>> > < The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute
>> motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link
>> and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A
>> and B,but without relying on the wave properties of light. >

>>   Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken
>> as stationary.  Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis
>> of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x
>> direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and
>> reflect therefrom back to A.
>>   As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis
>> coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K,
>> the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus
>> takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1
>> secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the
>> moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each
>> way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right
>> triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other.
>> given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as
>> measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as
>> measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A
>> to b as plotted by stationary cs k.
>>   HOWEVER!!  There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow
>> by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their
>> horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths
>> remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above
>> stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes
>> and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure
>> the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y
>> or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/
>> sec as plotted by K.
>>   Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks
>> of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it
>> would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back
>> again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would
>> have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1
>> second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted
>> by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such
>> deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE
>> c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined
>> method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)

>> p.s.  If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let
>> lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the
>> direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the
>> first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and
>> down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have
>> emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k
>> and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the
>> stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY
>> the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of -
>> vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance
>> between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself,
>> and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its
>> speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light
>> moves at c.

>> glird

> Why should any spatial length SHRINK or EXPAND when a 'photon' or an
> 'observer' passes by? I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or
> expansion of a spatial length always induces a strain field in the
> region and that all strain fields are subjected to certain physical
> constraints like continuity of associated displacements and
> equilibrium of associated stresses.

> Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary
> reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn)
> flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn
> respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will
> actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the
> witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?

> Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and
> separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks
> at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a
> laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link
> pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and
> reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively.
> Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse
> propagation from B to A.

> As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED
> to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any
> stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary
> in that reference frame (Tu = Td). But when the two clocks are moving
> along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal
> propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu <> Td). However, when
> the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab
> frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the
> up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be
> required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time. If
> you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and
> unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?

> GSS
> http://book.fundamentalphysics.info