Special Relativity: Alternative?

[TriggerGrinn]

The original thread on the discussion of this theory in developement is located at this link.

 

http://forums.hypography.com/physics-mathematics/9110-special-relativity-alternatives.html

 

NOTE:

-This theory has support from actual experimental evidence.

-It is 100% testable, and the test aparattus is explained if you scrolll through

-The last section shows a comparison chart between this theory and current special relativity, so you can see just how similar they are.

-This is not an attack on any theory; it only brings up possible faults and explains the alternative if it were proved and accepted.

 

The entire process of the theory will be located below.

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

 

-

This is a theory in the works that has been making great progress.

(forgive me, it is all cut and pastes from a different forum and there is no official title other than it is a different theory on relativity. I use alternative relativity throughout this post.)

 

There is support in experinmental evidence. There is also ways to test the theory which will be in the following.

 

I will post the series of posts all at once in this post. Take your time and enjoy.

 

 

 

 

contents (of sorts):

 

First I stated observations I made of the physical world.

 

 

I also stated the principles that were fromed from those observations.

 

 

Later in this thread I gathered up these princples to desribe what they state overal as a theory and what it predicts.

 

 

 

I then set out to desribe real true ways to test this theory. One of which was the Michelson Morely Experiment. Under the circumstances and principles of this theory the Michelson Morely Experiment was incorrectly set up.

 

 

I desribed how to rearrange the Michelson Morely Experiment experiment to test for an aether effect known as aether wind. In this arrangement it would be possible to measure the predicted shift from an observer moving through an absolute space.

 

 

The Cerenkov Radiation post was only something to consider. It in my opinion supports the theory what and how light works.

 

 

*************************************************************

 

ACTUAL observable events

 

 

There is a group of concepts I have thouroughly thought out that I would like to discuss here.

 

These concepts are related to motion, light, and matter. In otherwords, it relates to the dialations described the theory of Special Relativity.

 

I find what these concepts do is point to a possible alternative in SR.

But I urge you to put those statements aside for the time being and 'reset' as it were and continue on.

 

First I want to list the things that occur and can be measured in near speed of light velocities of matter in the good old Newtonian structure of physics, this is, ignoring Relativity occurances at this point.

 

 

1)

As an object nears the speed of light its observable posistion becomes altered.

 

When an object is nearing very close to the speed of light the distance it is observed from becomes perportionally equal (the perportionallity is depending on how close the speed of light the observed object is traveling) to the distance the observed object travels in the time it takes for the light to cover that distance to the observer from the observed moving object.

 

The light takes time to reach you. In that time the object continues in motion. So when the light reaches the observer the posistion of that object may not be measured to where it really is. There is time between observation frames relative to the distance between them.

 

Note: this is to imagine an object traveling perpendicular to the observer.

 

2)

As an object travels directly away from an observer the time it takes for the light to reach that observer increases. So as an object accelerates away from an observer at nearly the speed of light, the time it takes for the light to reach the observer continually increases even if and when the light remains at a constant velocity. If the object travels 1 year away at nearly the speed of light, the time it takes for the observer to detect the object in that posistion will also take (aprox) a year. Thus when the light reaches the observer (which took a year) the object will now be close to 2 light years away.

 

Likewise, when an object travels towards an observer the light that comes from that object has less and less distance to travel. Thus the time it takes for the light to reach the observer will continually decrease. When the object nears the speed of light it keeps (a significant) pace with the light it is eminating, to the observer.

 

3)

When an object travels in any direction to an observer at a signifcant distance (where time visuals can be managable) at nearing the speed of light, the observer measures only the light of the object but not the object itself (with a ruler for example). Furthermore, what happens to the object directly is not measureable (because it is moving near the speed of light) but only the light that eminates from it is.

 

4)

Any observer, moving or not, can only detect light that has had an interatcion with them. The light that eminates from an observer is undectable, unmeasurable, and in a way like a phantom photon that may never be reached, and can in a sense allow it to not exist. However the only method to detect that photon is to have it absorbed by another object and reflected back to the observer. However at this point it is not the same photon.

 

5)

The wavelength of light from a moving object will always change to an observer as that object changes velocities. This is, anything that has a frequency increases distance between each 'peak' as the velocity increases. Because all forms of light are frequencies they will observed to change when eminating from a moving object in comparison to rest. (we must also assume the observer is at rest -ps not this means if you think in terms of a person, they can not move their eyes if they want pure rest observations. Moving your eyes is a way to catch different angles of light and will change your observation details making the light coming from a moving object behave differently.

 

 

*************************************************************

 

 

The Principles and Forming of Theory

 

 

The theory that is formed is a theory of an possible alternative of special relativity.

 

What I discovered was what the following observation (quote) defines;

 

 

 

Quote:

1)As an object nears the speed of light its observable posistion becomes altered.

 

When an object is nearing very close to the speed of light the distance it is observed from becomes perportionally equal (the perportionallity is depending on how close the speed of light the observed object is traveling) to the distance the observed object travels in the time it takes for the light to cover that distance to the observer from the observed moving object.

 

The light takes time to reach you. In that time the object continues in motion. So when the light reaches the observer the posistion of that object may not be measured to where it really is. There is time between observation frames relative to the distance between them.

 

 

What it defines is that the motion of bodies in the macro scale also contains the same or very similar (hiesenberg) uncertainty principle.

 

(in very high velocity scenarios)

To elaborate; As an observer measures the posistion of a moving body (of any size) they are left unable to prove the objects momentum. This is because any moving object can be measured in two forms. It can be measured by causing it to have a collision, which detects its posistion and momentum, or it can be measured by detecting its velocity and posistion via the light that eminates from that object.

The earlier is uncertain but predictable, but not proveable, the latter is certain and proveable.

 

thus It can be said that an object can be measured in two ways. One that is certain and one that is not, one that is in particle form and one that is in wave form.

 

The reason for this,

The objects position in high velocity (near light speed) systems is able to escape instantanious report to observer. It is also able to accellerate into time of report. This is, as a particle moves away, or perpendicular to an observer at a significant velocity the light that comes from that object will take a period of time to travell the # distance from object to observer, and as it does, the object itself will be predicted to continue on its path. Predicted because the measurement can no longer be instant enough to know what the object is doing in the present.

The object to the observer will act like it is moving into the future. In the same way the actions on the sun are in our 'future' and take time to reach us, the action of the moving object likewise acts as if it is in the future, it is no longer instantanious measurement.

 

The direction of movement of the moving object will be the cause for the occurances of the observation. If the object moves towards an observer a clock will apear to accelerate, and the posistion of the object will not be certain, depending on its distance. If the object moves perpendicular, a clock will act in sync with the observer due to the moment where distance is not changing between the frames. Finally as an object accelerates more away from an observer a clock will apear to slow down, and the posistion of the object will become uncertain but theoretically predictable.

 

However in this case a clock is not what measures time. The rate a clock ticks in the observers frame is its own constant. When a clock is compared to a moving frame and the observer the light that is used to observe and measure is the display of the time or the comparison of the clocks.

 

However important to note that this is difference in clock tick is not as intwined with passage of time in the frames. Because any observation made is an observation made in the observing frame. Any distance outside that frame is undetectable.

 

As for the matter (the material the atoms) in each frame, time as it were, ticks by in syncronization. Thus regardless of distance all matter (observation frames) may act in syncronicity. However the light that traverses between any frame may alter the measurement of time comparison, and run in difference.

 

We end up with, as I understand (hopefully) coinciding an alternative SR theory to quantum mechanics theory due to the fact they both share the uncertainty princple, and mesh in macro and micro.

 

Here we have a list of what is described in this theory, (in this post).

 

- the uncertainty principle in both micro and macro (quantum thoery and Relativity)

- The wave particle duality of both light and matter

- syncronicity between systems

- dilations observed in an observers frame

- Time, the observation of time, and the conception of time.

 

 

*************************************************************

 

 

 

This Theory and Michelson Morely Experiment.

 

Attempt to show how to have an aether like universe and not be affected by "aether wind'.

 

There is an redescription in this theory that allows there to be zero difference in the time it takes a light wave to cover a two paths when dealing with the effect of aether wind, in an aether like universe.

 

Visit this link ( http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm )and experiment with the tool to become familiar with the Michelson-Morley Experiment. It measures the proposed expectations of an aether enviroment.

 

This theory suggests there will never be a difference between the two different paths of light in an aether enviroment while the system is in motion.

 

I have 4 images (four stages) of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

In each image I describe the expected velocity of the light wave.

The system is moving through the aether at a velocity of 0.1C.

 

The speed of light is not violated.

 

Image 1. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment.jpg

The light leaves the lazer at 0.9C head on into the aether which is traveling 0.1C (Note the light is moving 0.9C relative to the lazer[observer] thus

 

Image 2. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment2.jpg

The light splits into the two perpendicular paths. The green arrow (we call A) remains going 0.9C. The red arrow (we call B) turns perpendicular to the aether and travels at 1.0 C, or C.

 

Image 3. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment3.jpg

The light reflects and returns to the center mirror. Historically, or in todays theory the experiment was calculated that no wave could reach a value beyond C. However in this theory it is acceptable for the light to reach C relative to the aether on its return trip. Thus light wave a travels at 1.1C relative to the experiment system.

 

Image4. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment4.jpg

The light waves (which are matched) make there way to the detector, perpendicular to the aether at a velocity of 1C in tandom. (which is why the green arrow is cancled out because it will be in equality with the other wave.

 

Image5. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment5.jpg

A table that shows the different velocity of the light relative the experiment system in each step and shows that at the end of the trip the total velocity is equal. I called this net however, I meant to say the average velocity for each path ends up the same once it makes its way to the detector.

 

Relative to the aether the speed of the photon (light wave) never changed. However to the experiment it did, which was expected historically during these experiments. Thus because the light speed does not remain constant to the observer in an aether enviroment it can reach velocities beyond C on its path towards the observer.

 

This would be expected to violate the rule of the speed of light, but it does when the speed of the observer is put into account. For example, if an observer is moving through space at velocity .5C and a source of light is coming directly towards the observer, the light will be measured to be moving faster than C relative to the observer, but only because the observer is also moving relative to the aether.

 

As for the structure and properties of this aether, there are many current theoretical versions.

 

This very structure of the system aligns precisely with the rest of the statements in this theory.

 

My accertion is that our expectation of a delay occuring for the two different light paths was not correct. The velocity of light was not kept at constant to begin with so it is valid to allow it to exceed C only relative to the observer.

 

 

*************************************************************

 

 

 

Support on this theory.

 

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kingston.htm

 

 

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment compared the speed of light in two horizontal directions (relative to the surface of the earth) using an interferometer arrangement. This experiment played an important role in the birth of the assumption that the speed of light is constant. The speed of light would not be expected to change significantly in different horizontal directions. The maximum change of speed would be between a horizontal and a vertical direction since the gravitational environment would change the most between those directions. Thus the experiment is simply to calibrate the interferometer with both arms in the horizontal direction, and then rotate the apparatus around one arm so that the other arm is vertical. The length of the arms would have to be sufficient to make the difference observable. A length of 20 meters for each arm should be adequate, since the experiment based on the Mossbauer effect using a gamma ray from iron-57 (‘Harvard Tower Experiment’ by Pound, Rebka, and Snyder) was able to show the difference in speed over a distance of about 22.6 meters, although the results were interpreted as a change of energy rather than speed.

 

 

 

 

The Mössbauer effect

 

http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2002July/july2002Adetunji.asp

Enter Rudolf Mössbauer

In 1953 Rudolf Mössbauer....

 

 

 

 

The equipment Mössbauer used in his extension work is shown in Fig 4. The source was fixed to a rotating turntable, which served as Moon's gold-tipped rotor, and he chilled the source, turntable and absorber to liquid nitrogen temperature. For expediency, he geared the turntable using toothed wheels from children's construction sets, purchased locally.

 

 

 

 

With his hastily-constructed apparatus, Mössbauer recorded the recoilless nuclear resonance absorption of -rays by iridium-191 as a function of the linear (tangential) speed of the source.

This line (Fig 5) constitutes the first Mössbauer spectrum. His work, incorporating this classic plot, was submitted to the journal Die Naturwissenschaften in August 1958 and was published within a matter of weeks.7 The short paper, scarcely 1000 words long, generated immense interest: within one week Mössbauer received 260 requests for reprints. Its use as an analytical method was soon recognised and this interest sustains: in 2000 Mössbauer spectroscopy featured in 1185 papers.

 

 

apparatus image. - http://www.rsc.org/images/adetunji_jul02_fig4_tcm18-36458.jpg

 

From what I gather;

 

The angle of light source propogation can directly affect the frequency emitted from the resonance of an excited gas.

 

I assume The ether wind effet would produce such results. These results are predicted in this alternative relativity theory and may support it.

 

 

 

*************************************************************

 

 

 

Note:

Extracted from ealier post to expose its importance.

Theory is as of now referred to as alternative relativity theory.

 

 

Testing this theory and the possibility of ether existence.

 

In my understanding, if the Michelson-Morely Experiment was rearranged to only send light in a strait line from, source to detector, a new result may come about.

 

For example:

 

lazer (light source 1a) to ------------> detector (1b) @ angle x

 

You would also send light in a perpendicular angle to a seperate detector in the same manner.

 

lazer (light source) (2a) to ------------> detector (2b) @ angle y

 

The prediction of this theory is that the result would find:

- a difference in arrival time for the two light sources

- a difference in frequencies between the two lights (if their sources were identical

- a velocity of the aether

 

This experiment would test this theory with firm authority. I'd be glad to see it fail or pass.

 

If it failed, then I would be satisfied. If it passed I would be glad to see new headway in science.

 

 

 

*************************************************************

 

 

 

Because this theory does not yet have an official title I will remain to refer to it as alternative relativity theory.

 

alternative relativity theory:

 

Aether Dynamics and Cerenkov Radiation

 

 

 

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html#c3

When highly radioactive objects are observed under water, such as in "swimming pool" reactors and in the underwater temporary spent fuel storage areas at nuclear reactors, they are seen to be bathed in an intense blue light called Cerenkov radiation. It is caused by particles entering the water at speeds greater than the speed of light in the water. As the particles slow down to the local speed of light, they produce a cone of light roughly analogous to the bow wave of a boat which is moving through water at a speed greater than the wave speed on the surface of the water. Another analogy statement is to say that the Cerenkov cone is like a sonic boom except that it is done with light.

 

 

 

The theory may Propose light 'energy' is produced in a similar manner. The electron persay, attemping to exceed the speed of light. Energy (E) in an atom is equal to the velocity of light squared, multiplied by its mass.

 

(Here we assume the equation is a product of matter able to operate in C+C quantities, which depends on the matter's velocity relative to the ether.)

 

Once matter a part of an atom has achieved the desired velocity it stresses the fabric of the aether causing a light wave to burst into existence similar to the method of Cerenkov Radiation production. The energy exchange is 100% efficient and the matter resides to its original state..

 

As it does it acts in the same manner a particle does when entering a medium where light travels slower, sending out a light wave.

 

All particles with mass are capable to produce light energy.

 

If a nuclei is stressed enough it too may hammer into a specific medium light travels in, at a high enough velocity to send out a pulse of energy, light.

 

I only mean to propose consideration of this effect with the aether plausability.

 

 

*************************************************************

 

Special Relativity & Alternative Relativity

 

A chart that summerizes what I have said to show the difference and simularity between the two theories.

 

http://forums.hypography.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=804&d=1163542114

[Klaynos]

I got part way through and cried, don't have time to make any seriouse comments atm other than.

 

It's laser NOT lazer, it is an acronym.

[TriggerGrinn]

It has been a rushed process.

 

I urge you to read the sections that you find interesting. Such as the comparisson table at the end, and the original thread would be your best bet to get the clearest conception.

 

I agree It needs summery but I am in the process of building it.

 

I urge critics. I will do what I can do describe the theory's plausability.

[D H]

TIme-of-travel is not sufficient to explain the relativistic effects observed everyday by those working at particle accelerators. Your "theory" needs to explain the observed confirmations of relativity.

 

The first two items in your summary agree word-for-word with Einstein's postulates. Everything else in SR falls out of those two postulates mathematically, including the lack of a preferred reference frame and how velocities combine. How is it that you differ from SR when you agree with the only two postulates of SR?

 

 

You have a vague notion of relativistic velocities not adding, that paragraph about "perportionallity" (use a spell checker, please). SR has a very detailed mathematical description of why this happens. These effects predicted by SR have been observed.

 

You will not be able to convince one single physicist of the veracity of your claims without a lot of math to back it up. That math must agree with what the existing set of confirmations of SR.

 

Finally, your new "theory" had better disagree with SR somewhere, otherwise there is no reason for using your new theory. You need to identify some physically achievable experiment in which your new theory predicts a measurably different outcome than that predicted by SR.

 

Use math. I have a hard time parsing your words.

[TriggerGrinn]

Your "theory" needs to explain the observed confirmations of relativity.

It can and it will. I mentioned this is a work in progress that has taken alot of time. However I have tried to express each component as I went along only over a couple of days. So forgive me.

 

You will not be able to convince one single physicist of the veracity of your claims without a lot of math to back it up. That math must agree with what the existing set of confirmations of SR.

I am not here to convince or prove, due to my lack of math ability. However I have shown how it can be proved. Anyone interested to investigate and check it is my guest.

Finally, your new "theory" had better disagree with SR somewhere, otherwise there is no reason for using your new theory. You need to identify some physically achievable experiment in which your new theory predicts a measurably different outcome than that predicted by SR.

It dissagrees with a major part of current SR. That is, it deals with an absolute rest in which light travels.

I described how and why light can act as it has been experimentally found in an aether like enviroment. (see: This Theory and Michelson Morely Experiment. )

 

There is also several differences in this. Time dilation, dimension dilation, and relativistic mass. It still aligns to observations made but explains them differently.

For example: This theory of relativity states the following.

 

Two types of time.

 

Time 1: The visual information carried in light that displays a rate of change. ex. A clock can be seen to move faster but this is only a measurement of the light.

note: this version of time is not fundamental (under this theory of Alt relativity) it is a measurement of the rate of incoming change.

 

Time 2: A universal syncronized time for all matter. Ex. a series of lights at multiple distances from an observer can turn on at the exact same moment. However, an observer that is located in a rest posistion will never see them come on at the same moment. The lights matter is synced but what is seen is only what is in the observers frame and it is relative to that observer, thus the time, or what a clock measures is variable.

note:this version of time is fundamental. (current SR says the laws of physics and the speed of light is the same for all frames of observation). (ASR says the same thing, AR=alternative relativity)

 

 

Is this for the quantum entanglement?

 

 

Theoretically yes. Due to it being possible for all reference frames of matter to be in sync it should directly imply that by some means they can instanty influence eachother. However I do not know exactly how the appartus is set up to cause this to occur so I can not say for sure. But the time for matter is equal at all distance thats the principle.

 

Reasons to take interest.

 

I believe I have clearly shown that the Michelson Morely Experiment can not and will not detect a change in the light with or without aether wind. This is a fundamental point to look at.

[D H]

I am not here to convince or prove, due to my lack of math ability. However I have shown how it can be proved.

 

You have done nothing of the sort.

 

Einstein started with but two postulates; you agree with both of them. With math, he derived all of special relativity from nothing but those two postulates. You have nothing but words until you develop the math skills to find his error. Good luck.

[TriggerGrinn]

You have done nothing of the sort.

Check the section on the Michelson Morely experiment.

and this table ( http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment5.jpg) which explains what will happen everytime you check for aether wind with the setup they used.

 

rearrange the Michelson Morely experiment otherwise you can not get a measurement on aether in this form.

 

Note:

Extracted from ealier post to expose its importance.

Theory is as of now referred to as alternative relativity theory.

 

 

Testing this theory and the possibility of ether existence.

 

In my understanding, if the Michelson-Morely Experiment was rearranged to only send light in a strait line from, source to detector, a new result may come about.

 

For example:

 

lazer (light source 1a) to ------------> detector (1b) @ angle x

 

You would also send light in a perpendicular angle to a seperate detector in the same manner.

 

lazer (light source) (2a) to ------------> detector (2b) @ angle y

 

The prediction of this theory is that the result would find:

- a difference in arrival time for the two light sources

- a difference in frequencies between the two lights (if their sources were identical

- a velocity of the aether

 

This experiment would test this theory with firm authority. I'd be glad to see it fail or pass.

 

If it failed, then I would be satisfied. If it passed I would be glad to see new headway in science.

 

 

Einstein started with but two postulates; you agree with both of them. With math, he derived all of special relativity from nothing but those two postulates. You have nothing but words until you develop the math skills to find his error. Good luck.

 

I agree, but I am saying I understand it is possible with absolute rest of space.

 

I have enough math skills to show its validiy. However it will take me awhile becaue I have to find the formula for many of the steps because I do not have them in memory. This is not my main area of expertise.

 

Thanks for the good luck thoughts.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Try calling up the people at LIGO and see if they've found anything funny to confirm your ideas about the aether.

[TriggerGrinn]

This is the most important section I could explain. Even with the "the luminiferous aether", the operation behind light and its travel mechanisms is NOT like sound waves and water waves.

 

Let me explain.

 

Lets call Aether X. It is absolute rest.

Lets call moving object 'inertial frame' (A)

Lets call rest observer (b)

Lets use the speed of light it is 'C'.

Lets use the equations E=MC^2

 

In the way sound waves work if an object is traveling away from you it will send sound to you more slowly, and distort the sound. A doppler shift.

 

In aether it does not work like this.

 

Lets build a scenario with aether.

 

Any direction the light travels it travels at C, and any observer will measure this.

 

frame 'A' is moving at velocity 0.2C away from observer 'b' who is at rest.

 

Frame a is moving 0.2C relative to the aether.

 

A photon that leaves in the direction of travel of frame a will travel away from observer B at C and will travel through the aether at C.

 

A photon that travles from frame a to observer b, -this is where it comes together-.

Typically in the way sound works a photon would leave frame A at velocity C minus the velocity of the moving frame A to give a total of 0.8C towards the observer B.

However, in the form of aether, the atom has energy of that of the square of C.

What occurs here is that the atoms on frame A that emmitt the photons must continue to obey the laws of physics. Thus the photon is emitted from frame A to observer B at velocity 1.2C as to remain in velocity C relative to the aether. The photon also travels towards the observer B at velocity C,

as we see with;

-frame A (-0.2C) relative to observer B.

-photon (1 C) must obtain 1.2C relative to moving frame A to remain C for observer and aeather.

 

We presume that atom (source of light) has the freedom to act up to that of velocity C relative to the aether and nothing else. Thus the energy of the matter must be that of E=MC^2 otherwise it would never create C velocity when traveling away from an observer at velocity .999C (as an example).

 

The difference is that aether wave functions come from a electrodynamic source and sound waves come from a momentum source.

 

The aether source has properties which must obey the observed laws of physics.

 

When this is all implemented into the rest of all motion, space and time. It does as I say work as flawlessly as that of SR.

[insane_alien]

but light always travels at c relative to ALL observers. if A was travelling away from B at 0.99 c then he would see light(assuming there was a reflective medium so he could guage the speed at which light is receding his ship) at c relative to him. with the beam heading towards B, B would see it approaching him at c(yeah, i know you can't see light approaching you its just a thought experiment) also, A and B are inter changeable. according to A, B is travelling away from him at 0.99c and according to B, A is travelling away from him at 0.99c there is no possible experiment to say which one is moving without another reference point but then you have the same problem, there is no reference to know whether that point is stationary. with relation to the rest of the universe. more over it is impossible to know if the universe is moving.

[Klaynos]

How can you say any of your ideas without a maths background from which they form?

 

SR is formed by grunting through some interesting maths and then discussing the results. Not saying "hey look we could make things longer if we just add them together differently".

 

With identical postulates where do your differences occur?

[insane_alien]

more to the point, if he has insufficient mathematical background to write it then how does he know that its any different from SR

[TriggerGrinn]

Please look at this simplified post on how and why the Michelson Morely Experiment can not detect an 'aether wind' effect with the configuration it used.

For light to obey C in all frames it must always travel at C relative to the absolute rest of space. (please ignore the typical concept of aether and just use absolute rest in space)

Thus in this experiment the path of light has different velocities in each direction it moves. By obeying lights constant it ends up being in tandom with the other light path regardless.

see here: http://forums.hypography.com/142527-post15.html

 

 

This arrangement of a Michelson Morely Experiment that I have designed will test the light in one direction of a path, which will be the only capable way to test any difference in velocity that an aether wind could create.

see here: http://forums.hypography.com/142685-post20.html

 

The following is an experiment that was nearly identical to the apparatus arrangement that I explain above to test aether dynamics possibility.

This following experiment tested the frequency that was emitted from a gas that will glow and emmit light when excited from a source of light. As the angle changed of which the light traveled in, the frequency of the gas would change. This was namely said to be according to the scientist "Mössbauer recorded the recoilless nuclear resonance absorption of -rays by iridium-191 as a function of the linear (tangential) speed of the source."

 

However later it was forced to be said only change in energy to comply to accepted space-time theory.

see here: http://forums.hypography.com/142683-post19.html

 

if he has insufficient mathematical background to write it then how does he know that its any different from SR

It is not insufficient, it is just slow going.

I am going to work on getting the maths done today.

 

I understand the current SR and mathamatics. I followed all the laws of physics while putting this theory together, with or without math this is possible, however, I did so with the use of an absolute rest. It complies with E=MC^2 to have an aether of absolute rest. Aether has been incorrectly tested for, thus it supports my proposal.

[Klaynos]

Show me how you composed your ideas with maths.

[TriggerGrinn]

The Theory of Absolute Relativity

 

 

Introduction

This is a theory of relativity with a form of luminiferous aether of absolute rest. In this paper it is shown the possible flaw in the original testing for luminiferous aether in the famous Michelson-Morely experiment. Furthermore, it goes on to show all experimental data and laws of physics can still be obeyed by a form of absolute rest and luminiferous aether. Lastly the required apparatus to correctly test to show a form or lack of luminiferous aether.

 

 

 

Experimental Data

In the original Michelson-Morely experiment it was expected to have light wave results similar to that of sound waves or water waves. However, this is not the case in the operation of luminiferous aether. It must be considered that any wave of light must comply to the constant velocity of C in all frames of observation, most importantly the absolute rest frame of aether. It is possible to get two types of C depending on which technique you measure the speed of light, both still obey the constant of light to all observers (note: this is possible when we accept light that moves away from an observer can NOT be considered directly observable thus its values elude the observer, but will remain a value of C when measured after its return trip to that same observer). These two types are 1) The time it takes for light to reach a distant detector according to the observer(at light source). 2) The time it takes for light to travel a path and reflect back to the observer.

 

Let us look at the details behind the latter descriptions.

 

If you are not familiar with the Michelson-Morely experiment, Visit this link ( http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/flashlets/mmexpt6.htm ) to become familiar with the apparatus and experiment. This experiment was designed to measure a difference in arrival time for the two different paths of light.

 

The theory of absolute relativity predicts there will never be a difference in arrival times between the two different paths of light in an aether enviroment while the system is in motion through the aether.

 

There are 5 images including four stages and a conclusion tablet of the Michelson-Morley Experiment.

 

 

The system is moving through the aether at a velocity of 0.1C.

 

Image 1. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment.jpg

step 1:The light leaves the laser (light source) at 0.9C head on into the aether which is traveling 0.1C. This is in accordance with experimental data of wave mechanics. The aether is expected to create a wind effect that would differ the velocity of light moving 'upstream' as it were.

 

Image 2. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment2.jpg

step 2:The light splits into the two perpendicular paths. The green arrow (we call A) remains going 0.9C, as the paths has been unchanged.

The red arrow (we call B) turns perpendicular to the aether and is now capable to travel at C or 1C, because it is not moving parrallel with the motion of the proposed aether.

 

Image 3. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment3.jpg

step 3:The light reflects and returns to the center mirror. Historically it was not calculated that the light could measure beyond C relative to the apparatus. However, it is absolutely acceptable for the light to reach C relative to the aether on its return trip, thus creating a measurement 1.1C relative to the experiment system. Although, the apparatus observer must take into consideration its own velocity relative to the aether. As so we have;

Observer velocity 0.1C, Light velocity C. Thus the distance that is covered between observer and the light is 1.1C, although this does not affect the true velocity of the light, and all laws of physics are obeyed.

 

Image4. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment4.jpg

The light waves turn on the final stretch to make there way to the detector, perpendicular to the aether at a velocity of 1C, at this point they have regained equal posistion (as will be seen in the table of image 5).

note: one arrow was crossed out to show that they have returned to one wave form again.

 

Image5. http://www3.telus.net/hill/MichExperiment5.jpg

This table shows the different velocities of the light relative the experiment system in each step. At the end of the trip the total velocity remains equal. I called this net velocity, however, it is the average velocity that is also equal.

 

 

 

How is light able to exceed C relative to an inertial frame as it leaves 'downstream' into the aether?

 

Enter E=MC^2.

 

While obeying the law that nothing can exceed the speed of light, a moving object is predicted to be able to send light faster in the direction opposite of motion than it is in the direction of motion relative to the observer of that source. In doing so it obeys the law of light always traveling C, relative to the aether, which as mentioned, works into being constant for all observers in conventional return trip measurements.

 

It is due to this that an atom has the energy of the square of the velocity of light in a magnitude of the multiplication of its total mass.

In order to obey the constant of C in aether mechanics the atom must be capable to act in speeds beyond C relative to itself to match C relative to the aether. However, it is possible for an atom to act this way as said ealier:

(note: this is possible when we accept light that moves away from an observer can NOT be considered directly observable thus its values elude the observer, but will remain a value of C when measured after its return trip to that same observer).

 

 

How to correctly detect a form of aether.

 

In my understanding, if the Michelson-Morely Experiment was rearranged to only send light in a strait line from, source to a detector a detectable result would be possible, to prove and or correctly disprove a moving aether wind.

 

An example of the corrected appartus.

Note: light sources aimed in perpendicular angles

 

laser (light source 1a) to ------------> detector (1b) @ angle x

 

laser (light source) (2a) to ------------> detector (2b) @ angle y

 

The prediction of this theory is that the result would find:

- a difference in arrival time for the two light sources

- a difference in frequencies between the two lights (if their sources were identical

- a velocity of the aether

 

This is a general simple form of the experiment. If the light was capable to make a return trip the experiment would fail to show any change between the two light paths and light would be measured to be a constant of C. The light must make one path from A to B to detect any change.

 

 

Conclusion

It is possible for medium (aether) like universe to obey the laws of physics and create the same experimental observation that have been performed to test the theory of SR with space-time.

 

 

Support on this theory.

 

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/kingston.htm

A length of 20 meters for each arm should be adequate, since the experiment based on the Mossbauer effect using a gamma ray from iron-57 (‘Harvard Tower Experiment’ by Pound, Rebka, and Snyder) was able to show the difference in speed over a distance of about 22.6 meters, although the results were interpreted as a change of energy rather than speed.

The Mössbauer effect

 

http://www.rsc.org/Education/EiC/issues/2002July/july2002Adetunji.asp

With his hastily-constructed apparatus, Mössbauer recorded the recoilless nuclear resonance absorption of -rays by iridium-191 as a function of the linear (tangential) speed of the source.

 

apparatus image. - http://www.rsc.org/images/adetunji_jul02_fig4_tcm18-36458.jpg

 

The angle of light source propogation in respect to space can directly affect the frequency emitted from a gas that is excited by the same light (energy) source.

[TriggerGrinn]

If anyone is interested in helping me improve this paper. With the maths or what have you that would be great.

 

Thanks in advance.

[D H]

Help improve your paper? You have nothing but words, wrong words to boot. If you can't do the math you aren't doing physics. The math was done and done well 101 years ago.

[timo]

Arkain101 ... that name rings a bell: http://www.scienceforums.net/showthread.php?t=15237.

[swansont]

This is a general simple form of the experiment. If the light was capable to make a return trip the experiment would fail to show any change between the two light paths and light would be measured to be a constant of C. The light must make one path from A to B to detect any change.

 

The "one way speed of light" has been discussed here before, I think, and why you can't measure it. Certainly the topic is addressed many places on the net.

 

BTW, are you actually Arkain101 on the hypography board, or are you just cut-and-pasting his stuff? Because there's an Arkain101 who has posted here, too, and I assume that they would be the same person. Something is fishy. Multiple identities or copyright violations.

 

Edit: D'oh! Atheist beat me to it.

[TriggerGrinn]

I am arkain101, I agree I was a pain when I was last here, and I apologize for it.

 

It is understandable people dont have the time to read or be interested in this theory that I have more recently brought forward.

 

Regardless of opinions on the many details (because there is mistakes I have been making) , there is two important things brought up that I believe are fact.

 

1)The experiment used to test aether was incapable of doing so, thus even if there was a kind of aether wind, the apparatus would not of been able to detect it.

 

2)There is a way to test this theory that as far as people have said has not been done, which will more confidently decide whether an aether is existant.

 

This theory could very well be bunk. I have just asked kindly for anyone interested to help me out.

[psynapse]

this aether you talk about are you referring to quantum foam? Or some "new" discovery of yours.

[TriggerGrinn]

this aether you talk about are you referring to quantum foam? Or some "new" discovery of yours.

 

There are many versions of aether, however that is not what the subject being discussed at hand.

 

All that is required of the aether (or space of absolute rest) -at this point- is to carry a wave of light at only C. Such as how air will only create a sonic boom at velocity "X". However, if the velocity acts below C no wave is formed. It must be that in order for matter to transfer energy it must meet the velocity of light in the medium we are refering to.

Much like Cerenkov Radiation.

see here: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html#c3

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Back to the paper (absolute relativity)

 

I am looking to express the following in mathmatical form.

 

 

 

I would appreciate anyones help with putting this paper together full bodied. Math with the logic.

 

I feel I have made very valid points that should take interest in the science communnity.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

 

I want to express 2 comparissons for the (michelson morely) MM experiment.

 

comparison #1.

 

using the same vector quantities mentioned in the paper I want to show the results with sound wave mechanics for the light experiment.

I want to compare

-scenario 1 with absolute rest space (aether medium)

to

-scenario 2 non absolute space.

 

Then comparison #2.

 

using the same vector quantities mentioned in the paper I want to show the results with this theorys version of light wave mechanics. (that is any light wave will emmit from a source at a velocity 'v'=C .

-scenario 1 with absolute rest space (aether medium).

-scenario 2 with non absolute space.

With this I want to show that the MM experiment was configured in such a way that it was unable to detect aether regarldess if it was there or not.

 

We understand with experimental evidence that light is the same velocity to each observation frame.

So in comparison #1 we show that sound wave mechanics are false (that which the theory of aethe was constructed on) for light, and that the apparatus arrangement was flawed.

 

In comparison #2 we can show that aether can infact obey the observed laws of physics and allow C to be constant to each observation frame. Thus also showing that the apparatus was flawed in being able to detect such aether.

 

It should not be to difficult considering I have the ground work layed out.

 

I will add it here below.

 

The system is moving through the aether at a velocity of 0.1C

(and obviously at rest for non absolute space)

 

That is all the data really needed please see the next post to see the guidelines of the two comparisons.

(and if needed refer to the MM experiment in the Absolute Relativity paper ealier posted)

[TriggerGrinn]

Lets lay out the laws of each form.

 

Sound wave mechancs. (for comparison #1)

 

from wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

A simple example concerns the model on which aether was originally built: sound. The speed of propagation for mechanical waves, the speed of sound, is defined by the mechanical properties of the medium. For instance, if one is in an airliner, you can still carry on a conversation with the person beside you because the sound of your words are travelling along with the air inside the aircraft. This effect is basic to all Newtonian dynamics, which says that everything from sound to the trajectory of a thrown baseball should all remain the same in the aircraft as sitting "still" on the Earth. This is the basis of the Galilean transformation, and the concept of "frame of reference".

 

So this is newtonian form of physics. That is, (back to our MM experiment) if an object was traveling in the wind, the speed of the light wave in this sound wave model would be relative to the streaming wind of the aether.

 

 

Absolute Relativity - Aether wave Mechanics (for comparison #2)

 

In this form the emitter of the light is restricted by the aether, that has a maximum velocity of C to travel through it, and futhermore only a velocity of C.

 

Thus an object moving through the aether will have light emmit at a slower velocity in the direction of travel (to maintain C in the aether) and a faster velocity in the opposite direction of travel (to maintain C).

 

In detail: The light retains C, (we base this off of the fact the energy available from the matter is a value of the square of the speed of light with a magnitude relative to the multiple of the matters mass.

 

Shortly, an object can emmit light between C and C+C (in the range of C+C when the object (light source) is moving very near C). The object (or matter) emmits as fast as it can at all times and the medium (aether constrains it)

 

This is the guidelines to follow when sorting out:

 

one last time:

comparison #1 (sound wave mechanics) and comparison #2. (lights obeying aether mechanics)

[TriggerGrinn]

I wonder who will be the first to take the challenge.

 

If you can show the math, you can prove my logic. The person that works this out will have shown aether (absolute rest) is a plausible hypothesis.

 

I will see what I can do in the meantime.

 

Note:

If you havnt read each post and want to tackle this problem refer to post's: #22 and #23