geistkiesel
10-24-04, 04:07 PM
The motion of light is independent of the motion of the source of the light.
If we are going to have postulates and use them then we must use them appropriately, or we lose their value. The subject postulate will be slavishly followed as we meander through a simple problem in the measurement using the motion of light.
A single photon is emitted and reradiated in a constant line between a pair of photon emitter/absorber pairs (peaps). The peaps are aligned such that an emitted photon always arrives at the same absorber and vice verse. The photon continually travels back and forth between the emitter/absorber pairs. Now as motion is the general condition, if the peaps are attached to an inertial frame, the emitted photon will not arrive at the same emitter/absorber unit as the frame has moved with respect to the straight-line trajectory of the photons. A series of peaps in a rectangular grid, connected to a computer system of sufficient capacity, can effectively measure any motion in any two dimensional plane. Whatever the nature of the clocks the distance the photon travels is constant and therefore will always maintain a constant time between the peap faces. Three such grids provide a three-dimensional reference frame that is not time dependent.
As a point of technical interest, here, when the frame is about to strike, or run into the photons in flight, the reference point for the “current photon” is simply changed to a location on the grid that minimizes the need for resetting the source peaps in the velocity meter, farthest away in the direction of motion.
Absolute velocity, being measurable with trivial ease, what does this say about special relativity that denies the very concept of “absolute velocity”?
The concept is an anathema to special relativity, so does the concept get shit canned because it isn’t popular in some “mainstream scientific circles” (you bet), or does the scrutiny go to the merits, and if on the merits, where, if at all, is there a flaw in the reasoned absolute velocity meter?
If we are going to have postulates and use them then we must use them appropriately, or we lose their value. The subject postulate will be slavishly followed as we meander through a simple problem in the measurement using the motion of light.
A single photon is emitted and reradiated in a constant line between a pair of photon emitter/absorber pairs (peaps). The peaps are aligned such that an emitted photon always arrives at the same absorber and vice verse. The photon continually travels back and forth between the emitter/absorber pairs. Now as motion is the general condition, if the peaps are attached to an inertial frame, the emitted photon will not arrive at the same emitter/absorber unit as the frame has moved with respect to the straight-line trajectory of the photons. A series of peaps in a rectangular grid, connected to a computer system of sufficient capacity, can effectively measure any motion in any two dimensional plane. Whatever the nature of the clocks the distance the photon travels is constant and therefore will always maintain a constant time between the peap faces. Three such grids provide a three-dimensional reference frame that is not time dependent.
As a point of technical interest, here, when the frame is about to strike, or run into the photons in flight, the reference point for the “current photon” is simply changed to a location on the grid that minimizes the need for resetting the source peaps in the velocity meter, farthest away in the direction of motion.
Absolute velocity, being measurable with trivial ease, what does this say about special relativity that denies the very concept of “absolute velocity”?
The concept is an anathema to special relativity, so does the concept get shit canned because it isn’t popular in some “mainstream scientific circles” (you bet), or does the scrutiny go to the merits, and if on the merits, where, if at all, is there a flaw in the reasoned absolute velocity meter?