As you know muon is unstable particle with 207 electron masses which decays with average lifetime of 1.56 micro seconds, however this is in the rest frame of the photon, wrt the Earth it is geater because "the muon clock appears time-dilated or running slower with factor T = gamma*T0 so its measured life-time is greater (7.8 micro seconds)"

What do you thing about it:

Two beams from muons are produced simultanneously from a muon source. They are with opposite directions. Both beams life times are measured. If we rotate the apparatus until first muon beam is collinear with Earth velocity V, and muon velocities are v0 + V, and the other beam is opposite to Earth velocity and muon velocities are v0 - V, is there going to have differences in the measured muon life times ?

As you know muon is unstable particle with 207 electron masses which decays with average lifetime of 1.56 micro seconds, however this is in the rest frame of the photon, wrt the Earth it is geater because "the muon clock appears time-dilated or running slower with factor T = gamma*T0 so its measured life-time is greater (7.8 micro seconds)"

What do you thing about it:

Two beams from muons are produced simultanneously from a muon source. They are with opposite directions. Both beams life times are measured. If we rotate the apparatus until first muon beam is collinear with Earth velocity V, and muon velocities are v0 + V, and the other beam is opposite to Earth velocity and muon velocities are v0 - V, is there going to have differences in the measured muon life times ?

I could be mistaken on this but I do believe this has been considered and found that the dilation does indeed vary with the direction of detection. I'll do a Goggle and see what I can find.

That raises some interesting questions I hadn't thought of. Damn I needed that when debating with Billy T. :D

Out of time this morning but will look more later the folloiwng seems to suggest the affect is disregarded as insignifigant. However at one point it states that the data seemed to show some correlation but only minor.

Since they specifically were looking at extended collections over time in bins dealt more with density of soruce cosmologically and the idea of sideral affect seems to have been sought from some mathematical treatment may have obscured the affect.

I'll keep looking for the data I saw which looked specifically for the affect.

http://www.cosmic-ray.org/papers/icrc771-616.pdf

Xgen,

I'm not mistaken on this and it has been found that the dilation does not vary with the direction of detection. Based on every validated experiment ever done, to the precision of the measuring equipment. Google it yourself Xgen and see. Note Xgen that there will never be a clear-cut example of a valid experiment for certain people. The results will always be subject treatments like:

Since they specifically were looking at extended collections over time in bins dealt more with density of soruce cosmologically and the idea of sideral affect seems to have been sought from some mathematical treatment may have obscured the affect.


MacM, the word is "effect". "...The effect of the pehnomenon may affect you in some way..."

Xgen,

I'm not mistaken on this and it has been found that the dilation does not vary with the direction of detection. Based on every validated experiment ever done, to the precision of the measuring equipment. Google it yourself Xgen and see. Note Xgen that there will never be a clear-cut example of a valid experiment for certain people. The results will always be subject treatments like:

I was not discounting the results of the test. I pointed out they said it was insignifigant. But they also noted a light correlation. I found that interesting only in that one finds the same thing in the M&M experiment with light.

It has been declared null but every test actually shows a minor sideral trend. If that is also true in the muon case then I think we must keep that upper most in our conclusions.

Further as I indicted I have read of another test done specifically seeking the effect and it was more postitive.

MacM, the word is "effect". "...The effect of the phenomenon may affect you in some way..."

You are correct and I too usually use the correct term but didn't in this case.

Ok then. Not usually a grammer nazi, but I see that one screwed up all the time...

Ok then. Not usually a grammer nazi, but I see that one screwed up all the time...

Not a problem. No offense taken. One need only look at my other postings to see that I usually don't screw that one up. But as I indicated I was running short of time this morning (since I forgot to set the alarm :o and was running late) and I did screw it up.

The one that scrapes me is the use of "irregardless". There is no such word.

Ok then. Not usually a grammer nazi, but I see that one screwed up all the time...
Sorry. I can't resist. "grammer nazi"! How about grammar instead. And MacM missed it too. Shame on you both.

Sorry. I can't resist. "grammer nazi"! How about grammar instead. And MacM missed it too. Shame on you both.

I need another cup of coffee. :D

*hangs head in sham* ...er *shame*

MacM,
the link:
http://www.cosmic-ray.org/papers/icrc771-616.pdf

do not counts, pay attension that I did ask about mean life-times, they had registered the energies of muons produced by cosmic rays

I am making google search by myself but I cant find experiment similar to the one I did proposed. Soon I will give more details about my search so far.

Xgen,

I'm not mistaken on this and it has been found that the dilation does not vary with the direction of detection. Based on every validated experiment ever done, to the precision of the measuring equipment. Google it yourself Xgen and see. Note Xgen that there will never be a clear-cut example of a valid experiment for certain people. The results will always be subject treatments like:

Since they specifically were looking at extended collections over time in bins dealt more with density of soruce cosmologically and the idea of sideral affect seems to have been sought from some mathematical treatment may have obscured the affect.


"I'm not mistaken on this and it has been found that the dilation does not vary with the direction of detection. Based on every validated experiment ever done....",

Lets get clear. Time dilation and any physics laws (at macroscopic level) do not vary with the direction, that is because space is isotropic. However are you sure that dilation is not different for different velocities? Because a fast moving muon is very similar to a photon (I suggest that muons decay is observed in vacuum and any electro-magnetic effects can be neglected, and they do not influence muon lifetime anyway) moving with the speed of light. It decays because of weak interactions which are quite complicated and noone can really say if its lifetime will not vary with direction until experiments are done. Pay attension that muon will decay even if he is in vacuum, there is something in the vacuum which causes muon to decay. But both beams of muons had different velocities wrt the vacuum, and wrt the vacuum they should experience different dilation. It should be detectable if averaged life-times of muons are measured for several different directions (wel I am not betting my life and reputation for this but it seems so :) .

You said : "Based on every validated experiment ever done,", I am eager to here about these numerious experiments, please provide us with links (but keep in mind that here I am talking about life-times of uni-directional particle beams not just any kind of time dilation effects abundant in the net). If they are so many it should not be a problem for you to list several of them here.

Xgen,

Cosmic ray muons have been measured for years. They are created as a byproduct of cosmic ray impacts with upper atmospheric gasses. Having known their decay time, and speed, pre-relativity physicists could not explain how they were even reaching their detectors on the surface. Of course, travelling at near c, they last longer and make it all the way down. There is, however, a distribution curve since they are not all created at the same altitude. This curve is reproduced at all times of the day and year, thus demonstrating that muon decay is independent of direction of motion.

Google on "cosmic ray muons"

MacM,
the link:
http://www.cosmic-ray.org/papers/icrc771-616.pdf

do not counts, pay attension that I did ask about mean life-times, they had registered the energies of muons produced by cosmic rays

I am making google search by myself but I cant find experiment similar to the one I did proposed. Soon I will give more details about my search so far.

Again, it is pointed out that no "signifigant" anisotropy was detected but it was also noted that there did seem to be a minor correlation to the sideral cycle.

Combine that with the simular result in M&M and many other such experiments and it may well be signifigant. That is we do not see anisotropy to the degree one would expect but we do see it.

Cosmic ray muons have been measured for years. They are created as a byproduct of cosmic ray impacts with upper atmospheric gasses. Having known their decay time, and speed, pre-relativity physicists could not explain how they were even reaching their detectors on the surface. Of course, travelling at near c, they last longer and make it all the way down. There is, however, a distribution curve since they are not all created at the same altitude. This curve is reproduced at all times of the day and year, thus demonstrating that muon decay is independent of direction of motion.

No, it means that cosmic rays are isotropic. It cant be maded such conclusion that muons lifetimes are equal in all directions. It should be maded experiment with muon source in vacuum. Because even if cosmic muons arrive at earth at the same flux densities they pass through 15 km air and it is not clear how all the effects of scatterring, absorption and so on will affect the muon. And I am still not sure that there is no anisotropy. I dont have time right know to check all the topics about cosmic-rays muons but it seems that many authors had detected small angular anisotropy.

And something that I dont understand. How we can measure cosmic muons lifetimes when we dont know when exaxctly muon was emitted?

...
What do you thing about:
Two beams from muons are produced simultanneously from a muon source. They are with opposite directions. Both beams life times are measured. If we rotate the apparatus until first muon beam is collinear with Earth velocity V, and muon velocities are v0 + V, and the other beam is opposite to Earth velocity and muon velocities are v0 - V, is there going to have differences in the measured muon life times ?

to MacM: Looks like others are dragging out the muons, (as I did in effort to "beat the SRT truth into you" in the now locked, long running thread you and Pete started.) but this time with less agressive intent, and as far as I know, only a hypothertical experiment. Now to comment on the above experiment (perhaps too quickly as I don't have time to think carefully about it):

1) Since Vo is essentially c, the simple additon of velocities is wrong, but even when done correctly, there should still be a slight difference in average muon speeds forward and aft. However, I bet this difference in forward and aft average speeds is very small compared to the spread of speeds with which the source "launches" the muons. This will make it hard to detect any effect of the small speed difference, relativisticly calculated correctly. I.e. the source spread could lead to a null result for the hypotheses that there is an effect of Earth's velocity on the lifetimes. (Time dilation by SRT being real and the source moving with the Earth, then I think we "faithfull" to the standard theory, should expect that the range of the forward beam should be a little longer than that of the aft beam because the forward going muion are going slightly faster on average.) I don't want to give MacM and others who want to cite any failure to detect a differences in life times or ranges forward and aft any good reason to claim that STR is not supportd by "null results". Hence this is "point No.1" :D

2) I think the fore and aft ranges (I speak of ranges because I think that is more pratical that trying to measure the life times and the faster muons will travel farther before dying. What one needs to do is study the number detected near the max range and understand the shape of the flux fall off curve.) will be the same if the detector and source are are both fixed relative to Earth. If the ranges differ, it would be a very local way to detect motion of the Earth. That would bother me, one who generally accepts the standard theory of SRT etc. Non-local means, such as the distant stars, or slight difference in the cosmic backgroung radiation don't bother me.

3) Perhaps in the hands of someone more skilled than me, muons arriving surface of the Earth when they don't live long enough to do so, even if traveling at c, if STR's time dilation were not true, can be used to be used to beat the STR truth into non believers, but in MacM's case at least, before trying, the new swinger of the "muon club" had better look at my old attempt. The best I could do was to get MacM to admit that he could not explain everthing (nor can I) so that was not much of a "victory." MacM is too clever to be easily hit with this club. I know. I tried.

Billy T,

Are you confused by the fact that I am argueing for ansitropy here? :D

To all readers:
It is amazing how some people can discuss issues ... having no clue what they are talking about!
Look one more time on the initial question:
Two beams from muons are produced simultanneously from a muon source. They are with opposite directions. Both beams life times are measured. If we rotate the apparatus until first muon beam is collinear with Earth velocity V, and muon velocities are v0 + V, and the other beam is opposite to Earth velocity and muon velocities are v0 - V, is there going to have differences in the measured muon life times ?

Does any of participants of the discussion on this thread know the answer on a much simple question:
"Let we have only one source of muons somewhere in Cosmos. How we can measure the muons proper life-time observing the muon beam from that source?"

To all readers:
It is amazing how some people can discuss issues ... having no clue what they are talking about!
Look one more time on the initial question:
“ Two beams from muons are produced simultanneously from a muon source. They are with opposite directions. Both beams life times are measured. If we rotate the apparatus until first muon beam is collinear with Earth velocity V, and muon velocities are v0 + V, and the other beam is opposite to Earth velocity and muon velocities are v0 - V, is there going to have differences in the measured muon life times ? ”

Does any of participants of the discussion on this thread know the answer on a much simple question:
"Let we have only one source of muons somewhere in Cosmos. How we can measure the muons proper life-time observing the muon beam from that source?"

The problem is more subtle then it may seems. I had been measuring cosmic muon lifetimes in my nuclear physics cource in the university, I think that it was based on the average distance that muon travels in air.
This however is not enough precize. Because source has finite sizes there is quite big error which can obscure the effect ot source move. We can solve it by using very, very small source and pure vacuum where muons will move at more distance ( I am not sure that it can be done in Earth at all).
But hypoteticly there is even better way. You should be familiar that there are many particles which produce pair of muons, one muon and one anti-muon:

pion + pion -> muon + anti-muon + .......

There are also reactions which produces also 4 muons - 2 muons and 2 anti-muons. Simultaneously! If we had some problems with the charge (for example +muon can have different lifetime because it can be distracted from the atom orbital electons) we can only -muons or only +muons.

Then after muon decays it will emit one high-energy positron, two neutrinos and gamma. Then with a coinsidence detector scheme there could be measured muon lifetime very accuratelly.

They measure cosmic ray muon lifetimes by finding out how muon flux decreases and extrapolating it with exponential fit. There are so many averagings in the whole procedure that it cant be used for SRT anisotropy test. A more precized experiment should be realized with a known source, known medium and minimization of all averaging and roundimgs.

I think the fore and aft ranges (I speak of ranges because I think that is more pratical that trying to measure the life times and the faster muons will travel farther before dying. What one needs to do is study the number detected near the max range and understand the shape of the flux fall off curve.) will be the same if the detector and source are are both fixed relative to Earth. If the ranges differ, it would be a very local way to detect motion of the Earth. That would bother me, one who generally accepts the standard theory of SRT etc. Non-local means, such as the distant stars, or slight difference in the cosmic backgroung radiation don't bother me.

Why non-local detection do not bothers you but local detection do bother you?
I am curious what would be your conclusion about this hypotetical experiment.

Why non-local detection do not bothers you but local detection do bother you?
I am curious what would be your conclusion about this hypotetical experiment.
Can't remember if it was Newton or not but some one long ago noticed that inside a ship smoothly sailing (it was back in the days when ships used sails to cross the ocean) on a calm sea wit no view out or knotted cord to toss over board (The origin of Knots. per hour) You can not tell the ship's speed. Here on earth, if you are forbiddent to look out (at the heavens) we are in close approximation to that man in the lower decks of the ship. That is all I ment by a "local measurement of Earth's speed would bother me."

I expect no difference will be observed. (don't have time to think carefully about it, so in part I am relying on the difficulties I mentioned in my earlier psot when stating this.)

That is all I ment by a "local measurement of Earth's speed would bother me."

Have you read this?

http://www.physicsnews1.com/article_12.html

Light tested and has no lateral motion of its source. That is the light beam does not co-move with its source in the direction of motion. An orthogonal projected light beam could therefore become a zero referance.!

In this test (now ran many times since 1999) a laser beam is track on a target and its deviations calculate out to the earths motion.!

Have you read this?

http://www.physicsnews1.com/article_12.html

Light tested and has no lateral motion of its source. That is the light beam does not co-move with its source in the direction of motion. An orthogonal projected light beam could therefore become a zero referance.!

In this test (now ran many times since 1999) a laser beam is track on a target and its deviations calculate out to the earths motion.!
No time to read your ref. But would not expect a light beam to move with lateral movment of the source b/c once "launched the M of the EM field collapses and this change generates the next half cycle of the E field and conversely, not to do with what man or may not happen back at the source.

No time to read your ref. But would not expect a light beam to move with lateral movment of the source b/c once "launched the M of the EM field collapses and this change generates the next half cycle of the E field and conversely, not to do with what man or may not happen back at the source.

That seems to be the findings of E.Skyler in a physical laser test. But it also flies in the face of all SRT diagrams showing the orthogonal light beam in a moving spaceship traversing a trianglular (pathagorean) path accounting to the time dialtion due to greater distance traveled.

Your expectations seem to have made you a convert? :D

That seems to be the findings of E.Skyler in a physical laser test. But it also flies in the face of all SRT diagrams showing the orthogonal light beam in a moving spaceship traversing a trianglular (pathagorean) path accounting to the time dialtion due to greater distance traveled.

Your expectations seem to have made you a convert? :D

No, not a convert. I don't know any true STR believer, (like me) thinking that it is some longer path that causes the appearance only of time dilation. We think time is passing more slowly in any frame moving relative to ours as measured by our clocks. Again that is how the muons get down to the surface, despite the fact they should have died long before doing so, if their clock were always in sync with ours - I.e if their clock's second were the same as ours.We STR faithful have a simple explanation for the fact that they get down to Earth - They, in their frame, have much less time lapse than the (distance of desent/ c) or time we observe on our clocks that their journey down took. I know from our prior debate in the now closed MacM and Pete thread that you have no explanation for how this trip down of the muons occurs.

I grant you that some one who shoots a arrow (or a light photon) directly towards the bull's eye in his rocket ship will say it goes in a straight line and I (stationary me ) will see it to follow a "trianglular (pathagorean) path" as you say - So what. How does that conflict with SRT? Why should that "convert me" :confused: or :D right back at you.

PS If this seems to you to conflict with my prior expectation that motion of the source has no effect upon the propagation of the light beam in space, it does not. Stationary me thinks (sees) that the rocketship man was like a duck hunter, "Leading the duck," with his aim so that during the time of fight (of photon or bullet) the target would move to position itself and be hit. That is, from my stationary perspective, he aimed the beam toward the side wall of the space ship a little ahead of the center of the bulls eye, and yes in my frame, it did travel more than the distance from him and the bulls eye, just as the duck hunter's bullet traveled more than the distance between the duck at the time the gun was fired and the gun.

No, not a convert. I don't know any true STR believer, (like me) thinking that it is some longer path that causes the appearance only of time dilation. We think time is passing more slowly in any frame moving relative to ours as measured by our clocks. Again that is how the muons get down to the surface, despite the fact they should have died long before doing so, if their clock were always in sync with ours - I.e if their clock's second were the same as ours.We STR faithful have a simple explanation for the fact that they get down to Earth - They, in their frame, have much less time lapse than the (distance of desent/ c) or time we observe on our clocks that their journey down took. I know from our prior debate in the now closed MacM and Pete thread that you have no explanation for how this trip down of the muons occurs.

I grant you that some one who shoots a arrow (or a light photon) directly towards the bull's eye in his rocket ship will say it goes in a straight line and I (stationary me ) will see it to follow a "trianglular (pathagorean) path" as you say - So what. How does that conflict with SRT? Why should that "convert me" :confused: or :D right back at you.

PS If this seems to you to conflict with my prior expectation that motion of the source has no effect upon the propagation of the light beam in space, it does not. Stationary me thinks (sees) that the rocketship man was like a duck hunter, "Leading the duck," with his aim so that during the time of fight (of photon or bullet) the target would move to position itself and be hit. That is, from my stationary perspective, he aimed the beam toward the side wall of the space ship a little ahead of the center of the bulls eye, and yes in my frame, it did travel more than the distance from him and the bulls eye, just as the duck hunter's bullet traveled more than the distance between the duck at the time the gun was fired and the gun.
As an external observer to an inertial frame that emits a pulse of light orthogonal to the motion of the frame will be seen by you as indicated here. Do you know of any instances where kentucky windage has been used in aiming light beams? How about the Michelson-Morely experiments? Probably used kentucky windage didn't they? So much for the significance of MM experiments, correct?

MacM was right, you are a convert your disclaimer to the contrary notwithstanding.
Here is what you will see in four snapshots of a light pulse emitted orthoganally to the motion of the RF. An example of an absolute reference frame:The light trajectory. (http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3968&stc=1) .

Geistkiesel

I know from our prior debate in the now closed MacM and Pete thread that you have no explanation for how this trip down of the muons occurs.

Not entirely correct. I acknowledge the apparent increased life span but contend it has to do with energy universally (not SRT) and that this function has nothing to do with time dilation or distance. What you believe is time dilation and spatial dimensional contraction, I believe is nothing more than a mathematical house of cards which describes basically the battery in my timex getting weak. That is "Clock Dilation" not "Time Dilation" and/or "Spatial Contraction".

I hope we get to discuss this in more depth some time soon.

I grant you that some one who shoots a arrow (or a light photon) directly towards the bull's eye in his rocket ship will say it goes in a straight line and I (stationary me ) will see it to follow a "trianglular (pathagorean) path" as you say - So what. How does that conflict with SRT? Why should that "convert me" :confused: or :D right back at you.

I did mis-interprete your prior expectation based on the following PS:

PS If this seems to you to conflict with my prior expectation that motion of the source has no effect upon the propagation of the light beam in space, it does not. Stationary me thinks (sees) that the rocketship man was like a duck hunter, "Leading the duck," with his aim so that during the time of fight (of photon or bullet) the target would move to position itself and be hit. That is, from my stationary perspective, he aimed the beam toward the side wall of the space ship a little ahead of the center of the bulls eye, and yes in my frame, it did travel more than the distance from him and the bulls eye, just as the duck hunter's bullet traveled more than the distance between the duck at the time the gun was fired and the gun.

The reason is that E. Skyler has done years of testing which shows that a projected light beam does not follow the pathagorean path you describe and SRT requires. It infact appears to go straight from the point of firing and would to the pilot of the rocket ship seem to fall behind as he moved forward. It infact seems it could be used as an absolute motion detector! :D

So that the independance of a light beam relative to the motion of its source is total and not just in the projected vector of the beam. That is once released from the source the beam does not carry the forward mementum of the source that projected it.

This actually makes good sense if you accept that a photon is massless.

Only if a photon had mass would it make sense for it to carry the forward momentum, which is represented in SRT graphics.

....E. Skyler has done years of testing which shows that a projected light beam does not follow the pathagorean path you describe and SRT requires. It infact appears to go straight from the point of firing and would to the pilot of the rocket ship seem to fall behind as he moved forward.
MacM you probably know that the speed of light has been measure in long evacuated pipes with mirrows at both ends which fold the beam back and forth many times to make the total travel distance large. As far as I know these pipes were on Earth :) and traveling at high speed with it and at least in some cases (M&M explored all possible orientations) the light beam bouncing back and forth between many mirrow reflections was traveling transverse to the Earth's motion, yet it did not "walk off the mirror" as the mirror moved with the Earth. The reflection geometry and number of bounces was the same as when the tube was aligned with the Earth's velocity.

Thus I still think it not worth my time to bother reading E.Skyler's claim that it goes "straght and does not travel with the rocket ship." Skyler would leave me: :o

Billy T,

I agree it is not a slam dunk or proven fact but I disagree that you should not read of the test. I don't think there is a basis to accept one test over the other as being absolute. There appears to be a conflict in data and more testing must be done to confirm one over the other.

It is a very important issue, wouldn't you agree?

Billy T,

I agree it is not a slam dunk or proven fact but I disagree that you should not read of the test. I don't think there is a basis to accept one test over the other as being absolute. There appears to be a conflict in data and more testing must be done to confirm one over the other.

It is a very important issue, wouldn't you agree?
Yes the validity of SRT is important, but most people that are well versed (perhaps you prefer "brain washed " :) ) have decided that SRT is OK and well supported, both by man's experiments and natures muons etc.

Aslo I suspect thatc Skiner or what ever his name is (not infront of me as I type) was investigating SRT with the object of disproving it. I know that was not the goal of Mickelson & Morley - they were trying to measure the either effects and later in Mickelson's mile long vacuum tube, when he measured the speed of light very accurately, he was not at all trying to prove anything about SRT. It is just that I happen to know that he folded the light back and forth many times and the beam did not walk off the mirrors. He directly and unintentionally very convencieningly demonstrated that Skiner's claim is false. I don't have time to read false claim reports, or even much interest in doing so, especially when they are reported by one who is advancing a point of view directly related to the claim.

I think "axe to grind" authors can be ignored (if one must chose what to read) compared to reports by well respected people who did an experiment without any intension (or perhaps even knowledge) that it also tested an aspect of SRT. That is the basis I used to decide not to bother / spend my limited time on/ skiner.

Billy T:
"I know that was not the goal of Mickelson & Morley - they were trying to measure the either effects and later in Mickelson's mile long vacuum tube, when he measured the speed of light very accurately, he was not at all trying to prove anything about SRT. It is just that I happen to know that he folded the light back and forth many times and the beam did not walk off the mirrors."
================================================== ==========

I had never heard of the speed of light being measured in a mile long vacuum tube
before. Do you have any links where I might read of this experiment? Thanks.

Yes the validity of SRT is important, but most people that are well versed (perhaps you prefer "brain washed " :) ) have decided that SRT is OK and well supported, both by man's experiments and natures muons etc.

Aslo I suspect thatc Skiner or what ever his name is (not infront of me as I type) was investigating SRT with the object of disproving it. I know that was not the goal of Mickelson & Morley - they were trying to measure the either effects and later in Mickelson's mile long vacuum tube, when he measured the speed of light very accurately, he was not at all trying to prove anything about SRT. It is just that I happen to know that he folded the light back and forth many times and the beam did not walk off the mirrors. He directly and unintentionally very convencieningly demonstrated that Skiner's claim is false. I don't have time to read false claim reports, or even much interest in doing so, especially when they are reported by one who is advancing a point of view directly related to the claim.

I think "axe to grind" authors can be ignored (if one must chose what to read) compared to reports by well respected people who did an experiment without any intension (or perhaps even knowledge) that it also tested an aspect of SRT. That is the basis I used to decide not to bother / spend my limited time on/ skiner.

I question your basis more than I question E. Skyler. Considering lasers did not exist at the time, I have difficulty envisioning how you think a light beam could possibly walk off a mirrow in 1 mile distance. Or several miles for that matter.

Secondly I believe your assumption that he set out to make the finding is incorrect. I forget what he claimed he was doing when he noticed the drift in the laser beam and began watching and recording it over extended periods of time.

That is it seems to have been an accidental discovery, which mathematically was correct for the earth's velocity.

I am not advocating his test was bonifide only that it seems legitimate and should be taken seriously and verified or falsified.

I question your basis more than I question E. Skyler. Considering lasers did not exist at the time, I have difficulty envisioning how you think a light beam could possibly walk off a mirrow in 1 mile distance. Or several miles for that matter.

Secondly I believe your assumption that he set out to make the finding is incorrect. I forget what he claimed he was doing when he noticed the drift in the laser beam and began watching and recording it over extended periods of time.

That is it seems to have been an accidental discovery, which mathematically was correct for the earth's velocity.

I am not advocating his test was bonifide only that it seems legitimate and should be taken seriously and verified or falsified. I dont remember how many time the beam bounced back and forth between the two mirrors at the ends of the mile long pipe, nor the pipe diameter. I think it entered slightly inclined thru small hole made about 25 bounces and then exited that same hole. Let me guess that the mirrors were 8 inches in diameter and the beams were basicaly on surface of a 6 inch cylinder and the exit hole was 1/4 inch diameter. (Easy to do many more bounces now that lasers exist.)

I will leave it as an exercies for you to calculate if during the time of 26 miles travel by light beam, the Earth moved the mirrors by 1/8 of inch so that the 26th beam (after last 25th bounce on the far end mirror) would not make it out of the exit hole.

If the orbital speed of Earth is not sufficient to make the last beam fail to exit, than please consider the sum of orbital and sun's velocity relative to the "fixed" stars.

I will make you a deal: You show me that the 26th beam, which should have come out of the center of the 1/4 inch diameter hole in mirror, would still do so, only slightly displaced from center of the hole, because the Earth's speed is not great enough to displace the mirrors by 1/8 inch during the 26 mile time of flight and I will go read (or at least skim) Skyler's paper. I will also publicly suggest that someone with access to the old mile-long vacuum pipe, if it stil exists, repeat the experiment with a laser that could have a couple of hundred bounces, if that would be enough to let SRT fail (because Earth is moving the mirrors, but not the beams so that detection of absolute velocity is locally possible.) and the 201st beam misses the exit hole.

MacM - I miss spoke in recent post. Earth's speed is not "moving the beams." From POV of someone fixed in space relative to the distance stars, the initial beam was launched (aimed) to lead the far mirror, like the duck hunter leading the duck I spoke of a few posts back.) I firmly believe that a local measure of the Earth's motion is impossible. If it is possible, I would need to join you in a challenge of SRT and perhaps some other things also. So again, YES this is important and the long vacuum pipe test is probably the best test. When beam traves thru air it heats the air, local refraction effect etc make me think Skyler may have honestly seen some thing, but only if done in vaccum would I be come worried about SRT.

MacM - I miss spoke in recent post. Earth's speed is not "moving the beams." From POV of someone fixed in space relative to the distance stars, the initial beam was launched (aimed) to lead the far mirror, like the duck hunter leading the duck I spoke of a few posts back.) I firmly believe that a local measure of the Earth's motion is impossible. If it is possible, I would need to join you in a challenge of SRT and perhaps some other things also. So again, YES this is important and the long vacuum pipe test is probably the best test. When beam traves thru air it heats the air, local refraction effect etc make me think Skyler may have honestly seen some thing, but only if done in vaccum would I be come worried about SRT.

I agree with the pipe test and think it should be redone using lasers.

I am a bit confused as to what you are thinking about regarding the test at that time where there was no coherent beam but a light dispersal of the beam wave front. Without a laser I fail to see how the light could possibly miss the exit hole. :D

I agree with the pipe test and think it should be redone using lasers.

I am a bit confused as to what you are thinking about regarding the test at that time where there was no coherent beam but a light dispersal of the beam wave front. Without a laser I fail to see how the light could possibly miss the exit hole. :DI don't know exactly what they did, but i am sure they folded the beam back and orth as much as they could to increase the total path length (better accuracy in the resulting value of c.)

If you place a geometrically small light source (a "point source") at the focus of a lens, then you get a good approximation of a parrallel light beam. Coherent light (laser) is not required. Incoherent beams travel at the same speed as cohertent one (Hope you don't question this. :D ) I have some experience with optics, so the guesses I made as to what they could do in the "pre laser era" probably are not terribly wrong. The diameter of the lense was probably an inch or two at the most, but it was surely "stopped" down to significantly less than the entrance hole (vacuum window). If you try to get 26 well separated beams traveling around on the surface of a 6 inch diameter "space cylinder" and pi being a little bigger than 3, then the circumferanceof is roughly 20 inches. You could fit in nearly 60 separated beams travelling back and forth if each beam had less that 1/3 inch diameter. (I did not do even this simple analysis before, so I now suggest they had about 60 beams. the first one being only 0.1 inch in diameter and the emerging 60th beam wouod be nearly as big as the entrance/ exit hole due to lack of perfect collimation. Say #1 going in is 0.1" dia and #60 comming out is 0.25 inches. Again just guess ing,but this time with a few simple calculations to guide me.

Is it clear? If not think of those movies where the thief has to crawl thru as bunch of blue laser beams to rob the jewels etc. That is, inside the mile long vacuum tube, there is a conceptual (not material) cylinder about 6 inches in diameter, the surface of which is covered by bouncing light beams. The first few are small and well separated but grow to almost touch between #59 and 60 because the collimation was not as good as if laser were used.

After this simple analysis, I also raise my estimate of the number of laser beam you could pack in to about 500. You then have flight time corresponding to 500 miles and need to see how much the earth moves the experiment during this time to see if this test of SRT predicts (by Skyler's) and your view the "500th exit beam" beam will miss the exit hole. As a beliver in SRT, I am confindent it will not, but agree it is simple enought to test if the old mile long vaccum tube still exist.

Billy T,

I only question the collmination of incoherent light over that distance at that point in technological history.


Alsodo you know where the tube was and what it's orientation was?

Billy T,

I only question the collmination of incoherent light over that distance at that point in technological history. Also do you know where the tube was and what it's orientation was? I am prety sure there was then a "point source" made as follows:

Short tungsten small diameter wire (0.05cm dia) sticking perpendicular and about 1inch behind disk with small hole inline with this wire. With DC discharge between the disk and wire the current "pinches" down to make, thru the hole, a view of very small, very hot plasma line source seen end on. If this is now at the focus of a lens with at least 1 meter focal length, (half a diopter would be even better) and the entire lens/souce is at least 10 meters from the entrance window of the mile long tube and the light must pass thru a 0.1 cm hole at the entrance window, I suspect you could get adequate collimination and intensity to detect the 60th or "exit beam" with sensitive photo multiplier tube and timing equipment of the era.

On question of the orintation of the pipe, I think it is any you need twice every day :D

PS, Ok if it is NS, then you must wait 3 months to explore all orientations.

On question of the orintation of the pipe, I think it is any you need twice every day :D

PS, Ok if it is NS, then you must wait 3 months to explore all orientations.

I think you see my point. :D