Proposed test apparatus:

We have two large mirrors of appropriate size, position exactly parallel to each other 1000 meters apart.

Observation:

The reflections displayed in the mirrors should taper off towards infinity in number depending on the accuracy of the positioning and quality of the mirrors.

The test:

Once the mirrors reflect an adequate number of reflections [of each other] the alignmment of the mirrors is impacted on which should show a significant change in the reflections displayed.

If light does indeed travel [ d/t ] between the two mirrors there should be a demonstratable lag or delay in the stacking of the reflections. In fact it would be in the measuring of this delay in the "stacking" that would indicate the speed of light over the multiple 1000 meter increments. The more increments the greater the lag or delay should be evidenced.

Does any one know of this test being performed and if so do you have a link to a web page etc.

My feeling is that there will be no demonstratable delay in the reflection stacking.

The idea is to remove the possibility for measurement interpretation error. The stacking effect should be visible and measurable therefore not only proving light travels with visual evidence but also measurement. using a laser only provides measurement and not visual evidence where as the stacking effect should provide both.

A laser?

Nope. It has to be only the reflections of the other mirror and the stacking effect that Should be present. Simple test I would think.

A laser?
I have since edited the op to explain...sorry about that..

Is it that you don't trust the Luner Laser Ranging Experiment?

Is it that you don't trust the Luner Laser Ranging Experiment?
No I don't trust it! As the data needed to properly assess this as an example is apparently unavailable.

When firing a projectile [laser used as a gun] at a moving target from a moving position to hit a tiny moving target area over a long distance the need to calculate what is commonly called "kentucky windage", that is to say, "leading the target" is required.

In the past I have been unable to find any information on this needed calculation [data] being applied to the luna laser shot. The absense of this data is rather bewildering to me as I would have thought it would be obviously required when assessing this sort of activity.
The use of the mirror test as descibed in the OP tests for just this requirement [ kentucky windage ] over distance. [ inversely ]
The other interesting thing is that the use of a laser nulifies or attempts to nulify the particle /wave duality issue by forcing the projected light to take on attributes that are equivalent to a particle type outcome.
So we have a narrow "beam" of particle/wave dualised phenonema being projected at a small target luna mirror, thus requiring the need to provide kentucky windage measurements and calculations.

And besides all of this, science is not about "trust" but about agnostic indifference to anything other than evidencial outcomes. IMO.

Just for more background...

When Ole Romer in the year 1671 managed to measure light speed using Jupiters moons as described by this diagram:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Roemer.jpg/200px-Roemer.jpg
reference: Wiki. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_R%C3%B8mer

It fails to show any kentucky windage measurements or calculations in it's conclusions. Both the Earth and the Moons of Jupiter and Jupiter itself being moving objects the point in time when he "stops his watch" and makes his observations and subsequent conclusions, may be greatly in error with out the Kentuck windage calculations being included.

Possibly I am mistaken and the need for this measurement is irrelevant, but as yet I have to find reason to believe so.

And the use of the mirror test as per the OP deals with all the possible issues in the one demonstration.

But why do you want to do this?

But why do you want to do this?
now there's a question for science?
Why do we want to do science?

But why do you want to do this?
the question for you though, is why are you trying to avoid the question(s) raised in the OP and subsequent posts?

It's like this: the speed of light is the "realest" thing about the universe--everyone measures the same speed. If you try to measure the gravitational constant or Planck's constant you need some seriously accurate equipment, but you can measure c accurately with relatively cheap gear. So it's also the easiest to confirm.

Besides, modern communications would have problems, and they don't. There's no evidence in the whole of electronics that c isn't constant. Of course, that's a "local" thing which we can't reliably assume is universal, except the universe doesn't look any different, in terms of its history, anywhere we look. So it's probably true for the visible universe.

the question for you though, is why are you trying to avoid the question(s) raised in the OP and subsequent posts?


who me? all said was "laser" and "why".

Laser is the only practical thing I can think of that bounces light back and forth per your query.

In practical applications of science it is common to ask why a test is proposed, what is the objective, and what are the best means to accomplish the task.

If all you wanted to do was measure the speed of light there are cheaper and easier ways to do it. I was seeking an elucidation of your background for proposing this particular method.

If light does indeed travel [ d/t ] between the two mirrors there should be a demonstratable lag or delay in the stacking of the reflections.

so you want to measure t and use this to compute c



My feeling is that there will be no demonstratable delay in the reflection stacking.

there will be exactly t delay



The idea is to remove the possibility for measurement interpretation error.

so you will have to measure d and t very accurately



The stacking effect should be visible and measurable therefore not only proving light travels with visual evidence but also measurement. using a laser only provides measurement and not visual evidence where as the stacking effect should provide both.

Use a laser in the visible spectrum and you will see it
I'm not not sure how you see the stacking effect

Generally, in measurement that demand high accuracy, it is best to avoid induced measurement error that can result from repeated insertions of even small errors. So you will have to wonder about the accuracy of the mirror in its flatness and its exact position in space, and as to the exact location on the surface of the mirror where reflection occurs, and how to devise such a mirror to minimize these effects.

For this reason it would seem easier to shoot a laser in a straight uninterrupted beam to reduce the cumulative effects of error.

The distance need not be that far. Whether you shoot light 1m or 1000m or more, how does that affect the accuracy of the measurement?

Measurement accuracy will be highly dependent upon the accuracy to discern the phase difference between transmitted and received pulses, and so your apparatus, with or without stacked mirrors, needs a highly accurate gate on the transmitter and a highly accurate detector on the receiver and a highly accurate phase detector on the processing side.

so you want to measure t and use this to compute c


there will be exactly t delay


so you will have to measure d and t very accurately


Use a laser in the visible spectrum and you will see it
I'm not not sure how you see the stacking effect

Generally, in measurement that demand high accuracy, it is best to avoid induced measurement error that can result from repeated insertions of even small errors. So you will have to wonder about the accuracy of the mirror in its flatness and its exact position in space, and as to the exact location on the surface of the mirror where reflection occurs, and how to devise such a mirror to minimize these effects.

For this reason it would seem easier to shoot a laser in a straight uninterrupted beam to reduce the cumulative effects of error.

The distance need not be that far. Whether you shoot light 1m or 1000m or more, how does that affect the accuracy of the measurement?

Measurement accuracy will be highly dependent upon the accuracy to discern the phase difference between transmitted and received pulses, and so your apparatus, with or without stacked mirrors, needs a highly accurate gate on the transmitter and a highly accurate detector on the receiver and a highly accurate phase detector on the processing side.
as explained then all we have to do if using a laser is test the issue of "kentucky windage" and the problem is more or less solved.

The stacking of the reflections though is the easiest way because any kentucky windage issues would be glaringly obvious to the naked eye. Thus providing eyewitness and measurement testimony.

If the reflections demonstrate a time delay evidenced by the "stacking"
then currently held belief is upheld but if there is no evidence of time delayed stacking then we are in trouble with our current belief about light.

In 1969, I attended the Cooper Union School of Engineering in New York.

As part of the welcome tour for new students and parents, a group of Juniors (third year students) set up the apparatus to measure the speed of light, in the basement. While it was very impressive looking, involving lasers, very precise mirrors and sensitive timing switches, it was not at all difficult, as long as you have the right equipment. After all, this is routinely done by undergrad students.

Yes I have done the same in calibrating electronic test equipment, or measuring the accuracy of the of time of arrival of a pulse, or propagation delay of RF, or of a light wave down a fiber.

In 1969, I attended the Cooper Union School of Engineering in New York.

As part of the welcome tour for new students and parents, a group of Juniors (third year students) set up the apparatus to measure the speed of light, in the basement. While it was very impressive looking, involving lasers, very precise mirrors and sensitive timing switches, it was not at all difficult, as long as you have the right equipment. After all, this is routinely done by undergrad students.
The standard testing does not involve issues of "kentucky windage" or leading the target therefore IMO the standard testing is inconclusive unless it does.

The only possible currently available test is the earth/luna pulse

What is the lead time for the luna laser pulse? anyone?
Is it documented anywhere?

who me? all said was "laser" and "why".

Laser is the only practical thing I can think of that bounces light back and forth per your query.

In practical applications of science it is common to ask why a test is proposed, what is the objective, and what are the best means to accomplish the task.

If all you wanted to do was measure the speed of light there are cheaper and easier ways to do it. I was seeking an elucidation of your background for proposing this particular method.

I am sorry if I sounded trite but the issue is about "kentucky windage" evidenced by the stacking delay that should be present in the reflections...if one holds to current scientific belief.

as explained then all we have to do if using a laser is test the issue of "kentucky windage" and the problem is more or less solved.

I don't understand the reference to a moving target. Are you trying to measure a laser rangefinder for a weapon? There will be delay in the ballistic trajectory, but that is a consequence of the relatively low velocity of the projectile. Light travels at light speed, and your "target" won't have a chance to move and inch before you nail it with a laser. (Not sure how this fits in to your scenario.)



The stacking of the reflections though is the easiest way because any kentucky windage issues would be glaringly obvious to the naked eye. Thus providing eyewitness and measurement testimony.

Except light travels so much faster than a projectile - so how do these facts fit together? I don't see your point.



If the reflections demonstrate a time delay evidenced by the "stacking"
then currently held belief is upheld but if there is no evidence of time delayed stacking then we are in trouble with our current belief about light.
[/QUOTE]
Yes you may have tried this at home - take a video cam, shoot it directly into your TV and watch the reflections replicate. Each one occurs very slowly, compared to light, because each one has to go through all of the processing and transmission delay before it produces a new image to feed back into the camera.

However, your last statement, that we have a belief about light - is this where the pseudoscience comes in? What is there to believe about light that is not currently known and readily tested?

2 mirrors 1000 meters apart,
Should take 300 reflections [at 300000kms/sec] to demonstrate a stacking affect over 1 second or slightly longer due to the light traveling through the atmosphere. Should be obvious to the naked eye I would think.

Proposed test apparatus:

We have two large mirrors of appropriate size, position exactly parallel to each other 1000 meters apart.

Just anywhere or in a vaccum?



Observation:

The reflections displayed in the mirrors should taper off towards infinity in number depending on the accuracy of the positioning and quality of the mirrors.

The photons will be out of energy long before anything approaching infinity. What you will physically see is smaller images that lack color and brightness that eventually meld to a point or a side.



The test:

Once the mirrors reflect an adequate number of reflections [of each other] the alignmment of the mirrors is impacted on which should show a significant change in the reflections displayed.

If light does indeed travel [ d/t ] between the two mirrors there should be a demonstratable lag or delay in the stacking of the reflections. In fact it would be in the measuring of this delay in the "stacking" that would indicate the speed of light over the multiple 1000 meter increments. The more increments the greater the lag or delay should be evidenced.

The light will have diffused long before human-eye-detectable lag would occur.



Does any one know of this test being performed and if so do you have a link to a web page etc.

The speed of light has been tested and verified in several ways; however, I think your test may be faulty because it doesn't appear to take loss of energy into account. I am not aware of anyone doing something similar.



My feeling is that there will be no demonstratable delay in the reflection stacking.

The idea is to remove the possibility for measurement interpretation error. The stacking effect should be visible and measurable therefore not only proving light travels with visual evidence but also measurement. using a laser only provides measurement and not visual evidence where as the stacking effect should provide both.


Why not perform a simpler test. Shoot a photon into a mirror and detect when it bounces back. Then try shooting a photon into a mirror, that then bounces off a secondary mirror, and then detect when it bounces back. Add as many mirrors as you like. Each bounce will result in a measurable delay.

Why not perform a simpler test. Shoot a photon into a mirror and detect when it bounces back. Then try shooting a photon into a mirror, that then bounces off a secondary mirror, and then detect when it bounces back. Add as many mirrors as you like. Each bounce will result in a measurable delay.
I fail to see the relevance ot the issue of "kentucky windage". Maybe you could explain to the board how your test deals with this issue?

I fail to see the relevance ot the issue of "kentucky windage". Maybe you could explain to the board how your test deals with this issue?

What is the "kentucky windage" issue in this case? Normally it's compensating for wind force that would push a bullet around.

However, your last statement, that we have a belief about light - is this where the pseudoscience comes in? What is there to believe about light that is not currently known and readily tested?

There are many problems and issues surrounding the current beliefs about light phenonema and one of them is this kentucky windage issue.

CC,


When firing a projectile [laser used as a gun] at a moving target from a moving position to hit a tiny moving target area over a long distance the need to calculate what is commonly called "kentucky windage", that is to say, "leading the target" is required.

In the past I have been unable to find any information on this needed calculation [data] being applied to the luna laser shot. The absense of this data is rather bewildering to me as I would have thought it would be obviously required when assessing this sort of activity.
The use of the mirror test as descibed in the OP tests for just this requirement [ kentucky windage ] over distance. [ inversely ]
The other interesting thing is that the use of a laser nulifies or attempts to nulify the particle /wave duality issue by forcing the projected light to take on attributes that are equivalent to a particle type outcome.
So we have a narrow "beam" of particle/wave dualised phenonema being projected at a small target luna mirror, thus requiring the need to provide kentucky windage measurements and calculations.
...maybe you know of a more precise term(s) for what I am describing with "kentuck windage"?

I fail to see the relevance ot the issue of "kentucky windage".

QQ, you stated that you didn't trust the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment because it didn't take into account what you call 'Kentucky Windage'.

My question to you is, have you ever read the experiment? Because it sounds like you know none of the detail at all.

Here is the data

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

Here is an opening paragraph from Wiki on the LLR experiment:


In actuality, the round-trip time of about 2½ seconds is affected by the relative motion of the Earth and the Moon, the rotation of the Earth, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects

Is this what you are referring to as 'Kentucky Windage"?

As far as your 'stacking effect' goes, if the two mirrors are exactly parallel to each other, you won't see any stacking effect. You only see the receeding images when the mirrors are not quite parallel, then you see them curving away and you see a limited number before the cumulative angle grows too great. And how are you going to measure any delay? You expect to see it with your naked eye, while counting?

CC,


...maybe you know of a more precise term(s) for what I am describing with "kentuck windage"?

I am not sure the concept really applies. Hot air, dirty air, different air densities can distort light (and result in energy loss), but if you don't want to be bothered by those effects in particular then simply perform the experiment in a vaccum.

QQ, you stated that you didn't trust the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment because it didn't take into account what you call 'Kentucky Windage'.

My question to you is, have you ever read the experiment? Because it sounds like you know none of the detail at all.

Here is the data

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

Here is an opening paragraph from Wiki on the LLR experiment:



Is this what you are referring to as 'Kentucky Windage"?

As far as your 'stacking effect' goes, if the two mirrors are exactly parallel to each other, you won't see any stacking effect. You only see the receeding images when the mirrors are not quite parallel, then you see them curving away and you see a limited number before the cumulative angle grows too great. And how are you going to measure any delay? You expect to see it with your naked eye, while counting?

When shooting a rifle at a stationary target hitting it can be quite easy. But when firing a rifle at a moving target it gets a tad more difficult and requires the ability to alow for the predicted course fo the target and firing earlier to allow for the time differential between where the target was and where it will be upon getting hit.

The information you supplied which I thank you for fails to take into account that the moon is a moving target relative to the Earth platform firing the pulse.
The pulse would have to be aimed ahead or the luna position in orbit and fired "early" to allow for the pulse to strike the luna reflector and like wise in the return leg the mirror would also have to "lead the Earths base location " and fire "early" to hit the base reflector.
This is because we are using a laser pulse not unlike a biulet from a rifle targetted at a Moving target.
Am I mistaken in the above assessment?
If so please enlighten me as to how?

At the Moon's surface, the beam is only about 6.5 kilometers (four miles) wide[7] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (approximately two miles) away
wiki
the problem is that the "dime" is moving... and no where is it discussed in the wiki article how the movement of the "dime" is accommodated. [as far as I can tell that is]
The mirror test is about testing for this issue. 300 reflections over 1 second
They state that approximately 2.5 seconds are involved in the round trip however is the extra time needed for the "windage issue" included and if so what are the details and or do the details exist.

I am not sure the concept really applies. Hot air, dirty air, different air densities can distort light (and result in energy loss), but if you don't want to be bothered by those effects in particular then simply perform the experiment in a vaccum.
if you can provide a vacuum that is at least 1000 meters in length to provide the distance required sure why not...

Read up on APOLLO Apache Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation.

More than one "bullet" is fired. It's more like 300 quadrillion photons in a pulse.

if you can provide a vacuum that is at least 1000 meters in length to provide the distance required sure why not...

Attach the mirrors to two points on a space station. They will have plenty of room left over :3

Read up on APOLLO Apache Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation.

More than one "bullet" is fired. It's more like 300 quadrillion photons in a pulse.
he hee you sure that's not 300 quadrillion +1 photons.... [chuckle] if you can define a photon in a way that is conclusive you woud be the first human to do so....

Attach the mirrors to two points on a space station. They will have plenty of room left over :3
would that be Russian made or US made? [chuckle]

would that be Russian made or US made? [chuckle]

Probably Iranian at this pace.

They sell a little device, a laser range finder, used as a measuring tape. Shoot it at the wall and measure your room. Get out a measuring tape and confirm the distance is correct. You have now proved that the speed of light is c, and there's no war, it's over, the troops can go home on that long road from Kentucky, and you can rest assured that light speed is still as reliable as the day you bought your laser gadget.

When shooting a rifle at a stationary target hitting it can be quite easy. But when firing a rifle at a moving target it gets a tad more difficult and requires the ability to alow for the predicted course fo the target and firing earlier to allow for the time differential between where the target was and where it will be upon getting hit.



Well, the moon's orbital velocity is 1.022 kilometers/sec. It takes light 1.2 seconds to reach the moon, so the target has moved 1.2264 kilometers. The moon is 384400 kilometers away.

So, what is the angle for your Kentucky windage?

In radians, it is 2 arctan( 1/2(1.2264/384400) which is about .000000159521 radians. At the moon's orbit, 1 radian = 57 degrees, so we are looking at abou 9.09 millionths of a degree of windage.

On edit: I just recalculated using a different method and got a windage of 15.1 millionths of a degree.

Nope, I was right the first time, aprox. .00000913 degrees.

I would furthermore submit that you didn't read the PDF of the LLR experiment I linked you to.

They sell a little device, a laser range finder, used as a measuring tape. Shoot it at the wall and measure your room. Get out a measuring tape and confirm the distance is correct. You have now proved that the speed of light is c, and there's no war, it's over, the troops can go home on that long road from Kentucky, and you can rest assured that light speed is still as reliable as the day you bought your laser gadget.

what makes you feel I am interested in proving the speed of light...

Well, the moon's orbital velocity is 1.022 kilometers/sec. It takes light 1.2 seconds to reach the moon, so the target has moved 1.2264 kilometers. The moon is 384400 kilometers away.

So, what is the angle for your Kentucky windage?

In radians, it is 2 arctan( 1/2(1.2264/384400) which is about .000000159521 radians. At the moon's orbit, 1 radian = 57 degrees, so we are looking at abou 9.09 millionths of a degree of windage.

I would furthermore submit that you didn't read the PDF of the LLR experiment I linked you to.
well I had a look and to be honest failed out find anything that indicated the issue at hand.
also if the moon has travelled 1.2264 kms in 1.2 seconds then the windage would have to be at least 1.2264 kms otherwise it would miss the target mirror by a significant amount ...yes? and this does not include the rotation of the Earth platform on it's axis at 1,470.23 kph. [Equatorial I think] wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_rotation)

yet this is not mentioned in the pdf file or anything akin to it...why not I wonder?
this is why I am suggesting using another way of testing for windage issues.

Probably Iranian at this pace.
Maybe we should learn to speak Mandarin :cool:

also if the moon has travelled 1.2264 kms in 1.2 seconds then the windage would have to be at least 1.2264 kms

Yes, 1.2264 km at a distance of 3884400 km is a correction angle of 15 millionths of a degree.

Here's a suggestion. Go to the wiki page on the LLR. Then go down to the citations.

Everything you don't want to know about the LLR is there.

Also, the spread of the laser by the time it gets to the moon is 2 km.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html

Furthermore, ( I knew you didn't read the pdf),

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

contains your 'windage' corrections on pages 7 and 8.

Furthermore, ( I knew you didn't read the pdf),

http://www.physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/doc/Bender.pdf

contains your 'windage' corrections on pages 7 and 8.

Yes I did read it but understood very little. To help focus which table refers to the corrections needed for the luna orbit?

Also, the spread of the laser by the time it gets to the moon is 2 km.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/~tmurphy/apollo/basics.html
well then this makes it very difficult to prove the windage issue unless they can determine where in the 2km diffusion the mirrors are situated.

I still think the mirror test would be a better demonstration, but have doubts about the degradation of the reflections over 300 repetitions

Table 1 at the bottom of page 7 contains the selenocentric reflector coordinates with respect to the "mean earth direction and mean rotation axis" as well as the geocentric longitude, spin-axis distance and height above the equatorial plane with respect to the Conventional International Origin.

It's not about Kentucky windage. It could be about leading the target, or (deflection), I don't even think that is an issue because of the spread.

what makes you feel I am interested in proving the speed of light...

This:



The test:

Once the mirrors reflect an adequate number of reflections [of each other] the alignmment of the mirrors is impacted on which should show a significant change in the reflections displayed.

If light does indeed travel [ d/t ] between the two mirrors there should be a demonstratable lag or delay in the stacking of the reflections. In fact it would be in the measuring of this delay in the "stacking" that would indicate the speed of light over the multiple 1000 meter increments. The more increments the greater the lag or delay should be evidenced.

Does any one know of this test being performed and if so do you have a link to a web page etc.

My feeling is that there will be no demonstratable delay in the reflection stacking.

The idea is to remove the possibility for measurement interpretation error. The stacking effect should be visible and measurable therefore not only proving light travels with visual evidence but also measurement. using a laser only provides measurement and not visual evidence where as the stacking effect should provide both.

It's a test. Of what, if not light speed? You keep talking about windage, which applies to moving projectiles which has no bearing on the stationary mirrors of your test fixture.

So, why not just come out and state clearly what the purpose of your test is? Otherwise you've created a maze of words from which there is no possible escape!

Use the mirrors as an etalon, not for stacking, but for a progression.

Quantum Quack;

In the reply on Jupiter and Ole Romer, does your Kentucky windage mean astronomical aberration?

Quantum Quack;

In the reply on Jupiter and Ole Romer, does your Kentucky windage mean astronomical aberration?
After a bit of research from your lead...light-time correction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-time_correction) would be a more appropriate describer I feel..
However the effect by abruptly changing the alignment of the mirrors [example by knocking the mirrors with your fist] invokes the light time correction over 300 reflections leading to to a "stacking" effect of those reflections as they reduce by that 300 x 1000 meter increments.

If light speed is as currently held the stacking effect should be evident, there will be a time delay included on all those reflections when compared to the first reflection.
Comparing reflection 1 with reflection 300 should demonstrate a delay of at least 1 second [ assuming 'c'= 300000kps for the sake of simplicity] as the mirror returns to it's original rest position after being impacted upon and well within visual observability.
[hit the mirro with your fist , set up a a single judder, allow the mirror to come to rest and the delay should be evident in the stacking of the reflections as the mirror returns to rest...]

This:



It's a test. Of what, if not light speed? You keep talking about windage, which applies to moving projectiles which has no bearing on the stationary mirrors of your test fixture.

So, why not just come out and state clearly what the purpose of your test is? Otherwise you've created a maze of words from which there is no possible escape!
Aqueous, My apologies if I have inadvertantly misled you.

You keep talking about windage, which applies to moving projectiles which has no bearing on the stationary mirrors of your test fixture.
my initial post:

Once the mirrors reflect an adequate number of reflections [of each other] the alignmment of the mirrors is impacted on which should show a significant change in the reflections displayed.

The impacting on the alignment of the mirrors produces a "moving target" so to speak.
The test is just another way to demonstrate an attribute of light being not so much it's speed but its "straight line vector" relative to it's speed.
It may also I have just realised have implications on demonstrating the wave/particle duality and possibly providing yet another of the miriad or solutions already available.

Aqueous, My apologies if I have inadvertantly misled you.

my initial post:

The impacting on the alignment of the mirrors produces a "moving target" so to speak.

The test is just another way to demonstrate an attribute of light being not so much it's speed but its "straight line vector" relative to it's speed.
It may also I have just realised have implications on demonstrating the wave/particle duality and possibly providing yet another of the miriad or solutions already available.

By your answers, it seems that you are struggling to understand something, but I haven't figured out what it is.

Do you doubt that light travels at light speed, or that it travels in a straight line, or any other reservations?

In other words, why did you even come up with this idea? What was going on in your head? Is it just a matter of curiosity?

You were talking about lining up these mirrors very precisely, which rules out any motion. Without motion, there is no need to steer the beam, which was the analogy you raised with Kentucky windage.

Any questions, feel free to ask. I'm by no means as qualified as many of the others folks on this site, but I at the level this has gone so far, I'm able to assist.

This may conflict with the subject, but what about the speed of dark? I've never heard anyone think or talk about It. Not that It even makes sense or can even be proven, but the question It's self. Just thinking outside the box, I suppose.

"Dark" is what humans call the absence of photons that their eyes can detect. It's not an entity that actually exists; hence, "the speed of dark" is a nonsensical phrase.

It makes sense, cause people see in the light and they don't in the dark.

I still don't get the stacked image thing. A pulse of laser will reflect off the mirror without being delayed going through "stacked" images. They aren't real. The photon doesn't have to go through them one at a time. They don't add depth to the mirror's surface.