SR and one-way speed of light tests

[wisp]

One-way speed of light test.
I would be grateful for any views you might have on what is a simple test to measure lights speed one-way on the surface of the Earth. The purpose of this test is to prove that the speed of light is affected by the ether wind and as a consequence Einstein's SR is wrong. This test is unique in that it eliminates clock synchronization errors and I believe it has never been done!

Let u be the speed at which the Earth moves through the ether, its orbit speed of 30000m/s.

Two clocks A and B are placed on the Earth's surface 10km apart. When the clocks line up in the direction of the Earth's orbit, a laser fires from A to B. Clock A records the start time and B records the stop time. The time difference between the two clocks is

td(1) = sync error + 10000/(c-u) seconds

Assuming a small synchronization error exists between them.

12 hours later the clocks line up again parallel to the Earth's orbit, but this time in the opposite direction. The laser again fires from A to B and the time difference recorded is td(2), where

td(2) = sync error + 10000/(c+u) seconds

The two readings are then compared.

Now if SR is true the difference between the times should be zero, as the speed of light is unaffected by the ether - if it exists.

But I believe that the speed of the Earth through the ether will result in light travelling at different speeds and td(1)-td(2) = 6.7nS

This is a simple test and some may consider it irrelevant, as there are many two-way tests that supports SR. But think very carefully, if two-way tests cannot detect the ether then a one-way test must be the answer and to my knowledge no such one-way speed of light test has been done!

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
This is a simple test and some may consider it irrelevant, as there are many two-way tests that supports SR. But think very carefully, if two-way tests cannot detect the ether then a one-way test must be the answer and to my knowledge no such one-way speed of light test has been done! Must? You are assuming the result before doing the test. Perhaps tests we have done don't show the result you are looking for because your theory is wrong?

A one-way test of the speed of light is done every time someone flips on a gps reciever.

[Jonathan]

How can that be Russ? Whenever anyone turns on a gps, they never, nor could they, see if there is a time difference between outgoing and income signals from a satelite. It should be noted that the solar system, and galaxy are both moving through space too, so you'd have to take their movement into account while doing the experiment. However, I don't see how a one way test would make a difference. If an ether exists, the experiments show that light doesn't notice.

[Integral]

I work with an engineer who is in the process of setting up a femtosec pulse length laser, now all you have to do is provide me with a reason why the speed of light would aveage c but not be c in both directions on a trip to a mirror and back.

Please provide me with the argument. I could possibly convince them to do a one way speed of light experiment if there is a concieveable reason we should take valuable equipment and personell time to do such an experiment.

By the way the way I read your reasoning, Michelson & Morely did your experiment over 100yrs ago. In spite of having suffciet resolultion to measure the variations due to what you are citing, it was not found.

Again,What is the physics behind the variations you speak of? We need a theory to test, what is your prediction of the magnetude of the variation and in what direction should we look?

[Nacho]

Michelson-Morley didn't exactly do the tests to prove this wrong. It was a two-way test, as each leg of the interferometer had mirrors on the end, reflecting the light back from each leg to a common point.

But, they rotated the whole apparatus, at least 90 degrees, and so there can't be a directional difference in the speed of light.

But .. they only rotated it in a plane, not on every axis of a sphere. I'm not suggesting there could be differences on different axis .. only enough wiggle room left to say it could be. Have to have a whole lot of conspiracies lined up, more than SR gives us, to show positive results here. i.e., if the direction effected the speed, it would also have to effect the wavelength.

[wisp]

If I had access to two atomic clocks, a lasers and light gate triggers I would seriously do this experiment. But I don't work in physics. I have spent alot of my time and money developing a new theory (wisp unification theory - http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk ) that shows this test will give a positive difference result of 6.7nS over 10km.
If anyone wants to use my theory as a reason to justify doing this, they're welcome. The theory is free to download.
Chapter 7 - section 7.7 shows why the two-way MM experiment failed. It's due to a thing I call jiggle.
The GPS data travelling back and forth has too many variables to determine any differences in journey times. I think that signals are delayed by approx 20mS each way and internet traffic gets another 80mS delay. I don't believe anyone has conducted a true one-way GPS test. GPS also use Einstein's clock synchronization method, which is biased in favour of SR.
This one-way test has the advantage of cancelling any clock sync delays, which is important.

[Janus]

Since it appears that the purpose here is to promote your own theory, Off to TD this thread goes.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Jonathan
How can that be Russ? Whenever anyone turns on a gps, they never, nor could they, see if there is a time difference between outgoing and income signals from a satelite. It should be noted that the solar system, and galaxy are both moving through space too, so you'd have to take their movement into account while doing the experiment. However, I don't see how a one way test would make a difference. If an ether exists, the experiments show that light doesn't notice. GPS is one way - they gps recievers are recievers only. They work by recieving signals from 4 or more satellites and comparing the time stamps on the signals to calculate the distance from each. If the speed of light varied, it wouldn't work.

In addition, since the speed of light IS constant and this affects the flow of TIME, the gps system takes this effect into account.

The GPS data travelling back and forth has too many variables to determine any differences in journey times. I think that signals are delayed by approx 20mS each way and internet traffic gets another 80mS delay. I don't believe anyone has conducted a true one-way GPS test. GPS also use Einstein's clock synchronization method, which is biased in favour of SR. I don't understand. You acknowledge that GPS accounts for/uses relativity, but you're saying that since it uses relativity it can't prove relativity? Thats how science works!!

Or maybe you just don't understand how it works. Too many variables? Listen, GPS WORKS. If there were too many variables to do the needed calculations to make the necessary relativistic corrections, GPS WOULD NOT WORK.

And again: GPS signals are ONE WAY ONLY. The recievers do not transmit any information back to the satellites.

Civilan GPS is accurate to about 10m. Light travels 10m in 1/30,000,000 second. The transit time from a satellite 300km away is 1/1,000sec. So if the speed of light were to vary by more than .003%, then that would need to be taken into account. It doesn't and it isn't.

[Brad_Ad23]

I find this intriguing. I read a tiny bit of this so called wisp theory. So, relativity was wrong because it violates commonsense? I see. Paradoxes exist? Whoa, I must have missed those. But what's this...you say certain things, like the speed of lights (and you add transverse forces of some sort) are unaffected by motion and are absolute regardless of who is observing. But doesn't this mean then that what you are trying to test is pointless? Why, yes, yes it does beacuse light would be uneffected by this so called ether.

By the way, someone said they tested it only on a plane. That's all you needed. The plane was the general one that earth's orbit traverses, and hence the one that would create the most effect if it existed.

[wisp]

The reference to my theory was to supply "intergral" with some support material to give a convincing argument to do the test; it's not there to distract this thread.
I agree that on basic calculations "russ_watters" figures show that if the speed of light is constant the results seem OK.
All things being taken into account there seems to be no reason to doubt that the figures work out.
But it can be shown that the GPS system will also work if the Earth's motion through the ether affects lights relative speed.
GPS satellite orbits are determined by their orbital period (approx 11hrs 58mins), their height (approx 26600km - 4 Earth radii), their orbital speed (about 3.9km/s), and the orbital eccentricity (typically less than 1%). Data from T.V.Flanders "What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity".

Lets assume that a GPS was setup using clocks synchronized to an absolute reference clock. And assume that the exact orbit positions of the satellites are known.
If the speed of the Earth through the ether affected lights relative speed, we would still be able to have a working system.

Now if someone applied SR with Einstein's clock synchronization, we would see immediately that things were not right because the clocks are out.

But if we did not record the satellites exact positions, we could say that if we assume the satellite orbits are shifted forwards by 2.6km in the direction of the Earth's orbital motion, then SR works out OK.

The difference between the two systems is only a question of orbital shift. It is not related to orbital period, as a shift will not affect this value.
I doubt that the exact positions of the satellites have been verified by means of an optical check. Two Earth based telescopes would need to make simultaneous measurements to within fractions of an arc second to pinpoint the satellites exact position.
This data would then have to be compared with data predicted by GPS.

The point I am making is that the GPS system doesn't prove that the speed of light is constant. The GPS is able to track positions on the Earth to about 30cm, but there are many ways that this can be achieved even if the true orbital positions were all shifted by 2.6km.

What are the advantages of doing this Earth based one-way test.
1. It has never been done before. Whatever the result, it will - if done properly - be recorded in history as the first test of its kind.
2. It may change science if the difference result is positive.
3. It is a simple test that will either strengthen SR are destroy it.

I am still learning about GPS. The more I look into it the more I'm convinced that GPS is not a test for the speed of light.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
I doubt that the exact positions of the satellites have been verified by means of an optical check. In order to make the system give positions accurate to 10m, the position of each satellite must be known to better than 10m precision.Now if someone applied SR with Einstein's clock synchronization, we would see immediately that things were not right because the clocks are out. Clocks on GPS satellites DO vary according to SR.

This is as far as I'm going to go, wisp. You have a TON to learn about Relativity and its implications. I really recommend you read a book on it.

[wisp]

Thanks for the reply. I have read may books on special relativity and don't consider it a difficult subject. However, I'm not going to persue this GPS discussion futher. I will wait until someone does this test and see what the results are.

Thanks

[Brad_Ad23]

Your experiment is essentially not going to reveal anything new. The MM experiment would have detected ANY drift effect due to the ether.

http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Michelson-MorleyExperiment.html

One should read that and study the diagram even to see why your one way test as you call it was more or less included in the MM experiment (in other words, the light did bounce back from the direction it came. IF there was any ether difference, a distinct interference pattern would have occured).

[Nacho]

... The MM experiment would have detected ANY drift effect due to the ether.

Hmm, ANY drift? What if the EMF actually (what word do I use??) bent/modified/effected/drifted the ether? Or, the ether existed but was effected in such a way that makes it look like C is constant?

Hard to believe? Yes, but look at something else. Now adays we all talk about the electromagnetic field. Just how is that different than an ether? I don't see it as any different. I see it as just calling an ether by another name, maybe with a few different properties.

The MM experiment didn't prove there wasn't an ether; only that an ether wasn't needed to formulate a theory behind observations.

[wimms]

Originally posted by wisp
I doubt that the exact positions of the satellites have been verified by means of an optical check. not only have they checked them optically, they actually built several observatories across the globe to monitor them 24/7/365 for exactly that only!
read this for short: http://www.trimble.com/gps/how.html

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nacho
Now adays we all talk about the electromagnetic field. Just how is that different than an ether? I don't see it as any different. I see it as just calling an ether by another name, maybe with a few different properties. Yeah, you have no idea what an electromagnetic field is. Then again, a rose by another name and with different properties would be - a petunia.

. I will wait until someone does this test and see what the results are. lol

[FZ+]

Originally posted by wisp
Data from T.V.Flanders "What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity".

You mean T Von Flandern? I thought that name was familiar.

You're in luck, there is a wealth of information documenting Flandern's errors regarding relativity. Here's an article about his claims about GPS. And how they are complete rubbish.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#gps
Enjoy!

[Nacho]

Yeah, you have no idea what an electromagnetic field is. Then again, a rose by another name and with different properties would be - a petunia.

Seems you woke up a bit cranky from your nap.

[Brad_Ad23]

Cranky, but accurate. The electromagnetic field is by NO means anything like an ether.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
You mean T Von Flandern? I thought that name was familiar.

You're in luck, there is a wealth of information documenting Flandern's errors regarding relativity. Here's an article about his claims about GPS. And how they are complete rubbish.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#gps
Enjoy! Great link - much more in depth about relativistic effects on GPS than I had ever seen. Seems you woke up a bit cranky from your nap. Rough day + instinctive low tolerance for crap.

[Nacho]

Cranky, but accurate. The electromagnetic field is by NO means anything like an ether.

I don't see a great difference. The ether was thought of as a material thing in space, a medium for forces to move through -- the medium part pretty well discredited. Fields are more abstract, quantities here, potentials there, caused by the presence of a particles. But nowhere in space can the field be separated from space. The gravitational field doesn't only effect particles, it is even said to effect/curve space.

What property of space is being effected? Fields are a backdoor approach, having effects on every point in space and space itself rather a property of space conducting forces.

I tend to think of an ether (should it exist) as not a medium filling space, but space itself .. a structure that space has (maybe pure geometry). They couldn't be seperated.

[Nacho]

Rough day + instinctive low tolerance for crap.

Then maybe all you need to do is chill out a bit -- relax a bit from the rough day, before you post.

Or take that nap. Maybe it'll help.

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by Nacho
I don't see a great difference. The ether was thought of as a material thing in space, a medium for forces to move through -- the medium part pretty well discredited. Fields are more abstract, quantities here, potentials there, caused by the presence of a particles. But nowhere in space can the field be separated from space. The gravitational field doesn't only effect particles, it is even said to effect/curve space.

What property of space is being effected? Fields are a backdoor approach, having effects on every point in space and space itself rather a property of space conducting forces.

I tend to think of an ether (should it exist) as not a medium filling space, but space itself .. a structure that space has (maybe pure geometry). They couldn't be seperated.


But then that wouldn't be an ether at all...that would be just spacetime. Plain old vanilla spacetime.

Fields are not what the ether is. Rather a field is a handy mathematical tool for describing forces at any point in space. The ether was proposed to be a fluid like thing that electromagnetic waves could traverse through. An electromagnetic field is not something that would satisfy this condition.

[wisp]

wimms
Thanks for this reference source; I was hoping to find something like this. I will study it closely and see if there is any possible reason why the proposed one-way test would not get covered by this.

The MM experiment fails on the Earth's surface due to a thing I call jiggle - random motions of the ether occurs at right angles to the direction of the Earth's motion as it moves through the ether. It is the electromagnetic property of light that gets affected and this slows light down in the perpendicular arm of the MM apparatus. Hence a null result.

Note: If a larger version of the MM experiment is done using the GPS satellites (in space and away from Earth's jiggle motion effects). An error of L*v^2/c^3 would result = 0.9nS. Where
L = 26600km, v=30km/s (Earth's orbit speed - motion through ether).
I know GPS clocks suffer from a random unexplained 1nS error? Maybe a connection, I don't know. But it's interesting anyway.

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by wisp
wimms
Thanks for this reference source; I was hoping to find something like this. I will study it closely and see if there is any possible reason why the proposed one-way test would not get covered by this.

The MM experiment fails on the Earth's surface due to a thing I call jiggle - random motions of the ether occurs at right angles to the direction of the Earth's motion as it moves through the ether. It is the electromagnetic property of light that gets affected and this slows light down in the perpendicular arm of the MM apparatus. Hence a null result.

Note: If a larger version of the MM experiment is done using the GPS satellites (in space and away from Earth's jiggle motion effects). An error of L*v^2/c^3 would result = 0.9nS. Where
L = 26600km, v=30km/s (Earth's orbit speed - motion through ether).
I know GPS clocks suffer from a random unexplained 1nS error? Maybe a connection, I don't know. But it's interesting anyway.


So, let me get this straight. You say that the earth's motion through this ether creates a 'jiggle' that slows down the light beam that is traveling perpindicular to the earth's motion? And what praytell would make any ether do this? In essence you are saying that the 'jiggle' creates enough perpindicular drag to exactly match the drag created by the earth's motion through the ether perpindicularly. If that is the case, then how can we know which way we are moving using the ether as a frame of reference? If two perpindicular directions cause exact changes in a beam of light what would happen then?

Also, what about all experiments that are used to detect gravity waves? Such as LIGO or VIGO. They bounce laser beams back and forth on mirrors many times (very very sensitive lasers with extremely accurate clocks if you will). This boils down to a one way test right there. They use 3 lasers to create a triangle, however each indidividual laser leg traverses back and forth many times. If any direction at all caused any drag or "jiggle" the laser light would interfere with at least one of the other lights at the mirrors registering something was afoot.

Nor let us forget that these things are set up with the time it would take light traveling at c to traverse the distance required. If the light slowed down any from an ether effect, the apparatus would suffer continual error in it.


Also, one consequence of your theory then is that since light is no longer a universal constant, it seems one can indeed catch up with a light beam, and observe it stationary. Stationary light waves are forbidden by Maxwell's electromagnetic equations (and no, those experiments in which they say we stop light are not actually freezing a beam of light as the popular media would suggest...just in case anyone tries to bring that up). You also claim that physical laws are different for different frames of reference. Ok, so why is it that particles moving at extremely high velocities do not experience different laws? Regardless of our inertial frame we would observe other frames having much different effects than they would in ours. Yet all we observe is that these frames that have a higher velocity are in exact accord with relativity...that is, they occur slower because the entity is traveling at relativistic velocities.


Not to mention, since an electromagnetic wave is a transverse wave, it can propagate through itself (that is it is essentially two waves fluctuating about each other...an electric wave fluctuating around a magnetic wave transversely). No ether required.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
But then that wouldn't be an ether at all...that would be just spacetime. Plain old vanilla spacetime.

Fields are not what the ether is. Rather a field is a handy mathematical tool for describing forces at any point in space. The ether was proposed to be a fluid like thing that electromagnetic waves could traverse through. An electromagnetic field is not something that would satisfy this condition. Let me try an analogy: a boat towing a barge through a river. The boat is a planet, the barge is its moon, and the river is the ether. The field is the tow rope.

Or is this better: sound is the field, air is the ether. Sound travels in air, but sound itself is not air. I know GPS clocks suffer from a random unexplained 1nS error? Maybe a connection, I don't know. They call it random for a reason. Its not connected to anything other than the inherrent limitation of the clock.

[wisp]

wimms
I looked at the trimble site on GPS and it's very good. But it doesn't challenge my earlier statement:

[Quote]
The difference between the two systems (SR and ether based)is only a question of orbital shift. It is not related to orbital period, as a shift will not affect this value.
I doubt that the exact positions of the satellites have been verified by means of an optical check. Two Earth based telescopes would need to make simultaneous measurements to within fractions of an arc second to pinpoint the satellites exact position.
This data would then have to be compared with data predicted by GPS. [Unquote]

The way that the satellites distances are measured in GPS is based on the speed of light being c, not (c+v) or (c-v). And there is no accurate optical check to verify this. (v = Earth's orbit speed).

The trimble site said that the "triangulation" method used is not true triangulation because angles are not measured. It's more a method of trilateration. Also the US Dept of Defence track GPS satellites using radar and light speed c (not observational checks).

So we cannot prove precisely where the satellites are, it's based only on prediction using time delays and c. Advanced error correction techniques can produce pinpoint position accurancies for Earth's surface mapping, but the position of the satellites has not been accurately optically checked.

I still say that GPS is not proof that the speed of light is constant, and that the proposed one-way test will produce a positive result.

[wisp]

Brad_Ad23
In response to you last message.

Any MM type experiments cannot measure the ether flow, only a one-way test can. LIGO and VIGO are essentially two-way tests and will not show a change in light speed due to ether flow. How they work when changes to spacetime or ether occur as gravity waves pass by is another issue.

Jiggle is not ether drag. The ether gets shaken back and forth as matter passes by, it doesn't get dragged along.

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------
Nor let us forget that these things are set up with the time it would take light travelling at c to traverse the distance required. If the light slowed down any from an ether effect, the apparatus would suffer continual error in it.
--------------------------------------------------

If an accurate optical check were to be done on a satellites position this error would show. All GPS satellite positions are predicted using
time delays and with the speed of light set to c. This is not real proof. Also the error corrections in the system are not affected by this "orbital shift" offset, and errors are reset every hour - fine tunning.

re: Maxwell's eqns.
Light speed is constant relative to the ether. As the Earth moves through the ether, the speed of light relative to use changes.
Maxwell built his equation sets on the basis that a fluid medium existed that had elastic properties. His equations can be considered
solely as mathematical tools that will work with or without an ether. It is believed that the Lorentz Force Law is not supported by an ether, but equation using jiggle show that an ether can support it.

You could catch up with the speed of light, but you would suffer effects other than time dilation, which would be unpleasant.
In terms of witnessing relativistic effects in different frames, we are relativistically speaking stationary. If a test is carried out simultaneously on the Earth and aboard a craft moving fast through the ether. Both tests (locally) would conform to all know laws of physics.
Only if an Earth observer could see the test happen in the moving craft would he/she notice it was running slower. The craft observer would see the Earth test running faster.
They would then know a difference existed and the laws of physics change outside their local space.

The electromagnetic wave oscillates with its electric and magnetic components working together. But this would work just as well in an ether space. Not as simple as water waves, but it's not impossible. Suppose the ether is stretched (electric component) in one direction creating physical changes in its density.
The ether may respond by shifting the pattern of the light wave transversley (magnetic component). This is a bit complicated to visualize, but it's not impossible for the ether to support light waves.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
I still say that GPS is not proof that the speed of light is constant, and that the proposed one-way test will produce a positive result. I give up. We've explained so many times and in so many ways the various errors and misconceptions you are operating from. You are wrong on so many levels. Good luck.

[wisp]

The De Witte experiment
In 1991, Roland De Witte carried out a one-way electrical experiment that proved that the Earth moves through the ether. The duration of the test was 178 days and it's proof that the Earth is affected by an ether wind of galactic origin.

A 5Mhz signal from clock A is passed down a coaxial cable of length 1.5km to clock B. The signals were compared using a digital phase comparator (like those used in PLL). The result was affected by the Earth's rotation and had a period of 23hr 56min +/- 25s and is therefore the sidereal day. For further information on this test, see http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/1998-12/thrd3.html and http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/belgacom.htm

The implications of this test are that the proposed one-way light speed test will produce a difference result that is greater than 6.7nS due to a galactic ether flow component, and that the galactic flow must be greater than 30km/s (Earth's orbit speed).

The angle (theta) that the Earth's orbit makes with the galactic ether flow will determine the change in the relative speed of light (u*cos theta). Of course, if theta = 90 degrees then a null result will occur, but the chances of this happening is very small.

Like the De Witte experiment the measurements with light should be run continuously to determine maximum and minimum values.

I would imagine that Roland has stopped trying to push his ideas on the ether, due to lack of support. But I do support his test and believe it's a first real test that the ether exists.

[Brad_Ad23]

Must be a local phenomena. Otherwise a lot more telecommunications businesses would report some trouble in syncronyzing their clocks...hell, if nothing else then for sure scientific laboratories could not merely use c value of light to syncronize experiments in different laboratories (i.e. in a lab I toured in, they have to take into account the travel time of a signal to another lab across the globe to make as much of a timeing as possible). They always use light speed = c no matter when, and always get precise results.

Must be a local ether centered around his locale [;)]

[wisp]

Brad
If the variation detected was local it would have a cyclic period of 24 hours - one calendar day. But its period was 23hrs 56mins - one sidereal day. This rules out a local factor. Whatever is causing the change has to be in the direction of the distant stars, i.e. of galactic origin.
This result is not what I would've expected. But it strengthens the argument in doing a proper one-way light speed test. It suggests that the result will be >6.7nS. But like the De Witte test, the laser should fire continuously over several weeks to record maximum/minimum values.
Note: because of the great speed of light, clock sync error would not show in telecommunications systems. The errors are there, but they are too small to show. This test will prove that the relative speed of light changes.

[Brad_Ad23]

First off, why would it being local necessitate it be a 24 hour period??


And second of all, this was not the run of the mill telecommunications system.


Third, a system such as the one you cite is prone to many various impurities over the course of weeks. Even if it is burried underground, things such as lunar tidal forces can cause some distortions to occur, as can power usage, and other cycles.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
But it strengthens the argument in doing a proper one-way light speed test. It suggests that the result will be >6.7nS. That is well within the ability of the GPS system to detect. I looked over the experiment and I can't claim I understand it completely - but it looks like he's stretching the precision of his apparatus. His measurements are likely the result of experimental error.

I realize this is the sort of experiment and paper you would jump on, but PLEASE consider the credibility of the source. Has the paper been peer-reviewed and published? If no, consider that there is probably a REASON why it hasn't been published: its flawed.

Incidentally, he mentions GPS - he says the failure of GPS to detect his effect is due to the variation of the speed of light exactly cancelling the time dilation for the signal transit time. Those damn laws of the universe are conspiring against us again. Except that that ignores the other part of the time dilation: The part where the time dilation causes the clocks to become out of sync with each other. Sorry, self-contradictory arguement.

And again - if there was an aether wind, the MM experiment would have detected it, your understanding of the MM experiment to the contrary.

Wisp, you're repeating the same flawed arguements over and over again. That doesn't make them right.

[schwarzchildradius]

That's right, it's also a lesson in SR- the MM interferometer would've detected a difference in the fringes 100 years ago.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
That's right, it's also a lesson in SR- the MM interferometer would've detected a difference in the fringes 100 years ago. A remarkable achievement, no doubt - one worth a Nobel prize.
Any MM type experiments cannot measure the ether flow, only a one-way test can. Measuring the aether flow is precisely what the MM experiment was designed to do. . Wisp, be aware - you're now saying that the MM experiment didn't accomplish what they said it accomplished - that their experiment was flawed. And they got a Nobel Prize for it. I submit you need to reread their experimental method. The river analogy specifically.

[wisp]

Brad
More info on the significance of the sidereal period is given in the document http://pages.sbcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/Detection.pdf it takes a few minutes to download, but it's worth reading the "ether wind detection".
The significance of the De Witte experiment is that it seems to give a plausible result. How De Witte interprets this is another matter.

With regard to the MM null result, if the motion of the Earth through the ether caused light to travel slower in the perpendicular direction by a factor of gamma. Then the MM result would always be zero. If this is true, which it is, then the MM test (which was designed specifically to measure the ether flow) cannot rule out the possibility that the ether exists, if the result is null. This gamma factor, which affects perpendicular light speed is called jiggle.

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by wisp
Brad
More info on the significance of the sidereal period is given in the document http://pages.sdcglobal.net/webster.kehr/files/detection.pdf it takes a few minutes to download, but it's worth reading the "ether wind detection".
The significance of the De Witte experiment is that it seems to give a plausible result. How De Witte interprets this is another matter.

With regard to the MM null result, if the motion of the Earth through the ether caused light to travel slower in the perpendicular direction by a factor of gamma. Then the MM result would always be zero. If this is true, which it is, then the MM test (which was designed specifically to measure the ether flow) cannot rule out the possibility that the ether exists, if the result is null. This gamma factor, which affects perpendicular light speed is called jiggle.


The link you provided was a deadlink.
to me anyways. My network has been very unstable, so I will try again later to make sure it isn't truely a dead link

And second of all, how will an ether influence something perpendicular? The ether is a (debunked) medium in which light is thought to travel in. It is supposed to be stationary. Earth's motion (notice, only the earth) through the ether is what would cause a difference. Such a thing can only occur in the direction of movement, not perpindicular in which there is no movement.

[wisp]

Brad,
I've fixed the link on my post, capital D not small d, try it again.
The ether of old is plain and uninteresting. But wisp space ether is a different kind. For a start, matter does not push through it, but is part of it. If you make a hole in wisp space, it distorts it creating a spherical fractal pattern around the hole. This pattern is a matter-fractal (fundamental particle) and as it moves through wisp space it's pattern creates an infinite series of waves - quantum waves. This ether and matter interact in ways that create many interesting effects: relativistic mass, jiggle dilation...

[Brad_Ad23]

Now you are just adding unecessary things. Not only does this 'infinite' wave thing not make sense, it doesn't explain yet the perpindicular motion.

[wisp]

Brad
For a fuller explanation on what relevance this has, you will have to read 6 pages of wisp theory - section 7.6.3 (jiggle dilation) through to section 7.7 (The Michelson-Morley Experiment), see
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk and select chapter 7 - wisp and SR: Fundamentals.
It gives a convincing argument as to why light slows in the perpendicular direction only, which gives a null result. Of course this is moving into theory speculation and this should not interfere with the results of experiments that have been done.

[Brad_Ad23]

Ok I read it but there are actually 2 issues that are wrong aside from the whole concept itself.

1) If the jiggle effects light perpendicularly, why does it not also do so from the reverse direction. I.E. If light is traveling in the x direction, should not the jiggle from both the positive y and negative y directions create a jiggle that effectively cancels out?

2) What about the z direction? Earth does move through space, and the z direction is indeed perpendicular. Now either the jiggle effects cancel out like they should in the y direction, OR light should be shifted over a direction because it gets a velocity shift in that direction.

[wisp]

Brad
Q1) If the jiggle effects light perpendicularly, why does it not also do so from the reverse direction. I.E. If light is traveling in the x direction, should not the jiggle from both the positive y and negative y directions create a jiggle that effectively cancels out?

Ans: No. The wave pattern of light moves in the x direction, but its electromagnetic components move at right angles to its motion, in the y and z direction, and they move in jiggle planes, see wisp theory 7.6.3 jiggle dilation and fig 7.6 for full explanation.
An analogy would be if you imagine jiggle planes as a lot of shaking escalators side by side. If you walk along one you will get shaken about but will not loose speed, as the gains in speed will be cancelled out by the losses. But if you walk across the escalators your motion will be hampered, because the gains and losses don't match. Light doesn't change direction, but the electromagnetic force that drives it is weakened by jiggle, and so it propagates slower.


Q2) What about the z direction? Earth does move through space, and the z direction is indeed perpendicular. Now either the jiggle effects cancel out like they should in the y direction, OR light should be shifted over a direction because it gets a velocity shift in that direction.


In a direction perpendicular to the Earth's surface the jiggle effect reduces as you move away from the Earth. If the MM experiment were carried out in deep space, it would show a positive result, as there would be no jiggle (assuming that the matter in the arms and mirrors did not create jiggle.
So all directions (close to the surface of the Earth) perpendicular to the motion of the Earth through the ether are affected by jiggle dilation.

[wisp]

Professor Siu Au Lee
Colorado State University

Is proposing to carry out a one-way light speed experiment to see if the speed of light is linked to a universal reference frame.

If this experiment is done without mirrors and is similar that proposed above, it should give a positive result. The universal reference frame is wisp space (ether).

http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Physics/People/faculty/lee.html

[Brad_Ad23]

Isn't it convinient that the z direction isn't effected at all. Any direction can be perpendicular to the earth's surface. And the light need not be alligned in the x and y. It could be the z and x, or the y and z or any combination thereof in between unless it is strictly polarized.

[wisp]

Your right, Cartesian xyz coordinates do not map well on a spherical surface. But it still holds that if jiggle affects perpendicular motions of light relative to the Earth's direction through the ether, the results still hold. If the xyz axes move as the Earth rotates then jiggle affects different parts of the xyz axes. The end result is the same though.
In any direction, as you move away from the Earth's surface the jiggle effect drops off.

[wisp]

Summary of reasons why a one-way light speed test should be done.
1. Wisp theory offers a serious challenge to Einstein's claim that the speed of light is constant. The theory has a solid foundation and is credible. See http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/ and click on See Reasons why Einstein was wrong and click on one-way test.
2. A one-way electrical pulse test done in 1991 by Roland DeWitte produced a clear positive result showing an ether wind in the direction of Leo.
3. Earlier tests by Dayton Miller (two-way interferometer MM type) although flawed because of "jiggle dilation effect" were successful in producing a small positive result, because they were carried out atop of Mt Wilson, where jiggle effect is reduced. There is evidence that the work of Miller was quashed by Shankland's review under guidance from Einstein. See http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm
4. Miller's work shows that the ether flow is roughly perpendicular to the axis of the Earth. But because of the Earth tilts 23.5 degrees, the positive result will be approx 40% of its value had the ether flow been parallel to the Earth's orbit. The maximum and minimum value of the one-way speed of light time difference will change according to the sidereal period (23hr 56min), so results should be recorded every hour over a period of a few weeks to establish good data.

Reasons for not doing the test are loss of credibility for challenging Einstein's views - ether researchers have never been given serious credibility. And belief that GPS is so accurate that it would have found a change in the speed of light by now.
One things for sure, the centenary of Einstein's SR will also mark its downfall, as evidence against his theory is great. If this one-way test is done properly it will either strengthen Einstein's SR (good of centenary celebrations) or play a mayor part in its demise. All issues for and against Einstein will come to a head in 2005.

[Brad_Ad23]

Yes, of course evidence against SR is bountiful. That's why the scientific community hates SR. Oh wait they don't. Lemme guess, it is part of the conspiracy to maintain some hidden agenda?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Eyesee
Gravity affects light's motion so any "speed of light tests for anisotropy" would say more about the characteristics of our gravitational field than whether the speed of light is constant for all observers. We can do both. Ain't technology great?But it's obvious from the doppler shift that the speed of light is not constant for all observers, contrary to the ridiculous interpretation of it using SR. Doppler shift works just fine with a constant speed of light. And belief that GPS is so accurate that it would have found a change in the speed of light by now. GPS can be used to measure your tee shot or fly a cruise missle down the street, hang a left at the corner and fly in the top left window of the second building on the right. Its accurate.

[wisp]

Even though the GPS is a very accurate and finely tuned system, it cannot be used as confirmation that the speed of light is constant, as this has not been properly checked, it's only inferred. I am convinced that it would work with or without an ether flow.

My reasons for having doubts about the speed of light being constant are:
1. Special relativity is flawed and unnecessary. Einstein introduced it simply to explain the Lorentz force law, as he and others believed that ether theories could not support it. However, he's wrong, see wisp theory - chapter 8 - equation set 8.4. http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_8/wisp_ch_8.html
It proves conclusively that there is no need for a special theory that joins space with time, as an ether medium can support the Lorentz force law.
2. No one has done this simple one-way light speed test. Roland DeWitte did a one-way electrical test and got a positive result that varied with a sidereal period. Sidereal variations can only be of cosmic origin and not of local origin, which would vary according to the calendar day.
(Miller's results also showed sidereal variation and so cannot be of local origin, and he definitely ruled out local heating effects).
3. Ether theories can produce all of the relativistic effects that result from special relativity without the need to have the speed of light constant.
These include: Doppler effects (wisp ch 9), e=mc^2 (wisp ch 10), mass increase (wisp ch 7), Lorentz symmetry (wisp ch 8), etc.

I believe that the ether flow affects the GPS system, but its effect is symmetrical and the system self corrects any errors, effectively removing any offset ether drift errors. Errors are removed every minute/hour and so ether flow errors never build up to show a problem.
I found some data on optical tracking of low orbiting satellites. See http://www.celestrak.com/columns/v03n02/
The optical tracking of GPS, if done, cannot be better than +/- 0.05 degrees accuracy. This equates to satellites being +/- 23km out of position without being optically detected. I doubt that GPS satellites are even checked to this resolution. A north-south ether wind could fool GPS by this amount without it being optically picked up. How can the accuracy of GPS one-way tests be verified if the positions of the satellites cannot be checked optically?

If someone does this simple one-way light speed test its result will I'm sure make history. A null result will prove Einstein was right and ether theories are wrong - good news for SR centenary celebrations in 2005.
A positive result showing sidereal variation will prove the ether exists and end SR. But GPS will carry on working regardless.

[paultrr]

Even as a supporter of VSL it never ceases to amaze me how often someone tries to redo something done multiple times just to prove SR in some way wrong. Let's see, besides multiple tests over the years along the same lines as the now famious experiment that tried to detect an Aether drift,(By the way, it was originally spelled AETHER, not ETHER, we have tests with atomic clocks showing time dilation to be correct(Another aspect of SR), we have observations generally showing no strong variation from C, even those that are used to supply a time variable C, and the actually challanged aspect of Lorentz was originally proposed by him while he upheld the notion of the Aether.

Now, if you want to follow the same logic you are using why not run the test in say a moving rocket? If the earth's movement through this Aether is supposed to generate a drift I would think it would be safe to say that a faster moving object should be able to produce even a stronger drift, perhaps this time one measurable, since in all repeatable experiments to the present the earth never produced a measurable one.

You say if this one-way test of SR was conducted and it got a Null reading that would silence the Aether side? I'd say wrong. The concept of this aether is very popular amongst a lot of folks and actually has its own scientific publications and groups. I've even noticed on rare occasions some articles in LANL outlining what amounts to classical Aether ideas. The little terrible infant, as Einstein called it is as much alive in some minds as it was before Einstein and all the tests since then. People tend to believe what they will no matter the evidence presented to them. Scientists themselves are not beyond this as Kip Thorne rather aptly pointed out in his book on Einstein's legacy with the example of many early on and modern great minds who have refused at times to accept an idea, later proven to be correct.

Personally, I'd suggest running the experiment would be a waste of time, except perhaps to convince you, however, if that would convince you I'd suggest trying to simply duplicate some of the original experiments in a bit more modern fasion with more modern equiptment. I've seen a lot of quotes over the years on supposed experiments that showed non-null readings. Most all of these tended in the end run due to errors of one form or another and general could never be repeated. Even if that experiment you quoted was correct I'd still find it odd that all the tests down through the years have never reported the same before this. Some of those tests were conducted by people who supported the Aether concept at the time.

Newton's absolute space and absolute time Aether is dead in the water. But, doing a modern version of the test might be an interesting exercize in general. There is an aether of sorts well known in quantum theory commonly called the zero point field. But it has no absolute time quality. Also, we do have a certain motion against a background known as our motion in relation to the CMB.

[wisp]

Paultrr

SR is still a very successful theory that fits in well with modern science, and no one would challenge it unless they had good reason.
Wisp theory developed form a very simple (but different) idea. The focus of the theory is to explain how force and matter interact, and not to challenge SR.
When I realized that a simple one-way test would give a positive result, I thought that was the end of wisp theory. If I find clear evidence that a simple one-way test would give a null result, then I would accept it, but the evidence is not there.
My bet is that SR will fail because the speed of light is not constant. However, other aspects of SR - time dilation equation, relativistic mass increase, etc - will still stand.

[paultrr]

David Waite runs an interesting group on MSN about relativity and he pointed out something in there that is very true from the original papers of Einstein. Relativity only shows C is constant in the vacuum and that vacuum state has given conditions that qualify it. If, in the history of this universe those vacuum conditions have altered then C would have altered itself. Some recent observational data suggests that C varies with time. There have been some articles on this published over the last few years. Part of this is considered connected to the accelerated expansion issue. So part of the problem is what does one mean by constant?

[Nereid]

Paul:
Some recent observational data suggests that C varies with time
Do you have some links to papers reporting these observations?

[FZ+]

I haven't really read through this, but:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9808291
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0012539

Detailing variations in the fine structure constant, alpha. Alpha is related to c, and so this can been seen as evidence for past differences in c. Or maybe their observations were inaccurate.

Varying c don't destroy SR per se, but would require some sort of variation in the behaviour of the universe. Some other developments on relativity also imply the existence of Varying C.

See also http://physicsweb.org/article/world/16/4/9/4

[Nereid]

Thanks FZ+.
Detailing variations in the fine structure constant, alpha. Alpha is related to c, and so this can been seen as evidence for past differences in c.
Leaving aside whether a time-varying alpha implies a variable c or not, the observations of possible variations in alpha over cosmological time (such as those in your links) got folk excited for a while. Then came Bahcall, Steinhardt and Schlegel's paper:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/
(click on "Quasar Adsorption and Emission Lines", then on "emission lines")

Great work, restrained commentary on the other works.
Or maybe their observations were inaccurate.
Their observations were probably OK; their analysis pushed too far IMHO.

[paultrr]

That was a good one. Might I suggest all the following:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/791205.asp?cp1=1
http://www.discover.com/apr_03/featspeed.html
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0112/0112011.pdf
Webb et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091301, preprint
astro-ph/0012539
http://pvanhove.home.cern.ch/pvanhove/PopularScience/NewScientist/isnothings.html

There are other quotes of these observations and other references out there. Answer this onme question. Under SR and GR the speed of light is constant in a specific vacuum state. Even Einstein knew Light slowed down when it say enters the atmosphere or a different medium. Was the vacuum state during inflation the same vacuum state we have now? If, and current obeservations back this up there is some form of exotic energy that causes the expansion to accelerate that same exotic energy must be altering our vacuum state with time. If the vacuum state changes then the medium has changed and so has the speed of light. If the vacuum state during inflation was different from that state discussed by SR and our present vacuum state is slowly changing then it is fully logic to conclude that C has altered over the course of the history of cosmic evolution.

[paultrr]

I agree by the way those observations need polished up as well as the conclusions, but what I mentioned above is known fact so the logic that C changes with time is sound. Has anyone found it interesting that the main proponent of VSL happens to be a friend of none other than Smolin himself? Here's Smolin telling us with his Loop Quantum Field Theory that space-time breaks down into discrete units past a certain scale. He tells us that time ceases to have meaning at this scale. Without Time there is no keeper of C, so to speak. If the background vanishes at a certain scale, which is what that theory implies then so does the restraint of the vacuum which actually is that background. Now you know why they are strong friends and what their common link is. They both, in different ways see Nature as telling us something about being too narrow in our views at times. Most of this modern thought came about by observation and through quantum mechanics.

[Nereid]

Paultrr,

The observations quoted in the links you gave are a subset of those referred to in the Bahcall et al paper (see section 8.1, "The Many-Multiplet method").

For those who've not read all the papers, the key difference between the two observational approaches is:
->the "Many-Multiplet" method involves many potential systematic errors, and extensive theoretical calculations, all of which the authors of the papers have gone to great lengths to try to identify and account for.

-> the Bahcall approach involves the ratios of two emission lines from the same ion, many sources of systematic error cancel each other, and no theoretical calculations need be done.

The two sets of observations produce conflicting results; the Many-Multiplet ones show alpha has changed over cosmological time; the Bahcall one that it didn't. As they are all measuring essentially the same thing, at least one set will be shown to be wrong.

You said:
but what I mentioned above is known fact so the logic that C changes with time is sound
All I would point out here is that there is no observational consensus that alpha has changed over cosmological time.

[Nereid]

wisp: to my knowledge no such one-way speed of light test has been done!
Have you considered doing this experiment yourself?

There was also some discussion of your idea on the superstringtheory forum:
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/eluboard/messages6/23.html

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
I found some data on optical tracking of low orbiting satellites. See http://www.celestrak.com/columns/v03n02/
The optical tracking of GPS, if done, cannot be better than +/- 0.05 degrees accuracy. This equates to satellites being +/- 23km out of position without being optically detected. I doubt that GPS satellites are even checked to this resolution. The other errors in your post are repeats of past errors and we've already addressed them. This error is new. If it wasn't possible to precisely locate a GPS satellite to within 1m, then it wouldn't be possible for the satellites to precisely locate objects on the ground to within 1m.

Also, check your math: low earth orbit is about 250 km. .05 degrees at that distance is about 230 m, not 23 km.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Speed of light was, is, and there will be a constant, because it is the unique speed existing in a reality. The space is an illusion created by light and light the generator of this illusion. The absoluteness is irrespective. Also it is not achievable.

[Nereid]

wisp: to my knowledge no such one-way speed of light test has been done! This may not be exactly the one-way test you want, but it's an interesting test of GR*, and the data may also be re-analysed to test your idea (and much else besides).
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0308/0308010.pdf

BTW, note the tracking accuracy, +/- 7 m.

*no deviation from GR, to ~5 x 10-5

[wisp]

Nereid

I've spent a lot of time and money developing wisp theory, which suggests SR will fail this simple test.
I posted ideas about a one-way test on several forums including the superstringtheory forum. I got a little bit of feedback from that forum - they gave me a link to the work of Roland De Witte, who did do a one-way electrical experiment and got a positive result. I expect any amateur working on similar one-way light experiments will get dismissed by mainstream science, as Roland's work was.
Universities have been teaching Einstein's theories for nearly one hundred years and there is a very real possibility that those theories are wrong. So they have a duty to do one-way tests to back their claims and prove to all that what they teach is correct.
A professional body carrying out this experiment will be taken seriously, amateurs doing this work will not.
I also posted ideas on wisp big bang on superstringtheory forum to get some feedback. But i'm not a cosmologist and I posted ideas just to see what happened.

[Nereid]

What I hadn't appreciated, until I read the paper, was that the Cassini experiment (and the Mars/Viking one much earlier) is two back-to-back one-way tests! Because the return signal is not a reflection, but a retransmission using a transponder, it overcomes your objections to the MM experiment, as far as I can see.

Further, the positional accuracy of Cassini (and maybe Mars/Viking) far exceeds the GPS values (per your earlier post), so the objection you had to using GPS data is overcome.

There may be other problems with Cassini, as a test of wisp, but I do think it would be a good idea for you to take a hard look at the results.

[wisp]

Nereid

Quote: Cassini results a one-way test /Unquote

Dayton Miller’s experiment reveals that the ether flow past the Earth is perpendicular to the ecliptic plane at 208km/s, and so signals sent along the plane to satellites do not travel with or against the ether flow. The speed of light will be c-72 m/s in both directions. But as the Earth moves through the ether time dilation affects it, and measurements of light speed on its surface are (c-72+72 = c).

The +/- 0.05 degree optical tracking error for low orbit satellites would extrapolate to +/- 23km for GPS satellites.

GR is a complicated subject and it is better at predicting gravitational effects than Newton’s simple law of gravitation. Wisp gravitation is a combination of both Newton’s and Einstein’s ideas. There is curvature in space, but it is due to variation in ether density (as described by Newton), and it causes light to bend near massive bodies (as predicted by Einstein). I notice that the report you reference refers to a discrepancy in the pioneers’ orbits; this is explained by wisp’s gravitation theory.

[paultrr]

There has been the slight shift pointing, if memory serves me, towards SOL which has resulted in a slowdown of about 8 meters all in all over the distance thus travled. However, at the present time there have been many theories proposed to explain this and I do believe that NASA still suspects this is due to mechanical/thermo issues.

[Nereid]

Data from the GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) - a pair of satellites in polar Earth orbit - may be adequate to overcome all the wisp objections to current data from GPS. In fact, it may be that the experiment would fail, in respect of its stated goals, if the wisp idea were correct.

Salient aspects:
- two identical satellites ~200 km apart in polar orbit
- distance between them determined to an accuracy of ~1 micron
- up to 200 GPS occultation measurements per day (these are one-way observations)
- laser satellite altimetry.

GRACE's first gravity model was issued earlier this year.

The GRACE homepage:
http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) Very cool, I hadn't heard of that one before.

[wisp]

I'm still looking for evidence that proves special relativity is false, and have found two more sources that make good reading.

1. The Sagnac Effect
An article that explains this clearly, but from relativity's viewpoint is given at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
The first few paragraphs explain the Sagnac effect (you can ignore the section showing loop and area calculations). The argument in support of relativity's explanation is summed up on the basis that the device centres around one particular system of inertial coordinates (centre of circle), and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to it by Lorentz transformations.

But the flaw in this argument is simply this: What happens to the measuring clock when the radius of the circle becomes very large and the clock's velocity small (limit process)?
The Sagnac effect still applies and the clock's motion becomes more linear. In this limit process it is not unreasonable to treat the moving clock as an inertial reference frame in its own right (the Sagnac effect has been tested to great accuracy and so it perfectly reasonable to use a limit process to make the moving clock's frame inertial). Now according to relativity, since this is an inertial frame, light must travel at speed c in both directions. But the Sagnac effect requires that the speed of light must be c+v and c-v respectively, and not c! This limit process shows that relativity contradicts itself, as the real measurements are made in the moving clock frame and not at the centre of the circle. An argument that focuses on one inertial frame that is the centre of the circle is the only way relativity can explain this effect, and so the case for relativity is very weak.



2. GPS experiments that show the speed of light is not constant

A paper written by Ruyong Wang clearly shows that by using GPS you can prove that the velocity of a receiver relative to the Earth Centred Inertial (ECI) frame affects the speed of light, and so special relativity is false.
Go to link http://www.aliceinphysics.com/introduce/ion.pdf
Wisp theory proposes that the speed of light is constant only with respect to absolute wisp space and not to an ECI frame. It's only the way GPS satellite clocks synchronize that appears to make the Earth a special reference frame, either way, the results predicted will show special relativity to be false.

The evidence against relativity is overwhelming and clearly the speed of light varies depending on the motion of the receiver. The only question that needs resolving is: Is the speed of light fixed relative to the ECI frame, or an absolute ether frame.
Wisp theory supports an absolute frame, but I know a majority favour the ECI frame.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
The evidence against relativity is overwhelming and clearly the speed of light varies depending on the motion of the receiver. Nope.
I'm still looking for evidence that proves special relativity is false... Life would be a lot easier for you if instead you learned how the universe actually works.

[Nereid]

wisp wrote: I'm still looking for evidence that proves special relativity is false, and have found two more sources that make good reading. For the interested reader, this site has an extensive compilation of experimental validation of SR (and a few experiments which produced contrary results):
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#7.%20Other%20experiments

The Sagnac effect seems simple, but (IMHO) is very easily misunderstood. A couple of references for the interested reader:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node2.html

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
I'm still looking for evidence that proves special relativity is false... I let this go before, but this is a great big red flag, wisp. It implies that you are ONLY looking for evidence that disproves relativity, ie. you are not interested in looking at anything that doesn't support your opinion. That is directly contrary to the way science works. If you are really interested in "doing" science, you'll look at both.

Nereid, interesting looking link. I'll have to read it when I get a chance (just skimmed it).

[Nereid]

Originally posted by wisp
Nereid

I've spent a lot of time and money developing wisp theory, which suggests SR will fail this simple test.
I posted ideas about a one-way test on several forums including the superstringtheory forum. I got a little bit of feedback from that forum - they gave me a link to the work of Roland De Witte, who did do a one-way electrical experiment and got a positive result. I expect any amateur working on similar one-way light experiments will get dismissed by mainstream science, as Roland's work was.
Universities have been teaching Einstein's theories for nearly one hundred years and there is a very real possibility that those theories are wrong. So they have a duty to do one-way tests to back their claims and prove to all that what they teach is correct.
A professional body carrying out this experiment will be taken seriously, amateurs doing this work will not.
I also posted ideas on wisp big bang on superstringtheory forum to get some feedback. But i'm not a cosmologist and I posted ideas just to see what happened. Hi wisp,

I came across the following paragraph which seems to directly address your concern that no one-way tests of SR have been performed:

"Recent advances in atomic spectroscopy and atomic timekeeping have made it possible to test LLI by checking the isotropy of the speed of light using one-way propagation (as opposed to round-trip propagation, as in the Michelson-Morley experiment). In one experiment, for example, the relative phases of two hydrogen maser clocks at two stations of NASA's Deep Space Tracking Network were compared over five rotations of the Earth by propagating a light signal one-way along an ultrastable fiberoptic link connecting them (see Sec. 2.2.3). Although the bounds from these experiments are not as tight as those from mass-anisotropy experiments, they probe directly the fundamental postulates of special relativity, and thereby of LLI [local Lorentz invariance]"

This is taken from "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment", section 2.1, at:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/

References to the all experiments are given in the article.

Unless I'm mistaken, these experiments are considerably more precise than the Roland de Witte work you cite, and address a similar (the same?) question.

I'm sure you've reviewed these experiments; why did you find them to be insufficient to disprove wisp?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

I think, that it is impossible to conceive and execute one-way experiment removing all questions concerning a light until we’ll not know precisely that there is “light”.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
I think, that it is impossible to conceive and execute one-way experiment removing all questions concerning a light until we’ll not know precisely that there is “light”. Would you mind elaborating?

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
Would you mind elaborating?
Are you sure what know all about light?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
Are you sure what know all about light? I'm sure we - you, me, Tom, Ambitwistor, ... - do NOT know *all* about light! And never will. [:)]

What, in particular, concerns you about the one-way tests? [?]

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by Nereid
I'm sure we - you, me, Tom, Ambitwistor, ... - do NOT know *all* about light! And never will. [:)]

What, in particular, concerns you about the one-way tests? [?]
May be, I know about this subject a little bit more, than someone in your list (excluding horses). Anyway, I have made such attempt. Look at mine topic, please.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7611

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Michael F. Dmitriyev
May be, I know about this subject a little bit more, than someone in your list (excluding horses). Anyway, I have made such attempt. Look at mine topic, please.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7611 In that thread you displayed that you misunderstand the fundamentals of what IS known about light. No, we do not know everything - but there is a lot that we do know. You'd do well to learn the things that we do know before trying to forulate your own theory or attack existing one.

[wisp]

Nereid

Regarding Clifford Will's "Theory and experiment in gravitational physics" 1981 (2nd edition 1993)- The centrifuge, two-photon absorption (TPA) and JPL experiments test the isotropy of light speed using one-way propagation.

What I can say is that wisp theory fully supports Local Lorentz invariance (LLI)(see ch8). Without buying his book I cannot comment about the reasons why his work would suggest that the DeWitte results are false.
Do you know how long the fibre optic cable was?
What were the results and tolerances?

I believe wisp theory will challenge his work and show DeWitte's experiment to be true.

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

Originally posted by russ_watters
In that thread you displayed that you misunderstand the fundamentals of what IS known about light. No, we do not know everything - but there is a lot that we do know. You'd do well to learn the things that we do know before trying to forulate your own theory or attack existing one.
I have learned it many years ago. Similar you, I have had feeling the puppy’s delight before all existing theories and a famous names. With the years it has passed. I can assure that it wait you in future too ( I suspect you are near 18 only).

[Brad_Ad23]

Regardless of what age he has, if he knows the mathematics and the physics behind it, he can deduce the basic theories do work and draw valid conclusions from them. russ is indeed able to perform such feats. You on the other hand have done nothing but exhibit the classic symptoms of a crackpot[g)] Posting intractable ideas all over the place with no mathematics or even wrong mathematics to try and support your ideas. It is very clear you have almost zero grasp of what is real physics and yet you attempt to continually demolish it. If and only if you present a real valid arguement formulated in real physics will people begin to take any objections you have as valid. But so far, nobody can even guess where to begin to show how wrong your claims have been[o)]

As for wisp 'theory' it just isn't supported by an real, reproducible results. Nereid produced a perfect example of wisp falling flat down. In addition, if special relativity were wrong, then general relativity would also be incorrect at some basic level. Yet, it has also been proven to be a very extremly accurate tool for predicting observations to an astonishing degree.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
...if he knows the mathematics and the physics behind it, he can deduce the basic theories do work and draw valid conclusions from them. russ is indeed able to perform such feats. Heck, no need to go even that far (I appreciate it though). I will freely admit to having only a conceptual (ie, not mathematical) understanding of high end concpets in physics such as the nature of light. But that is all that is required to see that some of his statements are directly contradictory to what is actually observed. Heck, the title of his other thread is itself an easy example.

[Nereid]

Originally posted by wisp
Nereid

Regarding Clifford Will's "Theory and experiment in gravitational physics" 1981 (2nd edition 1993)- The centrifuge, two-photon absorption (TPA) and JPL experiments test the isotropy of light speed using one-way propagation.

What I can say is that wisp theory fully supports Local Lorentz invariance (LLI)(see ch8). Without buying his book I cannot comment about the reasons why his work would suggest that the DeWitte results are false.
Do you know how long the fibre optic cable was?
What were the results and tolerances?

I believe wisp theory will challenge his work and show DeWitte's experiment to be true. The two key papers are:

Will, C. M., "Clock synchronization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light'', Phys. Rev. D, 45, 403-411, (1992)

Timothy P. Krisher, Lute Maleki, George F. Lutes, Lori E. Primas, Ronald T. Logan, John D. Anderson, and Clifford M. Will, "Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using Hydrogen Maser Frequency Standards", THE PHYSICAL REVIEW D (RAPID COMMUNICATIONS) 42, 731 (1990)

Unfortunately, these may not be available on the web. Do you have access to a university library? You may also find the Will book in such a library. Alternatively, many city libraries in the UK (AFAIK) can obtain a copy of a book such as Will's through inter-library loan; perhaps you could enquire?

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Heck, no need to go even that far (I appreciate it though). I will freely admit to having only a conceptual (ie, not mathematical) understanding of high end concpets in physics such as the nature of light. But that is all that is required to see that some of his statements are directly contradictory to what is actually observed. Heck, the title of his other thread is itself an easy example.

You got me there[;)] Once you learn about curl and divergence vectors and the like and you get to Maxwell's equations, you start to see the picture even brighter[:D]

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Brad_Ad23
Once you learn about curl and divergence vectors and the like and you get to Maxwell's equations, you start to see the picture even brighter[:D] You mean bright like the flashes of light you see at the beginning of a migrane? Yeah, been there. Its called differential equations. Thank God for computers.

[paultrr]

I second that statement.

[Brad_Ad23]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You mean bright like the flashes of light you see at the beginning of a migrane? Yeah, been there. Its called differential equations. Thank God for computers.

computers are overrated for that. Give me my own skills to solve it any ol' day. For large numbers and insanely long equations sure, computers. But nothin like actually knowing how it works

[paultrr]

Also different programs sometimes yield different outputs as reguards signs + or -, so to speak. One problem a friend of mine encountered while trying to run an output based upon an already published finding in an article.

[wisp]

Nereid

Thanks for the info. This is a challenge to wisp theory and maybe it will show SR is correct, and wisp theory wrong.
The experiment looks like it has professional credibility, and I hope the results are conclusive.
However, my bet is that the results are inconclusive due to large tolerances, and given doubt the experiment will bias towards SR being correct.
I know the DeWitte experiment used six atomic clock standards and ran over 178 days, and did detect a sidereal variation in frequency difference.
Both can't be right. It is likely that the one with the larger tolerance is wrong.
I will try and find the answer.
If anyone knows of any independent reviews on the JPL results I would welcome your input.

[Nereid]

wisp, Will also mentions the centrifuge and TPA (two-photon absorbtion) experiments as being one-way tests. Have you looked into these too? Maybe they're not relevant to wisp.

From the same website as my earlier Will quote (Sect 2.2.3); the 'observed limit' refers to the JPL experiment:
"The observed limit on a diurnal variation in the relative phase resulted in the |c-2 - 1 | < 3 X 10-4. Tighter bounds were obtained from a ``two-photon absorption'' (TPA) experiment, and a 1960s series of ``Mössbauer-rotor'' experiments, which tested the isotropy of time dilation between a gamma ray emitter on the rim of a rotating disk and an absorber placed at the center"

[wisp]

Nereid
I don't think wisp theory has any issues with the centrifuge and TPA (two-photon absorption) experiments. Wisp theory covers the 1963 Kundig rotating turntable experiment and supports the predicted effects (Wisp theory - Section 9.2.3). I think the two-photon absorption relates to Local Lorentz Invariance, and this is also supported.


However, there is an issue with the T.P.Krisher et al “laser optic one way light experiment” 1990

I came across this info on the net written by D.J.Larson.
" 10.3 The Experiment of Krisher et al.
A recent experiment by Krisher et al. has tested for the anisotropy of the oneway speed of light by using two hydrogen maser standards separated by 21 km. The light from each maser is split, with one-half sent to a local detector and the other half used to modulate a laser carrier signal that is sent to a detector at the distant location. The light from the local maser and the distant maser are combined, and their relative frequency difference monitored. Since all light propagation is oneway in this experiment, the node enforcement hypothesis, Postulate DJL-II, is no longer easily motivated by an analogy with a pinned string, and it is possible that the Krisher et al. experiment could yield a non-null result. (There are no longer mirrors enforcing boundary conditions at both ends of a light path, so nodes may no longer be forced to move along with the apparatus in this case.) An analysis of the Krisher et al. result using the theory presented herein shows that experimental noise is too large at present to be able to detect the Earth’s motion through an ether at rest with respect to the 3 K microwave background radiation. However, further refinements in the experiment may detect such motion."

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/fis/larson3.htm

It seems that the experiment was not accurate enough to detect the motion of the Earth through the ether, and the experiment only ran for 5 days. I believe the DeWitte experiment was more accurate because it ran for much longer and was able to extract the sidereal period variations from the data. Only modern one-way tests will resolve the issue.

[outandbeyond2004]

Wisp, the following quotation is from your website:

http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_5/wisp_ch_5.html


5.3.9 Bending light
The curvature of wisp space by matter or energy will affect the path of light. Light is a pattern of oscillating transverse wisp waves, which lack zero-state spheres. Because they do not possess zero-state spheres they are unaffected by gravitational force. But their paths will undoubtedly follow the curvature of wisp space.


Shapiro travel-time delay experiments have been going on for some time now. See section 3.4.2 "The time delay of light" in this webpage: http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html

Now if jiggle and the curvature of space in the solar system could be neglected as far as the trip time delay effect is concerned, then your theory only predicts a null result for Shapiro-type experiments. I would like to see some detailed calculations from your theory that does predict something like what Shapiro and other experimenters measured (see graphic http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/fig05.html (the purple lines and arrows))

Until you come up with an explanation, I am sorry to tell you that I will not spend any more time on wisp theory.

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

I would like to see some detailed calculations from your theory that does predict something like what Shapiro and other experimenters measured

Wisp theory matches SR predictions completely and produces a model of gravity that is different to the GR model.
I did match inertial and gravitational mass as being the same to an order of 1 part in 10^21 and produced a model that shows how time dilation works from a mechanical perspective. I don't think the theory will have any problems predicting gravitational effects on clock speeds. But I haven't gone into this.
I'm waiting for someone to do one-way light speed tests before I consider taking wisp theory into the GR domain.
Much of the work on wisp theory was spent building its foundations.

[outandbeyond2004]

"matches SR predictions completely" - (incredulous chuckle) well, I guess that was rather loose wording or carelessness, I will assume that. However, if SR or GR predicts a null result and wisp theory predicts a non-null result, I will not consider that a match.

Also, if you wind up with a theory that matches everything that GR and QM has predicted, you have not really accomplished anything except to give us another way to make predictions and give us another way to picture how the universe works. Perhaps that will be the ultimate benefit of wisp theory -- no more than that. If the math is much harder to do or it's harder to picture the universe, people will continue to use GR/standard QM or one of these other newfangled theories people are busy hammering out.

Why wait? It seems to show a lack of confidence in your theory -- perhaps justifiably. You should realize that GR has to be used instead of SR, unless the frame is inertial or the experimental arena is sufficiently limited temporally and spatially. You will eventually have to venture into the jungle.

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

loose wording

Yes, a bit loose. However, wisp theory does produce all the SR doppler equations in terms of an ether model. And it explains the cause of time dilation ...

[wisp]

Why wait? It seems to show a lack of confidence in your theory -- perhaps justifiably. You should realize that GR has to be used instead of SR, unless the frame is inertial or the experimental arena is sufficiently limited temporally and spatially. You will eventually have to venture into the jungle.

From the idea of the concept of wisp theory to placing on the web was 10 years. Includes -
1 year draft theory, 6 years doing physics degree, and 1 year off work writing/developing theory/publishing.
The fundamental structure of the theory is as good as any ether theory can get and I hope others find it a useful tool.
I will wait until SR starts cracking up before considering developing it. But when SR fails many physicists will change course and begin to take the ether seriously and the development of an ether theory into the GR domain will happen quickly.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

[Hurkyl]

The problem I have with wisp theory is that nothing is ever derived, and no methods are presented. Not even the simplest toy problem is presented that lets the reader actually work with the fundamental ideas!

I opted to skim through some of the chapters again, and it seems not to have changed: not a single fact is derived from wisps. Instead the MO seems to be to present equations, then give a vague suggestion how this might be consistent with wisps.

Thus, I don't give wisp theory any serious consideration because I can't really see any theory to consider.

[Hurkyl]

And another thing: how does one conclude that you can't accelerate something faster than light simply because force carrier particles move at light speed?

(a) an object can accelerate itself by ejecting mass in the direction opposite to travel.

But, and I'm just guessing becuase no explanation is given, it seems that they are implying that this cannot happen because it doesn't work classically... but this is absurd as this simple example shows:


Suppose I have a frictionless environment, and a ball rolling north at 10 MPH. (think of this as your object)

I'm sitting someplace northeast of the ball, and I have a second ball which I roll northwest at 5 MPH. (think of this as your force carrier particle)

If my second ball connects with the first ball, it will accelerate the first ball so it has a greater northernly speed (and some westerly speed as well).


In fact, if I can arragne a similar situation with inelastic collisions, the momentum gained by the object from the force carrier particle is identical whether the object is stationary, going 10 MPH, or going light speed! (remember I'm talking classically)

[wisp]

Hurky

The speed of light through the ether is c. If an object travels at close to light-speed it feels the effects of force and time dilation. The result is that it cannot eject matter forwards passed the speed of light, as the push force is dilated to almost zero. Similarly ejecting matter backwards will have the same weakened force. At the speed of light the forces needed to eject matter are zero.

I've had some good feedback on wisp theory. One saying it's one of the best alternative theories they have come across, but had reservations about the wisp binding force being called the nuclear force. I'm not sure whether I should call it by a different name!