[Much snipped, subject revised]:

HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:53:07 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:
In sci.physics, Henri Wilson HW@. wrote
OWLS has never been measured. That is the big issue as far
as I'm concerned.

OLWS cannot be measured with 100% accuracy because of clock drift.
I'm not sure if anyone's attempted to, however.

It could be measured to a certain known level of accuracy. OWLS differences
could be quite large.

Before you can measure it, you have to define it.
Generally that comes down to defining how you
intend to synchronise separated clocks since a
one-way measurement means the light doesn't finish
where it started. I don't mean the practical
problems of synchronisation but what you are trying
to achieve.

Practical considerations of clock drift, resolution
and accuracy are valid but can be dealt with by good
experimental technique, and of course can be assumed
to be negligible in a thought experiment.

One very feasible OWLS experiment I suggested involved comparing short pulses
of light from a red-shifted star with that from a blue shifted one. An optical
system including a fast 'gate' somewhere 'up there' would simuilaneously
deflect very short pulses of light from both sources down to Earth. If the
velocity of light from the two stars differed slightly, the pulses would not
arrive simultaneously.

That assumes your gate doesn't reset the speed to c
relative to the gate. The binary star evidence you
have been discussing is generally taken as conclusive
but I believe you postulate that the speed tends to c
relative to your medium over a short distance so
wouldn't this mean that the speed of light from both
sources would be the same in the vicinity of the gate
anyway?

It should not violate the evidence about binary stars or the
clarity of very distant objects because the velocity changes
affect the whole beam and are fairly short lived and small.

Define "short-lived" and "small". 1 light-second? 1 wavelength?

Probably light-seconds or light-minutes depending on the local
density. I suppose it could even be LYs in some cases.

1 light-year is 9.46 * 10^15 m.

That's right. Pretty small in the overall scheme. I think even the closest
Binary stars are light years away. If light from these took many lightdays to
adjust speed, De Sitter's theory about source dependency would not be
affected.

On the other hand even one light second is large
compared to lab measurements and dependence on the
speed of the source doesn't show up in bench tests.

George