SR and one-way light speed tests

Wisp,

Great link. Thanks.

Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

The proponents
of SR has every base covered. If you observe length contraction in a
real experiment- "aha, that is exactly predicted by SR". If you don't observe
length contraction or time dilation - "SR doesn't predict an observable
time dilation". When confronted with this contradiction, they attempt
to confuse the issue with "the observers have different
simultaneity this and that..."

How can anyone evern disprove such a theory?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by wisp</i>
<br />I'm still looking for evidence that proves special relativity is false, and have found two more sources that make good reading.

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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Since we have failed to detect a background substance, I would go for the ECI.

But frankly, I don't think the we need any frame at all. What we really need is to detect acceleration and *not* velocities. You can buy top-of-the-line accelerometers that produce a simple voltage when accelerated. For if we detect acceleration, we have detected a gravitational potential, and a change of gravitational potential induces "time dilation" and so forth.

Like The Matrix, I think there is something wrong with the world. We are slaves of "velocity", which makes us blind to the truth. But the truth is, I believe, acceleration causes changes of state, not uniform motion. Put differently, a system in uniform motion can be called to be in a "relative equilibrium". By definition, equilibria are point for which the state does not change.




"It only takes one white crow to proof that not all crows are black."

Jan,

Did you see the string I posted regarding the Unruh Affect? Acceleration has been found to create real particles from virtual particles using the energy of the accelerating observer.


Knowing to believe only half of what you hear is a sign of intelligence. Knowing which half to believe can make you a genius.

Jan: We are slaves of "velocity", which makes us blind to the truth. But the truth is, I believe, acceleration causes changes of state, not uniform motion. Put differently, a system in uniform motion can be called to be in a "relative equilibrium". By definition, equilibria are point for which the state does not change.

Pick your choice:

Absolute velocity - absolute acceleration: Newton

Relative velocity - absolute acceleration: Post-Newtonians

Relative velocity - relative acceleration: Liebniz

Absolute velocity - relative acceleration: Leibniz (?)

I argue that whichever your choice is, it is irrelevant as long as you cannot specify a space-time structure that is empirically determined. Each choice of the four above will result in set of laws making predictions that are justified based on auxiliary hypotheses.

There is another possibility you might have missed. Maybe the whole concept of velocity and acceleration is misleading in itself. Maybe there is no such things at the substance level but only at the phenomenal level. In that is the case, any inquiry about the truth you refer to, is doomed.

But empiricist will takes everybody down with them before true progress is made.

By the way, there is no such thing as an accelerometer measuring acceleration directly. All is measured is position and twice -differentiated in time using sophisticated algorithms. No way to measure acceleration or even velocity directly in a world in which the only things that are fundamental quantities are distance, time and mass(?).

The question I pose then here is the following: What's you favored space-time structure? (and that's the end of it).

How does favoring a structure of space-time(what ever that means) resolve or end the problem? I don't get it.