Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: A New Theory of the Speed of Light

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    1. Absolute translational motion of the Earth has been detected in multiple experiments
    - the Miller experiments, which always gave a maximum fringe shift in a consistent direction, and correlated with sidereal time
    - the Silvertooth experiment, which gave the same magnitude and direction of absolute velocity as the CMBR velocity
    - the Marinov experiment
    - the Roland De Witte experiment, which showed sidereal correlation
    ...
    This list is wrong, hal. No experiment has ever detected "absolute translational motion of the Earth". The velocity of the Earth depends on the observer. The velocity is zero for you and me because we are moving with it. The velocity is one value relative to the Sun. The velocity is another value relative to the Milky Way. The velocity is another value relative to the Local Group. The velocity is another value relative to the CMBR. What value is used is the value that is convenient to the person doing calculations.

    Once again you give no source for your assertions so formal questions.
    IF07a: Cite the Silvertooth experiment detecting "absolute translational motion of the Earth" and its replications.
    IF07b: Cite the Marinov experiment detecting "absolute translational motion of the Earth" and its replications.
    IF07c: Cite the Roland De Witte experiment detecting "absolute translational motion of the Earth" and its replications.

    You are definitely wrong about Dayton Miller
    • Miller found in his analysis a fringe change that was too small for a stationary aether.
      That was consistent with a dragged aether. The problem is that other experiments give an upper limit to a dragged aether and his values are above that limit.
    • Miller's results said that "the Solar System goes towards the constellation Dorado at a speed of 227 km/s".
      The sun in its orbit is traveling away from Sirius and toward the star Vega.
      The Solar System is traveling at an average speed of 230 km/s...
    • Decades of MM experiments have all produced null results.
      No one has ever replicated Miller's experiments. This is a basic requirement in physics experiments.
      The Michelson–Morley experiment has been replicated 13 times in its original form and 17 times in variations using modern very accurate equipment.
      In 1973, the limit on an aether wind was ~2.5 cm/s. We are currently down to change in c divided by c to <~ 10-17.
    • The Miller results are explained by statistical and temperature fluctuations.
      Dayton Miller


    ETA:
    There was a Silvertooth & Whitney experiment: A New Michelson‐Morley Experiment (1992) in the very low impact Physics Essys. What they found was the wrong speed of the Solar System!
    There was a 1986 Silvertooth experiment that turned out to be temperature fluctuations - The Tale Of A 1986 Experiment That Proved Einstein Wrong
    Marett found there was so much noise in the data, the variation in wavelengths could be made to agree with either sidereal or solar time. Digging into things more closely, he saw a correlation between the observed wavelength shift and small fluctuations in the temperature of the room. The change in temperature was shifting the alignment of the experiment laser, causing the apparent shift Silvertooth saw. Marett also found that the calculated motion of the Earth only worked because Silvertooth assumed the data measured an actual wavelength shift. Silvertooth's results were real, but his conclusions were wrong.
    This is Stefan Marinov who did a 1974 experiment claiming to find an anisotropy of the velocity of light and had his own "absolute space-time theory" to explain it. The problem is that his experiment was the only mechanical MM experiment to find an anisotropy in that direction. Even Miller found an anisotropy in agreement with other MM experiments and disagreeing with Marinov!

    Googling "Roland De Witte experiment" gives what looks like a single 1991 experiment that is stated to have excellent agreement with Miller and thus has to as wrong as Miller! The real problem is that the experiment looks as if it were never published or even done again! A The Roland De Witte 1991 Detection of Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves crankish preprint does not have a reference for the experiment (crankish because of the gravitational waves claim). What the preprint suggests is that MM experiment using coaxial cables are prone to some kind of systematic error. Temperature variation spring to mind.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Sep-30 at 09:04 PM.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Light does not "know " ....
    I wrote that we know that light is non-local. What light does is show non-local properties as in my example of quantum teleportation. This is not anything to do with the Michelson-Morley experiment. The MM experiment does not measure the quantum properties of light, e.g. spin, that can be teleported.

    An incomplete "Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe" sentence is not a scientific definition. Now you have to define "motion relative to all matter in the universe"!

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    1. Absolute translational motion of the Earth has been detected in multiple experiments
    - the Miller experiments, which always gave a maximum fringe shift in a consistent direction, and correlated with sidereal time
    - the Silvertooth experiment, which gave the same magnitude and direction of absolute velocity as the CMBR velocity
    - the Marinov experiment
    - the Roland De Witte experiment, which showed sidereal correlation
    Are you sure? Since detecting an absolute translational motion of the Earth would violate the principles of Special Relativity, I'm pretty sure this hasn't been detected in any experiment, ever. Can you either explain what you mean by "absolute translational motion of the Earth", or provide the documentation showing that it has been detected? (Actually if you could do both, that would be even better).

    2. For V/c = 0.338

    e V/c = 1.402 ( EDE)

    sqrt ( (1+0.338)/ (1-0.388) ) = 1.422 ( SRT)

    e V/c = e raised to the power of V/c ( I am sorry I can't write it correctly)
    ( not e times V/c)
    Ok, thank you for the clarification. That does make the numbers closer, but there is still a difference of about 1% between those numbers which the experiment Reality Check linked to can distinguish between (unless I read the paper wrong. I didn't look too closely into it, but since this is your theory you are welcome to and feel free to point out if the experiment allows for the value you calculated. However, I don't believe it does).

    So again, since this shows your theory does not agree with experiments, doesn't this prove your theory wrong right here?

    3. When I say light is a dual phenomenon (local and non-local), I mean light behaves AS IF it is both a local and non-local phenomenon at the same time.

    Yes it is not possible to be both pregnant and not pregnant at the same time. But light behaves as if it is VIRTUALLY (not 'really ') local and VIRTUALLY non local at the same time. When I say light is not REALLY local, I mean it is not local like sound wave or like the hypothetical ether wave.
    So then it is non-local. If a phenomenon exhibits both local and non-local effects, that means it is ONLY non-local. It doesn't matter that it also shows some local effects (everything will show some local effects), it only matters if ANY of it's effects are non-local. If even 1 thing about the phenomenon is non-local, that makes it a non-local phenomenon even if it also has 100 other things that can be expressed locally. Again, light can't be VIRTUALLY non-local and VIRTUALLY local at the same time anymore then a woman can be VIRTUALLY pregnant and VRITUALLY not pregnant at the same time. She is either one or the other, and light is either one or the other.

    So, again, does your theory predict that light is a local or a non-local phenomenon?

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    All the confusion in physics during the last century is rooted in considering light like ordinary, local phenomena.
    Bolded mine. I must have glossed over this from your OP, and I would like to ask you about this. Relativity considers light to be a non-local phenomenon, so how can you say that physics is confused because it thinks it's a local one? This is the exact opposite of what the theory actually says. I thought at first it might have been a typo and you just meant to say "All the confusion in physics during the last century is rooted in considering light like ordinary, non-local phenomena", but that also makes no sense since you have claimed that your theory predicts that light will also be a non-local phenomenon. So...if you think that all of physics is confused due to it being wrong about light being a local vs non-local phenomenon, then why would you put forward a theory that makes the same prediction? Both your theory and relativity predict that light will be a non-local phenomenon, so why are you criticizing relativity on this point?

    Therefore if all of physics is confused because it only considers light to be a non-local phenomenon (assuming you typo'd), and your theory ALSO predicts a non-local phenomenon, then wouldn't that mean you are every bit as confused as the modern physicist you are trying to criticize? On the other hand, if you meant that all the confusion in physics is because it only considers light to be a local phenomenon (what you actually typed), then wouldn't that mean that you are simply very ignorant about the basic principals of relativity and are therefore not in any position to criticize them?

    Have you been basing your entire criticism of relativity off the assumption that it predicts light to be a local phenomenon? If so........

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,748
    Quote Originally Posted by hal View Post
    Light does not "know " what experiment we are doing. That is, if light exhibits non-local behavior in quantum experiments, then this nature of light should also have a role in the explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. But there is no reference to this nature of light in SRT. In fact, light is treated as ordinary local phenomenon in SRT, that is why SRT requires length contraction and time dilation to explain the MM null result.

    Reality Check also said " . . . You have no definition of absolute motion "
    Absolute motion is not motion relative to the ether. Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe.
    From your long silence, one might infer that you are unable to refute the many substantial objections that have been raised. Do you therefore withdraw your claims? Or do you have anything else to offer in defence?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Peters Creek, Alaska
    Posts
    12,842
    Thread closed. The OP has not participated in this thread since September 29th.

    hal, if you wish to continue defending your claims, you have a limited time to do so before this thread reaches the end of its 30-day time limit. After that, you will not be able to revisit this topic again.
    Forum Rules►  ◄FAQ►  ◄ATM Forum Advice►  ◄Conspiracy Advice
    Click http://cosmoquest.org/forum/images/buttons/report-40b.png to report a post (even this one) to the moderation team.


    Man is a tool-using animal. Nowhere do you find him without tools; without tools he is nothing, with tools he is all. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •