"Thomas Miles" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:50:25 +0200, "Harry"
wrote:


"Alex Kudrasev" wrote in message
...
I think we are getting somewhere. Thankyou Harald!

Your downward example is, as you guessed, the one I am referring to.

Then you mention that:

"Then of course the light must move under an angle in the system
relative
to
which you move."

- Why? The "Bullet" or "Ballistic" hypothesis was advanced by Ritz in
1908,
which was refuted by deSitter in 1913. This was done on account of
observations of binary stars.

You mention that:

"How can a light ray go both straight and under an angle,depending on
the
way
of observation? Simply try a bullet as fired from a rifle, and you'll
see
the problem is
similar, but it's easier to analyse."

Again, this is ballistic theory and assumes that light gains from the
velocity of the body from which it is emitted, like bullets from a gun
on
earth.

There seems no reason for this assumption at all.

Pion experiments in cyclotrons have also disproved Ballistic or Emitter
theory.

If light gains no velocity from movement of its source, how can we
suggest
that a ray aimed straight ahead (as in the above example) will gain a
perpendicular component from the movement?

Also - why was such as assumption made, even before STR, during the MMX
experiment reasoning?

I look forward to your comments and those of others!.

Cheers,

Alex Kudrasev.

Alex, I repeat, please don't reply like to an email, but put your
comments
BELOW the existing text, so people can easily follow the thread. It's
called
"bottom-posting".

The bullet example only serves as illustration, to sketch the principle.

The shortest answer relating to the MMX experiment: Light must move under
an
angle, or nothing will come back!
Nevertheless, recently I saw an elaboration that discussed what if there
is
an error in the angle, and it may indeed be an argument for an
alternative
explanation.

But, after the bullet experiment, now do the same with sound waves,
bouncing
off a reflector.
Recently I really did that experiment (!), and although it was not my
main
objective, I did NOT notice a reduced signal strength with increasing
speed,
despite the fact that I used highly directive ultrasound.

Same (but even simpler, it seems) for a laser, obviously the light that
escapes from the laser has moved along the line that connects the
internal
mirrors, and that line is exactly at the required angle to hit the
outside
mirror!

Harald


Hello Harald,
Perhaps you were referring to my presentation at Storrs... if so thank
you!
As you know, I do not believe that there is a reflection angle in the
MMX; light goes straight up and and comes straight down.
Tom
PS I enjoyed meeting you and hope your trip to the US was a good one.


Hello Tom,

Yes the trip was a good one!
Honestly, I could not completely understand your presentation, but in short,
I seem to think the opposite as you!

I tend to agree with the (unconscious?) assumption of Michelson and Morley
that for vc, waves that are emitted in a certain direction inside a system
will propagate in that direction independently of the velocity of the medium
in which they propagate.
I find it difficult to believe that in 1 1/2 century nobody did such an
experiment with classical waves, it's weird.
I read somewhere (sorry, no reference) that certain laser experiments prove
that the light direction relative to the set-up is independent from the
speed of the set-up. If I understand well, that is what you doubt. Then it
would be a simple test to disprove relativity if you were right!

Harald

On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:38:50 +0200, "Harry"
wrote:


"Thomas Miles" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003 16:50:25 +0200, "Harry"
wrote:


"Alex Kudrasev" wrote in message
...
I think we are getting somewhere. Thankyou Harald!

Your downward example is, as you guessed, the one I am referring to.

Then you mention that:

"Then of course the light must move under an angle in the system
relative
to
which you move."

- Why? The "Bullet" or "Ballistic" hypothesis was advanced by Ritz in
1908,
which was refuted by deSitter in 1913. This was done on account of
observations of binary stars.

You mention that:

"How can a light ray go both straight and under an angle,depending on
the
way
of observation? Simply try a bullet as fired from a rifle, and you'll
see
the problem is
similar, but it's easier to analyse."

Again, this is ballistic theory and assumes that light gains from the
velocity of the body from which it is emitted, like bullets from a gun
on
earth.

There seems no reason for this assumption at all.

Pion experiments in cyclotrons have also disproved Ballistic or Emitter
theory.

If light gains no velocity from movement of its source, how can we
suggest
that a ray aimed straight ahead (as in the above example) will gain a
perpendicular component from the movement?

Also - why was such as assumption made, even before STR, during the MMX
experiment reasoning?

I look forward to your comments and those of others!.

Cheers,

Alex Kudrasev.

Alex, I repeat, please don't reply like to an email, but put your
comments
BELOW the existing text, so people can easily follow the thread. It's
called
"bottom-posting".

The bullet example only serves as illustration, to sketch the principle.

The shortest answer relating to the MMX experiment: Light must move under
an
angle, or nothing will come back!
Nevertheless, recently I saw an elaboration that discussed what if there
is
an error in the angle, and it may indeed be an argument for an
alternative
explanation.

But, after the bullet experiment, now do the same with sound waves,
bouncing
off a reflector.
Recently I really did that experiment (!), and although it was not my
main
objective, I did NOT notice a reduced signal strength with increasing
speed,
despite the fact that I used highly directive ultrasound.

Same (but even simpler, it seems) for a laser, obviously the light that
escapes from the laser has moved along the line that connects the
internal
mirrors, and that line is exactly at the required angle to hit the
outside
mirror!

Harald


Hello Harald,
Perhaps you were referring to my presentation at Storrs... if so thank
you!
As you know, I do not believe that there is a reflection angle in the
MMX; light goes straight up and and comes straight down.
Tom
PS I enjoyed meeting you and hope your trip to the US was a good one.


Hello Tom,

Yes the trip was a good one!
Honestly, I could not completely understand your presentation, but in short,
I seem to think the opposite as you!

I tend to agree with the (unconscious?) assumption of Michelson and Morley
that for vc, waves that are emitted in a certain direction inside a system
will propagate in that direction independently of the velocity of the medium
in which they propagate.
I find it difficult to believe that in 1 1/2 century nobody did such an
experiment with classical waves, it's weird.
I read somewhere (sorry, no reference) that certain laser experiments prove
that the light direction relative to the set-up is independent from the
speed of the set-up. If I understand well, that is what you doubt. Then it
would be a simple test to disprove relativity if you were right!

Harald


Hello Harald,
Glad you had a nice trip.
All I am saying is that with respect to the preferred frame of
reference, light travels rectilinearly regardless of and independently
of the motion of the source, and in this case the mirrors. The
Michelson equations were modeled as if the light was ballistic (i.e.
with the lateral motion of the splitter mirror) but without the
addition of that mirror's velocity. The model was flawed and that
resulted in the creation of erroneous equations. Then, not so
surprisingly, the observations didn't produce data that was consistent
with those equations. The data was good but the expectation was
wrong.
Regards as always,
Tom