Search   Memberlist   Usergroups
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
Author Message
Dlo
science forum beginner

Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:44 am    Post subject: "The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"

"The Impossibility of Measuring the Velocity of Light"

The idea that the velocity of light is the same no matter in what
reference frame it is measured is fundamental to the modern sceince of
physics. The premise started with the confusion resulting from failure of
the Michaelson-Morely experiment to reveal an absolute velocity reference
for space and shortly led to both the unique solution Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory and the general case solution (no Aether)
equivalent - the Special Theory of Relativity. Since the conclusion that the
velocity of light was constant in all reference frames is based on
observation, the necessity of understanding the methodology of measuring the
velocity of light should be apparent to all who would deal with relativistic
phenomena.

Velocity is defined as distance travelled (length) per unit time. If
one wishes to measure the velocity of any entity, be it light or bullets,
one needs in principle, a yardstick to measure the distance travelled and a
clock to measure the time required for the entity to travel that distance.
It behooves us then to examine the nature of the instruments which might be
used in making the required observations.

In principle, all measurements of length require the equivalent of a
yardstick. (It is not suitable, for example, to define length in terms a
number of wavelengths of light for our purpose since that would result in
measuring the velocity of light in terms of itself, an obvious absurdity.)
That yardstick is constructed, in effect, of an array of atomic nuclei
separated from each other ahd held in place by electromagnetic fields
("virtual photons" are one explanation of the operation of those fields.)
The atomic nuclei contains 99.95% of the mass(energy) of the atom and are on
the order of 10^-15 meters in diameter. The atoms in the array are separated
by about 10^-10 meters. To provide some perspective, a scale representation
would show that if the nuclei were enlarged to the size of a billiard ball,
the nominal distance between nuclei would be about 3.1 miles. Obviously the
length of the yardstick is determined almost entirely by the characteristics
of the electromagnetic forces acting between its nuclei. Similarly, time is
measured by counting the "ticks" of a clock or their equivalent. The time
between clock "ticks" is measured by the period of some type of resonant
system. Such a system could be composed of the coiled "hairspring" of a
watch and a balance wheel or it could be composed of the elasticity of the
bond between two atoms and the mass of those atoms. In all cases, the period
of the resonant system is determined by the spring constant acting in the
resonant system and the significant mass of that system. In other words,
with regard to relativistic effects, what is true of one type of clock is
true for all types of clocks!

Let us then consider what would happen if the velocity of light in free
space were to change. Since the atomic nuclei of the yardstick control their
separation by electromagnetic means, the nuclei would sense that their
separation was now "wrong" and they would move to correct the error. thus
causing the yardstick to change its length. The stiffness of the clocks
"hairspring" is also determined electromagnetic means and the mass of the
"balance wheel" is determined by the energy represented by that mass and the
velocity of light in accordance with M=E/C^2! The result would be that the
postulated change in the velocity of light should change the calibration of
the clock. If the Principle of Relativity is applicable, as indeed it must
be if the Laws of Physics are to be the same in all velocity and elevation
reference frames, then the length of our yardsticks and the speed of our
clocks must change as a result of the postulated change in the free space
velocity of light. Moreover, that change must be such that a measurement of
the velocity of light would be produce the same value regardless of the
reference frame (velocity, elevation) in which it was measured. This would
occur because the units of
measurement by which the velocity of light is measured would change to
conceal any actual change in that velocity. Any measurement of the velocity
of light that we may care to make is actually a measurement of the velocity
of light in terms of the velocity of light. Such a measurement is clearly
meaningless. The quantity we accept as the velocity of light probably
results from the dimensionaless Fine Structure Constant which reveals the
velocity of light in terms of the dielectric constant of space.

To add perspective to the discussion. It is axiomatic that every
process which involves obeying physical laws (including the "constancy" of
the velocity of light and the length of our "yardsticks" must contain the
following steps:

1:- It must measure the magnitude of the quantity in question.

2:- It must compare the measured quantity with its nominal value.

3:- It must apply the necessary "force" to reduce any error towards
zero.

This is not an invention of the writer. It is a requirement of any stable
process.

The framers of relativity theory missed the boat in not digging deeply
enough. It is not enough to accept the Principle of Relativity. The question
they should have asked is why does the Principle of Relativity hold. Such a
question leads to the very obvious answer that it holds because matter uses
the velocity of light to control its parameters. One need only to add the
proviso that information cannot propagate faster than the velocity of light
and the mysteries of SR vanish (providing one is not too lazy to follow the
reasoning through to its conclusion). In the case of gravity, the effects of
a change in the velocity of light between reference frames which differ in
elevation is immediately obvious, it is called gravity. Gravity results
because proximity to energy causes an increase in the "absolute" permeabilty
of the Aether. All of the known gravitational effects can be shown to follow
from this change. Space is not "curved". See
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm/ (1997);
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm (1987); and
http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS
TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT
MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY
VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS
ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD
CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

 Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
 Page 1 of 1 [1 Post]
 The time now is Tue Mar 26, 2019 1:50 am | All times are GMT
 Jump to: Select a forum-------------------Forum index|___Science and Technology    |___Math    |   |___Research    |   |___num-analysis    |   |___Symbolic    |   |___Combinatorics    |   |___Probability    |   |   |___Prediction    |   |       |   |___Undergraduate    |   |___Recreational    |       |___Physics    |   |___Research    |   |___New Theories    |   |___Acoustics    |   |___Electromagnetics    |   |___Strings    |   |___Particle    |   |___Fusion    |   |___Relativity    |       |___Chem    |   |___Analytical    |   |___Electrochem    |   |   |___Battery    |   |       |   |___Coatings    |       |___Engineering        |___Control        |___Mechanics        |___Chemical

 Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post Similar Topics Estimating Errors in Measuring Volume arguani Math 0 Tue Aug 29, 2006 2:11 am The geometric representation of spin for elliptic polariz... Josef Matz Electromagnetics 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 6:35 am What frequency of sound would be to the ear what 750 THz ... Radium Acoustics 3 Sun Jul 16, 2006 2:55 am Measuring Background Noise Doug Acoustics 3 Wed Jul 12, 2006 12:53 pm Speed vs velocity. brian a m stuckless Electromagnetics 1 Tue Jul 11, 2006 12:30 pm