I need help to write a paper

[TriggerGrinn]

I am writing a paper on a scientific theory.

 

For those of you who have not kept up with the other thread related to it, it is a theory of aboluste relativity. The theory defines relativity with absolute space.

 

This sound much stranger than it really is, however it follows the laws of physics and observable data as you will see in the paper.

 

 

I have not written a paper before and I do not know exactly how to go about it.

 

I would prefer to, in repsect of einstein and the vast use of his work, to follow his style of the paper.

 

The paper I am going to submit to the science community at large. Hopefully a journal would take it?

 

The theory is absolutely testable. One test may change science forever. Finally opening the doors to unified theory.

 

I will add the begginning rough draft in the next post.

[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 hypothesises 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, using the configuration in the past Michelson Morely experiment.

 

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. In the past they didnt expect aether to be able to function in a way to have light remain as a constant for observers. In the way I have shown, I hypothesis it can.

 

Here we see that in the past, the expectation of having light act like sound waves or water waves, was incorrect and the experiment would fail because of that. If light acted similar to sound waves it would not coincide with experimental evidence that C remains constant. However, as just previously described, when the source of light is can have a varying velocity of emition, it will agree with lights observed constant.

 

 

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]

The theory hypothesises the reasoning for the following and predicts them in based on the foundation of postulates.

 

- explaination of E=MC^2 (how to reach this conclusion without previous equations)

- Time dilation

- Length contraction

- mass dilation

- gravity

- electromagnetic forces

- uncertainty principle

- quantum entanglement

- graviational lensing

- gravitational time dilation

- Constant of the speed of light

- Universal restriction of the C

 

A possible lead to unified theory.

[insane_alien]

contrary to popular belief amongst those that are not scientists, the mathematics behind a theory is not pulled out of the arse at the last minute and fits perfectly with the postulates, it usually comes along in the early stages and gradually builds up during the mid stages and is tweaked a bit in the later stages. it also constitutes 90% of the scientific merit(or lack thereof) of the hypothesis. if you want a bit of help then you will need to give us something to go on and don't expect it to conform to your hypothesis. expect to change the hypothesis instead.

[TriggerGrinn]

contrary to popular belief amongst those that are not scientists, the mathematics behind a theory is not pulled out of the arse at the last minute and fits perfectly with the postulates, it usually comes along in the early stages and gradually builds up during the mid stages and is tweaked a bit in the later stages

Nothing has been pulled out of the arse.

 

No problem. There is alot of work I havnt shown just yet, it has been following very straightfoward basics.

 

But I do see your point. There must be mathamatical truth that is shown. It can be nearly impossible to understand some peoples 'theories', thus the importance of showing that it calculates. For example, this theory here.

 

However, I have brought and proved -althought not that confidently- that the MM experiment was flawed and unable to detect aether whether it was there or not. That is important to comprehend! Also I have shown that previous experiments have shown that as you change the angle of a light source its frequency can change -eg. the expectation of aether wind-.

 

but also I need to know an outline of how a paper is written, a guideline. If someone could help that'd be great.

In the meantime, the math is comin, no worries there.

[insane_alien]

until there is math you have proved nothing

[TriggerGrinn]

Aether was formed from sound wave mechanics.

 

In this form as we know velocity(light) to an observer is Velocity(light) = Velocity(source) + C, or V(l) = V(s) + C

 

Thus If the velocity source is 0.1C in reference to (static aether) and the light is traveling in the same direction as the source than we have this (relative to the observer of source)

 

Vl = (-0.1C) + C

Vl = 0.9C

 

Thus we continue using this equation for the light traveling in the opposite direction of the direction of travel of the source.

 

Vl = (0.1 C) + C

Vl = 1.1C

 

 

So in the MM experiment we have (away from source) path A 0.9C , (towards source) path b 1.1c, (perpendicular to source) path C, velocity 1C.

 

if the light was to be calculated to travel away, reflect, than return to source we have.

 

average of 1.1 + 0.9 = 2

thus 2/2 = 1 = 1C = C

 

As you can see the MM experiment would have detected NO change of the lights velocity whether there was aether or not.

 

Also notice that on return trip measurements of lights velocity over a distance, aether, or wave in a static medium, can obey the law of physics.

 

A postulate in the theory is that no light wave that moves away from a source is ever going to be directly detectable in that particular observation frame (reference frame) again. IT must reflect to be observed. ALthough it can be dected by a seperate frame (observer), known as the waves destination point.

 

ps- whether your opinion is with or against this theory, can you put that aside and help me with how a paper is written?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

if the light was to be calculated to travel away, reflect, than return to source we have.

That's all fine and good, but that's not the way the light was sent.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Michelson-morley.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley_experiment

[TriggerGrinn]

E=MC^2

 

Assume it requires an amount of energy from an atom to create a wave in the medium of a static space.

 

The ammount an object can contain is directly perpotional to its total mass.

 

Then we use the fact that when light IS made form an atom it must travel C in the static medium of space to obey the constant of light. Or let us say the atom will act in speeds up to C + C however it can only act in a velocity of C relative to the aether. We presume the aether has such properties that allow waves to be created a finite value, C, which is directly related to the permittivity permeability of that space. Which is exaclty how one can calcualte the value of C.

 

So an atom traveling through the static space at say 0.9C, it must send light out at 0.9C to obtain a value of 0C reltative to the aether, then it must also send out + C on top of that to reach a value of C relative to the aether of which we know is the constant speed of light.

 

Thus it is not the equation which dictates the energy in mass. It is the way in which mass and matter behaves in the permittivity permeability of the static space that results in an equation of C + C velocities.

 

Now to understand that when you are dealing with moving energy we use the equation Ke=1/2 (M *V^2)

This explains that the energy in a moving object is relative to the square of its velocity, due to inertia of the two objects that interact to transfer a value of kentitic energy.

 

So an atoms energy when interacting with the specific values of permittivity permeability of space it is capable to act in speeds of C in one direction relative to the aether and pseeds of C in the opposite direction relative to the aether. Thus the energy in an atom is C^2 mulplied by its mass. That is the theoretical amount of energy to be expelled.

 

Without any other equation, Energy contained in an atom must be equal to the square of the speed at which it can emmit that energy which is C, and its magnitude of capacity is directly related the total mass of that object.

[TriggerGrinn]

That's all fine and good, but that's not the way the light was sent.

You are correct. It made one final pass perpendicular to the aether at a velocity of C relative to the source.

 

Thus we equate 1C which does not change the measurement.

 

Going head on into space

 

One path went;

0degrees forward at 0.9 C

through the mirror and onto path B at 0degrees at 0.9C

then reflected at 180 degrees at 1.1C (in order to maintain C in relativeness to space, with or without aether considerations, meaning alternatively space-time)

then on it turned 90degrees relative to the source and towards the detector at 1C.

 

Total velocity or let us say average= 0.9(step a) + 0.9(step b) + 1.1(step c) + 1(step d) = 4 = 4/4 = 1 C

 

However path B took a different course.

It traveled head on in proposed direction of travel at 0.9C, (step a)

then turned 90degrees relative to motion at 1 C (step a)

then reflected off that mirror and took another path at 1 C (step C)

finall passed through the last section of glass unscathed

and continued at 1C(step d)

 

0.9+1+1+1=3.9/4=0.975 (NOT C) uh oh?

 

we see that relative to the observer the light did not remain at C. That is fine, because this is the way sound wave like mechanics work and that was how the aether concepct was put together, which turned out to create errors in consistancy.

 

(NOTE: that if I could show the math we would include observer velocity .1 relative to the lights velocity of C to get a vector quanity that works out to finalizing the average as C.

eg. in simple form

a)0.9

b)1+0.1=1.1

c)1+0.1=1.1

d)1+0.1=1.1

average= 0.9+1.1+1.1+1.1=4.2/4=1.05

however I did not input the actual vector velocity relative to the observer, since that requires math skills I am not prepaired to begin at the moment)

 

However, when we look at the velocity relative to the aether through all paths we get.

 

path A

step:

a)0.9 + 0.1 = 1

b)1.1 - 0.1 = 1

c)1

d)1

we see in path A of light it remained C at all times relative to the aether, and C relative to the observer (when it returned)

 

path B:

a)0.9 + 0.1 = 1

b)1

c)1

d)1

We see that relative to the aether the light traveled at 1 C in path B (constant)

and relative to the observer (or light source)

 

observer

a)0.9 + 0.1 = 1

b)1

c)1

d)1

 

to futher explain how we get a)0.9 + 0.1 = 1 , it is what the observer must comprehend in single (non reflected) pathways of light.

 

Doing so we have not broke the constant speed of light.

 

 

Now finally.

 

we set up this experiment apparatus in this configureation:

 

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 light is measured in no reflected paths from source to detector (which are at rest relative to eachother.

 

Thus if there IS aether, and there IS motion of aether through that (static space) aether, then a change in the speed of the light will be found in one of the direction the light was sent, which one depends on which direction of travel is being made by the apparatus.

note:distance for each indivudal path of light must remain perfectly consistant, since the measurement is detecting Distance/time to determine light velocity relative to the source and detector.

 

Lastly,

what is desired to be found is (theory disproven)

or

velocity of light in singular paths.

speed of earth through the aether

absolute rest space.

aether's existence.

a difference in arrival times for light over equal distances with different directions of travel.

[insane_alien]

Disclaimer: TriggerGrinn i know you want help writing this paper with our opinions on this left out of it and i have left them out, i'm just analysing the theory in a manner as to how it will be treated if you submit this to peer review.

TBH i don't care either way for this theory but if its major principles are incoherent with experimental data then it won't even be published by someone who scientists care about maybe even the crackpot journals wouldn't publish it and THAT would be embarassing.

 

Aether was formed from sound wave mechanics.

 

Ok this could make a slight bit of sense if electromagnetic waves were even slightly mechanical. they are not mechanical, the are electromagnetic and are self propagating which means they do not need a medium such as and 'Aether'

 

In this form as we know velocity(light) to an observer is Velocity(light) = Velocity(source) + C, or V(l) = V(s) + C

 

Ooo finally something resembling mathematics. Pity it doesn't cohere to existing data, this would mean the velocity of light varies in magnitude, this has been proven to be wrong in countless experiments using redshift, particle accelerators and or bits of scientific wizardry, your going to have to do a hell of a lot of work to get this to fit experimental data or at least explain why this is better than relativity.

 

Thus If the velocity source is 0.1C in reference to (static aether) and the light is traveling in the same direction as the source than we have this (relative to the observer of source)

 

Vl = (-0.1C) + C

Vl = 0.9C

 

uh oh, where did the minus come from? wasn't the equation V(l)=V(s) +c

if we use the first equation we get V(l)=1.1C

 

Thus we continue using this equation for the light traveling in the opposite direction of the direction of travel of the source.

 

Vl = (0.1 C) + C

Vl = 1.1C

 

On this one i would have accepted a minus since the vectors are in opposite directions and would churn out 0.9c

 

So in the MM experiment we have (away from source) path A 0.9C , (towards source) path b 1.1c, (perpendicular to source) path C, velocity 1C.

 

IFF(yes two f's look it up) that is how light works which we have evidence to say that it does not.

 

if the light was to be calculated to travel away, reflect, than return to source we have.

 

average of 1.1 + 0.9 = 2

thus 2/2 = 1 = 1C = C

 

As you can see the MM experiment would have detected NO change of the lights velocity whether there was aether or not.

 

BUT it is known that light does not behave like this due to other experiments, MM has been backed up hundereds of times with other experiments.

 

Also notice that on return trip measurements of lights velocity over a distance, aether, or wave in a static medium, can obey the law of physics.

 

I should bloody well hope so since its a physical phenomenon that we understand quite well and can accurately predict using the laws of physics.

 

A postulate in the theory is that no light wave that moves away from a source is ever going to be directly detectable in that particular observation frame (reference frame) again. IT must reflect to be observed. ALthough it can be dected by a seperate frame (observer), known as the waves destination point.

 

yes and the external observer would agree that the light was travelling at c AT ALL times regardless of the velocity of the observer and the guy at A

 

ps- whether your opinion is with or against this theory, can you put that aside and help me with how a paper is written?

 

see disclaimer, i tried to be nice but its hard with so much inconsistency and deviation from experimental data.

 

I suggest you go read up on relativity and view the data that backs it up and why Aether is grade A bullcrap.

[swansont]

Aether was formed from sound wave mechanics.

 

In this form as we know velocity(light) to an observer is Velocity(light) = Velocity(source) + C, or V(l) = V(s) + C

 

Thus If the velocity source is 0.1C in reference to (static aether) and the light is traveling in the same direction as the source than we have this (relative to the observer of source)

 

Vl = (-0.1C) + C

Vl = 0.9C

 

Thus we continue using this equation for the light traveling in the opposite direction of the direction of travel of the source.

 

Vl = (0.1 C) + C

Vl = 1.1C

 

 

So in the MM experiment we have (away from source) path A 0.9C , (towards source) path b 1.1c, (perpendicular to source) path C, velocity 1C.

 

if the light was to be calculated to travel away, reflect, than return to source we have.

 

average of 1.1 + 0.9 = 2

thus 2/2 = 1 = 1C = C

 

As you can see the MM experiment would have detected NO change of the lights velocity whether there was aether or not.

 

 

 

There's your mistake right there. Speed is a time average, not a distance average. Physics 101.

 

Let's say the interferometer arms are 30 cm long. Unperturbed, each pass takes 1 ns, for a total of 2 ns.

 

At 1.1c, it takes 0.90909 ns

At 0.9c, it takes 1.11111 ns

 

The total is 2.0202 ns

 

(1.1 + 0.9) isn't the same as (1/1.1 + 1/0.9)

[TriggerGrinn]

see disclaimer, i tried to be nice but its hard with so much inconsistency and deviation from experimental data.

 

I suggest you go read up on relativity and view the data that backs it up and why Aether is grade A bullcrap.

 

I am going to have to do it much clearer. I mean no offense but you did not understand what I expressed.

 

Originally Posted by TriggerGrinn

Aether was formed from sound wave mechanics.

 

Ok this could make a slight bit of sense if electromagnetic waves were even slightly mechanical. they are not mechanical, the are electromagnetic and are self propagating which means they do not need a medium such as and 'Aether'

 

I was not expressing that electromagnetic waves were mechanical. I was stating that in the past aether was based off the same method of sound.

see wiki: A simple example concerns the model on which aether was originally built: sound.

 

 

uh oh, where did the minus come from? wasn't the equation V(l)=V(s) +c

if we use the first equation we get V(l)=1.1C

 

relative to the observer, when you have light leave in front of you, it can not be measured in your frame. (it can only be calculated)

I expected you to follow the math sorry for not expressing more in detail.

 

The negetive is correct, because we are trying to see how fast the light is moving away from the observer (source of light). The observer is moving with the light and thus the velocity will be expected, predicted, to decrease relative to that observer.

 

You can not measure the speed of which light leaves a source (from that observation frame) Anything you do to measure it changes frames, or reflects it back to you, thus it is not moving away.

 

Because of this, you can not say it moves C, because it is impossible to tell and if you can supply proof I am willing to read it, but you wont have much luck (remaining in your own frame). Thus the reason for the positive and the minus. This theory predicts the velocity of the light for the observer of the source.

 

Of course the light will continue to move at C relative to other observation frames. But keep in mind that you can only see light that comes at you. So you can not imagine to a photon traveling through space perpendicular to you, and assume that is the correct posistion. It is uncertain to predict this. The photon must change course and reach your frame for you to detect it. When it turns away from its source like this the source continues in motion, we hope, so depending on the distance the photon had to travel, the light source (or old path it was in) moves an equal distance ahead, completely oblivious to your measurment capabilites.

 

I need to get back to this later. gotta go.

[Klaynos]

He understood the maths, and explained how you where wrong. Because you did not understand how you are wrong does NOT make him wrong.

[insane_alien]

I am going to have to do it much clearer. I mean no offense but you did not understand what I expressed.

 

Alright, but if we are misinterpreting it then the journal editors are going to misinterpret it. BTW, what journal are you thinking of writing to? you'll need to know their guidelines for format and presentation.

 

I was not expressing that electromagnetic waves were mechanical. I was stating that in the past aether was based off the same method of sound.

 

Well, you make it look like your basing this hypothesis on something similar. you really do have to define yourself more clearly.

 

If you were making a point about pat Aether theories then you should have said something like "In the past, the Aether was thought to work like air in the propagation of sound waves. My hypothesis differs <insert mechanism here>"

 

relative to the observer

 

yeah, light always moves at c relative to the observer other wise we would see light coming at us with all sorts of velocities not this 1.1c and 0.9c stuff you are claiming.

 

I expected you to follow the math sorry for not expressing more in detail.

 

as far as i can see, i did. you provided a formula (V(l)=V(s) + C) i just slotted in the numbers. this is how formulae work.

 

The negetive is correct

 

well shouldn't your formula have been V(l)= -V(s) +C ? i assumed the direction of light to be the positive direction since you didn't define a coordinate reference at all. in a paper you will need to explicitly show this. do not imply everything, assume the person needs to be told how to do EVERYTHING(within reason, don't go telling them how to properly wipe their ass or anything)

 

You can not measure the speed of which light leaves a source (from that observation frame) Anything you do to measure it changes frames, or reflects it back to you, thus it is not moving away.

 

okay... i'll go with this if you explain how we would not have the mathematics to calculate the speed the light was going at a certain point on its path? your hypothesis should be able to calculate this and it shouldn't be too hard as we can do it with all sorts of things that really do change velocity all the time.

 

Of course the light will continue to move at C relative to other observation frames. But keep in mind that you can only see light that comes at you.

 

this is true, but what prohibits the external observer from being in the path of the light (besides the fact that he would shortly after have a dude in a spaceship hit him at a ridiculously fast velocity)

[TriggerGrinn]

Quote:

Of course the light will continue to move at C relative to other observation frames. But keep in mind that you can only see light that comes at you.

 

this is true, but what prohibits the external observer from being in the path of the light (besides the fact that he would shortly after have a dude in a spaceship hit him at a ridiculously fast velocity)

 

I mean from perpendicular angles. You cant 'imagine' seeing light move like a laser as it passes by. You can not just guess that what you see is where it is. Calculations must be used, and even still the object that the light is coming from is 'in out unknown future' therefore it can not be a certain prediction.

[TriggerGrinn]

as far as i can see, i did. you provided a formula (V(l)=V(s) + C) i just slotted in the numbers. this is how formulae work.

absolutely. Again, I suppose I have been assumming you would 'put it together' persay, since it is rather simple math.

 

I agree, when put down as a paper, each step must be shown clearly, concisely, and correctly.

 

I dont know the 'exact' official formulas. Instead of getting as you said (hard to be nice), could anyone just offer some formulas and structure?

 

You have not disproven the foundation the theory stands on, the theory has not been disproven. That being the testing of frame A to B light speed tests.

 

I should quit replying with these summerized vague, more verbal type of replies, while I am in the process of laying out the whole layout of the mathamatics.

[TriggerGrinn]

I dont know the 'exact' official formulas.

that meaning the letters and stuff like V' or Vo Vk and things of that sort. I am looking around on the net for such things. I have made my own as you have seen but I would rather have ones I could show that have been and can be derived into what I am trying to show.

[swansont]

You still need to address the error behind your contention that the M-M experiment won't show an ether, because the average speed remains c. It doesn't.

[TriggerGrinn]

Could you also show your work in what you refer to?

 

because the average speed remains c. It doesn't.

 

I dont know exactly what you mean there. Observer? frame?

[swansont]

Could you also show your work in what you refer to?

 

 

 

I dont know exactly what you mean there. Observer? frame?

 

 

Where you say

if the light was to be calculated to travel away, reflect, than return to source we have.

 

average of 1.1 + 0.9 = 2

thus 2/2 = 1 = 1C = C

 

As you can see the MM experiment would have detected NO change of the lights velocity whether there was aether or not.

 

Speed is a time average, not a distance average. The statement you make is wrong. See post 12, as well.

[TriggerGrinn]

I will address it. I'd like to hear your thoughts after.

 

The details so we can decipher whether or not we are on the same page.

 

-The MM experiment was setup to test for aether wind.

 

-The experimenters configured it to detect a difference in arrival time for two different paths of light.

 

-Over many years no change was ever detected.

 

-Every experiment that successfully tested the speed of light very accurately involved sending light to a destination, then, reflecting it back to a detector. This configuration found a consistant velocity for light in any direction the pathway of the light was configured.

 

-No observation frame can detect and/or measure light that is emitted from its frame. However, if the light is sent to a detector where the clocks are in syncronization and those clocks are accurate enough to detect a change in the range of (30km/sec [earths predicted speed] / 300,000km/s [about lights speed] = ) 0.0001. This is the range of the best scenario of detectable results, presuming the path of the light is in parrallel with the direction of travel of the experiment.Once that has been performed, one can conclude the speed of light traveling from a source to a detector (A to B) is consistant with C.

 

-Any light that makes a return trip will measure to be C with or without including the possibility of aether. Although, even if aether is presumed, a return trip will measure to cover distance/time = to C.

 

If we agree to be on the same page with that all laid out, we can begin to look at the MM experiment and apply these principles.

 

The MM experiment sends light in parralell aswell as perpendicular directions from the source.

-Note that even if there was motion through an aether medium it would Cover each of the two paths in the same amount of time (considering they are equal in distance).

-Note also that in the aether model light was not expected to travel C in all directions relative to an observer. Thus if they calculated it able to travel slower than C upstream (relative to the motion through the proposed medium) then it would be able to gain velocity going downstream (the aether wind) beyond C "RELATIVE TO THE OBSERVER IN ONE DIRECTIONAL PATHS". However, the average of gain in one direction and loss in the other resorts back to C.

 

Vl = (0.1 C) + C

Vl = 1.1C

 

and

 

Vl = (-0.1 C) + C

Vl = 0.9C

 

Then, 0.9 + 1.1 = 2C/2= 1 = C

 

Or we simply add and subtract motion of system relative to the aether from the measured speed of light.

upstream Vl = (0.1 C) + (0.9C) = 1C

downstream Vl = (0.1 C) - (1.1C) = 1C

 

which shows that the light never changes velocity relative to its aether.

 

If we compare this to the conclusions of Special relativity. It is the same.

Let us call special relativity SR and Absolute relativity AR.

SR-The speed of light remains constant to an observers frame.

AR-The speed of light remains constant to an observers frame.

SR-The velocity of the observation frame is independent of the speed of light when measured. (refer to how light must be measured)

AR- The velocity of the observation frame is independent of the speed of light when measured in a return path configuration. Aswell as the velocity relative to the absolute frame -proposed as static space aether-.

 

What does all of this conclude?

 

The MM experiment would be unable to detect a difference in arrival time for light. Thus the results found in the experiment are undefined. There is no certain conclusion.

 

Furthermore, The difference in Absolute relativity and Special relativity is very slim. In fact the calculations continually work out the same.

 

So if we agree either theory or perspective can act in practically an indentical way which one is in fact correct?

 

The only way to tell is to perform the experiment Mentioned in the testing of the theory of absolute relativity.

 

which is:

 

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

[TriggerGrinn]

**rough draft**

 

Need help with this section.

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

This table shows the different velocities of the light relative the experiment system in each step and direction.

We see in the table that although the velocities changed in one way directions, they cancle out as 1C.

0.9C + 1.1C = 2C. The average is 1C. Or the "return trip" would result in C.

note:(unable to show this step where 0.9 one way and 1.1 the other equates as equal to the time of C for both ways: help?)

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The Theory of Absolute Relativity

 

 

Introduction

This is a theory of relativity with a form of absolute reference frame. In this paper it is shown that the current laws of physics can still be obeyed by a form of absolute rest (which is hypothesised as an aether). Support is given to this hypothesis by exposing a possible flaw in the original testing for a static reference frame in the famous Michelson-Morely experiment (an experiment that was expected to detect an effect known as an 'aether wind' and more importantly an aether medium). Also, there is a description of the required apparatus to correctly test a form or lack of static medium for light. Furthermore, the paper considers the option of relativity with absolute reference frame (absolute relativity) with relativity without an absolute frame (special relativity) and that shows the indentical simularities between the two theories and what the few differences conclude. Lastly, the list of support for this theory; support from past experiments.

 

 

 

The Michelson-Morely experiment

In the original Michelson-Morely experiment it was expected to have light wave results similar to that of sound waves or water waves. In the following we see that with or without this expectation the results would remain the same as they were always found to be; No difference in arrival time for two seperate paths of light over the same distance, from the same source, and finally to the same detector.

 

Note: By law of the universal constant of C, light must travel at C relative to each individual observer.

 

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.

Using this program (by increasing the aether speed) you will see a change in the arrival times of the two different photon paths (light paths). These were the expected results that would be found if an aether existed.

 

In the following we show the proposed flaw in the MM experiment. This flaw is that the arrangement of the apparatus is and was unable to detect an aether wind whether it is or was there or not. According to absolute relativity lights velocity can be measured in two techniques.

 

Technique One:

 

Simply send light from a destination (source and considered observation frame) to a destination where it will reflect and return to the source/observer. The time it covers the specific distance in the total round trip journey is measured as the velocity of light. This configuration of measuring the speed of light has been found to be a consistant velocity for light in any direction the pathway of the light was configured. Which is initially expected to support non-absolute space by reason of constant velocity of light.

 

Technique Two.

 

(Note: Principle of Absolute relativity; No observation frame (observer) can detect and/or measure light that is emitted from its frame)

 

Light is sent in a strait A to B path from source to a detector. The clocks for observer and detector have to be previously syncronised. The clocks need to be accurate enough to detect a change in the range of approx. 0.0001 of a second

see here: (30km/sec [earths predicted speed] / 300,000km/s [about lights speed] = ) 0.0001.

The light must be sent in various directions; a) parrallel to the motion of the apparatus (earths motion); in the same and opposite direction. b) perpendicular to the motion of the apparatus (earths motion), in both perpendicular directions (seperately).

Thus once this has been peformed one can conclude the speed of light traveling from a source to a detector (A to B) is consistant with C.

 

(Note: No round trips! the observer must not detect the light that was emitted from its frame. In order to measure the velocity, the clocks between the observer and the destination [detector] must compare actual arrival time [for detector] with calculated arrival time [considering the distance of A to B and the velocity of light] for the observer.)

 

(Note that the MM experiment does not include the form of technique two.)

 

The following is the calculated result of the MM experiment in respect of the two techniques to measure the speed of light:

 

For mathamatical purposes:

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

Velocity(light) = Velocity(source) + C, or V(l) = V(s) + C

note: C is speed of light

note: Velocity(light) relative to the observer (the system). Also, the Velocity(source) is negetive (-) in upstream aether and remains positive (+) in downstream & perpendicular motion relative to the observer (we exclude a velocity change when the light makes a perpendicular path relative to the system due to the very small change for simplified explanation).

 

 

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

step 1:The light leaves the laser (light source) head on into the aether. The measured and calculated velocity of the photon is 0.9C relative to the source frame (the system 0.1C). In respect to light moving through an absolute medium the movement through such an aether is expected to create a wind effect that would affect the velocity of the light as it made its way through relative to the observer.

 

Light path A & B:

V(l) = -V(s) + C

V(l) = (-0.1C) + C

V(l) = 0.9C

 

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 reflected from the center mirrior at what is now capable to travel at C or 1C.

 

Light path A:

V(l) = -V(s) + C

V(l) = (-0.1C) + C

V(l) = 0.9C

 

Light path B:

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.1 C) + C

V(l) = 1.1C

 

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

step 3:The light reflects from the outter most mirrors (of equal distance from center) and returns to the center mirror.

 

Light path A:

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.1C) + C

V(l) = 1.1C

 

Light path B:

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0) + C

V(l) = 1C

 

 

 

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

The light path A reflects from the mirror and turns pependicular to the system on the final stretch to make there way to the detector.

note: one arrow was crossed out to show that they have returned to one wave form again. Light path B passes unchanged through the half silvered mirror (center mirror) and continues on its way to the detector.

 

Light path A:

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0) + C

V(l) = 1C

 

Light path B:

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0) + C

V(l) = 1C

 

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

This table shows the different velocities of the light relative the experiment system in each step and direction.

We see in the table that although the velocities changed in one way directions, they cancle out as 1C.

0.9C + 1.1C = 2C. The average is 1C. Or the "return trip" would result in C.

note:(unable to show this step where 0.9 one way and 1.1 the other equates as equal to the time of C for both ways: help?)

 

 

However, when we look at the velocity of the light relative to the aether (absolute frame) through each path and step we get.

 

Velocity(light relative to aether) = Velocity(light relative to source) + Velocity(system/observer)

 

note: towards source is negetive (-) and towards or perpendicular remains positive for Velocity(light relative to source)

 

Equation flip:

Velocity(light relative to source) + Velocity(system/observer) = Velocity(light relative to aether)

 

path A

step

a)0.9 + 0.1 = 1

b)0.9 + 0.1 = 1

c)1.1 - 0.1 = 1

d)1 + 0 = 1

(we see in path A of light, it remained C at all times relative to the aether, and C relative to the observer [when it returned])

 

path B:

step

a)0.9 + 0.1 = 1

b)1 + 0 = 1

c)1 + 0 = 1

d)1 + 0 = 1

(we see in path B of light, it remained C at all times relative to the aether, and C relative to the observer for return trip measurment.

 

Thus the velocity of light in conventional measurement obey's the constant speed of light for both aether and observer.

 

 

 

 

How to correctly detect a form of aether.

 

If Michelson-Morely Experiment was rearranged in the following configuration an result could be found in an aether enviroment.

 

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 with aether effects being hypothesised.

 

 

 

Special Relativity with Hypothesised Absolute Relativity.

 

The following list is the simularities and differences between the theories and the consequences.

 

Simularities

 

Special Relativity:

- Special principle of relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. In other words, there are no privileged inertial frames of reference.

- Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant © which is independent of the motion of the light source.

-proved true or false by measuring the constant speed of light in both mentioned techniques in all directions.

 

Absolute Relativity:

- Special principle of relativity - The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. In other words, there are no privileged inertial frames of reference.

- Invariance of c - The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant © which is independent of the motion of the light source (with return trip measurments).

-proved true or false by measuring the constant speed of light in both mentioned techniques in all directions.

 

Differences:

 

Special Relativity:

-No stationary reference frame

-distance and time depend on the observer, and that time and space are perceived differently, depending on the observer. (space-time).

-no properties of aether

 

Absolute Relativity:

-stationary reference frame

-distance and time is fixed: Time has two explainations. 1)That what light shows and the rate of which it is seen within an observation frame 2)A constant fixed time among all material in the universe in syncronization. Distance and posistion of objects is uncertain at relativistic velocities. That is the posistion of the object relative to the observed light is not the same, thus the object is equal (=) time (t) in the future to the observer as is the time in which it takes the light to reach the observer over the specific distance, and futhermore is also dependent on the objects velocity relative to the observer.

-properties of aether are that light can only be made into its wave form at the velocity of C which is determined by the permittivity and permeability of that space. The atom as freedom to act up to the velocity of C relative to the aether. Eg. If an object was moving at 0.9C through space it would be capable act in 0.9C + C away from the direction of travel, and 0.1C in the direction of travel. The propose element here is that this is the reasoning behind E=MC^2.

 

The concluding accertion:

The hypothesised result of these simularites and differences is that all observed experimental data can be explained in two options; Special Relativity and Absolute Relativity. The explainations to specific experiments is not yet included in this paper. 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 mechanics.

 

 

Support on this theory from past experiments

 

In my research I came across an experiment in the past that found a change in the frequency of light emitted from a gas that was excited by a source of light. The source of light and gas was placed on a turntable in which it could change directions relative to space as it did a change in wavelength occured.

 

The following are the links of which support this claim.

 

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

 

Check near Fig 4 (below Enter Mossbauer)

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.

[swansont]

Vl = (0.1 C) + C

Vl = 1.1C

 

and

 

Vl = (-0.1 C) + C

Vl = 0.9C

 

Then, 0.9 + 1.1 = 2C/2= 1 = C

 

No, this is wrong. You haven't changed anything. Repeating it doesn't make it right.

 

v = 2d/(t₁ + t₂) speed is distance divided by transit time

 

t₁ = d/1.1c

t₂ = d/0.9c

 

v = 0.99c

 

If you don't believe it, try it with some outrageous numbers. Go a mile at 1 mph, and return at 1 million mph. Your average speed will not be 500,000.5 mph, it will be marginally below 2 mph.

[D H]

You haven't changed anything. Repeating it doesn't make it right.

 

In the minds of crackpots and politicians, repeating something enough times does make it right.