Re: Doppler Shift is a measure of the varying speed of light

The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:kohtu2-l23.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> In sci.physics.relativity, bz
> <bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Mon, 5 Sep 2005 02:41:38 +0000 (UTC)
> <Xns96C7DCFB8D2D5WQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> "kenseto" <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:i3MSe.100099$gB.87108@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>>
>>> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> message news:h97su2-rgu.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
>>>> <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> wrote
>>>> on Sun, 04 Sep 2005 18:51:28 GMT
>>>> <QmHSe.67563$2Q3.37539@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>> >
>>>> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>> message
>>>> > news:cghru2-mgd.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> >> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
>>>> >> <kenseto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> >> wrote
>>>> >> on Sun, 04 Sep 2005 14:14:49 GMT
>>>> >> <tjDSe.66677$2Q3.52310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> ....
>>>> >> How much is that shift? The predicted results for special
>>>> >> relativity and Newtonian Ballistic Relative Rigid Aether Theory
>>>> >> [*] are as
>>> follows:
>>>> >
>>>> > Sigh...none of these theories predict gravitational red shift.
>>>>
>>>> You are correct, sir; however, your theory also applies to moving
>>>> lightsources in strainfree space, does it not?
>>>>
>>>> However, I do have a prediction:
>>>>
>>>> GR: lambda/lambda_0 = sqrt(1 - 2GM/(c^2r))
>>>> nBrraT: lambda/lambda_0 = 1 - GM/(c^2r)
>>>>
>>>> (G = gravconstant = 6.674215 * 10^-11 N m^2/kg^2;
>>>> M = mass of object
>>>> r = distance from mass-center
>>>> c = lightspeed)
>>>>
>>>> This is taken from
>>>>
>>>> http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/GravitationalRedshift.html
>>>>
>>>> Now...what ratio shall I put you down for? :-)
>>>
>>> How many times do I have to tell you that in my theory the wavelength
>>> of a source remains constant. The gravitational frequency shift is due
>>> to the absolute motion of the detector moving wrt light in the
>>> vertical direction. What this mean is that the speed of light is
>>> different in different gravitational potential because at different
>>> gravtational potentials the absolute motion of the detector is
>>> different.
>>
>> IOW, he is not going to let you pin him down to a formula that could
>> allow actual testing of his theory.
>
> Actually, he already has a test of his theory; his experiment.
> In fact, he has several experiments.
>
> One is described in his paper
>
> http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Seto.pdf
>
> and another measures X-ray scattering from a graphite target:
>
> http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/newexperiment.htm
>
> He also reinterprets the Compton Effect, double-slit, and
> the photoelectric effect:
>
> http://my.erinet.com/~kenseto/pastexperiments.htm
>
> which makes his theory an attempt (and that's all it is AFAICT!)
> to meld QM, some variant of relativity (not necessarily the
> correct one, and certainly not that coherently) and
> electrodynamics together.
>
> My take on experimentation is that one can have:
>
> [1] an experiment that is a very bad test. For example, one might
> try to estimate the size of a thimble by pouring a bucket
> of water at it (insufficient precision). Or one can
> attempt a lightspeed measurement by using two shutter-lantern
> spaced a mile apart, and having his assistant open the
> second lantern as soon as he sees the lightbeam from
> the first. (Since human reaction speed is rather variable
> and averages maybe 0.2-0.3 s, and the lightspeed time for
> a 1 mile distance is about 5.368 microseconds, this can't
> possibly work. Better experiments came somewhat later,
> e.g. Fizeau's toothed wheel. I suppose one's got to start
> somewhere, but I'll admit the incongruity of Galileo
> interpreting lightspeed from Jovian moon considerations
> [he almost got it right; the main problem was his distance
> estimations] and proposing shutter lanterns puzzles me.)
>
> [2] an experiment that tests the wrong thing. For example, one
> might try to estimate light luminosity of a nearby lamp
> by seeing how long one can stare at a wall, or by
> measuring the light reflected off the wall. (The wall
> needn't be white.)
>
> [3] an experiment that yields a result that is misinterpreted.
> Michelson-Morley's experiment yielded a null result, which
> surprised a lot of people and was variously interpreted;
> one had the experiment shrinking in the direction of
> motion, another slightly simpler one is that c is constant
> everywhere. Kenseto's interpretation AFAICT is that the
> experiment is moving vertically with respect to the
> light rays -- which sounds off but the E and M fields
> of a photon do have or appear to have vertical elements for
> a wave travelling horizontally; they're just rather small
> (presumably, they're at most 1/2 lambda). I can't say much
> more since I'm not all that well-versed in electrodynamics.

Simple enough to polarize the light so that it has no vertical element.

AFAIK, MMX fails to show ether drift, regardless of the polarization of
the light.


> It's clear that the attempted OWLS measurement in the
> Seto.pdf paper is not all that well-specified -- how
> wide is the slit? how long is the light wavelength used?
> how fast is the shutter? what are the predicted results
> assuming Earth's motion at 10^-4 c through the cosmos?
> Some of these can be guessed at; he uses the term "optic"
> for example which suggests something in the 400-700 nm
> range. MMX might have some missing specifications (e.g.,
> the original path length seems to be missing)

It can be looked up. Many different arm lengths have been tried. The
imporant point is that the optical path lenght be identical for both
paths.

> but some
> guesswork can cough up an interferometer that should have
> worked, given the absolute aether knowledge at the time --
> and the fact that it was rotatable and about the size of
> a large tabletop.
>
> At that, Kenseto's better off than Traveler's (Louis
> Savain's) "particle jump" theory, which has particles
> deciding whether to jump at lightspeed or not through some
> sort of lattice which he refuses to specify.

He also has the first vertically moving photons[on a moving body] missing
their target, but subsequent ones hitting the target, as if they knew that
the first ones had missed and corrected their aim.




--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

bz+sp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 2.5D Dungeon
    ... when moving over a wall on the current Z-level ... Using this info I can easily determine how deep a shaft is for example, and color the tile according to depth. ... One thing I have in mind is creating a castle with towers and balconies where you can see the landscape around the castle. ...
    (rec.games.roguelike.development)
  • Minor prob
    ... It sounds ok I havent played with moving it around much but it seems quite ... abit louder when I stick it behind us nearer the wall. ... My amp is more than capable of over powering the PA set up which cant seem ... more out stage right but then the new guitar wasn't around at that stage. ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: nice problem for physics; leaning of metal against wall
    ... >> and moving in the sheet steel metal roofing. ... >> sheets up against the wall for easy access and removal. ... The warehouse is an old wood building and so ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: nice problem for physics; leaning of metal against wall
    ... >> and moving in the sheet steel metal roofing. ... >> sheets up against the wall for easy access and removal. ... The warehouse is an old wood building and so ...
    (sci.physics)
  • =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_=C2=BFWhy_one_cannot_push_light_but_just?= =?UTF-8?Q?_in_the_norm=09__al_direc
    ... A light source pointed up on a frame moving towards a wall. ... The wall has an array of light sensors. ...
    (sci.math)