Like many others, I follow the ongoing controversy about stickers in science
textbooks. I felt, that I had to do my part in defense of the scientific
Method. I thought I could prove the validity of the scientific method by
demonstrating it on a less contagious issue. I decided to go with Einstein’s
relativity. After all, I hold degrees in aerospace as well as physics. And
spend quite some time setting up interferometry experiments. I have some
understanding of the matter.

To my dismay, I found that relativity is not that scientific after all. It is
not even logical. That occurred to me, for the first time back in May. You
could say, that the good lord turned me from Saulus to Paulus.

However I spend some time putting together a scientific article in order to
present my findings for review. I submitted the article to many peer reviewed
publications. Always got an immediate response. It read:

> We regret to inform you that we do not publish “This Kind of article" <

That came to me as a surprise. I assure you, my article does not contain any
circular arguments, or divisions by zero nor do my calculations produce any
ridiculous predictions. The math is very simple, and the results absolutely
intuitive. I double-checked my mathematical argument, my diagrams and my
conclusions. I could not see what they mean by “This Kind of Article”.

So I asked if they could point out the factual errors of my argument. I never
got an answer. In fact nobody ever bothered to read it. It strikes me as odd,
that those publications do not have any reservations when it comes to the
publication of theories about, Super strings, 11 Dimensions, The big splat, The
big bang and many other fantastic things. So way should they refuse to even
read my quite simple solution of the Michelson-Morley experiment?
Is it not permitted to question the “Miracles of science”?

I do not claim infallibility. All I ask for is an objective review. How else can
I verify the correctness of my findings? I decided to put the whole thing
online you can find it at:

http://www.primacausa.com

It contains a classical solution of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which takes
the Fizeau effect into consideration. You may find it Interesting.

I found that relativity is not that scientific after all. It is not even logical.

You must realise that the mainstream scientific community doesn't agree with you about either of these things.

Your first point relies on a definition of what is "scientific", so let's leave that aside for now.

Before I take time to read your article, please explain briefly what is illogical about the theory of relativity. I hope you have something better to offer than "it is non-intuitive, and doesn't match common sense", which is the usual catch-cry of the crank. I assume you can show a mathematical flaw in the theory.

So, I'll make a deal with you. Briefly explain one flaw in the theory of relativity to show why it is illogical. Then I'll examine your paper. Ok?

Look at the situation of the Twin Paradox. General relativity resolves that by having each observer be in his own 4-dim manifold. That surely explains the paradox away.
But it does so by means of spatial and temporal separation. What happens if the ships of the Twins crash into eachother. Ahat are the ages the crash site investigators are going to determine when they examine the corpses.

The other thing is the issue with the cosmological constant. It is completely arbitrary. You observe, then you go back and set the cosmological constant to a value that matches your observations. Relativity needs the cosmological constatnt, because the relativistic universe contains no mass or energy it is a zero game. That results from the equivalence principle. The only gravitational force that has 0 distance differential is a zero gravitational force. Einstein prevents his universe from collapsing, by filling it up with an energy density. thats the meaning of the cosmological constant. After big bang cosmology came up, he set the CC back to zero for now he had the energy of the big bang. After it was discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating the CC was again adjusted. Does that seem scientific.

Besides relativity does not provide any mechanism to account for the big bang. So what makes the big bang Bang?

Ncheropoulos

you maybe interested in this

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0501/0501051.pdf

The idea behind the whole thing is, that physics took a wrong turn as it followed Einsteins suggestions. When you take a wrong turn, you'll have to back track. And that is exactly what i'm trying to do. I go back to the year 1900. Relativity does not exist yet. The results of the Michelson-Morley experiments are verified.

This is my starting point. Can the ether theory account for the results of the michelson-morley experiment? This is my question.

The geometry of the lightpaths i propose seems to do that. Again i do not claim infalibility. My Calculation might be wrong. But if it is, it has to be wrong whithin the framework of my pre-relativistic assumptions as well.

I assume that the ether exists. Before you declare me a lunatic consider this:

1. Einstein rejects the existence of the ether. But in general relativity he introduces the Cosmological Constant, which is nothing more than a energy density (a negative one but still). So he fills the empty space of special relativity with something. How is that any different from assuming space beeing filled with ether?

2. The Concept of vaccum in Quantum physics, does not match special relativitys empty space. Quantum space is filled with fluctuating particle pairs and energy fields. It contains something. How is that different from a dynamic ether?

3. General Relativity accounts only for one force: Gravity. That is an attractive force. Can relativity account for the forces that drove the big bang? What made the big bang go Bang?

4. Relativity is completely deterministic. Karl Popper realized that. Nothing ever happens in the relativistic universe everything is set from the beginning.

5. The only way relativity can account for the accelerated expansion of the universe is the cosmological constant. There has to be something which pushes against gravity (the only resident force of relativity). The Concept of the arbitrary Cosmological constant is nothing more then filling up the relativistic bubble with Einstein's Gas.

If you have any objections to the points above, i would love to hear them!

ncheropoulos:

Look at the situation of the Twin Paradox. General relativity resolves that by having each observer be in his own 4-dim manifold. That surely explains the paradox away. But it does so by means of spatial and temporal separation. What happens if the ships of the Twins crash into eachother. Ahat are the ages the crash site investigators are going to determine when they examine the corpses.

It sounds as if you think relativity says the twins each inhabit completely separate spacetimes, with no connection. It says no such thing. Your crash site investigators will find one twin definitely older than the other, and everybody will agree that that is the case. All events which happen in one frame of reference must happen in every other frame as well. Only the distances and times between events can change, and only in different frames. Twins who meet up and end up stationary relative to each other will always agree on their ages - which one has aged more or less, etc.

The other thing is the issue with the cosmological constant. It is completely arbitrary. You observe, then you go back and set the cosmological constant to a value that matches your observations.

Just like all fundamental constants of nature. Want to know the mass of an electron? You try to measure it, then you adjust the value of the mass to match your observations. Over time, better observations give better values for the constant. The cosmological constant is no different than the speed of light, or Planck's constant or whatever, in that respect.

Besides relativity does not provide any mechanism to account for the big bang. So what makes the big bang Bang?

Nobody knows. But then, relativity doesn't claim to explain the origin of the big bang. All physicists recognise that a new theory is needed to explain that.

Complaining that relativity can't explain why the big bang occurred is equivalent to complaining that Newton's laws of physics can't explain black holes. Everybody knows and admits that these theories do not explain those things.

it seems to me that ncheropoulos has come down with a case of "what if everyone is wrong" syndrome, its very common.

however, I assure you ncheropoulos, that most (perhaps all) problems with SR can be found to be non-problems if you work through them carefully enough. I challenge you to find a flaw in SR, post it here, and have that flaw survive the scrutiny of sciforums. its not easy to get one past us (I say US, but I mostly lurk because others tend to say what I would have said, only better) GR is another story, its harder to work through problems, and fewer of us SF'er can contribute.

I encourage you to try and present a flaw in SR, it is a great learning tool to read/participate in a discussion of this nature. my critical thinking skills have probably improved ten-fold since I became a member a year ago.

1. I think i havent made my objections to time dilation completely clear here is what i mean:

It is a real effect and has been verified experimentally Nobody denies that. But does it support relativity? You pack an atomic clock into an airplane, and fly it a couple of times around the globe. When you get it back, you will see that it ran slower then its twin you kept in your lab. Does that prove relativistic time dilation?

What about the pilot of the airplane. He may, relatively speaking, consider himself as being at rest and the lab rotating under the airplane. He will calculate a time dilation for the clock in the lab. According to him, the clock in the lab has to be the slower one. It can't be that both clocks are slower then the other. Fortunately we do not have to result into ugly arguments. Experiments like that have been performed countless times. The clock that makes the trip is always found to be the slower one. That rather supports the idea of absolute motion then relativity.


2. My comments about the cosmological constant do not affect its value. It's necessity to make the theorie match observation is the issue here. First you clean out space from everything. Then you fill it with assigning an energy density to it. If you have to assume space is filled with some form of energy, why not call it ether?

cato: Just a friendly question: did you read the link before you posted? I think not, because it does clearly present alleged flaws. Surely you are too nice of a guy to want everyone to double work ( devote a considerable amount of time preparing a link and then also have to satisfy you by retyping here )?

I will admit I did not read the entire thing, but it didn't contain anything I found alarming. a few errors though. minor ones.

An observer moving with the clock sees the pulse following a vertical path (thin black line), while the clock is moving at a steady rate v. An inertial observer on the other hand...
are they not both inertial?

The rubber ball will be seen from both observers to move along the same trajectories
no, the one on the bus sees vertical, the one at the bus stop sees a siz-zag line. unless I missed something.

I am a bit fuzzy, if I am stationary WRT(with respect to) a photon clock and the speed of light is constant to all inertial observers, how do observers moving inertially WRT me not see the clock slower? I see nothing in your gedanken experiment that shows it would be the same, other than your claim that it does. I don't mean to belittle your work, I would just like to understand it more.

p.s. what exactly is it that can be predicted more accurately with your model rather than relativity?

Gato: look at my last post. I think that explains quite clear what i mean. Time dilation is a real effect but it rather supports the concept of absolute motion. That's the only way of eliminating the contradictions of the twin paradox.

The guy at the bus stop and the bus rider do not see the same trajectorys. Each of them sees the trajectory relativity would predict for the photon.

The moving observer sees the ball follow the photon trajectory relativity predicts for him. And the Stationary observer sees the ball follow the photon trajectory relativity predicts for the inertial observer.

Only the photon has no inertia. The ball does.

Yes my calculation results to the same dilation factor but it is based on absolute motion.

I have looked over your link and posts, but I still don't understand why a slower moving clock on an airplane supports absolute over SR motion. moreover, why can't both clock be slow? they wont be slow to the same frame of reference, so I don't see the problem.

I just have a hard time seeing things from your POV.

ok here it is: Pilot sees lab clock being in relative motion to himself. Calculates time dilation for lab clock: Lab clock goes slower then his own clock

Lab guy sees pilot in motion calculates time dilation for pilots clock: Pilots clock goes slower then lab guys clock.

Each clock is slower then the other. Can i be older and younger then you at the same time? You see the contradiction.

That is the result of time dilation if you assume relativity of motion. Now the airborn clock comes back. Guess what it is the slower one. Always. What does that mean?

Yes both clocks can be slow. But they cant be both slower then the other at the same time.

URI: Very interesting link. Thanks.

ncheropoulos: Very interesting thread. Thanks.

In specific response to your thread title: cult.

glad you like it cangas.

Nice to hear that. Thanx Cangas

These thought experiments (such as flying the clock around the world) were made primarily for educational purposes. You will not be taken seriously to reject a scientific theory based on reject a educational tool. Furthermore you will have to give a new set of equations/laws/rules that replace the existing set that can explain the data more accurately.

This whole thing reminds me of my own field biology. People rejecting the theory of evolution because they see some kind of logical flaw in 'survival of the fittest'. As if this is going to make a dent in the theory of evolution. It's only a catch phrase after all.

I think you have to do better than this. Nobody will take you seriously if this stays on the anecdotal level.

Im not talking about thought experiments. Im talking about the Hafele and Keating
experiments of 1971

ok here it is: Pilot sees lab clock being in relative motion to himself. Calculates time dilation for lab clock: Lab clock goes slower then his own clock

Lab guy sees pilot in motion calculates time dilation for pilots clock: Pilots clock goes slower then lab guys clock.

Each clock is slower then the other. Can i be older and younger then you at the same time? You see the contradiction.


This objection keeps resurfacing. Perhaps the answer could be said like this:
The measurment of the time of a moving clock in SR involves two time quantities--the time contributed by the clocks involved because they have aged, and the time contributed by the clocks involved because they are out of syncronization. Add the two and you get the predicted (dialated) time. Considering these two elements does permit both clocks to "run slower than the other" without any break in logic at all. I've worked out examples of this myself (not just the equations) just to satisfy myself its true.

Peace

we work with differentials here. If you say they aged, Did they age the same?
They are out of sync, that's surely the relativistic time dilation effect. Do the math and you will see that it only makes sense if you assume a neutral reference frame for your referee.

Im not talking about thought experiments. Im talking about the Hafele and Keating
experiments of 1971

Don't call it your own findings then in your first post.

we work with differentials here. If you say they aged, Did they age the same?
They are out of sync, that's surely the relativistic time dilation effect. Do the math and you will see that it only makes sense if you assume a neutral reference frame for your referee.

The state of syncronization of two or more clocks is not the same as the rate at which any one clock ticks. I have done the math and it makes sense to me with only two frames of reference. And so, how much each clock ages depends on which of the two observers you ask.

The findings are MINE! The experimental data is his.
His findings -> experiment proves time dilation
Myfindings-> yes but it also proves absolute motion.

I imagine the scientific world is in shock and awe. There must have been a report on the Nature news site. I missed it. Can you give me the link?

The state of syncronization of two or more clocks is not the same as the rate at which any one clock ticks. I have done the math and it makes sense to me with only two frames of reference. And so, how much each clock ages depends on which of the two observers you ask.

So if you ask the two pilots heading east and west what will they tell you?

So if you ask the two pilots heading east and west what will they tell you?

It will of coarse depend on just which events are being measured, but you might hear "We see that the other guy's clocks are running slow, but we also see that he measures a longer time interval (instead of a shorter one) because his clocks are syncronized differently than ours". Get it?

nch': Have you studied the Sagnac 1914 experiment? If so, do you have any opinions about it?

Funny thing you ask?
That's actually what got me on the way. From 92 to 95 i was doing research at the academy of the german airforce. I used to set up demonstration experiments for the students. The two favorites were the sagnaq ( laser gyros ) and laser anemometers (windspeed sensors ) the precise explabation for both those interferomerty experiments is classic. There are relativistic explanations for both but they are just 10 times more complex. And non of them is convincing.

One more thing i would like to add to my last post. Whenever i say the saqnac effect is circumstantial evidence against relativity. I get the response: the sagnaq effect is a classical effect because it involves rotation.

True. but so does the michelson morley experiment. I never heard it was performed by mounting the whole thing on a lasergyro stabilized platform.

Michelson-Morley violates galileos as well as einsteins relativity it rotates. That we know for certain since Foucault set up his pendulum.

nch': It seems to me that the Fizeau toothed wheel concept, engineered without a mirror, could be used to time light ON A ONE WAY PATH, with more subsequent repetitions to time light in a variety of directions so as to definitively prove BY EXPERIMENT whether we actually can discover an absolute frame of reference. Admittedly I have limited resource to find experiments and their results, but I have never heard of such being done. Perhaps, do you know of such having been executed?

Very simple gedankin(s?) using one-way light paths have also been instrumental in convincing me that the non-preferred multiple frames of reference concept has insurmountable flaws.

An inconsequential but interesting fact: Maxwell designed the MM experiment in an article for Encyclopedia Britannica a few years before it was carried out. I'm probably the last person to find this out, but it surprised me.

gangas: I couldn't agree more. One way and even two way travelling time measurement will give you a result which depends on the direction.

But it has to be TIME MEASUREMENT not interferometry. The reason for that is obvious. Interferometry effects are produced by a difference in the phase velocity (f*2*pi) but the phase velocity does not depend on the angle of the ether flow it depends on the frequency of the source f which is constant.

As i said in my article each wave traves one wavelength per period. Always.

nc

I am hashing around several specific test layouts for a faux Fizeau one way experiment and will describe them soon. They would use two wheels rather than one, and one tooth per wheel rather than toothed circumferences. It would be a hoot if the experiments could be so simple and cheap that they could be Science Fair projects.

If you do a one way meassurement, i'm convinced it would prove that the speed of light depends on the direction of propagation. The only problem i see is that of timing.
I'm thinking about that kind of experiment myself. I couldn't find an accurate enough timing method so far.

One wheel has one aperture by which a photon can enter the space between wheels. Other wheel has one aperture through which photon can emerge onto detector. We have physical measurement of distance between wheels. One wheel has adjustment means to move aperture to various angles about axle, or, axis of rotation. Wheels are rotated in unison. When adjustment of apparatus is correct, photon will traverse in one aperture and out the other. Knowing RPM and critical dimensions, velocity of photon can be calculated.

yes, the concept is clear, but the problem is, that the speed of light is 300.000 km/s
In order to produce the effect you need to have the wheels apart at quite some distance. I calculated the whole thing. The mechanical effects (elastic twist of the axels, bending, vibrations) are by at least 5 orders of magnitude greater then the the angular separation between apertures if you have the wheels separated by 10m and rotate the whole thing at 10.000 rpm. And i used best case scenario in my calculations. The stifest materials, ideal bearings, ideal gears.

nc

Nc, I realize that you and cangus are having a fruitful rap session and I wouldn't interfere for the world, but I do have a question, if I may.
Since the two wheels of your apperatus must be seperated by such a distance (10 miles, or was it 10 meters?) won't you need to syncronize the motion of the wheels at each location in order to get a meaningful measurement?
Assuming your answer to that is yes, do you have a better way (truer way) to syncronize them than sending a light pulse from one to the other. I hope so, cause that would effectively negate the results of your experiment, me thinks.
Peace :)

metric system m stands for meter

and you are absolutely right. even at 10 meters the synchronization is quite impossible.
I calculated the situation for mechanical synchronization. And as i said in my previous post the effects of the elastic twist in the axle are way greater then the angular separation of the slits.

If you use lightbeams for synchronization you got the michelson morley situation. By that you will also get the same results.

This concept is in its infancy in my thoughts also.

We need to get rid of twist: We make the device like a drum, not having a little skinny axle in the middle. We choose the alloy with the best torsional resistance. We make it intentionally massive to obtain large moment of inertia. We spin up the assembly to desired RPM then disengage drive motor so that it free wheels. With great moment of inertia it will hold virtually steady RPM for some length of time. We are running the whole thing in a vacuum and we are using state of the art bearings which are claimed to be next to frictionless. Free wheeling, no torque is being applied so we should have no ongoing twist and great mass dampens residual twist vibrations.

Have not researched metallurgy yet, but would hope that 10,000 RPM could be greatly improved upon. I am personally familiar with objects half a foot in diameter regularly safely turning 35,000RPM and they are far from being made of the optimal tensile strength material. The best steel CABLE is rated at well over 100,000 PSI tensile strength and is considered to be capable of surprisingly close to one million if manufactured in perfect conditions. I would expect that some titanium alloy or whatever may beat steel .

Have already given synchronization substantial study but must collect thoughts to properly present them clearly. Will do so as quick as possible. Generally speaking we manufacture, adjust, and operate apparatus using mechanical measuring devices and do not rely on light for lining up anything, or synchronizing anything. And we may use simultaneous observation devices which need not be actually synchronized as long as we can relate each devices recorded information to a common time frame.

Will make further post re disconnected wheels soon but not now.

In simplest scenario, axle is massive so that wheels would be called flanges at each end, looking much like a drum. Each flange has one aperture, as small as possible. One flange has a mechanical adjustment for exact angular position of aperture wrt "axle". Photon source is near one flange, to be decided if attached or not. Photon detector is near other flange, definitely not attached. Operation is go/no go on photon detection. No timing, just a photon strike or none. Device is held at constant RPM by whatever means is best. Minutely accurate tachometer observes and records RPM. That is all the instrumentation needed. We do not need time of entry into first aperture. We do not need time of exit of "out" aperture. We know that the photon has traversed a known distance which is measured mechanically. We do not need minute accuracy in the distance measurement. The distance is the same for all executions of the experiment, and all we want to accomplish is to turn the apparatus in various directions and and see if there is a different outcome of the experiments.

We do not need to calculate anything. Each run of the experiment sees us having changed the location of one aperture through several runs, while turning the same RPM, until we get photons traversing through the "out" aperture rather than splatting against the solid part of the flange. We carefully note the angle of the "out" aperture by mechanical measurement. Then we turn the device to a different direction and repeat the drill of adjusting the location of one aperture until we get passage of photons. We have needed no instrumentation at all except for go/no go photon detection, and monitoring of RPM. As experiments are conducted it will become apparent if RPM can be relied on to be perfectly consistent: if that proves problematical then both photon strikes and RPM should be timed so that each strike can be related to a specific RPM. The timing device can be integral with the photon detector and the tachometer in one small device so that synchronization matters are negligible.

Comparing the positions of the adjustable aperture reveals to us whether there has been a difference of photon transit time or not. Faster or slower than the right transit time will see a photon splat against the flange beside the aperture. We need not know what the transit time was nor what the photon speed was. It will be sufficient to recognize a difference or lack of one by noting if the same aperture location works or does not work for different apparatus orientations.

Of course it will be immediately apparent that the aperture location could be held unchanged while RPM could be varied to cause photon go/no go. Execution of experiments should quickly show which method might be preferable in actual practice.

The smaller the apertures can be, the lower the RPM can be. Candidate photon energies and their corresponding practical go/no go aperture size could be an important design factor.

The extended axle example looks interesting and I'll have to think about it, but to the original poster, I thought I'd try and clarify the plane/atomic clocks experiment, and why his conclusions drawn from it, are somewhat in error.

The key point is the pop-science notion that time dilation only occurs in one direction; making clocks go slower. This just is not true.

Suppose you have two frames (points of view, essentially) A and B, where you are at A, viewing B pass by at a velocity V. Let us say, for example, that A and B are hugely long trains, in which there are many people situated up and down the train, all with watches accurately synchronised to "headquarters" clock in the 'center' of the frame. The idea of the watches being synchronised is not a trivial one, but we can, for this example, assume that they have been successfully (to withing a reasonable degree of accuracy) synchronised.

As train/frame B passes alongside train/frame A at a velocity V, the time-dilation *observed* will be seen to act in both directions, depending on where you are on frame A.

Suppose the "headquarters" clock in the center of frame B is visible to those up and down frame A. If the "headquarters" of frame B is found to be at a positive distance 'x' from the "headquarters" of A, then the people on A with the synchronised clocks will observe the clock in B to appear to be slow. [NB: there is a little difficulty here, as they will not observe the clock to be *running* slow (i.e. time between ticks) but it will appear to be slow nonetheless].

The important point is that people on frame A who find the "headquarters" of B to be at a negative distance 'x' from the "headquarters" of A will find that the clock on B appears to be running *fast*.

Excuse me if this isn't quite clear, it's quite hard to explain without diagrams, so feel free to clarify/correct me.

In essence, it is important to remember that time dilation depends not on speed, but on *velocity*, a vector. The perceived motion of the atomic clock in the lab (from the pilots perspective) is in precisely the opposite direction from the perceived motion of the atomic clock in the plane (from the lab workers' perspectives).

lets use some real numbers:

distance between wheels : 10 meter
rotation at : 60.000 rpm
wheel circumference : 10 m
time light needs to travel between wheels 10[m]/300.000.000[m/s] = 1/30.000.000[s]
tangent velocity at wheel circumference : 10[m]*1000[1/s] = 10.000 [m/s]
tangent distance wheel covers while beam in transition: 10.000[m/s]/30.000.000[s] =
1/3.000[m] = 1/3 mm

sounds possible to measure. If you build the whole thing massive enough so that the mechanical effects are lets say less then 1/30 [mm]

and another thing. Time dilaation does not depend on the direction of the motion vector. The term v in the lorentz transformation is squared. That eliminates the (+-) sign.

nc

But clock skew does depend on the velocity vector, which was the main point of Nick S's post.

Am working on an unexpectedly conceived alternative "solid- state " concept also. An inventor never knows when he will be assaulted by another "wonderful" idea and thrown completely off schedule. Will share more information pro or con as soon as possible.

Please forgive me for being too brief at this time but it seems possible that disconnected wheels can be functionally synchronized by means not tainted by any questions not able to be completely explained.

Will also share my calculations regarding RPM of connected wheels. There are several ways to achieve astonishingly high RPM. Your 60,000 is a punk. No offense intended. Do keenly keep in mind that, whether individual photon count, or, peak photon flux, is the mode of operation, the smaller photon that is used, the lower the RPM can be.

Keep in mind that wheel aperture speed is a linear function of RPM whereas centrifugal forces rises as the square of rotation speed of wheel. It is advantageous to design the wheel with as small a diameter as possible.

What about the pilot of the airplane. He may, relatively speaking, consider himself as being at rest and the lab rotating under the airplane. He will calculate a time dilation for the clock in the lab. According to him, the clock in the lab has to be the slower one. It can't be that both clocks are slower then the other.

Why not? Remember, time makes no sense without a reference frame.

Each clock is slower then the other. Can i be older and younger then you at the same time? You see the contradiction.

The part in red is your mistake. Simultaneity is relative, which means that "at the same time" requires a specification of reference frame, which means that there's no contradiction.

Your primary mistake seems to be regarding time as somehow independent of space. It isn't.

Faux Fizeau UNCONNECTED two-wheel lightspeed experiment:

Two wheels, each having:

1. A photon aperture.

2. An induction motor means utilizing an adjacent stationary stator ( each wheel being a "two"-piece Faraday motor ).

3. A timing mark means with an adjacent stationary detector ( serving to both observe RPM and allow interpolation of angle of aperture. ).


One wheel, called input wheel, has an adjacent stationary photon source.

Second wheel, called output wheel, has an adjacent stationary photon detector.

Both wheel's detectors electrically transmit information to control computer and recorder located adjacent to output wheel. Raw detector data IS NOT transmitted. Detector converts raw data into coded information which is transmitted. Therefore transmitted data cannot be Doppler shifted.

Method of operation:

Both wheels are spun up to an identical predetertermined RPM and stabilized.

Output wheel is gently momentarily accelerated and brought back to predetertimed RPM in a trial-and-error hunt for observation of photons through output wheel aperture. When maximal photon strikes are achieved the output wheel aperture has been walked to the properly synchronized angle relative to the input wheel aperture angle. The output wheel aperture angle will, of course, have become retarded relative to the input wheel aperture angle in order to allow for photon flight time through the device.

Then the entire device is turned horizontally to a different compass heading and the science experiment repeated.

If different compass headings produce different aperture angles at synchronization, this will directly indicate different photon flight times and therefore different observed values of the speed of light.


In my thinking on the matter, it would be equally important to science whether lightspeed were proved to be invarient within an absolute frame of reference, or proved to be invarient to any observer in any non-preferred frame of reference, as long as the test was considered absolutely definitive on the matter so that it could be no longer argued among serious scientists for another wasted century.

As I have already stated, I am strongly disposed to believe that a definitive test will prove invarience in an absolute frame of reference.

But, like the comedian said decades ago, "Just shoot up here amongst us! One of us has got to get some relief!".

But, like the comedian said decades ago, "Just shoot up here amongst us! One of us has got to get some relief!".

My favorite Jerry Clower bit.

Interesting idea for an experiment, but I think you're going to run into the same null result of the MMX et al. The trouble is the that there is no way to sync the two wheels independant of lightspeed. The one piece rotor would seem to have an advantage, but I suspect that will be flawed in a more subtle fasion. MHO

Dave Gardner.

Synchronization has been plainly explained. If you didn't get it at first, try it at second.

I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again. However, It will take more than a vague pronouncement with no reason stated to convince me this time.

Jerry did it too. Back in the 60's iirc. Wonder who swiped it from who. :)

I do intend to go back over the thread when I have the time as I am interested to see how you are overcoming the basic clock skew limitation. It _shouldn't_ be possible but I will reserve judgement.

Dave Gardner performed it and recorded it in the mid 50s. I have no idea who did it first.

Clock skew limitation, basic or deluxe, ( whatever it is supposed to mean? ), has nothing to do with a one way velocity of light measurement.

RELATIVE OR ABSALUTE !!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An Honest Man Alters His Ideas To Fit The Truth.
A Dishonest Man Alters The Truth To Fit His Ideas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is Truth? How can one know it? ...Thy Word is TRUTH. John 17:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truth is not arbitray as only God is Truth. We may scrutinize everthing else though to attempt scrutinizing God is futile.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.carm.org/relativism/relativism_refute.htm refuting relativity !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.carm.org/cut/relativism.htm Relativism CUT AND PASTE !!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW AGE : new age thinking says there is no one single truth and there is no one reality.that truth is based on experience,so it changes and can differ from person to person.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if there is no absolute truth,then there must be many contradicting truths and realitys.....fascinating food for thought.......it leads to being comfortable with whatever truth we want.....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
..but on a more practicle leval what diffrence did truth make if one finally discovered it??? or how did we know if there really is such a thing??? and if not,what did anything that anyone believed matter anyways???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
these teachings only gave answers that only raised more questions.............which is called gnostasism and its the same thing as the occult the offering in so called secrets about god etc .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all we gotta ask ourselves is what are we interested in? truth or whatever just sounds good?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.fillthevoid.org/Youth/TheBattle/TwoKingdoms/worldgonemad.html RELATIVISM- WORLD GONE MAD !!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.carm.org/relativism/whatisrelativism.htm relativism,to believe its all relative is to believe theres no God

I should perhaps have used the word fundamental, something like "the fundamental limitation imposed by clock skew and simultenaity". You need to establish a time sync between the zero index of rotation of the receiver and transmitter, or you can't measure anything. And this has to be unambiguous. I don't see how you accomplish this.

kevinalm: You have been very patient with my thick head to repeat your comment until I finally got it. Thank you. This is what "peer review" is all about.

At the time I posted, I had been entertaining several slightly different variations of the same basic concept. Unfortunately, I left out too many important parts for any one to be accurately described.

I am rewording now and will re-post in a matter of hours.

I am too accustomed to being wrong the first ( ! ) time to be apoplectic again, and I am very appreciative of interest and sincere comments. I only wish I had your patience!