Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478611

Re: One way speed of light

From	Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: One way speed of light
Date	2018-11-30 21:15 +0100
Message-ID	<g6dk2jFedt7U1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <ptjs95$1e1r$2@gioia.aioe.org> <g67qrbF68otU1@mid.individual.net> <ptmipq$4pd$1@gioia.aioe.org> <g6atr4Fqqu8U1@mid.individual.net> <ptpl8p$ba5$1@dont-email.me>

Show all headers | View raw

Am 29.11.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Libor Striz:
> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message:
> 
>> I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what
>> we could measure even today.
> 
> If what you say is true,
> the classical  prediction for MMX
> in 1881 and 1887
> would be zero result
> and Michelson would bother to test it.

There was a much enhanced version of the MMX by Kennedy and Thorndike 
(if I spell that correctly).

They did a LOT of things to keep expected influences away from the 
apparatus.

E.g. they evacuated the interferometer and kept it a constant 
temperature by a difference of less then 0.001 degree.

They estimated an effect of about 1/1000 of a fringe due to an eventual 
'ether wind'.

The original experiment was not remotely as precise and they could not 
possibly measure anything at all.

The problem is:

the difference between v=c-x on the way to the mirror and v=c-x on the 
way back would cancel out, if the relation between speed of light and 
speed of the 'ether' is very large.

That is like trying to measure the pace of a snail from the ISS.

Or: in the example with swimming up and down a river, the measurable 
effect stems from the difference in time in the way up to way down.

But 2,2 km is extremely small in comparison to what light could pass in 
one second. That is as if the river is flowing slower than hair grows.

How could you decide, whether or not the hair grows independent of the 
movement or not?


> Have you asked yourself the question why  it was expected to be
>   measurable ?

Don't know..



> 
>>
>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second
>> independent from the rotation of the Earth.
>>
>> We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual
>> environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth.
> 
> Where have you been in last 51 years ?
> As since 1967, second is not defined by the Earth rotation
> and the mean day length does not last  exactly 86400 s any more.
> 
> Read about the leap second.
>>
>> IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an
>> 'ether wind'?
> 
> The Earth is  moving through the supposed aether
> there and back by cca 30 km/s.
> That is some wind.

Well, yes, but if you compare it with the speed  of light, 30 km/s is 
not that fast.

> But contept of aether had sense
> when  matter and light
> were  considered  to be continuous.
> With both being discontinuous,
> it lost even its speculative sense.
> Not speaking about experiments
> refuting all classical forms of  aether.
> 
> 
>>
>> So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is?
>>
> Since 1967, it is the hyperfine transition of 137Cs kernel via
>   spin-spin interaction of the kernel and unpaired electron
>   spin.
> 
> 


Yes. But my question was about the velocity of the 'ether' (not the 
definition of the second).

In respect to what should the velocity of such an ether be measured (and 
why?) ?

I would say, it makes sense to take Earth rotation into account (as 
cause of such an 'ether wind').

Earth orbit is actually not that obvious.

I think, that such an ether would flow from North to South past the 
Earth surface.

Reason: the disk of the solar system performs a screwlike movement along 
some sort of 'invisible screw', which runs from somewhere near the Polar 
Star to south.

That would generate a flow from North to South - if at all.


Then we could think about such an invisible flow from outer space to 
inside the Earth. This would cause an effect we call 'gravity' and 
another effect called 'Growing Earth'.


TH

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