About Einstein's initially submitted STR paper, "P1".
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Foundations of financial management 13e stanley block, geoffrey hirt, bartley test bank
Next: COME SEE KOOKER * HATES US * ONCE AGAIN FAIL TO EXPLAIN HIS PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE 9/11 CLAIMS
From: Sam Wormley on 19 Jul 2010 20:44 On 7/19/10 4:59 PM, glird wrote: > We will now examine what would happen if someone invents a way to > measure the one way speed of light... See: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests 3.2 One-Way Tests of Light-Speed Isotropy Note that while these experiments clearly use a one-way light path and find isotropy, they are inherently unable to rule out a large class of theories in which the one-way speed of light is anisotropic. These theories share the property that the round-trip speed of light is isotropic in any inertial frame, but the one-way speed is isotropic only in an �ther frame. In all of these theories the effects of slow clock transport exactly offset the effects of the anisotropic one-way speed of light (in any inertial frame), and all are experimentally indistinguishable from SR. All of these theories predict null results for these experiments. See Test Theories above, especially Zhang (in which these theories are called �Edwards frames�). Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), pg 821. Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pg 731�734, (1990). Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the Earth and separated by a 21-km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. Champeny et al., Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), pg 241. Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, pg 583 (1965). Isaak et al., Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), pg 255. Uses a rotating M�ssbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252. Uses a rotating source and fixed M�ssbauer detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s. Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), pg 1767. A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR. T.W. Cole, �Astronomical Tests for the Presence of an Ether�, Mon. Not. R. Astr. Soc. (1976), 175 93P-96P. Several VLBI tests sensitive to first-order effects of an �ther are described. No �ther is detected, with a sensitivity of 70 m/s. Ragulsky, �Determination of light velocity dependence on direction of propagation�, Phys. Lett. A, 235 (1997), pg 125. A �one-way� test that is bidirectional with the outgoing ray in glass and the return ray in air. The interferometer is by design particularly robust against mechanical perturbations, and temperature controlled. The limit on the anisotropy of c is 0.13 m/s.
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 09:57 On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above to this common problem: A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes compare? PD
From: harald on 21 Jul 2010 11:02 On Jul 21, 3:11 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > the direction being considered. NoEinstein Dear NoEinstein, As you probably know, math cannot prove a physical theory. Regards, Harald
From: NoEinstein on 21 Jul 2010 16:50 On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are common in HS Algebra. If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well. I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can. You'll confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math) http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f9852639d5d9e1/dcb2a1511b7b2603?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#dcb2a1511b7b2603 > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > to this common problem: > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > compare? > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: PD on 21 Jul 2010 16:53
On Jul 21, 3:50 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 21, 9:57 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: 'Travel calculations' of any kind are > common in HS Algebra. I agree. That's why I invited you to do it for the case below with the river. All I want you to do is to work it out on a napkin and answer the basic question below. How do the times of the two routes compare? Are they equal? Is one larger, and if so, which one? > If you passed 9th grade algebra you should be > able to write the simple equations for the TIMES of travel of the > light to the constantly moving mirrors and to the target. There is > one perpendicular mirror in each light course, and one 45 degree > mirror. And of course the source and the target are moving as well. > I won't do the algebra for you. Do it yourself, IF you can. You'll > confirm after just one equation and one calculation that the time of > travel doesn't change regardless of the orientation you select > relative to Earth's velocity vector. Do that a minimum of eight times > (both light courses, combined) and you will understand why the M-M > experiment was automatically correcting the times of travel. Such > experiment was NOT properly designed for detecting velocity of light. > But my X, Y, & Z interferometer does that quite easily! NoEinstein > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > > > > > On Jul 21, 8:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 19, 5:59 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > Dear glird: The easiest way to conform that light speed varies > > > depending upon the direction of motion of the source is to make that > > > "assumption" for the M-M experiment. Write the simple algebraic > > > equations for the TIMES of travel of both light courses from the > > > source to the target. Those times will be IDENTICAL, regardless of > > > the orientation relative to Earth's velocity vector! Next, make the > > > 'assumption' that light velocity doesn't change (sic) and do the > > > math. Without Rubber Rulers, and other non-science, the light doesn't > > > have the nil results so often observed for the M-M experiment. > > > Instead of INVENTING new velocity detecting experiments, simply use > > > the ultra precise M-M experiment. The math I did PROVES that the > > > velocity of light varies depending on the velocity of the source in > > > the direction being considered. NoEinstein > > > With regard to your above claim, I'd like for you to compare the above > > to this common problem: > > A swimmer who can swim at 3 mph with respect to the water, swims in a > > river with a current of 1 mph straight downstream. The swimmer takes > > two routes: a) across the river (a distance of 1/4 mile) and back, and > > b) upstream 1/4 mile and back. How do the times of both routes > > compare? > > > PD- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |