Measuring The Relative Velocity Of Light

[wespe]

It depends on what you consider crude. The experiment hasn't been repeated with quite the care since Miller, to my knowledge.

You should try to extend your knowlegde then.
I searched for Repetitions of the MMX
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
I searched for the last one in the list (1979)
http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/100yrs/html/chap/fs2_07053.htm
See, it "has been repeated with quite the care since Miller". (4000-fold improvement).
Also, still, anyone can repeat the experiment. Instant nobel prize. not.

One reason Miller didn't do it is the rate of speed the device could turn. It weighed considerable floating in a bath of mercury, it wasn't a simple matter to stop and turn on a dimes., momentum is what they call it.

Yes and this type of device is very sensitive to any movement so you can't just rotate it without effecting the results. Plus there are every kinds of effects from the environment including non uniform gravity. That's why the non-zero results have to be considered carefully.

The vast majority of writers that i have read eferring to MM talki terms of null meaning zero, no affect stc, clearly this was not the case.

Please see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=null
"Of no consequence" "Amounting to nothing"

Note that in the above 1979 paper, there is of course some measured random data, but the result is interpreted as null by the experimenters because it is not meaninful compared to estimated values and considering experimental errors.

You might find the following of interest.

Not very interesting because it doesn't say anything new. As I said before, sure, if the results are confirmed, the theory would be invalid. What we are discussing is the confirmation part.

I do not understand you. I read Miller to say that th average he found for the erth was around 8.5 km/sec as an ether drag. Michelson Morley found like numbers. but M stated that their value was less than 1/4 he rbital velocity of 30km/sec . therefore the 8.5 value is significnt no matter how you look at it. Miller also found the largest results diurnally using sideral time (April and Feb if I remember) The 208 km/s was the velocity of Hercules toward the southern apex, a direction clearly not considered by astronomers, even to day I presume. While we are moving approximately 20 km/s toward hecules hecules is moving over 200 kms to the south.

I don't understand you either. I don't think you comprehend what you read and you just quote parts taken from somewhere without any grasp. I already knew you have a problem understanding what relative speed is, but this is just too much...

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

To Michael F. Dmitriev and the Forum:

The visible light is the frequency spectrum that your eye's retina reacts on as resonance absorption. In that meaning is visible light constant. But you don’t see (or yet understand) that redshift that is wave-elongation that is caused of an entropy-effect that drives the radiation towards equilibrium in the supra-leading temperatures in the cosmic background radiation's heat death.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity. Light's velocity is the stroboscope-frozen spectrum that the eye reacts on and we do not se or understand (yet) that all the electrodynamic waves that increase in velocity have higher velocity than the light's velocity. Electrodynamic waves accelerates (1.986 x 10^-26 km/s^2) and it is not the galaxies or the universe that expands.

Planck did not find or understand that the difference between the wave-units that is 6.63 x 10^-34 is the fractional entropy-elongation of the waves that is proportional to the wavelengths. This is also the explanation to the redshift and the right redshift-constant that will replace Hubble’s misinterpreted redshift-constant. It is not the universe that is expanding -- but it is the electrodynamic waves that accelerate away.

My theory and its beautiful equations also explain Pound-Rebka's misinterpreted Mossbauer-experiment that is not a gravitation-effect. It also explains by insight and right values -- compared to the measured data -- the Pioneers' anomalous acceleration. Both those "experiment" have the same explanation and computing method of algorithmic equations.

An observer that moves relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter in this relation [The eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths change with the observer's light-frequency and proportional to his velocity. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wavelengths of his lightspectrum increase 10%. And the observer in rest sees the light's wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 –he sees the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths.

In August you can read on my homepage www.theuniphysics[/URL] my great paper from the NPA&AAAS-conference in Denver in April 2004.

Ingvar Astrand, Sweden[/QUOTE]
Ingvar Astrand,
As far as I have understood, your theory connects a change of a wave length (frequency) with acceleration of this wave. Then the speed of radiowave in a long-wave range should multiply exceed the speed of visible light. Experiments with these radiowaves does not give the basis for such conclusions.
Do you have another results?


Michael

 

[geistkiesel]

To Michael F. Dmitriev and the Forum:

The visible light is the frequency spectrum that your eye's retina reacts on as resonance absorption. In that meaning is visible light constant. But you don’t see (or yet understand) that redshift that is wave-elongation that is caused of an entropy-effect that drives the radiation towards equilibrium in the supra-leading temperatures in the cosmic background radiation's heat death.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity. Light's velocity is the stroboscope-frozen spectrum that the eye reacts on and we do not se or understand (yet) that all the electrodynamic waves that increase in velocity have higher velocity than the light's velocity. Electrodynamic waves accelerates (1.986 x 10^-26 km/s^2) and it is not the galaxies or the universe that expands.

Planck did not find or understand that the difference between the wave-units that is 6.63 x 10^-34 is the fractional entropy-elongation of the waves that is proportional to the wavelengths. This is also the explanation to the redshift and the right redshift-constant that will replace Hubble’s misinterpreted redshift-constant. It is not the universe that is expanding -- but it is the electrodynamic waves that accelerate away.

My theory and its beautiful equations also explain Pound-Rebka's misinterpreted Mossbauer-experiment that is not a gravitation-effect. It also explains by insight and right values -- compared to the measured data -- the Pioneers' anomalous acceleration. Both those "experiment" have the same explanation and computing method of algorithmic equations.

An observer that moves relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter in this relation [The eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths change with the observer's light-frequency and proportional to his velocity. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wavelengths of his lightspectrum increase 10%. And the observer in rest sees the light's wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 –he sees the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths.

Ingvar I made some calculations assuming an arbitrary wavelength of 10^-8meters, for the condition of a stationary observer. A complete wavelength will pass the eye in (10^-8)/(3x 10^8m/s) = .3333 x 10^-16 seconds for a frequency of 1/.3333 x10^-16 = 3.0000x 10^16/sec.

Now when we add the obserevers speed of .1c we get the new relative velocity of 3.3 x 10^8m/s. For our unperturbed wavelength we calculate the new frequency by dividing the relative speed by the known wavelength, or (3.3x 10^8m/s)/(10^-8m) = 3.3 x 10^16/s.

Of course the wavelength is (3.3 x 10^8m/s)/(3.3 x 10^10-8m) = 10^-8m.

If the relative velocity is not considered we get 3 x 10^8m/s)/(3.3 x 10 ^16/s) = .9090 x 10^8m.

Redshift implies wave-elongation, which implies that the electrodynamic waves increase in velocity that is proportional to the increased velocity.

First you must ovecome the constant velocity of light in vacuo ~ 3 x 10^8m/s and then ovecome the implication that frequency increases cause the red shift.

It is the conclusions of some that the mere measuring of a wavelength of light does not squeeze the wavelengths shorter when passing the eye and is not affected by entropy considerations as you suggest. However, the frequency of the passing wavelengths is increased as I have calculated when the obsever's relative velocity is considered.

Does it not seem more rational that the frequency will increase rather than the wavelength decrease? Red shift is an incease in the frequency in doppler measurements, not a shortening of wavelength.

 

[ram1024]

well to the people preserving SR, you moving towards a light or away from it affects the frequency which in turn automatically affects the wavelength.

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

 

[geistkiesel]

well to the people preserving SR, you moving towards a light or away from it affects the frequency which in turn automatically affects the wavelength.

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

You are correct. The SR people do not add the relative velocity of the moving observer, therefore they will always measure a shrunken wavelength, which the ascribe to time dilation and mass shrinking etc and will always measure c = 300,000km/sec with the dilated time and shrunken mass.
I am niot considering shortened mass, only increased frequency. You are correct they use FL = C blindly. Even Maxwll only said that "a shortened wavelenth means generally a faster fr3equency" He diod not say, expressly that FL = c blindly. I have griossly parphrased maxwell in this.

But to others moving into the on coming wave front does not squeeze the wave length shorter. However, the frequency does increase. If a wave is coming you at velocity 10distance/time and you are stationary and say you detect the wave length at 1distance. Therefore the wavelength will pass you by at 1/10 (length divided by speed) = .1 (in time units) The frequency is just the reciprocal of this, or 1/.1 = 10/time.

Now move against the wave at .1 unit of speed. The combined relative speed is 1.1distance/time. Calculating the frequency using the known wave length 1, we get 1/1.1 = .9090 sec for the time the wave takes to pass you. The frquency is the reciprocal, just 1/,9090 = 1.100/time, an increase in frequency. Now let us calculate the wave length using the measured frequency but not including the velocity of the observer.

1/1.100 (wavelength velocity divided by the measured frequency) ~.9090. We have a shortened wave length by, 1 - .9090 = .091, by not considering the observer's velocity. One problem though. This calculation does not agree with SR calculation of a shortened wave length, which may mean the added velocity scenario is correct, or needs further adjustment. So there is a bit more to the story.

 

[Ingvar Astrand]

Ingvar Astrand's answer to geistkiesel:

Does it not seem more rational that the frequency will increase rather than the wavelength decrease? Red shift is an incease in the frequency in doppler measurements, not a shortening of wavelength.

No redshift implies increasing wavelengths and decreasing frequencies.
The frequencies of the wave-units that the moving observer meet increase (he meets the wave-units faster) and he sees longer waves that appears shorter to him. So the light-spectrum he sees have - depending on his eyes' invariant frequency-reaction - longer wave-lengths in the reality (relative to the space or the observer in rest).

The complicated Doppler-formulas do hardly explain what really happens.

An observer that moves forwards relative to the radiation from a source have his eyes' optical (light) frequency spectrum invariant but the wavelengths appears as shorter to him [the eye's invariable frequency = (c+observer’s velocity)/wavelength]. The wavelengths of the light spectrum that appear as (is) normal for the moving observer's eyes are wavelengths that relative to the space in rest are longer.

The apparent wavelengths are the variable parameter that is changed proportionally with the observer's velocity depending on his eyes' inherent invariable light-frequency-reaction. If he travels at c+10% of c, the wave-units he sees (appears to him) as normal are the true wavelengths that are 10% longer. And the observer in rest sees the same wavelength’s spectrum as it is, proportional to his velocity that is 0 – that is: the laboratory-relation between frequencies and wavelengths

Let me refer to your example: First: frequency = velocity / wavelength
Let us calculate a specific yellow color of 6000 A (Angstrom) or 6 x 10^-7 m.

An observer in rest sees this yellow color's (laboratory-)frequency at (3 x 10^8m/s) / (6 x 10^-7 m/n) = 5 x 10^14 n/s (Hz)

Independent of his velocity this yellow color to him always has the frequency: 5 x 10^14 n/s (Hz).

If an observer moves at c+10% of c, his yellow color's wavelength is: (3.3 x 10^8m/s) / (5 x 10^14 n/s) = 6.6 x 10^-7 m (6600 A).

My derivation of the real theory of relativity is: symmetric, understandable, calculateable, and no crazy dilation of space or time. Now you need neither Lorentz' unintelligible equation nor Doppler's hardly explainable formulation.

I have presented my wholw "unified theory of physics" with this transition calculation (translation formulation) in proceedings at conferences in Kazan State University in Russia 2003, and with NPA and AAAS in Denver 2004.
In August you can read my whole theory at: http://www.theuniphysics.info

But till then, take a look at my Denver-abstracts and see the great range of the unified theory of physics.

 

[geistkiesel]

Realist conundrum in wavelength modification during doppler measurement.

I understand your post. It seems to me arbitrary, which doesn't make it erroneous, that an intrinsic characteristic of the light, i.e. the wavelength would change, lengthen, and the frequency would be the determining factor? Do you see my "realist" conundrum?

How does the wavelength get modified during measurement anyway?

 

[ram1024]

If an observer moves at c+10% of c, his yellow color's wavelength is: (3.3 x 10^8m/s) / (5 x 10^14 n/s) = 6.6 x 10^-7 m (6600 A)

nah he's saying the color that the observer WOULD perceive as being "yellow" would be modified versus standard Earth measurements because to get that frequency he'd have to subtract his own velocity.

but the eyeball doesn't subtract velocity on its own, so on paper yellow is 6.6x10^7 m to him at that speed

 

[russ_watters]

the thing is, greater frequency, but shorter wavelength doesn't mean anything to someone with time dilation and length contraction. in their units they can't detect redshift.

Have you actually done the math or do you just assume that it works out that way?

 

[ram1024]

no i haven't, I'm not an SR person. from what i GATHER, you guys can't detect redshift as we define it, only doppler redshift from motion of the stellar bodies.

why don't YOU tell ME :D

 

[geistkiesel]

You should try to extend your knowlegde then.
I searched for Repetitions of the MMX
http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html
I searched for the last one in the list (1979)
http://fangio.magnet.fsu.edu/~vlad/pr100/100yrs/html/chap/fs2_07053.htm
See, it "has been repeated with quite the care since Miller". (4000-fold improvement).
Also, still, anyone can repeat the experiment. Instant nobel prize. not.

Your 4000 fold improvement number is questionable. The authors there mentioned MM and Joos, and ignored Miller who did approx. 200,000 MM type experiopments with the known results. Miller questioned Joos' experimental technique. The authors also assume a relativity scenario carrying through the experiment ( as far as I can tell). Personally I think the 79 paper is scientific junk.

Yes and this type of device is very sensitive to any movement so you can't just rotate it without effecting the results. Plus there are every kinds of effects from the environment including non uniform gravity. That's why the non-zero results have to be considered carefully.



Please see:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=null
"Of no consequence" "Amounting to nothing"

Note that in the above 1979 paper, there is of course some measured random data, but the result is interpreted as null by the experimenters because it is not meaninful compared to estimated values and considering experimental errors.

the 79 paper authors mentioned some data not considered. They also used diagnositc data in their results. You should read it a tad closer.
I give them a J for junk grade.

Th3e definition is always a matter of choice. What is null to wespe may be of monumnetal importance to someone else. Un;less the "null" or of no importance is quantified it is usless to me.

Not very interesting because it doesn't say anything new. As I said before, sure, if the results are confirmed, the theory would be invalid. What we are discussing is the confirmation part.


I don't understand you either. I don't think you comprehend what you read and you just quote parts taken from somewhere without any grasp. I already knew you have a problem understanding what relative speed is, but this is just too much...

I understand enough for me. Whether it is enough for you is not a concern of mine. I know what relative speed is. The only problem you have with that is it contradicts your SR store bought vesion of physics.

 

[wespe]

Personally I think the 79 paper is scientific junk.

Go repeat the experiment yourself and tell me your results. Until then, I will have to ignore you. Anyway, if I don't like your results, I will call them junk. So easy. Bye, Geistkiesel.

 

[Chronos]

Amazing. This thread has indisputably proven SRT is wrong. Incomprehension clearly propogates much faster than 'c'.

 

[Ingvar Astrand]

I understand your post. It seems to me arbitrary, which doesn't make it erroneous, that an intrinsic characteristic of the light, i.e. the wavelength would change, lengthen, and the frequency would be the determining factor? Do you see my "realist" conundrum?

How does the wavelength get modified during measurement anyway?

Thank you for your question that help me to make my explanation better.

The frequency is relativisticly dependent on the velocity and wavelength according to this realistic and well-proven formula
<frequency = velocity / wavelength >.

Consequently - an observer that moves towards a radiating source (a galaxy) meet the wave-units faster and the frequency increase proportionally to the observer’s velocity.

But the observer's eyes don't follow the specific waves away out from the visible spectrum. His color-spectrum (= the eye’s frequency-spectrum reaction) is invariant which implies that his eyes see the longer waves that move faster and increase in frequency as apparently shorter and the color-spectrum he sees moves proportionally to longer waves when he moves towards the source – and vice versa in the other direction.

Is this clear enough?
Maybe I need more training and more unawaited questions.