SR and one-way light speed tests

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6193 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[wisp]: Then 12hrs later at 1am the experiment is repeated (Earth has rotates 180 degree and light travels in the opposite direction).<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Your experimental setup is vague. Are the two clocks still perpendicular to the equator, or along it? (I infer the latter.) Does the beam travel from clock A to clock B in both cases? If so, then you have done a 2-way experiment, the purpose of which is to cancel the synch error in the clocks. If not, then the synch error doubles in the difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I think this test will prove if SR is true or not, and it does not have to worry about using light to sync the clocks.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

As a 2-way test (the only interpretation that makes the experiment work), it becomes a weak equivalent of a Michelson-Morley experiment. At least M-M compared the speeds along the velocity vector and perpendicular to it. Your experiment assumes we know the relevant velocities and direction of the aether wind. But what if there is a galactic component?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>If td=0 then SR is true and LR and WR (my theory)is wrong<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The actual result in a 2-way experiment is zero, as shown weakly by M-M and strongly by GPS every day. (GPS signals are traveling from ground to satellite and satellite to ground for a global net of 24 satellites. So at any given moment, some satellites are sending signals in both the direction of the aether wind and against it.)

This result is as predicted by both SR and LR -- the latter because the local gravitational field entrains the aether. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

wisp
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 1 month ago #6194 by wisp

Replied by wisp on topic Reply from Kevin Harkess

quote:

You can't just add velocities like "c+u" unless you are absolutely sure what you are doing... you should use the special formula for velocity addition as far as I'm aware.

I used Einstein's velocity addition formula to calculate the speed of light through water with reference to absolute frames. But in this case it really is a case of simply adding and subtracting the velocities. I know it's at odds with SR, but the point of the test is to show SR is wrong.
In the experiment the beam is first fired from clock A to clock B, in the direction of the Earth's orbit. The test is repeated 12 hrs later still firing from A to B, but this time it's against the Earth's orbit. This effectively counts as two separate one-way tests, which result in the clock sync errors cancelling out. On subtracting the times from each other, if SR is correct the readings will be the same and the result will be zero. But I believe they will differ by 6.7nS.

quote:

As a 2-way test ... it becomes a weak equivalent of a Michelson-Morley experiment... Your experiment assumes we know the relevant velocities and direction of the aether wind. But what if there is a galactic component?

Because the start and stop times are recorded separately for each part of the journey this counts as two independent one-way tests.
I don't think this test is difficult and possibly Michelson would have carried it out if atomic clocks were available to him. It is also known that the zero result of the two-way MM test does not prove the ether doesn't exist; it possibly is a case that two-way tests carried out on the Earth's surface cannot detect the ether. A one-way test would finalize matters.
I don't think the galactic component has an affect, my theory supposes that the Sun and the ether rotate together in our galaxy, and the Earth moves through the ether as it orbits the Sun.
Note in a typical two-way experiment no time is recorded for the light hitting the mirror at B before it bounces back, as only one clock is used at A).

quote:

The actual result in a 2-way experiment is zero, as shown weakly by M-M and strongly by GPS every day... at any given moment, some satellites are sending signals in both the direction of the aether wind and against it.)

All GPS results must be 2-way tests! To extract data from GPS to prove one-way speeds would be very difficult, it would be easier to do the above experiment. I really don't mind if someone gives me convincing proof that I'm wrong, but I need to see clear proof.
Just because there are lots of high-tech satellites buzzing around sending light speed data to and fro doesn't convince me.
I applied classical MM principles to GPS clocks and it shows an error of 0.9ns. And I know from Tom's data that random errors of 1nS exist in the GPS system, so I remain sceptical.

How much do you think it would cost to carry out this test? If it could be done at reasonable cost it would be a worthwhile test, simply because no one has done it!

wisp

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6196 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[wisp]: Because the start and stop times are recorded separately for each part of the journey this counts as two independent one-way tests.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

No, that is 2-way by definition. 1-way is just the first half of that. It has no relevance whether the second half occurs immediately or after a delay. If a signal gets back to the original clock, that makes it a 2-way test.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>A one-way test would finalize matters.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

A 1-way experiment cannot separate clock synchronization matters from speed changes, and is therefore impossible in principle unless we can use something faster than light to set the clocks.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't think the galactic component has an affect, my theory supposes that the Sun and the ether rotate together in our galaxy<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That's impossible unless the Sun is magical. All the stars in the solar neighborhood have high relative speeds of order 25 km/s. The Sun's own Galactic orbit is elliptical.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>All GPS results must be 2-way tests!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Because the signals go both ways even at the same time, one can treat them as 1-way or 2-way experiments.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Just because there are lots of high-tech satellites buzzing around sending light speed data to and fro doesn't convince me.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Why not? The signals you propose to send in your test are a subset of the GPS signals that already exist.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I applied classical MM principles to GPS clocks and it shows an error of 0.9ns. And I know from Tom's data that random errors of 1nS exist in the GPS system, so I remain sceptical.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Moving the goalposts? I said only that your 6.7 ns effect doesn't exist. Don't be like most of the world that interprets all new information as confirmation of the ideas they already believe. If you want your understanding of nature to increase, set the test terms before they are performed, do not change them regardless of outcome, and live with the results. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Mac
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6438 by Mac

Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin

wisp,

I would like to see your test because I suspect one of the biggest errors in an MM type test has to do with bouncing light off of the mirrow with relative velocity to any possible aether.

I would add another phase to your test. It requires longer delay but that would be to do it also on the moon. Any difference between earth readings and moon readings might reflect a difference in possible entrained ather.

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

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Jan
Topic Author
Offline
Elite Member

21 years 1 month ago #6197 by Jan

Replied by Jan on topic Reply from Jan Vink

It is clear the SR does not allow for a one-way experiment due to clock synchronisation and so forth, hence we need to address the problem on different terms.

The gamma factor is usually derived using two parallel mirors that have no relative motion, so we can regard these mirrors as being welded to a single rigid frame. Furthermore, the light pulse is assumed to bounce perfectly between the mirrors while they move relative to another frame. It is a natural question whether or not this perfect bouncing remains perfect while the frame has a high relative velocity. If any effects of a light carrying medium is to be present, the light should not bounce perfectly between the mirrors. In translational motion orthogonal to the bouncing light, we could witness a certain drift of the light pulse between the mirrors if any medium of some sort were to exist. This can be regarded as another MM type experiment.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Mac]: I would add another phase to your test. It requires longer delay but that would be to do it also on the moon. Any difference between earth readings and moon readings might reflect a difference in possible entrained ather.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Now that I think about it, the medium that we are looking for may well have some remarkable properties not present in fluid like behaviour as we know it. It may well be the case that there is a special mechanism present, for example, the medium that we are trying to measure may reshape itself constantly while objects are in apparent motion. Light traveling between these object is therefore influenced by this, hence we measure nothing or it is beyond the available accuracy.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6518 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jan]
This can be regarded as another MM type experiment.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
Hello Jan,

A point of clarification - I've noticed that Dr Van Flandern uses the abreviation "MM" to mean Meta Model and the abreviation "M-M" to mean Michaelson Morley.

Have you noticed this also, and are you following this convention?

I've alsp seen the abreviation "MMX" used to mean Michaelson Morley (Experiment).

Regards,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.485 seconds