A one-way light speed test is possible.
	Torr, Doug G. & Kolen, Paul "An experiment to measure the one-way velocity of propagation of electromagnetic radiation.” Foundations of Physics 12:401–411 (1982) DavidBryanWallace (talk) 09:46, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but thanks for the reference! I'm actually the author of numerous papers which rely upon the well-known equivalence of Lorentz-Poincare aether with special relativity (and a more advanced aether with GR) and my most recent paper is directly calling out the metaphysical nonsense of claiming one cannot test the one-way speed of light. From Sagnac interferometers to a host of other early experiments, (not to mention the CMB) the one-way anisotropy of the speed of light is literally unquestionable, but the problem is that people think they are defending Einstein and relativity when they attack one-way anisotropy. They use circular arguments to support bad metaphysical assertions because they "know relativity is true." ...but they aren't defending relativity, they are defending non-empirical - yet academically traditional - metaphysics.

Unfortunately, they are only defending the confusion caused by Clifford Will when he conflated anisotropy with falsification of relativity. GR specifically expects and requires one-way anisotropy and Einstein pointed this out repeatedly. This - does - however lead to preferring Lorentz Poincare aether over Special Relativity (Which Einstein publicly deprecated) and there's confusion on what exactly that version of aether theory is, particularly because Poincare repeatedly pointed out the requirement for motion of the substance, (poincare stresses) whereas Lorentz kept hanging on to a stationary aether. Einstein's 1906 paper on the inertia of energy (mass-energy equiv) is drawing upon Poincare's mobile aether and he credits Poincare directly.

Relativity - as a whole or principle - is just fine without self-deluding defenders of the faith, but it still has them (about one-way tests) and they're barking up the wrong tree.

If you're looking at my edits and it seems like I'm just upholding the mainstream interpretational narrative like a good little cog, it's just because I'm good at hiding that I'm a heretic to avoid lynch mobs while I still provide unassailable truths just one tiny step away from directly saying where mainstream beliefs went wrong. I stick to the facts in articles but in talk areas I generally hide my real opinions to avoid the tribal aspect of wikipedia editing. (anyone from another tribe reading this right now is feeling the urge to go check - and possibly screw with - all my edits because they aren't aware how much tribalism affects their ideas of truth)

When it comes to the one-way tests, people just can't separate popular belief and their personal interpretation from the facts they are supposedly relying upon. Conflation, conflation, conflation. It's the lazy mind's way to simplify. So I'll keep pretending my opinion is the exact same as everyone else while I shove the relevant facts into the brightest light. I've been doing it for nearly 20 years and it's been working - albeit slowly. When I first joined wikipedia you couldn't even find out what a fringe shift was anywhere on the internet; so I made the article. It looks like crap and I really should update it. Haha Nemesis75 (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Fizeau experiment, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. - Aoidh (talk) 02:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was very unambiguously illegitimate blanking since he was not merely blanking the area in dispute but every edit I made afterwards in preparation for re-write.

He did so without any reason other than "not agreeing" or some other frivolous reason. ...precisely as described in illegitimate blanking Nemesis75 (talk) 08:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reason, and it is far from frivolous. The follow up explanations they gave are also reasons. The editor didn't just give a reason, they have a good reason why they reverted your edits. They gave a legitimate reason in edit summaries and on the talk page. That is not vandalism. It is not even close to vandalism. Per WP:ASPERSIONS, you continuing to call the edits vandalism is unacceptable. Please focus on the content instead. If you want to convince other editors of the validity of the content and to gain a consensus for your edits, it is much more compelling when they see you focused on the content rather than attacking the other editor with unfounded claims of vandalism, because that brings doubt into everything you're saying and detracts from the points you're trying to make. - Aoidh (talk) 08:46, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Do you understand that he blanked additional edits beyond and unrelated to his first claim?

He gave no good reason.

I have spent 12 hours resourcing sources and fixing the whole area... that's not a focus on counter-attacking the other editor repeatedly accusing me WP:OR in his WP:ASPERSIONS Do I not get to defend myself?

So again. Please tell me you understand that he first repeatedly blanked a single line... Then I then when in and edited a different section of that area and he blanked via reversion all of it too but without reason. He could have merely blanked only the area in question or used WP:CITENEED correct?

The vandalism was done to additional edits unrelated to the dispute and prior reversions. Do you understand this? Nemesis75 (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through every edit made on that article within the past few days, and an explanation was given in each edit summary and on the talk page. The discussion you participated in, so I can assume you saw those comments and are aware of them. Those are reasons given, and again they are valid reasons; it is not vandalism, by definition. Accusing other editors of vandalism is not defending yourself, it is attacking others. You made a bold edit, he reverted, then there was a discussion. That process is called WP:BRD, and it is a normal part of the editing process when there is a disagreement and is decidedly not vandalism. I perfectly understand that you do not like that it was reverted and that you disagree with the reasons (reasons that I must stress were given), I've been there countless times myself, but that does not rise to the level of vandalism. I cannot be any more clear on this: those edits were not vandalism, not even close. - Aoidh (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that wasn't intended. I was sure I was the one under serious, permanent, reputation-destroying attack. I don't find a single instance of vandalism - which isn't punishable before the 4th (5th?) repetition - nearly as strong WP:ASPERSIONS as accusing someone of WP:OR which, let's be honest, is the blazing horrific scarlet letter of wikipedia. Is there anything that will get you more hate than people thinking you're one of those?

But I'm not making any friends being a pedant. Sorry. I hope you'll favor truth over likability in your review. (otherwise my work is in serious danger, lol) Nemesis75 (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested Dispute Resolution Assistance: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fizeau_experiment Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog (talk) 02:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]