|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the source.
"Henri Wilson" HW@.. wrote in message ... That simply means the MMX was flawed. Null results prove nothing. Not in science. It places an upper limit of any effect and rules out theories that predict higher values. A simple un-dragged Galilean Aether is ruled out by the MMX for example. Not according to the explanation in my MMX demo. See: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/mmx.exe I've had a look at this now and I must admit it is ingenious. However, there is a small flaw. You have depicted the light as points rather than wavefronts The same light is illuminating both paths so you need to consider a plane wavefront from the source. When you do that I think you will find the front arrives at the detector smeared over time. That would mean there would be no light visible. You need to adjust the angle of the mirror so that a plane wavefront from the source (a vertical line in your graphic) arrives perpendicular to the direction of travel at the eyepiece (a horizontal line) for both beams. George |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the source.
But you cannot have it both ways George. Either velocity affects physical
rates or it doesn't. You can't just introduce it when convenient and forget about it Just as a note: _velocity_ doesn't affect anything (unless you run into it. _Acceleration_ does, it's what screws up the common reference frames and causes time dilation. Note that in an orbit the orbiting body is constantly accelerating. |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Correlation between CMBR and Redshift Anisotropies.
HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . ..
On 19 Aug 2003 14:16:08 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote: HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . .. On 8 Aug 2003 13:41:39 -0700, (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote: HW@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in message . .. Sergey, my H-aether theory is based on the principle that light speed is locally source dependent. It starts out at c relative to its source but settles down eventually to the same speed as other EM passing through a particular point. Fine. Light from some star travels to Earth millions parsec. Here on Earth people carry out a comparative experiment with the immediately radiated light of the same spectral line. Judging by your statement, arriving light has to have essentially different velocity. ;-) Have you a corroboration? This is checkable and has been checked, but I don't remember such difference. ;-) Nobody has measured OWLS Sergey. I have suggested an experiment that will do this using star light but am now working on a better one. Wait for it. Sergey, when a theory is in its infancy, one should not say too much about it or make too many claims. Period, Henri. If your theory is in such infancy that one haven't to require from it even the substantiation of phenomenology, then on the basis of such theory we can make no conclusions. ;-) No substantiation - no theory - no conclusions. Well, what do you calculate? Again: have you substantiated the phenomenology of the summation of light velocity and observer velocity? No. What are you speaking about? There is NO evidence one way or another about the dependence of light speed on observer velocity. Correct, Henri, in your sense of addition of source's and observer's velocities. And what are you trying so long time to instil me? On the other hand, Miller determined the velocity of Earth as to the aether, and his results were positive. Furthermore, if we re-calculate correctly the results of Michelson's experiment, they also will register the directed motion of the Earth and its rotation around its axis. This just evidences that radiated light propagates with constant velocity as to the aether and doesn't depend on the source velocity. That is the state of my H-aether. So far it appears to explain all the observational evidence. Not true, it doesn't explain the very fact of velocities summation. ;-) The relativistic velocity addition equation directly supports source dependency. w=(u+v)/(1+uv/c^2) Substitute c for v, Sergey. Yes, Henri, substitute - and for any frame (in that number stationary) you will yield constant velocity of light. What concern has to it your summation of light's and source's velocities? Why should you want to reject it now? Sure, I have to find a mechanism by which a light ray is influenced by other EM fields but is still able to traverse long distances without becoming dispersed. After all, we witness extinction in the earth's atmosphere and this does NOT affect the clarity of distant galaxies all that much. And how affects!!! What for the telescopes are launced into the orbit? Though, if you want so much, your demos are more true than the nature. Have you sent your application to God - let Him appoint you the Principal Computer Legislator for Natural Phenomena? With your self-confidence, you shoul do so long ago. And at all, what is it this nature, why does it get under your feet? Here is your DEMO!!! ;-) The source dependency demo is very informative as it is. To be informative, something has to be grounded. All the rest is a chatter. And there is actually too much of it. It allows one to see just how light from a complete orbit of a binary star would travel across space if its velocity (the light's) was dependent on the star's velocity. A vertical line drawn at any time index shows how many images of the star an observer at that distance would see. This is far more useful than any equation. When building your demos, you saw in them other tasks than you are saying now. It is seen in all your posts. I can repeat, demos can be much more useful, only if they have been built on the thoroughly substantiated solutions. Otherwise they are no more than an abstraction having nothing to do with physics, and having zero informativeness. I pity much your time and efforts which you spend additionally, insisting without any wish to understand, what you are spoken about. Sergey, none of my demos is related to my H-aetehr theory. You are very confused. The source dependency demo is purely classical. No, Henri, it's not a bit classical. Where have you seen in the wave physics the wave velocity to be added to the source velocity? You haven't left relativism neither came to classical physics, and your own theory even in its infancy is more contradictive than Einstein's relativism. So what you are demonstrating is ungrounded and also contradictive. With it, see, all our long communication is not so much of the scientific matters as of merely psychological issue. Your unwilling to understand is an insurmountable barrier for my attempts to explain. Then I think: what for do I spend my efforts if you needn't them? I for my work find firm grounds myself; well, you also can think yourself if you don't want to listen. As Americans say, you can take a horse to the water, but you cannot make him drink. You simply want, our discussion to be ended with your post? No problem. The last doesn't mean substantiated. You will not say something new and will not grasp the problem. Sergey, there is nothing unusual about my source dependency demonstration. It merely show the distance traveled in the observer frame by light that is emitted at c+v. It would be just as legitimate if it used cars instead of photons. Henri, I'm tired of the obstacle that you want to hear, see, understand nothing. Let us stop our discussion at this point, as it's unproductive. You are seeking any way to squeeze your c+v , ignoring all physical regularities and logic of proof. I can say you whatever, you are ready to retract whatever, in that number your c+v, but in the next paragraph you state again that the velocities of source and observer are added. I said you many times, prove it theoretically and experimentally. Without it you can create any demos, their significance is zero. You can take offence, but it will not help. You want to live in your virtual world - well, do so. But it's uninteresting for me. I used to work with physically substantiated conceptions. I spent much time in attempts to help you to understand... I cannot do more, it's senseless running in a circle. It remains you only to come to relativism, to photon theory... Everyone do so when unable to substantiate his own physical conception. But this will be without me. I wish you every wellbeing, Sergey. Maybe you did not understand the demo. I understood. It remains only, you to understand what I say you so long time. ;-) What is strange about that demo? It is quite straightfoward. It is not classical, neither relativistic, it doesn't reflect your new theory, it is substantiated by nothing. Well, are your conclusions based on your ideas? Do they explain everything? You have on your web site a button "Theory", but there is not theory. And you are surprised that your demo raises criticism? Again, only you need this criticism. Until your opinion is unsubstantiated and hasn't its phenomenology, for all others it's only your ungrounded opinion, nothing more. Should you be able to hear, I would see a sense in our discussion; if you don't - what for do we shake the air? You want to draw pictures - well, draw, but don't say that they explain something. My demo is not an opinion. It would apply equally well to bullets fired from relatively moving cars. The fact that it uses binary stars is purely to make it more realistic. Henri Wilson. See my animations at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|