term impossible but I think your suggestion is one of those exceptions. <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Knowing to believe only half of
what you hear is a sign of
intelligence. Knowing which
half to believe will make you a
genius.