[hamdani yusuf]

Problem is, those clocks were not synchronized in the (approximate) inertial frame of the USA, a different frame (by over 1000 km/hr) that the GPS one they used to do the timing, so M&K are wrong in making that conclusion.

How can synchonizing the clock eliminates the difference in time measurements of the experiment?

[Halc]

How can synchonizing the clock eliminates the difference in time measurements of the experiment?

If clocks A and B are stationary relative to each other (they're not in this case), then by definition, the clocks are synchronized in their own inertial frame if a signal sent in each direction takes the same time.

Marmet and Kelly seem either to be uneducated in the concept of relativity of simultaneity, or they're speaking down to an audience that they think knows nothing, not an uncommon occurrence in press releases. Their statement that light moves locally at some speed other than c violates the premises on which relativity theory rests.

The people announcing the breaking of the speed record for cause/effect in the dual entanglement experiment commit the same offense: either being uneducated in the concept of relativity of simultaneity, or speaking down to an audience that they think knows nothing, which is usually true.

[Bored chemist]

. A careful examination by Zhang [3] however revealed that while two-way light speed constancy has been confirmed, one-way light speed constancy has not.

Do you realise the difference between what they say and what you seem to think it says?
Saying "constancy of the one-way speed has not been confirmed"
 is not the same as saying that
"the one way speed is different."

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Why did you post a paper that talks about measuring the one way speed of light, when you know it is impossible?

Your phrases seems as demagogy.

It can be measured and the results don't confirm the first postulate of SR. 

Some scientists had studied this subject and they had worked about some speculation.

The experiments give different values than c. This is an experimental reality.

The results of one way light speed don't confirm the first postulate of SR. Its second postula is already valid for bodies not the light.

Yes we have to thank for first approach of light kinematics to Lorentz and Poincaré.

We have the LCS method anymore.


My LCS (light coordinate system) method predicted these different results and it can explaine this case transparently.

[Bored chemist]

It can be measured

No, it can't- what you "measure" is what decision you made about the definition of simultaneous.

Do you understand that?

[Kryptid]

Please stop understanding as it comes to your own business.

...what does that even mean?

Also, Halc already explained the problem.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

Problem is, those clocks were not synchronized in the (approximate) inertial frame of the USA, a different frame (by over 1000 km/hr) that the GPS one they used to do the timing, so M&K are wrong in making that conclusion.

How can synchonizing the clock eliminates the difference in time measurements of the experiment?

My LCS method for light kinematics can explaine these different results; in addition it predicted  them. I repeated the essence of theoretical approach in my paper ( https://vixra.org/abs/2006.0224)

[puppypower]

The weakest point of special relativity; SR, is not the theory, but it is the standard applications of the theory. Einstein created SR with three equations, one each for mass, distance and time. However, almost all the applications ignore mass and relativistic mass. In fact, relativistic mass is often reasoned away, so it can be ignored in peace.

The consensus in physics uses only two of the three equations of Einsteins original SR; distance and time, and ignore the third; mass. The problem this creates is one cannot do a proper energy balance without the mass equations. This lack of energy balance allows affects that can defy an energy balance. Therefore, confusion is created. The effect created in the brain, is what I call a spatial illusion. It take mind skills to see through this.

There was an artist called Escher, who did a work of art in 1953, that he called Relativity. Escher, knowingly or unknowingly, points out the spatial illusion problem. This is shown below by his art.

A real 3-D object requires three physical dimensions; x.y.z or in the case of SR; M, D, and T. The work of art looks 3-D to the eyes, but it is drawn using a 2-D canvas. It is not 3-D, but an illusion of 3-D, that is drawn, in 2-D. You can touch the computer screen to prove to yourself the image is 2-D, even if it fools the eyes into thinking 3-D. This is the nature of the spatial illusion.

The work of art; Relativity,  below, shows a number of relative references, where any reference of a man walking or sitting, appears reasonable, by itself. Reference is relative. But if we look at all these references together, they cannot all be proper at the same time.  Some appear to defy gravity; mass related problem. We are told ignore the mass and you will be fine.

After physics perfected this illusion, politics and now fake news have learn how to do it. Now political references and even the truth, are assumed to relative to any arbitrary political reference. In all cases, all you need to do is use 2 out of 3 variables, to create a spatial illusion. Fake news will ignore data so 2-D look more 3-D. Revisionist history works the same way. And we can judge the past data by our modern relative reference, since all is relative.


Physics says this is OK since the third variable is nothing but a spin off from the other 2. Or 3-D from 2-D, equals the spatial illusion. Physics should have corrected this problem almost 70 years ago, but decided to maintain the status quo.

[Bored chemist]

In fact, relativistic mass is often reasoned away, so it can be ignored in peace.

The man in the street knows one, and only one, equation related to relativity
E= MC²
where the M stands for mass.
and yet you are trying to tell us that mass is abandoned.

What planet are you on?

[Bored chemist]

After physics perfected this illusion, politics and now fake news have learn how to do it. Now political references and even the truth, are assumed to relative to any arbitrary political reference.

That escalated quickly.

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.

[Kryptid]

My LCS method for light kinematics can explaine these different results

So can relativity.

[Bored chemist]

In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.

What problems?

What experiments have you done?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

In my opinion, the experiments (that are offered by me) will solve syncronization problems.

What problems?

What experiments have you done?

If you don't read/know the essence of the case, you may ask similar shallow questions and your position becomes off-side.

In all measurement of light's speed the primary difficulty is to detect time.

In one way measurements the primary difficulty is to provide syncronisation of atomic clocks. The setups of my experiments are generared to  solve this problem.

Note: 1- I only offer these experiment. I did not applied any one (I would want to practice the one of  them especially  with ossiloscope)
2- I personally performed an experiment about  fitzgerald- Lorentz contraction and any contraction does not happened. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332902408_An_Experiment_for_Lorentz_-Fitzgerald_Contraction)

[Bored chemist]

In one way measurements the primary difficulty is to provide syncronisation of atomic clocks.

No the primary difficulty is to say what synchronisation means.
Once you have that, you can calculate the "1 way speed" from the 2 way speed.

If you don't read/know the essence of the case, you may ask similar shallow questions and your position becomes off-side.

Fortunately, I do know the essence of it so, when I ask questions they are on topic.

Congratulations on nearly answering one of them. I remember now; you did a pointless experiment which was never going to show anything, because it was not sensitive enough

Now, please focus on the more  interesting one.

What problems?

[puppypower]

In fact, relativistic mass is often reasoned away, so it can be ignored in peace.

The man in the street knows one, and only one, equation related to relativity
E= MC²
where the M stands for mass.
and yet you are trying to tell us that mass is abandoned.

What planet are you on?

That is not the formula for relativistic mass in Special Relativity. The equation for relativistic mass is shown below. The m0 is the rest mass, which is a measure of physical substance and does not change. Relativistic mass is connected to velocity and is part of an energy balance.




Distance, time and mass all change with velocity. When textbooks give the example of the relativistic train moving or resting at the station, you will never hear the examples mention the masses of the train and/or stationary person and the energy or fuel used. Those things  are connected to relativistic mass. This is where E-MC2 could be used to convert the  relativistic mass into an energy total. The examples taught only use time and distance to create a spatial illusion. If you use all three, the analysis will be different, since reference now has to become absolute based on energy conservation.

In defense of Physics, when we look out into space, we get most of the data from energy based signals; light, x-rays, radio waves, etc. Light energy is wavelength and frequency, or distance and time but no mass. Mass cannot move at the speed of light so there is zero rest mass and no relativistic mass in these signals.

The n mass of the signals is not true of planets and stars which do have mass. The data we can get is provides with two of the three variables The universe becomes a spatial illusion of relative references by the nature of the evidence. This is nobody's fault but a statement of fact. We would need a way to measure relativistic mass of planets, stars and galaxies, directly, apart from light. Or we need another approach to the universe.

Let me give an example, say we are in space running an experiment, We use two rocket ships one with mass=k and the other with maas=2k. We are moving in empty space, relative to each other with velocity V. It is space and we have no fixed reference point to know who is moving at what speed, so we both see the same relative motion. This is distance and time; velocity is d/t.

The second part of the experiment will be head on collision, so we can include mass via inertia affects we will induce. If reference is relative the heavier hitting the lighter will have the same recoil as the lighter hitting the heavier. If reference is absolute, based on mass and inertia, each collusion will be different and based on what we  see, we can tell the speeds of both.

If the heavy hits a stationary light, itiwll launch it and slow down. If the light hits the heavy, the heavy will move forward slowly and the light will recoil. If each have some of the velocity we will see something in the middle. The mass and inertia give up extra information that visual conformation of distance and time will lack.

Physics had 70 years to fix this or at least make it right in terms of three equation SR.

[Bored chemist]

you will never hear the examples mention the masses of the train and/or stationary person and the energy or fuel used.

Yes you do.
For example, there's the fact that, even though the rest mass of the protons is tiny, the magnets at CERN have to be well bolted down in order to withstand the huge reaction forces generated by forcing those protons into a circular path.

People make nerdy jokes about how fast them must be going- given  how much weight they have gained.

It seems you just haven't been paying attention.

The physics is perfectly well known, and it works. It has passes  every single test known.

If the heavy hits a stationary light,

It is space and we have no fixed reference point to know who is moving at what speed,

So, which is it?

[xersanozgen (OP)]

LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c. In this method the current expanding speed of universe can be calculated. The formula has been given for Vu in my paper.

A person (who can perform one of my experiments) can be candidate  for NOBEL prize.

[Bored chemist]

LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c

Gosh!

[xersanozgen (OP)]

LCS method predicts that the results of one way will be different than c

Gosh!

You generally say only "NO". 

If you can allow yourself; please pass over the first step of denial/ignoring (1- denial; 2- anger; 3- bargaining, 4- depression; 5- acceptting)

All of them are emotional steps, not scientific. Here is a science forum; do you know?

Fanatic adolescent  attitudes are seemed asymmetric in a scientific platform. You have to present serious/technical arguments.

 Are you sure that you aim any efficasy for science ? If you have not any technical arguments. you never be usefull for the subject. Your position becomes off-side (like singing from a distance).