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>[Larry]: The stripe on my pipe might LOOK like it spirals, but in reality (and in the frame of the pipe and the two clocks) it does not. ... The clocks can be synched just as if we had a literally instantaneous signal.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

But that is one of my points. The pipe is not at all like an instantaneous signal because the stripe is straight only in its own frame (by construction -- the stripe was painted straight in the pipe's own frame), but it is twisted in all other frames. <i>There is no experimental way to tell whether the "real" stripe is straight or twisted because, in SR, no frame is preferred.</i>

By contrast, an instantaneous signal would connect all clocks in all frames to a succession of specific instants of time, creating something that does not exist in SR: a universal instant of "now".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What would be a simple, "block diagram" description of that measurement experiment (keeping in mind the context of our discussion)?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

1) Send instantaneous signal.
2) Start all clocks when signal is received.
3) Send second instantaneous signal.
4) All clocks denote reading as "one unit of time" when second signal is received.
5) All subsequent measurements become frame-independent because all clocks always have the same readings, as judged by instantaneous signals. -|Tom|-

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[tvf]
<i>There is no experimental way to tell whether the "real" stripe is straight or twisted ...</i><hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

An idea comes to mind. But it seems so simple and obvious that I have trouble imagining that others haven't thought of it. And that means it won't work.

I will think about it a while longer to see if I can figure out why.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

1) Send instantaneous signal.
2) Start all clocks when signal is received.
3) Send second instantaneous signal.
4) All clocks denote reading as "one unit of time" when second signal is received.
5) All subsequent measurements become frame-independent because all clocks always have the same readings, as judged by instantaneous signals.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
With clocks like this we could do some SOL experiments and determine to the satisfaction of all whether SR or LR is closer to the truth. I presume that this would involve placing two Instantaneously Synchronized Clocks (ISCs) a known distance apart and taking some readings. It might be useful to mount pairs of ISCs in several vehicles so that some of the tests could be used to compare SOL between frames moving relative to each other and/or relative to an LR style preferred frame.

What are the important things to look for (and to look out for) in such experimtents?

Doesn't the GPS system simulate some parts of an ISC system? (The clocks in the satellites and the ground stations all tick "simultaneously" [in the ECI frame]?)

What parts does it fail to simulate?

Regards,
LB

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Larry]: What are the important things to look for (and to look out for) in such experimtents?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The constancy of the speed of light in all frames still has the status of a <i>postulate</i>, not that of a theory. As a postulate, it is untestable. You either apply it and let the consequences be so, or you don't.

One of those consequences is that nothing real can propagate FTL. Another is that nothing (real or imaginary, in the mathematical sense) can propagate FTL in forward time.

So the mere existence of a real phenomenon (gravitation) that propagates FTL in forward time falsifies the constant-SOL postulate of SR. That is why all attempts to undercut that argument center on finding a way to interpret the gravity experiments without true FTL propagation. For example, Carlip proposed that gravity propagates at the speed of light, but a "velocity-dependent force" exists to cancel the unseen effect of propagation delay and create the illusion that the signal propagated FTL. My paper with Vigier explains why this proposal violates two principles of physics (causality and "no creation <i>ex nihilo</i>") and is contradicted by tidal friction, where nature has an identical setup that it fails to cancel, and the resulting orbits <i>are</i> outward spirals.

In essence, the argument now comes down to whether the SR postulate must be considered falsified, or whether a loophole exists to save it. So far, all suggested loopholes violate principles of physics, which means they require magic (i.e., they require something to happen that is logically impossible in physics). But the mathematical relativists are so accustomed to allowing such things that some of them are unswayed by this argument.

No experiment can provide any more proof that the SR postulate is falsified than we already have. But an experiment showing the transmission of an FTL signal would probably tip the scales away from magical explanations and back in favor of common sense.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Doesn't the GPS system simulate some parts of an ISC system? (The clocks in the satellites and the ground stations all tick "simultaneously" [in the ECI frame]?)<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

GPS goes part of the way, but not all the way. It shows that a "universal time" can be achieved even in a complex system involving numerous, continually changing reference frames. It shows that LR's description of the universe is simpler than SR's. But it does not falsify the SR postulate.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>What parts does it fail to simulate?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

GPS uses one-frame synchronization using light signals, just as you were trying to do with your rotating pipe. It does not use true ISC. So if GPS switched to some other frame, one would be back to deciding whether to invoke the SR SOL postulate or not. GPS could still work with either choice. But choosing the SR postulate would greatly complicate the system. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[tvf]
In essence, the argument now comes down to whether the SR postulate must be considered falsified, or whether a loophole exists to save it.

... the mathematical relativists are so accustomed to allowing such things that some of them are unswayed by this argument.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"Some of them..." is an understatement.

I am under the impression that the math guys are not swayed because of the manner in which the GPS clocks are synchronized (tvf - "GPS uses one-frame synchronization using light signals, just as you were trying to do with your rotating pipe.").

Because an exchange of light signals is used, SR requires that we assume these signals travel at the same speed in ALL frames. (Or - make some other assumption about the speed of these signals but then you are no longer talking about SR and they have no further interest in talking to you.) And that makes the synchronization dependent on theory and casts overwhelming suspicion on the ALLEGED "universal time" of the GPS.

This is the (main) problem I'm trying to get around. My pipe idea is limited to one frame (initially only, I believe) but it is a start.

Hmmm. Suppose we suddenly come up with a litteral ISC scheme. If we put an ISC at each ground station, attaching an instantaneous transmitter to one ground clock so it can be used as the master clock, and one ISC on each of the orbiting satellites and compared them to the existing (one-frame) universally synched clocks of the GPS, they would all tick at the same time, wouldn't they?

Could the GPS work as currently calibrated if this were not the case?
Could the GPS work at all if this were not the case?
Is there a way to demonstrate that this is the case?
Is there a way to demonstrate that this is the case within the confines of SR?

Regards,
LB

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[Larry]: ... the math guys are not swayed because of the manner in which the GPS clocks are synchronized ... Because an exchange of light signals is used, SR requires that we assume these signals travel at the same speed in ALL frames.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
However, the measured speed of GPS signals is constant in only the ECI frame. In all other frames, it is c+/-v unless the clocks are re-synchronized specially for that frame.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Suppose we suddenly come up with a literal ISC scheme.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
That is the equivalent of saying that the SOL is not constant in all frames. In SR, ISC schemes are impossible. Only tachyons can propagate FTL, but they have imaginary mass and go backwards in time.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> ... they would all tick at the same time, wouldn't they?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
As judged by whom? In SR, the time at a given place NOW is different for different frames.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Could the GPS work as currently calibrated if this were not the case?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
GPS is calibrated and synchronized in the ECI frame. SR confined to a single frame is LR.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Could the GPS work at all if this were not the case?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
GPS could work in any frame. But it would get intolerably complicated. The clock corrections for each satellite would be different for each receiver and would be time-variable. -|Tom|-

I'm still looking for evidence that proves special relativity is false, and have found two more sources that make good reading.

1. The Sagnac Effect
An article that explains this clearly, but from relativity's viewpoint is given at www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
The first few paragraphs explain the Sagnac effect (you can ignore the section showing loop and area calculations). The argument in support of relativity's explanation is summed up on the basis that the device centres around one particular system of inertial coordinates (centre of circle), and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to it by Lorentz transformations.

But the flaw in this argument is this: What happens to the measuring clock when the radius of the circle becomes very large and the clock's velocity small (limit process)?
The Sagnac effect still applies and the clock's motion becomes more linear. In this limit it is not unreasonable to treat the moving clock as an inertial reference frame in its own right (the Sagnac effect has been tested to great accuracy and so it perfectly reasonable to use a limit process to make the moving clock's frame inertial). Now according to relativity, since this is an inertial frame, light must travel at speed c in both directions. But the Sagnac effect requires that the speed of light must be c+v and c-v respectively, and not c! This limit process shows that relativity contradicts itself, as the real measurements are made in the moving clock frame and not at the centre of the circle. An argument that focuses on one inertial frame that is the centre of the circle is the only way relativity can explain this effect, and so the case for relativity is very weak.



2. GPS experiments that show the speed of light is not constant

A paper written by Ruyong Wang clearly shows that by using GPS you can prove that the velocity of a receiver relative to the Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) frame affects the speed of light, and so special relativity is false.
Go to link www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf
Wisp theory proposes that the speed of light is constant only with respect to absolute wisp space and not to an ECI frame. It's only the way GPS satellite clocks synchronize that appears to make the Earth a special reference frame, either way, the results predicted will show special relativity to be false.

The evidence against relativity is overwhelming and clearly the speed of light varies depending on the motion of the receiver. The only question that needs resolving is: Is the speed of light fixed relative to the ECI frame, or an absolute ether frame.
Wisp theory supports an absolute frame, but I know the majority on this forum favour the ECI frame.



wisp

- particles of nothingness