Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: Ste on 21 Feb 2010 12:53 On 21 Feb, 00:50, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 20 Feb, 20:31, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. > > > > > I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light > > > > on diagrams. > > > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. > > > Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to > > refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why > > certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just > > unclear. > > No, look again I wrote c for the base value and c' (called c prime) > for the speed in a moving frame. Lengths a, b, c (ah, OK. that c is > the hypothenuse [mentioned but not used in formula]) could be > confusing. I used length b as the 'basic' length (the physical length > of the paths) of an MMX path. > > > > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > > > your friend. > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htm... > > > I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > > > > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > > > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > > > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > > > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > > > unchanged. > > > Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, > > man! > > Light speed will measure (appear) to be the same value in all inertial > moving systems. The reason, in plain english, is because length > contraction of moving fields along the axis of motion results in the > exactly the same path length for all possible round trip circuits, > regardless of direction. When moving, the time it takes light to > complete these paths B-E-C-A-U-S-E of said movement increases with > speed by exactly the same amount (g). Since, by definition, speed is > the change in distance divided by the change in time or dx/dt... So > since the trip length increases with speed by g AND time it takes to > complete any circuit also increases by g this means that these two > increases mathematically cancel each other OUT!, i.e., dx(g)/dt(g) = > (dx/dt)(g/g). > > This make the computational results identical regardless of any > inertial movements. Movement has two affects, it distorts fields, in > the case of light, electric/magnetic/nuclear ...etc. and, requires > longer physical time to complete a circuit. Therefore, the reality > is, light move at speed c and that speed IS independent of any > systemic internal movements. Time dilation is actually the > manifestation of the slowing of light speed in moving systems. If > fields didn't distort with speed the MMX would have given the > predicted results and the increase in travel time would have been > rightly associated with a speed change. However, with the contraction > of fields and thus light speed apparent invariance, rather than > associate the travel time increase to speed change we instead coined > the term 'time dilation' instead. It doesn't matter which you call it > the results are the same. This is why both LET and SR are > mathematically/observationally indistinguishable. You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains observationally constant", and of course I already understand the essence of the length contraction hypothesis. What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be tests for this hypothesis.
From: Paul Stowe on 21 Feb 2010 13:31 On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 00:50, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 20 Feb, 20:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. > > > > > > I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light > > > > > on diagrams. > > > > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. > > > > Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to > > > refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why > > > certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just > > > unclear. > > > No, look again I wrote c for the base value and c' (called c prime) > > for the speed in a moving frame. Lengths a, b, c (ah, OK. that c is > > the hypothenuse [mentioned but not used in formula]) could be > > confusing. I used length b as the 'basic' length (the physical length > > of the paths) of an MMX path. > > > > > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > > > > your friend. > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htm... > > > > I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > > > > > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > > > > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > > > > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > > > > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > > > > unchanged. > > > > Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, > > > man! > > > Light speed will measure (appear) to be the same value in all inertial > > moving systems. The reason, in plain english, is because length > > contraction of moving fields along the axis of motion results in the > > exactly the same path length for all possible round trip circuits, > > regardless of direction. When moving, the time it takes light to > > complete these paths B-E-C-A-U-S-E of said movement increases with > > speed by exactly the same amount (g). Since, by definition, speed is > > the change in distance divided by the change in time or dx/dt... So > > since the trip length increases with speed by g AND time it takes to > > complete any circuit also increases by g this means that these two > > increases mathematically cancel each other OUT!, i.e., dx(g)/dt(g) = > > (dx/dt)(g/g). > > > This make the computational results identical regardless of any > > inertial movements. Movement has two affects, it distorts fields, in > > the case of light, electric/magnetic/nuclear ...etc. and, requires > > longer physical time to complete a circuit. Therefore, the reality > > is, light move at speed c and that speed IS independent of any > > systemic internal movements. Time dilation is actually the > > manifestation of the slowing of light speed in moving systems. If > > fields didn't distort with speed the MMX would have given the > > predicted results and the increase in travel time would have been > > rightly associated with a speed change. However, with the contraction > > of fields and thus light speed apparent invariance, rather than > > associate the travel time increase to speed change we instead coined > > the term 'time dilation' instead. It doesn't matter which you call it > > the results are the same. This is why both LET and SR are > > mathematically/observationally indistinguishable. > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it remains a mystery to you. > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > tests for this hypothesis. Several things, 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also understand that it must remain internally consistent under all possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of space-time'). Paul Stowe
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 13:53 On 21 Feb, 19:31, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 Feb, 00:50, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 20 Feb, 20:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. > > > > > > > I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light > > > > > > on diagrams. > > > > > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. > > > > > Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to > > > > refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why > > > > certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just > > > > unclear. > > > > No, look again I wrote c for the base value and c' (called c prime) > > > for the speed in a moving frame. Lengths a, b, c (ah, OK. that c is > > > the hypothenuse [mentioned but not used in formula]) could be > > > confusing. I used length b as the 'basic' length (the physical length > > > of the paths) of an MMX path. > > > > > > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > > > > > your friend. > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htm... > > > > > I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > > > > > > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > > > > > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > > > > > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > > > > > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, > > > > man! > > > > Light speed will measure (appear) to be the same value in all inertial > > > moving systems. The reason, in plain english, is because length > > > contraction of moving fields along the axis of motion results in the > > > exactly the same path length for all possible round trip circuits, > > > regardless of direction. When moving, the time it takes light to > > > complete these paths B-E-C-A-U-S-E of said movement increases with > > > speed by exactly the same amount (g). Since, by definition, speed is > > > the change in distance divided by the change in time or dx/dt... So > > > since the trip length increases with speed by g AND time it takes to > > > complete any circuit also increases by g this means that these two > > > increases mathematically cancel each other OUT!, i.e., dx(g)/dt(g) = > > > (dx/dt)(g/g). > > > > This make the computational results identical regardless of any > > > inertial movements. Movement has two affects, it distorts fields, in > > > the case of light, electric/magnetic/nuclear ...etc. and, requires > > > longer physical time to complete a circuit. Therefore, the reality > > > is, light move at speed c and that speed IS independent of any > > > systemic internal movements. Time dilation is actually the > > > manifestation of the slowing of light speed in moving systems. If > > > fields didn't distort with speed the MMX would have given the > > > predicted results and the increase in travel time would have been > > > rightly associated with a speed change. However, with the contraction > > > of fields and thus light speed apparent invariance, rather than > > > associate the travel time increase to speed change we instead coined > > > the term 'time dilation' instead. It doesn't matter which you call it > > > the results are the same. This is why both LET and SR are > > > mathematically/observationally indistinguishable. > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > remains a mystery to you. > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > tests for this hypothesis. > > Several things, > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > space-time'). > > Paul Stowe- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Well that is just the problem it do not remain consistent, lightspeed travels invariant between point A and B. SR claim it do not travel invariant between point A and B. SR claim lightspeed to be invariant but it is not, so the very essence of Einsteins theory is wrong to start with. Since emitter theory is not supposed to detect an Aether in Michel Morleyson that is not there it, will give same answer to the lightspeed experiment as SR. To prove emitter theory correct you would need to first have two detectors at rest spatially separated by a distance and you would need a fast moving object targetting the detectors and emit two separat light pulses that moves parallel. I am convinced that such a experiment would show that such an experiment would show that the lightbeams travel c+v between the two detector points. I do not know who you really think you can fool with light travels invariant at c in space, i think the prestige was busted when unit comparisson between frames in the spotlight. JT
From: Paul Stowe on 21 Feb 2010 14:39 On Feb 21, 10:53 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 19:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 21 Feb, 00:50, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 20 Feb, 20:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. > > > > > > > > I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light > > > > > > > on diagrams. > > > > > > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. > > > > > > Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to > > > > > refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why > > > > > certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just > > > > > unclear. > > > > > No, look again I wrote c for the base value and c' (called c prime) > > > > for the speed in a moving frame. Lengths a, b, c (ah, OK. that c is > > > > the hypothenuse [mentioned but not used in formula]) could be > > > > confusing. I used length b as the 'basic' length (the physical length > > > > of the paths) of an MMX path. > > > > > > > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > > > > > > your friend. > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htm... > > > > > > I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > > > > > > > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > > > > > > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > > > > > > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > > > > > > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, > > > > > man! > > > > > Light speed will measure (appear) to be the same value in all inertial > > > > moving systems. The reason, in plain english, is because length > > > > contraction of moving fields along the axis of motion results in the > > > > exactly the same path length for all possible round trip circuits, > > > > regardless of direction. When moving, the time it takes light to > > > > complete these paths B-E-C-A-U-S-E of said movement increases with > > > > speed by exactly the same amount (g). Since, by definition, speed is > > > > the change in distance divided by the change in time or dx/dt... So > > > > since the trip length increases with speed by g AND time it takes to > > > > complete any circuit also increases by g this means that these two > > > > increases mathematically cancel each other OUT!, i.e., dx(g)/dt(g) = > > > > (dx/dt)(g/g). > > > > > This make the computational results identical regardless of any > > > > inertial movements. Movement has two affects, it distorts fields, in > > > > the case of light, electric/magnetic/nuclear ...etc. and, requires > > > > longer physical time to complete a circuit. Therefore, the reality > > > > is, light move at speed c and that speed IS independent of any > > > > systemic internal movements. Time dilation is actually the > > > > manifestation of the slowing of light speed in moving systems. If > > > > fields didn't distort with speed the MMX would have given the > > > > predicted results and the increase in travel time would have been > > > > rightly associated with a speed change. However, with the contraction > > > > of fields and thus light speed apparent invariance, rather than > > > > associate the travel time increase to speed change we instead coined > > > > the term 'time dilation' instead. It doesn't matter which you call it > > > > the results are the same. This is why both LET and SR are > > > > mathematically/observationally indistinguishable. > > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > > remains a mystery to you. > > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > > tests for this hypothesis. > > > Several things, > > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity.. > > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > > space-time'). > > > Paul Stowe > > Well that is just the problem it do not remain consistent, lightspeed > travels invariant between point A and B. SR claim it do not travel > invariant between point A and B. > > SR claim lightspeed to be invariant but it is not, so the very essence > of Einsteins theory is wrong to start with. > > Since emitter theory is not supposed to detect an Aether in Michel > Morleyson that is not there it, will give same answer to the > lightspeed experiment as SR. > > To prove emitter theory correct you would need to first have two > detectors at rest spatially separated by a distance and you would need > a fast moving object targetting the detectors and emit two separat > light pulses that moves parallel. > > I am convinced that such a experiment would show that such an > experiment would show that the lightbeams travel c+v between the two > detector points. > > I do not know who you really think you can fool with light travels > invariant at c in space, i think the prestige was busted when unit > comparisson between frames in the spotlight. > > JT Maybe, just maybe you'll understand this (although, most likely not). Let's consider your emitter hypothesis. When a system is moving along at some speed v, a wavefront would be propelled forward at c' -> c + v, in the rearward direction c'' -> c - v. Now let's setup an experiment that will test this. We designate a 'tripwire' perpendicular to two parallel rails which each contain a carriage containing a strobe that fires hitting the trip. We now place these carriages equal distance up & down line from the trip and set it up so that each hit the trip at the same instant moving at some +/-v. We will place a photo-detector at a point equal distance from the rails at some distance d from the trip line. If your idea is right the detector will record two pulses d/c' and d/c''. If, otoh c is independent of source speed the detector will record a single pulse as both flashes arrive at the same time d/c. . This has significance for astronomical observations. Paul Stowe
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 14:53
On 21 Feb, 20:39, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 10:53 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 Feb, 19:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 21, 9:53 am, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 21 Feb, 00:50, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Feb 20, 2:47 pm, Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 20 Feb, 20:31, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully this helps answer your question above. > > > > > > > > > I'm afraid it didn't, because you were heavy on equations, and light > > > > > > > > on diagrams. > > > > > > > > I'm sorry, the equations were minimal, basically high school algebra. > > > > > > > Yes, but they were basically meaningless. You used the letter 'c' to > > > > > > refer to more than one value. You also failed to explain how or why > > > > > > certain fields would become "elliptical". The whole thing was just > > > > > > unclear. > > > > > > No, look again I wrote c for the base value and c' (called c prime) > > > > > for the speed in a moving frame. Lengths a, b, c (ah, OK. that c is > > > > > the hypothenuse [mentioned but not used in formula]) could be > > > > > confusing. I used length b as the 'basic' length (the physical length > > > > > of the paths) of an MMX path. > > > > > > > > As for diagrams, these are easily found on the internet, google is > > > > > > > your friend. > > > > > > > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MichelsonMorley_experimenthttp://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.htm... > > > > > > > I wasn't after diagrams for the MMX. > > > > > > > > Please don't take this a sarcasm, it isn't, but was as simple an > > > > > > > explanation as can be done of how light speed can 'appear' invariant. > > > > > > > Time dilation between differently moving system is proof that, it is > > > > > > > in fact, contrary to 'appearances' , it's NOT!, in reality, > > > > > > > unchanged. > > > > > > > Again, I'm not quite clear what argument you're making. Speak English, > > > > > > man! > > > > > > Light speed will measure (appear) to be the same value in all inertial > > > > > moving systems. The reason, in plain english, is because length > > > > > contraction of moving fields along the axis of motion results in the > > > > > exactly the same path length for all possible round trip circuits, > > > > > regardless of direction. When moving, the time it takes light to > > > > > complete these paths B-E-C-A-U-S-E of said movement increases with > > > > > speed by exactly the same amount (g). Since, by definition, speed is > > > > > the change in distance divided by the change in time or dx/dt... So > > > > > since the trip length increases with speed by g AND time it takes to > > > > > complete any circuit also increases by g this means that these two > > > > > increases mathematically cancel each other OUT!, i.e., dx(g)/dt(g) = > > > > > (dx/dt)(g/g). > > > > > > This make the computational results identical regardless of any > > > > > inertial movements. Movement has two affects, it distorts fields, in > > > > > the case of light, electric/magnetic/nuclear ...etc. and, requires > > > > > longer physical time to complete a circuit. Therefore, the reality > > > > > is, light move at speed c and that speed IS independent of any > > > > > systemic internal movements. Time dilation is actually the > > > > > manifestation of the slowing of light speed in moving systems. If > > > > > fields didn't distort with speed the MMX would have given the > > > > > predicted results and the increase in travel time would have been > > > > > rightly associated with a speed change. However, with the contraction > > > > > of fields and thus light speed apparent invariance, rather than > > > > > associate the travel time increase to speed change we instead coined > > > > > the term 'time dilation' instead. It doesn't matter which you call it > > > > > the results are the same. This is why both LET and SR are > > > > > mathematically/observationally indistinguishable. > > > > > You seem to be just saying "length contraction is how 'c' remains > > > > observationally constant", and of course I already understand the > > > > essence of the length contraction hypothesis. > > > > I don't think you do. Like many, I think you understand that it must > > > be so IF results are to match observation. But by your statement > > > below it is very clear that the essence of what physically causes it > > > remains a mystery to you. > > > > > What I would say is that, while this would explain the result of the > > > > MMX, it does seem to leave the length contraction hypothesis itself in > > > > want of a qualitative explanation, and moreover there would surely be > > > > tests for this hypothesis. > > > > Several things, > > > > 1. length contraction isn't without a qualitative explanation. It is > > > what is required to maintain internal consistency of the fields in a > > > medium moving or not. As such it occurs for all fields in all media. > > > It is not limited to, or 'Special' to, so-called space-time. > > > > 2. The test for this IS! the MMX, KT, ... etc. class experiments. > > > For example KT (Kennedy-Thorndike) tested for the contraction alone, > > > assuming no so-called 'time-dilation'. > > > > Therefore the contraction is a result of physical stress imposed by > > > the underlying medium on fields created by moving sources. If you > > > realize the medium is a single universal entity then you should also > > > understand that it must remain internally consistent under all > > > possible condition. This is the basis of the principle of relativity. > > > For most modernist, like the Greeks of old, the answers are more > > > important than the questions... thus there is no need to ask such > > > question as to what causes it, it simply is (a.k.a, 'the structure of > > > space-time'). > > > > Paul Stowe > > > Well that is just the problem it do not remain consistent, lightspeed > > travels invariant between point A and B. SR claim it do not travel > > invariant between point A and B. > > > SR claim lightspeed to be invariant but it is not, so the very essence > > of Einsteins theory is wrong to start with. > > > Since emitter theory is not supposed to detect an Aether in Michel > > Morleyson that is not there it, will give same answer to the > > lightspeed experiment as SR. > > > To prove emitter theory correct you would need to first have two > > detectors at rest spatially separated by a distance and you would need > > a fast moving object targetting the detectors and emit two separat > > light pulses that moves parallel. > > > I am convinced that such a experiment would show that such an > > experiment would show that the lightbeams travel c+v between the two > > detector points. > > > I do not know who you really think you can fool with light travels > > invariant at c in space, i think the prestige was busted when unit > > comparisson between frames in the spotlight. > > > JT > > Maybe, just maybe you'll understand this (although, most likely not). > Let's consider your emitter hypothesis. When a system is moving along > at some speed v, a wavefront would be propelled forward at c' -> c + > v, in the rearward direction c'' -> c - v. Now let's setup an > experiment that will test this. We designate a 'tripwire' > perpendicular to two parallel rails which each contain a carriage > containing a strobe that fires hitting the trip. We now place these > carriages equal distance up & down line from the trip and set it up so > that each hit the trip at the same instant moving at some +/-v. We > will place a photo-detector at a point equal distance from the rails > at some distance d from the trip line. If your idea is right the > detector will record two pulses d/c' and d/c''. If, otoh c is > independent of source speed the detector will record a single pulse as > both flashes arrive at the same time d/c. . This has significance for > astronomical observations. > > Paul Stowe- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - What i basicly say is that you can not let a photons pass thru an optical lins they will be emitted from the lins at c in the lins restspace. You must use a travelling *rig* in vaccua at velocity v, with two emitters. You emit two lighpulses/photonshowers parallel and use two *detectors spatially separated by distance* aligned parallel like the emitters,now you have a distance to start with. Now you just must let the rig travel different velocities to see if timings between D1 and D2 differ at different velocities. And they will.... proving emitter theory correct. JT |