<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="Microsoft Word 97">
<TITLE>Problems with Relativity 2</TITLE>
<META NAME="Template" CONTENT="C:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\Office\html.dot">
<!-- This page was created using Personal Publisher from America Online, Inc.--></HEAD>
<BODY TEXT="#000000" LINK="#0000ff" VLINK="#800080"><H1>Problems with Relativity (Page 2) </H1>
<P><HR></P>
<A HREF="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html">Click here to go back to page 1.</A> <BR><BR>
<A NAME="exev">8. EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ON THE CONSTANCY OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT</A>
<IMG SRC="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/disc.jpg"><P>ms millisecond
S light sensor
M1 mirror (front
silvered)<P>
us microsecond
SR slip rings
DL1 adjustable delay
line<P>
ps picosecond
M/S meters per second
MT manual trigger <P>
T trigger
mm/S millimeters per second
F source of flash<P>
<P>
The disc has a light sensor S on its circumference, connected electrically via slip rings SR to the amplifier and then oscilloscope input A. At the opposite side of the disc to the sensor, there is a trigger T (eg hall effect) which will after amplification trigger the scope and flash the source F when activated. There is an adjustable delay line DL in circuit for setting up purposes (this can be dispensed with if the scope has a delayed time base feature). To find the switch on delays of S and F, place them adjacent to each other ie touching, and activate the manual trigger. Any delay in the rise time of A is due to the SOD and the slew rate of the amp. This should be noted and taken into account in later measurements when the disc is spinning.<P>
With S and F back in place, and the disc stationary, set it so the line S to F is perpendicular to the line from the mirror M to the centre of the disc. Activate the trigger Tm without moving the disc, and adjust DL (or the delayed time base) to trigger the scope to bring the sharp rise on the A trace (when the sensor is activated) to the left hand graticule line (this
will be about 10us delay, plus whatever is needed for the lead length differences and the SODs of F and S). Move the disc 1degree so the flash has 8.728mm farther to travel to reach the sensor. With the disc stationary at this new position, check the delay between triggering the flash and its reception at the sensor. It should be 29.11ps.<P>
Spin the disc at 21,600rpm. This speed was chosen so the disc would rotate 1 degree during the 10 us light travel time, but a slower speed will do. Adjust the maths accordingly.<br>
The flash from F takes 10us to reach sensor S via mirror M. In that time the disc has rotated 1 degree.<br>
1 degree on the circumference of a disc of 1 meter diameter is 8.728mm, therefore the time for light to cross that distance is 29.11ps.
As the sensor on the disc moves cicumferencially, while light travels linearly, there is a very slight discrepancy in the distance travelled,
but the error is negligible.<P>
If the speed of light is with respect to the sensor (the observer) :-<br>
The sensor is travelling (this is assuming a straight line distance, but in fact it is circumferencial) away from the flash at 1,131.4 M/S, but it will take the flash 10us to reach S whatever the speed of S (because the sensor S was 3000 meters away from F at the time of the flash).<P>
If the speed of light is with respect to its source or the medium :- <br>
The sensor is travelling away from the flash at 1,131.4 M/S. The time taken for light to cross the extra 8.728mm is 29.11ps therefore the flash takes 10.00002911us to reach S.<br>
The 10us has been adjusted out by the delay line (or the delayed time base), so the scope time base can be adjusted to see the delay of 29.11ps between the left hand graticule line and the start of the trace.<P>
If distance F to S is increased to 30,000 meters, the flash now takes 100us to reach S. In that time the disc has rotated 10 degrees.<br>
10 degrees on the circumference of a disc of 1 meter diameter is 87.28mm<p>
If the speed of light is with respect to the sensor (the observer) :-<br>
The sensor is travelling away from the flash at 872.8 M/S, but it will take the flash 100us to reach S whatever the speed of S (because it was 30,000 meters away from F at the time of the flash).<P>
If the speed of light is with respect to the source or the medium :-<br>
The sensor is travelling away from the flash at 872.8 M/S. The time taken for light to cross the extra 87.28mm is 291.1ps therefore the flash takes 10.0002911us to reach S. Adjust the time base to see the 291.1ps delay.<br>
In principle the distance F to S can be increased dramatically for easier measurement of the time difference expected. The greater the distance F to S, the disc can be proportionally smaller/slower. However, as the time F to S is larger, the delay line, which has to delay the signal to the scope by the same amount of time F to S, becomes bigger.<br>
The greater the distance F to S, the easier the discrepancy is to measure, but the harder the apparatus is to set up, and more importantly, to transport. If 2 mirrors were to be placed parallel to each other and as far apart as practicable, the flash could bounce from one to the other many times, so increasing the path length without unduly increasing the size of the apparatus.<P>
Problems.<br>
Is there a scope fast enough to show a difference of 29ps? Yes, Tektronix CSA8200<br>
Can a disc 1 meter in diameter be spun at 21,600rpm and held steady at that speed?<br>
The apparatus is not portable with a distance to the mirror of 1.5Km.<P>
Objections.<br>
The flash will take 10.00002911us to reach S due to the motion of the disc. Relativists will say that this result is because the speed of light is with respect to the air. This was not said of the MMX, which "proved" that the speed of light was constant in a vacuum (?!). Unfortunately, the experiment cannot be repeated in orbit, as the light path length to the mirror, to make any difference measurable, is too great at 1.5Km. <P>
<A NAME="conclusions">9. CONCLUSIONS.</A><br>
The Equivalence Principle does not hold for large masses, so is therefore wrong. <BR>
Einstein’s definition of simultaneity, upon which he builds his theory of time dilation, is wrong. <BR>
There is no contraction along the line of motion, it is simply a visual effect.<BR>
The speed of light is not a constant, but is with respect to the medium it is travelling through, even a very rarefied medium such as space. Light probably cannot propagate through a pure vacuum. There are three somewhat arbitrary speed bands for light in space. It is fastest in inter-galactic space where the medium density is about one atom per meter on average. Next fastest is inter-stellar space where the medium is about one atom per 10 centimeters on average. Slowest is inter-planetary space where (our) medium is about one atom per centimeter on average. These speeds are all relative to that medium, which can be seen to be the ether, and has an average velocity of zero when taken over a large enough distance so that the currents cancel out.<BR><BR>
A spaceship which carries it’s own means of propulsion - e.g. a rocket motor, can travel faster than the speed of light. The light barrier, or Luxon Wall as some writers have dubbed it, is non existent. A problem which will make trans-light speeds difficult, but not impossible, is that of the density of matter in space. At light speed, in interplanetary space, the space ship will encounter on average one atom every 30 picoseconds per 1cm of frontal area. Consider the kinetic energy and friction on the hull. <BR><BR>
There is no "Twin Paradox" due to velocity.<BR><BR>
As the speed of light is not a constant, there is no time dilation between moving (non accelerating) frames of reference. Absolute time can be used. That is one of the constants in this universe - Time.<BR><BR>
<BR><A NAME="append">10. APPENDIX </A><br>
In chapter VI, Einstein has a man walking along in the carriage in the direction of motion, and discusses the classical addition of velocities. If w is the speed of the man with reference to the train, and v is the speed of the train relative to the embankment, then W is the speed of the man relative to the embankment W = v + w.<BR>
In chapter VII, he swaps the man for a light beam. Quote "It is obvious that we can here apply the considerations of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage."<br><BR>
However, quote "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment..." notice that the 2 situations are different. The man in chapter VI is in the carriage, while the ray of light in chapter VII is on the embankment. "Let us enquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage... and we have w = c - v " If he hadn't swapped IFRs, the velocity of propagation would have come out at c. It was precisely because the answer was less than c, that SRT was born, and all that it entails. This error also has a direct bearing on the thought experiment in chapter IX. The man on the train "...is hastening towards the beam of light..."<br><BR>
Another error is this :-<BR>
This error is to be found in his 1905 paper, presumably it was pointed out to him as it is not present in his later book "Relativity - The special And The General Theory". After establishing that time runs at different rates in different IFRs, he goes on to show how to synchronise clocks in IFR A and IFR B.<BR>
"We have so far defined only an ``A time'' and a ``B time.'' We have not defined a common ``time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the ``A time'' tA from
A towards B, let it at the ``B time'' tB be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ``A time'' t'A. <br>
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB - tA = t'A - tB<br>
At first glance this looks reasonable, but look closer. The sum above is meaningless unless the clocks at A and at B are synchronized already. If B is ticking at a different rate to A (which Einstein says it is) the result is nonsense. "This equation does not define synchronized clocks, but requires them" . Quote from "Relativity Unraveled"<br><BR>
This error was brought to my attention by Hans Zweig.<br><BR>
I am indebted to my friend Hans J Zweig for his support in our ongoing battle to unseat SRT. He has published a book called "Relativity Unraveled", which I thoroughly recommend to anybody who has any questions at all about SRT, or who simply thinks that it is wrong. A preview of it is here :-
<A HREF="http://www.relativityunraveled.com">http://www.relativityunraveled.com</A>.<BR><BR>
<A HREF="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/carmam/Hollings.html"><I>Click here to go back to first page.</I></A><I> </I>
<P>
<A <BR>
Let me know what you think about my page. Send mail by clicking <A HREF="mailto:carmam@tiscali.co.uk">here</A>.<BR>
<BR>
You are visitor number :-
<!-- hitwebcounter Code START -->
<a href="http://www.hitwebcounter.com/" target="_blank">
<img src="http://hitwebcounter.com/counter/counter.php?page=4733003&style=0008&nbdigits=5&type=page&initCount=1000" title="" Alt="" border="0" >
</a>