## Sun's light beam and diffraction grating

 Quote by Cthugha It has already been pointed out to you that Gezari is a well known crackpot in this thread: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=615973 Why do you keep reposting his absurd manuscripts?
Yes, I agree he makes some mistakes even from my point of view.
But these calculations also like you say absurd
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy...ike_experiment
but nobody here say they (Kennedy–Thorndike) are crackpots.

Why just not to try to find where exactly people make mistakes?

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Alvydas Why just not to try to find where exactly people make mistakes?
Because your setup doesn't do that.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by Alvydas Why just not to try to find where exactly people make mistakes?
If you are suggesting that there is a "mistake" then you will, presumably, have some idea (calculation?) about just how big this mistake could be. How 'wrong' and by how much are you suggesting the present theory could be?
It is 'not Science' to propose just doing an experiment to see what happens; you need to make a prediction about a quantity or relationship (at least an order of magnitude) that can be verified. You initial diagram suggests an angle for the beam to be deviated. What is your suggested value of this angle?
You see, what you are proposing seems to make no sense (to me and others), so people would need some convincing if they were to bother to use it as a basis for investing in an experiment.

 Quote by sophiecentaur If you are suggesting that there is a "mistake" then you will, presumably, have some idea (calculation?) about just how big this mistake could be. How 'wrong' and by how much are you suggesting the present theory could be? It is 'not Science' to propose just doing an experiment to see what happens; you need to make a prediction about a quantity or relationship (at least an order of magnitude) that can be verified. You initial diagram suggests an angle for the beam to be deviated. What is your suggested value of this angle? You see, what you are proposing seems to make no sense (to me and others), so people would need some convincing if they were to bother to use it as a basis for investing in an experiment.
It can be I was wrong, by saying I am wrong.
Initially I had in minds deviation of angle equal to v/c.
This is easy to find because Sun's light comes perpendicularly to Earth rotation around Sun.
So income light impulse is of angle v/c from line Sun-Eath.
But all this mess is about the angle of wavefront when photon pass intermedia zone between two ethers.

At my last picture (where I was saying I am wrong) the final angle is of order v^2/c^2 not v/c.
(and the picture is not enough correct).
Somehow I made mistake by mind estimation. So this angle is not essential compare to v/c.
Better I will take some time out now to get some better understanding of all factors and prepare some better explanation.
 I still can not escape this crazy angle (v/c) if I stay on entrained ether positions. By passing boundary between two ethers photon follows its initial direction because of impulse conservation. It looks wavefront has not any reason/mechanic to change its orientation. At this picture http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/265/photon2.png wavefront comes exactly simultaneously to all slits of the grating, therefore it must generate new direction for order 0 (due interference) perpendicular to the grating. Would be good to test in reality. It would be very simple and cheep but reemitted in atmosphere photons likely becomes usual (with wavefront exactly perpendicular to the direction of photon's propagation) But I have not a satellite :) to try outside atmosphere where such interesting photons maybe may exist.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor You are arguing that you could measure an effect if it existed. But it has been shown, by more sensitive methods than the one you propose, not to exist. You are saying that 'it would be nice' for someone else to invest time and money in what would be a pointless exercise. Your diagrams are just fanciful and there are no detailed calculations to back them up. You would be better to spend your time learning more of the details of this stuff and not tinkering on the periphery - coming to nonsensical conclusions. Your thinking is very very muddled and just 'approximate'. I noticed two issues in your last post: What do you mean by the word "impulse" in this context? Impulse has a specific meaning. Are you referring to Momentum? What actual direction is your photon travelling in? If you look at the two vectors (v and c) on your diagram, they will have a resultant that has greater magnitude than c. That is hardly in accordance with what we know about the speed of light.

 Quote by sophiecentaur I noticed two issues in your last post: What do you mean by the word "impulse" in this context? Impulse has a specific meaning. Are you referring to Momentum? What actual direction is your photon travelling in? If you look at the two vectors (v and c) on your diagram, they will have a resultant that has greater magnitude than c. That is hardly in accordance with what we know about the speed of light.
Are here some experiments to detect separate weak photons of length 1 cm for example?
See picture:
http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/1152/weakphotons.png
By placing a set of semitransparent mirrors we may obtain single photons coming from a laser.
But have someone tried it with long waves?
What is know experiments to detect very weak/long wave lenght separate photons?

This maybe can be helpful to understand better previous question (to understand who really is a photon).

Sorry impulse in my language equals to momentum in English. I sometime mix it therefore.
Photon travels directly Sun - Earth line with velocity c relative to Sun until he is inside Sun's ether(yellow area).
But because Earth moves diagonally to this motion classically observer on the Earth would see it
quicker than c.
Just by adding 2 perpendicular vectors v and c.
My diagram is just what observer on Earth see from entrained ether view point.
Of course it must use classical velocity addition, because this view is not based on relativity.

I do not understand a little what numbers are not clear for you when you talk about the lack of calculations?

The main reason for this experiment is :
I do not know any already done experiment who would contradict to my view.
As I told before some of them like Probe B I can not explain, because of complex math
and not enough developed view itself, but every experiment I am able to calculate I can explain it without relativity also. You may try to name a few you like, but please not big list. It just would take too much time.

Mentor
There are experiments with single-photon sources. They do not use semi-transparent mirrors to produce single photons, but if you just want to reduce the photon flux, this is possible, of course.

 I do not understand a little what numbers are not clear for you when you talk about the lack of calculations?
Try to predict the result of the experiment, using calculus only. No hand-wavy argumentation, just simple calculations.

 Quote by mfb Try to predict the result of the experiment, using calculus only. No hand-wavy argumentation, just simple calculations.
There is some problem. If I would describe particular case with some approximations specific to this experiment you would show these approximations give some wrong predictions somewhere else. But if you look how I explain experiments one by one likely you would find clear system and predictability.
Everything comes from my view what is ether + a few properties to be able well explain known experiments. These things can not be derived from something more fundamental or same principles.
Things like that can be only guessed and tested. On top of it mathematicians can build a theory.
But this/any theory is not a body, it is just like contours of currently visible body. And it is always temporary because if you extend your mathematical predictions outside current known experimental facts, this extension has no more reliability than my visual predictions.

So what is this invisible/magical/many times refused ether?
I think people already have many bits of this puzzle.
Lets imagine virtual particle which jumps quickly forth and back between virtual particle and virtual photon state. All virtual particles together forms an ether in old style understanding.
All photons moves with velocity c only relative to this ether.
But this ether of virtual particles can move in different ways.
Gravity for example generates ether flow to the direction of centers of big masses.
Therefore we have gravitational light bending, black holes and so on.
But this ether is not something like real gas, you can not compress it.
Even gravity can not do this (except black hole),
because any surplus of density of virtual particles quickly transforms to virtual photons.
Something like saturated vapor quickly transforms to water if you try to arise pressure.
This analogy with saturated vapor is very important and explains (at least shows direction for explanation) why body do not feel ether pressure when it moves constantly,
but feel when it moves with acceleration.

This is almost everything to explain any experiment, but sometimes math becomes too complex.
So for me it is easier and more interesting is to look how exactly some specific experiment fits to this view and what new experiments I can find which do not fit to current accepted theories.
 Recognitions: Gold Member Science Advisor @Alvydas There have been countless experiments with satellites so you need not suggest any further, 'home-brewed' experiments to show this effect. The fact is that it hasn't been observed. It strikes me that you are making a very common mistake here. You have studied a certain amount of this topic and you feel qualified to launch into fundamental research into Earth-shattering new ideas. I should give it a few more years of basic education in Physics before you try to change the world. At this stage, I think you could use your time more profitably than championing a cause which, in a few year's time, you will see is a non-starter. This is 'fun' but nothing else. Do you seriously think that none of this has been considered in detail, by competent Physicists and rejected on very good grounds already? [edit: - your last post was there since I wrote this. You seem to be refusing to consider approaching this with Maths. In that case, you are bound to fail. There hasn't been a single bit of worthwhile Physics work that has been undertaken without Maths for at least 100 years. The actual Numbers are what count in this sort of thing. For a start - how would this experiment work without a vast amount of number crunching? Analogies are in the same league as self-invented simulations; they prove nothing.]

 Quote by sophiecentaur @Alvydas There have been countless experiments with satellites so you need not suggest any further, 'home-brewed' experiments to show this effect. The fact is that it hasn't been observed. It strikes me that you are making a very common mistake here. You have studied a certain amount of this topic and you feel qualified to launch into fundamental research into Earth-shattering new ideas. I should give it a few more years of basic education in Physics before you try to change the world. At this stage, I think you could use your time more profitably than championing a cause which, in a few year's time, you will see is a non-starter. This is 'fun' but nothing else. Do you seriously think that none of this has been considered in detail, by competent Physicists and rejected on very good grounds already? [edit: - your last post was there since I wrote this. You seem to be refusing to consider approaching this with Maths. In that case, you are bound to fail. There hasn't been a single bit of worthwhile Physics work that has been undertaken without Maths for at least 100 years. The actual Numbers are what count in this sort of thing. For a start - how would this experiment work without a vast amount of number crunching? Analogies are in the same league as self-invented simulations; they prove nothing.]
In general you may be right about some points you are saying,
but in particular case I just maybe a little do not understand your minds about math.
Here is almost pure geometrical task with almost no calculation needed.
Because it is pure geometrical I do not understand how to describe it without visual representation.
Without picture would be even not possible to understand what I talking about.

But this is not important if this discussion do not lead to some at least very small possibility to make real experiment.

But I am here not just to post my mind. If possible I would like to learn also.
You are saying: another more sensitive measurements shows absent of ether.

This point is really the most interesting to me.

Lets take one and discuss about it.
I can not argue against textbook where it is described, only discussion with real people is worth.
But as you sow MMX family for example is not sensitive to anything if we take contraction into account.
What other experiments are sensitive to ether wind if contraction of hard bodies still exist?

 Quote by sophiecentaur If you are suggesting that there is a "mistake" then you will, presumably, have some idea (calculation?) about just how big this mistake could be. How 'wrong' and by how much are you suggesting the present theory could be?
Here I was talking about Kennedy–Thorndike wrong calculations and compare it with Gezari mistakes.
I was showed some post up very simple right calculations for Kennedy–Thorndike.
Travel time do not vary due rotation, so there is no any reason to use different arms.
There is extremely good example how dangerous are calculations without visual understanding.

And I afraid we can get some misunderstanding because of my poor English.

Recognitions:
Gold Member