Albert Einstein and the speed of light

[willendure]

- See more at: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm#sth ... SqiSE.dpuf

I suppose I would need to read the criticism in full to understand why it was claimed that that is the case.
[/quote]

I see, at that link is a whole analysis of Millers work and Shanklands criticism. Something to read at work tomorrow...

[willendure]

- See more at: http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm#sth ... SqiSE.dpuf

"Possible temperature effects were evaluated by using radiant parabolic heaters to artificially heat the apparatus and the air through which the light-beam passed. These experiments showed the interferometer clearly was sensitive to artificial heating, and so steps were taken to eliminate the effect. Strong radiant heat sources, it was learned, would badly skew the apparatus if focused upon only one arm or pair of arms of the iron cross-beams. Equal heating of the apparatus had no such effect, but the metal arms were nevertheless covered with a one-inch cork insulation to guard against radiant thermal effects. The light-path was given a glass housing, which stabilized the temperature inside, and later, a light corrugated paper cover was added over the glass cover, which did not affect the ether-drift, but further protected against possible temperature variations. Low-level thermal effects were also evaluated, as from human body heat, by having the recording assistant stand in different locations while the apparatus was turned and operated."

Which negates Shanklands criticisms completely.

I think if I were a physics student today, I would look to upgrade Millers experiements to even greater sensitivity which is certainly possible using more modern equipment - not that Millers experiments were not accurate and sophisticated, but nowadays we have lasers . This does not seem an overly difficult or expensive experiment to repeat and in that sense it offers a very high ratio of bang-for-buck given that its implications would force a re-write of accepted theory. Of course, no-one would believe you, but if you could get a positive result and overcome the skepticism, the Nobel prize ought to be yours.

Could this not be tested with the Ligo interferometers? (They might as well do something useful with them).

Also Ligo in space, Lisa, is putting interferometers in satellites. Can they be used to repeat the experiment and measure the drift away from Earths influence?

[kiwi]

willendure

I think if I were a physics student today, I would look to upgrade Millers experiements to even greater sensitivity which is certainly possible using more modern equipment - not that Millers experiments were not accurate and sophisticated, but nowadays we have lasers . This does not seem an overly difficult or expensive experiment to repeat and in that sense it offers a very high ratio of bang-for-buck given that its implications would force a re-write of accepted theory. Of course, no-one would believe you, but if you could get a positive result and overcome the skepticism, the Nobel prize ought to be yours.

The gate-keepers hold the purse strings :/ ...

[willendure]

willendure

I think if I were a physics student today, I would look to upgrade Millers experiements to even greater sensitivity which is certainly possible using more modern equipment - not that Millers experiments were not accurate and sophisticated, but nowadays we have lasers . This does not seem an overly difficult or expensive experiment to repeat and in that sense it offers a very high ratio of bang-for-buck given that its implications would force a re-write of accepted theory. Of course, no-one would believe you, but if you could get a positive result and overcome the skepticism, the Nobel prize ought to be yours.

The gate-keepers hold the purse strings :/ ...

This does not seem a prohibitively expensive experiment to repeat.

It seems pretty obvious that Shankland buried Miller's work so he could bask in Einstien's light.

[willendure]

So it seems Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated several times in the last 20 years, to very high degrees of precision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210049
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401017
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504109

I could not easily pick out from these papers what non-zero values for ether drift they actually measured, or whether they did measure very close to zero. The terminology is a bit hard to decipher so I will need to take a longer look.

Also, no mention of where the experiments were conducted - in a basement, or a lab above ground, or what alitutude etc.

Also worth noting that most of these experiments due to the incredible accuracy with which we can measure stuff nowadays, are essentially miniaturaized versions of Michelson-Morley. Where Miller increased the size of the apparatus to let the beam travel further, these experiments seem to reduce it to tens of millimeters because that is sufficient to get a measurement with todays instruments. However, if letting the beam travel through open space that is not shielded from a hypothesised ether was important to Miller's experiments, I think that is missing from these.

If the experiment was to be repeated, it might be worth replicating the apparatus that Miller used more or less exactly. What we might add to it, is to completely automate the operation of it and the taking of readings, so that it can run continuously and take many more data points, and so that a person is not present to be accused of creating an uneven heat disitrbution in the room.

[Aardwolf]

So it seems Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated several times in the last 20 years, to very high degrees of precision.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0210049
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0401017
https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504109

I could not easily pick out from these papers what non-zero values for ether drift they actually measured, or whether they did measure very close to zero. The terminology is a bit hard to decipher so I will need to take a longer look.

Also, no mention of where the experiments were conducted - in a basement, or a lab above ground, or what alitutude etc.

Also worth noting that most of these experiments due to the incredible accuracy with which we can measure stuff nowadays, are essentially miniaturaized versions of Michelson-Morley. Where Miller increased the size of the apparatus to let the beam travel further, these experiments seem to reduce it to tens of millimeters because that is sufficient to get a measurement with todays instruments. However, if letting the beam travel through open space that is not shielded from a hypothesised ether was important to Miller's experiments, I think that is missing from these.

If the experiment was to be repeated, it might be worth replicating the apparatus that Miller used more or less exactly. What we might add to it, is to completely automate the operation of it and the taking of readings, so that it can run continuously and take many more data points, and so that a person is not present to be accused of creating an uneven heat disitrbution in the room.

The only way it can be done correctly is in an absolute vacuum.

EDIT: And probably away from any gravitational influence.

[Justatruthseeker]

I know most feel the CMBR is the result of ocianic interference, but I believe a more logical answer exists.

As we know Voyager and IBEX falsified everything standard cosmology believed about the Suns heliosphere. What they found was that particles from the solar wind came to an almost complete stop instead of veering sideways.

According to electrodynamic theory all charged particles must emit radiation when decelerated equal to the amount required for their acceleration. Quantum Mechanics would place this radiation in the microwave frequency. This would occur in a 360 degree sphere around the sun and to date no other radiation has been detected in the proper frequencies that would account for the required emmittance as those particles decelerate due to the double layer.

IMO the CMBR is the radiation emitted by the solar wind as it is decelerated at the Suns heliosphere.

[kiwi]

I know most feel the CMBR is the result of ocianic interference, but I believe a more logical answer exists.

A good point made by Robataille is ... "If the Microwave background signal is from the Cosmos ... where is the Oceans signature?

[Justatruthseeker]

I know most feel the CMBR is the result of ocianic interference, but I believe a more logical answer exists.

A good point made by Robataille is ... "If the Microwave background signal is from the Cosmos ... where is the Oceans signature?

This is those anonymous spikes in the CMBR.

But the question remains, where is the radiation that must be emitted as those charged particles are decelerated? This is a basics of electrodynamics. No other radiation signals have even been hinted at from all directions in space, as is the CMBR.

Because as you pointed out from Robataille, if the CMBR is from the oceans, then where is the signal from the deceleration of the solar wind from the cosmos? When Robataille formulated his hypothesis, the deceleration of the solar wind was not known about at that time.

[Justatruthseeker]

As for the speed of light the speed of light remains the same in all frames due to the energy content of each frame.

Look at the speedometer of your car. Imagine that 100 mph is the speed of light. As you begin to accelerate your division marks (clocks and rulers) change proportionally to the energy added from your change in velocity.

Now rotate the dial so that your zero point follows the needle. Our zero points also shift proportionally to energy added from changes in velocity.

Now look at your speedometer again. Notice that 100 mph is still 100 mph and can't be reached. Notice also your velocity reads as zero, just as it does right now despite the fact we are traveling at an unknown velocity through space.

This is why light remains constant regardless of velocity, because the velocity component is compensated for by the shift in our zero points.

This is why E told us that only in frames traveling in relative motion (the same approximate velocity) with respect to one another were the laws of physics the same. And in frames not traveling in relative motion with respect to one another were the laws of physics different. They are different because those frames do not share the same zero points.

Everything is relative, including our zero points. By not shifting our zero points people treat this frame as an absolute frame, even if unintentional. This is what leads to incorrect answers about energy requirements and mass preventing us from reaching c.

As with the speedometer our velocity will always read as zero and the speed of light will always remain the same. It can never be reached because our clocks and rulers will continue to change and our zero points will continue to shift.

This is also why every frame sees everything as normal and other frames as changed, because they do not share the same zero points. As your zero points shift along with your clocks and rulers with changes in velocity everything will appear to remain the same.

The reason no two people traveling at different velocities will agree, is because their clocks, rulers and zero points are no longer the same. It is not a thing of mere perception, but is an actual physical change in our clocks and rulers along with a shift of zero points due to energy added or subtracted from changes in velocity.

[sketch1946]

There are some deep issues with the nature of nothingness

"Strangely, physics has it that in a vacuum, photons do nothing to photons. So radio waves [and light] (electromagnetic waves) are nominally unaffected by magnetic and electric fields."

"But you're not always in a vacuum. Radio and light waves passing by matter are affected by matter: slowed down, bent, absorbed, maybe even distorted into other frequencies of wave."

(look at shape and colour of the sun as it dips over the horizon)

"Electric and magnetic fields can modify these interaction parameters of a substance, depending a lot on which substance it is.."

"Out in space is very thin gas, but it's almost all somewhat ionized, a plasma. Earth's ionosphere and radiation belts are a somewhat denser plasmas. Plasmas are affected by magnetic fields: given cyclotron resonance frequencies and a directionality for conducting slow waves along magnetic field lines. Some very low frequency radio waves are strongly bent by the magnetized plasma surrounding Earth. Normal earth-surface lightning radiates audio-frequency radio waves into space, which sometimes are bent to travel 1/3-way around the world following a magnetic field line."

https://stab-iitb.org/newton-mirror/ask ... y00804.htm

[kiwi]

When Robataille formulated his hypothesis, the deceleration of the solar wind was not known about at that time.

I find reference to Solar deceleration from 1997 .... out beyond Mars in this case ..

https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=xB3 ... dy&f=false

And a look at Solar Microwave emission and its interaction with Geo Magnetic activity from 1964 ...

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1969SoPh....7..448R

I will have a dig through his papers and see if the subject is covered at all ... as a rule Ive always found his research quite comprehensive.

Cheers

[sketch1946]

This is an interesting paper on an alternative explanation for the CMBR:

"It is generally accepted that the observed temperature fluctuation power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is in fact cosmological in origin. Extraordinary efforts have been taken to remove all possible sources of contamination. Interpretation of the observed CMB fluctuations has played a key role in the development of the concordant cold dark matter model (CDM) for the evolution of the Universe.

However an important source of contamination may have been overlooked.
Although originally believed to be perfectly spherical, recent results from the two Voyager spacecraft indicate that the solar wind termination shock (TS) which surrounds our solar system is asymmetric.

The TS forms where the outflowing supersonic solar wind is slowed to subsonic through its interaction with the interstellar wind. It marks the inner boundary of the heliosheath. The heliosheath is characterized by a turbulent, magnetized plasma. The outer boundary is the heliopause and occurs where the solar wind pressure balances that of the interstellar medium.

Analysis of the Voyager data collected while these spacecraft crossed the TS into the heliosheath shows the TS to be a boundary of abrupt changes in pressure, temperature, density, magnetic and electric field properties and ion and electron (plasma) properties. It should therefore be expected that the TS (and heliosheath) will leave an imprint on observed radiation which originates outside of the solar system and propagates through this optically thin boundary. We suggest that this imprint could be the low-order multipole moments of the CMB power spectrum and possibly the entire spectrum as well.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.2739.pdf

[willendure]

As for the speed of light the speed of light remains the same in all frames due to the energy content of each frame.

...

I would agree. A summary of what Einstein did is: he came up with thought experiments that lead to inconsistent or paradoxical results when applied to a non-relativistic universe, then came up with a mathematical descritpion that resolved those issues which form the theories of relativity. Well, it took a lot of hard work to do it, and it is difficult to understand it, but it is hard to disagree with such a logically consistent description of nature.

But every theory needs to be proved through experiment, and the way Miller's work has been discredited is dishonest science.

Not sure how we got onto the subject of CMBR on this thread?

[Justatruthseeker]

This is an interesting paper on an alternative explanation for the CMBR:

"It is generally accepted that the observed temperature fluctuation power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is in fact cosmological in origin. Extraordinary efforts have been taken to remove all possible sources of contamination. Interpretation of the observed CMB fluctuations has played a key role in the development of the concordant cold dark matter model (CDM) for the evolution of the Universe.

However an important source of contamination may have been overlooked.
Although originally believed to be perfectly spherical, recent results from the two Voyager spacecraft indicate that the solar wind termination shock (TS) which surrounds our solar system is asymmetric.

The TS forms where the outflowing supersonic solar wind is slowed to subsonic through its interaction with the interstellar wind. It marks the inner boundary of the heliosheath. The heliosheath is characterized by a turbulent, magnetized plasma. The outer boundary is the heliopause and occurs where the solar wind pressure balances that of the interstellar medium.

Analysis of the Voyager data collected while these spacecraft crossed the TS into the heliosheath shows the TS to be a boundary of abrupt changes in pressure, temperature, density, magnetic and electric field properties and ion and electron (plasma) properties. It should therefore be expected that the TS (and heliosheath) will leave an imprint on observed radiation which originates outside of the solar system and propagates through this optically thin boundary. We suggest that this imprint could be the low-order multipole moments of the CMB power spectrum and possibly the entire spectrum as well.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.2739.pdf

I'll buy the entire spectrum part. Notice they are still analyzing it in reference to the non-existent dark matter, so that their analysis is still flawed at present. But I am shocked they would even consider another source for the CMB. Thanks for the link, was not aware of it.

Oh and they still consider its slowing to be due to inrushing matter, when for sure it is due to the electric fields from the double layers. Of course getting them to consider double layers as the cause is another hurdle in itself.