Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Tom Van Flandern on 8 Oct 2007 15:29 Pentcho Valev writes: "Have you ever tried to explain the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment in terms of Newton's particle model of light?" That would be a frustrating experience because light has all known physical properties of waves, but only two minor properties usually associated with particles. Here's the list: Wave properties of light: wavelength, frequency, intensity, amplitude, refraction, diffraction, coherence, interference, polarization, absence of mutual collisions, radiation pressure, transverse/longitudinal vibration, sameness of properties for each discrete wave, propagation speed unaffected by speed of source, wavefronts always perpendicular to direction of propagation, medium entities oscillate in place instead of propagating forward with the wave. When propagating, light never behaves like a particle, but does exhibit all wave properties. Light also exhibits two particle properties when it interacts with matter, the photoelectric effect and the Compton effect. But because these also have possible wave interpretations (the wave strike can eject electrons), it seems more reasonable to conclude that light is a pure wave phenomenon than to conclude that it is some kind of mathematical "dual entity", lacking a physical description. Particles and waves both come in "quanta" (discrete units). But light never exhibits properties unique to particles, such as the ability to collide with another of its own kind, the lack of need for a transmitting medium, a ballistic speed that depends (initially) on the speed of its source, and indeed even the most basic particle property of "mass". > [Pentcho Valev quoting John Norton]: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is > fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the > light postulate." But the DeSitter double-star gedanken experiment of 1913 is not compatible, because if light's speed depended on the speed of its source, then light from each component of a double star would travel to us with a different speed, producing an observational jumble. That does not happen. Michelson recognized this, which is why he conducted the Michelson-Gale experiment in 1925. The latter was an M-M experiment on a rotating platform (the Earth) which showed definite fringe shifts, showing that rotational motion has a different character than orbital motion. We can now interpret this as entrainment of the local "field" by Earth's gravitational force. Then rotation is a motion relative to the field, but orbital motion is not. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
From: Androcles on 8 Oct 2007 16:18 "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in message news:9o6dnTVSxaGoGJfanZ2dnUVZ_u-unZ2d(a)wavecable.com... : But the DeSitter double-star gedanken experiment of 1913 is not : compatible, because if light's speed depended on the speed of its source, : then light from each component of a double star would travel to us with a : different speed, producing an observational jumble. That does not happen. There is only one optical double star, Sirius, distance 8 light years, period 50 years. The first Gedanken double star was Algol, and Goodricke got it wrong. http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Algol/Algol.htm Gedankens don't work.
From: Tom Van Flandern on 10 Oct 2007 13:50 Androcles writes: "There is only one optical double star, Sirius, distance 8 light years, period 50 years." ??? Over half of all the stars visible in the night sky are double stars. They have orbital periods ranging from hours to millennia. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org
From: Androcles on 10 Oct 2007 14:45 "Tom Van Flandern" <tomvf(a)metaresearch.org> wrote in message news:RZmdnfpetamvjJDanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d(a)wavecable.com... : Androcles writes: "There is only one optical double star, Sirius, distance 8 : light years, period 50 years." : : ??? Over half of all the stars visible in the night sky are double : stars. Not optical, that aren't. You are talking spectroscopy and ASSUME they are doubles. This is probably an optical double: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070416.html Even Sirius is damned difficult to see optically. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001006.html
From: Tom Van Flandern on 11 Oct 2007 13:29
Androcles writes: >> [tvf]: Over half of all the stars visible in the night sky are double >> stars. > [Androcles]: Not optical, that aren't. Yes, optical. Grab a telescope and look sometime. Thousands of optical doubles are within range of small telescopes. Start with Alcor and Mizar, the famous optical double in the handle of the Big Dipper. Even a non-astronomer should be able to find that one. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org |