EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Spaceman on 17 Aug 2008 19:09 Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > 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. Actually this is not completely true Dr Wilson, If such were true a light source moving away from you could never cause a doppler effect. Doppler effect is caused by the relative motion of either the observer or the source. If both are inertial (moving at the same speeds) no doppler will be detected, but once either one changes the relative speed from 0, doppler effect occurs. So the "speed of light" is not the same L/T to moving source or observer. Again, If it truly were the same L/T to all observers, light could not produce any doppler effect at all. > 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. Do we detect doppler effect from a moving source? Yes. So lightspeed is not source independant. (also if it were source independant, inertial frames should be able to detect doppler but of course they can not) You can proves such by finding a doppler effect when light sources move away from you fast enough to cause the doppler shift. :) For lightspeed to be independant of source speed, the source would have to make waves at the point it left from without being there. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 11:23 On Aug 17, 2:20 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(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. > Dear Spaceman: The above *observation of yours is one so intuitive that 'any' thinking person should have realized that Einstein (and his ilk) goofed. In my many descriptions of my theories and disproofs of Einstein, I have intended to say what you said, but got sidetracked and left it out. To summarize: "A Doppler shift, toward the blue, can only occur if the velocity of the light exceeds velocity 'c'." Such simple reasoning disproves Einstein's theories. NoEinstein > 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: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 11:31 On Aug 17, 4:13 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Jerry: Until you develop a quantitative reasoning ability, you don't have the gray matter to tell what aspects of an interferometer are contributing to the observed fringe shifts. I seriously doubt that you were designing interferometers as a teen. But if so, please describe the why and the what. What I can tell is that you are a nit picker. You see rocks stuck in a rolling snow ball, and conclude that those rocks are influencing the rolling speed and distance. But when you get bowled-over by the snowball you should realize that in many cases the quantitative is more important than the qualitative. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 11:33 On Aug 17, 4:27 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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 Dear Jerry: Great start; lousy finish. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 11:36
On Aug 17, 4:32 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Jerry: As much as you might like, you aren't my taskmaster. If you want to know "the theoretical", do the math yourself. NoEinstein |