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: shevek on 3 Jun 2005 14:02 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.
From: russell on 3 Jun 2005 15:36 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.
From: Martin Hogbin on 3 Jun 2005 16:43 "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote in message news:1117668631.582827.240300(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >>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 need to know that the photons travel at the same speed in both directions, which is what you are trying to measure. > 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. Once again you make an assumption about the speed of the synchronising partices being the same in both directions. > Or you can synch them when at the > same spot, then separate them. Keeping the same wires :). This > involves mighty few assumptions. Only that they remain sychronised when transported. Martin Hogbin
From: Jerry on 3 Jun 2005 17:33 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. 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. Perhaps you can download Gagnon et al. from the link that I have elsewhere provided, and make your own conclusions as to whether Gagnon et al. have succeeded in creating a one-clock experimental setup capable of detecting OWLS anisotropy, should it exist. Moessbauer effect measurements also provide one-clock detectors of OWLS anisotropy. Thanks, Jerry
From: kenseto on 3 Jun 2005 20:43
<rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1117820286.924858.267740(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > >That's not important. Both clocks will remain synchronized wrt each other > >according to all theories. > > Ok, so we still agree on that, but...I am starting to wonder what is > your defenition or conception of "synchronize". Which procedure you are > using etc... > > >>It still implicitly has the twls effect. > > >No...no twls measurement involved. > > Here we disagree. I still maintain that if you say that both clocks > travel at the same speed (measured or conveyed), then that procedure > implicitly has the twls effects. Assertion is not an arguement. > > >You can imagine anything that fits your assertion. But both SR and ether > >theories says that such a pair of clocks will remain synchronized. > > So we still agree...( and again, I would like to know what YOU mean by > synchronized, and what procedure to verify that clocks are in synch) When two clocks are synchronized they will read the same if you can compare them directly. The procedure use for such synchronization is the same as I described before. > > Anyhow, the experiment you proposed to measure owls is, according to > me, still a twls experiment. And the reason that it is still a twls > experiment is because of the clause "both clocks travel at the same > speed". Assertion is not an arguement. SR says that the clocks remains synchronized. > > In the experiment, say that 2L is the distance betwenn both clocks > after they have stopped. Then a signal is sent from one clock at its > time Ta. The other clock will receive that signal at its time Tb. The > ratio of 2L/(Tb-Ta) will give 299792458. That is what both SR and ether > theories predict. All the OWLS experiments done so far only tested for OWLS isotropy. 2L/(Tb-Ta) will not have the value of 299,792,458m/second. That's the reason why they refused to report the value for OWLS when they performed those isotropy experiments. >Since both theories predict the same result for that > experiment, then how can you say wich is correct? Both theories do not predict the same. The ether theory does not predict OWLS to have the value of 299,792,458m/sec if the clocks are synchronized the way I described it and the length between the two clocks is measured with a physical ruler. Ken Seto |