[nilak (OP)]

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.

There is a version I'm currently analyzing. It starts with a thought experiment. Presuming the speed of light is constant ( c ) is only in an absolute reference frame, the speed relative to an observer in motion relative to the absolute reference frame will not be the same. However the two way speed of light measured by any observer will be always c. The absolute frame of reference is probably because of a space structure like an aether. The only difference from the Lorentz Theory of Aether is that the matter is part of aether, and the aether is not homogenous and it can expand and contract. But the aether properties are not important for this thought experiment. I should be important to analyze the analogy with GR.

Let's suppose the point R is at rest relative to the space structure (SS) and the SS is homogenous (like in SR, no gravity involved). Next, there is a room in a ship, where we are trying to measure the speed of light. The clock that measures time is a photon that when the ship is at rest relative to R, it describes a circle with a radius r=1m. There laser that sends a light beam towards a mirror. We measure the time it takes to the beam to reach the mirror and come back by measuring how many cycles the photon clock makes.
 n1 is the number of cycles when going forward, n2 is for the way back. nr is the number of cycles we get when at rest, when measuring the the beam to the mirrir and back.

If the ship travels towards the mirror at a velocity v, I get the following results. n1+n2=(1/gamma)*nr, where gamma is the Lorent factor. This means we don't have the whole picture of what is happening. The distance that separates the mirror and the laser needs to shorten for this to be consistent with real experiments. The room that contains the laser and the mirror being an atomic structure, something is happening that makes it get shrinked and need to be further analyzed. It must have something to so with the acceleration phase. In the meanwhile we can use the real results to correct the results.
 
Time needs to be corrected by applying Lorentz factor. That is for the both way speed of light, so we get the correction for the average speed of light. But n1 is not equal to n2. I've calculated:
 n1=nr*1/2*sqrt((c+v)/(c-v)). n2=nr*1/2*sqrt((c-v)/c+v)).
These numbers (n1 and n2) are not very useful until we find the mechanics that expalains length contraction. If we correct the sqrt term we get n1=n2=nr/2 which might not be true. However  these factors are not equal to each other but the length contraction should be. It's no reason for length contraction differences. Hence the correct number of cycles ( which translates to time measured) will not be the same on the oubound compared to the inbound beam travel.

For two observers traveling like in the twin paradox, the speed difference will be v, -v , and not c-v and c+v. On the both segments of the journey it should generate the same factor which is the Lorentz factor.

Following the idea, assuming there is a space contraction, if we could measure one way speed the photon clock will show the number of cycles for the beam travelling up to the mirror, nf=nr/2*1/(1-v/c) and for thw way back nb=nr/2*1/(1+v/c). nr is the cycle count at rest. For v=0, nf=nb=nr/2,  for v close to c, nf goes tend to go to  infinity, nb goes to zero.

[GoC]

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.

You can measure the speed of light one way with an atomic clock. There is a 14 ns difference between New York and San Francisco in direction. The rotation is similar to a straight line for the distance light has to travel. This as been verified with atomic clocks.

There is a version I'm currently analyzing. It starts with a thought experiment. Presuming the speed of light is constant ( c ) is only in an absolute reference frame, the speed relative to an observer in motion relative to the absolute reference frame will not be the same.

This is correct but the measuring device is confounded with the speed of light measurement.

However the two way speed of light measured by any observer will be always c.

Yes because the 14 ns are added in one direction and subtracted in the opposite direction.

We measure the time it takes to the beam to reach the mirror and come back by measuring how many cycles the photon clock makes.

During vector motion the clock photon and mirror photon are affected by the same angular motion. A photon clock will tick at the same rate at any angle during vector motion. This can be calculated in plane geometry using the finite speed of light.

. But the aether properties are not important for this thought experiment. I should be important to analyze the analogy with GR.

Unless the Aether is the light. GR and SR are always combined. GR can become insignificant in the furthest distances from macro mass where dilation is at a minimum. The Voyagers moving out from our solar system reduced there space dilation. The result was a quicker return of the signal which appeared as if the voyagers slowed down when in fact it was a clock tick rate increase. Simple Relativity.

[nilak (OP)]

There is a version I'm currently analyzing. It starts with a thought experiment. Presuming the speed of light is constant ( c ) is only in an absolute reference frame, the speed relative to an observer in motion relative to the absolute reference frame will not be the same.

This is correct but the measuring device is confounded with the speed of light measurement.

Yes you are right. It may be wrong. It is like trying to measure a projectile with a twin one that is rotating like the photon clock. No mater how fast it moves you always get the same result. I think that regardless of what clock you use, the dilation factors will be the same.

. But the aether properties are not important for this thought experiment. I should be important to analyze the analogy with GR.

Unless the Aether is the light. GR and SR are always combined. GR can become insignificant in the furthest distances from macro mass where dilation is at a minimum. The Voyagers moving out from our solar system reduced there space dilation. The result was a quicker return of the signal which appeared as if the voyagers slowed down when in fact it was a clock tick rate increase. Simple Relativity.

Yes, they are important, but I wanted to simplify the experiment. I omitted the room structure in which the experiment is done. That is because adding that would require complicated detailed about what space or the aether is and and how it affects the atomic structure and distances between atoms. I asumed that the space contracts by the Lorentz  transform.
[/quote]

[GoC]

I asumed that the space contracts by the Lorentz  transform.

SR is a visual transformation only. Nothing physically contracts in SR.

Its only in GR where space dilates to have equivalence with SR. Interesting that the geometry of the finite speed of light and dilation are both equally affected by c to confound the measurement of the speed of light.

[guest4091]

The 1-way speed of light cannot be measured directly since the observer can only be present at the emission or detection, but not both. The reflection event when part of the 2-way/round-trip measurement requires clock synchronization, which is only relative for an inertial frame at a specific speed.

[GoC]

The 1-way speed of light cannot be measured directly since the observer can only be present at the emission or detection, but not both

I suspect this to possibly be incorrect. Einstein suggested atomic clocks can measure the one way speed of light. c+v and c-v of the Earth's rotational speed.

The reflection event when part of the 2-way/round-trip measurement requires clock synchronization, which is only relative for an inertial frame at a specific speed.

Inertial vector speed causes the reflection to be different from perpendicular. The different angle for light causes a longer distance for light to travel. This increase in distance slows the clock tick rate. Pythagoras and Lorentz are the same value for contraction.

[nilak (OP)]

The 1-way speed of light cannot be measured directly since the observer can only be present at the emission or detection, but not both

I suspect this to possibly be incorrect. Einstein suggested atomic clocks can measure the one way speed of light. c+v and c-v of the Earth's rotational speed.

This is exactly what experimental results confirmed. Do you have a reference showing Einstein predicted that ?

[nilak (OP)]

During vector motion the clock photon and mirror photon are affected by the same angular motion. A photon clock will tick at the same rate at any angle during vector motion. This can be calculated in plane geometry using the finite speed of light.

That is the starting point of my concept. That mirror clock measures time exactly as any atomic clock we use measures it.


The paper below is the proof that an absolute space or an aether exists.

"It is clear therefore that GPS technology very easily demonstrates that light speed is not constant and hence that the light speed invariance postulate which leads to the Lorentz Transformation and special relativity is invalid. This significant finding has profound implications for modern physics and metrology where light speed constancy is a foundation tenet. Moreover this light speed variability indicates the existence of a preferred frame, the search for which interestingly was the original objective of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
In order to confirm this preferred frame detection, the GPS clocks were utilized in a modified Michelson-Morley experiment where the clocks replaced the interferometer. The clocks measured light travel times along the arms of the apparatus and revealed ether drift arising from the Earth’s rotation. This direct determination of the light travel times rendered the measurement essentially immune to the second-order length contraction phenomenon which negates the fringe shift in the conventional Michelson-Morley experiments. The GPS technique did not require actual time measurement but utilized light travel time that is directly available from the CCIR clock synchronization algorithm. The modified experiment succeeded in detecting ether drift for rotational motion while the majority of other Michelson-Morley-type experiments are considered to have produced null results. In the approximately inertial frame of the experiment, special relativity is directly applicable and predicts a zero time-of-flight difference between equal orthogonal arms and hence a null result [2]."
 
http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/39778.pdf

[GoC]

That is the starting point of my concept. That mirror clock measures time exactly as any atomic clock we use measures it.

The most festinating part is mechanical clocks follow atomic clocks.

The paper below is the proof that an absolute space or an aether exists.

While I agree a medium exists proof is in the eye of the beholder. Neither you nor I are the beholder of science. Mathematicians consider math is the mechanical reason for relativity and need no process. To many pure mathematicians and not enough engineers in physics to reproduce relativity mechanically. You appear to have an engineering spirit.

"It is clear therefore that GPS technology very easily demonstrates that light speed is not constant and hence that the light speed invariance postulate which leads to the Lorentz Transformation and special relativity is invalid.

This statement is just proof the author does not understand SR. I can explain why clocks tick at different rates by just using plain geometry. The speed of light is constant when you follow the postulate light being independent of the source. What that means is there is no perpendicular path for light with velocity.

Here is main streams mechanical solution: The clock contracts so the ability to stay perpendicular remains for all velocities. The problem with that is if the clock contracted and the speed of light remained the same the clock would tick faster with greater speed through space due to the shorter distance between mirrors in the clock. Like I said most are mathematicians not mechanical engineers.

Here is the plain geometry light being independent of the source: Lets use the simple half speed of light compared to a rest state observed position. The photon leaves its starting position as a sphere. When the signal reaches the mirror to be reflected the vector angle from the starting point to the finish point was 30 degrees. The observer at rest viewed the light at a 30 degree angle from perpendicular. So we can draw a 30,60,90 triangle where the actual travel distance for light was the hypotenuse. So that angle of view which we consider perpendicular is actually at 30 degrees and contracted. Lets look at the Lorentz contraction for half the speed of light. The value you can look up and confirm it to be 0.866025. Sq. Rt. 1-1^2/2^2 is the Lorentz formula. Now cos 30 = 0.866025 a little trig. Or sq. rt. A^2=C^2-B^2 = [1^2 = 1^2 - 0.5^2].  [Sq. rt. 1 = 1- 0.25.] [Sq. rt. 1 = 0.75]. Since the square root of 1 is 1 and the square root of 0.75 is 0.866025 anyway you want to measure, we have a contraction of view due to the angle of view. Our clock slows down because the tick rate is based on the hypotenuse distance and not the perpendicular distance. The tick rate is only 86.6025% as fast as at relative rest. The view was 13.3075% visually shorter and distance light traveled was 13.3075% longer. Both used the same angle (the hypotenuse).     Relativity is always correct while your understanding could be wrong.


Say you are sitting on the moon and were able to watch light from New York to San Francisco and back. Light being independent of the source. The photon leaves NY while SF is raveling towards the photon. You measure the distance. Now on the return trip to NY you once again measure the distance. NY to SF was a shorter distance for the photon to travel than SF to NY. NY moved away from SF while SF moved towards NY. If you used an atomic clock the different amount of clicks would correspond to the different distances for light speed. They auto correct in any direction with the two way speed of light measurement.

Say there is a kid on a moving truck bouncing a ball up and down. From the kids perspective the ball is straight up and down. If an observer at rest could only see the ball it would appear to be creating a triangle through space.

The point is we have to be careful in our rush to judgment. I find relativity a beautiful instrument to play with physics. Quantum mechanics is the construct for relativity.
A and C were both the speed of light being constant

[nilak (OP)]

You are right. What they got is seems to be a speed difference that is measured from an orbiting station frame not from a station fixed to earth. The orbiting station sees the Earth surface moving at v and obviously will measure a speed difference between the Earth surface and c but a station on Earth will not notice the difference according to SR.

[GoC]

  There is one more image I need to transfer to you for a better understanding. Say we have a satellite in geosynchronous motion. There is a GR difference in tick rate that is a physical size difference in their respective clocks (ever so small, tiny to the point of insignificant except for accumulative display differences over days). Lets not consider that part and focus on the SR portion. We visually measure the satellite as being perpendicular with the observer to the center of the Earth. While an observer on earth would view the satellite perpendicular, the satellite is physically forward of its viewed position from the observer on Earth. The signal output and the photon reflection ride the spectrum at c independent of the satellite's forward movement. The observer on Earth has also moved forward to intercept the signal and visual reflection from the satellites previous position. So you can recognize with speed even using geosynchronous positions there is no perpendicular view possible if you understand relativity properly.

Main stream mathematically contracts space to allow a perpendicular view. This violates relativity to fudge the correct answer. The Lorentz contraction is the geometry of view. Mathematics can not be the cause of physical contraction. That's just silly.

[nilak (OP)]

Apparently My model that uses absolute space and time also seems to show the same thing. After all perhaps they really did the correct measurement.
Notice that acording to my model there is no space contraction but instead objects extend their size with speed.

[GoC]

Apparently My model that uses absolute space and time also seems to show the same thing. After all perhaps they really did the correct measurement.
Notice that acording to my model there is no space contraction but instead objects extend their size with speed.

Your missing the point of the kid on the truck bouncing a ball. The photon Velocity between mirrors cause the bouncing ball affect through space. Your math adds the fudge factor of the Lorentz contraction in the equation without understanding from where it came. Your trying to make everything observed a fixed frame. That is not possible with relativity.

Math is never the cause of physical change. Math can only follow physical change. You are trying to change the bouncing ball with velocity known as the gamma term and lengthen the straight leg to the length of the hypotenuse for your theory. That is as bad as main steam trying the shorten the distance from the hypotenuse to the perpendicular distance. Both violate the postulates of relativity. There is no perpendicular view with velocity. There is no fixed frame for mass. All mass travels through space removing energy from c. That is why there is no fixed measurement using time period.

[nilak (OP)]

if you look at how the electron looks like it becomes clear how particles that compose objects like that box, extend their size in the direction of motion. When electron travels faster the helix unfolds until it becomes a high frequency photon. The length expansion of matter must be real.

In SR the length contraction is caused by space up scaling. Objects in the moving frame are smaller because the new gridlines are less dense.

[GoC]

  In order to follow relativity GR grid expansion also increases the electron travel distance for dilation to follow SR equivalence of tick rate. The grid expands for GR but not for SR. The hypotenuse increase is equivalent to the dilation increase for distance in comparing tick rates.

Here is how that works. At the surface of the Earth the attraction is 32 ft/s/s.  Acceleration has very little to do with tick rate only velocity. So for an equivalent tick rate to the center of the Earth GR an instantaneous acceleration of 32 ft/s/s down to inertial velocity in ~8,000 miles linear deceleration. That is the equivalence in tick rate for SR to GR at the center of the Earth. There the increase in the hypotenuse of SR photon travel equals the grid dilation for increased electron travel distance for GR dilation.

As you can observe dilation also increases the travel distance for the electron, grid points and photon in GR.  So in creation your theory on mechanical relativity has to follow relativity observations.

[Kris Kuitkowski]

Just recently I came up with a new idea to measure one way speed of light and/or synchronize distant clocks:
 
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.


Alternatively when front end of the rod will start cutting off the light from A to A’ we can start the clock at A and when the light from B will start to be transmitted to B’ we can also send the light from B to A .When the light from B arrives at A the clock at A will measure one way speed of light.
 In this method only one clock is needed.
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.

[David Cooper]

Just recently I came up with a new idea to measure one way speed of light and/or synchronize distant clocks:
 
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.

What is a rigid rod? Do you mean a rod that breaks the rules of physics? If you push one end of a rod, the other end moves after a delay as the force is transferred to it, and that delay is tied to the speed of sound in the material used to make the rod. You would need to have a way to accelerate the whole rod at the same instant for your experiment to get round that problem, perhaps by using a rail gun, but you then come up against the problem of how you synchronise things so that all parts of the rod are accelerated at the same moment. You need to pick a frame of reference for your synchronisation, and having done that, you will have ensured that the speed of light your experiment measures will be c. If you synchronise for some other frame of reference, the speed of light you measure can be values very different from c.

[There is no known experiment that can measure the one-way speed of light, despite what has been claimed in this thread. Another incorrect claim here is that length-contraction is merely a visual effect, but actual length-contraction is essential to account for the results of experiments.]

[Le Repteux]

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/39778.pdf

Thanks for the link Nilak. :0)
Gift concludes that it is the postulate about the speed of light that is wrong, but his conclusion also means that, as far as light is concerned, the one about the inertial frame principle is also wrong. It works for massive bodies, but not for light. If we exchange a ball while walking together, the ball can be aimed to our actual positions to reach us because it has mass so it can add our speed to its own speed, but light has to be aimed to our future position otherwise it will miss us, and that's unfortunately what the relativity principle means.The laws of physics may thus be the same for any inertial frame only if we add to those laws an absolute reference frame for light.

[Kris Kuitkowski]

"What is a rigid rod? Do you mean a rod that breaks the rules of physics? If you push one end of a rod, the other end moves after a delay as the force is transferred to it, and that delay is tied to the speed of sound in the material used to make the rod. You would need to have a way to accelerate the whole rod at the same instant for your experiment to get round that problem, perhaps by using a rail gun, but you then come up against the problem of how you synchronise things so that all parts of the rod are accelerated at the same moment. You need to pick a frame of reference for your synchronisation, and having done that, you will have ensured that the speed of light your experiment measures will be c. If you synchronise for some other frame of reference, the speed of light you measure can be values very different from c.

[There is no known experiment that can measure the one-way speed of light, despite what has been claimed in this thread. Another incorrect claim here is that length-contraction is merely a visual effect, but actual length-contraction is essential to account for the results of experiments.]"

The lasers at A and B are positioned that the rod's ends coincide with the lasers. This is done when rod is at rest in regards to the lasers. Then the rod is then moved out , then accelerated to constant speed v <<c (e.g. 100m/s), which will cause length contraction (if the rod is 10m long) around 3x10^-13m , way below our measurement accuracy. The rod will glide past lasers without acceleration (on magnetic cushion?) so there will be no stress on the rod.

[David Cooper]

The lasers at A and B are positioned that the rod's ends coincide with the lasers. This is done when rod is at rest in regards to the lasers. Then the rod is then moved out , then accelerated to constant speed v <<c (e.g. 100m/s), which will cause length contraction (if the rod is 10m long) around 3x10^-13m , way below our measurement accuracy. The rod will glide past lasers without acceleration (on magnetic cushion?) so there will be no stress on the rod.

Your rod cannot be as rigid as you imagine it to be - if you push it from one end, there will be a delay before the other end starts moving, and the same applies if you pull it from the other end. If you try to avoid delays by accelerating the whole rod evenly at the same moment in time, you run into synchronisation issues. Whichever frame of reference you use to synchronise your moment of time along the rod will determine the number your experiment produces for the speed of light - all it does is give you a speed that relates to the frame you use for synchronisation, thereby rendering the experiment useless.