lidal

The credibility of Silvertooth's claims aside, I wouldn't be proud of the fact that an independent researcher finally repeated this experiment, using his personal funds, if I were you. I wouldn't be proud of the fact that there is no Wikipedia article on this experiment either. With regard to Doug Marett, I give him the credit for undertaking a challenging experiment that has been ignored (intentionally or unintentionally) by mainstream. However, I don't agree with his conclusions. I am sorry but Doug Marret in the final part of his paper said: " My own persistence with this experiment was because of the uncanny correlation of the diurnal pattern in the data with the alignment of the interferometer along our direction of motion through space, which now appears to be simply a bizarre coincidence. " Perhaps I would have doubted the Silvertooth experiment if I had not known about the Marinov and the Roland de Witte experiments and if I hadn't found any contradictions in the Special Relativity theory. I have read about this instrument and it measures distance by interrogating a transponder. As I have already shown, the effect of absolute motion is greatly suppressed by this method. In my previous post on exchange of time signals between an Earth clock and a satellite clock, I have shown that the maximum de-synchronization for a distance of 35000 km will be 0.4 μs . For distance measurement of, say, 1000km on Earth this will be: 0.4 μs * 1000/35000 = 0.011428μs = 11.43 ns This corresponds to a distance error of only 1.7 meters .

The GPS engineers are only interested in building a system that works. For example,the Sagnac correction is applied in the GPS despite being controversial because it contradicts the isotropy of the speed of light as I have shown in this thread and as many authors have pointed out in the past. The Sagnac correction is applied because the GPS will not operate correctly without it,not because the engineers wanted to prove or disprove relativity. Therefore, I would say that the GPS can't have been so accurate without correcting for absolute motion effects somehow, for example, as ephemeris correction. Moreover, as Brian G Wallace disclosed, there was a practice of ignoring large variations in the round trip time of radio signals reflected from planet Venus that contradicted the constancy of the speed of light, without any explanations, in the Shapiro delay experiment. I wouldn't say there is no such practice in relativity today. With regard to the Silvertooth experiment, I know that it was published in some fringe? journals. It was also published in Nature journal not as an article but as an advertisment. What about the Marinov experiment? The two experiments nearly agreed in the direction of our motion in space, and these fairly agreed with the CMBR velocity. After I have seen the insurmountable resistance to publish alternative ideas myself for years, I wouldn't consider publication alone as a criteria for the credibility of any scientific work today.

For a distance 2D = 200km, for example, the time difference of the pulses would be about 1.7µs, which corresponds to a distance of 510m. Therefore, an error in position of up to 50m will not significantly affect the experiment. Even if there is an error of up to 100m , this will only reduce the accuracy of the measurement , but not the detectability of the effect. With the new procedure, the time differences of the pulses at the detector are typically hundreds of nanoseconds and even in the microseconds, much larger than tens of picoseconds . Therefore, there will not be need for extremely short pulses. Perhaps those ranges are for the naked eye. I think large distances are possible if relatively high power lasers and amplifiers are used. Moreover, it will be much easier to detect the photons at night. I always rely on the Silvertooth experiment for this, that is the CMBR velocity and the Silvertooth velocity agreed both in magnitude and direction.

There is still hope for a feasible terrestrial experiment to test the isotropy of the speed of light. The solution is related to realizing the reason why the time difference of the two pulses at the detector is so small. The effect of absolute motion when C1 sends a synch pulse to C2 is almost (but not completely) cancelled by the effect of absolute motion when C1 and C2 later send pulses to the detector ‘simultaneously’. It takes more time for the synch pulse to reach C2 because C2 is moving in the same direction as the synch pulse, resulting in clock C2 lagging behind clock C1. However, this (absolute motion) effect is almost completely (not completely) cancelled when C1 and C2 later send pulses to the detector. The pulse from C1 will take longer time to catch up with the detector (the pulse and the detector are travelling in the same direction) , suppressing the effect of clock C1 being ahead of clock C2 . The pulse from C2 will take shorter time to meet the detector (the pulse and the detector are travelling in opposite directions), suppressing the effect of clock C2 lagging behind clock C1 . That is, the absolute motion effect gained during clock synchronization is significantly lost when the clocks transmit pulses to the detector. The question is: is it possible to retain the absolute motion effect gained during clock synchronization in the thought experiment? The solution is to do the ‘synchronization’ of the clocks when the axis of the experiment (the line connecting the clocks) is aligned with the direction of Leo, but to make the clocks send pulses to the detector when the axis is perpendicular to the direction of Leo! In this orientation, the effect of absolute motion is very small: c2 + v2 ≈ c2 . This experiment can be done by using three helicopters , two for the clocks and associated (laser) transmitters and detectors, and one for the detector at the mid-point, at higher altitudes to enable larger distances 2D for larger time differences. For example, if distance 2D = 200km , the time difference of the two clocks will be 867.8 ns ≈ 0.87 µs . The requirement is that there should be minimum drift of the clocks between ‘synchronization’ ( clock C1 sending a synch pulse to clock C2 ) and clocks C1 and C2 sending pulses to the detector. This could take, for example, one hour (the time taken for the helicopters to change positions) , during which the drifts of the clocks must be minimum. The experiment is to be done during one or two hours when Leo is on the horizon. It is possible to improve the above experiment even more. The clock synchronization procedure is the same as above, that is clock C1 sends a synch pulse to clock C2 when the C1C2 line is parallel to the direction of Leo. However, clocks C1 and C2 send pulses to the detector when the C1 C2 line is anti-parallel (not orthogonal) to the direction of Leo. That is, once the clocks are ‘synchronized’ , they exchange positions and then send pulses to the detector ‘simultaneously’. The time difference of the pulses from the clocks at the detector will be twice for the same distance 2D. Therefore, for a distance 2D = 200 km , the time difference of the pulses will be, δ = 2*867.8 ns = 1.7356 µs . δ = 2 * 2D* v /( c(c-v)) = 4D * v / c(c-v) The absolute motion effect can be further increased significantly by using not one but multiple exchanges of time signals and clock re-synchronizations. The time difference obtained for one synchronization procedure can be multiplied by repeated exchanges of time signals and clock re-synchronizations, accumulating the effect of absolute motion, as follows. Suppose that there is a third clock C3 co-located and co-moving with clock C1. At first, with the C1 C2 line parallel to the direction of Leo, clocks C1 and C3 are set to t = 0 and at the same time a synch pulse is sent to clock C2 . On receiving the synch pulse, clock C2 is set to t = 2D/c . Then the clocks exchange positions and clock C2 sends time signal to clock C1 , which calculates and re-synchronizes its time based on the time signal sent from C2 and assuming isotropy of the speed of light. Again the clocks exchange positions again and clock C1 sends time signal to clock C2 , which calculates the time and re-synchronizes based on the time signal from C1 , by assuming light speed isotropy, and so on. Note that clock C3 , unlike clocks C1 and C2 , runs freely and is not re-synchronized after the initial synchronization at t = 0. This re-synchronization procedure can be repeated as many times as possible, say ten times. After ten re-synchronizations, the time of clock C1 is compared to that clock C3 . The time difference should be ten times that of a single synchronization procedure. For example, for a distance 2D = 100 km , this time difference will be 8.678 µs. This experiment can be done by using two helicopters, one for clocks C1 and C3 and associated laser transmitters and detectors, another for clock C2 and its associated laser transmitter and receiver/detector. These experiments need to be carefully designed. For example, precisely what value of the speed of light is to be used to calculate time? Also, in a real experiment there is propagation delay in the electronic circuitry and this also needs to be taken into account. Any suggestions are welcome.

I didn't say that I see quantum entanglement as implying instantaneous communication. In fact, I don't think there is any communication between entangled particles. (But this is not to say that FTL communication is impossible. ) I only said that is how it is seen, as far as I know. I don't think you need to object to everything I say.

Look at the sheer number of papers claiming to disprove special relativity. So do those voices not count? Even in mainstream, physicists are now openly saying there might be problem with general relativity theory. This was not the case years ago.

I said that is my point in the reply I gave to @KJW , since he had raised the issue of incompatibility of quantum mechanics and special relativity b/c he seems not to get my idea in the reply I gave to you (@studiot).

I am not talking about the traditional problem of quantum-entanglement implying faster than light (instantaneous) communication. In fact, I don’t think the REAL problem in physics is the incompatibility between special relativity and quantum mechanics. I am saying that current physics treats the problem of the speed of light by SRT (time dilation, length contraction, relativity of simultaneity, etc.) and the quantum problem (wave particle duality, entanglement, wave-function collapse, etc.) by Quantum Mechanics. Physics treats these as unrelated problems, endeavoring to achieve the impossible task of 'unifying' these. My point is that it is impossible to bring unification in physics without destroying much of modern physics.

I would like to directly reply to your comment regarding isotropy and homogeneity of space and time and to your question of why the observer sees the two sources differently. However, I can't do this without discussing my new theory to the problem of the speed of light, which I would prefer not to do here because my argument (as described in the OP and comments ) can stand on its own without the need for bringing in an alternative explanation. I think the scientific community should be able to disentangle two problems: 1. The fact that relativity theory has problems, which many physicists are increasingly becoming aware of. 2. The lack of alternative theories. These two problems need to be treated independently. That is, the lack of alternative theories should not be seen as evidence for relativity anymore. Therefore, I would prefer not to discuss my alternative explanation here. All I can say is that there is a deep quantum mystery not only behind phenomena traditionally known as quantum phenomena (such as quantum entanglement) , but also behind the mystery of the speed of light, as far as I have understood. Note that current physics is in the dark regarding any connection between quantum phenomena and the speed of light and treats the two differently as unrelated problems.

Then what should we call the assertion that the speed of light in vacuum in any inertial lab is measured to be c and isotropic ? I have always read and known the constancy of the speed of light to mean constancy as measured in any inertial lab. Can we also talk about 'invariance' of the speed of sound? I am just trying to figure out how all this changes the argument.

Since I couldn’t find any sources, here is my own understanding. Correct me if I am wrong. The constancy of the speed of light is the assertion that the speed of light as measured in any inertial lab is constant c and isotropic. The invariance of the speed of light is the assertion that the speed of light in the experiment in that lab as 'seen' by a relatively moving observer is also equal to c. Like relativity of simultaneity, the invariance of the speed of light is also a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light (and the principle of relativity). If the latter cannot be established experimentally, the former cannot be accepted as a fact. Like relativity of simultaneity, the invariance of the speed of light is not something that can be tested directly, but that can be inferred from the two postulates. You can test constancy of the speed of light directly, but not the invariance of the speed of light. I give more weight to the Ives-Stilwell experiment because this experiment was meant to test another theory but confirmed a prediction of special relativity. Moreover, I haven't seen any 'anti-relativist' questioning the integrity in the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

How was the theory of relativity born? Special relativity was born after all classical/conventional approach failed to explain the Michelson-Morley and earlier experiments. Physicists resorted to unconventional ideas such as length contraction, time dilation etc. It is crucially important to note that physicists resorted to these unconventional ideas only after they tried the classical/conventional approach. Even Einstein seriously considered classical approaches before he abandoned them. Ever since the null result of the MM, many experiments have been performed. The Sagnac effect, the Ives-Stilwell experiment, moving source and moving mirror experiments, the GPS and the GPS Sagnac correction,the Marinov and the Silvertooth experiments, etc. After the almost universal and premature acceptance of Einstein's relativity theory by the scientific community, particularly after the 1919 solar eclipse expedition, the physics community appeared to have forgotten the crucial fact that led to the birth of relativity theory: that is the failure of the classical and conventional approaches. This is to say that relativity was born ONLY AFTER THE CLASSICAL APPROACH WAS TRIED AND FAILED. My point is that the physics community should have followed the same approach it followed for the MM to all later experiments: FIRST CONSIDER THE CONVENTIONAL APPROACH AND THEN RESORT TO UNCONVENTIONAL APPROACH ONLY IF/AFTER THE CONVENTIONAL APPROACH FAILED, AND ADOPT THE RELATIVISTIC APPROACH ONLY IF IT EXPLAINED THE PHENOMENON IN A COMPELLING WAY. Crucially, this means that the failure of classical theories itself should never have been interpreted as the evidence for relativity unless relativity provided its own explanation in a unique and compelling way. In this regard, the only success of relativity I know is the Ives-Stilwell experiment. If the scientific community had followed this approach during the past century, Einstein's relativity would never have achieved universal acceptance and the classical theories would not have been completely abandoned. Now returning to your assertion that light speed constancy, as it is understood in relativity, is an experimentally established fact, I think that you are referring to the Michelson-Morley and other experiments. But what if the MM null result has other unconventional explanation? What if other unconventional explanation exists for the Ives-Stilwell experiment? What if a model of the speed of light exists that can explain not only the small fringe shifts observed in the MM and Miller experiments, but also the complete null result of modern MM experiments, but also the large first order effects in the Marinov and the Silvertooth experiments, but also the Brian G Wallace effect? What if constancy of the speed of light has other novel interpretation? When I proposed my thought experiment, this was the same problem that I noticed: not trying the conventional/classical approach first and, in fact, considering such an approach ridiculous despite the fact that it provided an almost trivial explanation. I will see if 'invariance' vs 'constancy' makes any difference.

At this point one might accuse me of mixing the classical and the relativistic, assuming constancy of light speed but not relativity of simultaneity, etc. as someone already did. We know that the special relativity theory is based on the two postulates: 1. The principle of relativity 2. The constancy of the speed of light. ( Actually the independence of the speed of light from the velocity of the source) Everything else in SRT is a consequence of these two postulates: Lorentz transformations, relativity of simultaneity, length contraction, time dilation, etc. Therefore, these two postulates need to be tested and established experimentally before accepting their consequences, such as relativity of simultaneity, as facts. If one or both of the two postulates is shown to be wrong, then we can conclude that the consequences (relativity of simultaneity, etc.) are not correct. If somehow it can be shown experimentally that the speed of light is not constant, one cannot bring relativity of simultaneity, for example, into the argument because the latter is a consequence of the former, and not the other way round. Therefore, the proposed experiment is a test of one of the two pillars of relativity: the constancy of the speed of light.

How does the GPS Sagnac correction support my argument that the pulses from S1 and S2 will not arrive simultaneously at the detector ? Consider both the proposed thought experiment and the GPS in the ECI frame. In both cases, the source and the observer are moving in the ECI frame. In both cases the clocks are synchronized by assuming light speed isotropy. In the GPS , the point of signal emission is fixed in the ECI frame and the motion of the observer in the ECI frame is considered. ( so called GPS Sagnac correction). Therefore, in the thought experiment also the point of signal emission is fixed in the ECI frame and the motion of the observer needs to be considered, and therefore we conclude that the pulses will not arrive simultaneously at the detector.

We can agree to disagree. Sorry, I mistook it for GPS satellites. Thank you for bringing up the idea of sending time signals between an Earth clock and satellite clock. Unlike sending signals between two clocks on Earth, the big distance is a great advantage. I propose the same experiment I analyzed above. The experiment consists of two clocks, one on Earth and one on a satellite. The experiment is carried out when the Earth clock, the satellite and Leo are aligned. But full alignmeent may not be possible, neither is it necessary. A closest satellite off the line can be used, and a component of the velocity can be calculated and used. However, for this the distance of the satellite from the Earth clock should be precisely determined. This must be done by reflecting radar pulses off the satellite ( not by interrogation!). Also the radial velocity of the satellite relative to the Earth clock must be near zero (Brian G Wallace effect). Under these conditions, the satellite distance D can be determined from the round trip time (T) of the radar signal, from: T = 2D/c . The Earth clock sends time signal to the satellite clock, which sets its time using the standard procedure (assuming isotropy). The satellite clock after some delay sends time signal to the Earth clock. The actual time of the Earth clock and the calculated time (assuming isotropy) can then be compared.