[Bored chemist]

* Moony2.png (9.41 kB . 837x583 - viewed 6 times)i have another suggestion to make everything easier.
The moon, the Earth and Jupitar are all moving, and two of them are rather awkward to get to.

This is the 21st century. It's easy to get a clock that will measure time intervals to better than a picosecond. That's time for light to travel about a  third of a millimetre.

So, we can set up a "scale model" of your system.
In the lab we have a detector and a mirror a foot apart and (we have a really big lab) 2000 feet away we have a flash light

This would seem to be a miniature version of my suggestion but in fact it is not the same concept as the smaller version is still reliant on a beam of light and it is the same beam of light that is reflected of the mirror this is one way light travel but we don't know the true time that it left its source. It still is reliant on synchronisation and that is the problem with this type of test.

Because the distance from the flash to the mirror is exactly the same as the distance to the detector, the light reaches the detector and the mirror simultaneously.

(I used a 2000 foot string to measure the distances when I set up the experiment)

[Just thinking]

Because the distance from the flash to the mirror is exactly the same as the distance to the detector, the light reaches the detector and the mirror simultaneously.

(I used a 2000 foot string to measure the distances when I set up the experiment)

Yes, now I see we just see the time difference from the mirror to the detector. That is the one-way speed of light mirror to the detector. Ok, I can see that so why do the scientists and professors question this method as it does seem to be the same consept that I have put forward only on a very larg scale.

[Bored chemist]

OK, now watch the video; at least, watch the bit from about 4:15 to 4:45.

[Just thinking]

OK, now watch the video; at least, watch the bit from about 4:15 to 4:45.

I watched the full video it is very interesting and it is the age old argument referring to the two way speed of light. But the method that you used and the method that I suggest is the one way speed of light. Your method is a beam of light travelling from only one direction arriving at the detector and the mirror at the same time in space with the added distance of the mirror to the detector I cant see the problem with that. The only thing you need to do is now the added time from the mirror to the detector.

[Bored chemist]

OK the point he makes is that it impossible to tell if light travels right to left at the same speed that it travels left to right.
Now imagine you are "God" sitting behind the detector, and you watch the flash of light.
You see some light come straight towards you  and hit the detector.
And you see some light coming not quite straight towards you, it goes a bit off to the right, and it hits the mirror, and then it travels back to the left and hits the detector.

That's the bit where it's a 2 way experiment,.
If the L-R speed isn't the same as the R-L speed then you can't be sure (even though I measured the distances with a bit of string, that the light reaches the mirror at exactly the same time as it reaches the detector.
It may have got there a little early, or  a little late.
So you don't actually know how long it too to cover the extra foot.

Essentially, because the light goes to the right and then to the left, it's not a one-way speed.

Can I challenge you Bored chemist to see if you are able to pick apart my method of measuring the one way speed of light? Good luck.

I don't need luck; I have science.

[Just thinking]

Because the distance from the flash to the mirror is exactly the same as the distance to the detector, the light reaches the detector and the mirror simultaneously.

(I used a 2000 foot string to measure the distances when I set up the experiment)

You only need one timer for your experiment the timer registers the first strike of light and the second strike of light and the second strike of light will take the time of light to travel the distance of one foot. It is that time delay that is the one way speed of light. Ore am I missing something.

[Bored chemist]

Ore am I missing something.

You missed the entire point.
But yes, the timer starts counting when the first flash reaches the detector (directly) and stops when the second flash hits it (having bounced off the mirror en route).

The point is that the light goes off to one side, and then comes back.
So it's not a "one way" measurement.

[Just thinking]

OK the point he makes is that it impossible to tell if light travels right to left at the same speed that it travels left to right.
Now imagine you are "God" sitting behind the detector, and you watch the flash of light.
You see some light come straight towards you  and hit the detector.
And you see some light coming not quite straight towards you, it goes a bit off to the right, and it hits the mirror, and then it travels back to the left and hits the detector.

That's the bit where it's a 2 way experiment,.
If the L-R speed isn't the same as the R-L speed then you can't be sure (even though I measured the distances with a bit of string, that the light reaches the mirror at exactly the same time as it reaches the detector.
It may have got there a little early, or  a little late.
So you don't actually know how long it too to cover the extra foot.

Essentially, because the light goes to the right and then to the left, it's not a one-way speed.

Ok so there even fussy if the original light source travels a small amount out of alignment then what if your experiment was shifted from north to north west a 45 degree shift then would that hot yield different results if there was a change in light speed if light travels at different speeds in different directions a rotating light experiment of your type should reveal that.

[Just thinking]

So it's not a "one way" measurement.

That is true but it is not in opposite directions only a slite angle.

[Bored chemist]

So it's not a "one way" measurement.

That is true but it is not in opposite directions only a slite angle.

Left is the opposite of right.
It goes one way, then it goes the other.
So it is not a one-way measurement.

[Just thinking]

Left is the opposite of right.
It goes one way, then it goes the other.
So it is not a one-way measurement.

Why should your experiment fail if you change the angular position of the mirror and you find that the light reaches the detector at the expected time then how is it possible for light to be travelling at different speeds in different directions changes of angle and direction couldn't always cancel out to the same result? I think my plane is in the bin if you have debunked your own testing and slite angles matter what hope is there for finding the answer as it is I don't personly believe that light travels at different speeds in different directions anyway but it would be nice to be able to test it.

[Bored chemist]

it would be nice to be able to test it.

You can't.
At best you can show that a round trip along two lines gives a consistent speed.

[Just thinking]

You can't.
At best you can show that a round trip along two lines gives a consistent speed.

I do believe that if the light speed is measured in Compleat opposite directions that the result will be the same even if the speed is faster one way than the other as one will cancel out the other. But on an angle a change in speed direction should be revealed as the balance of cancellation will be uneven. So my thought is that if light speed always balances out in opposite directions and it is of different speeds then an angle of attack should reveal this as it is no longer in opposite directions. This is why I feel the speed is the same in all directions otherwise the angle approach would have revealed the difference. Anyway, at the end of the day, we still get the same results all of the time. Thanks for your time Bored chemist going over this I will look at this from a different perspective now and see if I can come up with something else That's not a catch 22.

[Just thinking]

light speed circle.PNG (23.33 kB . 915x835 - viewed 2170 times)

You can't.
At best you can show that a round trip along two lines gives a consistent speed.

I just added this diagram of my light circle all speeds balance out in opposite directions to give 6 but out of alignment we get varying answers this is why I thought your experiment would work I think the reason for this is that the real circle has the number 3 in all directions.