Known physics defeated by simple puzzle?
in [Relativity]
|
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 15:13 On 21 Feb, 20:53, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - Do you understand how a setup must be done to prove emiiter theory correct and invariant lightspeed wrong. Well i am sure you do and i am pretty confident that everyone in SR community does both now how to do it and what the outcome will be. Afterall you already introdced closing speeds..... So... will you do it or will you keep up your juggling con act for another decade or two? What people think of Einsteins con act is really not that important, what is important is to find out how light moving between two points in vaccua behave, i hope we agree on that. And you will never get a correct answer using one light pulse passing same two lenses in a detector as soon it pass first lens it will travel at c relative the detector. Do you understand the proble with michel morleysson and other setups that claim to prove emitter theroy wrong? I think you do but i am not sure. JT JT
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 17:19 On 21 Feb, 21:13, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 20:53, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > Do you understand how a setup must be done to prove emiiter theory > correct and invariant lightspeed wrong. Well i am sure you do and i am > pretty confident that everyone in SR community does both now how to do > it and what the outcome will be. Afterall you already introdced > closing speeds..... > > So... will you do it or will you keep up your juggling con act for > another decade or two? > > What people think of Einsteins con act is really not that important, > what is important is to find out how light moving between two points > in vaccua behave, i hope we agree on that. > > And you will never get a correct answer using one light pulse passing > same two lenses in a detector as soon it pass first lens it will > travel at c relative the detector. > > Do you understand the proble with michel morleysson and other setups > that claim to prove emitter theroy ... > > läs mer »- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - I understand that an experiment that shows invariant velocity of light to be bothering, but just dissapear from thread what kind of turtle tactic is that? You just pretend like the experiment never was proposed and keep on juggling with your friends and speculating about wormholes, barn and pole, twins paradoxes? Is that physic when you deny the nature of light the correct interpretation, i don't think so. You guys need to come back to reality i don't say you can not watch sci-fi movies, just that your proposed theories should have some connection to reality. Feel free comback comment on the setup, that osterich behaviour sticking your head into wormholes as fast problems shows up, isn't really flattering.... JT
From: Paul Stowe on 21 Feb 2010 19:22 On Feb 21, 2:19 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 21 Feb, 21:13, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > On 21 Feb, 20:53, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 21 Feb, 20:39, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > 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. That blows the MMX et al since the beam splitter is a lens... > > > You must use a travelling *rig* in vaccua at velocity v, with two > > > emitters. That blows the MMX et al since it was done on Earth in air... > > > 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. No, that was not what was suggested... > > > Now you just must let the rig travel different velocities to see if > > > timings between D1 and D2 > > > differ at different velocities. Same velocity, opposite directions... Triggered at the same instant along a line equal distance to a single detector... > > > And they will.... proving emitter theory correct. So, two pulses should be detected, right? > > Do you understand how a setup must be done to prove emiiter theory > > correct and invariant lightspeed wrong. Well i am sure you do and i am > > pretty confident that everyone in SR community does both now how to do > > it and what the outcome will be. Afterall you already introdced > > closing speeds..... Yes, since the one above would do just that... > > So... will you do it or will you keep up your juggling con act for > > another decade or two? No, since I'm not the one claiming validity of a ballistic light model. It up to your ilk to prove your point. The evidence is overwhelmingly against you. But the experiment above would do the job. > > What people think of Einsteins con act is really not that important, > > what is important is to find out how light moving between two points > > in vaccua behave, i hope we agree on that. Now you don't know how ironic that is talking to me :) > > And you will never get a correct answer using one light pulse passing > > same two lenses in a detector as soon it pass first lens it will > > travel at c relative the detector. I didn't propose a single light pulse, or two lens... > > Do you understand the proble with michel morleysson and other setups > > that claim to prove emitter theroy ... Not by the criteria you specified above. But yes, a totally null result of the MMX is consistent with a ballistic model. There are other problems however. > I understand that an experiment that shows invariant velocity of light > to be bothering, but just dissapear from thread what kind of turtle > tactic is that? Huh? But, I will get quickly bored by irrational responses. I will also not tolerate rude or insulting behavior. > You just pretend like the experiment never was proposed and keep on > juggling with your friends and speculating about wormholes, barn and > pole, twins paradoxes? Ah Contraire, the ballistic model has been well tested, and shown invalid... > Is that physic when you deny the nature of light the correct > interpretation, i don't think so. > You guys need to come back to reality i don't say you can not watch > sci-fi movies, just that your proposed theories should have some > connection to reality. > > Feel free comback comment on the setup, that osterich behaviour > sticking your head into wormholes as fast problems shows up, isn't > really flattering.... This is irrational...
From: Peter Webb on 21 Feb 2010 19:37 > 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. ____________________________________________________ For 'c' to be observationally constant both time and space dilation must occur. It is "tested" every day in particle accelerators where time dilation extends the half life of decay products, and length dilation is needed to explain how the decay products travelled so far before decaying. So both of these hypotheses have been tested every day for about 50 years, and clearly are correct. HTH
From: JT on 21 Feb 2010 20:51
On 22 Feb, 01:22, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 21, 2:19 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On 21 Feb, 21:13, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On 21 Feb, 20:53, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 21 Feb, 20:39, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > > 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. > > That blows the MMX et al since the beam splitter is a lens... > > > > > You must use a travelling *rig* in vaccua at velocity v, with two > > > > emitters. > > That blows the MMX et al since it was done on Earth in air... > > > > > 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. > > No, that was not what was suggested... > > > > > Now you just must let the rig travel different velocities to see if > > > > timings between D1 and D2 > > > > differ at different velocities. > > Same velocity, opposite directions... Triggered at the same instant > along a line equal distance to a single detector... > > > > > And they will.... proving emitter theory correct. > > So, two pulses should be detected, right? > > > > Do you understand how a setup must be done to prove emiiter theory > > > correct and invariant lightspeed wrong. Well i am sure you do and i am > > > pretty confident that everyone in SR community does both now how to do > > > it and what the outcome will be. Afterall you already introdced > > > closing speeds..... > > Yes, since the one above would do just that... > > > > So... will you do it or will you keep up your juggling con act for > > > another decade or two? > > No, since I'm not the one claiming validity of a ballistic light > model. It up to your ilk to prove your point. The evidence is > overwhelmingly against you. But the experiment above would do the > job. Yes it certainly would prove me right but i am not an engineer i leave that for others better suited. But the model for the experiment is valid and will show variant lightspeed ala emitter theory. And i also already proved my point in a theoretical setup in another thread nonone even dared to answer which of my two suggested scenarios with the lightcones, you and they are fully aware that the question can not be answered without invalidating SR, so they just let it hang together with the physics. > > > What people think of Einsteins con act is really not that important, > > > what is important is to find out how light moving between two points > > > in vaccua behave, i hope we agree on that. > > Now you don't know how ironic that is talking to me :) > > > > And you will never get a correct answer using one light pulse passing > > > same two lenses in a detector as soon it pass first lens it will > > > travel at c relative the detector. > > I didn't propose a single light pulse, or two lens... > > > > Do you understand the proble with michel morleysson and other setups > > > that claim to prove emitter theroy ... > > Not by the criteria you specified above. But yes, a totally null > result of the MMX is consistent with a ballistic model. There are > other problems however. > > > I understand that an experiment that shows invariant velocity of light > > to be bothering, but just dissapear from thread what kind of turtle > > tactic is that? > > Huh? But, I will get quickly bored by irrational responses. I will > also not tolerate rude or insulting behavior. > > > You just pretend like the experiment never was proposed and keep on > > juggling with your friends and speculating about wormholes, barn and > > pole, twins paradoxes? > > Ah Contraire, the ballistic model has been well tested, and shown > invalid... Yeah by brainless peoples setup............ Well you can only see so long > > Is that physic when you deny the nature of light the correct > > interpretation, i don't think so. > > You guys need to come back to reality i don't say you can not watch > > sci-fi movies, just that your proposed theories should have some > > connection to reality. > > > Feel free comback comment on the setup, that osterich behaviour > > sticking your head into wormholes as fast problems shows up, isn't > > really flattering.... > > This is irrational... Well maybe there is people with enginering skills who actually will try out my suggested experimental setup. When they do the invariant lightspeed postulat will be proven wrong along with Einstein. 1.Accelerable emitter rig, 2 synchronized emitters, 2 spatially separated detectors with clocks that is what is needed to prove SR and invariant light wrong. JT |