SR and one-way light speed tests

Tom,

Thanks for your input on GPS. I agree that the system is a very accurate and finely tuned. However, I am not convinced about GPS, but do fully accept your reasons for supporting it.

My reasons for having doubts 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. See 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, e=mc^2, mass increase, Lorentz symmetry, 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 www.celestrak.com/columns/v03n02/
The optical tracking of GPS, if done, cannot be better than plus/minus 0.05 degrees accuracy. This equates to satellites being plus/minus 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.

Quote: Life is too short... /Unquote.

I agree, GPS is too complex for me to unpick - I'll have to wait until someone does this simple test - patience is a virtue.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jim]
So, is that an example of two masses(Earth and satelite) falling at a different rate because one mass (the satelite)is nearer the moon? Maybe this seems obscure but I'm puzzled by this force and may not ask the best questions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
I hope I'm reading your question correctly -

Yes. The Moon's acceleration (force) field varies with distance. When the satellite is closer to the Moon than is the Earth it falls (toward the Moon) faster than the Earth does. And vice versa.

Twice during each orbit (of the satellite around Earth) the satellite and Earth will be at the same distance from the Moon. At those instants both Earth and satellite will be falling (toward the Moon) at the same rate. At all other times they fall at slightly different rates depending on which is closer to the Moon.

LB

So, how much does that perturb the satelite? I was looking for data that includes this perturbance of the distance from the ground to the satelite. Do you agree that that is about 100 meters?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
So, how much does that perturb the satelite? I was looking for data that includes this perturbance of the distance from the ground to the satelite. Do you agree that that is about 100 meters?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>
You won't be able to see anything usefull in the raw data. It has to be massaged to put it in terms of a usefull coordinate system, for measurement errors, for modeling assumptions, etc. Dr Van Flandern mentioned some of this a few posts above. You are going to have to want it a lot to justify doing that much mission-specific learning.

But you can easily do your own BOTEC. I used a spread sheet and some numbers I got from the Internet for Moon, Earth and GPS to come up with 256 meters. I'm pretty sure that the third significant figure is not supportable, and the Moon's orbit has an eccintricity of about 5% so the answer depends in part on whether you use apogee, perigee or mean distance.

Once you have a spreadsheet set up you can play around with the numbers and see how the answer changes in response.

===

So, my number is about twice Dr Van Flandern's number. What does that mean? It probably means I made a factor of 2 error somewhere. But there are a number of ways to estimate things like this and it is not unheard of for such estimates to differ by a factor of two or more. So maybe it just means we used different estimating techniques.

If I had to bet my grade point average on it, I'd go with 100 meters.

Regards,
LB

Hi
I imagined a setup to do a one-way light speed measurement. It's so simple that I think something must be wrong but I can't figure out what's wrong.
We need a light source that produce very short pulse < 1 nanosecond a laser can do. You also need two transparent detectors (A and , two shielded cables and a clock (C).
The detectors produce a signal in the cable when a light pulse go throught it. The clock is situated between A and B. The cable are of the same lenght 1/2 AB. A sinal from A reset the clock and a signal from B stop the clock. First A and B are at the same position and a pulse is flashed and the lenght of the cable are trimmed so that the two signals arrive at the same time to the clock. Then you separate the two detectors mesure the distance and flash an other pulse. You divide the distance by the time and you have speed!
What is wrong with that setup?
A little comment about the Michelson experiment: The experiment is done in the air and the conclusion we ear is the "the speed of light is constant in vacuum". Was the Michelson experiment been repeated in vacuum?
Thank you

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=2 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jacques]
Then you separate the two detectors mesure the distance and flash an other pulse. You divide the distance by the time and you have speed!
What is wrong with that setup?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

As soon as you separate the two detectors you are implicitly assuming that the speed of the signals in the cables is independent of direction. This is what Dr Van Flandern means when he says "A 1-way experiment cannot separate clock synchronization matters from speed changes, and is therefore impossible in principle unless we can use something faster than light to set the clocks".

I'm pretty sure my rotating pipe idea gets around this by <u>simulating</u> an instantaneous synchronization signal. But SR is so full of non-intuitive twists and turns that it seems not a good idea to rely on just one brain to figure it out.

Regards,
LB