Miles Mathis

[altonhare]

However if you analyze it you will find that the speed added to c when sending a light wave with the "ether wind" outgoing would be compensated by the speed subtracted from c when the light wave is returning against the "ether wind".

But not if the light travels transversely to the direction of motion of the detector wrt the presumed aether. Hence fringe effect.

Nope. One cannot detect light that goes transversely wrt. to the presumed aether since that would not return to the same location. One will detect the light that went our under the right angle to be reflected back to the detector. The speedup during the outgoing path is again compensated by the slowdown during the incoming path. No fringe.

Keep in mind that light is emitted/propagated spherically in this particular model. For emitter/target stationary wrt the presumed aether the "center" of the "wave-front" will hit the target. For emitter/target moving then a somewhat off-center part of the "wave front" hits the target. It takes longer for the off-center part to get to the target than for the center part:

This might help

In the top instance light is emitted from C and the target(s) do not move. In the lower instance light is emitted from F and the target(s) move "to the right" wrt to the presumed aether. The presumed "wave-front" must traverse 12% more distance to get to the target in the lower instance than the upper one.
The expected delay is 0.12

[Corpuscles]

Again interesting papers.I wish Miles had tabulated his source of density and distances better as I can't follow some of his "simple" math/ equations.

But can someone help? Doesn't these mass,density, distance equations presume alignment of planets? ie the real relative distances between planets constantly change.

eg Mars on27th August 2009 was as close to Earth as it will be for over 200 yrs. Shouldn't that (according to the theory) have "straightened up Earths tilt for a while?

PS LOL! Alton, you are like a dog with a juicy old bone!

[webolife]

Alton,
Your "off-center" diagrams also work to explain the spectral fringes as a function of a pressure gradient wrt the "center line" of the light ray[beam]. In this scenario, the time differential found in the observation of a "return stroke" [so-to speak] can be related to the relative motions of both objects in space as a local [not the cosmological variety, which I disavow] redshift phenomenon, or to the [R.Sansbury] concept of "elasticity" within dipole elctrical sensors, without respect to any delay time of light "emissions" crossing/reflecting in that space. We've already had a bout elsewhere over this difference of opinion, so you need not reply to that if you don't wish.

[webolife]

JL, just to repeat here what you already know, I have no real problem with an aether; my* theory just doesn't require it. Or, perhaps it is "disguised" [*in RASmith's "Punctual Field Theory"] as active loci in the [immaterial] geometry of fields.

[altonhare]

Alton,
Your "off-center" diagrams also work to explain the spectral fringes as a function of a pressure gradient wrt the "center line" of the light ray[beam]. In this scenario, the time differential found in the observation of a "return stroke" [so-to speak] can be related to the relative motions of both objects in space as a local [not the cosmological variety, which I disavow] redshift phenomenon, or to the [R.Sansbury] concept of "elasticity" within dipole elctrical sensors, without respect to any delay time of light "emissions" crossing/reflecting in that space. We've already had a bout elsewhere over this difference of opinion, so you need not reply to that if you don't wish.

I've been trying to get an explanation of some of this stuff from you that I can understand for quite a while. Since I still don't, I'm willingto try again.

Firstly, there were/are no fringes in this expt. My diagram is intended to show why fringes would be expected based on a stationary LCM.

Secondly, pressure as I understand it is a macroscopic parameter referring to how hard it is to mechanically reduce the volume of a box. What you might be referring to, here, that I would understand is intensity. Usually light is not emitted exactly spherically, but is more intense on some parts of the "wave front" than others. For a laser almost all the intensity is concentrated on a very small portion of the "wave front", often defined as the "center line". The only way for the light to "miss" the detector is to have an extraordinarily narrow beam width combined with an extremely fast propagation though the proposed aether.

Thirdly, there is no propagation delay detected between the two trips. Notwithstanding, your rejection of wavelength shift as a measure of relative motion is due to your "infinite light" belief, which is religious not scientific.

[StevenO]

Nope. One cannot detect light that goes transversely wrt. to the presumed aether since that would not return to the same location. One will detect the light that went our under the right angle to be reflected back to the detector. The speedup during the outgoing path is again compensated by the slowdown during the incoming path. No fringe.

Keep in mind that light is emitted/propagated spherically in this particular model. For emitter/target stationary wrt the presumed aether the "center" of the "wave-front" will hit the target. For emitter/target moving then a somewhat off-center part of the "wave front" hits the target. It takes longer for the off-center part to get to the target than for the center part:

<snip>

In the top instance light is emitted from C and the target(s) do not move. In the lower instance light is emitted from F and the target(s) move "to the right" wrt to the presumed aether. The presumed "wave-front" must traverse 12% more distance to get to the target in the lower instance than the upper one.
The expected delay is 0.12

You are explaining things only half. The target remains point C or F. The ether is assumed to move anisotropically from the point of view of the detector. The wave could be slowed down by going from F to D, I don't dispute that, but it has to cover a shorter distance because D moves with the ether too. The wave will speed up by going back from D to F but the distance to target F will also be longer because of the moving ether. The total travel time is then still 2 x FD /c. Hence no fringe at F.

[altonhare]

Nope. One cannot detect light that goes transversely wrt. to the presumed aether since that would not return to the same location. One will detect the light that went our under the right angle to be reflected back to the detector. The speedup during the outgoing path is again compensated by the slowdown during the incoming path. No fringe.

Keep in mind that light is emitted/propagated spherically in this particular model. For emitter/target stationary wrt the presumed aether the "center" of the "wave-front" will hit the target. For emitter/target moving then a somewhat off-center part of the "wave front" hits the target. It takes longer for the off-center part to get to the target than for the center part:

<snip>

In the top instance light is emitted from C and the target(s) do not move. In the lower instance light is emitted from F and the target(s) move "to the right" wrt to the presumed aether. The presumed "wave-front" must traverse 12% more distance to get to the target in the lower instance than the upper one.
The expected delay is 0.12

You are explaining things only half. The target remains point C or F. The ether is assumed to move anisotropically from the point of view of the detector. The wave could be slowed down by going from F to D, I don't dispute that, but it has to cover a shorter distance because D moves with the ether too. The wave will speed up by going back from D to F but the distance to target F will also be longer because of the moving ether. The total travel time is then still 2 x FD /c. Hence no fringe at F.

The light is most certainly not "slowed". In this theory light always propagates at the same speed wrt the presumed aether! Same speed, longer distance both ways. The light will most certainly not get "sped back up" either. Light doesn't change speed wrt the presumed aether.

The aether is assumed stationary, not "moving anisotropically". The source and targets are assumed to either move (or not) wrt the aether. You incorrectly state the reverse.

On the return trip the situation is analogous:

The way back

In the top instance source and target(s) are stationary wrt th presumed aether. C has emitted light to B, which is now reflected back to C. On the way back B is the source and C is the target in the top.

In the bottom instance source and target(s) are moving to the right at 0.446c. F is the origin of the original light pulse. D is the origin of the 2nd light pulse. The half-silvered mirror was at F originally and has now moved to G. D is the source and G is the target.

[junglelord]

Aether is not stationary, why assume it is????

[StevenO]

The light is most certainly not "slowed". In this theory light always propagates at the same speed wrt the presumed aether! Same speed, longer distance both ways. The light will most certainly not get "sped back up" either. Light doesn't change speed wrt the presumed aether.

The aether is assumed stationary, not "moving anisotropically". The source and targets are assumed to either move (or not) wrt the aether. You incorrectly state the reverse.

That's a matter of variable assignment. The device does not move with respect to itself or the earth, but is presumed to have a speed respective to the ether. So one has to assign this speed to the lightwave then.

[altonhare]

The light is most certainly not "slowed". In this theory light always propagates at the same speed wrt the presumed aether! Same speed, longer distance both ways. The light will most certainly not get "sped back up" either. Light doesn't change speed wrt the presumed aether.

The aether is assumed stationary, not "moving anisotropically". The source and targets are assumed to either move (or not) wrt the aether. You incorrectly state the reverse.

That's a matter of variable assignment. The device does not move with respect to itself or the earth, but is presumed to have a speed respective to the ether. So one has to assign this speed to the lightwave then.

There's the speed of the light relative to the aether, which is c at all times, and the speed of light relative to the device, which (supposedly) depends on the motion of the device wrt the presumed aether.

In the top instance light is moving faster with respect to the device than in the bottom instance. But in both instances light is moving the same wrt the aether, which is the "proper" or "best" velocity to talk about according to this theory.

But in no scenario is a light wave ever "slowed". Once it is emitted, its velocity wrt the device is the same throughout its travel. Unless of course the device is stopped, but then the device is slowed, not the light. Without an aether you can talk about light being slowed instead because all inertial frames are equivalent, but with an aether it's incorrect to talk about a light wave being slowed.

[StevenO]

The light is most certainly not "slowed". In this theory light always propagates at the same speed wrt the presumed aether! Same speed, longer distance both ways. The light will most certainly not get "sped back up" either. Light doesn't change speed wrt the presumed aether.

The aether is assumed stationary, not "moving anisotropically". The source and targets are assumed to either move (or not) wrt the aether. You incorrectly state the reverse.

That's a matter of variable assignment. The device does not move with respect to itself or the earth, but is presumed to have a speed respective to the ether. So one has to assign this speed to the lightwave then.

There's the speed of the light relative to the aether, which is c at all times, and the speed of light relative to the device, which (supposedly) depends on the motion of the device wrt the presumed aether.

In the top instance light is moving faster with respect to the device than in the bottom instance. But in both instances light is moving the same wrt the aether, which is the "proper" or "best" velocity to talk about according to this theory.

But in no scenario is a light wave ever "slowed". Once it is emitted, its velocity wrt the device is the same throughout its travel. Unless of course the device is stopped, but then the device is slowed, not the light. Without an aether you can talk about light being slowed instead because all inertial frames are equivalent, but with an aether it's incorrect to talk about a light wave being slowed.

I'm with you in your first two paragraphs, but then you are presenting a contradiction (highlight added). If the device is moving at velocity +v respective to the ether the outgoing lightwave will travel at c-v and the reflected lightwave at c+v respective to the device.

[altonhare]

The light is most certainly not "slowed". In this theory light always propagates at the same speed wrt the presumed aether! Same speed, longer distance both ways. The light will most certainly not get "sped back up" either. Light doesn't change speed wrt the presumed aether.

The aether is assumed stationary, not "moving anisotropically". The source and targets are assumed to either move (or not) wrt the aether. You incorrectly state the reverse.

That's a matter of variable assignment. The device does not move with respect to itself or the earth, but is presumed to have a speed respective to the ether. So one has to assign this speed to the lightwave then.

There's the speed of the light relative to the aether, which is c at all times, and the speed of light relative to the device, which (supposedly) depends on the motion of the device wrt the presumed aether.

In the top instance light is moving faster with respect to the device than in the bottom instance. But in both instances light is moving the same wrt the aether, which is the "proper" or "best" velocity to talk about according to this theory.

But in no scenario is a light wave ever "slowed". Once it is emitted, its velocity wrt the device is the same throughout its travel. Unless of course the device is stopped, but then the device is slowed, not the light. Without an aether you can talk about light being slowed instead because all inertial frames are equivalent, but with an aether it's incorrect to talk about a light wave being slowed.

I'm with you in your first two paragraphs, but then you are presenting a contradiction (highlight added). If the device is moving at velocity +v respective to the ether the outgoing lightwave will travel at c-v and the reflected lightwave at c+v respective to the device.

Any individual light wave has the same velocity wrt the device, i.e. the outgoing wave and the incoming wave are 2 different light pulses. We could debate over whether it's one pulse being reflected or a pulse being absorbed and another pulse being emitted, but the more important point is the latter is how I intended the statement.

[StevenO]

Any individual light wave has the same velocity wrt the device, i.e. the outgoing wave and the incoming wave are 2 different light pulses. We could debate over whether it's one pulse being reflected or a pulse being absorbed and another pulse being emitted, but the more important point is the latter is how I intended the statement.

I see what you mean, but that would mean you would assign the velocity of the device to all lightwaves? That simply means all lightwaves move through the device at c+v and you will find no fringe. Miles mentions this as a valid representation.

[altonhare]

Any individual light wave has the same velocity wrt the device, i.e. the outgoing wave and the incoming wave are 2 different light pulses. We could debate over whether it's one pulse being reflected or a pulse being absorbed and another pulse being emitted, but the more important point is the latter is how I intended the statement.

I see what you mean, but that would mean you would assign the velocity of the device to all lightwaves? That simply means all lightwaves move through the device at c+v and you will find no fringe. Miles mentions this as a valid representation.

I could assign the light pulses a velocity relative to the aether, which is always the same, and calculate the velocity relative to the device, which will vary depending on the device's motion through the presumed aether. The result I get, a fringe, is consistent with a "field wave" model of light.

Alternatively I could assign the light pulses a velocity relative to the pulses' emitters (the device), which is always the same. The result, no fringe, is consistent with a "bullet" i.e. corpuscular model of light.

It was not known a priori which was correct.

[StevenO]

Any individual light wave has the same velocity wrt the device, i.e. the outgoing wave and the incoming wave are 2 different light pulses. We could debate over whether it's one pulse being reflected or a pulse being absorbed and another pulse being emitted, but the more important point is the latter is how I intended the statement.

I see what you mean, but that would mean you would assign the velocity of the device to all lightwaves? That simply means all lightwaves move through the device at c+v and you will find no fringe. Miles mentions this as a valid representation.

I could assign the light pulses a velocity relative to the aether, which is always the same, and calculate the velocity relative to the device, which will vary depending on the device's motion through the presumed aether. The result I get, a fringe, is consistent with a "field wave" model of light.

Alternatively I could assign the light pulses a velocity relative to the pulses' emitters (the device), which is always the same. The result, no fringe, is consistent with a "bullet" i.e. corpuscular model of light.

It was not known a priori which was correct.

Now you are talking nonsense to me. Your first option is equal to what I described above and should give no fringe since light just moves through the device as a wave with velocity c+v. Your second option also does not give a fringe. I find the bullet model less attractive since it supposedly should fire bullets at an angle if the bullets only move at speed c.