Back to Home

Blackholes Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes I | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Thanks Mike

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by J Raymond Redbourne on November 4, 2002 21:11:27 UTC

I read a book review of Halton Arp's Seeing Red, and tried to get a copy, but failed. I'll try again. Halton Arp shredded the physics-community Old Boys' Club, and its oppressive techniques against free thinking newbies. He said that he believed, because of the oppression, that the next major breakthrough in physics would most likely come from an amateur.

I agree with your remark about paradoxes. I say there is no such thing as a paradox, anomally, or whatever, but only lack of understanding of all factors. Things like "I never lie" are of course, merely absurdities, and don't qualify as serious unsolved "paradoxes".

I say Relativity's paradoxes are based upon flawed premises.

One is especially insidious: That the velocity of light is constant. This, in my opinion, was the real killer. It is ambiguous as presented.

In the aether, the velocity of light is truly constant, just as the speed of sound in air (upsets ignored). So the statement is true.

But what happened is this: Michelson and Morley put their experiment together, and very ingenious it was. Problem is, they did not know that waves are compressed/extended when moving into a portion of the wave medium that is moving differently relative to the portion of the wave medium in which they were generated. This can be seen quite readily where waves coming in off a lake begin to climb against an inflowing river. In the case of the MM Exp, the same thing happened to light wavelength as it turned at the mirror, and say, started to climb against the aether wind.

The evaluation of the results of the experiment did not take this into consideration then, and they never have yet.

But the analogy they did use; the boat-on-a-water-stream is invalid. The boat is singular and non-compressible/extendible. Waves come in trains, and are very c/e. I have shown that it is not the Transit Time of the waves that is important, but rather the Total Number of Waveforms on the 180-degree folded path. And it turns out that the upleg loss or gain of waveforms is exactly compensated for on the downleg, holding the fringes indicator constant, regardless of the rotation of the setup.

Now looking at Einstein's Postulate again: We see that if we accelerate the setup any way we care to, it automatically compensates one leg against the other, holding the indication constant.

Michelson's actual speed of light experiment also used a folded path.

And the experiments by Fizeau, Sagnac, Hoek and Michelson-Gale also all used 180-degree folded paths.

So indeed it is true that in this experiment the speed of light is constant for any accleration or velocity, or direction-of-travel for the setup.

And it is also true that in the aether, the Absolute velocity of light is constant.

BUT: if one takes a one-way path, instead of folded, and accelerates it, the speed of light will not APPEAR to be constant, and there will be no apparent Doppler shift (I say).

The change in apparent speed is obviously because the velocity of the setup and Observer adds or subracts to/from light speed.

The lack of apparent Doppler shift is actually another compensation: If the light Source is moving away from the direction of light wave generation, the waves are redshifted as they are laid down on the aether. But with the Detector fixed to the same testbench, the Detector is moving into the waves, and exactly blueshifts them. So no Doppler shift is SEEN.

Then the confusing and rather insidious ambiguity can now be seen: Einstein's Postulate wording is true, but it is generally interpreted wrong, and he meant it in the wrong way.

I'll look for The Big Bang Never Happened, too.

Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    Google
     
    Web www.astronomy.net
    DayNightLine
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins