Peter Ammon wrote:
<<
>And as Jerry pointed out in a recent post, a laser ring gyro, which is
>commonly used for navigation, has differing speeds of the light beams in
>various relative directions, and can be used to indicate the direction change
>of the vehicle in which it resides. (conventional empty space has a hard time
>explaining this)
I am pretty sure that the Sagnac effect, which is responsible for the
phenomena you describe, is well understood and accounted for by special
relativity. For example, I found http://mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
which agrees with my understanding.
>>
So you are agreeing with this hodgepodge/paradox/silliness?
Perhaps my feeble little brain is confused, but upon reading the paper at the
above link, it states that a ring laser gyro, both does, and does not,
violate SR. And it both does, and does not, violate the speed of light
constraint imposed by SR.
AND it appears to violate Einstein's own analogy - that an observer on the
ground, and two test volunteers, one also fixed on the ground, and the other
on a moving train, both shining flashlights at the observer - Mr. E. states
that the observer will see the same speed of light from both the moving
source and the (relative to observer) fixed one.
Now you say that if two light beams are moving opposite to each other in a
ring laser, that their speed is not the same?
You cannot use the spurious argument that the distance of the counter
rotating beam is more than the co rotating beam, as the moving train example
is also changing distance in the same manner!!!!!
This kind of blindly accepted dogma of conventional science is exactly why I
for one do not take on faith anything that anyone says regarding what is
accepted!
I propose, as I am sure many others do, that if there is a paradox as a
result of a theory, you have not got the theory right!
_________________________
<<
>There is a phenomenon called Fresnel Drag, in which the speed of light
>passing through a liquid is altered if the liquid is moving. If the light
>direction is the same or opposite to the fluid flow, the fluid speed is added
>to or subtracted from the light speed. (again empty space/conventional
>theory cannot account for this)
Although I've never heard of Fresnel drag until you brought it up, I don't
see why the phenomena as you describe it is at odds with special
relativity. The speed of light through a liquid is less than c because the
photon is absorbed and then reemitted by the molecules that it strikes,
which takes some time. If the liquid was moving in the direction of the
photon, then the photon would be reemitted in a place further along its
path, which would increase the apparent speed of the photon.
>>
Again, excuse me if my feeble little brain is confused, but what planet do
you come from? Transmission of light through a material, in the majority of
cases DOES NOT involve absorption, and re-emission of photons! This only
occurs in special cases, with exotic materials.
Under normal conditions, materials such as water, or glass, absorb a very
small amount of the photons that PASS through the transparent material, hence
why it is called transparent. (and the small proportion that are absorbed do
not get re emitted, except in special cases)
The reason you have never heard of Fresnel Drag, is likely that it is
concrete evidence that we have something terribly wrong with modern physics
theory, and (the mainstream attempts to see that) this dirty little anomaly
should be buried, or ignored, or treated as a curiosity.
For a more thorough treatment of an excellent Aether theory, and explanation
of Fresnel's measurements, which were replicated and confirmed by Fizeau, are
found in the writings of Harold Aspen:
http://www.energyscience.co.uk/tu/tu05.htm
This explains the Fresnel Drag, and provides a plausible explanation as to
why this (measured) drag accounts for the null result of the early M-M
experiment.
In addition, it is a known (and as far as I am aware of) undisputed fact that
the speed of light is reduced upon traversing through matter - hence why
refraction occurs. What Fresnel found is that not only does light speed
reduce in matter, but if you move that matter in a frame (a lab) this also
affects the light speed proportionally.
(hence Fresnel showed that "something" is affecting light speed through
matter; and this something seems to be entrained by, or move with the matter
- therefore you SHOULD expect to find a null result of the M-M experiment.
This does not dismiss the "something" that still affects light speed in
matter)
________________________
In all fairness, my somewhat sarcastic tone may be unwarranted. I too, on
occasion write, or say things without careful thought, and succumb to
"foot-in-mouth" disease.
________________________
The "house of cards" of much of modern physics theory (accepted) can be
negated with simple logic, and awareness of the fallacy of the foundations:
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/littleton/mp_physi.htm
Sincerely,
DMBoss1021
-------------------------------------------------------------
To leave this list, email <listserver@keelynet.com>
with the body text: leave Interact
list archives and on line subscription forms are at
http://keelynet.com/interact/
-------------------------------------------------------------