Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478854

Re: One way speed of light

Show key headers only | View raw

Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel:
> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:50:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote:
>>
>> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'.
> 
> The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting
> point (A) and the ending point (B).  There are two ways to do it:  the
> Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport
> method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of
> them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes
> it.
> 
>> (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried
>> to show in my OP.)
> 
> How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine?
> SR predicts that you don't.


The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the 
stripes on both wheels.

Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a 
little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any  input.

The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This 
frequency is constantly measured at on wheel.

This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one 
in the experiment.

The frequency is wanted for the rotor speed, at what the intensity of 
the reflected beam is lowest. Then we have this sequence for the beam:

-the beam is reflected to the first wheel
-hits a gap between the stripes
- gets reflected from the wheel to a little mirror
-is mirrored towards the second wheel
- gets delayed due to speed of light
- gets mirrored towards the second wheel
- hits a stripe
- the beam intensity is lowest

The frequency of stripes can be measured and the distance is known.

 From this you could calculate the speed of light (one way/one clock).




>> If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out,
>> whether or not there is an ether (or not).
> 
> BAloney!
> 
>> The reason:
>> if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would
>> have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from
>> the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same
>> amount on the way back.
> 
> But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can
> demonstrate.


The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of 
light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light 
(on the way towards and back).

But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to 
distinguish between both possibilities.

Reason:
both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost 
the same result.

There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very 
small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give 
us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000

> That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the
> mirror is from the source.


That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only 
1.3m (used four times).

>> Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a
>> little more time.
>>
>> The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from
>> light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns.
> 
> Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is?
Lots...

But these 16ns is not the measured result.

The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are 
added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way 
towards the mirror than on the way back.

On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These 
cancel out.

But since the beam is 2,2 km slower than c (that was the assumption, 
which we wanted to test), it collects within these 16ns a certain number 
of waves more in the distance traveled than on the other way are lost.

A geometric analogy would be the difference between the arc-length of an 
arc on a unit circle and the sinus of a similar triangle.

The sinus is 1/150,000. How much longer is than the arc?



Not that much, since the triangle is so narrow.


TH

Back to sci.physics.relativity | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-26 16:01 +0100
  Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-26 15:50 +0000
  Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-26 21:48 +0100
    Re: One way speed of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-27 07:07 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:09 +0100
  Re: One way speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 13:04 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 21:29 +0000
      Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 15:31 +0100
        Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 15:59 +0100
          Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 16:26 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-27 16:47 +0000
            Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:54 +0000
            Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 18:01 +0100
          Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 00:55 +0000
            Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-28 05:14 +0100
              Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:13 +0000
        Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 +0000
          Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-28 16:34 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:40 +0000
            Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:20 +0000
              Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-29 20:43 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:53 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-29 22:21 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:15 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-30 17:23 -0600
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:34 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:17 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:32 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-02 13:50 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 05:11 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-03 12:23 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:53 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:25 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-04 13:04 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 11:57 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 13:56 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 14:13 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:44 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-02 07:13 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:28 -0600
                Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:42 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-02 11:08 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:49 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:57 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:58 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 21:23 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:20 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-29 16:03 -0600
                Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 15:03 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:18 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:58 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-29 23:38 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 16:40 -0800
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:41 -0500
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:13 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:21 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-30 22:10 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:26 +0100
                Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 23:01 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
                Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:43 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:01 +0100
            Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:04 +0100
  Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-26 15:51 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-26 18:53 -0800
      Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-27 09:49 -0800
  Re: One way speed of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 15:11 -0800
  Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:19 -0800
  Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:36 -0800
    Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:28 -0500
    Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 20:08 -0800
  Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:10 -0800
  Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-30 12:48 -0800
    Alex Sorokin, persistent imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:34 -0800

csiph-web