Isotropic and anisotropic propagation of light

[bernhard.rothenstein]

Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?

 

[JesseM]

Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?

Not if you use the Einstein clock synchronization convention when defining your coordinate system. Also, if you have two observers in windowless boxes which are both moving inertially at different velocities, then if each observer measures the velocity of light in the same way within their box, they will both get the same answer.

 

[pervect]

Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?

No, light propagates isotropially in all inertial frames. This is fundamental to relativity.

 

[Garth]

The question is a little ill defined.

Does it not depend on how the light originated? i.e. The CMB was emitted by the Surface of Last Scattering (SLS). An observer co-moving with that SLS sees the CMB isotropically whereas all others, including ourselves moving relative to the SLS at about 0.1%c, sees a dipole anisotropy of 10^-3.

Garth

 

[Jorrie]

The question is a little ill defined.

Does it not depend on how the light originated? i.e. The CMB was emitted by the Surface of Last Scattering (SLS). An observer co-moving with that SLS sees the CMB isotropically whereas all others, including ourselves moving relative to the SLS at about 0.1%c, sees a dipole anisotropy of 10^-3.

Garth

Observing the CMB as isotropic is not the same thing as observing light propagation to be isotropic. Observers moving relative to the SLS will observe anisotropy in the CMB, but they will still observe light propagation (i.e. speed) as isotropic.

 

[wisp]

Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?

Yes, I fully agree with this.

Others that agree are:

1991 Roland DeWitte (Ether wind detected using an electrical one-way test).

1988, Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang (Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light. Although they reported, "Our results have not yielded a measurable direction-dependent variation of the one-way speed of light. A clear null result is obtained for a hypothesis in which anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation is used to define a preferred reference frame", Harold Aspden's considers their work important, as their experimental data clearly shows an eastward motion effect. And so it is possible to sense the speed of a test device using optical speed-of-light sensing wholly confined within the enclosure housing the apparatus).

In 1986, E W Silvertooth claimed to have measured the 378 km/s cosmic motion using an optical sensor that measures the spacing between standing wave nodes. Although the experiment has not been confirmed.

Dayton Miller's ether drift experiments (similar to Michelson-Morley type experiments but more sensitive) A review of his work by James DeMeo shows indisputable evidence that data collected by Miller was affected by the sidereal period and this is clear proof of a cosmological ether drift effect.

It will be interesting to see if the newer more accurate clocks in space detect anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. My bet is they will.

 

[Garth]

Observing the CMB as isotropic is not the same thing as observing light propagation to be isotropic. Observers moving relative to the SLS will observe anisotropy in the CMB, but they will still observe light propagation (i.e. speed) as isotropic.

In which case I have read the question wrongly, I was confused as to this use of the word "isotropic" in regard to radiation.

I see what Bernhard means now and I have to say that I disagree with his statement.

Garth

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

In which case I have read the question wrongly, I was confused as to this use of the word "isotropic" in regard to radiation.

I see what Bernhard means now and I have to say that I disagree with his statement.

What I posted is a question and not a statement. With what do you disagree?

 

[Garth]

In which case I have read the question wrongly, I was confused as to this use of the word "isotropic" in regard to radiation.

I see what Bernhard means now and I have to say that I disagree with his statement.

What I posted is a question and not a statement. With what do you disagree?

Okay, my slip of the tongue/finger, your question was, "Do you agree..." I was simply saying (IMHO) that I didn't.

Garth

 

[clj4]

Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?

This is the assumption of the test theories of Robertson-Mansouri and Sexl.
It has been disproved by experiment multiple times.

 

[clj4]

Yes, I fully agree with this.

Others that agree are:

1991 Roland DeWitte (Ether wind detected using an electrical one-way test).

1988, Gagnon, Torr, Kolen and Chang (Guided-wave measurement of the one-way speed of light. Although they reported, "Our results have not yielded a measurable direction-dependent variation of the one-way speed of light. A clear null result is obtained for a hypothesis in which anisotropy of the cosmic background radiation is used to define a preferred reference frame", Harold Aspden's considers their work important, as their experimental data clearly shows an eastward motion effect. And so it is possible to sense the speed of a test device using optical speed-of-light sensing wholly confined within the enclosure housing the apparatus).

In 1986, E W Silvertooth claimed to have measured the 378 km/s cosmic motion using an optical sensor that measures the spacing between standing wave nodes. Although the experiment has not been confirmed.

Dayton Miller's ether drift experiments (similar to Michelson-Morley type experiments but more sensitive) A review of his work by James DeMeo shows indisputable evidence that data collected by Miller was affected by the sidereal period and this is clear proof of a cosmological ether drift effect.

It will be interesting to see if the newer more accurate clocks in space detect anisotropy in the one-way speed of light. My bet is they will.

The above is wrong and misleading. Given your views about relativity is within character. You have been told repeatedly (by several people) that:

1. One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy
2. Quoting scandal writers like DeMeo is not proof, moreover Dayton Miller has been completely refuted by the modern reenactments of his experiment.
3. De Witte experiment is a hoax
4. Silvertooth experiment could not be duplicated by anybody (including himself)

 

[Vadim Matveev]

Do you aggree that there is an inertial reference frame in which light in free space propagates isotropically whereas in all other inertial reference frames its propagation is anisotropic?

Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?

 

[clj4]

Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?

Nonsense, VadimFirst off, you did not understand Bernhard's question so you twisted it into your own question, exactly as "wisp" tried it.

Secondly, contrary to what you think, one way speed of light has been measured repeatedly to be equal to c INDEPENDENT of the RELATIVE movement of the observer and the source. Just go take a class in relativity before posting all this nonsense.
Or read paragreaph 3.2 here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way tests

There are many more experiments like this.

 

[ZapperZ]

Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?

I will caution you to re-read (since you are emphasizing about reading here) our Guidelines that you have explicitly agreed to. If you believe that there are evidence contrary to the standard interpretation of physics, then it is your burden to provide valid citations to reputable work.

Things have CHANGED since the last time you posted here.

Zz.

 

[bernhard.rothenstein]

Yes, I do, Bernhard. You are absolutely right!
One way light speed is relative. It is equal to c in the reference system K, that is at RELATIVE rest, and is different in different directions in the systems, which are moving RELATIVE to the system K.
I shake your hand!
Einstein absolutized the rest state of the own systems of the different observers. Einsteins observers have fear of moving. They think, as the people on Earth before Copernicus, that they can ONLY rest and NEVER move.
The people, who write that “One way light speed experiments have proven the isotropy”, do not read good books. Nobody never measured one way speed of light. Einstein understood it and wrote that it was impossible. But the people don’t read Einstein. They read only the interpreters of Einstein.
Einstein understood the problem with one way speed of light, but he did not understand that one way speed of light is relative. You do!
Do I right understand you?

I respect your point of view but i do not aggree with it

 

[wisp]

I've just come across this paper (published yesterday) on another forum and I believe it answers Bernhard's question.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf

It supports my view that there is a preferred reference frame and observers moving through this frame measure anisotropy in light's oneway speed.

Quoted from the paper: -
"The main objective of this paper is to present experimental results on an “one-way light path” laser diffraction experiment mounted in the shell of the TUPI muon telescope [7] and that shows clearly that the speed of light depends on the propagation direction."

also

"The analysis of The Global Positioning System (GPS) carried out by Hatch [10] provides also strong indirect evidence for the presence of an ether-drift velocity."

 

[clj4]

I've just come across this paper (published yesterday) on another forum and I believe it answers Bernhard's question.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0604/0604145.pdf

It supports my view that there is a preferred reference frame and observers moving through this frame measure anisotropy in light's oneway speed.

Quoted from the paper: -
"The main objective of this paper is to present experimental results on an “one-way light path” laser diffraction experiment mounted in the shell of the TUPI muon telescope [7] and that shows clearly that the speed of light depends on the propagation direction."

also

"The analysis of The Global Positioning System (GPS) carried out by Hatch [10] provides also strong indirect evidence for the presence of an ether-drift velocity."

While the link is certainly interesting, you forgot to mention that:The Hatch paper was published in...Galilean Electrodynamics, a well known venue for crank publications. This in itself makes the paper you just quoted very questionable.

As to the link above, why don't you wait until there is :

1. independent experimental confirmation (this is the standard)

2. publication in a refereed journal?

As an aside, it looks as if the authors have "forgotten" that the speed of Earth exhibits a sine dependency. It may be very well that they are measuring this effect (remember the Dayton-Miller - Maurice Allais fiasco?) instead of measuring the one way light speed anisotropy. Contrary to what the authors show, the SRT prediction is not a horizontal line stuck on 0 but...a sine wave (because the Earth's speed is variable).
Give it a year or so, if the paper is still unpublished, then you have your answer.

 

[clj4]

Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097

(this one was just published in Phys.Rev.Lett Oct 2005:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000095000015150401000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Here is the second one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169

Here is a third one:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0408/0408006.pdf

 

[Aether]

Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508097

(this one was just published in Phys.Rev.Lett Oct 2005:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000095000015150401000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Here is the second one:

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0510169

I asked you here to show "Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?", and you didn't respond. Now you're repeating this apparently false claim here, so I'll ask you again: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

Here is a third one:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-ph/papers/0408/0408006.pdf

This appears to be a proposal for a future experiment rather than a report on the results of an already completed experiment. I'll read the paper and comment further after you have answered my question.

 

[clj4]

I asked you http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723706&postcount=107" to show "Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?", and you didn't respond. Now you're repeating this apparently false claim here, so I'll ask you again: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

This appears to be a proposal for a future experiment rather than a report on the results of an already completed experiment. I'll read the paper and comment further after you have answered my question.

"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator"

 

[clj4]

I asked you http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723706&postcount=107" to show "Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?", and you didn't respond. Now you're repeating this apparently false claim here, so I'll ask you again: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

This appears to be a proposal for a future experiment rather than a report on the results of an already completed experiment. I'll read the paper and comment further after you have answered my question.

Ah, you are again on your crusade on asking for "one way" tests. For that you need to read the other two Gagnon papers, Krisher (and accept it, otherwise there is nothing I can do for you) and, most importantly, C.M.Will (the same applies here).

As an aside, did you figure out how to measure (k'+k)L/2 from the "refurbished" Gagnon experiment? Because I have figured at least two ways. Are you familiar with lab equipment at all ? Or are you just a theorethician?

I get your angle, the new experiments I quoted "may" be two-way measurements, NEVERTHELESS the prove the ISOTROPY of light speed, and this is what counts. Now, the first paper in the list is clearly a one way, so you strike out here. The third paper, while it only "suggests" a means of executing one way light speed measurements looks awfully close in approach to the one way experiment of Gagnon.



I quoted the newest 3 papers to show that RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) and SR are NOT equivalent. Actually the field has moved past RMS and into the SME (Standard Model Extension) by A. Kostelecky. Same deal here: "aether" theories can be "made" equivalent to SR provided that their parameters are driven to orders of 10^-15. (i.e ZERO)

You can go on forever denying the obvious and clinging to your "aether" beliefs and to some quotes from Zhang's book. Or you can start understanding test theories. The choice is yours.

 

[Aether]

"Test of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating optical resonator"

Ah, you are again on your crusade on asking for "one way" tests. For that you need to read the other two Gagnon papers, Krisher (and accept it, otherwise there is nothing I can do for you) and, most importantly, C.M.Will (the same applies here).

You said "Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:".

I get your angle, the new experiments I quoted "may" be two-way measurements, NEVERTHELESS the prove the ISOTROPY of light speed, and this is what counts.

They are two-way tests, and they do tightly constrain the two-way light speed isotropy. It is the "one way" part you added-in that is wrong.

Now, the first paper in the list is clearly a one way, so you strike out here.

Then answer my question: Where exactly in the paper you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

I quoted the newest 3 papers to show that RMS (Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl) and SR are NOT equivalent.

This quote from p. 811 of M-S III direclty applies to the experiments in the first two papers that you quoted (not that the authors claim anything contrary to this quote; rather, it is you who are putting words into the author's mouths to contradict this quote): "Another experiment similar to the Michelson-Morley experiment has been performed by Fox and Shamir [9]. According to these authors this experiment is able to decide between the special theory of relativity and an ether theory incorporating Lorentz contraction and time dilation. As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle."

This quote from p. 523 of M-S II directly applies to the third paper (again, not that the authors claim anything contrary to this quote; rather, it is you who are putting words into the author's mouths to contradict this quote): "First-order tests cannot be used to distinguish between special relativity and ether theories, as has sometimes been stated. No such "experimentum crucis" is possible in principle, since the two classes of theories can be transformed into one another by a change of conventions about clock synchronization, as has been shown in I."

Where exactly in the three papers that you cited, all of which cite Mansouri-Sexl, do any of the author's claim that the quotes that I just gave from M-S are not valid?

Actually the field has moved past RMS and into the SME (Standard Model Extension) by A. Kostelecky.

Yes, it is a very exciting field.

Same deal here: "aether" theories can be "made" equivalent to SR provided that their parameters are driven to orders of 10^-15. (i.e ZERO)

Not exactly. They are empirically equivalent when the \alpha, \beta, and \delta parameters are driven to the same values as in SR. However, no experiment can constrain the \epsilon parameter, and that is the difference between one-way and two-way light speeds.

 

[clj4]

You said "Here are two new experiments on one way light speed isotropy:".

They are two-way tests, and they do tightly constrain the two-way light speed isotropy. It is the "one way" part you added-in that is wrong.

Do you have difficulties reading what I write? The first and third are clearly one-way.

"As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle."

Ah, another quote that you take literally. The complete sentence is:
"As we have shown quite generally in the first and second parts of this paper such a distinction is impossible in principle within the framework of our kinematic theory." The moment you step out of the MS theory and into electrodynamics, as C.M.Will and Gagnon clealy show, the situation is reversed, they can tell the difference. Why do you think that all the experiments are electrodynamic? Gagnon and its derivatives should be stuck on your desk, in front of your eyes.

Not exactly. They are empirically equivalent when the \alpha, \beta, and \delta parameters are driven to near zero. However, no experiment can constrain the \epsilon parameter, and that is the difference between one-way and two-way light speeds.

Says who? You? Are you trying to say that the MS and SR are still equivalent when \alpha=\beta=\delta=0 and \epsilon is left unconstrained?

Besides, you seem to insist in missing the main point (this is why you keep fighting Krisher): what happens when
\alpha=\beta=\delta are NOT 0? Obviously the two theories ARE NOT equivalent.

The C.M.Will paper is quite clear on the subject.
BTW: you haven't answered my question on the "refurbished" Gagnon. This one is clearly a thorn in your argumentation.

 

[Aether]

Do you have difficulties reading what I write? The first and third are clearly one-way.

The third one seems to be, but the experiment hasn't been carried out yet and I haven't read the paper very closely. Please answer my question with respect to the first two: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

Says who? You? Are you trying to say that the MS and SR are still equivalent when \alpha=\beta=\delta=0 and \epsilon is left unconstrained?

I have made a correction to that statement. MS and SR are equivalent when \alpha, \beta, and \delta are the same as in SR and \epsilon is left unconstrained.

Besides, you seem to insist in missing the main point (this is why you keep fighting Krisher): what happens when
\alpha=\beta=\delta are NOT 0? Obviously the two theories ARE NOT equivalent.

You mean, what happens when any experiment shows that they are not the same as in SR?

 

[clj4]

Then please answer my question: Where exactly in these two papers you cited do the author's claim that they are measuring the isotropy of the one-way speed of light as opposed to the isotropy of the two-way speed of light?

Read the papers (TWO).

I have made a correction to that statement. MS and SR are equivalent when \alpha, \beta, and \delta are the same as in SR and \epsilon is left unconstrained.

So? What is your "corrected" point? Does leaving epsilon unconstrained make the one way light speed experiments invalid? Do MS and SR become magically equivalent?

 

[Aether]

Read the papers (TWO).

Answer the question.

Does leaving epsilon unconstrained make the one way light speed experiments invalid?

Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .

Do MS and SR become magically equivalent?

See post #22.

You are directly contradicting both Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question about a false claim that you keep making. Unless there is an objection by a moderator of this forum, including PF science advisors, then I declare by unanimous consent that your claim is refuted.

 

[clj4]

Answer the question.

Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .

See post #22.

You are directly contradicting both Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question about a false claim that you keep making. Unless there is an objection by a moderator of this forum, including PF science advisors, then I declare by unanimous consent that your claim is refuted.

You are applying the same tactics as the "gregory" sock puppets with a new twist : you repeatedly declare victory.
Well, the papers that I listed are valid and so are the experiments. I tried thru hundreds of posts to explain that to you but you seem more interested in defending your own beliefs. I suggest that you collect them into a paper trying to refute the long list of valid experiments and you try to publish it.

 

[clj4]

Answer the question.

Yes, see http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=723660&postcount=102" .

See post #22.

You are directly contradicting both Zhang and Mansouri-Sexl. You have repeatedly refused to answer my simple question about a false claim that you keep making. Unless there is an objection by a moderator of this forum, including PF science advisors, then I declare by unanimous consent that your claim is refuted.

You are applying the same tactics as the "gregory" sock puppets with a new twist : you repeatedly declare victory.
Well, the papers that I listed are valid and so are the experiments. I tried thru hundreds of posts to explain that to you but you seem more interested in defending your own beliefs. I suggest that you collect them into a paper trying to refute the long list of valid experiments and you try to publish it.


In order not to leave the readers of this thread in siuspension I will explain things one last time:

1. There are two main classes of experiments that deal with light speed isotropy:
-one way (Krisher, Gagnonx3, C.M.Will, the THREE new papers from post 18, the ones that "Aether" keeps asking me to interpret for him)
-two way

2. All the papers use electrodynamics experiments beacuse, as can be clearly seen from both the MS papers and from the CMWill paper one would need ADDITIONAL, AD-HOC assumptions to be made in order to make the MS theory indistinguishable from SR. WITHOUT the AD-HOC assumptions, the two theories can be distinguished and the experiments proceed in showing how this distinction is being made.

3. The above papers resolve to work with a simplified form of RMS, called GGT that assumes absulute simultaneity (the \epsilon parameter is 0) and either:

-refute a parametrized version of GGT by constrainiing the other parameters to virtual 0 (\alpha, \beta,\delta... as in Krisher, Peters, etc)

-refute an non-parametrized version outright , as in Gagnon

4. Some of the newer papers (A.Peters) do the same type of work on a more modern theory, SME, and conclude by constraining a much larger number of the parameters in the so-called "photon section"

5. By proving experimentally that the light speed is isotropic, these papers set very severe experimental bars on the RMS and SR test theories. These bars do not exist for SR since SR assumes light speed to be isotropic.

"Aether" seems to believe that anything short of constraining \epsilon to be within the SR value of v/c^2 proves that these papers and the experiments describe within are invalid. This is in the context of showing the opposite over more than 400 posts that include mathematical calculations. "Aether" choice has been battling the math with selective quotes from Zhang and the MS papers (though MS papers, when read carefully show clearly the limitations of their theory).
Well, sorry to disappoint you, it looks like there is a rekindled interest in high precission light speed experiments that measure its isotropy. So, "Aether", you will have to battle them all, one by one, alone.
One thing is for sure, the world of "prefrential/absolute reference frame" is shrinking every day. In terms of 10^m
I hope that this was useful.

 

[Aether]

1. There are two main classes of experiments that deal with light speed isotropy:
-one way (Krisher, Gagnonx3, C.M.Will, the two new paper, no 1 and 3 that "Aether" keeps asking me to interpret for him)
-two way (the new paper by Achim Peters and Hermann, the foremost expersts in experimental disproof of Lorentz symmetry violations)

You cited three papers in post #18 and described them as "new experiments on one way light speed isotropy"; these were not Krisher, Gagnonx3, and C.M.Will. The first of these was "(the new paper by Achim Peters and Hermann, the foremost expersts in experimental disproof of Lorentz symmetry violations)" which you are now describing as "two way".

 

[wisp]

I think there's confusion over what are "real" one-way tests. Generally tests in which light resonates, gets reflected from mirrors or rotating surfaces, generally is a two-way test. Using these tests to impose constraints on the supposed ether is unjustified.

The recent one-way test that has just been done shows the motion of the Earth with respect to the CBMR affects the speed of light.