Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152224365.897547.182290@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1152210589.680106.169420@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But that is subject to test, isn't it? And it turns out that when you
measure f by using a frequency comb, and you measure d with a ruler,
and you measure theta with a protractor, you always get the *same
number*, regardless of the orientation of the instruments. This should
tell you something.

The wavelength of a light source is a universal constant.

No it's not. It's only constant for a source that is at rest with
respect to you.

Therefore any
change in frequency is due to a change in the speed of the incoming
light.

You might think so, but that's easily checked. The frequency can be
*measured* with an instrument that knows nothing about the source,
about whether it's been shifted or not, or what the speed of the signal
coming in is. (You might want to read up on this measuring method.) The
wavelength can be *measured* with an instrument that knows nothing
about the source, about whether it's been shifted or not, or what the
speed of the signal coming in is. (You might want to read up on this
measuring method.) They are therefore completely unbiased measurements,
assuming nothing about the source or the speed of light.

Now multiply the wavelength and the frequency that comes from those
measurements, and you should have an *independent* measurement of the
speed, from which you can tell whether the speed of the signal is in
fact changed or not.
When in fact you do this, you find that the number is NOT different
than c, despite what you might have expected about this result.

Here's an example applies to both sound and light:
You have two identical moving sources emitting and detecting sound pulses
from each other:
Lets say that at the rest frame of each generated N pulses/sec.
The wavelength from both sources remains the same but the rate of arrival of
sound pulses from each source is different. At the rest frame of each moving
source: N sound pulses is generated per second. At the detector's frame (N
+/- n) pulses per second is detected. Since these waves are generated one
follow another and the wave length remains the same then the arrival speed
of the sound from each source is lambda(N +/- n).

Ken Seto





Light *does* share some wavelike properties with sound. This does
not
mean that it is *exactly like* sound. The fact that it is
different in
some ways from sound does not mean that it is *nothing like*
sound.
Your attempt to yank an "all-or-nothing" switch is misdirected.

This is an assumption. Light is wave in a structured ether.

Sez you. No evidence for it.

Lots evidence for it.

Really? What?


Ample evidence against it.

No evidence against it.

Would you like some references?


If it were a
structured ether, at any given moment, the earth would have a certain
velocity with respect to it, with both magnitude and direction.

SO? But absolute motion of an object wrt the structured ether is not
detectable. Only absolute motion of an object wrt light in the
structured
ether is detectable.

That,
at least, is the definition of absolute motion that physicists use and
which was the basis for the MMX design.

But M&M failed to realize that their experiment is designed to detect
moiton
of the apparatus wrt the plane of the light rays. Also if they had the
knowledge of the results of the Pound and Rebka experiemnts they would
have
oriented the plane of the light rays vertically and they would have
gotten
non-null result as the apparatus is rotated.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: This is What Einstein Actually Did.
    ... The wavelength of a light source is a universal constant. ... (You might want to read up on this measuring method.) ... You have two identical moving sources emitting and detecting sound pulses ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... The indirect methods of measuring OWLS produced ... will eliminate the effect of absolute motion. ... IRT is valid in a gravitational field. ... ignoring air resistance when they apply Newton's laws. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: wavelength times frequency the correct way
    ... The local depicting of wavelength and lightspeed, ... But i will and can protest to anyone who say light travel invariant ... transformation raise of framdependent measuring tools. ... time dilation to confirm lightspeed is invariant and then you use the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?
    ... So you think that except for not taking absolute motion into account, ... > NO...it is not the lambda that you are measuring. ... > The normal method of measuring wave length is not a measure of wave ... >> frequency of the photons. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Does the Electron Neutrino Have Mass and Charge?
    ... Ignoring absolute motion is the only reason why current ... > NO...it is not the lambda that you are measuring. ... > The normal method of measuring wave length is not a measure of wave ... The cross section for Compton scattering isn't so large that every ...
    (sci.physics)