Increased rate of Universe expansion

Damnit this is simply false. Why do you continue to not acknowledge that the only thing ever demonstrated has been a "One Way" gamma function.

That suggests even more correctly that it is the consequence of velocity due to having been accelerated. Relative velocity affects predicted by SRT have NEVER been demonstrated.

That is the reciproicty issue is being ignored when arguing SRT is true physics.

You also ignore the fact that spatial contraction cannot be justified unless you ignore the known and emperically demonstrated fact of time dilation on the clock measuring the time of travel at velocity (hence distance calculated).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

PM,

Using sound waves as an example, we have the benefit of light speed communication to pinpoint the precise location of each sound wave peak as it enters your measuring equipment. As you travel towards an already emitted source, the wavelengths remains unchanged because we have the ability to take a “true” and real snapshot of the wave. This effectively means that regardless of the speed that we approach the sound wave we ALWAYS record the same CORRECT wavelength.

Turning our attention to em waves, we immediately run into a problem. We have no means of measuring and pinpointing light waves using a communication system faster than the very thing we are trying to measure. This presents us with a problem.

With sound, as the waves enter the equipment, two wave peaks can be “slapped” against a wall virtually simultaneously and this gives you a “true” distance between the wave peaks (which remains unchanged).

However, you can’t do this with light because by the time one wave has entered your equipment and been “slapped” against a wall, your equipment has moved and by the time your next wave enters, the wall has moved and the wave gets “slapped” against the wall at a shorter / longer distance away from peak number 1.

This causes the perceived wavelength of the light to vary inversely WRT the frequency i.e. perceived velocity remains unchanged.

Also the Doppler effect changes as we approach / recede an already emitted beam of light, which gives us a clue that something is indeed changing between the observer and the light beam.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

dav, we've been through this before.
[post=841768]Remember this?[/post]

It is entirely possible to measure high speeds with a slow communication system. All that is required is synchronized clocks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ok, Pete, but I want to address each of my points one at a time and so at the moment I am concentrating on the thousands of experiments that have been undertaken which measure light from a single instrument. This best represents experiments based here on Earth, looking directly at light emitted from a far away object.

Have we ever measured starlight using synchronised clocks, Pete?

 

I reply in part to show I am not out "to get you"

I think part of what you say here is true, but much is false or at least overstated.

I think it is true that only the "one way gamma function" has been tested, but I could be wrong about this.

"This is simply false" is much too overstated (or false). SRT has never to my knowledge be "falsified" to use Popper's concept. It is a well defined theory that has been often confirmed, but it is true, IMHO, that some aspects of it (Mainly your "reciprocity") have not been subjected to empirical test.

I don't see how they could be, given that no one is stepping forward for a one way trip into space at high terminal (and I do mean terminal in the "finality of life" sense also.) trip. Likewise, NASA has a long list of higher priority projects for its limited budget than a test of "reciprocity." Unless SETI establishes contact with an advanced society, it seems impossible to test "two way gamma function" but the inabliity to test every prediction of a theory does not make a theory false.

For example Maxwell's theory of EM waves predicted the speed of light (and has like SRT many other confirmations) and suggests the currently untestable idea that the energy of the photon is alternating between pure magnetic and pure electric forms. By your logic, this untested prediction of a theory is grounds for declaring the well confirmed Maxwell's EM wave theory "false."

This is exactly the grounds (you give here) on which you state that the SR theory is "simply false." By your logic, almost all of physics is "simply false" as almost all of physics has predictions that have never been subjected to experimental test.

For example the F = ma theory predicts the trajectory of this computer if I throw it out the window, but that aspect of F = ma theory has never been tested, so even in the classical region, by your logic, I should conclude that F = ma is a false theory.

Well I do not reach that conclusion. Instead, I conclude your logic is false.

 

I can not give you specific reference to where they have been tested, but believe they are tested daily in accelerators when the particles are extracted and traveling without acceleration in evacuated "drift tubes" to some experimental set up many meters away form the accelerator. (Traveling in inertial frame).

The timing of the extraction must be very precise. When the particles arrive at the experiment station, the timing certainly can be, and I expect often must be, timed very precise. (some modern detectors, much more than the old "bubble chambers", are only sensitve for micro(or nano?)seconds etc.) Is this not a demonstration that the nature/ details/ of the (now terminated) acceleration phase has nothing to due with the fact short-lived particles reach the experimental station because their life-times are dilated by "relative velocity" (not "velocity history" or prior acceleration details) etc.? Many other aspects/ predictions of SRT are used in partical design of both accelerators and their associated experiments - all with out your concern for the "VELOCITY HISTORY."

(I admit that that I have not seen your use of "velocity history" for weeks, but your idea that this is what produces an asymetry or "one way" effect is obviously unchanged by your dropping this particular terminology, if you have. I also admit that you are slowing coming around to accept some aspects of SRT. When I challanged you nearly a year ago in a long set of exchanges as to why muons reach the Earth surface, you denied even "one-way" time dilation and invented four different causes/ mechanisms why the muons get to the surface. It was then that I first realized how clever you are.)

(I have never directly worked with any accelerator more complex than a Van de Graph machine), but I assure you that the experimentalist that have computed the delay, expected number of short lived particles as a function of drift tube length (when arguing that they needed to be closer to the main accelerator than three rooms away etc.) etc. all calculated without using your "velocity history" or details of the "prior acceleration phase." In the calculations they only used "relative velocities."

Specifically they would have been laughed out of using any station location at all, if they had used your the "time dilation" is due the "velocity history" and "prior acceleration" ideas, instead of calculations that assumed SRT effects are due to the "relative velocity" (in the drift tube compared to the lab) - precisely what you deny.

Likewise, some here are laughing at your arguements for "velocity history" and "prior accelerations" as the cause of SRT's "one way gamma" effects

 

What's the point when by your own argument such experiments are inconclusive?

Why not look at the experiments that use more than one instrument?

Good question.
Here are two devices that I suspect do that, if indirectly:

Very Long Baseline Interferometry
Very Large Array

 

This isn't quite the same is it? I thought the synchronised clocks would need to be separated over a substantial distance along the line of the beam to DIRECTLY arrive at conclusions regarding the speed.

Anyway, do you see what I'm saying about light appearing to remain unchanged wrt velocity when we measur its wavelength and frequency from a moving measurement system?

 

It's certainly not as simple.

You might be right. You'd better check.
You'd also better check what indirect conclusions can be reached.

Yes I do, and I applaud your intelligence and resolve in both discovering this anomaly and following it through to its conclusions.

 

Thanks, Pete, sorry for being a pain but I just can't seem to get my head around some of these issues and they continue to bother me.

I understand what you're saying about synchronised clocks and all that but I just thought I'd get past the first hurdle first. I.e. Is it posssible that our measurement of a light beam's relative velocity (using a single piece of equpiment) is fatally flawed due to the inability to be able to measure its "TRUE" unchanged wavelength. And I'm suggesting that this is the only reason why the wavelength of em waves "APPEAR" to change as we increase our speed wrt the already emitted beam of light.

Pete, Physics Monkey, Billy T, JamesR, MacM - ALL of you, what do you reckon?

 

dav57,

I think it is possible to measure the speed of light directly, without using the wavelength and frequency. See for example the experiment of Fizeau and later Foucault.

 

I am not sure it is as impossible as you claim to directly (essentially) measure the wave length in nearly exact analogy with your "slaping" the sound waves against the wall (I assume that your idea was to have a wall full of pressure detectors of size small compared to the sound wavelength and crash that wall tranversely in the propagating sound wave. etc.)

Obviously you are correct in that you can not observe where peak number "n" of the electic field of a photon is "slapped" against the wall array of electric field strength detectors and later, after peak n+1 enters, you moving "field detector wall array insturment" measures the location of peak n+1 "simulatneously" without the instrument having moved. This approach to the problem is also impossible for the more fundamental QM reasons that you at least distrub, if not destroy, the photon with any measuremsnt on it.

The two peaks (better the whole photon) must already be inside your instrument prior to any measurement of Peak -to - Peak separations. "Slaping is against a wall array of electric field detectors" is not the only way an insturment can be designed to measure the peak-to-peak separations.

Interferometers essentially routinely make this measurement. Let us consider one of the "two paths" variety with a screen display of the pattern. Each photon goes by both paths (if you don't accept this I will expand why true latter). Thus if I make the paths equally long I get a certain pattern on the screen independant of wave length. (a "central white-light fringe," etc.) When I make a small inequality in the path lengths, the spacing between the different finges is different and is a direct measure of their realtive wave lenghts. I have not done this with the interferometer moving, but suspect it shows the same relative pattern spacing although the Doppler shift will make for any fringe of a specific line (a hydrogen line, for example) be "bright" at a different location.

I am not sure this helps, but let me tell somthing else from my experimental Ph.D. research that used a Fabry-Perot interferometer inside as sealed chamber that could thus be tuned for a bright central spot at any desired wavelength by slight adjustment of the argon gas pressure in the chamber (or steadly scanned thru wavelengths by a slow leak from above atmospheric pressure.)

I somewhat accidently discovered that I could set and know the spacing between the Fabry-Perot mirrors to better than 1/E5 accuracy only by looking at the fringe pattern with my unaided eye!

I adjusted these plates to be exactly parallel using an extended He source. The blue line (4471,48) in the 9005th order, the yellow lne(5875.62) in the 6853 order & the green line(5015.68) in the 8028 order all are bright simultaneously in the center of the pattern when the plate spacing is approximately 1/2mm and they appear uniquely / distinctly white.

I am sure that this is still true in a two path interferometer that also has approximately 1mm path difference. Perhaps simply color photo graph of the moving interferometer's fringe pattern will confirm that the wavelengths have Dopper shifted to destroy this triple coincidence but created others that can be used to evaluate the SRT contraction of the path difference conveniently and permit one to measure the wavelengths accurated (with this new, known path difference) interfermetrically.

I have not thought this all thru carefully - I just wanted to note that the pattern of a multi -line interference pattern tells both the wavelengths and the instrument's path length difference contractions. I bet with this information, one is effectively directly measuring the wavelengths even with the moving interferometer.

 

Ok, but then I hit you with the moving aether theory

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

and suggest that any interferometer test would too always render the same null result wrt changing velocity.

Hmmm, I'm driving myself nuts with this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If those type of measurements are the only ones in existence that measure the speed of light, then yes.

Are they?

dav, I now that you have some investment in your idea... but I'm not sure that you're subjecting it to the right kind of scrutiny. I think you need to look at experiments that might *refute* your idea, not ones that don't distinguish between your model and relativity.

Have a read of this Post-Of-The-Month for July at talk.origins. I think that it might be relevant: Running the Scientific Gauntlet.

 

PM, I've looked at these and I can't see a direct connection with what I am actually stating here in this thread.

If you want to measure the speed of something, surely you need the two key factors from what speed is derived from: distance and time.

The only fundamental data you can gather from a SINGLE light beam is the DISTANCE between peaks and the TIME taken between consequtive measurements of peaks. An interferometer test is not applicable at this stage because I haven't deduced whether what I am saying is correct or not.

Remember, we're speaking of a way of measureing the relative speed of a single beam of light as we travel towards it and whether or not using v=f x wavelength results in a flawed conclusion.

 

The Fizeau and Focault experiments both use mirrors. A beam of light is bounced off one or more mirrors.

The speed of the beam is determined by the time it takes for the beam to go out a known distance and back again.

I recall a discussion where I think we established that the out-and-back time was independent of movement through an ether, but I can't recall the details.


But, I am reminded of the Sagnac effect... which is yet another way of measuring light speed.

 

I don't think Fizeau used an interferometer to determine the speed of light. He emitted a light pulse through a gap in a rotating wheel. The light pulse travels to a distant mirror, reflects, and returns to the wheel. The intensity of light detected is some function of the flywheel speed, the distance, and speed of light. Since you know the distance and the flywheel speed and can measure the intensity, you can deduce the speed of light. There isn't any interferometry going on as far as I understand the experiment, basically, if the wheel rotates too fast or too slow then the returning light pulse will be partially blocked. It seems like this experiment determines the speed of light without any reference to wavelength or frequency (especially since you detect the cycle averaged intensity anyway). I don't know if such a thing has ever been done, but presumably if you repeated the experiment in a moving frame then you would get the same answer.

 

Hi Dav57

Wow! You miss a lot on this forum if you miss two days. I went over your points in detail, but pretty much all of my comments have been addressed already. I had basically two main points for your consideration:

1) For your gravity as a push force you need to work out the math on this. Basically you need to show how your ether can push on itself and on two point masses to get a force proportional to the masses and the square of the distance at least in the "classical" limit. The way that you arrange this will say a lot about what kind of thing your aether really is. In other words, will different bits of aether have to "talk" to each other to coordinate efforts or will each bit just push on neighboring matter/aether according to simple rules.

2) The description of motion of your aether is critical. You have to have motion such that all SOL measurements did not go through an aether wind. You also must show some experimental geometry such that you can measure an aether wind. If you cannot accomplish both, then your theory will fall to Occam's razor.

The other points I had were minor, and it seems like everything has been addressed in the last couple of days.

-Dale

 

And, for those who would prefer to time a one-way light path, what would prevent the use of a Fizeau style apparatus sans mirror, to do that?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Isn't earth a moving frame?