EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 17:08 On Aug 6, 1:23 am, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 5, 7:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > Sadly, you would rather repeat your imagined knowledge of > > interferometers rather that to write one or two simple algebraic > > equations to verify, mathematically, that the TIMES of travel do not > > vary. > > But surely the times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's > rotation. > > Love, > > Jenny Dear Jenny: When Earth-mounted experiments, like M-M, are run, the effects of the Earth's rotation are the same for both light courses; so the rotation causes no detectable variances. The Michelson-Gale, "mile-long" interferometer, in Clearing IL, had two rectangular "race tracks". Comparing light "racing" around the 'long' rectangular course, was just assumed to be able to detect a TIME different from the light traveling around the 'short' rectangular course. And because the effective orientation of "the apparatus" relative to Earth's velocity vector would change due to the time of day (or night), and the season of the year, such experiment was assumed not to need "a pan of mercury" to be rotated in (like M-M had used). The problem with both M-M and M-G was that ALL OF THE OPTICAL COMPONENTS WERE MOUNTED IN THE SAME HORIZINTAL PLANE. In the case of M-G, each of the FOUR mirrors in both light courses made a 100% correction for any time-of-travel speed-ups or slow-downs in the light's velocity. Heres why: The only manifestation of Earth's velocity is to have the emitted light MISS hitting the designed centerline of a mirror. The greater the Earth's velocity component, the further off center the light will hit the 45 degree mirrors (which reflect the light 90 degrees). So, while there is a light velocity change constantly occurring, the 45 degree mirror keeps automatically correcting for any speed-up or slow-down of the light, by PHYSICALLY CHANGING THE LENGTHS OF THE LIGHT COURSES. IF, and only IF the light always reflected from the designed centerline of those four mirrors would there be a TIME of travel variance in the two light courses. As I have been telling Eric Gisse (over and over), a change in interference fringes can occur ONLY if the photons of either light course arrive at the target in different TIMES. But 45 degree mirrors, mounted in the same plane, WON'T allow any TIME variations! My own X, Y, Z interferometer gets around the above problems by having the CONTROL light course mounted VERTICALLY (on the Z axis, only). That way the time of travel to the PERPENDICULAR beam splitter will remain unchanged, or unaffected by the Earth's velocity. Such is because: The time for the light to reflect back from the PERPENDICULAR beam splitter wont automatically be "corrected", as it would if it hit a 45 degree mirror. Even though the Z-axis-only light course hits off of the designed centerline of the beam splitter (All light courses do so.), the 'physical distance' doesn't vary which the light must travel in reflecting BACK to the parallel target (which is mounted on the front of the laser, with a precision pin-hole in the center, to let the source light OUT). Because just one of my two light courses (the TEST light course) reflects from a 45 degree mirror, such light course WILL have a physical change of the length that is TWICE the 'side movement' caused by the Earth's velocity component. Since the designed light course from the source to the 45 degree mirroris known, then the fringe shifts at the target become a SPEEDOMETER for Earth's movement in the cosmos! And since the 'advance' or 'retard' of the fringes will have a transition (reversal) when my interferometer is oriented 90 degrees to the Earth's velocity vector, then my interferometer, also, becomes a precision instrument for determining the Earth's direction of motion in the cosmos! My low cost X, Y, Z interferometer doesn't have the resolution to allow accurately counting the hundreds of fringes in 360 degrees of rotation (on a Lazy Susan). But once my many Einstein disproofs are acknowledged, I have more sophisticated interferometer designs that should be accurate enough (in a global array) to prove, once and for all, that the Universe isn't expanding! Mensuration done right here on Earth can prove such fact! Those interested should read the following links. NoEinstein Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en Where Angels Fear to Fall http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6 Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmash http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26 Dropping Einstein Like a Stone http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Aug 2008 17:08 Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:c81b021e-cda2-48cb-b8e2-2772f87b2457(a)k7g2000hsd.googlegroups.com... On Aug 9, 12:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Yuan...(a)gmail.com: > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3b9d67fa-5158-4c87-9b65-6a4721e369b0(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 6, 4:01 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > ... > > >>http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 > >> >> Know something empirical before you offer opinion. >> > Do you think that the velocity of light is c in an >> > accelerating frame? >> > Do you think that the velocity of light is the same >> > in every direction in an accelerating frame? >> > Do you think that the velocity of light is constant >> > in a frame of varying acceleration? > >> Do you know that special relativity applies to >> inertial frames? Do you see the thread title? >> Why do you cloud the issue with that which >> is explicitly excluded? > > If the velocity of light is c in inertial frames, don't > you think that we can calculate that the velocity > of light is not c in accelerating frames? Read. The. Thread. Title. > Don't you think that such a result can be > calculated entirely within SR? No, in general it cannot. > Don't you think that SR, like Newtonian > Mechanics, can be applied to accelerating > frames? Only special ones. > When I wrote "But surely the times of travel > do vary, because of the Earth's rotation", > Uncle Al disagreed and replied "Know > something empirical before you offer opinion". > > Do you agree with me that "times of travel do > vary, because of the Earth's rotation", or do > you agree with with Uncle Al? The "times of travel" are measured in the same frame. One process changes, they would all change the same, locally. No variation should be detectable, *locally*. > Do you agree that the surface of the Earth is > an accelerating frame? Yes. Weak, but yes. > If no, how do you explain Sagnac? Not local. Not SR. Not experirmental argument against SR. > If yes, why are you disagreeing with me and > not Uncle AL? You don't know where you are standing when you make your claims. David A. Smith
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 17:15 On Aug 6, 1:37 am, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 5, 8:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > > > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. > > > No, they don't. > > Aren't you both wrong? > > NoEinstein, in MMX isn't each beam is a point of reference for the > other? > > Isn't that comparison, the very substance of the experiment? > > Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something > else? > > Love, > > Jenny Dear Jenny: NO! Imagine being in a speedboat which is traveling at the same speed and direction as another identical boat. If the only thing those two boats are allowed to "see" is the other boat, both of them will just assume that there is no velocity, because there are no detectable 'relative' speed and distance changes. NOTE: My use of the word "relative" has no necessity of anything... "Einstein". NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 17:18 On Aug 6, 8:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 9:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > > > > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. > > > > No, they don't. > > > Aren't you both wrong? > > > NoEinstein, in MMX isn't each beam is a point of reference for the > > other? > > > Isn't that comparison, the very substance of the experiment? > > > Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something > > else? > > Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. > > Counting fringe shifts is absolute - no reference required. > > > > > > > Love, > > > Jenny- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 17:21
On Aug 6, 8:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 9:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > On Aug 5, 8:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > > > > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. > > > > No, they don't. > > > Aren't you both wrong? > > > NoEinstein, in MMX isn't each beam is a point of reference for the > > other? > > > Isn't that comparison, the very substance of the experiment? > > > Eric, how do you measure something without reference to something > > else? > > Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. > > Counting fringe shifts is absolute - no reference required. > > > > > > > Love, > > > Jenny- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Eric: The reason you flunked out in physics is because you had a "Jewish" superiority complex, which, like Einstein's, wasn't matched by actual IQ. NoEinstein |