For a more academic treatment:

“The crucial problem of how to synchronize clocks and measure the one-way speed 
of light was originally discussed by Poincaré and Einstein. After being 
neglected for many decades, the Poincaré-Einstein problem of synchronization 
revived in 1977 with the work of Mansouri and Sexl, by which the one-way speed 
remains undetermined, allowing for unequal values of the speed of light in 
opposite directions.”

<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2012-20524-8>
[10053.png]
On measuring the one-way speed of light - The European Physical Journal 
D<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2012-20524-8>
link.springer.com<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjd/e2012-20524-8>



So it’s completely reasonable to assume the speed of light is 1/2 c in one 
direction and infinite in the other. It’s just an optional convention that we 
consider the speed to be the same in both directions.

Einstein said that light’s one-way speed “is in reality neither a supposition 
nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation which I 
can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of 
simultaneity.”*

*A. Einstein, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, authorized 
translation by R. W. Lawson (New York: Crown Publishers, 1961), p 23.

Perhaps an RFC should be written to address this :)

 -mel

On Jul 21, 2024, at 6:38 PM, Scott Q. <qm...@top-consulting.net> wrote:

 Well...it gets complicated :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTn6Ewhb27k

On Sunday, 21/07/2024 at 20:15 Josh Luthman wrote:
Whoops, that should have said radio waves travel faster than fiber (more so in 
a vacuum).

On Sun, Jul 21, 2024 at 8:07 PM Chris Adams 
<c...@cmadams.net<mailto:c...@cmadams.net>> wrote:
Once upon a time, Josh Luthman 
<j...@imaginenetworksllc.com<mailto:j...@imaginenetworksllc.com>> said:
> Voyager is using radio waves, which travel faster than the speed of light
> (in a vacuum, too!).

No...
--
Chris Adams <c...@cmadams.net<mailto:c...@cmadams.net>>

Reply via email to