[butchmurray (OP)]

Geezer,

I’ll answer the last question first.

I have never heard of anyone attempting anything analogous to this. My opinion is anchors. Everyone knows that the speed of light is constant in every direction as seen by any observer so the result is already known and the experiment would be a waste of time. But, that is why it is called an experiment. AND/OR maybe just no one with the necessary resources, as myself, has thought of it.

The resolution necessary to measure the pulses is pretty high. However, accumulating the counts for the number of pulses necessary to achieve a statistically viable difference might be the way around that possible difficulty. As far as directional resolution is concerned, initially three axis bi-directional observations should be sufficient to determine feasibility. That is, east-west, north-south and up-down. The closer to the equator the greater the difference in the east-wast pulse. Interestingly enough, out of the ten or so MM type experiments I looked at, I think three or four had the phase shifts that were close to the ones I calculated for Boston’s latitude. Four or five more had higher phase shifts that could possibly be attributed to the limits of detection of the interferometers. Only one had a lower phase shift than the one I calculated for that instrument.

Oscillator stability should not be a problem. A million 10 or 20 nanosecond pulses happen pretty quickly. Besides the series should be repeated for the number of times that would assure the absolute highest confidence level. That would detect and allow correction of any oscillator drift. What’s more, the setup should be wavelength (laser) tuned so that ambient light is not a problem. Believe me, with all these stipulations I still believe it could be an active experiment a very short time after it is given the green light.

Please tell me why you ask. An answer is not necessary for further details if you wish.

Thank you,
butchmurray

[yor_on]

First of all Butch

Get your idea together, make a diagram, make it simple.
I won't even consider reading all that before you do.

Too many seem to assume that because 'they' can see what they think, it must be enough to sprout, a lot of, words describing it. That's wrong, it just makes people avoid it. So create that diagram, and for gods sake, try to keep it simple. If you can't then your theory, proposition whatever most probably are just one of those intricate ghost theories that won't make sense when applied.
==

Eh, one more thing. you write; "For two identical light clocks in the same reference frame to be observed to have unequal lengths is contradictory to the constancy of light speed."

A simpler way may be to state that if you get different readings from two exact twin clocks then you have different 'frames of reference'. And now the problem becomes just how to define what you mean by that 'frame of reference'. A simple experiment already done is by moving one of two atomic clocks from a table to the floor and then watch how their durations start to differ. There is no same 'frame' anywhere, actually. What is a constant though is lights speed. And that one 'cut trough' any 'frames of reference' you ever can think up.

So your first assumption here "in the same reference frame" is a very shaky one. You better define what you think is the same 'frame of reference' before discussing it.
=

Furthermore Butch.

Radiation is radiation, a atomic clock works by the exact same principle as a *light clock', measuring radiation translating it into 'ticks'.