EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 17 Aug 2008 14:16 On Aug 17, 7:27 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 13, 1:17 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > Dear PD: How about this? ***The source light is a helium-neon > > laser. The laser is aimed straight down. A paper target is glued to > > the front of laser barrel. A precision pin hole lets the light pass > > through the center of the target. The CONTROL light course reflects > > from a 70T, 30R perpendicular beam splitter. The 30% reflection from > > such, if that was the only reflection, would make a uniform > > illumination of the paper target (without fringes). > > The TEST light course "transmits" through the beam splitter and > > hits a 45 degree, first surface, precision mirror located a centimeter > > or so below the beam splitter. Then, that light travels about 12" to > > a precision, first surface mirror; back to the 45 degree mirror; and > > up to the paper target where such light interferes with the > > (unchanging) light from the CONTROL light course. The total length of > > the CONTROL light course is about 36". The entire instrument is > > located on a Lazy Susan, so it can be rotated 360 degrees. > > The bulls eye fringe pattern is about 3/8" in diameter, with each > > fringe being about 1/32nd of an inch wide. Because there are so many > > fringe shifts in 360 degrees, it is difficult to rotate the instrument > > slow enough to be able to count the fringes. But there are at least > > five fringe shifts per degree of rotation. > > Given that the control light course is about 36" up and down, > while the test light course is about 37" up-and-down plus 24" > forwards-and-back horizontally, what are the theoretical fringe > shifts that you would expect? > > How does the theoretical computation compare with your observed > "at least five fringe shifts per degree of rotation"? > > What is the purpose of the vertical part of the light path > other than to render your entire assembly mechanically > unstable? > > I presume the total height of your apparatus is perhaps > a little less than a meter, the upright sections being built > from the same aluminum framework as the base? > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Jerry: During that 36" of vertical travel, the entire apparatus is moving sideways depending upon the angle relative to the Earth's velocity component. I chose 36" because that is the total arm length of M-M. The number of fringe shifts of M-M, if it had had a CONTROL, should be approximately what I observe. The reason I say "approximately five fringe shifts per degree, is because the fringes are so close together, that the rotation speed must be much slower than a simple hand motion to accurately count the number. Again, the objective of my interferometer was to show that the Earth's velocity alone causes fringe shifts. Such observation disproves both of Einstein's theories of relativity! NoEinstein
From: Spaceman on 17 Aug 2008 14:20 NoEinstein wrote: > Dear Henri: Light always EMITS at 'c' relative to the light source or > reflection. But the effective velocity is: 'c' plus or minus v. �� > NoEinstein �� This has to be true also since if light was not emitted at c but "relative" to the source or reflection, Doppler effect would never occur with lightwaves. So very simply, c being a constant speed to all frames of reference, (non relative) is in fact incorrect. IF c was constant to all frames, doppler effects would NEVER occur. :) The other most basic part is even more simple. All "speeds" are relative. so of course if light has a "speed" it must be relative. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: Jerry on 17 Aug 2008 16:13 On Aug 17, 12:56 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 15, 6:34 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > I can't find a link to any such post, either. Methinks NoEinstein > > is imagining things. To the best of my knowledge, (Now, I -could- > > be wrong... Maybe NoEinstein has inside knowledge that I don't > > have?) Jerry has the highest respect for you. > > > > As for Spaceman, I KNOW Spaceman thinks I'm clueless. He also thinks > > > that (-2)*(-2)=(-4), so his appraisal doesn't surprise me a bit. You > > > might look around to see what people think of Spaceman. > > > Jerry > > Dear Jerry: You know a bit about the 'accuracy' issues with > interferometers. Those were probably written in an article that you > read someplace. When you side with PD on anything, you show yourself > to be shallower than I gave you credit for. NoEinstein When I was a teen, I built interferometers and used them for practical applications. I know a bit about their requirements. Until you upgrade your interferometer base so that it is uncoupled from distortions transmitted from the Lazy Susan that you use for rotation, and until you align the rotational axis so that it is strictly vertical, there is no reason to believe any of your results. Jerry
From: Jerry on 17 Aug 2008 16:27 On Aug 17, 1:03 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > Dear Jerry: Look up cynic in the dictionary, and see if your picture > is shown. If it's not there, look up scientist. Not there either? > Then, please list the scientific experiments, of any kind, that you > have designed and successfully tested. Don't have any? Then, go > away! NoEinstein I polished and figured my first telescope mirror when I was thirteen, and set up my first Michelson interferometer (with my brother's help) when I was not much older. The laser, by the way, was one that my brother built himself from scratch. He let me help. I cut the Brewster windows!!!! And yes, the interferometer was mounted on a three point floating suspension... Jerry
From: Jerry on 17 Aug 2008 16:32
On Aug 17, 1:16 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 17, 7:27 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > Given that the control light course is about 36" up and down, > > while the test light course is about 37" up-and-down plus 24" > > forwards-and-back horizontally, what are the theoretical fringe > > shifts that you would expect? > > > How does the theoretical computation compare with your observed > > "at least five fringe shifts per degree of rotation"? > > > What is the purpose of the vertical part of the light path > > other than to render your entire assembly mechanically > > unstable? > > > I presume the total height of your apparatus is perhaps > > a little less than a meter, the upright sections being built > > from the same aluminum framework as the base? > > > Jerry- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear Jerry: During that 36" of vertical travel, the entire apparatus > is moving sideways depending upon the angle relative to the Earth's > velocity component. I chose 36" because that is the total arm length > of M-M. The number of fringe shifts of M-M, if it had had a CONTROL, > should be approximately what I observe. The reason I say > "approximately five fringe shifts per degree, is because the fringes > are so close together, that the rotation speed must be much slower > than a simple hand motion to accurately count the number. Again, the > objective of my interferometer was to show that the Earth's velocity > alone causes fringe shifts. Such observation disproves both of > Einstein's theories of relativity! NoEinstein - You didn't answer my question. What is the THEORETICAL deviation to be expected? Show the math. Jerry |