Jerry wrote:
Martin Hogbin wrote:
"Martin Kowatsch" wrote in message ps.com...
The isotropy of the speed of light as a basic axiom of the special
theory of relativity (STR) has been proven by numerous optical
experiments, all based on interferometric methods. All of these
experiments measure the ratio between earth velocity around the sun and
the speed of light (v_earth/c) in its quadratic term (v_earth/c)2. The
most famous set-up is the Michelson/Morley experiment that shows the
well known 'zero-result' as predicted by STR.

I did an experiment which measures the ratio v_earth/c in it's first
order term.
Test result is the same as for the Michelson/Morley experiment, namley
the 'zero-result'.
Therfore this experiment confirm the Michelson/Morley result.

Congratulations on an interesting and innovative amateur
physics experiment. As I am sure you know, there have been
many experiments confirming the validity of SR to a much better
accuracy than yours, so your result was not much of a surprise.

On the other hand your experiment is very simple in concept
and looks for a first order effect. In some ways it is similar to
the experiment by Hafele and Keating using atomic clocks.
This was not by any means the most accurate experiment on
time dilation but the basic concept was very easy to understand
(although complicated by the Earth's rotation).

Do you have any answer to my question about LET versus SR?
It's been stated many times that LET and SR are experimentally
indistinguishable, but quite frankly, I don't see LET giving a null
result here. Where am I going wrong?

Actually, I believe the O.P. makes a mistake in his analysis;
there is no way that his experiment would detect even a conventional
ether wind.

His mistake is to assume that the ether wind does not blow
through his laser diode itself; but this is an incorrect assumption
both for Lorentz ether and for the classical Michelson ether.

Basically, this is an aberration experiment, and in a non-draggged
ether model, aberration depends only on the relative motion of the
source and detector, which in this experiment is zero.

You can see why this must be so if you forget the details of the
laser and imagine that it is a collimating tube with a point source
of light at one end. As the wind blows sideways through the
tube, some of the light will be blown into the walls, and what
manages to get out is only the part that goes straight out of
the tube -- hence the tube must be pointing straight at the
detector.

When you rotate the tube 180 degrees, the wind is blowing the
other way, but the tube is *still* pointed straight at the detector
and only the light going on that straight line gets through. This
is light that is moving slightly against the wind up the tube in
such a way that it will continue slightly against the wind along
the same line, after it exits the tube. In other words, directly
along the line that the tube is pointing. So the detector still gets
hit in exactly the same place, the place that the tube is pointing.
Yes, the light that gets through is coming from a slightly different
angle from the point source, but the experiment can't tell this;
the laser is a black box and we only see what comes out the
tube.


Some physicst argue that there might be a compensation effect at the
Michelson/Morley set-up that avoid to measure the ratio v_earth/c. Due
to this new set-up it's clear that such a compensation effect is not
available and the so called ether drift due to earth orbital motion
around the sun is not existing.

Please find more details at:
http://www.mkowatsch.homepage.t-onli...sgt/f10000.htm

I wonder how long it will be before one of the crackpots notices
the small variation in velocity with angle measured by your
experiment, without noting that this is well within the error bars?

Jerry

So you read the **** that someone puts up and you take it as truth? Did
you read the whole thread?Looks like AAF got skewered for being a crook
and he's trying to get back by smearing in the forum.

And you saw the articles before, by other authors? Interesting? So you
smear what you can't understand? Why don't you address the paper
itself? Looks like we found another closet LET'ist...
Anyways, to prove that you are wrong on LET, try reading this, it is by
an MIT person, you should not get any ****-digging diversion:

http://imaginary_nematode.home.comca...echer_1977.pdf

"No, it does not falsify *all* ballistic theories. It falsifies some
ballistic theories. "

This ranks on Dick Van Mortel list of Immortal Fumbles.

Together with this one:

"To my knowledge, there has been no one way light speed measurement. If
you are aware of such experiments, can you reference me some?

If one follows SR, then there is no need to measure owls since it is
defined to be c = 299792458m/s. But if one still wants to measure owls,
he must use a measurement procedure that will give c. Using a
measurement procedure that gives owls c will be considered an
invalid measurement procedure by definition. This argument is perhaps
the "proof" I required from you, but if you have another....

This is all a definition/concept issue. "

Try this:

http://imaginary_nematode.home.comca...echer_1977.pdf

dej4 wrote:
Thank you, Martin

This looks interesting at first sight, though somewhat implausible, all
previous experiments were looking for second order effects. Is it
possible to add some more mathematical explanation to your paper, in
its current form it is rather terse.

And, I very much regret to say, it is wrong. There is a good
reason why Michelson didn't try something like it; admittedly
he didn't have modern lasers etc. but technically it would have
been quite within his grasp nonetheless.

See my other post in this thread.

On 25 Jan 2006 15:19:35 -0800, "Jerry" wrote:

Do you have any answer to my question about LET versus SR?
It's been stated many times that LET and SR are experimentally
indistinguishable, but quite frankly, I don't see LET giving a null
result here. Where am I going wrong?

By expecting a physical result from an imaginary aether.

The only thing LET and SR have in common is rigid
rectangular coordinate frames, and all coordinate frames
are imaginary math constructs.

Joe Fischer

"miraculous"? Is not LF contraction predicted by Maxwell's equations?
Has it not been shown that in order to maintain 'equilibrium', the EM "



This one is also good for the Immortal Fumbles!

Harry wrote:

[snip]

- Do I understand well that you expected a violation of conservation of
momentum in case of an "ether drift"? Why? Contrary to your claims, in
classical physics, the outgoing light path inside the laser determines the
angle in any frame; the light is not expected to change direction at the
laser exit.

Harald, my hat's off to you. I only just got around to reading
this post of yours, and I see that you preceded me in your
correct analysis of the OP's error. And, you presented it
with far better economy.

"Anyhow, I saw nothing at all in the sfarti paper that talks about
this. Is that your only reference? If so, perhaps you can point
out where in the paper (even roughly -- section x, top, bottom,
etc.) this assertion is made, let alone proved. I didn't read it
carefully so probably I just missed it. "

Sure, the paper assumes the most general form of ballistic compositions
of speeds as applied to light , applies the IS experiment to it and
ends up with an error term that is unaccounted for.

"It is not ballistic, in my understanding of that term. Quite
the contrary -- it assumes that there is a real ether in which
light propagates wavelike at a real speed c. "

This is where the misconception is: LET uses Galilean speed composition
for MMX, ends up with an unexpected result and cancels it out with the
"Lorentz-FitzGerald" ad-hoc contraction. To prove this scientifically I
am going to quote directly from Lorentz's paper: "Electromagnetic
Phenomena in a System Moving with any Velocity less than that of
Light". In deducing his famous Lorentz transforms Lorentz writes (get
that!) immediately after the Maxwell equations labelled (2):

"I shall now suppose that the system as a whole moves in the direction
of x with a constant velocity v, and I shall denote by u any velocity
which a point of an electron may have in addition to this, so that

vx=v+ux, vy=uy, vz=uz"

So, in deriving his famous transforms, Lorentz used Galilean speed
transforms! He then gets into some laborious work for transforming the
Maxwell equations such that they retain form in passing between
inertial frames. In other words, the original Lorentz transforms are
based on Galilean speed compositon! This is perfectly understandable
since it was not until much later that Lorentz accepted the SR speed
transforms rules and not from Einstein but from Poincaire. So, one can
argue that the LET of "Later Day" indeed became non-ballistic. The pre
1905 LET was definitely ballistic.

So, the most interesting part is how come Lorentz did not realize his
contradiction? Simple, he was content to derive the transformations
that leave Maxwell's equations invariant. Had he proceeded to derive
the speed composition formulas he would have noticed the contradiction
between premise and final result.

dej4 wrote:
"No, it does not falsify *all* ballistic theories. It falsifies some
ballistic theories. "

This ranks on Dick Van Mortel list of Immortal Fumbles.

Together with this one:

"To my knowledge, there has been no one way light speed measurement. If
you are aware of such experiments, can you reference me some?

If one follows SR, then there is no need to measure owls since it is
defined to be c = 299792458m/s. But if one still wants to measure owls,
he must use a measurement procedure that will give c. Using a
measurement procedure that gives owls c will be considered an
invalid measurement procedure by definition. This argument is perhaps
the "proof" I required from you, but if you have another....

This is all a definition/concept issue. "

Try this:

http://imaginary_nematode.home.comca...echer_1977.pdf

xxein: You have not been able to think outside of your playpen. You
are mentally confined and don't know it.

Let go of your mama's apron strings.