Re-Analysis of the Marinov Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment

Thanks, AG.
From what I can gather about this scientific controversy, one of the approaches that was supposed to settle it was the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory being used as a gravity wave detector. Has it found gravity waves? If not, would that indicate an upper bound of how energetic they would be?

Gravity wave detector all set
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/denver_2003/2774163.stm

The Suppression of Inconvenient Facts in Physics http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2266921/posts

Hatch’s proposed alternative to special and general relativity theory, Modified Lorentz Aether Gauge Theory (MLET), agrees with General Relativity at first order but corrects many astronomical anomalies that GRT cannot account for without ad-hoc assumptions, such as the anomalous rotation of galaxies and certain anomalies in planetary orbits. In addition, the force of gravity is self-limiting in MLET, which eliminates point singularities (black holes), one of the major shortcomings of GRT. One of the testable predictions of Hatch’s theory is that LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, will fail to detect gravity waves. As of July 2007, this prediction stands. (30)

http://www2b.abc.net.au/science/k2/stn/archives/archive51/newposts/347/topic347102.shtm

Interesting science bump.

BTW, Roberts is mentioned in post #5 above. At this point the discussion appears to be logjammed with scientific gobbledegook. Can you make heads or tails of it to a layman?

Response to Tom Roberts, “What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?” http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
• Tom presents statements that are biased in favour of SR. He says:
3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy
Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame. In all of these theories the effect of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).

My response to the following comments is in italics.
[Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic.]
“The oneway experiments he then lists are based on Einstein’s clock synchronization method (which we know is rigged to fix the speed of light to be constant). The “large class” refers to ether theories. Tom believes that experiments that are inconsistent with SR are not acceptable, and his criticism of them shows personal bias”.

[These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an aether frame.]
“The fact that SR rigs the result to give a constant speed of light is not mentioned. And even if an observer moving through the ether detected anisotropy, relativity would reject it”.

[In all of these theories the effect of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR.]
“This is not true. The time dilation effects due to slow clock transport are negligible and can be ignored. But, there is no experimental evidence to back up his claim. If slow clock transport experiments are done they will show up sidereal time variations due to ether flow, which are predicted by ether theories but inconsistent with SR. See Wisp’s one-way speed of light experiments”.

All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called “Edwards frames”).]
“This is not true. Wisp theory predicts clocks on the equator suffer sidereal period variations of +/- 0.7nS, which cannot be accounted for with SR. There is one important thing that Tom fails to mention about SR: the constancy of the speed of light result is fixed (rigged), and such SR should be wholly rejected”.

Thank you so much for the links and your question, dear Kevmo!

The LIGO project is still in process.

IMHO, we should also wait to see the results of NASA's LISA project (different frequency):

NASA: Laser Interferometer Space Antenna

I believe launch is set for 2011.

Rather than stepping into this argument, I'll refer you and anyone interested to this debate.

Essentially, the counter-claim is that the other side confuses Special Relativity and General Relativity and interprets the speed of light under the Lorentz Transform instead of a vacuum.

I must head out now but will check back later this evening.

I should have mentioned that the Tom Roberts on the earlier link Experimental Basis of Special Relativity is evidently the same (Dr.) Tom Roberts in the debate linked in the previous post.

For a more direct confrontation between Dr. Tom Roberts and Dr. Cahill (who evidently uses the posting handle of "Peter") click on this debate.

I think these are the correct bios (the conflict between areas of interest and research should be apparent:)

Dr. Tom Roberts

Dr. Reginald T. Cahill

Of course, Cahill's observations and theories are predisposed to his own process physics which is like a "new kind of science" (or paradigm) akin to Stephen Wolfram's. In that regard, you might find the discussion on Wolfram's forum also interesting.

Thanks for posting, in over my head as usual.

(Someday when I hit the powerball, I'll have time to quit my job and learn this stuff.)

Cheers!

I hope you win the biggest Powerball ever, regardless.