Learn how to spell, you ignorant *****-tard. Then never post here again.
"Eivomiq" <eivomiq@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040602095024.15734.00000206@mb-m24.aol.com...
The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light
The idea that the velocity of light is the same no matter in what
reference frame it is measured is fundamental to the modern sceince of
physics.
The premise started with the confusion resulting from failure of the
Michaelson-Morely experiment to reveal an absolute velocity reference for
space
and shortly led to both the unique solution Lorentz Transformation-Aether
Theory and the general case solution (no Aether) equivalent - the Special
Theory of Relativity.
Since the conclusion that the velocity of light was constant in all
reference
frames is based on observation, the necessity of understanding the
methodology
of measuring the velocity of light should be apparent to all who would
deal
with relativistic phenomena.
Velocity is defined as distance travelled (length) per unit time. If
one
wishes to measure the velocity of any entity, be it light or bullets, one
needs
in principle, a yardstick to measure the distance travelled and a clock to
measure the time required for the entity to travel that distance. It
behooves
us then to examine the nature of the instruments which might be used in
making
the required observations.
In principle, all measurements of length require the equivalent of a
yardstick. (It is not suitable, for example, to define length in terms a
number
of wavelengths of light for our purpose since that would result in
measuring
the velocity of light in terms of itself, an obvious absurdity.) That
yardstick
is constructed, in effect, of an array of atomic nuclei separated from
each
other ahd held in place by electromagnetic fields ("virtual photons" are
one
explanation of the operation of those field.) The atomic nuclei contains
99.95%
of the mass(energy) of the atom and are on the order of 10^-15 meters in
diameter. The atoms in the array are separated by about 10^-10 meters. To
provide some perspective, a scale representation would show that if the
nuclei
were enlarged to the size of a billiard ball, the nominal distance between
nuclei would be about 3.1 miles. Obviously the length of the yardstick is
determined almost entirely by the characteristics of the electromagnetic
forces
acting between its nuclei. Similarly, time is measured by counting the
"ticks"
of a clock or their equivalent. The time between clock "ticks" is measured
by
the period of some type of resonant system. Such a system could be
composed of
the coiled "hairspring" of a watch and a blanace wheel or it could be
composed
of the elasticity of the bond between two atoms and the mass of those
atoms. In
all cases, the period of the resonant system is determined by the spring
constant acting in the resonant system and the significant mass of that
system.
In other words, with regard to relativistic effects, what is true of one
type
of clock is true for all types of clocks!
Let us then consider what would happen if the velocity of light in
free
space were to change. Since the atomic nuclei of the yardstick control
their
separation by electromagnetic means, the nuclei would sense that their
separation was now "wrong" and they would move to correct the error. thus
causing the yardstick to change its length. The stiffness of the clocks
"hairspring" is also determined electromagnetic means and the mass of the
"balance wheel" is determined by the energy represented by that mass and
the
velocity of light in accordance with M=E/C^2! The result would be that the
postulated change in the velocity of light should change the calibration
of the
clock. If the Principle of Relativity is applicable, as indeed it must be
if
the Laws of Physics are to be the same in all velocity and elevation
reference
frames, then the length of our yardsticks and the speed of our clocks must
change as a result of the postulated change in the free space velocity of
light. Moreover, that change must be such that a measurement of the
velocity of
light would be produce the same value regardless of the reference frame
(velocity, elevation)in which it was measured. This would occur because
the
units of measurement by which the velocity of light is measured would
change to
conceal any actual change in that velocity.
Any measurement of the velocity of light that we may care to make is
actually a
measurement of the velocity of light in terms of the velocity of light.
Such a
measurement is clearly meaningless. The quantity we accept as the velocity
of
light probably results from the dimensionaless Fine Structure Constant
which
reveals the velocity of light in terms of the dielectric constant of
space.
To add perspective to the discussion. It is axiomatic that every
process
which involves obeying physical laws (including the "constantcy" of the
velocity of light and the length of our "yardsticks" must contain the
following
steps.
1:- It must measure the magnitude of the quantity in question.
2:- It must compare the measured quantity with its nominal value.
3:- It must apply the necessary "force" to reduce any error towards zero.
This is not an invention of the writer. It is a requirement of any stable
process.
The framers of relativity theory missed the boat in not digging
deeply
enough. It is not enough to accept the Principle of Relativity. The
question
they should have asked is why does the Principle of Relativity hold. Such
a
question leads to the very obvious answer that it holds because matter
uses the
velocity of light to control its parameters. One need only to add the
proviso
that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light and
the
mysteries of SR vanish (providing one is not too lazy to follow the
reasoning
through to its conclusion). In the case of gravity, the effects of a
change in
the velocity of light between reference frames which differ in elevation
is
immediately obvious, it is called gravity. Gravity results because
proximity to
energy causes an increase in the "absolute" permeabilty of the Aether. All
of
the known gravitational effects cah be shown to follow from this change.
Space
is not "curved".
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/gravity.htm.
The source material for this posting may be found in "Gravity"
(1987),
"The Einstein Hoax" (1997), and "Corrections to Residual Errors in Special
Relativity (1999) located at
http://www.members.aol.com/einsteinhoax/site.htm.
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE
HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT
MUST
BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP
FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.
Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored
on a
regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as
they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please
do not raise objections that are not related to material that you have
read at
the Website. This posting is merely a summary.
E-mail:-
The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 5
years.
In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE MATERIAL
PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by individuals who
have
mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it. If
anyone
provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered, the
material at the Website will be withdrawn.
.
