The universe appears "old", but it is still less than 10,000 years old

[Anomalocaris]

I'm not trying to find "wiggle room" at all. I want ASC to be proven wrong and it should be perfectly clear from my posts that I'm trying to find a flaw with it, but every experiment I've found so far and every example given on this forum has suffered from confirmation bias. I'm not going to overlook a flaw just because doing so would give a preferred result - doing so would only undermine our position.

Even if you don't believe my intentions and really do think I'm trying to find "wiggle room", you should note the two main questions I am asking when looking at each experiment are:
1) Is this actually a test of the one way speed of light?
2) Is there an issue with simultaneity that hasn't been taken into consideration?

If people could ask those questions themselves before they post a experiment that "proves" isotropy, it would save time and effort for all involved .


But if there is a time dilation then the detectors will be affected by it. It's not just clocks that are subject to time dilation. You can't prove one way isotropy unless you eliminate this possibility.

According to special relativity, if two objects are moving (or if one object is moving relative to the other), they are in different frames. If they are not moving, they are in the same frame whether they are 1mm apart or 1 light year apart. The detectors are not moving; the clock is not moving. They are all in the same frame, so there can be no time dilation between them. The only things moving are the laser pulse and the electrons inside the wiring circuit, both of which have known and testable properties.

Minor quibble:

No time dilation means the clocks tick at the same rate. It doesn't mean they are set to the same time.

Your experiment requires the clock to be set to the same time.

There are three things you can do to try and set the clocks as close to the same time as possible:L

1) You can put the clocks in close proximity so transmission of information from one to the other takes less time than the granularity of the clock, and hence you can set the clocks to the same time within the granularity of the clocks. In this case the error in synchronizing is larger than what it takes to meter the deviation in the small amount of time taken for light to travel between them.

2) You put the clocks far apart so transmission of light from one to the other takes more time than the granularity of the clock. But since information travels no faster than light, you can't synchronize the clock to a degree of better than any deviation in speed of light, eventhough the clocks themselves have higher precision. So you can't garranty clocks are synchronized accurately enough to measure deviation in livht speed unless you've implicitly assumed speed of light is constant at an earlier stage in the same experiment.

3) You can star the experiment with clocks in close proximity, synchronize them to the tight tolerance allowed by close proximity, and them move them apart. In this case the clock must jump to different frames during the moving process. So there is time dilations between when you synchronize them, and when you conduct the mian part of your experiment. When you get them to their final locations and bring them back to the same frame, the clocks will once again tick at the same rate, but the dilation has already happened and the clock won't be set to the same time any more.

You may say that since the clock has already been synchronized to high precision before the dilation, you should be able to account for the difference in clock setting after dilation by using dead reckoning. But the amount of dilation is a function of speed of light. Without assuming a constant, isotopic speed of light, you can't accurately dead reckon how much dilation has happened. So again you can't synchronize clocks accurately enough to measure deviation in light speed without assuming light speed is constant.