Explaining the nonsense of relativity to 10+ kids
in [Relativity]
|
From: Zinnic on 2 Mar 2010 09:17 On Mar 1, 3:56 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Mar 2, 5:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > I think that the flat-earth theory has been comprehensively ruled out > > > > > by the fact of satellites, etc. Similarly, SR has to be thrown out, > > > > > if we are to believe in deductive logic a la geometry and most maths. > > > > > Now, if we have no use for logic, facts, experiments; if we believe > > > > > someone's imagination and hand-waving and plain bullshit are what > > > > > really matter, in *science* as in business or government, for > > > > > perception is all that matters, reality be damned, then I have nothing > > > > > more to say to you guys. There can be no argument! I see myself as > > > > > an honest engineer, out to make an Internal Force Engine that will > > > > > break the speed of light barrier. The bullshit of SR gets in the way > > > > > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my part. > > > > > The reason for the speed of light is that you exist on a projected > > > > matrix. All realities are virtual. The speed of light is the frame rate > > > > the software which runs the projection has. Planck's constant is related > > > > to the pixel size of what passes for reality. "Black" is absolute zero. > > > > > 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, at the apex of the Vedic canon > > > > before the Brits took over, said there are a myriad such worlds. Yours > > > > may have a way to do what you want, but that wont be evident in mine. > > > > What he probably meant was that every living being lives in its own > > > universe, which starts to exist when he is born, and dies when he > > > dies. A learning experience is an intersection of many such > > > universes. This is a highly metaphysical concept, and standard to > > > many Hindus. I have also mentioned this in my recently completed > > > work, The Birth of Ganesha. > > > Arindam, at the risk of being tedious, let me ask how your theory > > regarding the ballistic nature of light relates to the speeds of > > light incident to, and reflected from a mirror. > > Ballistic nature of light - I like this! > > > > > > > I calculate that the time for light propagated to and from mirrors > > equidistant to the fore and rear of a light source in the direction > > of Earth's movement thru space (say v) is NOT equal UNLESS the speed > > (in space) of the reflected light is equal and opposite to that of > > the incident light. > > According to you, the speed of light from a source moving at v will > > be C+v. Thus, a mirror moving at v (in the same direction) will > > either reflect thist light at C+v in the opposite direction or will it > > reflect the light at C+v minus speed v of the mirror to give a net > > speed of C in the opposite direction. > > > Experiment has demonstrated no difference in the total times for > > light to travel an equal distance when propagated/reflected in the > > same/ opposite direction of the motion of Earth in space. Hence, the > > speeds of incident/ reflected light are indeed equal and opposite and > > not affected by the motion of the mirrors.. > > In 'light' of this, I would appreciate your explanation as to why you > > believe that the motion of an emitter affects the speed light whereas > > motion of a reflecting mirror demonstrably does not. > > This is what the MMI experiment and my analysis is really all about. > Please read carefully what I wrote in > > http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > and I am sure you will understand. > > Basically, I am saying that the distance moved by light in the > direction of earth's motion is D+d, where D is the distance between > mirrors and d is the extra distance that has to be moved by light, as > the Earth is moving. In the opposite direction, it is D-d. Since t > is the same both ways, it means that the speed of light is c+v one > way, and c-v the other. All this and more I have shown with proper > quotes, diagrams, etc. in the above website. > > If you neglect the extra length d, then of course you will be stuck > with the ancient mistake. > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > Regards > > Zinnic I agree that the incident light travels D+d to the foreward mirror and the reflected light travels back D-d. The total distance frome source to mirror and back being D+d plus D-d equalling 2D. Similarly the total distance travelled by light incident to and reflected from the rear mrror will be D-d plus D+d, again equalling 2D. In your theory the speed in space of the forward incident light is C+v (where v is speed of light emitter) and of the backward incident light is C-v . Thus, the light will reach each mirror in the same time (D+d/C+v and D-d/C-v). However, if the light is reflected from the two mirrors at the same but opposite speed (C+v and C-v) AND the speed of the mirrors (v) is ballistically factored in (as was the speed of the source for incident light), then the reflected light will travel back to the source at C+v-v or C-v+v. That is, light would return at C from the fore mirror (D-d) in a time of (D-d)/C and from the rear mirror (D+d) in a time of (D+d)/C. Light from the fore mirror would arrive sooner than the light from the rear mirror. This has been shown experimentally NOT to be the case. Thus my question remains, why is the reflected light NOT affected by the speed of the mirrors? I need for you to explain how your theory accomodates this apparent difference in the physics of emitted and reflected (absorbed and instantaneously emitted?) light. Regards Zinnic Zinnic
From: spudnik on 2 Mar 2010 16:58 could you provide the gist of F&F's stuff?... anyway, just because M&M did find an anomaly, that has been amplified by others, does not mean that you can go faster than the cannonical definition of "fastest possible" (nor "travel *in* time" -- in one dimension?). > Then stop looking at the MMX and look at the experiment by Filippas > and Fox, which (among other experiments) clearly rules out ballistic > light. thus: yeah; there is already pi in the sky (it's round, as you can tell by watching the stars rotate over a year), but you still haven't shown that curvature for Earth, like Gauss did! I used to think that one could send H2 over the natural gas lines, at some pressure, because they were long-ago ('60s?) coated internally with plastic, to prevent trace H2 "embrittlement" of the metal pipes; but, I suppose that pure H2 is another matter. there is still a constant reverberation around H2, that it is a *source* of energy, rather than a battery, in the "liberaL media/owned by consWervatives." > Give us the numbers! --les OEuvres! http://wlym.com --Stop Cheeny, Rice and the ICC's third British invasion of Sudan! http://larouchepub.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 2 Mar 2010 21:36 On Mar 3, 1:17 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > On Mar 1, 3:56 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 2, 5:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > I think that the flat-earth theory has been comprehensively ruled out > > > > > > by the fact of satellites, etc. Similarly, SR has to be thrown out, > > > > > > if we are to believe in deductive logic a la geometry and most maths. > > > > > > Now, if we have no use for logic, facts, experiments; if we believe > > > > > > someone's imagination and hand-waving and plain bullshit are what > > > > > > really matter, in *science* as in business or government, for > > > > > > perception is all that matters, reality be damned, then I have nothing > > > > > > more to say to you guys. There can be no argument! I see myself as > > > > > > an honest engineer, out to make an Internal Force Engine that will > > > > > > break the speed of light barrier. The bullshit of SR gets in the way > > > > > > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my part. > > > > > > The reason for the speed of light is that you exist on a projected > > > > > matrix. All realities are virtual. The speed of light is the frame rate > > > > > the software which runs the projection has. Planck's constant is related > > > > > to the pixel size of what passes for reality. "Black" is absolute zero. > > > > > > 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, at the apex of the Vedic canon > > > > > before the Brits took over, said there are a myriad such worlds. Yours > > > > > may have a way to do what you want, but that wont be evident in mine. > > > > > What he probably meant was that every living being lives in its own > > > > universe, which starts to exist when he is born, and dies when he > > > > dies. A learning experience is an intersection of many such > > > > universes. This is a highly metaphysical concept, and standard to > > > > many Hindus. I have also mentioned this in my recently completed > > > > work, The Birth of Ganesha. > > > > Arindam, at the risk of being tedious, let me ask how your theory > > > regarding the ballistic nature of light relates to the speeds of > > > light incident to, and reflected from a mirror. > > > Ballistic nature of light - I like this! > > > > I calculate that the time for light propagated to and from mirrors > > > equidistant to the fore and rear of a light source in the direction > > > of Earth's movement thru space (say v) is NOT equal UNLESS the speed > > > (in space) of the reflected light is equal and opposite to that of > > > the incident light. > > > According to you, the speed of light from a source moving at v will > > > be C+v. Thus, a mirror moving at v (in the same direction) will > > > either reflect thist light at C+v in the opposite direction or will it > > > reflect the light at C+v minus speed v of the mirror to give a net > > > speed of C in the opposite direction. > > > > Experiment has demonstrated no difference in the total times for > > > light to travel an equal distance when propagated/reflected in the > > > same/ opposite direction of the motion of Earth in space. Hence, the > > > speeds of incident/ reflected light are indeed equal and opposite and > > > not affected by the motion of the mirrors.. > > > In 'light' of this, I would appreciate your explanation as to why you > > > believe that the motion of an emitter affects the speed light whereas > > > motion of a reflecting mirror demonstrably does not. > > > This is what the MMI experiment and my analysis is really all about. > > Please read carefully what I wrote in > > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > > and I am sure you will understand. > > > Basically, I am saying that the distance moved by light in the > > direction of earth's motion is D+d, where D is the distance between > > mirrors and d is the extra distance that has to be moved by light, as > > the Earth is moving. In the opposite direction, it is D-d. Since t > > is the same both ways, it means that the speed of light is c+v one > > way, and c-v the other. All this and more I have shown with proper > > quotes, diagrams, etc. in the above website. > > > If you neglect the extra length d, then of course you will be stuck > > with the ancient mistake. > > > Cheers, > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > Regards > > > Zinnic > > I agree that the incident light travels D+d to the foreward mirror > and the reflected light travels back D-d. The total distance frome > source to mirror and back being D+d plus D-d equalling 2D. Similarly > the total distance travelled by light incident to and reflected from > the rear mrror will be D-d plus D+d, again equalling 2D. Wow. Great! Fantastic! This at least outs the bizarre Lorentz transformation (that 1/(1 - v^2/c^2) stuff, remember?), which with the v=c limit led to the strange notions of length MUST BE zero at speed c, mass must be infinite at speed c, nothing can move faster than c, e = mcc etc. If universally accepted, that is - as it should be. For this, don't I deserve the Nobel Prize? > In your theory the speed in space of the forward incident light is C+v > (where v is speed of light emitter) and of the backward incident > light is C-v . True. > Thus, the light will reach each mirror in the same time > (D+d/C+v and D-d/C-v). True. And this is why there are no nulls in the MMI experiment. > However, if the light is reflected from the > two mirrors at the same but opposite speed (C+v and C-v) c+v and c-v are the same? Gosh! The light is in opposite or different directions, agreed. > AND the > speed of the mirrors (v) is ballistically factored in (as was the > speed of the source for incident light), then the reflected light > will travel back to the source at C+v-v or C-v+v. Double- counting! The speed of the mirrors are already taken into account when we get c+v/c-v. If the mirror is not moving (it is at right angles, as in the MMI expt, then we have only c). Light reaches the mirror at velocity c+v, and then gets reflected back at velocity c-v with respect to the fixed ether. Reflected light, is same as emitted light. Just as emitted light velocity depends upon the speed of the emitter, the reflected light's speed depends upon the speed of the reflector. The 19th century physicists were I believe perfectly correct - as stated in the textbook - in holding that the light going back/forward would be c-v/c+v in velocity. There is no difference between reflected light, or directly emitted light,so far as their speed goes - speed of both depend upon the emitter/reflector. Incident light is only the cause of the reflected light, which is dependent upon the medium and the velocity of the source (in this case, the reflector). > That is, light would > return at C from the fore mirror (D-d) in a time of (D-d)/C and from > the rear mirror (D+d) in a time of (D+d)/C. Light from the fore mirror > would arrive sooner than the light from the rear mirror. This has > been shown experimentally NOT to be the case. > > Thus my question remains, why is the reflected light NOT affected by > the speed of the mirrors? It is affected by the speed of the mirrors. Look at an extreme example. Suppose you are travelling at c and send a beam of light in front. It hits a static object, at speed 2c (as per my theory). Let us say it reflects the light. I expect the reflected light will have velocity c, not 2c. However, going by my knowledge of antenna theory (upon which light is really based) the frequency of light that is reflected will double! Interesting point, this, and will be of use when we make interstellar spaceships that will try to communicate at super light speeds! Cheers, Arindam Banerjee. I need for you to explain how your theory > accomodates this apparent difference in the physics of emitted and > reflected (absorbed and instantaneously emitted?) light. > Regards > Zinnic > Zinnic- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Inertial on 2 Mar 2010 21:57 "Arindam Banerjee" <adda1234(a)bigpond.com> wrote in message news:67540a4e-18b0-487e-97ab-b62d7cc10071(a)t34g2000prm.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 3, 1:17 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: >> On Mar 1, 3:56 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Mar 2, 5:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: >> >> > > On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: >> > > > > > I think that the flat-earth theory has been comprehensively >> > > > > > ruled out >> > > > > > by the fact of satellites, etc. Similarly, SR has to be thrown >> > > > > > out, >> > > > > > if we are to believe in deductive logic a la geometry and most >> > > > > > maths. >> > > > > > Now, if we have no use for logic, facts, experiments; if we >> > > > > > believe >> > > > > > someone's imagination and hand-waving and plain bullshit are >> > > > > > what >> > > > > > really matter, in *science* as in business or government, for >> > > > > > perception is all that matters, reality be damned, then I have >> > > > > > nothing >> > > > > > more to say to you guys. There can be no argument! I see >> > > > > > myself as >> > > > > > an honest engineer, out to make an Internal Force Engine that >> > > > > > will >> > > > > > break the speed of light barrier. The bullshit of SR gets in >> > > > > > the way >> > > > > > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my >> > > > > > part. >> >> > > > > The reason for the speed of light is that you exist on a >> > > > > projected >> > > > > matrix. All realities are virtual. The speed of light is the >> > > > > frame rate >> > > > > the software which runs the projection has. Planck's constant is >> > > > > related >> > > > > to the pixel size of what passes for reality. "Black" is absolute >> > > > > zero. >> >> > > > > 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, at the apex of the Vedic >> > > > > canon >> > > > > before the Brits took over, said there are a myriad such worlds. >> > > > > Yours >> > > > > may have a way to do what you want, but that wont be evident in >> > > > > mine. >> >> > > > What he probably meant was that every living being lives in its own >> > > > universe, which starts to exist when he is born, and dies when he >> > > > dies. A learning experience is an intersection of many such >> > > > universes. This is a highly metaphysical concept, and standard to >> > > > many Hindus. I have also mentioned this in my recently completed >> > > > work, The Birth of Ganesha. >> >> > > Arindam, at the risk of being tedious, let me ask how your theory >> > > regarding the ballistic nature of light relates to the speeds of >> > > light incident to, and reflected from a mirror. >> >> > Ballistic nature of light - I like this! >> >> > > I calculate that the time for light propagated to and from mirrors >> > > equidistant to the fore and rear of a light source in the direction >> > > of Earth's movement thru space (say v) is NOT equal UNLESS the >> > > speed >> > > (in space) of the reflected light is equal and opposite to that of >> > > the incident light. >> > > According to you, the speed of light from a source moving at v will >> > > be C+v. Thus, a mirror moving at v (in the same direction) will >> > > either reflect thist light at C+v in the opposite direction or will >> > > it >> > > reflect the light at C+v minus speed v of the mirror to give a net >> > > speed of C in the opposite direction. >> >> > > Experiment has demonstrated no difference in the total times for >> > > light to travel an equal distance when propagated/reflected in the >> > > same/ opposite direction of the motion of Earth in space. Hence, the >> > > speeds of incident/ reflected light are indeed equal and opposite >> > > and >> > > not affected by the motion of the mirrors.. >> > > In 'light' of this, I would appreciate your explanation as to why >> > > you >> > > believe that the motion of an emitter affects the speed light >> > > whereas >> > > motion of a reflecting mirror demonstrably does not. >> >> > This is what the MMI experiment and my analysis is really all about. >> > Please read carefully what I wrote in >> >> >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm >> >> > and I am sure you will understand. >> >> > Basically, I am saying that the distance moved by light in the >> > direction of earth's motion is D+d, where D is the distance between >> > mirrors and d is the extra distance that has to be moved by light, as >> > the Earth is moving. In the opposite direction, it is D-d. Since t >> > is the same both ways, it means that the speed of light is c+v one >> > way, and c-v the other. All this and more I have shown with proper >> > quotes, diagrams, etc. in the above website. >> >> > If you neglect the extra length d, then of course you will be stuck >> > with the ancient mistake. >> >> > Cheers, >> > Arindam Banerjee >> >> > > Regards >> > > Zinnic >> >> I agree that the incident light travels D+d to the foreward mirror >> and the reflected light travels back D-d. The total distance frome >> source to mirror and back being D+d plus D-d equalling 2D. Similarly >> the total distance travelled by light incident to and reflected from >> the rear mrror will be D-d plus D+d, again equalling 2D. > > Wow. Great! Fantastic! This at least outs the bizarre Lorentz > transformation (that 1/(1 - v^2/c^2) stuff, remember?), which with the > v=c limit led to the strange notions of length MUST BE zero at speed > c, mass must be infinite at speed c, nothing can move faster than c, e > = mcc etc. If universally accepted, that is - as it should be. For > this, don't I deserve the Nobel Prize? > >> In your theory the speed in space of the forward incident light is C+v >> (where v is speed of light emitter) and of the backward incident >> light is C-v . > > True. > >> Thus, the light will reach each mirror in the same time >> (D+d/C+v and D-d/C-v). > > True. And this is why there are no nulls in the MMI experiment. > >> However, if the light is reflected from the >> two mirrors at the same but opposite speed (C+v and C-v) > > c+v and c-v are the same? Gosh! The light is in opposite or > different directions, agreed. > >> AND the >> speed of the mirrors (v) is ballistically factored in (as was the >> speed of the source for incident light), then the reflected light >> will travel back to the source at C+v-v or C-v+v. > > Double- counting! The speed of the mirrors are already taken into > account when we get c+v/c-v. If the mirror is not moving (it is at > right angles, as in the MMI expt, then we have only c). > > Light reaches the mirror at velocity c+v, and then gets reflected back > at velocity c-v with respect to the fixed ether. Reflected light, is > same as emitted light. Just as emitted light velocity depends upon > the speed of the emitter, the reflected light's speed depends upon the > speed of the reflector. > > The 19th century physicists were I believe perfectly correct - as > stated in the textbook - in holding that the light going back/forward > would be c-v/c+v in velocity. There is no difference between > reflected light, or directly emitted light,so far as their speed goes > - speed of both depend upon the emitter/reflector. > > Incident light is only the cause of the reflected light, which is > dependent upon the medium and the velocity of the source (in this > case, the reflector). > >> That is, light would >> return at C from the fore mirror (D-d) in a time of (D-d)/C and from >> the rear mirror (D+d) in a time of (D+d)/C. Light from the fore mirror >> would arrive sooner than the light from the rear mirror. This has >> been shown experimentally NOT to be the case. >> >> Thus my question remains, why is the reflected light NOT affected by >> the speed of the mirrors? > > It is affected by the speed of the mirrors. Look at an extreme > example. Suppose you are travelling at c and send a beam of light in > front. It hits a static object, at speed 2c (as per my theory). Let > us say it reflects the light. I expect the reflected light will have > velocity c, not 2c. However, going by my knowledge of antenna theory > (upon which light is really based) the frequency of light that is > reflected will double! Interesting point, this, and will be of use > when we make interstellar spaceships that will try to communicate at > super light speeds! > > Cheers, > Arindam Banerjee. > > I need for you to explain how your theory >> accomodates this apparent difference in the physics of emitted and >> reflected (absorbed and instantaneously emitted?) light. >> Regards >> Zinnic >> Zinnic- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > I see you are still unwilling to discuss the flaws in your article .. Afraid?
From: Zinnic on 3 Mar 2010 18:45
On Mar 2, 8:36 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 1:17 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 1, 3:56 pm, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 2, 5:02 am, Zinnic <zeenr...(a)gate.net> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:55 am, Arindam Banerjee <adda1...(a)bigpond.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 26, 4:56 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Arindam Banerjee wrote: > > > > > > > I think that the flat-earth theory has been comprehensively ruled out > > > > > > > by the fact of satellites, etc. Similarly, SR has to be thrown out, > > > > > > > if we are to believe in deductive logic a la geometry and most maths. > > > > > > > Now, if we have no use for logic, facts, experiments; if we believe > > > > > > > someone's imagination and hand-waving and plain bullshit are what > > > > > > > really matter, in *science* as in business or government, for > > > > > > > perception is all that matters, reality be damned, then I have nothing > > > > > > > more to say to you guys. There can be no argument! I see myself as > > > > > > > an honest engineer, out to make an Internal Force Engine that will > > > > > > > break the speed of light barrier. The bullshit of SR gets in the way > > > > > > > of funding or appreciation, so such efforts as these, on my part. > > > > > > > The reason for the speed of light is that you exist on a projected > > > > > > matrix. All realities are virtual. The speed of light is the frame rate > > > > > > the software which runs the projection has. Planck's constant is related > > > > > > to the pixel size of what passes for reality. "Black" is absolute zero. > > > > > > > 18th century Bengalese Saint Ramprasad, at the apex of the Vedic canon > > > > > > before the Brits took over, said there are a myriad such worlds.. Yours > > > > > > may have a way to do what you want, but that wont be evident in mine. > > > > > > What he probably meant was that every living being lives in its own > > > > > universe, which starts to exist when he is born, and dies when he > > > > > dies. A learning experience is an intersection of many such > > > > > universes. This is a highly metaphysical concept, and standard to > > > > > many Hindus. I have also mentioned this in my recently completed > > > > > work, The Birth of Ganesha. > > > > > Arindam, at the risk of being tedious, let me ask how your theory > > > > regarding the ballistic nature of light relates to the speeds of > > > > light incident to, and reflected from a mirror. > > > > Ballistic nature of light - I like this! > > > > > I calculate that the time for light propagated to and from mirrors > > > > equidistant to the fore and rear of a light source in the direction > > > > of Earth's movement thru space (say v) is NOT equal UNLESS the speed > > > > (in space) of the reflected light is equal and opposite to that of > > > > the incident light. > > > > According to you, the speed of light from a source moving at v will > > > > be C+v. Thus, a mirror moving at v (in the same direction) will > > > > either reflect thist light at C+v in the opposite direction or will it > > > > reflect the light at C+v minus speed v of the mirror to give a net > > > > speed of C in the opposite direction. > > > > > Experiment has demonstrated no difference in the total times for > > > > light to travel an equal distance when propagated/reflected in the > > > > same/ opposite direction of the motion of Earth in space. Hence, the > > > > speeds of incident/ reflected light are indeed equal and opposite and > > > > not affected by the motion of the mirrors.. > > > > In 'light' of this, I would appreciate your explanation as to why you > > > > believe that the motion of an emitter affects the speed light whereas > > > > motion of a reflecting mirror demonstrably does not. > > > > This is what the MMI experiment and my analysis is really all about. > > > Please read carefully what I wrote in > > > >http://adda-enterprises.com/MMInt/MMint.htm > > > > and I am sure you will understand. > > > > Basically, I am saying that the distance moved by light in the > > > direction of earth's motion is D+d, where D is the distance between > > > mirrors and d is the extra distance that has to be moved by light, as > > > the Earth is moving. In the opposite direction, it is D-d. Since t > > > is the same both ways, it means that the speed of light is c+v one > > > way, and c-v the other. All this and more I have shown with proper > > > quotes, diagrams, etc. in the above website. > > > > If you neglect the extra length d, then of course you will be stuck > > > with the ancient mistake. > > > > Cheers, > > > Arindam Banerjee > > > > > Regards > > > > Zinnic > > > I agree that the incident light travels D+d to the foreward mirror > > and the reflected light travels back D-d. The total distance frome > > source to mirror and back being D+d plus D-d equalling 2D. Similarly > > the total distance travelled by light incident to and reflected from > > the rear mrror will be D-d plus D+d, again equalling 2D. > > Wow. Great! Fantastic! This at least outs the bizarre Lorentz > transformation (that 1/(1 - v^2/c^2) stuff, remember?), which with the > v=c limit led to the strange notions of length MUST BE zero at speed > c, mass must be infinite at speed c, nothing can move faster than c, e > = mcc etc. If universally accepted, that is - as it should be. For > this, don't I deserve the Nobel Prize? > > > In your theory the speed in space of the forward incident light is C+v > > (where v is speed of light emitter) and of the backward incident > > light is C-v . > > True. > > > Thus, the light will reach each mirror in the same time > > (D+d/C+v and D-d/C-v). > > True. And this is why there are no nulls in the MMI experiment. > > > However, if the light is reflected from the > > two mirrors at the same but opposite speed (C+v and C-v) > > c+v and c-v are the same? Gosh! The light is in opposite or > different directions, agreed. > > > AND the > > speed of the mirrors (v) is ballistically factored in (as was the > > speed of the source for incident light), then the reflected light > > will travel back to the source at C+v-v or C-v+v. > > Double- counting! The speed of the mirrors are already taken into > account when we get c+v/c-v. Your theory derives C+v/C-v from the motion of the emitter (arguable), not of the mirrors. D+d/D-d is derived from the motion of the the mirrors (agreed), not of the emitter. After reflection, D+d/ D-d is derived from the speed of the source (agreed), but the speed of the reflected light consistent with your theory is where we are having a problem (see below). >If the mirror is not moving (it is at > right angles, as in the MMI expt, then we have only c). > > Light reaches the mirror at velocity c+v, and then gets reflected back > at velocity c-v with respect to the fixed ether. Reflected light, is > same as emitted light. Just as emitted light velocity depends upon > the speed of the emitter, the reflected light's speed depends upon the > speed of the reflector. Please bear with me. I have problems with your claim that I am double counting and that light incident at C+v (with respect to the fixed ether) is reflected back at C-v (with respect to the fixed ether). We need to clear up why you think this is so before we continue. 1) You claim that a source moving forward at at v results in forward and backward light moving at C+v and C-v , respectively. 2) We agree that the mirrors moving at v entails that the distance travelled to the foreward and backward mirrors will be D+d and D-d respectively. 3) We agree that the different velocities and distances involved will result in the light taking the same time to reach the front and rear mirrors. 4) We agree that a stationary mirror will reflect incident light at the same speed in the opposite direction. 5) You claim that a mirror travelling at v in the same or opposite direction of incident light travelling at C will reflect that light at C-v or C+v, respectively. Thus, according to your theory for front and rear mirrors moving at v (relative to a fixed ether), it follows that light with a speed of C +v incident to the front mirror will be reflected at (C+v) -v and light with a speed of C-v incident to the rear mirror will be reflected ar (C-v)+v. All of these speeds being relative to a fixed ether (if any). That is light will be reflected from both mirrors at a speed of C. Therefore, because the light (speed C) reflected from the rear mirror mirror must travel D+d back to the source it will take a longer time than light (speed C) reflected from the front mirror which has to travel only D-d. That is, time (D+d)/C > time (D-v)/C which is contrary to the experimental null result observed for this mirror set up ( nb-not the MMX setup). > The 19th century physicists were I believe perfectly correct - as > stated in the textbook - in holding that the light going back/forward > would be c-v/c+v in velocity. There is no difference between > reflected light, or directly emitted light,so far as their speed goes > - speed of both depend upon the emitter/reflector. > > Incident light is only the cause of the reflected light, which is > dependent upon the medium and the velocity of the source (in this > case, the reflector). > The medium is not a factor because it is the same for incident and reflected light! > > That is, light would > > return at C from the fore mirror (D-d) in a time of (D-d)/C and from > > the rear mirror (D+d) in a time of (D+d)/C. Light from the fore mirror > > would arrive sooner than the light from the rear mirror. This has > > been shown experimentally NOT to be the case. > > > Thus my question remains, why is the reflected light NOT affected by > > the speed of the mirrors? > > It is affected by the speed of the mirrors. Look at an extreme > example. Suppose you are travelling at c and send a beam of light in > front. It hits a static object, at speed 2c (as per my theory). Let > us say it reflects the light. I expect the reflected light will have > velocity c, not 2c. However, going by my knowledge of antenna theory > (upon which light is really based) the frequency of light that is > reflected will double! Interesting point, this, and will be of use > when we make interstellar spaceships that will try to communicate at > super light speeds! > You are confusing me. Now you claim that incident light (2xC) is reflected from a reflector (mirror) at half speed (C) and with twice its frequency? To my knowledge this has not been observed. I was never a Physics major so I would appreciate knowing on what this is based. Perhaps I would better understand if you could furthur explain your claim that light incident at C+v is reflected at C-v by a mirror moving at v (with all speeds being relative to a fixed motionless ether). Thanx and regards Zinnic |