0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In SR there is a convention which says no mater what direction you are traveling speed of light is the same. However the one way speed of light can't be measured.
One interesting question immediately arises: how do you measure the one way speed of light? It turns out there are various methods. One idea involves the emission and absorption of gamma rays by certain kinds of atoms in a solid. The process of absorption is very sensitive to the energy of the gamma rays. So if the speed of light (and therefore its energy) varies with direction, then the rate of absorption ought to change too. In the 1960s and 70s, various physicists looked for a directional dependence by placing a gamma ray emitter at the edge of a rotating disc and an absorber at the centre. They then looked for any difference in the rate of absorption as the disc rotates but found none. Neither have physicists using other techniques found any variation either. (The controversial Bulgarian Stefan Marinov claimed to have found evidence of a variation in the one way speed of light but his claims are not considered valid by most mainstream physicists.)
The rigidity of the rod should be enough to withstand the wind caused by the rod travelling through the air with the speed of ~10m/s.
...if the end of the rod at B will start allowing the light from laser at B to travel perpendicularly to B' we will know that the light from laser at A will start to be blocked by front end of the rod BECAUSE THE LENGHT OF THE ROD is exactly the same
(disregard length contraction; at that speed it is really insignificant) as the distance d between the lasers.
The speed of the rod is not important either; the limited precision in positioning the lasers in regards to the length of the rod d would be compensated if we repeat the experiment from the other direction since 2 way speed of light has to be c.
The one way speed of light has been measured.
One interesting question immediately arises: how do you measure the one way speed of light? It turns out there are various methods. One idea involves the emission and absorption of gamma rays by certain kinds of atoms in a solid. The process of absorption is very sensitive to the energy of the gamma rays. So if the speed of light (and therefore its energy) varies with direction, then the rate of absorption ought to change too. In the 1960s and 70s, various physicists looked for a directional dependence by placing a gamma ray emitter at the edge of a rotating disc and an absorber at the centre. They then looked for any difference in the rate of absorption as the disc rotates but found none.
Simple thought. How does a photon know whether it is coming or going? Obviously it can't know, so there can't be a difference between the propagation speeds.
Unless a new theory on motion gets more useful than SR, there is no reason for physicists to reject it.
We don't reject our old ideas just because they contain contradictions, otherwise we would never get the ground to build new ideas.
I also think SR is wrong, and I am also pointing at its contradictions to discuss it, but I know it is not sufficient to convince anybody that my own theory is promising. To convince people, I know I have to show the benefits.
Not so - if another theory does so much as to produce the exact same numbers while making better sense (as with LET), they should switch to it instead of carrying on regardless while continuing to assert superiority of the irrational theory over the rational one. At the very least, they should drop all the irrational dogma and recognize that it cannot be the case that light moves at the same speed in opposite directions relative to all objects, but they persist in asserting that it does even though their position has been shown to be wrong on that score.
Where theories produce contradictions, we should accept that they must be wrong instead of asserting that they are right, and then we should put more effort into finding out ways of correcting or replacing the faulty theory so that we have something that doesn't generate contradictions. The establishment's insistence in sticking with a disproved theory while rejecting one that does the same job while making better sense is actively holding back progress.
The benefits are that you encourage more rational people to go into science instead of making it appeal to the irrational ones who are happy to tolerate contradictions and dig in to defend faulty models rather than working to correct them.
If the rod of length d=10m is moving with constant speed and its end is at point B, then its front must be at point A 10m forward. It has nothing to do with the speed of sound .
Let’s have two light sources at points A and B separated by distance d and sending constantly (perpendicular to AB) signals to clocks at A’ and B’ Let’s have an opaque rigid rod of the length d (it can be measured against AB while at rest with AB, so accuracy can be high) traveling with constant speed v (non-relativistic) parallel (and very close to) the line AB from B towards A. Initially the light from B to B’ will be blocked and the light from A to A’ will be allowed to be transmitted. When front end of the rod will start cutting off the light from A to A’ the light from B will start to be transmitted to B’ . At this moment, we will have both clock at A’ and B’ synchronized.We can improve the accuracy of the measurement sending the rod from A to B with the same speed v and measure one way speed of light from A to B. The average 2 way speed of light from A to B and from B to A has to be c.
That's incorrect. There are experiments which are often presented as having measured the one-way speed of light, but none have actually done so.
Quote from: David Cooper on 13/05/2017 18:10:49That's incorrect. There are experiments which are often presented as having measured the one-way speed of light, but none have actually done so.If you know me at all I then you know that I never accept mere claims like that. You'd have to demonstrate that all the published papers which demonstrate that its been measured area all wrong or state why you're making that claim.
The radio signal is sent out from half way between A and B, then when it arrives at clock A, the trailing end of the rod passes clock A. At that moment, the leading end of the rod is now at the place where the radio signal was sent out from, so there is no way it can reach clock B at the same time as the radio signal which is already far ahead of it.