EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2008 19:19 On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:09:29 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >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 �� 'Tis possible...but no evidence.... Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2008 19:24 On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:23:55 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >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: >> >> 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. >> >> >> - 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. Neither you nor anyone else knows that for certain. There is no experimental evidence involving a relatively moving source. Classical reflection theory works OK for any one frame. >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." ....and all known experiments have involved such systems.... �� NoEinstein �� Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 18 Aug 2008 19:33 On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:05:19 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >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 leg��the >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 �� M-M is very easily understood as a perfect example of light moving at c wrt its source and all objects at rest in that source frame. Strangely, SR says virtually the same thing but Einstein, who was obviously still a firm believer in an aether, manufactured his completely unnecessary and fictitious 'observational contractions' to explain a non existant error in the null result. Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate.
From: PD on 19 Aug 2008 13:46 On Aug 18, 6:18 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:42:23 -0700 (PDT), NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> > wrote: > > > > >On Aug 17, 8:12 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:09:08 -0400, "Spaceman" > >> Read what I said Spaceman. [snip] > > NilStein, the only time I mention spacetime is when I categorically deny IT > EXISTS. > > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm > > All religion involves selling a nonexistant concept to gullible fools. Einstein cleverly exploited this principle with his second postulate. Frankly, I'm thrilled that Spaceman, NoEinstein, and Henri Wilson have discovered each other. They can play their little game of "Physics House" together, and drink "Quark Kool-Aid" and eat "Fig Newton Mechanics" cookies, and argue with each other about how the universe works, and no one else is invited to the club. PD
From: Spaceman on 19 Aug 2008 13:52
PD wrote: > Frankly, I'm thrilled that Spaceman, NoEinstein, and Henri Wilson have > discovered each other. They can play their little game of "Physics > House" together, and drink "Quark Kool-Aid" and eat "Fig Newton > Mechanics" cookies, and argue with each other about how the universe > works, and no one else is invited to the club. No arguments really going on here PD, except of course the arguments we agree prove that SR has problems that can not be fixed without a repair to SR itself. It is called communication and understanding. Something you never learned when you were brainwashed. :) -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman |