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: Tom Roberts on 1 Jun 2005 21:30 Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: >>You cannot measure the one way speed of light without >> making assumptions about clock synchronisation. > > 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). 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. > 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 involve assumptions about the one-way speed of signal propagation in those wires. Which is equivalent to assumptions about the one-way speed of light, which was the point of the measurement. So you don't have a one-way measurement, you can at best only validate your assumption. Tom Roberts tjroberts(a)lucent.com
From: russell on 1 Jun 2005 21:49 bz wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in > news:1117669727.763853.30680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: > > > 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. > > Double the cable length and run the experiment again. That won't help. Since two-way propagation through wires is isotropic -- as has been amply confirmed by experiment -- and since any addition of wire to the middle of your wire is equivalent to a closed loop, such addition will contribute nothing to the net anisotropy (if any exists) of the one-way measurement.
From: Paul Stowe on 1 Jun 2005 22:08 On 1 Jun 2005 18:49:20 -0700, russell(a)mdli.com wrote: >bz wrote: >> "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in >> news:1117669727.763853.30680(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com: >> >>> 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. >> >> Double the cable length and run the experiment again. > > That won't help. Since two-way propagation through wires is > isotropic -- as has been amply confirmed by experiment -- > and since any addition of wire to the middle of your wire > is equivalent to a closed loop, such addition will contribute > nothing to the net anisotropy (if any exists) of the one-way > measurement. If you wish to orient distances based upon OWLS it's pretty straight forward. The Earth rotates and there is a directional in the CMBR. Pick a point on the Earth that is most parallel to the orientation of the CMBR. Next, Set up opposing tracks that are the distance you want. Then, when one of the track direction aligns with the CMBR have the receiver move outward from a repeating pulse transmitter until the desired delay in the reception is achieved. This is a OWL pulse moving from the Transmitter to the receiver. The receiver (having a high precision clock) is computing the difference in reception times to get the increasing delay. Now, wait until the Earth rotates 180ý and the other track aligns in the same direction & repeat. This will assure that BOTH! distance are equal based upon an OWLS measurement. Paul Stowe
From: rotchm@gmail.com on 1 Jun 2005 22:24 >Here's a valid synchronization procedure: >Two touching and synchronized clocks and move them >simultaneously in the opposite directions at the same >speed and then come to a stop >simultaneously. SR would say that these two clocks >will remain synchronized .Ken Seto Ken, just to mention that yes its a synch procedure. However that procedure implicitly has the cancelling effect of two way light speed. If that synch procedure were done then as one of the clocks indicates say 30 seconds and sends a light signal to the other clock, then the other clock will also indicate 30 seconds on reception of the light signal. This is what SR and ether theories predict. So that synch procedure will not invalidate SR.
From: russell on 1 Jun 2005 22:44
Paul Stowe wrote: [snip] > If you wish to orient distances based upon OWLS it's pretty > straight forward. The Earth rotates and there is a directional > in the CMBR. Pick a point on the Earth that is most parallel > to the orientation of the CMBR. Next, Set up opposing tracks > that are the distance you want. Then, when one of the track > direction aligns with the CMBR have the receiver move outward > from a repeating pulse transmitter until the desired delay in > the reception is achieved. This is a OWL pulse moving from the > Transmitter to the receiver. The receiver (having a high > precision clock) is computing the difference in reception times > to get the increasing delay. > > Now, wait until the Earth rotates 180° and the other track aligns > in the same direction & repeat. This will assure that BOTH! > distance are equal based upon an OWLS measurement. What does CMBR have to do with this? You are using slow transport as your synchronization method; the lengths are equal if and only if slow transport in the two directions induces the same time difference per unit distance. Now, if indeed you found that, having done this, the wires when brought together are different lengths, you would have a significant result, one in conflict with Michelson-Morley etc. |