[David Cooper]

Q1: If we have an observer X co-moving with S0 throughout, does he see the pulse of red light pass him more often than the blue light? (The correct answer is yes, and it is also yes for all observers - they see the red light pulse passing him more often than the blue one.)

Again you've quoted the question, and again you haven't answered it. What you have done comes closer to addressing Q3:-

"Q3: Given that the red light returns faster than the blue light each time, should observer X conclude that the red light has passed through the sectors of the ring at a higher average speed relative to them (while it's passing through them) than the blue light? (The correct answer is yes: he should respect mathematics and conclude that R>B.)"

But have you shed any light on that? No. Remember what I said in reply #79:-

"[Note my careful wording: "average speed of light relative to each of the hundred sectors while it's passing through it" - if you ignore the "while it's passing though it" part, you will get a different result which would mask the truth of what's going on. My careful wording is there to force you only to consider the speed of light relative to any sector that it is passing through at the time while it's passing through it and not when the light is elsewhere in the circuit. It is only when you respect this wording that you force the truth out from the experiment.]"

You haven't done the maths correctly because you've ignored the specifications. To answer Q3 correctly you need to add up a series of numbers. For the red light, you have to take the speed of that light relative to sector S0 while it's travelling through S0, then add the speed of that light relative to sector S1 while it's travelling through S1, then add the speed of that light relative to sector S2 while it's travelling through S2, and so on all the way up to sector S99. Then you repeat that task for the blue light. The two values that you get can then be divided by 100 to get the averages, the result for the red light being the value R and the result for the blue light being the value B. If you do this correctly (using any frame of reference you like), you will find that R>B.

There is a simpler way to do the job though, because we can simply use the distance round the ring (which is the same in both directions) and the clock timings made by X at S0, and again we get R>B.

[Le Repteux]

Here is the conclusion at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on the one way speed of light:

In Einstein's special theory of relativity, all inertial frames of reference are equivalent and there is no preferred frame. There are theories, such as Lorentz ether theory that are experimentally and mathematically equivalent to special relativity but have a preferred reference frame. In order for these theories to be compatible with experimental results the preferred frame must be undetectable. In other words, it is a preferred frame in principle only, in practice all inertial frames must be equivalent, as in special relativity.

To me, this conclusion simply means that simulations using the screen as a rest frame are perfectly compatible with SR if we do not consider it as a preferred frame, which is the case for such simulations. As for SR, the rest frame is only chosen by convenience, so SR people should be allowed to study them, but those who take a look at them don't, because they can immediately see that the light is not moving at the same speed in both directions. We are actually neglecting a powerful tool to study motion just because Einstein said it was simpler to let down ether. I suspect he said that just to look different. He worked at the patent office, so he knew how to convince referees that his idea was new.

[David Cooper]

Here is the conclusion at the bottom of the Wikipedia page on the one way speed of light:

In Einstein's special theory of relativity, all inertial frames of reference are equivalent and there is no preferred frame. There are theories, such as Lorentz ether theory that are experimentally and mathematically equivalent to special relativity but have a preferred reference frame. In order for these theories to be compatible with experimental results the preferred frame must be undetectable. In other words, it is a preferred frame in principle only, in practice all inertial frames must be equivalent, as in special relativity.

The problem comes when you want to lay down the law about reality, and with SR there is a claim made by most of its followers that there is no absolute frame in reality (rather than just in the theory). However, what I've shown here (with MGP) is that some frames cannot be representations of reality. I have shown that some objects must exist where the speed of light relative to them is >c in some directions and <c in the opposite directions, and as soon as we have objects with this property, any frames of reference in which those objects are at rest are necessarily false frames. We can't tell which frames are the false frames, but we know that they exist and make incorrect assertions about the speed of light relative to those objects. SR is incapable of accounting for such false frames, labelling all frames as equally valid.

[Le Repteux]

This thread isn't about promoting LET either, but about discussing the evidence and looking at the point where SR fails to account for the facts.

The OP is from Jeffry, and it is intriguing, as if he wasn't sure SR was right and as if he wanted us to convince others. Why such a delicate question from a moderator if he is sure SR is right?

[Le Repteux]

SR is incapable of accounting for such false frames, labeling all frames as equally valid.

Such a mistake is impossible to make with simulations, so if people would only try to understand them, they would realize that SR is wrong.

[Colin2B]

This thread isn't about promoting LET either, but about discussing the evidence and looking at the point where SR fails to account for the facts.

The OP is from Jeffry, and it is intriguing, as if he wasn't sure SR was right and as if he wanted us to convince others. Why such a delicate question from a moderator if he is sure SR is right?

Looking at the OP it is a very straightforward question for which members have offered answers leading to some interesting discussion and it would be good to keep this thread on topic.
David, Jeff, Pete and I have discussed LET before and I recognise the common ground and respect David’s intellect, but as he says this is not about promoting LET, that should be done elsewhere as an new/alternative theory.

[alancalverd]

You haven't produced any experimental proofs that the one-way speed of light in vacuo is the same as the two-way value. All you have done is present experiments which are incapable of determining anything relevant to that at all. In every single case, you build an assumption into it and then read that assumption back out at the end.

On the contrary. I have referenced Maxwell's ab initio calculation of the speed of an electromagnetic wave which, being independent of any medium, is independent of direction, and an everyday experiment that shows the energy of a pair-annihilation photon m_ec₀² is independent of direction. If c_A→B = c_B→A then any measurement of c in vacuo is equivalent to its one-way speed.

A philosopher might argue that I can't see a tree. Being a really clever smartarse he would say that I am receiving the photons emitted by the tree a few nanoseconds ago. Bishop Berkeley dismissed such pointless hairsplitting in 1710. I think physics has moved on since then.

If you want  c_A→B > c_B→A you will have to answer the questions about the physical properties of the "fabric of space", show us its universal axes of anisotropy, and explain why Maxwell's equations are correct.

[Le Repteux]

David, Jeff, Pete and I have discussed LET before and I recognize the common ground and respect David’s intellect, but as he says this is not about promoting LET, that should be done elsewhere as an new/alternative theory.

It is not LET that I'm promoting, its my simulations. If they are built correctly, simulations work like math or time/space diagrams: they are a means for representing reality. It's David that showed me how to build them in Java Script language, which is quite close to HTML, which is quite easy to learn, and I knew a bit of it, so it took me only about two weeks to be on my own, and I'm far from being a genius, so I think almost anybody can check them out if he wants, but nobody did yet. It's abnormal, such a nice tool and nobody cares, because everybody think  that relativity is right all the way, so they also think that anything that is presented as a critic must necessarily be wrong. What's wrong about trying to represent reality on a computer screen? Start this one, and tell me if the photon in the moving light clock takes the same time going right than going left between the mirrors.

[Colin2B]

It is not LET that I'm promoting, its my simulations

Happy to take a look, left you a message in the New Theories section, but would still like to keep this thread on the specific OP question.

[guest4091]

David .C;
In #114, my quote;
"The drawing shows the ccw photon needing more time than the cw photon to complete 1 revolution relative to A."
"The pattern repeats after 3 short and 2 long cycles."

If you can't translate that into 'there are more short cycles than long cycles, you apparentaly have a comprehension ptoblem.

your quote

If you move the whole turntable along through space, the functionality of the turntable, detector and source all slow down because of their movement though space, but the source is now speeding up and slowing down as it orbits the detector, so its frequency varies.

1. Where does the source get the extra energy to speed up and slow down?
2. There is no relative motion between source and detector, if their speparation is a constant radius.

You continuosly use the term "actual reality", but never show how to find it.

[David Cooper]

On the contrary. I have referenced Maxwell's ab initio calculation of the speed of an electromagnetic wave which, being independent of any medium, is independent of direction, and an everyday experiment that shows the energy of a pair-annihilation photon m_ec₀² is independent of direction. If c_A→B = c_B→A then any measurement of c in vacuo is equivalent to its one-way speed.

It is clearly not independent of direction. If you're moving towards a photon, you measure it as carrying higher energy than if you're moving in the opposite direction when it hits your detector. You cannot measure its speed, but merely its apparent frequency. If your detector is co-moving with the experiment, you will always get the same measurements regardless of how fast the system is moving through space and of how different the one-way speeds of light are across it in opposite directions.

If you want  c_A→B > c_B→A you will have to answer the questions about the physical properties of the "fabric of space", show us its universal axes of anisotropy, and explain why Maxwell's equations are correct.

The only required property of the space fabric for this is that it sets a limit for the speed of light through it. Maxwell's equations (or the way they're being applied) are a simplification which depends on relativity for producing the same answers regardless of speed through space. If you want to remove that simplification, you need to feed in alternative distances (wherever distance values are involved) based on what they would be for any other speed than zero through the space fabric. For example, if the system is moving at 0.866c to the right and a force carrier has to move from left to right, it will have to move than seven times as far through space to complete the trip as it would if the system was stationary, while a force carrier moving the opposite way would move a little more than half as far as if the system was stationary. The directions in which force carriers travel would also be adjusted in accordance with the headlights effect, and the separation between the point the force carrier's leaving and the point where it lands would be halved. The reason you don't normally have to bother complicating the calculations in this way is that you get good answers without going to so much trouble - you can simply rely on relativity masking all the differences from you, so your naive, simplistic approach works every time, but you have failed to understand how it works and how it hides the underlying reality from you, to the point that you misuse this calculation shortcut to assert that the one-way speed of light relative to the system is always equal to c. It displays a severe lack of understanding of the mathematics of relativity on your part, but you're not alone in that - education is to blame for this failure because only half the story of relativity's being taught in universities (and the more important half of the story is the one that's being missed out).

[David Cooper]

David .C;
In #114, my quote;
"The drawing shows the ccw photon needing more time than the cw photon to complete 1 revolution relative to A."
"The pattern repeats after 3 short and 2 long cycles."

If you can't translate that into 'there are more short cycles than long cycles, you apparentaly have a comprehension ptoblem.

I'm just trying to get you to commit to a clear "yes" or "no" answer. If I take your answer to Q1 as "yes", then there are five more questions there waiting for answers (Q2 to Q5, and Q0 [named retrospectively, but it was the original question: "Q0. Is R>B?"]).

1. Where does the source get the extra energy to speed up and slow down?

If we have a turntable rotating and moving along through space, the centre of the turntable is moving along through space at a constant speed while a point on the edge of the turntable is speeding up and slowing down (relative to the space fabric). For every part of the turntable that is slowing down, another part is speeding up, so the energy involved is constant. The speed that a rotating source/detector (on the edge of the turntable) moves at through space changes throughout a revolution, and as it changes, the functionality of that device speeds up and slows down - faster movement through space leads to slower functionality (due to increased cycle distances within the component).

2. There is no relative motion between source and detector, if their speparation is a constant radius.

The radius is not constant due to length contraction - a moving disc becomes elliptical. In addition to that, the communication distances through space vary because a signal from the trailing edge to the centre takes longer to reach the centre than a signal from the leading edge.

You continuosly use the term "actual reality", but never show how to find it.

Relativity hides it from us, so all we can see is an infinite range of possible realities which are incompatible with each other as they contradict each other by asserting different speeds of light relative to specific objects. The beautiful story of how relativity works is clearly something you have yet to see, because if you understood the maths of it you wouldn't have needed to ask those questions. It is the most extraordinary phenomenon, and yet it makes full sense once you've thought it all through and seen how the one-way speed of light relative to you is always masked. Our inability to pin down the absolute frame is a direct consequence of the speed of light being the speed limit governing all components of any experiment we build - we could only break though that measurement barrier by accessing something that moves through space faster than c and using it to send information, but we don't have that.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The layman already has to navigate a confusing sea of mathematical formulas in trying to understand science. Asking the right question is important to bring to the fore concepts that are difficult to understand. Threads like these are very important since posters have to think before they answer and a real debate can happen. We have members with a wealth of knowledge on both sides of any argument. The points raised and answered offer a path through a difficult subject and allow the enthusiast to pursue those concepts through study. That can never be bad. What is bad is pseudoscientific propaganda and we have to guard against that. As I said, the right questions to ask bring out the best scientific debate. In order to ask those questions requires an understanding of the topic.

[alancalverd]

Maxwell's equations (or the way they're being applied) are a simplification which depends on relativity for producing the same answers regardless of speed through space. I

As I have said before, they are not a simplification and have nothing to do with relativity. They are the means by which we explain the observed selfpropagation of  electromagnetic radiation, from well-characterised phenomena that do not involve the movement of anything in any particular direction.

Relativity derives from the Maxwellian fact that c is not a vector.

[Le Repteux]

Relativity derives from the Maxwellian fact that c is not a vector.

Half of Einstein's 1905 first paper on special relativity, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies," explains how to transform Maxwell's equations.(exert from wiki page on classical electromagnetism and special relativity)

Vector or not, these equations can be transformed into more complicated relativity equations, so they are de facto simpler.

[David Cooper]

As I have said before, they are not a simplification and have nothing to do with relativity. They are the means by which we explain the observed selfpropagation of  electromagnetic radiation, from well-characterised phenomena that do not involve the movement of anything in any particular direction.

Relativity derives from the Maxwellian fact that c is not a vector.

Can you show me how you're crunching numbers with this to produce a one-way speed of light value and demonstrate that you aren't smuggling in any distance measurements.

[guest4091]

David D. #120;

In making an improved drawing, I realized the previous one was in error. It showed the ring in motion when it should have been at rest relative to U.
Fig.1 without the A path (red) simply shows ccw photon path (blue) and cw path (green) leaving the origin simultaneously and returning simultaneously within the ring.
It forms a tube with light spiraling in circles along the time line for U.

With a device A attached to the ring,  the ring rotates ccw at .2c. A completes 90 deg at Ut= 7.7 and continues 90 deg on the far side of the tube (dashed red). U sees no change in the behavior of light.

Fig.2 displays the tube unrolled and flattened to show when the light intersects the A path. The results are the same as before, with A crossing the green path 3x and the blue path2x. This pattern then repeats.

If A records two speeds for light, .80 and 1.20, what is the standard?


light ring d.gif (10.45 kB . 567x681 - viewed 1479 times)

[yor_on]

Yoron#62;
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I do think if many words do not impart understanding, your effort is wasted. I remind myself to keep it simple and clear for the reader, but am not always successful. When reviewing papers I've written in the past, if they seem faulty, they go in the trash. I'm my worst critic, so it's not a question of 'how good you think you are', but how well you convey understanding to others. I'll work to improve.

Thank you Phyti. You're cool with me.
And, in my eyes, you're doing a good job of simplifying it, as I read further on.

I know how hard that is.
It takes time, and somehow it never finish :)

[David Cooper]

In making an improved drawing, I realized the previous one was in error. It showed the ring in motion when it should have been at rest relative to U.

That's confusing. If the ring's in motion (rotating) and you want to show it at rest, you'd either have to show light moving at different angles up the diagram (meaning different amounts of tilt away from the vertical) or else have it show a result incompatible with experiments. The way you're doing it now though, you aren't putting the ring at rest relative to U because A is supposed to be rotating with the material of the ring. It's also confusing when you keep using A though when A came from a scenario with a mirror in it. It would be clearer if you either switched to using my names for observers or set out an alternative set of names for my experiment if you aren't happy with X (moving round with the ring material), Y (next to the ring but not going round with it), and S0 to S99 (the names of 100 sectors of the ring, with X always being with S0). The light paths should also be coloured red (moving clockwise) and blue (going anticlockwise). Once you start rotating your ring, the origin of frame U is where I put Y, while my X is equivalent to your A, moving round with S0.

If A records two speeds for light, .80 and 1.20, what is the standard?

What do you mean by "standard"? Observer A records that the average speed of the red light (which you've coloured green) is 1.2c relative to the material of the ring as it passes it (sector by sector), and that the average speed of the blue light (shown as blue) is 0.8c relative to the material of the ring as it passes it (sector by sector). If you want to average those to try to hide the difference and to go on to assert that the light must all have passed each sector relative to the material of that sector at c, then that would also mean that if a car passes you at 100mph in one direction and then passes you at 50mph relative to you the other way, it actually passed you at 75mph relative to you both times. Both of those are departures from mathematics. We clearly have two different average speeds for light relative to the same material, namely R and B, and R is greater than B.

Note that we could change our frame of reference to make the speed of the red light the same as the speed of the blue light relative to observer A at one point in A's journey round the ring, but that would need to be countered by an amplified difference in the speed of light relative to A in opposite directions when it's round the other side of the circuit - there always have to be places along the way when A is exposed to light travelling at different speeds in opposite directions relative to it. It is mathematically impossible for the red and blue light to pass all the material it passes at c relative to that material (while it's local to that material) and to get the end result R>B.

[guest4091]

David D. #;

Q1: If we have an observer X co-moving with S0 throughout, does he see the pulse of red light pass him more often than the blue light? (The correct answer is yes, and it is also yes for all observers - they see the red light pulse passing him more often than the blue one.)

------
the drawings show this
------

Q2: Does observer X measure the ring as having the same length in both directions from S0 round the ring and back to S0? (The correct answer is yes, and it is also yes for all other observers.)

----
A is not moving relative to the ring, and would average the times of returning light.
----

Q3: Given that the red light returns faster than the blue light each time, should observer X conclude that the red light has passed through the sectors of the ring at a higher average speed relative to them (while it's passing through them) than the blue light? (The correct answer is yes: he should respect mathematics and conclude that R>B.)

------
Notice your word association, 'red light' with 'faster'.
In mine, closing speed of (green and A) 1.2, is greater than that for (blue and A) .8.
Light speed is 1.
-------

Q4: If we have an observer Y next to the rotating ring such that X is with him initially, but then X goes round with the ring next to sector S0 and eventually returns to Y at a moment when the pulses of red and blue light happen to arrive there simultaneously, should observer Y also conclude that the red light has passed through the sectors of the ring at a higher average speed relative to them (while it's passing through them) than the blue light? (The correct answer is yes: he too should respect mathematics and conclude that R>B.)

------
U at rest relative to the center of the ring and not rotating, sees green and blue make synchronized revolutions, independently of ring rotation. Light speed is independent of its source. Light speed is 1.
------

Q5: Do all observers have a perception which should lead them to conclude that R>B? (The correct answer is yes - all possible observers recognise that the red light has travelled through the 100 sectors at a higher speed relative to them on average than the blue light, assuming that they respect mathematics.)

----
NO! The MGP experiment is not measuring the 1-way speed of light.
From the Wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michelson–Gale–Pearson_experiment&oldid=736473424

"The aim, as it was first proposed by Albert A. Michelson in 1904 and then executed in 1925, was to find out whether the rotation of the Earth has an effect on the propagation of light in the vicinity of the Earth." (also predicted in 1911 by Max van Laue, using SR).

"The outcome of the experiment was that the angular velocity of the Earth as measured by astronomy was confirmed to within measuring accuracy"

"Thus special relativity is the only theory which explains both experiments (hypothesis of complete aether drag and MGP). The experiment is consistent with relativity for the same reason as all other Sagnac type experiments. That is, rotation is absolute in special relativity, because there is no inertial frame of reference in which the whole device is at rest during the complete process of rotation, thus the light paths of the two rays are different in all of those frames..."
A related experiment:
The time dilation effects in the H-K experiment resulted from Earth rotation, not variation in light speed.

Light speed is measured relative to a medium (real or imagined), not to an object.
If light propagation is a physical phenomenon, and the rules of physics are the same in all inertial frames, then light speed must be constant in all inertial frames.