Science > Physics > A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"GSS" |
| Date: |
16 Jun 2006 01:19:18 PM |
| Object: |
A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the
settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The
null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the
Physicists of that time.
The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or
assumptions :
(a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of time
was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent of
spatial dimension.
(b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or
vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light
waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the
emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm.
Primarily the MMEx was conducted to experimentally detect the fixed
aether frame by measuring the velocity of earth moving through it. As
such the null result of MMEx was simply interpreted to imply the
non-existence of the fixed aether frame in particular and invalidity of
assumptions at (a) above in general. That was not all, to explain the
null result of MMEx some more assumptions had to be introduced which in
the long run proved to be a turning point for physics.
The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of
MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for
propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert
Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
for the null result of MMEx. For this I propose to retain the validity
of assumptions at (a) and question the validity of assumptions at (b)
above. In this regard kindly refer to following article in support of
this viewpoint.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
Let us consider a source of light A moving at a constant *velocity v*
in the universal reference frame. In order to understand and grasp the
detailed mechanism of emission of a photon during the transition of an
atomic electron from its higher energy state to a lower one, we need to
mentally visualize the detailed instant to instant orbital motion of
the electron. For this kindly refer to a model of Hydrogen orbitals at
the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/hydrogen_orbitals.pdf
This model is based only on Coulomb interaction and does not account
for spin interaction. Detailed computations of orbital transitions show
that the photon emission time is generally of the order of only 10^-16
seconds. This implies that the photon emission process is more of a
'spontaneous emission' rather than a 'continuous emission' of light
waves. Further, since the photon wave packet must propagate at constant
*velocity c* in the universal reference frame (under vacuum
conditions), the *relative emission velocity* of the photon with
respect to the light source A will be given by [vector c - vector v].
The new hypothesis regarding photon emission can now be stated as,
New Hypothesis : If a light source at rest in the universal reference
frame, under certain energy transition, emits a photon of frequency f0
and wave length L0 then the corresponding frequency f and wave length L
emitted by the same light source moving at velocity v in the universal
reference frame will be given by -
f = f0 . Relative emission velocity [vector c-vector v]/c
= |vector c - vector v| . f0/c
And L = c.L0/|vector c - vector v|
With this hypothesis, the null result of MMEx is easily explained
because the number of wave lengths (or total phase shift) along the
path-lengths of transverse and axial beams of light remain constant,
independent of the velocity v of the light source. For complete details
of this explanation, kindly refer to the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf
Therefore, we may conclude that the *relative emission velocity* of
photons from a moving source is dependent on the relative direction of
emission in comparison with the direction of motion of the source.
After emission from the source, the photons have to propagate at
constant velocity c in the universal reference frame (vacuum)
regardless of the motion of the source. If v is the instantaneous
velocity of the source in the universal reference frame, then the
relative emission velocity of the photon will be given by the (vector c
- vector v). As per the proposed new hypothesis, the energy E and
frequency f of the emitted photon will be proportional to the *relative
emission velocity* |vector c - vector v|.
Specifically, let us consider an observer O to be at rest in the
universal reference frame and let a source S approach the observer with
velocity v. The frequency f of photons emitted by S in the direction of
its velocity vector v will therefore be reduced by a factor (c-v)/c. On
the other hand the frequency of photons emitted by S in the direction
opposite to its velocity vector v will be increased by a factor
(c+v)/c. Hence the observer O will find the frequency of photons
received from an approaching source S to be reduced by a factor of
(c-v)/c and that of photons received from a receding source S to be
increased by a factor of (c+v)/c.
However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and tested
before formally accepting it as valid. Implications of the new
hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of
distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead
of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the
proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons
emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for
continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas.
GSS
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
17 Jun 2006 03:46:55 PM |
|
|
GSS:
[...]
The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of
MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for
propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert
Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.
The michelson-morely experiment is of little or no importance regarding
the widespread acceptance of relativity. Relativity is widely accepted
because the only experiments ever done which claim to not support
relativity are a hand full of unrepeatable anecdotes which cannot even
be optimistically called ``ambiguous.''
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Not only is there no ``raging controversy,'' there is no controversy
whatsoever. Relativity has been established by experiments to the extent
that it might as well be called a fact for any of the purposes being
discussed here. In order to discuss the regime in which reltivity might
not hold, we would have to be discussing phenomena which have never
been observed and your understanding of relativity would have to be
considerably better than it is.
Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
for the null result of MMEx.
Well no, it isn't. No single experiment ever causes a wholesale shift
science and no one cares about experiments done in the 19th century except
for historical reasons and potential pedagogical value. If you want to
propose an alternative to relativity, you'll need to provide an alternative
that explains _every_ experiment that relativistic theories explain and
that is a very long list. I seriously doubt you have even considered that
you would have to explain phenomena like \beta decay and the existence
of anti-matter when proposing an alternative.
Essentially, you have a religious hangup on geometry. I cannot
imagine how anyone could waste such time and effort creating rube
golderg schemes to circumvent the possibility that the universe
is not galilean, when clearly the simplest way that nature could
have made the universe appear to have the geometry of special
relativity is to start with that geometry. Do you really think that
nature is some conscious entity that decided the universe ought to
``really'' be galilean, but should be constructed insuch a way as
to test one's faith by thwarting all attempts to elucidate that
structure?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
16 Jun 2006 04:21:50 PM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150481958.252422.29100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the
| settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The
| null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the
| Physicists of that time.
|
| The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or
| assumptions :
|
| (a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of time
| was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent of
| spatial dimension.
|
| (b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or
| vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light
| waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the
| emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm.
|
| Primarily the MMEx was conducted to experimentally detect the fixed
| aether frame by measuring the velocity of earth moving through it. As
| such the null result of MMEx was simply interpreted to imply the
| non-existence of the fixed aether frame in particular and invalidity of
| assumptions at (a) above in general. That was not all, to explain the
| null result of MMEx some more assumptions had to be introduced which in
| the long run proved to be a turning point for physics.
|
| The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of
| MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for
| propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert
| Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.
|
| In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
| Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
| for the null result of MMEx. For this I propose to retain the validity
| of assumptions at (a) and question the validity of assumptions at (b)
| above. In this regard kindly refer to following article in support of
| this viewpoint.
|
| http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
|
| Let us consider a source of light A moving at a constant *velocity v*
| in the universal reference frame. In order to understand and grasp the
| detailed mechanism of emission of a photon during the transition of an
| atomic electron from its higher energy state to a lower one, we need to
| mentally visualize the detailed instant to instant orbital motion of
| the electron. For this kindly refer to a model of Hydrogen orbitals at
| the following link.
|
| http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/hydrogen_orbitals.pdf
|
| This model is based only on Coulomb interaction and does not account
| for spin interaction. Detailed computations of orbital transitions show
| that the photon emission time is generally of the order of only 10^-16
| seconds. This implies that the photon emission process is more of a
| 'spontaneous emission' rather than a 'continuous emission' of light
| waves. Further, since the photon wave packet must propagate at constant
| *velocity c* in the universal reference frame (under vacuum
| conditions), the *relative emission velocity* of the photon with
| respect to the light source A will be given by [vector c - vector v].
| The new hypothesis regarding photon emission can now be stated as,
|
| New Hypothesis : If a light source at rest in the universal reference
| frame, under certain energy transition, emits a photon of frequency f0
| and wave length L0 then the corresponding frequency f and wave length L
| emitted by the same light source moving at velocity v in the universal
| reference frame will be given by -
| f = f0 . Relative emission velocity [vector c-vector v]/c
| = |vector c - vector v| . f0/c
| And L = c.L0/|vector c - vector v|
|
| With this hypothesis, the null result of MMEx is easily explained
| because the number of wave lengths (or total phase shift) along the
| path-lengths of transverse and axial beams of light remain constant,
| independent of the velocity v of the light source. For complete details
| of this explanation, kindly refer to the following link.
|
| http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf
|
| Therefore, we may conclude that the *relative emission velocity* of
| photons from a moving source is dependent on the relative direction of
| emission in comparison with the direction of motion of the source.
| After emission from the source, the photons have to propagate at
| constant velocity c in the universal reference frame (vacuum)
| regardless of the motion of the source. If v is the instantaneous
| velocity of the source in the universal reference frame, then the
| relative emission velocity of the photon will be given by the (vector c
| - vector v). As per the proposed new hypothesis, the energy E and
| frequency f of the emitted photon will be proportional to the *relative
| emission velocity* |vector c - vector v|.
|
| Specifically, let us consider an observer O to be at rest in the
| universal reference frame and let a source S approach the observer with
| velocity v. The frequency f of photons emitted by S in the direction of
| its velocity vector v will therefore be reduced by a factor (c-v)/c. On
| the other hand the frequency of photons emitted by S in the direction
| opposite to its velocity vector v will be increased by a factor
| (c+v)/c. Hence the observer O will find the frequency of photons
| received from an approaching source S to be reduced by a factor of
| (c-v)/c and that of photons received from a receding source S to be
| increased by a factor of (c+v)/c.
|
| However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and tested
| before formally accepting it as valid.| Implications of the new
| hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of
| distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead
| of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the
| proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons
| emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for
| continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas.
|
| GSS
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. :-)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/STM/Scoundrels.htm
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
17 Jun 2006 11:11:47 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150481958.252422.29100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the
| settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The
| null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the
| Physicists of that time.
|
| The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or
| assumptions :
|
| (a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of time
| was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent of
| spatial dimension.
|
| (b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or
| vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light
| waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the
| emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm.
|
| Primarily the MMEx was conducted to experimentally detect the fixed
| aether frame by measuring the velocity of earth moving through it. As
| such the null result of MMEx was simply interpreted to imply the
| non-existence of the fixed aether frame in particular and invalidity of
| assumptions at (a) above in general. That was not all, to explain the
| null result of MMEx some more assumptions had to be introduced which in
| the long run proved to be a turning point for physics.
|
| The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of
| MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for
| propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert
| Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.
|
| In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
| Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
| for the null result of MMEx. For this I propose to retain the validity
| of assumptions at (a) and question the validity of assumptions at (b)
| above. In this regard kindly refer to following article in support of
| this viewpoint.
|
| http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
|
| Let us consider a source of light A moving at a constant *velocity v*
| in the universal reference frame. In order to understand and grasp the
| detailed mechanism of emission of a photon during the transition of an
| atomic electron from its higher energy state to a lower one, we need to
| mentally visualize the detailed instant to instant orbital motion of
| the electron. For this kindly refer to a model of Hydrogen orbitals at
| the following link.
|
| http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/hydrogen_orbitals.pdf
|
| This model is based only on Coulomb interaction and does not account
| for spin interaction. Detailed computations of orbital transitions show
| that the photon emission time is generally of the order of only 10^-16
| seconds. This implies that the photon emission process is more of a
| 'spontaneous emission' rather than a 'continuous emission' of light
| waves. Further, since the photon wave packet must propagate at constant
| *velocity c* in the universal reference frame (under vacuum
| conditions), the *relative emission velocity* of the photon with
| respect to the light source A will be given by [vector c - vector v].
| The new hypothesis regarding photon emission can now be stated as,
|
| New Hypothesis : If a light source at rest in the universal reference
| frame, under certain energy transition, emits a photon of frequency f0
| and wave length L0 then the corresponding frequency f and wave length L
| emitted by the same light source moving at velocity v in the universal
| reference frame will be given by -
| f = f0 . Relative emission velocity [vector c-vector v]/c
| = |vector c - vector v| . f0/c
| And L = c.L0/|vector c - vector v|
|
| With this hypothesis, the null result of MMEx is easily explained
| because the number of wave lengths (or total phase shift) along the
| path-lengths of transverse and axial beams of light remain constant,
| independent of the velocity v of the light source. For complete details
| of this explanation, kindly refer to the following link.
|
| http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf
|
| Therefore, we may conclude that the *relative emission velocity* of
| photons from a moving source is dependent on the relative direction of
| emission in comparison with the direction of motion of the source.
| After emission from the source, the photons have to propagate at
| constant velocity c in the universal reference frame (vacuum)
| regardless of the motion of the source. If v is the instantaneous
| velocity of the source in the universal reference frame, then the
| relative emission velocity of the photon will be given by the (vector c
| - vector v). As per the proposed new hypothesis, the energy E and
| frequency f of the emitted photon will be proportional to the *relative
| emission velocity* |vector c - vector v|.
|
| Specifically, let us consider an observer O to be at rest in the
| universal reference frame and let a source S approach the observer with
| velocity v. The frequency f of photons emitted by S in the direction of
| its velocity vector v will therefore be reduced by a factor (c-v)/c. On
| the other hand the frequency of photons emitted by S in the direction
| opposite to its velocity vector v will be increased by a factor
| (c+v)/c. Hence the observer O will find the frequency of photons
| received from an approaching source S to be reduced by a factor of
| (c-v)/c and that of photons received from a receding source S to be
| increased by a factor of (c+v)/c.
|
| However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and tested
| before formally accepting it as valid.| Implications of the new
| hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of
| distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead
| of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the
| proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons
| emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for
| continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas.
|
| GSS
Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. :-)
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
Thanks.
Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
....
Androcles
I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
agree with me!!
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
17 Jun 2006 01:59:52 PM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150560707.617427.137390@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1150481958.252422.29100@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > | Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the
| > | settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The
| > | null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the
| > | Physicists of that time.
| > |
| > | The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or
| > | assumptions :
| > |
| > | (a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of
time
| > | was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent
of
| > | spatial dimension.
| > |
| > | (b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or
| > | vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light
| > | waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the
| > | emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm.
| > |
| > | Primarily the MMEx was conducted to experimentally detect the fixed
| > | aether frame by measuring the velocity of earth moving through it. As
| > | such the null result of MMEx was simply interpreted to imply the
| > | non-existence of the fixed aether frame in particular and invalidity
of
| > | assumptions at (a) above in general. That was not all, to explain the
| > | null result of MMEx some more assumptions had to be introduced which
in
| > | the long run proved to be a turning point for physics.
| > |
| > | The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of
| > | MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for
| > | propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert
| > | Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.
| > |
| > | In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
| > | Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
| > | for the null result of MMEx. For this I propose to retain the validity
| > | of assumptions at (a) and question the validity of assumptions at (b)
| > | above. In this regard kindly refer to following article in support of
| > | this viewpoint.
| > |
| > | http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
| > |
| > | Let us consider a source of light A moving at a constant *velocity v*
| > | in the universal reference frame. In order to understand and grasp the
| > | detailed mechanism of emission of a photon during the transition of an
| > | atomic electron from its higher energy state to a lower one, we need
to
| > | mentally visualize the detailed instant to instant orbital motion of
| > | the electron. For this kindly refer to a model of Hydrogen orbitals at
| > | the following link.
| > |
| > | http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/hydrogen_orbitals.pdf
| > |
| > | This model is based only on Coulomb interaction and does not account
| > | for spin interaction. Detailed computations of orbital transitions
show
| > | that the photon emission time is generally of the order of only 10^-16
| > | seconds. This implies that the photon emission process is more of a
| > | 'spontaneous emission' rather than a 'continuous emission' of light
| > | waves. Further, since the photon wave packet must propagate at
constant
| > | *velocity c* in the universal reference frame (under vacuum
| > | conditions), the *relative emission velocity* of the photon with
| > | respect to the light source A will be given by [vector c - vector v].
| > | The new hypothesis regarding photon emission can now be stated as,
| > |
| > | New Hypothesis : If a light source at rest in the universal reference
| > | frame, under certain energy transition, emits a photon of frequency f0
| > | and wave length L0 then the corresponding frequency f and wave length
L
| > | emitted by the same light source moving at velocity v in the universal
| > | reference frame will be given by -
| > | f = f0 . Relative emission velocity [vector c-vector v]/c
| > | = |vector c - vector v| . f0/c
| > | And L = c.L0/|vector c - vector v|
| > |
| > | With this hypothesis, the null result of MMEx is easily explained
| > | because the number of wave lengths (or total phase shift) along the
| > | path-lengths of transverse and axial beams of light remain constant,
| > | independent of the velocity v of the light source. For complete
details
| > | of this explanation, kindly refer to the following link.
| > |
| > | http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf
| > |
| > | Therefore, we may conclude that the *relative emission velocity* of
| > | photons from a moving source is dependent on the relative direction of
| > | emission in comparison with the direction of motion of the source.
| > | After emission from the source, the photons have to propagate at
| > | constant velocity c in the universal reference frame (vacuum)
| > | regardless of the motion of the source. If v is the instantaneous
| > | velocity of the source in the universal reference frame, then the
| > | relative emission velocity of the photon will be given by the (vector
c
| > | - vector v). As per the proposed new hypothesis, the energy E and
| > | frequency f of the emitted photon will be proportional to the
*relative
| > | emission velocity* |vector c - vector v|.
| > |
| > | Specifically, let us consider an observer O to be at rest in the
| > | universal reference frame and let a source S approach the observer
with
| > | velocity v. The frequency f of photons emitted by S in the direction
of
| > | its velocity vector v will therefore be reduced by a factor (c-v)/c.
On
| > | the other hand the frequency of photons emitted by S in the direction
| > | opposite to its velocity vector v will be increased by a factor
| > | (c+v)/c. Hence the observer O will find the frequency of photons
| > | received from an approaching source S to be reduced by a factor of
| > | (c-v)/c and that of photons received from a receding source S to be
| > | increased by a factor of (c+v)/c.
| > |
| > | However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and
tested
| > | before formally accepting it as valid.| Implications of the new
| > | hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of
| > | distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe
instead
| > | of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the
| > | proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons
| > | emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for
| > | continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas.
| > |
| > | GSS
|
|
| > Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. :-)
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Doppler/Doppler.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Catalina/Drive.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
|
| Thanks.
|
| > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| ...
| > Androcles
|
| I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
| agree with me!!
|
| GSS
Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
Sue doesn't have a clue how radio or light propagates, even though
it has been explained to him many times.
Phuddlephuck is snot-nosed git who snips to try to win an argument.
You'll find lots of shitheads with their own agenda.
Actually the real problem began with an eighteen year-old punk
who made up his own theory that Algol was an eclipsing binary
and astronomy has spiralled downhill ever since, taking physics
with it.
http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html
If you want to do something useful get involved with Wackypedia,
there are bishops and cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity
there, eager to promote their own point of view to the greater glory
of themselves and the destruction of physics.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
18 Jun 2006 12:37:48 PM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
....
| > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| ...
| > Androcles
|
| I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
| agree with me!!
|
| GSS
Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
and intelligent human beings have no say at all?
How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
education system or the product of our industrialized society?
How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?
GSS
Sue doesn't have a clue how radio or light propagates, even though
it has been explained to him many times.
Phuddlephuck is snot-nosed git who snips to try to win an argument.
You'll find lots of shitheads with their own agenda.
Actually the real problem began with an eighteen year-old punk
who made up his own theory that Algol was an eclipsing binary
and astronomy has spiralled downhill ever since, taking physics
with it.
http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html
If you want to do something useful get involved with Wackypedia,
there are bishops and cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity
there, eager to promote their own point of view to the greater glory
of themselves and the destruction of physics.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
18 Jun 2006 06:42:32 PM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| ...
| > | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| > | ...
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| > | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
| > | agree with me!!
| > |
| > | GSS
| >
| > Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
| > being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
|
| OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
|
| But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
| and intelligent human beings have no say at all?
Of course not.
|
| How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
| education system or the product of our industrialized society?
Interesting question, and not being a trained psychologist I don't really
know.
It seems to me that there is a class of people that are capable of
soaking up vast amounts of information and can "remember" what
they are told, and that is the majority. Children learn language first,
whatever nationality, and then the training in remembering begins
in earnest, making them recite multiplication tables and "facts"
about geography and history and science etc.
If they can then recite these "facts" back in an exam paper they are
considered intelligent, but to me they are a database without a processor,
they cannot think for themselves.
Tell a kid there is no Santa and you'll *not* be believed before the age
of five, his parent told him otherwise.
He'll be dubious between the ages of six and seven, accept the
truth at the age of eight. We lie to children from the beginning.
The last thing any of us want is to say "I was wrong", which is perhaps
why I admire Michelson so much. He didn't find what he sought, but
he published anyway. Sagnac built Michelson's interferomer and made
it rotate, *proving* Einstein was wrong, and Einstein knew it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Did Einstein renounce his sins? No bloody fear, there was fame and fortune
waiting.
The shitheads that "understand" (meaning they can recite) relativity
want fame and fortune too, so greed is their prime motivation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?
I really have no idea. Perhaps the answer is to ignore them and
concentrate solely on those who really have something worth saying.
Personally I welcome constructive criticism. When one teaches, two learn.
If you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (which is really a send-up
of communism), it is the pigs that win in the end. Tragic, but there it is.
You'll find the signal-to-noise ratio in these newsgroups is extremely poor,
and occasionally someone with some sense finds a nugget, but more often
than not it is fool's gold.
Intelligence isn't what you know, it is applying what you know to
unfamiliar situations and being prepared to be wrong. To be a
physicist of the calibre of great men such as Michelson you must attempt
sincerely to show that you are wrong, not try to show you are right,
because if you ARE wrong, someone will find it.
Copernicus was wrong, the sun is not the centre of the universe and
the planets do not move in perfect circles as Kepler showed, but
he had a better model than Ptolemy and with that modern science
was born.
Nature is not a democracy, we cannot make it work by popular vote.
All great scientists are individuals that go against the popular ideas
of the majority, but they must be able to show they are correct.
The minority of true scientists are called engineers, the marketplace
proves their worth. They are the people that adapt old ideas to new
situations, taking men to the moon, flying faster than sound, building
ships and TVs and refrigerators and generally improving the quality
of life, while teachers have no ability to anything but repeat what
they are taught themselves.
So have your say, as I do, but do not expect to be believed by
those who cannot think. Your target is the young, fertile mind, not
the fogeys that have nothing better to do than try to repeat the
ideas of others, and try not to waste your talents on the indolent.
Androcles
| GSS
|
| > Sue doesn't have a clue how radio or light propagates, even though
| > it has been explained to him many times.
| > Phuddlephuck is snot-nosed git who snips to try to win an argument.
| > You'll find lots of shitheads with their own agenda.
| >
| > Actually the real problem began with an eighteen year-old punk
| > who made up his own theory that Algol was an eclipsing binary
| > and astronomy has spiralled downhill ever since, taking physics
| > with it.
| > http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html
| >
| > If you want to do something useful get involved with Wackypedia,
| > there are bishops and cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity
| > there, eager to promote their own point of view to the greater glory
| > of themselves and the destruction of physics.
| >
| > Androcles.
|
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
19 Jun 2006 07:48:42 AM |
|
|
Sorcerer wrote:
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| ...
| > | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| > | ...
| > | > Androcles
| > |
| > | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| > | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them will
| > | agree with me!!
| > |
| > | GSS
| > Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
| > being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
| OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
| But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
| and intelligent human beings have no say at all?
Of course not.
| How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
| education system or the product of our industrialized society?
Interesting question, and not being a trained psychologist I don't really
know.
It seems to me that there is a class of people that are capable of
soaking up vast amounts of information and can "remember" what
they are told, and that is the majority. Children learn language first,
whatever nationality, and then the training in remembering begins
in earnest, making them recite multiplication tables and "facts"
about geography and history and science etc.
If they can then recite these "facts" back in an exam paper they are
considered intelligent, but to me they are a database without a processor,
they cannot think for themselves.
Tell a kid there is no Santa and you'll *not* be believed before the age
of five, his parent told him otherwise.
He'll be dubious between the ages of six and seven, accept the
truth at the age of eight. We lie to children from the beginning.
The last thing any of us want is to say "I was wrong", which is perhaps
why I admire Michelson so much. He didn't find what he sought, but
he published anyway. Sagnac built Michelson's interferomer and made
it rotate, *proving* Einstein was wrong, and Einstein knew it.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
Did Einstein renounce his sins? No bloody fear, there was fame and fortune
waiting.
The shitheads that "understand" (meaning they can recite) relativity
want fame and fortune too, so greed is their prime motivation.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
| How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?
I really have no idea. Perhaps the answer is to ignore them and
concentrate solely on those who really have something worth saying.
Personally I welcome constructive criticism. When one teaches, two learn.
If you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (which is really a send-up
of communism), it is the pigs that win in the end. Tragic, but there it is.
You'll find the signal-to-noise ratio in these newsgroups is extremely poor,
and occasionally someone with some sense finds a nugget, but more often
than not it is fool's gold.
Intelligence isn't what you know, it is applying what you know to
unfamiliar situations and being prepared to be wrong. To be a
physicist of the calibre of great men such as Michelson you must attempt
sincerely to show that you are wrong, not try to show you are right,
because if you ARE wrong, someone will find it.
Copernicus was wrong, the sun is not the centre of the universe and
the planets do not move in perfect circles as Kepler showed, but
he had a better model than Ptolemy and with that modern science
was born.
Nature is not a democracy, we cannot make it work by popular vote.
All great scientists are individuals that go against the popular ideas
of the majority, but they must be able to show they are correct.
The minority of true scientists are called engineers, the marketplace
proves their worth. They are the people that adapt old ideas to new
situations, taking men to the moon, flying faster than sound, building
ships and TVs and refrigerators and generally improving the quality
of life, while teachers have no ability to anything but repeat what
they are taught themselves.
So have your say, as I do, but do not expect to be believed by
those who cannot think. Your target is the young, fertile mind, not
the fogeys that have nothing better to do than try to repeat the
ideas of others, and try not to waste your talents on the indolent.
Androcles
Thanks again.
I highly appreciate your opinion and advice.
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
19 Jun 2006 02:03:18 PM |
|
|
"GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150721322.900503.226240@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
| Sorcerer wrote:
| > "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
| > |
| > | Sorcerer wrote:
| > | ...
| > | > | > Just don't expect these shitheads to agree with you.
| > | > | ...
| > | > | > Androcles
| > | > |
| > | > | I believe that intelligent human beings are always influenced by
| > | > | logical arguments. Therefore, I expect that at least some of them
will
| > | > | agree with me!!
| > | > |
| > | > | GSS
|
| > | > Well, ok, I do agree with you. But then, I'm an intelligent human
| > | > being, all I said was don't expect the shitheads to agree with you.
|
| > | OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
|
| > | But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st
century
| > | and intelligent human beings have no say at all?
|
| > Of course not.
|
| > | How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
| > | education system or the product of our industrialized society?
|
| > Interesting question, and not being a trained psychologist I don't
really
| > know.
| > It seems to me that there is a class of people that are capable of
| > soaking up vast amounts of information and can "remember" what
| > they are told, and that is the majority. Children learn language first,
| > whatever nationality, and then the training in remembering begins
| > in earnest, making them recite multiplication tables and "facts"
| > about geography and history and science etc.
|
| > If they can then recite these "facts" back in an exam paper they are
| > considered intelligent, but to me they are a database without a
processor,
| > they cannot think for themselves.
|
| > Tell a kid there is no Santa and you'll *not* be believed before the age
| > of five, his parent told him otherwise.
| > He'll be dubious between the ages of six and seven, accept the
| > truth at the age of eight. We lie to children from the beginning.
| >
| > The last thing any of us want is to say "I was wrong", which is perhaps
| > why I admire Michelson so much. He didn't find what he sought, but
| > he published anyway. Sagnac built Michelson's interferomer and made
| > it rotate, *proving* Einstein was wrong, and Einstein knew it.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
| > Did Einstein renounce his sins? No bloody fear, there was fame and
fortune
| > waiting.
|
| > The shitheads that "understand" (meaning they can recite) relativity
| > want fame and fortune too, so greed is their prime motivation.
| > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
|
| > | How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?
|
| > I really have no idea. Perhaps the answer is to ignore them and
| > concentrate solely on those who really have something worth saying.
| > Personally I welcome constructive criticism. When one teaches, two
learn.
| > If you read George Orwell's "Animal Farm" (which is really a send-up
| > of communism), it is the pigs that win in the end. Tragic, but there it
is.
| >
| > You'll find the signal-to-noise ratio in these newsgroups is extremely
poor,
| > and occasionally someone with some sense finds a nugget, but more often
| > than not it is fool's gold.
|
| > Intelligence isn't what you know, it is applying what you know to
| > unfamiliar situations and being prepared to be wrong. To be a
| > physicist of the calibre of great men such as Michelson you must attempt
| > sincerely to show that you are wrong, not try to show you are right,
| > because if you ARE wrong, someone will find it.
| > Copernicus was wrong, the sun is not the centre of the universe and
| > the planets do not move in perfect circles as Kepler showed, but
| > he had a better model than Ptolemy and with that modern science
| > was born.
|
| > Nature is not a democracy, we cannot make it work by popular vote.
| > All great scientists are individuals that go against the popular ideas
| > of the majority, but they must be able to show they are correct.
|
| > The minority of true scientists are called engineers, the marketplace
| > proves their worth. They are the people that adapt old ideas to new
| > situations, taking men to the moon, flying faster than sound, building
| > ships and TVs and refrigerators and generally improving the quality
| > of life, while teachers have no ability to anything but repeat what
| > they are taught themselves.
| >
| > So have your say, as I do, but do not expect to be believed by
| > those who cannot think. Your target is the young, fertile mind, not
| > the fogeys that have nothing better to do than try to repeat the
| > ideas of others, and try not to waste your talents on the indolent.
|
| > Androcles
|
| Thanks again.
| I highly appreciate your opinion and advice.
|
| GSS
The next step is the study of Nature. For the most part, empirical
evidence is reliable. It's pretty hard to fake the luminosity curve of
a star when thousands of other observers have seen it, so I for one
will seldom question it.
What is in question, however, is the interpretation of that data.
Most people will seize upon the first explanation given,
they are eager for any explanation and unless someone provides
an alternative the world is stuck with it. If the explanation appears
to be initially plausible and particularly if it is a simple one, it becomes
"fact", not to be disputed.
The example I have in mind is this:
This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its
brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed it
diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed its
brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its
brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion,
a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change
is true and that it was not mistaken.
(John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782)
Note the year. John Goodricke was 18 years old, he died at the age of 22.
We've lived with a star that is eclipsed by its "dark neighbour" every
70 hours for over 200 years, because that was the kid's explanation.
http://www.surveyor.in-berlin.de/himmel/Bios/Goodricke-e.html
Yet... think about it. If the visible star is in orbit about another then it
is
alternately approaching and receding from us, and by the vector addition
of velocities the light itself is alternately greater than emission
velocity,
less than emission velocity. Fast photons emitted later will catch up
to slow photons emitted earlier. By carefully programming what we could
expect to see, the empirical data is matched.
In other words, there is another explanation that is actually simpler
than the one given.
With Goodricke's eclipsing model we are compelled to accept
Einstein's second postulate, and Einstein himself simply accepted
Goodricke's explanation:
"because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not
be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of
a fixed star by its dark neighbour. "
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Why did Einstein (who was surely intelligent) not challenge Goodricke?
The answer is simple... he didn't have a computer.
You do, though. It takes millions of computations to reproduce the curve.
Here is the program that reproduces the luminosity curve of Algol,
matching the empirical data but with a different cause, it is my telescope.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe
With it, I discovered the planet "Androcles" in orbit around Algol and
the planet "Cassandra" in orbit about delta Cepheus.
Cassandra of mythology told the truth but was not believed, hence my choice
of names for the planets I have discovered.
Bernoulli said upon seeing an anonymous paper written by Newton "I recognise
the lion by his paw"; hence Newton is the lion, the thorn in his paw is
Einstein, I am Androcles.
I stand upon the shoulders of a giant, I have seen further than any man
before me, while the shitheads crawl beneath the feet of a pygmy.
Come, stand up here with me. The view is wonderful. See what other
planets you can find using an Androclean telescope, there are many to
choose from:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/
A.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
18 Jun 2006 12:39:51 PM |
|
|
In article <1150652268.196784.317500@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
OK, I don't expect the 'shitheads' to agree with me.
But does it mean that only 'shitheads' count in Physics of 21st century
and intelligent human beings have no say at all?
How did these people become 'shitheads'? Are they the product of our
education system or the product of our industrialized society?
How can the Physics be freed from the clutches of these 'shitheads'?
GSS
You misunderstand which side you reside on. You;'re one of the
shitheads who we're trying to free ourself from. You're not that
intelligent either, otherwise you'd understand the physics you're
railing against.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
18 Jun 2006 05:55:48 PM |
|
|
Maximum FuckHead Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
How did these people become 'shitheads'?
Look in the mirror, Gurcharn Sandhu.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null resultof MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
16 Jun 2006 03:36:36 PM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]
There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.
it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
for the null result of MMEx.
That is always appropriate, as that is how science progresses.
But it is hopeless to attempt to do this without understanding the
current theories of physics; for this experiment the relevant theories
are: SR and classical electrodynamics. Knowing _and_using_ basic logic
is also necessary. Your writings fail on these points, and are therefore
useless.
Your "new hypothesis on photon emission" becomes simply a ballistic
theory in the classical domain. While such theories can indeed explain
the MMX, they are refuted many times by other experiments.
Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
16 Jun 2006 04:25:03 PM |
|
|
"Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:oDEkg.63281$4L1.9635@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
| GSS wrote:
| > In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
| > Theories, [...]
|
| There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
| people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
| of noise.
|
|
| > it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
| > for the null result of MMEx.
|
| That is always appropriate, as that is how science progresses.
|
| But it is hopeless to attempt to do this without understanding the
| current theories of physics; for this experiment the relevant theories
| are: SR and classical electrodynamics. Knowing _and_using_ basic logic
| is also necessary. Your writings fail on these points, and are therefore
| useless.
|
| Your "new hypothesis on photon emission" becomes simply a ballistic
| theory in the classical domain. While such theories can indeed explain
| the MMX, they are refuted many times by other experiments.
|
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Lucent/Roberts.htm
Androcles.
| Tom Roberts
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
20 Jun 2006 11:54:50 AM |
|
|
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]
There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.
Can we interpret this statement as "People who are making a lot of
noise do not understand the basics of these theories?"
it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
for the null result of MMEx.
That is always appropriate, as that is how science progresses.
But it is hopeless to attempt to do this without understanding the
current theories of physics; for this experiment the relevant theories
are: SR and classical electrodynamics. Knowing _and_using_ basic logic
is also necessary. Your writings fail on these points, and are therefore
useless.
Your "new hypothesis on photon emission" becomes simply a ballistic
theory in the classical domain.
No, that is wrong observation. It does not become a ballistic theory in
any domain. Fundamental assumption of this "hypothesis" is the
existence of a universal reference frame (some thing like ICRF) where
the speed of light c is constant. As per ballistic theories, the speed
of light emitted from a source moving at velocity v in the ICRF (or
universal reference frame) could be c+v.
While such theories can indeed explain
the MMX, they are refuted many times by other experiments.
The MMX and all other experiments which involve (a) reflection of light
and (b) interference of different beams of light, can be explained by
*only* two hypothesizes, i.e.
1. Speed of light is constant c in all inertial reference frames in
relative motion, leading to the notion of relative time and distance.
(SR hypothesis)
2. Speed of light is constant c only in Universal Reference Frame (so
called aether frame) but the frequency of light photon emitted from a
moving source is proportional to its relative emission velocity wrt the
source. (New hypothesis)
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.
We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.
Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
23 Jun 2006 01:41:07 AM |
|
|
GSS:
Tom Roberts wrote:
Your "new hypothesis on photon emission" becomes simply a ballistic
theory in the classical domain.
No, that is wrong observation. It does not become a ballistic theory in
any domain. Fundamental assumption of this "hypothesis" is the
existence of a universal reference frame (some thing like ICRF) where
the speed of light c is constant. As per ballistic theories, the speed
of light emitted from a source moving at velocity v in the ICRF (or
universal reference frame) could be c+v.
That defines a galilean invariant theory, which is experimentally
ruled out.
While such theories can indeed explain
the MMX, they are refuted many times by other experiments.
The MMX and all other experiments which involve (a) reflection of light
and (b) interference of different beams of light, can be explained by
*only* two hypothesizes, i.e.
1. Speed of light is constant c in all inertial reference frames in
relative motion, leading to the notion of relative time and distance.
(SR hypothesis)
2. Speed of light is constant c only in Universal Reference Frame (so
called aether frame) but the frequency of light photon emitted from a
moving source is proportional to its relative emission velocity wrt the
source. (New hypothesis)
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.
No one needs to discuss anything until you post the equations
that mathenatically define your so-called hypothesis.
We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.
The second postulate is actually irrelevant. If light has no mass,
it propagates at `c'. If light has a mass, it propagates just like
any other mass and has a rest frame. I can easily write down a
perfectly good poincare invariant theory of E&M in which light
has a non-zero mass. Maxwell's equations no longer hold, however.
The proca lagrangian is one example.
Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.
Non-sense. You merely wish to ignore the vast volume supporting
relativity which has been attained over the last century. Since
you do not wish to consider experiments which involve the reflection
or interference of light, let's consider experiments which do not
even involve light, but which do depend upon the poincare invariance
of special relativity, like \beta decay.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
20 Jun 2006 12:42:43 PM |
|
|
CuntFace Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
and (b) interference of different beams of light, can be explained by
*only* two hypothesizes, i.e.
1. Speed of light is constant c in all inertial reference frames in
relative motion, leading to the notion of relative time and distance.
(SR hypothesis)
2. Speed of light is constant c only in Universal Reference Frame (so
called aether frame) but the frequency of light photon emitted from a
moving source is proportional to its relative emission velocity wrt the
source. (New hypothesis)
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.
We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.
Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.
GSS
You still posting, *****? here is a partial list of one way light
speed experiments that disprove the notion of anisotropy. Eat *****:
1. C.M.Will "Clock Synchronization and isotropy of one-way speed of
light", Phys.Rev. D, 45, 2 (1992)
2=2E D.R.Gagnon, D.G.Torr, P.T.Kolen, T.Chang "Guided-wave measurement
of the one-way speed of light", Phys.Rev. A, 38, 4 (1988)
3=2E T.Chang , "Maxwell's equations in anisotropic space",
Phys.Lett, 70A, 1 (1979)
4=2E T.Krisher, L.Maleki, G.Lutes, L.Primas, R.Logan, J.Anderson, C.Will,
Phys. Rev. D, 42, 2, (1990)
5=2E S. Herrmann, A. Senger, E. Kovalchuk, H. M=FCller, A. Peters: "Test
of the isotropy of the speed of light using a continuously rotating
optical resonator", Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, (2005)
6=2E T. Chang, D. Torr, "Dual properties of spacetime under an
alternative Lorentz transformation", Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4,
(1988)
7=2E T.Chang, D.Torr, D.Gagnon, "A modified Lorentz theory as a test
theory of special relativity", ", Found. Of Phys. Lett, 1, 4,
(1988)
8=2E S.Schiller, P.Antonini, M.Okhapkin "A precision test of the
isotropy of the speed of light using rotating cryogenic optical
cavities" Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 150401 (2005)
9=2E Lipa, J. A., Nissen, J. A., Wang, S., Stricker, D. A., and Avaloff,
D=2E "A New Limit on Signals of Lorentz Violation in Electrodynamics"
Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 060403 (2003)
10. Wolf, P., Bize, S., Clairon, A., Santarelli, G., Tobar, M. E., and
Luiten, A. N. "Improved Test of Lorentz Invariance in
Electrodynamics" Phys. Rev. D 70, 051902(R) (2004)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
20 Jun 2006 11:56:59 AM |
|
|
In article <1150822490.588120.324490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]
There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.
Can we interpret this statement as "People who are making a lot of
noise do not understand the basics of these theories?"
Sure, but you're one of them making the noise.
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.
We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.
Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.
GSS
So go ahead and do them. Till then, understand you're sounding more
like a crank.
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
22 Jun 2006 12:25:28 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150822490.588120.324490@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tom Roberts wrote:
GSS wrote:
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, [...]
There is no "raging controversy" at all. There is just a handful of
people who do not understand the basics of these theories making a lot
of noise.
Can we interpret this statement as "People who are making a lot of
noise do not understand the basics of these theories?"
Sure, but you're one of them making the noise.
Have I ever abused anybody?
Have I ever criticized any individual? I always comment/criticize
ideas, opinions, arguments and viewpoints which appear to be either
invalid or illogical.
How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?
We need to discuss these two hypothesizes at length.
We can no longer count on the results of reflection/interference type
of experiments as *proving* the validity of second postulate of SR
because all of them can also be explained by the new hypothesis.
Therefore for proving/disproving the second postulate of SR, we need to
conduct *one way* light speed experiments which do not involve any
reflection or interference phenomenon. Such experiments are well within
the reach of current technology.
GSS
So go ahead and do them. Till then, understand you're sounding more
like a crank.
Kindly refer to,
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
22 Jun 2006 01:07:26 PM |
|
|
FuckedInTheAss Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
..
How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?
no, *****, it is because you have been posting the same ***** since 1999,
it has been explained to you that you are posting ***** and you still
persist. So, after a few years people got tired of you and called you
for what you are : a persitent cretin. An now, the whole web and most
of India is ashamed of your existence.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
22 Jun 2006 12:27:57 PM |
|
|
In article <1150997128.472535.47190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Have I ever abused anybody?
Have I ever criticized any individual? I always comment/criticize
ideas, opinions, arguments and viewpoints which appear to be either
invalid or illogical.
How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?
Considering you had no clue about proper time and distance, you PROVED
your views on relativity are useless. They're pretty fundamental
concepts in relativity - hence you obviously do not understand what you
are tring to refute.
If you think I'm going to teach you relativity, you can pay me the
going rate. I'm not here to educate cranks.
*PLONK*
--
The greatest enemy of science is pseudoscience.
Jaffa cakes. Sweet delicious orangey jaffa goodness, and an abject lesson why
parroting information from the web will not teach you cosmology.
Official emperor of sci.physics. Please pay no attention to my butt poking
forward, it is expanding.
Relf's Law?
"***** repeated to the limit of infinity asymptotically approaches
the odour of roses."
.
|
|
|
| User: "GSS" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
22 Jun 2006 12:39:13 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <1150997128.472535.47190@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>, GSS
<gurcharn_sandhu@yahoo.com> wrote:
Have I ever abused anybody?
Have I ever criticized any individual? I always comment/criticize
ideas, opinions, arguments and viewpoints which appear to be either
invalid or illogical.
How can you consider my posts as noise? Just because I oppose
Relativity?
Considering you had no clue about proper time and distance, you PROVED
your views on relativity are useless. They're pretty fundamental
concepts in relativity - hence you obviously do not understand what you
are tring to refute.
I am not "tring" to refute, I have already refuted Relativity.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_sr.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/invalidity_gr.pdf
If you think I'm going to teach you relativity, you can pay me the
going rate. I'm not here to educate cranks.
Please do not commit this mistake anymore.
Do not teach Relativity to anyone. Enough is enough!!
GSS
.
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
22 Jun 2006 12:54:29 PM |
|
|
Cuntface Gurcharn Sandhu wrote:
<sorry, snipped>
Stupid cunts don't have a say, go ***** youself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
16 Jun 2006 02:19:19 PM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the
settings of the end of 19th century
GSS
Let's not , antirelativistic piece of ***** Gurcharn Sandhu. *****.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null resultof MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
16 Jun 2006 01:35:05 PM |
|
|
GSS wrote:
Let us review the Michelson - Morley Experiment (MMEx) in the
settings of the end of 19th century or early dawn of 20th century. The
null result of MMEx was a major puzzle and a challenge to the
Physicists of that time.
The MMEx was conducted in the backdrop of two fundamental notions or
assumptions :
(a) Absolute nature of space fixed in the aether frame. Measure of time
was also assumed to be an absolute fundamental dimension independent of
spatial dimension.
(b) Continuous wave nature of light propagating in empty space or
vacuum at uniform speed c. The process of continuous emission of light
waves from vibrating atomic electrons was assumed to be similar to the
emission process of sound waves from a vibrating diaphragm.
Primarily the MMEx was conducted to experimentally detect the fixed
aether frame by measuring the velocity of earth moving through it. As
such the null result of MMEx was simply interpreted to imply the
non-existence of the fixed aether frame in particular and invalidity of
assumptions at (a) above in general. That was not all, to explain the
null result of MMEx some more assumptions had to be introduced which in
the long run proved to be a turning point for physics.
The additional assumptions introduced to explain the null result of
MMEx, especially the second postulate of SR, paved the way for
propounding the special and general theories of relativity by Albert
Einstein leading to a drastic change in the world-view of Physics.
In view of the raging controversy regarding the validity of Relativity
Theories, it is quite pertinent to seek some alternative explanation
for the null result of MMEx. For this I propose to retain the validity
of assumptions at (a) and question the validity of assumptions at (b)
above. In this regard kindly refer to following article in support of
this viewpoint.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/universal_frame.pdf
Let us consider a source of light A moving at a constant *velocity v*
in the universal reference frame. In order to understand and grasp the
detailed mechanism of emission of a photon during the transition of an
atomic electron from its higher energy state to a lower one, we need to
mentally visualize the detailed instant to instant orbital motion of
the electron. For this kindly refer to a model of Hydrogen orbitals at
the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/hydrogen_orbitals.pdf
This model is based only on Coulomb interaction and does not account
for spin interaction. Detailed computations of orbital transitions show
that the photon emission time is generally of the order of only 10^-16
seconds. This implies that the photon emission process is more of a
'spontaneous emission' rather than a 'continuous emission' of light
waves. Further, since the photon wave packet must propagate at constant
*velocity c* in the universal reference frame (under vacuum
conditions), the *relative emission velocity* of the photon with
respect to the light source A will be given by [vector c - vector v].
The new hypothesis regarding photon emission can now be stated as,
New Hypothesis : If a light source at rest in the universal reference
frame, under certain energy transition, emits a photon of frequency f0
and wave length L0 then the corresponding frequency f and wave length L
emitted by the same light source moving at velocity v in the universal
reference frame will be given by -
f = f0 . Relative emission velocity [vector c-vector v]/c
= |vector c - vector v| . f0/c
And L = c.L0/|vector c - vector v|
With this hypothesis, the null result of MMEx is easily explained
because the number of wave lengths (or total phase shift) along the
path-lengths of transverse and axial beams of light remain constant,
independent of the velocity v of the light source. For complete details
of this explanation, kindly refer to the following link.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/pdf_art/new_hypothesis.pdf
Therefore, we may conclude that the *relative emission velocity* of
photons from a moving source is dependent on the relative direction of
emission in comparison with the direction of motion of the source.
After emission from the source, the photons have to propagate at
constant velocity c in the universal reference frame (vacuum)
regardless of the motion of the source. If v is the instantaneous
velocity of the source in the universal reference frame, then the
relative emission velocity of the photon will be given by the (vector c
- vector v). As per the proposed new hypothesis, the energy E and
frequency f of the emitted photon will be proportional to the *relative
emission velocity* |vector c - vector v|.
Specifically, let us consider an observer O to be at rest in the
universal reference frame and let a source S approach the observer with
velocity v. The frequency f of photons emitted by S in the direction of
its velocity vector v will therefore be reduced by a factor (c-v)/c. On
the other hand the frequency of photons emitted by S in the direction
opposite to its velocity vector v will be increased by a factor
(c+v)/c. Hence the observer O will find the frequency of photons
received from an approaching source S to be reduced by a factor of
(c-v)/c and that of photons received from a receding source S to be
increased by a factor of (c+v)/c.
However, this new hypothesis needs to be critically examined and tested
before formally accepting it as valid. Implications of the new
hypothesis could be drastic in cosmology as the observed red shift of
distant stars and galaxies will indicate a contracting universe instead
of the currently held view of an expanding universe!! Moreover the
proposed hypothesis is expected to be applicable for the photons
emitted from electron transitions in atoms and molecules but not for
continuous EM waves radiated from RF circuits and antennas.
GSS
Einstein: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous..."
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example,
the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The
observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the
conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the
conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an
electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at
the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet
is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in
the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an
electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding
energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in
the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and
intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case.
"Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to
discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,''
suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics
possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They
suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of
small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be
valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics
hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will
hereafter be called the ``Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a
postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only
apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always
propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two
postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistent theory
of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for
stationary bodies. The introduction of a ``luminiferous ether'' will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an ``absolutely stationary space'' provided with special
properties, nor assign a velocity-vector to a point of the empty space
in which electromagnetic processes take place.
"The theory to be developed is based--like all electrodynamics--on the
kinematics of the rigid body, since the assertions of any such theory
have to do with the relationships between rigid bodies (systems of
co-ordinates), clocks, and electromagnetic processes. Insufficient
consideration of this circumstance lies at the root of the difficulties
which the electrodynamics of moving bodies at present encounters".
And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas
and make his case...
.
|
|
|
| User: "FrediFizzx" |
|
| Title: Re: A New Hypothesis on photon emission explains the null result of MMEx but implies a contracting Universe. |
16 Jun 2006 03:04:38 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:tRCkg.33894$No1.30034@attbi_s71...
[snip]
Einstein: "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous..."
See: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS
OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein
June 30, 1905
[snip]
And, of course the paper goes on to develop the ideas
and make his case...
Sam, we are already way past this. ;-) GR and beyond.... to Super-GR.
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602607
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0506021
FrediFizzx
http://www.vacuum-physics.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
