From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

I bet if you miniaturized this experiment and used modern technology and
put it on a turntable and then did "stop and stare" eastward and then
westward there would be glaring non-null results.


"Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards"

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.731
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

amirjf nin wrote:

I bet if you miniaturized this experiment and used modern technology and
put it on a turntable and then did "stop and stare" eastward and then westward there would be glaring non-null results.

"Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards"

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.731

You must not be particularly good at betting, let alone physics. The reason that you could write this, and the reason that I can read it now, is that
the engineers who built these devices did so based on the assumption, that
had previously been confirmed by thousands of independently working experimental physicists (if that is even enough), that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in every (momentarily) inertial reference frame, and that notions of a luminiferious aether do not work.

Also, if you miniaturized this experiment, the already small limits would
even be smaller; any differences that could be detected with the larger experiment would become unmeasurably small. That is the reason why they did the larger experiment.

However, this experiment in which it is claimed that the isotropy of the one-way speed of light has been tested is questionable because it is questionable that the *one-way* speed of light can even be reliably
measured: One needs synchronized clocks, but the only proven way to
synchronize clocks is to send a signal from one to the other or to both and back. But this syncronization procedure already depends on the assumption
of the isotropy of the speed of light.

See also:

Thomas Lahn: Special Relativity (public playlist)
Veritasium: Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light <https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=pTn6Ewhb27k&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=18>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

[Supersedes: Sorry, I broke the link]

amirjf nin wrote:

I bet if you miniaturized this experiment and used modern technology and
put it on a turntable and then did "stop and stare" eastward and then westward there would be glaring non-null results.

"Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser frequency standards"

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.731

You must not be particularly good at betting, let alone physics. The reason that you could write this, and the reason that I can read it now, is that
the engineers who built these devices did so based on the assumption, that
had previously been confirmed by thousands of independently working experimental physicists (if that is even enough), that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in every (momentarily) inertial reference frame, and that notions of a luminiferious aether do not work.

Also, if you miniaturized this experiment, the already small limits would
even be smaller; any differences that could be detected with the larger experiment would become unmeasurably small. That is the reason why they did the larger experiment.

However, this experiment in which it is claimed that the isotropy of the one-way speed of light has been tested is questionable because it is questionable that the *one-way* speed of light can even be reliably
measured: One needs synchronized clocks, but the only proven way to
synchronize clocks is to send a signal from one to the other or to both and back. But this syncronization procedure already depends on the assumption
of the isotropy of the speed of light.

See also:

Thomas Lahn: Special Relativity (public playlist)
Veritasium: Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=18>
--
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: sci.physics.relativity

On 02/22/2026 06:20 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:

amirjf nin wrote:

I bet if you miniaturized this experiment and used modern technology and
put it on a turntable and then did "stop and stare" eastward and then
westward there would be glaring non-null results.

"Test of the isotropy of the one-way speed of light using hydrogen-maser
frequency standards"

https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.731

You must not be particularly good at betting, let alone physics. The reason that you could write this, and the reason that I can read it now, is that
the engineers who built these devices did so based on the assumption, that had previously been confirmed by thousands of independently working experimental physicists (if that is even enough), that the speed of light in vacuum is the same in every (momentarily) inertial reference frame, and that notions of a luminiferious aether do not work.

Also, if you miniaturized this experiment, the already small limits would even be smaller; any differences that could be detected with the larger experiment would become unmeasurably small. That is the reason why they did the larger experiment.

However, this experiment in which it is claimed that the isotropy of the one-way speed of light has been tested is questionable because it is questionable that the *one-way* speed of light can even be reliably
measured: One needs synchronized clocks, but the only proven way to synchronize clocks is to send a signal from one to the other or to both and back. But this syncronization procedure already depends on the assumption
of the isotropy of the speed of light.

See also:

Thomas Lahn: Special Relativity (public playlist)
Veritasium: Why No One Has Measured The Speed Of Light <https://www.youtube.com/watch? v=pTn6Ewhb27k&list=PL41EYJuJ5YuAb924jH_kYW5vszLfNaPWI&index=18>

It would be a simple experiment to get a linear accelerator of
neutrons and a cyclotron of electrons and superimpose them
and observe real space-contraction-linear and space-contraction-rotational.

It's sort of already available to classical experiment though,
for matters of ballistics not explained by Magnus effect.

The notion that light follows more than the geodesy is
evident since Arago spot and otherwise about how "optical
light is special".

Then dark energy otherwise uses the assumptions of the
L-principle to establish a violation of the energy budget.


Coffee-table/reading-the-wiki isn't very interesting to
those already versed in the basics of the field.


Krisher, Maleki, Anderson, and Will: "A New Test of Relativity", one-way
speed of light, ..., makes for that space-contraction explains how light
is always free from its source and in its own space.

Einstein called it the "spacial" to separate it from the "spatial".
The definitions of those given are different. _Explicitly._


The space-contraction always combines the length-contraction and
time-dilation, instead of letting them be separable.


Everybody these days knows that "Relativity of Simultaneity is
non-local" and about that "SR is local".

https://inspirehep.net/authors/2448748


https://inspirehep.net/literature/429963

"Gravitational redshift in a local freely falling frame:
A proposed new null test of the equivalence principle" -- Krisher, 1996

"A 1% test in the gravitational field of the galaxy would be possible if
an atomic frequency standard were flown on a space mission to the outer
solar system."

Pioneer anomaly, anyone? Yeah, I know it was explained away
as a hot flash.

Arago spot, or "occlusion lensing", readily demonstrates
behavior of light "outside the model".





--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2