EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 17 Aug 2008 17:21 On Aug 17, 6:27 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"? This is precisely the same question I asked him, with no response. NoEinstein does not understand the relationship between noise and signal, apparently. He just convinced himself that the apparatus should be sensitive to motion through the ether when rotated, and when he rotated it, he saw an effect and assumed that it must be due to the motion through the ether. He has apparently not estimated other non- signal effects that would generate fringe shifts. > > 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
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 17 Aug 2008 18:25 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:21:36 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 17, 6:27�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"? > >This is precisely the same question I asked him, with no response. >NoEinstein does not understand the relationship between noise and >signal, apparently. He just convinced himself that the apparatus >should be sensitive to motion through the ether when rotated, and when >he rotated it, he saw an effect and assumed that it must be due to the >motion through the ether. He has apparently not estimated other non- >signal effects that would generate fringe shifts. No Einstein does appear to occasionally have an aether obsession.....but then, so did Einstein. A perfectly rigid (impossible) interferometer rotated in the vertical frame would be expected to show a fringe shift because the slight acceleration (or decelleration) of the cross beam's vertical section from the 45 miror due to gravity. >> Jerry Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 17 Aug 2008 18:34 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:20:29 -0400, "Spaceman" <spaceman(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: >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. Spaceman, as far as we know, light is emitted at a velocity of magnitude 'c' wrt its source, 'c' being a universal constant with dimensions L/T. (this may not be entirely correct. For all we know, the emitted speed might be slightly energy dependent.....but that is pure speculation). WHY light moves at c wrt its source is a big question. Maxwell's equation tries to answer it...but not in pure vacuum free of any 'aetherlike' influence. >IF c was constant to all frames, doppler effects would NEVER occur. >:) Don't confuse light speed with the unversal constant c. Light speed is indeed c wrt its source frame and c+v wrt a frame moving at v wrt that source. ...which is what you meant to say. >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. >:) Correct. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 17 Aug 2008 18:37 On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >On Aug 16, 6:24�pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >On Aug 16, 8:07�am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >> You have a completely unbalanced, flimsy, tall and unbalanced >> >> contraption that will bend and sway under its own weight as it >> >> rotates. The assembly is mounted on a cheap Lazy Susan, and the >> >> three point suspension does nothing to isolate the assembly from >> >> mechanical distortions in the rotating base. >> >> >Re "flimsiness"... >> >> >What does your Rube Golberg XYZ interferometer offer that the >> >following vastly simpler, far easier-to-implement design does not? >> >> > � � � � � �| � � � � �| � � � � � � � � � � �| >> > � � � � � �| � � � � �| � � � � � � � � � � �| >> > |========== � � � � � | � � � � � � � � � � �| >> > � laser � �| � � � � �| � � � � � � � � � � �| >> > � � � � � �| � � � � �| � � � � � � � � � � �| >> > � � � � �target � beam splitter � � � � � �mirror >> >> >Instead of your precarious vertical arrangement of components, >> >all of the components can be solidly mounted on a rigid optical >> >bench. >> >> >All other considerations apply. The axis of rotation must be >> >as nearly perfectly vertical as possible, and the optical bench >> >must be mechanically isolated from the rotating base. >> >> Why bother? >> >> There is no aether. Light moves at c wrt the source and every component of the >> apparatus. There should always be a null result. Any fringe movement merely >> indicates that the apparatus is distorted. >> >> >Jerry >> >> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >> >> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >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 �� I don't think we can be certain about the speed of reflected light. If a photon strikes a mirror at c+v wrt the mirror, it might be reflected at c+v, c or something in between. There is no experimental evidence either way. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Spaceman on 17 Aug 2008 18:59
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein > <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> > wrote: > >> On Aug 16, 6:24 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 07:03:11 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>>> On Aug 16, 8:07 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>>> You have a completely unbalanced, flimsy, tall and unbalanced >>>>> contraption that will bend and sway under its own weight as it >>>>> rotates. The assembly is mounted on a cheap Lazy Susan, and the >>>>> three point suspension does nothing to isolate the assembly from >>>>> mechanical distortions in the rotating base. >>> >>>> Re "flimsiness"... >>> >>>> What does your Rube Golberg XYZ interferometer offer that the >>>> following vastly simpler, far easier-to-implement design does not? >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> ========== | | >>>> laser | | | >>>>>>> >>>> target beam splitter mirror >>> >>>> Instead of your precarious vertical arrangement of components, >>>> all of the components can be solidly mounted on a rigid optical >>>> bench. >>> >>>> All other considerations apply. The axis of rotation must be >>>> as nearly perfectly vertical as possible, and the optical bench >>>> must be mechanically isolated from the rotating base. >>> >>> Why bother? >>> >>> There is no aether. Light moves at c wrt the source and every >>> component of the >>> apparatus. There should always be a null result. Any fringe >>> movement merely >>> indicates that the apparatus is distorted. >>> >>>> Jerry >>> >>> Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm >>> >>> All religion involves selling a nonexistant product to gullible >>> fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second >>> postulate.- Hide quoted text - >>> >>> - Show quoted text - >> >> 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 -- > > I don't think we can be certain about the speed of reflected light. > If a photon > strikes a mirror at c+v wrt the mirror, it might be reflected at c+v, > c or > something in between. There is no experimental evidence either way. The problem is with the misconception that wavelength times frequency equals speed. (but it only equals the speed of the wave wrt an "at rest" plane of travel.) If it were truly the same speed to all, doppler would not occur. The wavelengths would never be seen as smaller or longer. |