Measuring The Relative Velocity Of Light

[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.