If you want one-way c then the round trip will not work.
Let’s start with something simple and yes, we would need to account for time dilation, Lorentz contraction, etc. but we know those. This is a variation on your idea.
A space ship is moving away from Earth at velocity v. Earth sends a signal and one second later in Earth time sends a second signal. The ship measures the distance it has traveled and difference in time in those two signals, accounting for relativity as needed and viola, one way speed of light.
SD physicists, where does that fail because I assume it does?
I did. You cannot measure one way speed of light with a round trip. Watch this video.
Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light c with respect to any inertial frame of reference is a constant and is independent of the motion of the light source.
There are 2 clocks in your story. You will see in a future experiment, which I can actually do.
They can calibrate the two.
They spin at different speeds. So far I have only “measured” the Round Trip.
Then how would you measure one way with one clock?
That’s an excellent question! I appreciate it. It’s directly to the point. I think we need 2 clocks for this. I need some sleep I’ll be back. Let’s give anyone else who is interested a chance to catch up.
I don’t have a masters or a PhD from Lehigh, MIT or anywhere else, so I’m probably talking out of my ass but doesn’t a measurement of the speed of light between two points require the precise distance between those points to be known and fixed? Is that the case here?
Great question! We don’t need the distance to the moon in this thought experiment. But we do need the precise speed the earth is rotating at the equator. Since we know the time 2.5s, we know this distance.
Why not just measure the speed of light between two fixed points on earth? Isn’t that what they already do?
That would be more precise. I’m telling a story here. Leading up to the next experiment. We can verify that I’m correct by doing this experiment. If someone doubts it. You have to understand and believe or verify this test, to understand the next one.
I must be missing something because I think you still need to know the precise distance to the reflector on the moon. But what do I know without a masters or a PhD?
The time it takes to the moon is arbitrary. The distance is ever changing, about 2.5s times speed of light. But we know the change in distance over 2.5s. It is mostly due to the rotation of the earth about it’s axis. Also the moon is moving, but it is perpendicular to the light in this case. OK you can stop making fun of my friends! I appreciate your comments. I hope that I’m making sense to someone here. I feel that I’ve failed to communicate with LSLguy. My bad.
Is the rotation of earth about its axis at the equator known and fixed? Is that necessary for the experiment to work?
And I’m not making fun of your friends, who are all clearly more educated and knowledgeable than me.
He isn’t the only one you have failed ot communicate with.
Perhaps I am under-knowledged ™ in physics. I have been reading about this my whole life since I was 10. I took a few advanced physics classes including QP. I’m talking to my physicist coworkers daily about this. Please tell me HOW I am wrong specifically. I challenge all of you. I have typed enough details above. I’m sure some of my ideas are correct. Which ones are incorrect? Let’s be constructive. I want to learn.
I’m sorry. I’m really trying my best. Please help me by asking or restating my words.
You can read my ChatGPT above. Yes. First we need to measure that using a different method. It’s already been done. Then we can verify the speed of light using the speed of rotation.
In order to measure the speed of light one way you need a clock at each end of the experiment. The two clocks need to be synchronized and there is no way of doing that which doesn’t either involve light beams or Special Relativity. Both of which will involve the speed of light somewhere amongst the calculations. i.e. the very thing you are trying to measure.
How exactly does your thought experiment get around this very fundamental problem?