SR and one-way light speed tests

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[wisp]: I think a one-way test will test the truth of SR.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Be prepared to get really depressed when talking about SR and one-way speed of light.

If there is a delay as suggested in the absorbtion/emmission process would a one-way test change the delay?

Quote:
___________________________________________________________________
If there is a delay as suggested in the absorbtion/emmission process would a one-way test change the delay?
____________________________________________________________________

A one-way laser would need to start an atomic clock (triggering some sort of electronic gate to lock the start time) and again at the second clock to record the end time. If the triggering delays are similar they should cancel out.

If the test is done over say a distance of 10km, then if the first test is done when the light travels in the direction of the Earth's orbit and repeated 12hrs later when light travels against the Earth's orbit, then the difference reading should be about 6.7nS, which is quite large for atomic clock accuracies. (This result assumes that the ether exists and the Earth passes through it at its orbit speed of 30000km/s.

This is how the test could be setup:
Two receiver/transmitter stations are placed on the equator at 10km apart, each contains a high-precision atomic clock and high-power laser.
At the moment the stations line up perpendicular to the Earth’s orbit, their clocks synchronize by sending pulses of light to each other. Synchronization is possible because the relative speeds of light in perpendicular directions are equal.
Six hours later the stations will be parallel to the Earth’s orbit, and each station can independently fire a pulse of light to the other, and separately measure the time light takes to travel one-way.
Wisp theory predicts that the motion of the Earth through the ether affects the relative speed of light. By comparing one-way journey times, a non-zero difference will result. The difference in time recorded for journeys with and against the ether flow is (10km × 6.67×10^-13) 6.7 nanoseconds.
(This difference can be determined even if the clocks are not synchronized).

wisp

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[wisp]: If there is a delay as suggested in the absorbtion/emmission process would a one-way test change the delay?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

One-way measures of the speed of light using light signals for synchronization are a vicious circle that actually measures very little about light.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Two receiver/transmitter stations are placed on the equator at 10km apart, each contains a high-precision atomic clock and high-power laser. ...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The equivalent of this experiment is done thousands of times every day with GPS satellites. No such effect as you propose is present.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>This difference can be determined even if the clocks are not synchronized.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, it can't. That's the point. If the clocks differ by an hour, light will appear to take one hour to travel between them. If you use light to synchronize the clocks, you have to assume you already knew the speed that light traveled between them. -|Tom|-

It is possible to do this experiment using one laser and two clocks placed 10km apart on the equator.
Say a reading is taken at 1pm (light travels in Earth's orbit direction) Its speed is (c-u) where u=30000m/s.
The time recorded will be "clocks sync error time" + 10000/(c-u)

Then 12hrs later at 1am the experiment is repeated (Earth has rotates 180 degree and light travels in the opposite direction). The time recorded is "clocks sync error" + 10000/(c+u)

The time difference (td) will be the difference in the two times
[sync error + 10000/(c-u)]-[sync error + 10000/(c+u)]=6.7nS
The clocks sync error automatically gets cancelled.

I think this test will prove if SR is true or not, and it does not have to worry about using light to sync the clocks.

Results for td: (SR=special rel, LR=Lorentzian rel, WR=wisp rel)
If td=0 then SR is true and LR and WR (my theory)is wrong
If td=6.7nS then WR is true and SR / LR are wrong
If td=0.1nS then possibly LR is true (calcs based on the Earth rotating in its local gravitational field)* and SR / WR are wrong.

* I haven't done any research into the local gravitational field, but it is supported by LR and the late Petr Beckmann suggests that a one-way test will prove SR wrong.

wisp

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[wisp]: Then 12hrs later at 1am the experiment is repeated (Earth has rotates 180 degree and light travels in the opposite direction). The time recorded is "clocks sync error" + 10000/(c+u)[<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

You can't just add velocities like "c+u" unless you are absolutely sure what you are doing. In the Sagnac experiment you can add velocities to determine the fringe shift, but in general you should use the special formula for velocity addition as far as I'm aware. SR is not trivial in its interpretation and you can never be sure whether or not you have used the correct reasoning.