/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14586743
I can't quite put my hands on it but something's wrong with your experiment

>>14586746
You could argue that light had to travel in two different directions to reach the detector via the reflector. However, I would counter that the only light being measured is the one-way light arriving from the reflector, otherwise the speed of light is not constant.

>>14586743
How do you know that when one photon hits the detector, the other hits the reflector?

>>14586743
you assume the two photons emitted are going the same speed in two different directions. you didn't solve anything.

>>14586827
If the speed of light is constant and the detector and reflector are equal distances away from the emitter, then the photons must reach the detector and reflector at the same time.

>>14587080

However, if the photons are travelling at different speeds in different directions. Then this will detected, because only the one way speed of light can be measured with this setup.

The delay from the time it takes the signal to travel from E to D cancels out the time it takes the signal to travel from E to R. If E-R isn't completely canceled out, then a significant variance from the speed of light constant will be measured.

>>14587128
forgot pic

>>14587128
>However, if the photons are travelling at different speeds in different directions. Then this will detected, because only the one way speed of light can be measured with this setup.
no. You failed. You haven't added anything to the plain reflector setup.

>>14586743
simple experiment, you should be able to set it up easily and inexpensively, i look forward to seeng the results. good luck
>inb4 OP never delivers because he is just a larper with grandiose delusions and no real demonstrable ability

>>14586743
You want to at least make it an obtuse triangle, so that e.g. the horizontal component of the velocity for both the emitted and the post-reflection light have the same sign. Other than that I don't see the problem.

>>14587138
>You haven't added anything to the plain reflector setup.

I disagree.

>>14587149
>simple experiment, you should be able to set it up easily and inexpensively, i look forward to seeng the results. good luck

Thanks.

>>14587172
>>You haven't added anything to the plain reflector setup.

>>14586743
how do you synchronize the emitter and detector?

>>14587172
>I disagree.
>>14587175
you aren't measuring the 1-way speed of light. you assume the light starts the clock at the same time it bounces off the reflector, but why would light do that unless it's isotropic in the first place? in your thought experiment you prove your presupposition. this isn't an achievement it's called confirmation bias. don't be too upset about it modern physics is full of this rubbish. my advice is to just go back to the drawing board, actually use math and be aware of when you are making an assumption and question yourself.

>>14587185
>how do you synchronize the emitter and detector?
he assumes a second photon going the exact same speed as a photon going along another leg starts a clock. he has no reason to assume this. he failed.

>>14587185
By using one clock

>>14587213
>By using one clock
it's one clock that is started at an entirely unknown and irrelevant time with respect to anything else.

Couldn't you detect speed/direction asymmetry by using a straight array of detector semaphores, synchronizing them with an initial beam at any angle (it doesn't have to be a perfect sync), then simply rotate the entire arrangement in space while taking measurements? You wouldn't get a hard measurement of speed, but you would be able to detect the delta(if any) between the semaphores at different angles in space.

>>14587185
Why does the emitter and detector need to be synchronized?

>>14586743
Roland De Witte measured the 1-way speed of light. The reason "no one has done it" is because when you make the measurements, they disprove relativity. Picrel.

>>14586743
Why not just go from emitter to detector?

>>14587278
This?

>>14586743
You're measuring the two-way speed of light here. Where it went wrong is here:

>Intuitively this would mean that the detector starts the clock when the signal begins it's 1km journey from the reflector to the detector.
You assumed what you want to prove like this, that the transverse velocity of light is the same as the forward longitudinal.

If this is to disprove the dumb thought experiment that c could be c/2 one way and instantaneous the other, I didn't watch the video but I'm assuming it's that one, then this experiment suffices. But that's not what is usually meant by "one-way speed of light", or why it's considered interesting.

>>14587128
>>14587132
Look up Sagnac effect, and its various experiments.

Basically they did this, and it had a lorentz variance, which they claim detects the rotation of the earth, while an equal path Michelson type experiment does not.

What they are actually detecting is the Stark and Zeeman effects due to earth's magnetic field.

>>14587216
>it's one clock that is started at an entirely unknown and irrelevant time with respect to anything else.
No it's a clock that starts at 0, moves at the same rate as every other clock on this planet and stops when a photon is detected.