EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 12:23 On Aug 17, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Henri: Light ALWAYS reflects (re emits) at velocity 'c' plus or minus v. If a Ping-Pong ball is traveling very fast, it will "bounce" very fast. But a 'reflection of light' ISN'T a "bounce" of the same photons. It is a re emission of new photons. The increased speed of light into a reflecting surface is blue shifted. If the reflecting surface is perpendicular, the reflected light will have the same effective wavelength, minus the friction of reflection. But the velocity of the light from the reflection will still be 'c' plus or minus v. However, "In any system (apparatus) moving as a set, the time of travel of the light to any perpendicular reflecting surface is the same as if the system (apparatus) is stationary." NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 18 Aug 2008 12:33 On Aug 17, 6:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein > > <noeinst...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Spaceman: The very best "experimental evidence" for the velocity of reflected light is the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. I made the intuitive assumption that: "Light will speed up or slow down matching the velocity of the emitting source or reflection." I tested that assumption, mathematically, on M-M by using simple algebra to calculate the TIMES of travel of the light in both courses, from the source to the target, and for all azimuths of the apparatus rotation. What I learned is: The 45 degree beam splitter is acting to CORRECT the velocity changes happening in the light, so that the TIME of travel around the apparatus remains unchanged. And the reason that is so is because M-M lacks a CONTROL, or unchanging light course. Read the following links to understand why. 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
From: PD on 18 Aug 2008 12:41 On Aug 18, 10:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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 > And this is NoEinstein's metric. If it is more plausible and simpler, then what it counters is disproven. Simple serves as a disproof against the more complicated, and experimental test has nothing to do with it. PD
From: PD on 18 Aug 2008 12:43 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: > > > > > 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. :>) The devil is in the details with experimental physics, NoEinstein. But I know you HATE details. Simpler is better in your book. > 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: PD on 18 Aug 2008 13:12
On Aug 18, 11:33 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Aug 17, 6:59 pm, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> > wrote: > > > > > Dr. Henri Wilson wrote: > > > On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:10:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein > > > <noeinst...(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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Dear Spaceman: The very best "experimental evidence" for the velocity > of reflected light is the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment. This is factually incorrect. There have been numerous experiments since 1887 that have VASTLY improved on the result obtained by them. You seem to be completely unaware of any experimental evidence over the last 120 years. > I made > the intuitive assumption that: "Light will speed up or slow down > matching the velocity of the emitting source or reflection." I tested > that assumption, mathematically, on M-M by using simple algebra to > calculate the TIMES of travel of the light in both courses, from the > source to the target, and for all azimuths of the apparatus rotation. > What I learned is: The 45 degree beam splitter is acting to CORRECT > the velocity changes happening in the light, so that the TIME of > travel around the apparatus remains unchanged. And the reason that is > so is because M-M lacks a CONTROL, or unchanging light course. Read > the following links to understand why. NoEinstein > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-Mhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/t/ac6fcd9b4e8112ed?hl=en > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e4... |