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: russell on 3 Jun 2005 22:15 Jerry wrote: > 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. > > Measurement of OWLS inevitably requires making assumptions about > clock synchronization. Yes. There is no way around this. However, Gagnon et al. have described > an experimental setup which they claim is capable of detecting > delta-OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) with one clock. I personally > am in agreement with Gagnon et al.'s claims, while Tom Roberts, > Martin Hogbin, and Bill Hobba are not. I haven't read the paper (no PDF exists at the link site) but if interferometry or standing waves are used, it seems to me one has to assume that wavelength anisotropy (if any such exists) does not, say, exactly compensate for light speed anisotropy. If that's what they're doing, they've transformed the OW vs. TW speed issue into a wavelength vs. speed issue and I don't see how that can legitimately nullify Roberts et al.'s objection, for all that is worth. (Which isn't all that much, IMHO, in terms of practical physics. Its main use is probably to point out why certain crank theories like DeWitte's are experimentally indistinguishable from SR, hence not interesting.)
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 3 Jun 2005 23:00 In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:16:11 GMT <%u_ne.9801$_o.6035(a)attbi_s71>: > kenseto wrote: >> "Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message >> news:reZne.9383$x96.8840(a)attbi_s72... >> >>> >>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS satellites. >>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS Receiver. >>> One can figure (measure) the one way speed of light 24/7. >> >> >> That's the reason I call you a runt of the SRians. In order to >> know the xyzt coordinates you need to use an assumed one-way >> speed of light. >> >> Ken Seto >> >> > > Wrong again Seto--Satellite xyzt coordinates are determined > from ephemeris data and Receiver xyzt coordinates can be > had from previous survey data. > All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does make the above somewhat self-defeating. (The previous definition, based on wavelengths of Kr-86, had more error than the deltas seen by earth observers of GPS satellites.) A better experiment, should it ever come to fruition, is along the lines of H. Wilson's. Launch three satellites. Two land on the moon, for calibration. The nearer one will serve as a relay, with known delay characteristics; the farther one as a pulse generator to test the relay. The third satellite continues on and is another pulse generator. Earthbased observers can directly observe all three satellites. The experiment will, of course, show nothing, ideally to a high degree of precision. In a pinch, the third satellite is largely unnecessary; neutron stars moving relative to the Earth make dandy clocks. In certain relativistic star pairs they make even better confirmers of various GR elements, as well. Gravity Probe B is continuing. I'll admit I'm not sure how BaT or KensetoTheory will interpret its results. For its part GR predicts a torque, AIUI; this torque has already been confirmed, although with lower accuracy, by observing the orbits of existing satellites. And then there's H. Wilson's claims that, somehow, all Cepheid variables must be eclipsing binaries with a large, cool star and a hot star co-orbiting, despite the fact that in order to explain the periods we're seeing they'd have to be nearly touching -- if not outright swallowing each other. *cough* As for KensetoTheory, I'd have to study it. I'm not really sure it would be all that fruitful. :-) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Jerry on 3 Jun 2005 23:11 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > However, Gagnon et al. have described > > an experimental setup which they claim is capable of detecting > > delta-OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) with one clock. I personally > > am in agreement with Gagnon et al.'s claims, while Tom Roberts, > > Martin Hogbin, and Bill Hobba are not. > > I haven't read the paper (no PDF exists at the link site) I don't understand what you mean by that. I just tested the following links, and they both work: http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm > but if interferometry or standing waves are used, No, they used traveling waves > it > seems to me one has to assume that wavelength anisotropy > (if any such exists) does not, say, exactly compensate for > light speed anisotropy. If that's what they're doing, > they've transformed the OW vs. TW speed issue into a > wavelength vs. speed issue and I don't see how that can > legitimately nullify Roberts et al.'s objection, for > all that is worth. Read the paper rather than speculating on what they -might- have done. It's a very clever experimental arrangement. > (Which isn't all that much, IMHO, in > terms of practical physics. Its main use is probably to > point out why certain crank theories like DeWitte's are > experimentally indistinguishable from SR, hence not > interesting.) Jerry
From: shevek4@yahoo.com on 3 Jun 2005 23:21 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > shevek wrote: > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > It simply is not possible to measure any sort of one-way speed using a > > > > > single clock. No matter what you do you must arrange for the start and > > > > > stop signals to both reach the clock, and that necessarily involves a > > > > > closed path for the signals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would such a thing be possible if you had knowledge (from another > > > > source) of the local rest state of the aether? > > > > > > How? You would still have to synchronize two clocks, or > > > alternatively do a TWLS measurement and infer OWLS from > > > theory. Arguably that inference would seem more natural, > > > but it would still be an inference. > > > > Yes, it would be an inference. Of course if your knowledge of local > > aether flow speed is justified, the inference and measurement of OWLS > > is justified. > > How are you going to measure the local aether flow without > two clocks? You have the same problem. Note that Roberts > said *any* one-way velocity measurement; he wasn't limiting > his comments to light. Good question, I guess this was the point all along of trying to measure OWLS. It doesn't have to be light and clocks.. some kind of sensitive effect on the metric tensor for example, or a quantum mechanical effect. The symmetries of the Lorentz transform do not prove that nobody we cannot know the velocity of the aether.
From: bsr3997@my-deja.com on 3 Jun 2005 23:31
russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > 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. > > > > Measurement of OWLS inevitably requires making assumptions about > > clock synchronization. > > Yes. There is no way around this. > > However, Gagnon et al. have described > > an experimental setup which they claim is capable of detecting > > delta-OWLS (i.e. OWLS anisotropy) with one clock. I personally > > am in agreement with Gagnon et al.'s claims, while Tom Roberts, > > Martin Hogbin, and Bill Hobba are not. > > I haven't read the paper (no PDF exists at the link site) > but if interferometry or standing waves are used, it > seems to me one has to assume that wavelength anisotropy > (if any such exists) does not, say, exactly compensate for > light speed anisotropy. If that's what they're doing, > they've transformed the OW vs. TW speed issue into a > wavelength vs. speed issue and I don't see how that can > legitimately nullify Roberts et al.'s objection, for > all that is worth. (Which isn't all that much, IMHO, in > terms of practical physics. Its main use is probably to > point out why certain crank theories like DeWitte's are > experimentally indistinguishable from SR, hence not > interesting.) How's this for a test --------A----------------D------------------E B>>>>> Source A and detectors at D and E are at rest while source B moves. A and B are emitting a series of random dots and dashes. If you could show that a sequence from A arrived at D before a particular sequence from B, and then the sequence from B passed the sequence from A, arriving at E first, it would disprove both ether theory and SR. No clocks are needed at the detectors. Bruce |