OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Martin Hogbin on 1 Jun 2005 18:36 "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1117663045.834718.91710(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities > from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of > passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that > goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's > disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed > re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And > that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. > Conclusion: Einstein was right. Not that I am supporting Ken Seto in any way, but you need to be a little careful here. You cannot measure the one way speed of light without making assumptions about clock synchronisation. Einstein's second postulate remains exactly that - a postulate. A good one in my opinion but nevertheless a postulate. Martin Hogbin
From: Jerry on 1 Jun 2005 19:30 Martin Hogbin wrote: > "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > news:1117663045.834718.91710(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > > > We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities > > from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of > > passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that > > goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's > > disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed > > re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And > > that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. > > Conclusion: Einstein was right. > > Not that I am supporting Ken Seto in any way, but you need > to be a little careful here. > > You cannot measure the one way speed of light without > making assumptions about clock synchronisation. > Einstein's second postulate remains exactly that - a > postulate. A good one in my opinion but nevertheless a > postulate. Although it is clearly impossible to measure OWLS without making assumptions about clock synchronization, I believe it to be possible to make measurements of delta-OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) that are free of such assumptions. On April 8, I started a thread on this topic: http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/094d4ebd8ed246d4 While I believe that the experimental setup of Gagnon et al. (1988) provides a true test of delta-OWLS without requiring assumptions about clock synchronization, please note that both Tom Roberts and Bill Hobba disagree with me, and believe Gagnon et al.'s experiment to have hidden clock synchronization assumptions. I never found their arguments convincing, and I would appreciate your comments. I have reinstated the temporary link that I posted on April 8. http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm This link will provide access to a scanned PDF of Gagnon et al. (1988) I will leave this link up for one week (until June 8) after which I will take it down. This is, after all, copyrighted material, and I don't want to violate Fair Use. Thanks for your comments, Jerry
From: Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com on 1 Jun 2005 19:30 >>You cannot measure the one way speed of light without making assumptions about clock synchronisation. << Such as? I see no reason why the one-way speed of light can't be measured in principle with only ONE clock, and signals coming back from two gates (triggered by two gamma photons from an annihilation, say). Are you talking about gate synchronization? You can pre-synchronize gamma-photon detector gates separated by a distance, with a non-moving source of simultaneous photon emission (a positron source) midway between them. Or you can synch them when at the same spot, then separate them. Keeping the same wires :). This involves mighty few assumptions. SBH
From: russell on 1 Jun 2005 19:48 Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: > >>You cannot measure the one way speed of light without > making assumptions about clock synchronisation. << > > Such as? I see no reason why the one-way speed of light can't be > measured in principle with only ONE clock, and signals coming back from > two gates (triggered by two gamma photons from an annihilation, say). > Are you talking about gate synchronization? > > You can pre-synchronize gamma-photon detector gates separated by a > distance, with a non-moving source of simultaneous photon emission (a > positron source) midway between them. Or you can synch them when at the > same spot, then separate them. Keeping the same wires :). This > involves mighty few assumptions. But it *does* require you to assume that speed of propagation in the wires is independent of direction. Thus essentially begging the question, eh?
From: Jerry on 1 Jun 2005 19:48
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: > >>You cannot measure the one way speed of light without > making assumptions about clock synchronisation. << > > Such as? I see no reason why the one-way speed of light can't be > measured in principle with only ONE clock, and signals coming back from > two gates (triggered by two gamma photons from an annihilation, say). > Are you talking about gate synchronization? > > You can pre-synchronize gamma-photon detector gates separated by a > distance, with a non-moving source of simultaneous photon emission (a > positron source) midway between them. Or you can synch them when at the > same spot, then separate them. Keeping the same wires :). This > involves mighty few assumptions. It is theoretically possible that the universe is involved in a conspiracy. :-) If you synchronize your gamma-photon detector gates, then separate them, the signal speed in the return path through your cables could vary in exactly such a way as to cancel out your ability to detect OWLS anisotropy. Yes, quite a bizarre coincidence. But "Test theories" have been developed in which this is exactly the case. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html "Test theories" are an experimental tool, not intended to be considered serious alternatives to SR. Rather, they offer a descriptive framework for quantifying any deviations from theory that might be observed. Jerry |