Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 12 Apr 2008 02:18 On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >1. The paper By Anderson makes no claim to light speed anisotropy as >explanation of the anomalous changes. > The possibility of a light speed anomaly is mentioned in here: The Energy Transfer Process in Planetary Flybys John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, Michael Martin Nieto http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608087 First paragraph of "4. Discussion"
From: Surfer on 12 Apr 2008 03:08 On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Apr 12, 12:18�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:18:48 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> >> >> >> >> >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >On Apr 11, 1:59�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >> >> On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 07:42:55 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >His "equation 7" is nothing but ballistic theory as applied to the >> >> >Ives-Stilwell experiment... >> >> >> There is a significant difference. The Ives-Stilwell experiment >> >> attempted to measure the doppler shift of photons emitted from fast >> >> moving hydrogen atoms. >> >> However, the hydrogen atoms would experience time dilation which would >> >> affect the frequency of the emitted photons. >> >> >> Now if the speed of light varies with direction, then time dilation >> >> will also vary with direction, and if these effects cancel the >> >> variable speed of light would be completely hidden. >> >> >Since when is time dilation a prediction of emission theory? >> >> I was discussing experiment. Not theory. >> Time dilation is an experimentally observed phenomenon. > >So is the constancy of the speed of light. > It depends on how you define your space and time coordinates. If you assume the speed of light is constant (in vacuum) and use the radar method to define the coordinates, then when you measure the speed of light in those coordinates, then it will of course be constant. That is usually the most convenient way to do things, but it is not the only way. Hence: Paragraph 2, Page 3 http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 "The repeated detection of the anisotropy of the speed of light is not in conflict with the results and consequences of Special Relativity (SR), although at face value it appears to be in conflict with Einstein�s 1905 postulate that the speed of light is an invariant in vacuum. However this contradiction is more apparent than real, for one needs to realise that the space and time coordinates used in the standard SR Einstein formalism are constructed to make the speed of light invariant wrt those special coordinates. To achieve that observers in relative motion must then relate their space and time coordinates by a Lorentz transformation that mixes space and time coordinates - but this is only an artifact of this formalism. Of course in the SR formalism one of the frames of reference could have always been designated as the observable one. Such an ontologically real frame of reference, only in which the speed of light is isotropic, has been detected for over 120 years. The usual literal interpretation of the 1905 Einstein postulate, viz that �the speed of light in vacuum is invariant�, is actually experimentally shown to be false." In connection with the above, an interesting question is with respect to what coordinate system are the trajectories of spacecraft defined? Are they defined with respect to a coordinate system set up by humans using the radar system that assumes (and hence ensures) a constant speed of light? Or are the trajectories defined by Nature, independently of what humans decide?
From: Dono on 12 Apr 2008 03:29 On Apr 11, 11:18 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Tue, 8 Apr 2008 07:21:27 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> > wrote: > > > > >1. The paper By Anderson makes no claim to light speed anisotropy as > >explanation of the anomalous changes. > > The possibility of a light speed anomaly is mentioned in here: > > The Energy Transfer Process in Planetary Flybys > John D. Anderson, James K. Campbell, Michael Martin Nietohttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608087 > > First paragraph of "4. Discussion" ....no connection with Rag's "paper"
From: Dono on 12 Apr 2008 03:31 On Apr 12, 12:08 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > Paragraph 2, Page 3http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 > > "The repeated detection of the anisotropy of the speed of light .... ....never happened, asswipe. Stop making up things, all the experiments designed to detect it came up null withing the error bars. Stop sucking to Rag.
From: Surfer on 12 Apr 2008 09:47
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:31:45 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> "The repeated detection of the anisotropy of the speed of light .... > >... all the experiments >designed to detect it came up null withing the error bars. > It depends on how the experiments are analysed. Opinions differ, as you know. |