Science > Physics > The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill]
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"mountain man" |
| Date: |
19 Jan 2005 07:59:33 PM |
| Object: |
The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
This implies that the foundations of physics require significant
revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and
General Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory
of gravity is shown to explain various so-called gravitational
`anomalies', including the `dark matter' effect. So the centenary
of Einstein's Special Relativity turns out to be also its demise.
Most importantly absolute motion is now understood to be the
cause of the various relativistic effects, in complete contradiction
with the Einstein viewpoint, but in accord with the earlier
proposal by Lorentz.
Further:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
Have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 04:23:14 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
Go away. You are a bore. You have tried this one umpteen times. Do
you not have enough brain to undestand that you have been shot down
umpteen times?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 04:41:08 AM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cso0qh$1fd$2@titan.btinternet.com...
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
Go away. You are a bore.
You have tried this one umpteen times. Do
you not have enough brain to undestand that you have been shot down
umpteen times?
Franz, you clearly suffer from a shooting gallery mentality.
Just keep score, you might have a talent for that.
When I want your opinion I'll send for it by bush telegraph.
Until then, have a nice day,
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
19 Jan 2005 09:31:41 PM |
|
|
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to show
absolute motion?
--
"Not that there's anything wrong with just lying around on your back. In
its way, rotting is interesing too... It's just that there are other ways
to spend your time as a cadaver." -- Mary Roach, "Stiff", 2003.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 04:18:17 AM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very debatable) and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test results do not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had not yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It is not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used in these
experiments."
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 05:16:53 AM |
|
|
Harry wrote:
[snip]
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less
than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It
is not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea
the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used
in these
experiments."
Harald
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences regarding the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "robert j. kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 05:55:27 AM |
|
|
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences regarding the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless. The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without it, so it
is a useless concept. It can't be detected and is not necessary to
predict correctly so why bother with it?
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 04:35:39 AM |
|
|
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:359khhF4jj0rlU1@individual.net...
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences regarding the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless. The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without it, so it
is a useless concept. It can't be detected and is not necessary to
predict correctly so why bother with it?
Bob Kolker
The branch of modern physics is only concerned with predictions but science
is less narrow in scope.
Laws of modern physics relate to inertial frames. Do you claim that inertial
frames have been explained to satisfaction without some kind of ether
concept? In fact, Lorentz and Einstein claimed the contrary.
Harald
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 04:08:30 PM |
|
|
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:41f0d9e1$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"robert j. kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:359khhF4jj0rlU1@individual.net...
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a
detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is
not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences
regarding the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some
physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless. The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without it,
so it
is a useless concept. It can't be detected and is not necessary to
predict correctly so why bother with it?
Bob Kolker
The branch of modern physics is only concerned with predictions but
science
is less narrow in scope.
Laws of modern physics relate to inertial frames.
Rubbish. GR does not.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 09:27:39 AM |
|
|
robert j. kolker wrote:
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a
detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences regarding
the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some
physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless.
Correct, but that's not the case here. So you start with a red hearing.
The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without it, so
it
is a useless concept.
Everything? I thought once you preached that any statement using
"everything' cannot be proved. In essence you trying to rebut an
ontological assertion using an analytic statement. Futility?
It can't be detected and is not necessary to
predict correctly so why bother with it?
technology is advancing. just a few years ago we could not detect many
things we today know exist, for instance binary stars at the macro
level and positrons at the micro level. Why do you insist the ether, if
it exist, it cannot be detected? That's only a belief, which cannot be
justified so your epistemic basis is fundamentally flawed.
There may be other 'things' beyond kinematics and dynamics where eather
'seems' to play no role in calculations that may be reached if the
eather is detected. When scientists declared ether dead, that only
meant as far as its significance in the transition from pure kinematic
to dynamic models of the universe. But there may be other unique and
important considerations beyond mechanics.
IMO, the effort to discover whether the ether exists should be
continuous and not be disrupted. It is fundamental to human existence
and further progress to continuously search for an answer. As
troublesome as it seems the inability to discover eather so it is the
assesment that it does not exist for those familiar with the
foundational problems of physics.
Deep inside, every sensible physicists who understands the issues hopes
that one day ether will be detected. The dogmatic view that it does not
exist is leading physics into dark paths and has severe ramifications
regarding the nature of our physical reality.
Mike
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 01:37:43 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1106234859.178875.60100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
robert j. kolker wrote:
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a
detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is
not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences
regarding
the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some
physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless.
Correct, but that's not the case here. So you start with a red
hearing.
The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without it,
so
it
is a useless concept.
Everything? I thought once you preached that any statement using
"everything' cannot be proved. In essence you trying to rebut an
ontological assertion using an analytic statement. Futility?
You misunderstood Bob.
He said that everything predicted using ether has been predicted
without it.
That is an indisputable fact.
If you don't believe that, how about listing one or two things which
are predicted by using the ether concept which can not be predicted
without invoking the ether?
It can't be detected and is not necessary to
predict correctly so why bother with it?
technology is advancing. just a few years ago we could not detect
many
things we today know exist, for instance binary stars at the macro
level and positrons at the micro level. Why do you insist the ether,
if
it exist, it cannot be detected?
For the simple reason that nobody has yet produced a solitary
prediction by which the presence of the ether can be distinguished
from its absence, which has led to evidence in favour of the ether.
That's only a belief, which cannot be
justified so your epistemic basis is fundamentally flawed.
There may be other 'things' beyond kinematics and dynamics where
eather
'seems' to play no role in calculations that may be reached if the
eather is detected. When scientists declared ether dead, that only
meant as far as its significance in the transition from pure
kinematic
to dynamic models of the universe. But there may be other unique and
important considerations beyond mechanics.
Not at present, there are not.
There may also be pins here and there with angels dancing on them.
IMO, the effort to discover whether the ether exists should be
continuous and not be disrupted.
Why?
It is fundamental to human existence
Which aspect of human existence would come to grief if there were no
ether to support it?
and further progress to continuously search for an answer.
What progress is being held up because the ether has not been
detected?
As
troublesome as it seems the inability to discover eather so it is
the
assesment that it does not exist for those familiar with the
foundational problems of physics.
Which foundational problems of physics require the presence of the
ether as a bolster?
Deep inside, every sensible physicists who understands the issues
hopes
that one day ether will be detected.
I consider myself to be a reasonably sensible physicist with no
particular burning desire that the ether should be detected.
The dogmatic view that it does not
exist is leading physics into dark paths
Please list some of these gothic sounding dark paths to which you
refer.
and has severe ramifications
regarding the nature of our physical reality.
What are these severe ramifications regarding the nature of our
existence to which you refer?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 03:09:22 PM |
|
|
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csp1a6$37d$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1106234859.178875.60100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
robert j. kolker wrote:
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a
detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether' is
not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion. It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences
regarding
the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some
physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless.
Correct, but that's not the case here. So you start with a red
hearing.
The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without it,
so
it
is a useless concept.
Everything? I thought once you preached that any statement using
"everything' cannot be proved. In essence you trying to rebut an
ontological assertion using an analytic statement. Futility?
You misunderstood Bob.
He said that everything predicted using ether has been predicted
without it.
That is an indisputable fact.
That is a very disputed fact. For example
1. The ether theory predicted the existence of dark energy before its effect
was observed.
2. The ether theory predicted the existence of dark matter whereas current
theory have to add on dark matter after its effects was observed.
If you don't believe that, how about listing one or two things which
are predicted by using the ether concept which can not be predicted
without invoking the ether?
See above.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:45 AM |
|
|
"kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:66VHd.41681$re1.8967@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
"Franz Heymann" <notfranz.heymann@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:csp1a6$37d$1@hercules.btinternet.com...
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1106234859.178875.60100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
robert j. kolker wrote:
Mike wrote:
You can have some type of ether without the presence of a
detectable
relative velocity. In this case, this unobservable 'ether'
is
not
required in calculations for predicting the state of motion.
It
nevertheless entails significant ontological consequences
regarding
the
nature of physical reality which is of no interest to 'some
physicists'
although of great interest to the rest of the society.
Ontology that does not produce correct predictions is useless.
Correct, but that's not the case here. So you start with a red
hearing.
The
aether hypothesis accounts for eletromagnetic wave
propagation.
Everything predicted using Aether has been predicted without
it,
so
it
is a useless concept.
Everything? I thought once you preached that any statement using
"everything' cannot be proved. In essence you trying to rebut an
ontological assertion using an analytic statement. Futility?
You misunderstood Bob.
He said that everything predicted using ether has been predicted
without it.
That is an indisputable fact.
That is a very disputed fact. For example
1. The ether theory predicted the existence of dark energy before
its effect
was observed.
Balls
Moreover, dark matter has not yet been observed
2. The ether theory predicted the existence of dark matter whereas
current
theory have to add on dark matter after its effects was observed.
Yet again, balls
If you don't believe that, how about listing one or two things
which
are predicted by using the ether concept which can not be
predicted
without invoking the ether?
See above.
And for the third time in a row, Balls.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 09:56:24 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message news:1106234859.178875.60100@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Deep inside, every sensible physicists who understands the issues hopes
that one day ether will be detected. The dogmatic view that it does not
exist is leading physics into dark paths and has severe ramifications
regarding the nature of our physical reality.
Mike
Inside and at the surface, every insensible non-physicist who does
not understand the issues hopes that one day ether will be detected.
The dogmatic view that it must exist is leading crackpottery into
dark paths and has severe ramifications regarding the lack of
intelligence of our species.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 01:30:51 PM |
|
|
You have done once more the only thing you know to do well, that is
distorting things around.
Well done square rooty
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:44 AM |
|
|
"Mike" <eleatis@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1106249451.176350.147280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
You have done once more the only thing you know to do well, that is
distorting things around.
Well done square rooty
It would have been nice to know why you replied to whom about what
topic.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 11:44:38 AM |
|
|
I use quick reply because there isn't any need to display crap once
more and waste bandwidth.
Mike
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 07:40:48 AM |
|
|
In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very debatable) and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test results do not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had not yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but to zero. I
haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary of the
state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It is not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used in these
experiments."
An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was talking about.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
.
|
|
|
| User: "mountain man" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 07:53:43 PM |
|
|
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:csocd0$ffl$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very debatable)
and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test results do
not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had not yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but to zero. I
haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary of the
state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ... It is
not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used in
these
experiments."
An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was talking about.
These "upper limits" that have been calculated for the MMX
and all other experiments traditionally have been reported
at around the 6 to 8 km/sec region, and are supposed to
give an indication of the relative motion between the earth
and an aether.
This figure is unexpected, What they were expecting to
find was a figure equivalent to the orbital velocity of the
earth around the sun (ie: about 30 k/s)
However, if you read Cahill's work you will see that the
derivation for these upper limits:
1) do NOT allow for the refractive index of the gas
2) do NOT allow for the Fitgerald-Lorentz "effects"
Once these two adjustments are introduced these upper
limit figures are around the 420 k/s +- 30k/s. See
Cahill's papers at:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
These higher figures are reported by Cahill to be
consistent over 6 separate experiments, when the
above two adjustments are made to the physics
used in deriving the results from the data.
--
Pete Brown
Falls Creek
OZ
www.mountainman.com.au
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:46 AM |
|
|
"mountain man" <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote in message
news:HgZHd.126555$K7.95619@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:csocd0$ffl$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the
speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found
in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to
show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very
debatable)
and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test
results do
not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had not
yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an
elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but to
zero. I
haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary of
the
state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably
less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative
motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ...
It is
not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the
sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that
used in
these
experiments."
An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was
talking about.
These "upper limits" that have been calculated for the MMX
and all other experiments traditionally have been reported
at around the 6 to 8 km/sec region, and are supposed to
give an indication of the relative motion between the earth
and an aether.
Nonsense. Please learn about the relationship between a quoted upper
limit and the resolution obtainable i an experiment.
This figure is unexpected, What they were expecting to
find was a figure equivalent to the orbital velocity of the
earth around the sun (ie: about 30 k/s)
However, if you read Cahill's work you will see that the
derivation for these upper limits:
1) do NOT allow for the refractive index of the gas
Which is irrelevant in the case of a null result.
2) do NOT allow for the Fitgerald-Lorentz "effects"
The equipment was stationary in the lab. There are therefore no
"Fitzgerald-Lorentz" effects to be taken into account by an
experimenter who is also stationary in the lab.
Once these two adjustments are introduced these upper
limit figures are around the 420 k/s +- 30k/s. See
Cahill's papers at:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
If Cahill was not aware of that, he must be as great a twit as you
are.
These higher figures are reported by Cahill to be
consistent over 6 separate experiments, when the
above two adjustments are made to the physics
used in deriving the results from the data.
You have already had your run for your money on this one.
How about turning your mind to the many more precise experiments done
in the last century which have yielded null results?
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
24 Jan 2005 09:09:37 PM |
|
|
Dark Energy is einsteins idia.
bent space , conservation of energy and the sum of the mass of atom.
Space is bent as an energy slope.
Up is gain in mass
down is less mass
gravity is a push to less energy as a low forms around mass ,,,,,,,,
the nucleus is the center of gravity where all the atoms parts orbit
and are the sum of its low.
In an energy slope 1/2 the atom has more mass than the other 1/2 and
pushes the atom to less mass .
There is more mass on one side of the center of the atoms gravity
than the other.
Atoms change mass at C .
##### 1 ,,up is a gain in mass
##### 2 so 1/2 of evry atom has more mass on 1/2 its atom and
that 1/2 pushes the atom to less energy. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<
In any energy slope mass will be displaced at the rate it can change
mass.
=A0=A0The rate an atom can change mass is fixed. as an atom is an energy
slope has more mass on 1/2 the atom than the
other.
=A0=A0. >>>> but kenetic energy is mass in motion. As the atom is in
motion it takes up more space per time unit. 1/2 the atom has a larger
LOW as it takes up more space per time unit.
The sum of the low is mass. <<<<
An atom in motion threw energy as it expands is taking up more space as
it moves . Eliminating space ahead and leaving a low behind.,<<<<<
=A0=A0=A0=A0As an atom moves threw one time frame
=A0=A0the streak it leaves in time will afect how much mass is on each
side of the atom and a gain in mass is pushing te other 1/2 of atom .
=A0=A0the distortion or drag of an atom in motion is a low and part of
the sum of te atoms mass.
kenetic energy is related to gravity as they boath deal with the
rate an atom changes mass. <<<<<<
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The speed of fall is fixed.
The reason the rock hits the moon instead of the moon and rock moving
twards each other
=A0=A0is kenetic energy .
=A0=A0The energy slope at the serface of the moon is 90 deg . On the
earth
its 90 deg.
=A0=A0a rock falls the same speed on the moon . It wieghs 1/6 but falls
the same speed.
=A0=A0nasa has it wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
24 Jan 2005 09:45:53 PM |
|
|
In the low that forms around mass Up is a gain in mass .
Gravity is a push to less energy.
Gravity the pit .
Energy slope.
1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other 1/2 .
1/2 of evry atom is pushing the other 1/2 down to less energy.
Gravityphysics
Haa Haa
YOU never herd einsein quite this way.
You saw it here befor anyone else on te planet ever said
# 1 up is a gain in mass so evry atom has more mass on one side of its
nucleus G center than the other.
1/2 of the atom is pushing the other 1/2 down.
<<<<<<To less energy
To less mass >>>>>>>
Group: sci.physics Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2005, 9:17pm From:
GravityPhysics@webtv.net (tj=A0Frazir)
In any energy slope mass will be displaced at the rate it can change
mass.
=A0=A0The rate an atom can change mass is fixed. as an atom is an energy
slope has more mass on 1/2 the atom than the
other.
=A0=A0. >>>> but kenetic energy is mass in motion. As the atom is in
motion it takes up more space per time unit. 1/2 the atom has a larger
LOW as it takes up more space per time unit.
The sum of the low is mass. <<<<
An atom in motion threw energy as it expands is taking up more space as
it moves . Eliminating space ahead and leaving a low behind.,<<<<<
=A0=A0=A0=A0As an atom moves threw one time frame
=A0=A0the streak it leaves in time will afect how much mass is on each
side of the atom and a gain in mass is pushing te other 1/2 of atom .
=A0=A0the distortion or drag of an atom in motion is a low and part of
the sum of te atoms mass.
kenetic energy is related to gravity as they boath deal with the
rate an atom changes mass. <<<<<<
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0The speed of fall is fixed.
The reason the rock hits the moon instead of the moon and rock moving
twards each other
=A0=A0is kenetic energy .
=A0=A0The energy slope at the serface of the moon is 90 deg . On the
earth
its 90 deg.
=A0=A0a rock falls the same speed on the moon . It wieghs 1/6 but falls
the same speed.
=A0=A0nasa has it wrong.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
24 Jan 2005 09:40:26 PM |
|
|
In the low that forms around mass Up is a gain in mass .
Gravity is a push to less energy.
Gravity the pit .
Energy slope.
1/2 of evry atom has more mass than the other 1/2 .
1/2 of evry atom is pushing the other 1/2 down to less energy.
Gravityphysics
Haa Haa
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
20 Jan 2005 10:46:36 PM |
|
|
mountain man wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:csocd0$ffl$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the
speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found
in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to
show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very
debatable)
and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test
results do
not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had not
yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an
elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but to
zero. I
haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary of
the
state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably
less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative
motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ...
It is
not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the
sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used
in
these
experiments."
An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was talking
about.
These "upper limits" that have been calculated for the MMX
and all other experiments traditionally have been reported
at around the 6 to 8 km/sec region, and are supposed to
give an indication of the relative motion between the earth
and an aether.
This figure is unexpected, What they were expecting to
find was a figure equivalent to the orbital velocity of the
earth around the sun (ie: about 30 k/s)
However, if you read Cahill's work you will see that the
derivation for these upper limits:
1) do NOT allow for the refractive index of the gas
2) do NOT allow for the Fitgerald-Lorentz "effects"
Once these two adjustments are introduced these upper
limit figures are around the 420 k/s +- 30k/s. See
Cahill's papers at:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
These higher figures are reported by Cahill to be
consistent over 6 separate experiments, when the
above two adjustments are made to the physics
used in deriving the results from the data.
I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
2 earth's surface revolving +
3 earth orbiting the sun +
4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion wrt
another
.......all subject to +/- (3d)
........giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary" space.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 08:15:22 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:csocd0$ffl$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the
speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was found
in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to
show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very
debatable)
and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test
results do
not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had not
yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an
elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but to
zero. I
haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary of
the
state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably
less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative
motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small ...
It is
not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of the
sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that used
in
these
experiments."
An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was talking
about.
These "upper limits" that have been calculated for the MMX
and all other experiments traditionally have been reported
at around the 6 to 8 km/sec region, and are supposed to
give an indication of the relative motion between the earth
and an aether.
This figure is unexpected, What they were expecting to
find was a figure equivalent to the orbital velocity of the
earth around the sun (ie: about 30 k/s)
However, if you read Cahill's work you will see that the
derivation for these upper limits:
1) do NOT allow for the refractive index of the gas
2) do NOT allow for the Fitgerald-Lorentz "effects"
Once these two adjustments are introduced these upper
limit figures are around the 420 k/s +- 30k/s. See
Cahill's papers at:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
These higher figures are reported by Cahill to be
consistent over 6 separate experiments, when the
above two adjustments are made to the physics
used in deriving the results from the data.
I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
2 earth's surface revolving +
3 earth orbiting the sun +
4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion wrt
another
All these observed relative motions are the results of the vector difference
of the vector component of your absolute motion and the vector component of
the observed object's absolute motion along the line of sight.
......all subject to +/- (3d)
.......giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary" space.
Jim G
c'=c+v
So what is c' and who is measuring c'? Also what is v and who is measuring
v?
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 07:01:39 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
wrote
on Fri, 21 Jan 2005 14:15:22 GMT
<_78Id.5593$VZ2.5009@fe1.columbus.rr.com>:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Jim G
c'=c+v
So what is c' and who is measuring c'?
Also what is v and who is measuring v?
v is a given. The light source is moving at v relative
to the measurement device, which is trying to measure c',
the speed of light relative to the measurement device.
In other words, Jim G is hypothesizing standard emission
(or, if one prefers, frictionless aether) theory.
Note that emission theory, like SR/GR, is consistent with
the null result of MMX, when MMX is using a stationary
light source.
Ken Seto
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 04:56:05 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
All these observed relative motions are the results of the vector difference
of the vector component of your absolute motion and the vector component of
the observed object's absolute motion along the line of sight.
No absolute motion, no absolute reference frame, Seto, but you sure do have
a lot of immortal fumbles
http://www.google.com/search?q=seto+fumble+site%3Ausers.pandora.be
and you are a registered crank
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Ken+H.+Seto%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 05:53:17 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
mountain man wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:csocd0$ffl$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
In article
<9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
ABSTRACT
That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
was analysed for the first time with a theory for the
Michelson
interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the
speed
of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an
absolute
motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
experiments have been shown to give the same result.
I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was
found
in the
Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to
show
absolute motion?
The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very
debatable)
and
the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test
results do
not
confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had
not
yet
appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an
elaborate
statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
"Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but
to
zero. I
haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary
of
the
state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
"the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably
less than
one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative
motion
between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small
....
It is
not
impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of
the
sea the
relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that
used
in
these
experiments."
An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was
talking
about.
These "upper limits" that have been calculated for the MMX
and all other experiments traditionally have been reported
at around the 6 to 8 km/sec region, and are supposed to
give an indication of the relative motion between the earth
and an aether.
This figure is unexpected, What they were expecting to
find was a figure equivalent to the orbital velocity of the
earth around the sun (ie: about 30 k/s)
However, if you read Cahill's work you will see that the
derivation for these upper limits:
1) do NOT allow for the refractive index of the gas
2) do NOT allow for the Fitgerald-Lorentz "effects"
Once these two adjustments are introduced these upper
limit figures are around the 420 k/s +- 30k/s. See
Cahill's papers at:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
These higher figures are reported by Cahill to be
consistent over 6 separate experiments, when the
above two adjustments are made to the physics
used in deriving the results from the data.
I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
2 earth's surface revolving +
3 earth orbiting the sun +
4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion wrt
another
All these observed relative motions are the results of the vector
difference
of the vector component of your absolute motion and the vector
component of
the observed object's absolute motion along the line of sight.
......all subject to +/- (3d)
.......giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary"
space.
Jim G
c'=c+v
So what is c' and who is measuring c'? Also what is v and who is
measuring
v?
Ken Seto
Use REAL velocity addition:
v AB + v BC = v AC
c is the velocity at which a photon is emitted at source as seen by
source OR photon OR another observer considering these two only
c' is c + rel velocity of source as seen by photon considering
relationship of source to something else-----so c+v=c ONLY when v=0
v is velocity of source to something else which can be DEDUCED form an
observer noticing that c'><c
(c is equivalent to launch speed of plane from carrier; c' is then air
speed, ocean speed, speed as seen from other planes etc etc
Unless the visible universe (and its invisible component going to
infinity) is "all" there is, ie not moving ref another multi-galactic
group chunk, there is no possibility of discovering absolute zero
motion, from which to calculate motion comparitive to that. Even in the
present visible universe, the time elapsed before we can see if
something is moving ref something else at large distance is
prohibitive- millions of years to notice a change in relative positions
:-(
As for "observers": "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
what an observer "sees" often has jack-***** to do with reality, or what
is happening. They are very often victims of illusion, and
unfortunately, also often too dumb to realise it.
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 10:23:47 AM |
|
|
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
2 earth's surface revolving +
3 earth orbiting the sun +
4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion wrt
another
......all subject to +/- (3d)
.......giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary"
space.
All that now remains for you to do is to explain the null results for
all the optical experiments which have been done to try and determine
that speed.
Franz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Sefton" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
21 Jan 2005 01:08:25 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
2 earth's surface revolving +
3 earth orbiting the sun +
4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion wrt
another
......all subject to +/- (3d)
.......giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary"
space.
All that now remains for you to do is to explain the null results for
all the optical experiments which have been done to try and determine
that speed.
Franz
Key word 'optical'.
Light redshifts and blueshifts.
It is not like raindrops, more of
which hit the windshield the faster you go.
Some 'light' goes right through the Earth.
Blueshifting or redshifting incoming light by motion
just shifts which part of the spectrum is absorbed,
it doesn't increase the amount absorbed.
So if 'aether' is radiation it behaves the same way.
But if is raindrops then MMX is valid.
John
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill] |
22 Jan 2005 04:58:32 PM |
|
|
"John Sefton" <vegan16@accesscomm.ca> wrote in message
news:41f151e4$1@news.accesscomm.ca...
Franz Heymann wrote:
"jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
2 earth's surface revolving +
3 earth orbiting the sun +
4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion
wrt
another
......all subject to +/- (3d)
.......giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary"
space.
All that now remains for you to do is to explain the null results
for
all the optical experiments which have been done to try and
determine
that speed.
Franz
Key word 'optical'.
Light redshifts and blueshifts.
It is not like raindrops, more of
which hit the windshield the faster you go.
Some 'light' goes right through the Earth.
Blueshifting or redshifting incoming light by motion
just shifts which part of the spectrum is absorbed,
it doesn't increase the amount absorbed.
So if 'aether' is radiation it behaves the same way.
But if is raindrops then MMX is valid.
I doubt if you understood my request, because your burbling does not
address the point.
Franz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
