Re: The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005 [Cahill]

jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au
Date: 01/21/05 

Date: 21 Jan 2005 15:53:17 -0800

kenseto wrote:
> "jgreenfield@seol.net.au" <jgreen@seol.net.au> wrote in message
> news:1106282795.975001.277730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > mountain man wrote:
> > > "Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
message
> >
> > > news:csocd0$ffl$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> > > > In article <41ef8450$1@epflnews.epfl.ch>,
> > > > Harry <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>"Gregory L. Hansen" <glhansen@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in
> > message
> > > >>news:csn8mt$347$1@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> > > >>> In article
<9gEHd.125200$K7.91200@news-server.bigpond.net.au>,
> > > >>> mountain man <hobbit@southern_seaweed.com.op> wrote:
> > > >>> >http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/physics/0501051
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >ABSTRACT
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >That the speed of light is always c (~300,000 km/s) relative
> > > >>> >to any observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the
> > > >>> >foundational concepts of physics. Experimentally this was
> > > >>> >supposed to have been first revealed by the 1887
> > > >>> >Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
> > > >>> >Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> >However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data
> > > >>> >was analysed for the first time with a theory for the
Michelson
> > > >>> >interferometer that used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz
> > > >>> >contraction effect, as well as the effect of the air on the
> > speed
> > > >>> >of light. That analysis showed that the data gave an
absolute
> > > >>> >motion speed in excess of 300 km/s. So far six other
> > > >>> >experiments have been shown to give the same result.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I thought that no displacement of interference fringes was
found
> > in the
> > > >>> Michelson experiment. How can a null result be reanalyzed to
> > show
> > > >>> absolute motion?
> > > >>
> > > >>The abstract above is extremely positive in its wording (very
> > debatable)
> > > >>and
> > > >>the used theory is IMO very doubtful.
> > > >>Apart of that, a "null result" can simply mean that the test
> > results do
> > > >>not
> > > >>confirm the hypothesis that was tested for.
> > > >>Don't forget that at that time the term "null hypothesis" had
not
> > yet
> > > >>appeared, they were not testing that and they didn't perform an
> > elaborate
> > > >>statistical analysis. Instead they simply concluded that:
> > > >
> > > > "Null" was my word, not referring to the null hypothesis, but
to
> > zero. I
> > > > haven't read the original paper, but I was going by the summary
of
> > the
> > > > state of the art given by Lorentz in his 1904 paper.
> > > >
> > > >> "the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably
> > less than
> > > >>one sixth of the earth's orbital velocity ...
> > > >>It appears .. reasonably certain that if their be any relative
> > motion
> > > >>between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small
...
> > It is
> > > >>not
> > > >>impossible that at even moderate distances above the level of
the
> > sea the
> > > >>relative motion might be perceptible in an apparatus like that
used
> > in
> > > >>these
> > > >>experiments."
> > > >
> > > > An upper limit doesn't really explain what Mountain Man was
talking
> > about.
> > >
> > > These "upper limits" that have been calculated for the MMX
> > > and all other experiments traditionally have been reported
> > > at around the 6 to 8 km/sec region, and are supposed to
> > > give an indication of the relative motion between the earth
> > > and an aether.
> > >
> > > This figure is unexpected, What they were expecting to
> > > find was a figure equivalent to the orbital velocity of the
> > > earth around the sun (ie: about 30 k/s)
> > >
> > > However, if you read Cahill's work you will see that the
> > > derivation for these upper limits:
> > > 1) do NOT allow for the refractive index of the gas
> > > 2) do NOT allow for the Fitgerald-Lorentz "effects"
> > >
> > > Once these two adjustments are introduced these upper
> > > limit figures are around the 420 k/s +- 30k/s. See
> > > Cahill's papers at:
> > > http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/index_of_papers.htm
> > >
> > > These higher figures are reported by Cahill to be
> > > consistent over 6 separate experiments, when the
> > > above two adjustments are made to the physics
> > > used in deriving the results from the data.
> >
> > I reckon my velocity through space (aether?) is:
> > 1 ref the earth's surface (walking) +
> > 2 earth's surface revolving +
> > 3 earth orbiting the sun +
> > 4 sun revolving with the galaxy +
> > 5 galaxy cluster revolving/expanding/contracting +
> > 6 perhaps galaxy clusters moving ref other clusters +
> > 7 perhaps all visible universe is just another entity in motion wrt
> > another
>
> All these observed relative motions are the results of the vector
difference
> of the vector component of your absolute motion and the vector
component of
> the observed object's absolute motion along the line of sight.
>
> > ......all subject to +/- (3d)
> > .......giving an eventual absolute motion against "stationary"
space.
> > Jim G
> > c'=c+v
>
> So what is c' and who is measuring c'? Also what is v and who is
measuring
> v?
>
> Ken Seto

Use REAL velocity addition:
v AB + v BC = v AC

c is the velocity at which a photon is emitted at source as seen by
source OR photon OR another observer considering these two only

c' is c + rel velocity of source as seen by photon considering
relationship of source to something else-----so c+v=c ONLY when v=0

v is velocity of source to something else which can be DEDUCED form an
observer noticing that c'><c

(c is equivalent to launch speed of plane from carrier; c' is then air
speed, ocean speed, speed as seen from other planes etc etc

Unless the visible universe (and its invisible component going to
infinity) is "all" there is, ie not moving ref another multi-galactic
group chunk, there is no possibility of discovering absolute zero
motion, from which to calculate motion comparitive to that. Even in the
present visible universe, the time elapsed before we can see if
something is moving ref something else at large distance is
prohibitive- millions of years to notice a change in relative positions
:-(

As for "observers": "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
what an observer "sees" often has jack-*** to do with reality, or what
is happening. They are very often victims of illusion, and
unfortunately, also often too dumb to realise it.

Jim G
c'=c+v

Quantcast