GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the Aether?
Next: Debunking Nimtz
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 26 Oct 2007 07:01 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:24:33 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 26 Oct, 00:37, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >> >> You are using the classical wave equation to model light. >> >> >Ballistic theory says any EM disturbance moves >> >at c+v. If I want to know how a classical wave >> >composed of many photons behaves, ballistic theory >> >requires it to move at c+v. If I want to know >> >how some other waveform moves, ballistic theory >> >still says the same, it moves at c+v. If you >> >want to model it as variations in photon density, >> >go ahead, but ballistic theory requires those >> >variations to move at c+v so they arrive >> >simultaneously at the detector. >> >> I think you are right. This could explain a lot. An RF signal based on >> variations in photon DENSITY would behave like a clasical wave. > >Each photon from a monochromatic source carries the >same energy. The photon density determines the >intensity so variations in photon density would >be AM. The point is not whether you can model >oscillations that way (you can't), the point is >that regardles of your model ballistic theory >requires the same speed for propagation. There is no conflict there. All the photons move at c wrt the source. >> I could possibly go along with that idea. >> >> If true, an RF ring gyro shouldn't work. >> >> Light consists of single photons ttraveing at c wrt its source and does not >> behave in this manner. > >It behaves exactly the same, optical and RF techniques >vary only due to the wavelengths involved. bull. Moving towards an RF transmitter at 0.990c will not bombard you with gamma rays. >> >> Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this. I have previously >> disputed these claims. > >It is a standard technique, not a "claim". It is completely misinterpreted. >> >Monochromatic light is a >> >moving sine wave. Ballistic theory says that sine >> >wave moves at c+v so you are saying ballistic theory >> >is wrong. Fine by me, I already knew that. >> >> >Your bicycle chain model would be valid, your static >> >squiggly line photon is not, it doesn't move at the >> >speed required by ballistic theory. >> >> The basic difference between the two theories is illustrated at: >> http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.exe > >The dots indicate points of fixed phase, the wiggly >line in the centre is meaningless. George, it is a graph of the 'intrinsic phase' of the leading edge of a BaTh photon as it moves around the ring. Do you know what a 'graph' is, George? >Make it rotate >at the speed of the table and it would show the >standing wave pattern produced as the sum of the >two counter-rotating waves. Have two rotating >instead of the dots and you will get an accurate >picture of what ballistic theory requires. Sorry George, it doesn't move, It is a graph of phase. >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 26 Oct 2007 07:16 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:15:10 -0700, George Dishman <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >On 26 Oct, 00:47, HW@....(Clueless Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 17:51:11 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> >"Clueless Henri Wilson" <HW@....> wrote in message >> >news:oq4qh35jton797cniokm6so0vmdj3jmtgf(a)4ax.com... >> >> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 05:26:22 -0700, George Dishman >> >> <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> >> wrote: >> >>>Jerry already spelt it out for you, you can always >> >>>copy code if the "kid stuff" is beyond you, she got >> >>>it right. >> >> >> The simple math is shown athttp://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/ringgyro.htm >> >> >It is wrong, I have told you why numerous times. >> >> So 'wrong' it gets the right answer. > >No, it gets the wrong answer. The correct answer is >that there is no predicted fringe displacement and >ballistic theory is falsified. .......sheer desperation now....mumbling absolute nonsense..... >> >> hahahahhaahha! >> >> Very amusing George.... >> >> >No, your incompetence is becoming boring. >> >> George, the front of your 'moving sinewave' maintains a constant phase. > >The definition of "front" can only be a point >of constant phase. What's the front of a car then? >> The phase of the front of a BaTh photon oscillates through one cycle every >> absolute wavelength travelled (source frame). > >That describes a standing wave which is the sum of >two separate propagating waves moving in opposite >directions. The "front" of each of those waves is >a point of constant phase. George,at present I have no firm view as to what constitutes 'intrinsic photon oscillation'. My favorite theory is that a photon is a spinning pair of charges...They move at c wrt their source and the absolute distance traveled wrt the source during each rotation is one wavelength. The meaning of 'phase' should be obvious. >> >>>Nope, that is the definition, learn basic physics >> >>>sonny. >> >> >> Photons are particles, boy, not squiggly lines. >> >> >Sure they are, but you can't even cope with squiggly >> >lines yet, don't try to run before you can crawl. >> >> George, YOU are actually using my 'sawblade' photon model. > >No, I am using your "bicycle chain" model which >copes with arbitrary waveforms but is limited to >a table rotating at constant speed. The cycle chain model is te same as the sawblade model....and the water wave model.....and the classical wave model that was dropped from light 100 years ago. >> You regard the light >> moving around a gyro as having a fixed spatial pattern...like the teeth of a >> moving saw. >> My teeth oscillate like a standing wave as the blade moves. > >Sorry Henry, you just don't have enough grasp of >basic maths. A standing wave requires two waves. >In fact if you draw the ballistic model correctly >as Jerry has but then add the two waves, you will >get a standing waves pattern and you will find the >nodes rotate with the table because they always >occur an integer number of half-wavelengths from >the source. George, you might need some time to absorb the significance of my definition of wavelength so I will not bother trying to explain until you have come down to earth. >> >> This is quite irrelevant. Light does not behave like a water wave. > >Yes it does at levels above quantum effects and >the Sagnac experiment is macroscopic. bull... George's latest motto...."if all else fails, mention the word 'quantum'..." >> >Work through those questions and then see if you >> >can work how it could apply to a mirror. You might >> >not be quite so clueless at the end. >> >> Have you heard of the P.E. effect george? > >Learn to crawl before you try to run, the P.E. >effect also applies to the individual photons >that land on a target in a Young's Slits >experiment at positions determined by the >macroscopic wave model. Why should SOME moving wiggley lines and not others cause electrons to be released from metal surfaces? >George Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Dr. Henri Wilson on 26 Oct 2007 08:03 On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:57:28 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Oct 25, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: > >> >We can heterodyne laser light with a spectral line >> >from starlight to produce a microwave product whose >> >frequency can be counted. >> >> Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this. >> I have previously disputed these claims. > >One can also heterodyne a source of light of unknown >frequency with the closely and uniformly spaced sidebands >of a mode locked laser standard (a "frequency comb") to get >a precise measurement of the frequency of the unknown light >source in terms of the standard. The use of frequency combs >are now a standard technique, and were a subject of the >2005 Nobel Prize in Physics. > >If one understands Fourier analysis, the generation of the >comb is easily understood as the (in retrospect!) "obvious" >result of modulating the laser beam, CONSIDERED AS CONSISTING >OF A TRAIN OF CLASSICAL WAVES, into a series of very short >(10^-15 s) pulses. > >Can you apply Fourier analysis to your non-waves, Henri? >Can you explain how a frequency comb is generated? Fourier isn't required. you're talking about a beat frquency. Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation frequency' idea. Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory.... >No, of course you can't. > >Jerry > Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T) www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
From: Jerry on 26 Oct 2007 08:36 On Oct 26, 7:03 am, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 01:57:28 -0700, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > >On Oct 25, 6:37 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 18:04:06 +0100, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > >> wrote: > > >> >We can heterodyne laser light with a spectral line > >> >from starlight to produce a microwave product whose > >> >frequency can be counted. > > >> Yes we know some people have claimed to have dne this. > >> I have previously disputed these claims. > > >One can also heterodyne a source of light of unknown > >frequency with the closely and uniformly spaced sidebands > >of a mode locked laser standard (a "frequency comb") to get > >a precise measurement of the frequency of the unknown light > >source in terms of the standard. The use of frequency combs > >are now a standard technique, and were a subject of the > >2005 Nobel Prize in Physics. > > >If one understands Fourier analysis, the generation of the > >comb is easily understood as the (in retrospect!) "obvious" > >result of modulating the laser beam, CONSIDERED AS CONSISTING > >OF A TRAIN OF CLASSICAL WAVES, into a series of very short > >(10^-15 s) pulses. > > >Can you apply Fourier analysis to your non-waves, Henri? > >Can you explain how a frequency comb is generated? > > Fourier isn't required. you're talking about a beat frquency. As I suspected, you haven't the foggiest idea how Fourier analysis applies... > Anyway, this now fits in perfectly with my 'intrinsic oscillation > frequency' idea. > Thankyou Jerry for helping me develop my theory.... > > >No, of course you can't. Jerry Henri Wilson's Lies http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/diploma.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/deception.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/rt_aurigae.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/history.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/snips.htm http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/accuses.htm New! http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/henri/oh_dear.htm
From: sean on 26 Oct 2007 13:03
On 28 Sep, 20:10, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1190813512.203381.17300(a)w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com... > On 14 Sep, 15:22, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > > "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > What a long post you made. I personally would trim alot of your post > to shorten my reply but then youd accuse me of trimming > "important points". > > I was in a rush but there's a lot of duplication. > I'll trim this considerably and if you like point > out any other parts you would like me to cover and > I'll reply separately. Note - snipping does not > imply my agreement in this case. > > Another point, you may have used an unusual > character but for whatever reason the text > hasn't indented on my newsreader. There's > too much to do it manually so I'll put [GD:] > before my replies and [S:] before your text. > >news:1188512224.511353.237820(a)i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... The following text is Georges post from above url... > OK, maybe we can use the thrown ball to break through > this. Suppose you decide you don't like me and throw a > ball to hit me. To do that you face me. I am 50m away > and you throw it at 10m/s. "S" is Sean, "G" is George > and "B" is the ball: After 1s it looks like this: > > S B . . . G > > > The dots are just to mark off units of 10m. After 2s: > > > S . B . . G > > > After 3s you change your mind and decide I'm OK after > all so you turn 90 degrees to your left. You are saying > the picture is now like this: > > > . > . > B > . > . > S . . . . G > > >and after 4s like this > > > . > B > . > . > . > S . . . . G > > >and after 5s, when the ball should have hit me, it is >like this: > > > B > . > . > . > . > S . . . . G > > >Do you see how silly that sounds? Youve misunderstood one basic point Ive repeatedly made over and over again and shown in my sagnac sims. Light must leave a source at c in straight lines but only in the non rotating frame. The frame always is pointing in one N-E-S-W direction. Thats why I have two source frame sagnac sims. One rotating (sagnac 2) one non rotating.(sagnac) So for instance the following rule applies in emmision theory. If you stood facing east and threw a ball (light) east then the ball would move away in a straight line east at c from you. BUT, if you rotated on the spot the ball still moves away east from you, still at c , but in a spiral path.That is from your rotating point of view http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb the light curves away as the source remains still on the page (sagnac 2) and in the other the light moves away in a straight line. (sagnac) The former is the rotating frame and the latter non-rotating. The effect you want to describe which you call dragging only happens if the source MOVES relative to the observor. Then in the observors frame, as in your sean planets sim the light appears to drag with the source. But this is only becuase you are in a frame other than the source. Seen from the source frame the observor appears to move and the source doesnt and the light leaves in a straight line as below A) source........light observor B) (where sorce moves up) source...............light v v v v observor However one thing remains with regards to your above point. If the source rotates on the spot as it moves up relative to the observor the light always still travels away due east or right in the diagram above. If you look at my non rotating sagnac source simulation at the above url youll notice the source stays still on the page but the setup rotates around it like a hula hoop. What happens here is the source doesnt move in the frame but it is rotating. Notice however that the light travels away at c from the source in straight lines and is not dragged around in a circle. But now, notice how in the rotating source sagnac frame sim the setup doesnt rotate (the rest of the universe does) and notice how the light in this sim spirals away. Thats because its moving away at c from the source frame but in one due direction ie east lets say, uin the universe frame. So to summarize if light leaves a source it always travels away at c in that frame but if the source rotates on the spot it doesnt drag the light around. Hence in MMx I always try to specify travels away at c in the lab. Because in fact the lab rotates slightly in absolute e-w-n-s terms so in the lab the light technically curves slightly. We went over this point about 6 months ago. I forget where now. But you pointed out that in fact SR requires this too. And according to you, it has been observed. > > > On 21 Aug, 23:30, "George Dishman" <geo...(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > > >> "sean" <jaymose...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > It would make everything so much easier if you just did a sim of > > > sagnac in the source frame. > > > I don't think it would help at this stage but > > I will try to extend the animation of Mars and > > Earth to include the alternative views of Ritz, > > Henry and SR and that should clear it up. It > > won't be for a few days though. > > [S:] > Im not sure what you mean by `extend`. > > [GD:] > I meant add more panels with the planets moving > the same way seen by the same observer but the > light moving as described by the various theories. > > [S:] > But a source frame sim > *would* help. Because it would make you realize that any correct > simulation of light at c in the source frame (emmision)always has > to have light `dragging` in any other frame. Whether you, I > or anyone else likes it or not. > In fact if you think about it your sean planets sim does just this. > > [GD:] > I know, that's why doing another is pointless. But I wasnt asking you to do another planets sim. I was asking you to also do one in the source frame with rotating mirrors. As I have have, see.. http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb THen you would be able to see for yourself that my sims are correctly calculated. > [S:] > It proves that a correctly calculated source frame sim with > light at c in the source frame does give ` this drag` effect. > So it seems a bit perverse for you to prove tyat it does give drag > and then you claim when I use this drag effect to explain sagnac > that it cant give drag?! > > [GD:] > I don't say it doesn't give a drag, I say you > haven't drawn rays to a single point in your > sim so it doesn't tell us anything. Sort the > diagram and then we can discuss the implications. Your mistake again,with no substantiation Redo my sim with two paths, instead of one ,denoting the two outer edges of the light beam and you do get overlap. > > In the meantime I think you should address the error > > in your own sims, to work out the phase difference for > > any given point on the screen, you need to show the > > two paths that meet at that point but the paths in > > your diagrams do not meet on the screen. > > [S:] > THis is your mistake. To start with Ive calculated one theoretical > thin line for illustration purposes, not a beam with thickness. > But in fact any beam isnt one theoretically infinitely thin line > Therefore any beam with a width, will in fact show an overlap > at the detector. > > [GD:] > Yes I drew that for you ages ago: > http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/Sean_beam.png > My point is that the one thin line (called a 'ray') > that you need to pick out within the beam is the > one that goes to the detector. You need two rays, > one in each direction, both hitting the same point > on the screen to find out what the phase difference > is _at_that_point_. Your mistake again. A beam of light has width. Redo the simulation with two `rays` both coherent, denoting each edge of the light beam and you *do* get overlap. This is an irrelevent argument you trot out repeatedly that has no substantiation. > [S:] > So if I were or you were to do several calculations > using two lines one defining each edge of the beam then there > would be overlap. And as all lines are the same coherent source > then interefernce patterns will result. > > [GD:] > Right, but to find the intereference effect at > any chosen point, draw two lines _both_ ending > on the same point and then calculate the time > difference along the lines. That aspect has > nothing to do with your theory, it is just a > simple drawing error. wrong. You are ignoring the fact that the beam(s) in fact have width and that any point in either can overlap any other point in the other and as long as they are coherent they will produce interference. If your irrational claim above were true then in a simple interferometer you would have to line up two coherent split beams from the same source to *exactly* the same point in space at the detector to get interference fringes. This is a ridiculous claim you make. It is theoretically impossible to split a beam and recombine it exactly overlapping at the detector. Yet we always get interference fringes. Even in crude setups where the overlap is far from perfect. In case the meaning of this eludes you. THis means that your claim that two split beamns can only interfere if they are recombined exactly on top of each other is.... incorrect! And inconsistent with observations in all interferometers > <big snip> > > > There are two problems at the moment, the major one > > being that you have light moving in curved paths for > > an un-accelerated observer. That is clearly wrong > > and we need to resolve that first. If you correct the > > error in your sims, you should find that the change > > of model makes no difference, the apparent phase > > difference you have at the moment is only due to the > > sim error. > > [S:] > This is rubbish and an unsubstantiated smear. > The fact is that even YOU have proven that my sims are > correct. Because your sean planet sims give the same results. > > [GD:] > I'll snip most of this because it is covered > in this reply: Ive read every reply of yours and none including this one supply any substantiation to your claims that a) light does not travel at c in the source frames and b) that a correct simulation of sagnac in the source frame with light at c in the source frame does not explain the observed results. Do a correct simulation of sagnac for emmision instead of pretending you have. Until then you have claims with no proof. > Give that some careful consideration. > > [S:] > That is your sim also shows that light at c in the source frame > only, as emmision theory predicts, DOES give a drag. Just the > same results that my sims show!!! > So what are you saying ... that YOUR sean planets sim is > incorrectly calculated? You must be, because your sean planets > sims are giving the same result as my 3 sagnac sims, which you > claim are incorrectly calculated. > Make up your mind. Your sim and mine give identical results. > So either they are both wrong or both right. > > [GD:] > They both correctly represent what I think you > are saying, but I think your suggestion is not > sensible. A ball thrown at me won't be dragged > round if you turn after throwing it and neither > will the laser pulse. Nor is your suggestion sensible that a ball thrown in a straight line by A to B will be forced to move in a curved line from A to B when an observor C observes the ball from a rotating path (thats moving and rotating relative to A and B). This is patently untrue. And unsubstantiated. > > What everyone except you uses is the principle that > > light in vacuo other than gravitational bending) will > > travel in straight lines as seen by an unaccelerated > > observer AFTER it is omitted. The question of the > > speed at which it travels is separate from the > > direction. > > [S:] > By `unnaccelerated` I assume this includes any frame > that isnt the source frame. > > [GD:] > No. It is any frame where an observer holding a > gyroscope and an accelerometer would see both > instruments reading zero all the time during > the experiment. Basically someone floating in > deep space who _doesn't_ fire his jetpack. Does > that somewhat tongue-in-cheek explanation make > it clearer? It clarifies that the observor isnt rotating relative to the source and is only moving in a straight line. But if in your example the source ROTATES after the light was emitted then you have no observational proof that the light travels in straight lines in your `unaccelerated` observors frame. And in MMx where the observor is in the source frame light is observed to travel at c. Which wouldnt be possible if light had to travel in straight lines in your unaccelerated observors frame above. In case the point I make eludes you. MMx proves that your above claim about observed straight lines in unaccelerated observor frames is incorrect and unsubstantiated. > [S:] > ... So please tell me what you think > ... Did Ritz argue for light at c+-v in the sagnac lab > frame and light at variable speed in the source frame,.. > or was he arguing what Im ( and your sean planet sim) > arguing. Which is light at c in the source frame and > light at variable c in the sagnac lab frame? > > [GD:] > See the table, Ritz said the light was _emitted_ > at c in the source frame but, like everyone else, > it then moves in a straight line as seen by any > unaccelerated observer. Your version is unique > in suggesting the lateral 'drag' effect: Then he couldnt explain MMx. Because in MMx light is observed to be always at c in the source frame. Something thats not possible if Ritz claimed it moved at C+-v after it was emitted in the source frame > > > In which case > > > your Sean planets sim is also a Ritz planets sim. > > > No, and that's why I need to draw something to explain > > the various views. Maybe I can summarise in text. For > > a source moving at speed u in the direction of the > > light emitted but therafter moving in a curved path: > > > Ritz speed is c+u, constant path is straight > > Sean speed starts as c+u, variable path is curved > > Henry speed starts as c+u, variable path is straight > > SR speed is c, constant path is straight > > > Does that help? Its inconsistent with other claims you make. But based on the above statement youve just admitted that SR and Ritz cannot explain MMx. Because in MMx light is ONLY observed to be at c in the source frame. Which means Ritzs C+-v and SR`s c+-v in the rotating source frame, are inconsistent with the observed MMx `c in the source frame`. > For starters please leave henris arguments out. > > [GD:] > No, the point is that you should understand > _all_ the ideas being discussed because I am > fed up telling you things you should be able > to figure out for yourself. Im fed up with you not being able to figure out that light is always at c only in the source frame. Especially when I have proof it is(MMX) and you have no proof it isnt. > [S:] > OK you try to substantiate SR in another frame . > Ill stick with the source frame observations. > That way I dont have to speculate what will be observed. > I can actually cite whats observed. And that is > that in MMx, light is definitely observed to travel at > c in the source frame. > > [GD:] > Not true, what is observed is that the time taken > for the two legs is equal, nothing more. In fact > oif the paths were curved in the source frame, the > two legs would still take the same time because the > curvature would be the same on both legs. Your claim > that it is straight in that frame is a speculation. You obviously dont bother reading things correctly. If you look at my sagnac sims at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Ive three sagnac sims . I forget which one is which, but one is rotating source frame, one is non rotating source frame and one lab frame. In the 2 source frame sims.. You`ll see that light travels in straight lines in the source frame at c if the frame doesnt rotate with the source and travels in curved lines at c if the frame does rotate with the source. So to summarize.. Your claim or suggestion above that I claim that light travels in straight lines always in any source frame is unsubstantiated smear. Ive clarified for a year here, and in my sims at my url, that its at c in the source frame and that its in straight lines in the source frame *only* if the source *frame* isnt rotating. > > I have told you many times, your rays don't meet on > > the screen. The brightness at any point depends on > > rays that meet at that point, not ones that go > > elsewhere. > > [S:] > And I have told you many times that were the beams calculated > with width then they would overlap. As indeed they are > observed to in sagnac. > So you still have no substantiating proof to show that > my simulations are incorrectly calculated. > > [GD:] > You are still missing the point, to calculate the > phase difference ant any point X, you need the > times along the two rays which both end up at X. > Drawing light doesn't tell us an answer. As I said earlier. This claim of yours is unsubstantiated and incorrect. If what you claim were true then no interferometer would work and give fringes. Because, as you falsely claim, each pair of split `rays` in the beam werent overlapping at the the same point at the detector. (It is theoretically impossible to split a beam and then line the two up again perfectly at the detector. Yet you claim this is the only time you could get interference fringes) > > >> >> The mistake sagnac made was to incorrectly assume that > >> >> his rotating source was not the same as the rotating source > >> >> in the MMx experiment. He and others like Einstein > >> >> incorrectly assumed that the MMx source was not rotating > >> >> around the earths axis. > > >> >Rubbish, that motion is one factor that the > >> >experiment tries to meaure. Michelson's early > >> >attempts weren't sensitive enough but were > >> >easily good enough to measure the orbital > >> >speed of the Earth round the Sun. > > > Does MMx measure they speed of the earth around the sun? > > > Not that Im aware of. Otherwise there would be no null result > > > observed. > > > It was built to measure that. The null answer > > was unexpected. > > [S:] > Exactly. Didnt I just finish saying that MMx gives a null result > which is not whats expected if it were able to measure the earths > speed around the sun? > > [GD:] > NO, have another read of what you said. You said > the MMx doesn't measure the speed, not that it > measures it and gives zero for the answer. I never said that MMx measures the earths speed and gives zero speed. This is your invention. > [S:] > Wow, you are contrary. I say something, you then say no Im wrong > and then contradict yourself and proceed to say that what I just > said is in fact correct.! > > [GD:] > Take more care over what you write. Wrong again . You take more care. If you look at our discourse above youll see that initially I say that Einstein et al incorrectly assumed that MMx null result showed that the source/lab wasnt rotating. You replied that I was wrong and that they were correct to make this assumption and that there proof was that the MMx could measure Earths orbital speed. I replied by saying your wrong and that MMx cannot measure earths orbital speed otherwise it wouldnt get a null result. You then agreed with me. Contradicting your earlier claim I was wrong to say that MMx had measured that the source lab wasnt rotating > > All I need is for you to say whether or not you agree that > the MMx observations are consistent with the prediction that > light travels at c in the source (MMxlab) frame. > > [GD:] > They are consistent with: > > * light moves at c in the source frame Yes thats what Ive been saying and so far youve been denying this is possible. > * light moves at c in the lab frame Yes once again this is what Ive claimed and youve said is not possible. > * light moves as described by SR Wrong here. SR predicts that in the lab light will be at c+-v > but the MMx does not distinguish which of those > is correct. Well it does actually. Because in MMx the source and lab frames are identical. So it doesnt have to distiguish between the two. And to correct your mistake; SR predicts that light is NOT at c in the lab. It says and you have said in the past that light is at c in some imaginary inertial frame that doesnt rotate. Well the big news you seem to have missed is... The lab rotates and is therefore not inertial. But light is observed to be at c in the lab. THerefore MMX shows us that light has to be at c only in the rotating non inertial lab frame to be consistent with the observations. And unfortunately SR needs light to be at c in a frame other than the rotating MMx lab/source frame . But Im glad you finally agree that light is at c in the rotating source frame. This means that youll have to agree that light is at c in any rotating source frame. Which includes the rotating sagnac source frame. In which case you have to agree that an emmision theory that models light at c only in the source frame , as I have done at... http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb Can explain both sagnac and MMx > [S:] > And if you dont agree ,..Ill need you to explain why > MMx observations are not consistent with light travelling on both > paths in the source frame. You will find it impossible to rule > this out Im afraid. Which is why you nor anyone else can bring > themselves > to admit here on the net that in MMx the observations are consistent > with > light travelling at c on both paths in the source/lab frame. > Because if you do youll have to admit that a theory where light > travels at c in the source frame only can also explain sagnac. > > [GD:] > That doesn't follow but let's leave that discussion > for the moment. Incidentally regarding Pound Rebka.. Ive found that a simulation of the pound rebka source in emmision theory also gives a drop in apparent observed flux at the scintillation counter. When the source is oscillated at a particular frequency. Oscillating the source at other frequencies does not give the same dropout. In other words although SR *may* be able to explain the experiment. SO can emmision theory. As long as one models light as only being at c in the source frame. (as also observed in MMx and sagnac) Sean www.gammarayburst.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb |