I need help to write a paper

[Klaynos]

Just a quick question, you know that the MM experiment was trying it's hardest to prove that the aether existed, not disprove it?

[TriggerGrinn]

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.

 

I picked up on this last night and was actually quite bothered by it which is why I requested help on that particular 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?)

 

It is the time average. However I beleive that it there is one small vector additive that should work it out. I excluded it because it was so small.

 

It is for the perpendicular pathways of the light.

 

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

Of course it doesnt make a difference. I will address it. I just wanted to re-write the paper. I got some corrections to work on. So far I still have not recieved any help in how to write a paper. But I do apreciate the time you all took to review and find errors. thankyou.

[TriggerGrinn]

Just a quick question, you know that the MM experiment was trying it's hardest to prove that the aether existed, not disprove it?

 

yes sir, I do.

 

I That is why I expressed in the paper that the configuration they used is unable to detect any or any significant amount of delay in light time arrival whether or not any kind of aether wind was there or not.

 

Let me research some actual experimental data to further show you want I mean.

 

Question (to anyone): Did you read the re-arrangement of the MM experiment I suggested?

 

That apparatus would be much more capable to test change in light arrival time.

[TriggerGrinn]

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

 

I am not sure I know what you mean by this, but I hope you are not jumping to conclusions. It was an accident that I repeated it and I mean to adress it soon, in respect to the time anyone has spent in reading this paper.

[TriggerGrinn]

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.

 

The below is some corrections and editting. Notice in red, typo fixed.

 

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: (upstream)

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: (upstream)

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

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

V(l) = 0.9C

 

typo here.

Light path B: (perpendicular)

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.0 C) + C

V(l) = 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: (downstream)

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.1C) + C

V(l) = 1.1C

 

Light path B: (perpendicular)

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.0 C) + 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: (perpendicular)

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.0 C) + C

V(l) = 1C

 

Light path B: (perpendicular)

V(l) = V(s) + C

V(l) = (0.0 C) + C

V(l) = 1C

 

 

 

You are correct. I can not use an average velocity to assume C, however, let me express just how close a measurement of light in technique #1 (round trip), while the source is moving 0.1C in respect to the proposed aether.

 

 

Time for light at C to cover 2meters.

6.6667e-6 or 0.0000066667e-6 (seconds)

 

Time for light to cover 1m at 0.9C and another 1m at 1.1C

(@ 0.9C) 3.7037e-6 (seconds) + (@ 1.1C) 3.0303e-6 (seconds) = 0.0000067 (seconds)

 

The delay is practically null.

However, in the experiment I explained one could get results of much greater accuracy!

 

for example send a signal to a satalite or what have you.

eg.

Speed of light © to cover 10,000M = 0.033333seconds. aprox.

much less room for error. for source to detector experiments.

[TriggerGrinn]

Einstein himself still spoke of a type of ether that was not a “ponderable medium” but something of significance nonetheless. In an address about ether delivered on May 5th, 1920, in the University of Leiden, Einstein had the following to say:

 

“...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.”

[swansont]

You are correct. I can not use an average velocity to assume C, however, let me express just how close a measurement of light in technique #1 (round trip), while the source is moving 0.1C in respect to the proposed aether.

 

 

Time for light at C to cover 2meters.

6.6667e-6 or 0.0000066667e-6 (seconds)

 

Time for light to cover 1m at 0.9C and another 1m at 1.1C

(@ 0.9C) 3.7037e-6 (seconds) + (@ 1.1C) 3.0303e-6 (seconds) = 0.0000067 (seconds)

 

The delay is practically null.

However, in the experiment I explained one could get results of much greater accuracy!

 

for example send a signal to a satalite or what have you.

eg.

Speed of light © to cover 10,000M = 0.033333seconds. aprox.

much less room for error. for source to detector experiments.

 

Microsecond time delays are huge in this context. You should probably look at the phase difference of the light, since that's what is actually observed. For an idea of the time, all you need is the delay of a half of a wavelength of visible light — how long it takes for one light wave to travel (less than) half a micron longer than the other is the relevant time. Hint: The M-M device was sensitive enough to detect velocities much smaller than 0.1c

 

For you to be right a "small" difference is not good enough. The difference must be identically zero for all speeds.

[swansont]

Of course it doesnt make a difference. I will address it. I just wanted to re-write the paper. I got some corrections to work on. So far I still have not recieved any help in how to write a paper. But I do apreciate the time you all took to review and find errors. thankyou.

 

There's really no point in writing a paper until you have addressed the incorrect premise on which it is based. Nobody reviewing it will bother reading past the point where you make this incredibly fundamental mistake, since any conclusions based on a false premise are invalid.

[TriggerGrinn]

There's really no point in writing a paper until you have addressed the incorrect premise on which it is based. Nobody reviewing it will bother reading past the point where you make this incredibly fundamental mistake, since any conclusions based on a false premise are invalid.

Agreed.

If I can just explain the main part clearly enough then maybe I can get someone's interest, just enough for them to help me speak the language I dont quite get, the physics equations. I just do not have the experience with math to derive equations, flip them around, but I will do what I can and will take corrections when needed. Somebody take a chance on this, hahah, come-on whats to lose.

 

 

let us go over the Michelson-Morley Experiment. These are the equations and expectations of operation in the experiment. I will explain while refering to this imsage where I beleive it has gone wrong, and what differences come about when you change it (it=the geometry more or less)

 

Note: from this view on the experiment you are like a birds eye view observation frame. This is important to keep in mind.

 

In the 'rest frame' example everything looks great, everything IS right. The only thing to remember is you can not see light travel like this. It is purely a hypothetical diagram to express the visualization. This will become important to understand later in this post.

 

The moving frame diagram is the classical concept of the lights path as it moves with-in a moving frame. It is drawn to cover a longer distance as it reflects along the mirrors. However as I said we are looking from a (birds eye view) observation frame if you will. It is not possible for us to 'see' a photon move along mirrors in this nature. Thus the expectation of it to act in this form is not certain.

 

One would need the light or laser path to reflect off of dust particles (or smoke particles) as it made its journey along the mirror paths. Thus if there is distance between the observer (from our birds eye like view) and the system, then there is a delay in time, and a seperation in posistion in all moving light paths.

 

Let us presume that the light path remains at rest (in respect to the direction of motion of the system) as it leaves the light source. Thus as the light moves along it remains covering the same distance as in in the rest diagram, traveling in a strait line. As the light moves there occurs a very slight drift in the light getting left behind. In this thought experiment, only just a slight drift to cause it to impact the mirror just millimeters the the 'left' in comparison to when it is at rest.

 

Next, the light reflects from this new source, a new photon!, and is sent out towards the center mirror and as it moves it along it again drifts just slightly 'downstream" <--.

 

Lastly, the light reflects from this mirror and is sent from this new source. Again it is a new photon. This source then sends the photon at C relative to the rest, and above C relative system (if we presume we know the velocity of such an aether).

 

The distance the light covered remains exactly the same as when at rest. The velocity of the light relative to at rest never changed. And for any posistion of observation the light would still measure to act at C.

 

An observer that remains at rest with this system observes the same thing, only from a closer distance presuming it is (along for the ride so to speak).

 

Moving onto the fringe shift.

 

The wavelength in the form I suggested would act differently.

Laws obeyed: for both the classical form & the form I described

-The light would remain at C

-The wavelength would change depending on the velocity of the system. (in repsect to observers)

 

In the form I am describing,

Once the two different light paths has been 'fired' in the same direction they should then end up as the same frequency one they reach the detect. This is because it is a new photon fired in a new direction and they are both fired in the same direction and the frequency of these two different paths comes from the same source. So on the final aproach they will then regain the same equal frequency. Aswell as the same arrival time. The only shift that could be measured or expected to be measured would be that of experimental error.

 

Let us see results of this experiment.

see here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/morley.html#c1

or below:

Over a period of about 50 years, the Michelson-Morley experiment was repeated with growing levels of sophistication. The overall result is a high level of confidence that the wavelength shift is consistent with zero.

 

______________________ (cm) Calculation Observation Ratio

Michelson, 1881 _________120 .04 .02 2

Michelson & Morley 1887 ___1100 .40 .01 40

Morley & Miller, 1902-04 ___3220 1.13 .015 80

Illingworth, 1927 _________200 .07 .0004 175

Joos,1930 _______________2100 .75 .002 375

 

We see that there is still a fringe shift. That being two different frequencies arriving at a screen. These shifts are claimed as experimental error. Special Relativity allows NO shift possible.

 

But as you see in the form of observation I have described, also, no shift is possible.

 

Thus if this test is considered to confirm something in science, It has confirmed special relativity, and it has confirmed absolute relativity, since they both would not allow fringe in this experiment. This experiment is not one with alot of confidence.

 

 

This is why I said there are two techniques to measure light that may give different results. Also, this is why I described the better means of testing for aether.

[TriggerGrinn]

MM experiment expectations in respect of Absolute Relativity.

 

This image shows the path of light through the MM apparatus in the aether enviroment according to the predictions in the AGR theory. The light remains Constant to C realtive to the aether. It aslo remains constant to C relative to any return trip measurements for an observer at rest with the apparatus.

 

As shown, the path time is equal to that C for observer, for aether.

There can be no fringe shift as the light paths have equal freqency and arrival time, Just as the MM expirement concluded.

 

A principle that forms under this model is:

Light has no momentum. That is, it will not contain or carry the motion of the source it leaves from.

 

Velocity is constant, (no acceleartion).

Velocity is proposed to be low enough not to cause too serious of a drift.

Just see how the laser(or photon if you prefer) continues in a perfect strait path in the aether at C in 1 dimension (vertical)

[Klaynos]

Even if you where right (which you are not) you would only account for the lack of effect at 2 angles 90degrees to each other in the wind, and the experiment covered more than that.

 

Why would they design an experiment that they knew would fail? They where not stupid.

[swansont]

Why would they design an experiment that they knew would fail? They where not stupid.

 

No, they weren't. They knew, for example, about stellar aberration, and the implication that we could not be at rest with respect to an aether.

[TriggerGrinn]

you would only account for the lack of effect at 2 angles 90degrees to each other in the wind, and the experiment covered more than that.

 

I mentioned it in simplistic form.

 

You could add a million angles if that was your desire. However, in the most basic form you need two angles at 90 degrees. You measure any time delay or frequency shift.

 

You then rotate the entire setup 90 degrees and test again.

 

Then rotate 90 degrees and test again, and again, and once more for good luck.

 

Then you have a much much more accurate and error free, controversal free test of such effect of aether wind.

 

As I have explained at first glance you can not tell the theory of Absolute Relativity from Special Relativity, they are that similar. They also support eachother. The work in SR can be directly applied to AR.

 

Because they are that similar it would be possible to use either theory to arrive at the understandings we do today. Thus it seems kind of unwise to make a conclusion of which of the two is, when you have inconsistent results in the ranges of 3x10^-17 seconds.

The thread is so thin that I am only suggesting it needs to be tested.

 

If AR is tested and disproven in the suggested apparatus, we have gained insight into science, and gained more confidence! SR has pretty shaky numbers backing it up, they are of very very small values. Alot of room for error.

If AR is tested and proven correct we have gained insight into science and gained confidence in moving forward.

 

The results of this experiment will give the ability to get values of a entire 2 full seconds if that is how you decide to perform the experiment. That should be CONCRETE evidence! to what is fact.

 

In my opinion, considering the mentioned possibilities, I would prefer a more confident and precise experiment.

 

Untill that time comes, and it will, our opinions on the matter are of no importance.

 

Wouldnt YOU want evidence that would convince people more easily? Create MORE support for science? Move us forward?

 

This is how we can do it.

[insane_alien]

3x10^-17

 

you do realise that we already have greater accuracies than that.

 

and i don't know what your saying about shaky numbers in SR, we've built many sytems completely dependant on SR being extremely accurate (see GPS) if your theory is right then the readings should give positions a few hundred meters out by now.

[TriggerGrinn]

The theory includes 'time dilation' Just not in the dimensional sense. more of the delay type.

 

Dont get me wrong. I respect the engineers and scientists that have developed such precise data. It is amazing what those people can do.

 

I would not dare to question todays credibility. What I am saying is that because SR has been tested so well, AR must explain the same phenominas, and it does, but it does it with Absolute rest of space.

 

Shaky numbers:

I am talking about certain past experiments that added support to SR. like Small time dilations in the billionths of a second. That is admitably a very short time.

 

If you could measure the effects up to 2 full seconds wouldnt you be interested?

This would be expensive however, because I am suggesting a detector placed as far out as the moon, on the moon, or orbiting the moon.

A more likely scenario would be something like a 1000meter path, which still gives much more credible measurements.

Plus the fact that a return path measurement can cancle out or nearly cancle out the effects in an aether enviroment, cause the experiment to be even lesser accurate. A one way path and this configuration adds time, and better detection of change.

 

I'd personally just like to see it happen, mainly because I have come to a conclusion there is a possible option.

[TriggerGrinn]

I need someont to check my work.

 

In Absolute Relativity, as you speed up you gain kinetic energy just like in SR. But the Atom will then act in values of greater than C in the direction away from motion.

Its like if you run this way ---> at 5m/s and you throw a ball this way <---- you have to throw it at 5m/s make it stop relative to the ground.

But lets say the ball is like light and must always travel at the constant. Lets say the constant for the ball is 10m/s. You the thrower needs to throw the ball at 5m/s + 10m/s again to make it travel 10m/s to a person wanting to catch it.

Relative to the catcher the ball moves at the constant 10m/s.

You can not detect light traveling away from you. We exclude the balls velocity when it leaves you at a hypothetical 15m/s. The catcher catches the ball. he wants to throw it back to you. The ball can not exceed 10m/s relative to the ground. So he throws it at 10m/s. You are traveling 5m/s. The ball slowly gets to you. at 5m/s

If you measured the time it took for the ball to go from you to the catcher back to you, it would be 15m/s <--- this way 5m/s this way -->

 

So lets pretend you did a measurement of how long it took the ball to travel from you to the catcher and back. The distance apart at the end is 50m.

 

-The ball traveled 50m to reach you.

 

-at 10m/s - 5m/s = 5m/s relative to you

 

-so it took 5 seconds to reach you from the catcher.

 

-when you through it to the catcher it traveled at 15m/s according to you(10m/s relative to the catcher)

 

-you were running at 5m/s so 5 seconds ago you were 25m closer.

 

-the ball took 1 seconds to reach the catcher when you through it.

so at 10m/s * 1s = 10m away when you threw it

 

so relative to you the ball went 15m/s and covered 10M yet took 1 second.

So it all took 1 second relative to you and the catcher.

 

catcher says: 10m/s * 1s = 10m

then catcher says 10m/s over 50M = 5seconds

 

catcher says: 5s + 1s = 6 seconds in total. It covered 50m + 10M = 60meters at 10m/s ...so still 6 seconds.

 

Lets do relative to you.

 

when you tossed it to the catcher - 15m/s for 10meters = 1s

 

when the catcher tossed it to you - you measured it moving 10m/s - 5m/s = 5m/s. The distance was 50M, the ball took also 5 seconds to reach you and you said it traveled 50m at 5m/s

 

 

15m/s and covered 10M yet took 1 second.

5m/s and covered 50M yet took 5 seconds.

 

for a total of 6 seconds to cover 50M with variable velocity.

 

 

 

How light speed is measured has been done with 'return' trips. So what if you just said move and you timed how long it took for the ball to travel 60meters at the constant of the ball of 10m/s. Well you end up with 6 seconds.

 

Relative to the ground the ball went 10m/s the whole time. constant.

 

 

 

We apply this all to light, and we see that when you time light to see its velocity in a round trip you get C.

However this does not mean that relative to you it is actually moving C.

[swansont]

It appears that you've demonstrated that Galilean transforms work, under the assumption that you can do Galilean transforms. But the thrower and catcher are in different frames, so I'm not sure what you are hoping to demonstrate here. This is not an analogy for the M-M experiment.

[TriggerGrinn]

What I am demonstrating is not yet mentioned.

 

I was wondering if the math work looked good. What do you think?

[swansont]

No, I can't make the actual numbers agree. I don't see where the 10m comes from.

[TriggerGrinn]

Let me summerize it to make it easier.

 

Rule: ball must travel a distance at 10m/s constant.

 

First:

 

A is moving at 5m/s this way --->

B is at rest.

A has the ball o

Distance between a and B is 10m just as A throws it.

(B)---10m----(oA-->)------------------------------|50M

 

 

*****

 

Second:

 

A throws the ball at 15m/s left <--.

Relative to B it goes 10m/s. 10m/s @ 10meters = 1second

Relative to the ground it goes 10m/s

Relative to A it goes 15m/s. 15m/s @ 10meters = 1second

It takes 1 second for the ball to reach B.

(B)----10m-o--(A-->)------------------------------|50M

(Bo)----10m---(A-->)------------------------------|50M

 

 

*****

 

 

Third:

 

B throws the ball at 10m/s , right -->.

Relative to B it goes 10m/s. 10m/s @ 50m = 5seconds

Relative to the ground it goes 10m/s " "

Relative to A it goes 5m/s. 5m/s @ 50meters = 5second

It takes 5 seconds for the ball to reach A @ distance 50m.

(B)----------o------------------(A-->)---------|50M

(B)-------------------------------------(oA-->)|50M

 

Relative to A the ball moved first at 15m/s then at 5m/s and still measured out to be equal with the balls constant, C=10m/s

 

Relative to B the ball moved first at 10m/s then at 10m/s again and measured out to be equal with the balls constant, C=10m/s

 

Relative to the ground the ball moved first at 10m/s then at 10m/s again and measured out to be equal with the balls constant, C=10m/s

[TriggerGrinn]

No, I can't make the actual numbers agree. I don't see where the 10m comes from.

 

It came about because I gave a starting point that said. The first throw took 1second, relative to all observation frames. Because the ball is at a constant, it comes to 10meters.

[TriggerGrinn]

I spotted the error.

 

 

A throws the ball at 15m/s left <--.

Relative to B it goes 10m/s. 10m/s @ 10meters = 1second

Relative to the ground it goes 10m/s

Relative to A it goes 15m/s. 15m/s @ 10meters = 1second

This is actually 10m/s because the destination it reaches is moving away.

however that is not all that related.

 

What was concluded here was that both for SR mechanics, and Absolute Relativity mechanics, C can remain constant, on round trip measurments.

[swansont]

But the question one must ask isn't "Can I come up with an experiment that won't disprove my thesis?"

 

You have to come up with a scenario that would disprove your thesis if you are wrong. Like the M-M experiment, that confirms that the light travels at c in both frames.

[insane_alien]

if you use relativity (and this is an effect we can see in particle accelerators) A cannot throw the ball at 15 m/s relative to him (i'm assuming that you mean the cosmic speed limit is 10m/s instead of c, if your not then this experiment isn't really relevant) but B will still see it approaching him at 10m/s relative to him. this works because of the time dilation and length contraction also predicted by relativity and also observed in reality.

[elas]

It appears that you've demonstrated that Galilean transforms work, under the assumption that you can do Galilean transforms. But the thrower and catcher are in different frames, so I'm not sure what you are hoping to demonstrate here. This is not an analogy for the M-M experiment.

 

Consider a third frame between thrower and catcher. Imagine a circle of runners at different speeds; on the diagonal place a line of stationery handlers. As each runner passes the end of the line a ball is passed to the handler at the end of the line and transferred from handler to handler along the line before being passed back to one of the runners. Now the speed of the object being transferred is related to the third frame of handlers and has nothing to do with the first and second frame emitting or receiving runners.

The speed of light is determined by its carriers (gravitons) and not by the speed of its dispatchers or receivers. Therefore the speed of light is constant in a field of vacuum fields (gravitons).