EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 11:45 On Aug 17, 5:21 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...(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. > > > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear PD: Your 'one neuron' brain can't discern the relative impact of the quantitative vs. the qualitative. Like Jerry, you see the bugs stuck on the car windshield. You say that those bugs restrict the driver's vision. But I say: 90 plus percent of the light gets through just fine. Since that was the sole datum sought, the bugs become a non issue. When you can see the forest rather than just the trees, and when you can find a Dr. Frankenstein to give you a brain, you should give 'reasoning' another shot. NoEinstein
From: Spaceman on 18 Aug 2008 11:49 NoEinstein wrote: > 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 �� Yes, and as with any simple fact that even boaters know, As you ride towards the wave source, the waves will increase in "frequency" from your motion towards the source. But of course the most silly part is, the wavelength does not "physically" change length, they only change length relatively because the one second does not change so you will pass by more waves in one second. Also a silly fact is that if each wave were "info", you would get more info per second if heading towards the source. (proof the relative speed is higher when moving towards a source) And of course the opposite when moving away from a source. It is sad that such a simple factual statement can be ignored and given so much bullshit by the relativists.. But then again, that is what con men do the best. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 12:05 On Aug 17, 6:25 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:21:36 -0700 (PDT), PD <TheDraperFam...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Henri: There has been much too much attention given to the effect of "gravity" on light. The fringe shifts observed in my X, Y, & Z interferometer are 100% due to the LATERAL movement of the entire apparatus while the photons are in transit to the 45 degree mirror. There is no "sling effect" of the light on the horizontal legthe rotation is like one degree every five seconds. Not much "sling" there. Lasers tend to knock the ether out of the way, so the ether drag on a laser is very small. The high ether flow of Jupiter and the Sun is enough to cause a "gravity lens" effect. Einstein knew of the effect of Jupiter's gravity, which causes the earlier appearance of Jupiter's moons, before he "predicted" that star light bending in the 1919 solar eclipse. Separate the ether drag effects from the apparatus motion effects, and M-M is easily understood to simply be lacking a CONTROL. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 12:09 On Aug 17, 6:34 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:20:29 -0400, "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. > > >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. Dear Henri: The "energy dependence" of light shows up in the FREQUENCE of the emissions of the photons, not in the "energy" of the photons. Every reflection will have a slight red shift, which I call: "The Friction of Reflection". NoEinstein
From: Jerry on 18 Aug 2008 12:10
On Aug 18, 10:31 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 17, 4:13 pm, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > > 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 > > 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. You're free to believe what you will. But I have plenty of old holograms that I made back then for science fairs. Also a few old Crookes tubes and other vacuum tubes that I blew myself for X-ray demos. I can tell you all about high vacuum systems and the practical aspects of flashing getters, as well as Schlieren systems for detecting flow density gradients. > But if so, please > describe the why and the what. What I can tell is that you are a nit > picker. Those defects in your experimental apparatus aren't motes. They are huge beams... > 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. Jerry |