Refute this

[Anonymous No.15269324]

https://youtu.be/pTn6Ewhb27k

[Anonymous No.15269326]

>>15269324
let me guess, one-way speed of light argument

[Anonymous No.15269337]

>>15269324
Wavelength/frequency depend on the speed of light, so I believe you could in fact test this with interferometry.

[Anonymous No.15269357]

>>15269326
yeah, saved 20min of your life.

[Anonymous No.15269362]

>>15269324
youtube is jewish owned and censored, so everything on it is fake by default. thanks for coming to 4chan to spam us with advertisements for a commercialized channel on a jewish owned MSM propaganda outlet.

[Anonymous No.15269447]

>>15269324
Started watching this. He's totally wrong about the difficulty of syncing two clocks. They won't be out of sync if you're not traveling at relativistic speeds. Not gonna waste my time on the rest of this garbage.

[Anonymous No.15269485]

>>15269324
You might be able to measure a difference if you bounce light around in a loop (just a triangle works).
I wonder if there is a non-trivial constraint you can impose on the 1-way speeds (defined for every direction through every point in space) that guarantees no observable difference in arrival times for every path and its reverse.

I'm thinking maybe there could pairs of vortices of equal and opposite magnitude close together that cancel at large distances but constructively add together between them.
Small "smoke rings" could also do this.

Idk if this is related to loop quantum gravity or not. I'm just spitballing.

[Anonymous No.15269519]

Why do people still watch this clickbait garbage?

[Anonymous No.15269537]

>>15269519
Because it makes IFLS! fags seethe that relativity might be fake.

[Anonymous No.15269544]

>>15269519
They want to aleviate their feelings of inferiority by latching onto anything which might challenge the edifices they resent. For instance, this midwit filtered by 100 year old science >>15269537

[Anonymous No.15269550]

See anon? My predictions remain at 100% accuracy. >>15269544 got offended about his beliefs.

[Anonymous No.15269558]

>>15269519
Because garbage is shilled here, wall to wall.

[Anonymous No.15269562]

>>15269550
From where I'm standing, it still looks like you're salty about being filtered by undergraduate physics, lol.

[Anonymous No.15269594]

>>15269324
What if you attach light sensitive compounds to a wall, and see what spot catches fire first? Maybe use a sphere and see what spot gets a heat spike 1st?

[Anonymous No.15269653]

>>15269519
Because it's entertaining.

[Anonymous No.15269769]

>>15269324
Dude seems to have a shaky grasp of the concept of reference frames and GR in general.

[Anonymous No.15270026]

>>15269769
He has PhD in physics research education.

[Anonymous No.15270133]

if the speed of light were different in different directions wouldn't the measured distance to the moon change as it goes round the earth ?

[Anonymous No.15270251]

>>15269447
or if the local gravity is different

[Anonymous No.15270792]

https://youtu.be/7Ys_yKGNFRQ

[Anonymous No.15270803]

>muh one way light
Mirrors exist

[Anonymous No.15273267]

>>15270803
>>15269326
>have object that absorbs and reflects light
>requires the assumption, that reflection is instant and not obstructed by reflective surface in any way

No you cannot measure the speed of lieght without assuming reflection is instant.
The whole "one way could be faster then the other" is the most retarded distraction from the main assumption:
>variable introduced into the system is not effecting light, except changing it's direction

If you throw a tennisball at a wall, the tennisball is reflected but impact changes it's properties of speed due to impact absorbtion of energy.

There is no way to show if or if this is not happening with light.
Mirrors especially in fucault times were beyond perfect. And typically mirrors reflect only 85-95% of light.

So the question is: do mirrors affect the speed of light? And what is the exact experiment to measure that?
Or is light instant, and the mirror absorbs a little untill it's "loaded" and then also emits instant light, so that it appears that light travels with a speed but it is acually instant or quasi instant and the mirror requires a fraction of the time to be able to reflect the light?
Nobody knows since it cannot be tested.

[Anonymous No.15273431]

>>15273267
Sounds like mental gymnastics to me anon.

>send light towards mirror
>record the speed
>bounce it back in the other direction
>record the speed

If there was a difference in speed on the return journey, even by a tiny fraction then you could probably argue that light being reflected does cause the speed to change.

Also this is something the LHC could test, seen as they could send photons around in circles and capture the speed in both directions.

[Anonymous No.15273437]

>>15269324
>point laser at detector
>measure when the light hits the detector
>calculate the speed of light
Refute this

[Anonymous No.15274214]

>>15273437
How do you synchronize your clocks between the laser side and the detector side?

[Anonymous No.15274250]

>>15274214
Use one clock for both the laser and the detector

[Anonymous No.15274255]

>>15274250
Then how do you start/stop the clock?

[Anonymous No.15274265]

>one-way speed of light
Is there anything more indicative of a pseud?
>hurr durr u can't put the same clock in two places so speed of light is wrong!!
Awfully reminiscent of the "arguments" made by mentally ill groups of people like solipsists and "idealists"

[Anonymous No.15274335]

>have 4 clocks at different distances
>light hitting a clock activates it
>fire a laser through two slits
>measure the difference between the clocks, triangulate the distance
EZPZ give me a nobel

[Anonymous No.15274343]

>>15273267
>So the question is: do mirrors affect the speed of light? And what is the exact experiment to measure that?
You take a different fucking mirror

[Anonymous No.15274450]

>>15269594
>What if you attach light sensitive compounds to a wall, and see what spot catches fire first?
>see what spot catches fire first?
>see

[Anonymous No.15274461]

>how to make YouTube money the video

[Anonymous No.15274462]

>>15270133
we measure the distance by bouncing light off the moon and receiving it back on earth, so thats the two way speed.

[Anonymous No.15274466]

>>15274462
See this makes sense, you can measure the speed of the light going to the moon and then you can measure the speed of it going from the moon to earth.

[Anonymous No.15274486]

>>15274462
But if the speed of light is different in the two directions, you'll never be able to tell. The speed of light could be faster going from the earth to the moon and slower coming back. All you know is the total elapsed round-trip time. You can't know the one-way trip time.

[Anonymous No.15274514]

Mental gymnastics on top of mental gymnastics.

All you need to know is how fast the speed of light is travelling in one direction. Why the fuck would it get faster when reflected? If anything it would slow down due to the laws of physics. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that it speeds up and returns instantly. This whole thing is just retarded.

[Anonymous No.15274545]

>>15274450
If light gets slowed down with refraction mediums, maybe that could move it at human speed.

[Anonymous No.15274755]

>>15274486
Maybe it doesn't move at all, but jews activate the sensors with their 5g towers

[Anonymous No.15274920]

>>15274255
You start it when the laser turns on and you stop it when the photons hit the sensor

[Anonymous No.15274933]

>>15274920
And how do you find out that the light's hit the sensor?

[Anonymous No.15274939]

>>15274933
It's a light sensor. It activates when light hits it.

[Anonymous No.15274947]

>>15274939
But in order for the sensor to stop the clock some kind of signal has to travel BACK from the sensor to the point of origin. Even under ideal circumstances, you can only measure the round-trip travel time of light-speed signals.

[Anonymous No.15274956]

>>15274947
That is completely irrelevant and/or can be accounted for via mathematics, it's like saying we don't know how fast a car is moving because we're not measuring the vibrations of the subatomic particles of the individual atoms making up the car,

[Anonymous No.15274966]

>>15274956
No, it's like saying we don't know that the speed of light is isotropic because we can only measure it bidirectionally. Which is true.

[Anonymous No.15274975]

>>15274966
>because we can only measure it bidirectionally. Which is true.
Still not seeing any evidence for this claim

[Anonymous No.15274987]

>>15274975
I just explained it. What part did you not understand?

[Anonymous No.15275021]

>>15274966
What evidence is there to even entertain the this dumb theory? We measure the speed of everything in one direction, this is just getting stupid. We know the speed of light, it has been measured countless times in many different scenarios.

Look at this vid, they filmed light at 1 trillion fps. You can see it move in slow motion, you can measure it easily.
>>15270792

[Anonymous No.15275024]

>>15273267
All this can be tester with a multiple mirrors setup at different distances.

[Anonymous No.15275032]

>>15275021
You're slow. Measuring the speed of light in one direction means having two points: a point of origin and a target point. You want to measure the time it takes for light to get from the origin to the target. In order to do that, you need to communicate some kind of signal back from the target to the origin …which can only propagate at the speed of light at best. That means you can only measure the round-trip time. You can't measure the speed of light in one direction.

[Anonymous No.15275040]

>>15275032
>You can't measure the speed of light in one direction.
I don't even

[Anonymous No.15275050]

>>15275040
Yeah. I know you don't.

[Anonymous No.15275065]

>>15275050
Watch that video again.

You have light travelling along X distance.
You have a timer recording how long it takes to move across that distance.

Did you miss the class at school when they tought you the calculation of distance/time = speed?

[Anonymous No.15275070]

>>15275032
You can shoot your beam of light through a different medium to slow it down, measure the relative difference in momentum and calculate from that

[Anonymous No.15275092]

>>15275070
This.

[Anonymous No.15275094]

>>15275065
>You have light travelling along X distance.
From point A to point B, yes. That's point A and point B separated by some distance.
>You have a timer recording how long it takes to move across that distance.
A timer which can only be in one place. In order to start and stop the timer, information has to propagate from points A and/or B to the point where the timer is. This information can only propagate at the speed of light. So you can only measure the total round-trip time, not the one-way time.

[Anonymous No.15275098]

>>15275094
It is time to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.15275641]

>>15269544
are you implying scientific ideas are correct because they are old

[Anonymous No.15275644]

*loudly farts*

[Anonymous No.15275845]

What if you measure light in a medium that makes it slower?

[Anonymous No.15275925]

Why not make it 1000 x 1meter clocks thats in sync

[Anonymous No.15275930]

>>15269326
I'd invite veritaseum to tongue my anus but I think he'd enjoy it

[Anonymous No.15276164]

Nothing personnel, kid