 |
 |
 |
| BASIC DOUBTS ON RELATIVITY |
|
PROOF : LIGHT SPEED IS VARIABLE (TO OBSERVER) !! ¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù Two stars glitter on the right and on the left. Two mirrors are set at 45 degrees (like letter V), and are reflecting star light down. Speed of two reflected lights is equal always (maybe). Therefore, when two mirrors move together to the right (or the left), wave length of two reflected lights is changed. In other words, wave density (number of waves that stay within a unit length of light path) of reflected light is changed by mirror's motion. But how about incident light ? Wave density is not changed by mirror's motion ! In short, wave density of reflected light and incident light is not the same generally. The theory of constancy of light speed may be impossible to explain this situation. [Note] light speed = frequency x wave length. * [P.S.] In an encyclopedia, i found a word "wave number". It's defined as number of waves in a unit length (1m or 1cm : in a beam). Meaning is the same to that of above "wave density". It's inverse number of wave length. After this, it is written as "wave number". [P.S.] Wave number of visible light is about between 12,500/cm and 25,000/cm. [P.S.] Formerly, wave number (/cm) seems to be called "kayser" (in some sections ?). Such as 25,000K. * In a forum (in English), there was an objection (to my writing). "Wave length of incident light also changes." How far ? Toward the star ? Toward the galaxy ? No, light wave is a transverse wave. So, compression wave (retrogrades (goes upstream) toward light source. against stream of light) cannot be formed. Moreover, any change (increase or decrease) of wave number is unimaginable. And on adjacent light (passes by the mirror), any effect caused by mirror's motion is unimaginable (on any part of light path). On incident light, it may be the same. Added on 11 Nov 06 (from mark *). * The speed of reflected light may be changed by mirror (from variable speed to constant speed c : relative to the mirror). How far does this changed speed continue ? At least, it may continue to the moon. And to this extent, emission theory (in other word, ballistic theory : proposed by Ritz, Walter 1878-1909) may be valid (right) : Noted later again. * If this PROOF is right, it may mean the existence of rest frame (in space). * [Supplement] When frequency of light source (it's in an inertial frame) is constant, observed frequency at optional two points on a light path (distance between two points is fixed) is equal always. Because, if it is not equal, number of waves in two points may increase or decrease endlessly. It's impossible. In some books, this logic (a truism) is mentioned. Similarly, observed frequency at two points before and after reflection (distance from the mirror is fixed) is equal also. Therefore, dense light must be slow, sparse light must be fast (just like in refraction). PROOF : LIGHT SPEED IS VARIABLE (TO OBSERVER) !! ¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù Laser light is hitting a mirror vertically. Mirror and light source are at a standstill in an inertial frame. So, reflected light retraces (turns back) the path of incident light. The speed of this two lights relative to the mirror is equal. Light source's frequency is constant. Above these are premises (given conditions). An observer moves (at a uniform speed) along this light path toward light source. He has an instrument. It's hollow tube. Incident light and reflected light are passing through this empty tube. The number of waves (of this two lights) that stay inside this tube (wave number x tube's length) is equal always (because total of the number of waves (of this two lights) that stay in full length of light path (between mirror and light source) is equal. because light speed (relative to the mirror) is equal). On the other hand, because of Doppler effect, frequency of two lights is not equal to observer. Therefore, light speed of two lights must not be equal also (because, in the formula "light speed = frequency x wave length", wave length (inverse number of wave number) of two lights is equal). * Waves each may be cluster of photons. Like matters on belt conveyer ! The number of waves (of this two lights) may be invariable (to everyone).[P.S.] In a book on physics, i found a word "invariant" and a passage "The number of waves is invariant". * Above result may be the same, when another laser light source (frequency is equal) is set as substitution for mirror. This PROOF is added on Mar 06. [Attention] Common view says that way and law of propagation of light in the air and in the vacuum is about the same (recall M-M experiment : speed is somewhat different). It is incredible misunderstanding (in the air, air is the reference frame of propagation of light waves !! the same to sound waves !! explained later). And it has relation to not a few passages of this site. But to note every time is annoying. Therefore, in every passage of this site, light is supposed (please read so) to be propagated through the vacuum (even on the earth : excluded when there is special mention). Namely, in the vacuum of outer space (including on the moon's surface), all the passages may stand up (without any notes). In addition, uniqueness of propagation of light may be revealed by consideration to propagation in the vacuum. REST FRAME OR AETHER ¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù How is spherical wave of light propagated ? It is independent of (not affected by) light source motion (differently from matter). Then, the rest frame exists !! 1) Like other star light, planet light (spherical wave from point source) expands as sphere (it's true and perfect sphere, because light speed is constant in space). If it expands like matter, the sphere's geometrical center may leave (drop out of) the orbit (how visible from afar ?). 2) Barnard's star is the fastest fixed star on the celestial sphere. In the moving direction of it, there is a star and its planet. On this planet, there is an intellectual creature. They may say "Speed of light of approaching Barnard's star is equal to speed of light of an adjacent galaxy (because the value of stellar aberration is equal)". From this, we (suppose we see a side view) may be able to say that light sphere's expansion is independent of its source motion (like water waves). 3) Stellar aberration is caused solely by motion of the earth. Motion of heavenly bodies has no effect. For example, binary star, rotating galaxy, and so on (look at photons. any effect (on photon's vector) caused by light source motion is not detectable at all ! ). 4) Phenomenon of planetary aberration (noted later) may be direct evidence. If light sphere's expansion is actually independent of its source motion, absolute rest frame may exist. We find that aether again. But it's very weak. How weak it is !! (explained later). No, dense enough (therefore, above phenomena are exhibited) !! 7 ADDITIONAL below are on light speed also. If you are new visitor, skip over please. ADDITIONAL (parallel light paths and light speed) ¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù Two light rays are coming from a star. These are parallel (and adjacent). One is coming to observer A (moving at high speed in the direction of the light path), another is coming to observer B (moving at low speed in the direction of the the light path). Wave length (wave number) of two lights is equal, and light speed may not be equal (therefore, frequency is not equal. [Note] light speed = frequency x wave length). Added on 19 Dec 07 * To make sure, there is an another version. In it, the effect of time dilation (i don't know it's actual or not) is offset (canceled). [another version] Between observer A and B, there is an observer C. C receives informations of frequency (of this star light) from A and B. A and B are approaching toward C at the same (and at a uniform) speed. To C (to view point of C), value of time dilation of A and B is the same. Added on 9 Jan 08 (from mark *) ADDITIONAL (Doppler effect and light speed) ¡ù¡ù A light ray is coming from a star. The frequency of this light is changeable by the motion (in the direction of the light path) of observer. This change of frequency means the change of the light speed (because, wave length (wave number) of this coming light path is unchangeable). Added on 10 May 09 (from mark *) ADDITIONAL (prism and laser beam) ¡ù¡ù From just above, a fine laser beam is coming (frequency is constant). A triangular prism (set like pyramid) crosses (at a uniform speed : supposed to the right) this vertical beam. Number of waves that enter both faces of the prism may not be equal (because, it's able to regard motion of pin-point of laser beam (hits the face of prism) as motion of an observer on the light path). Formula is the same to above : light speed = frequency x wave length. If the laser beam is regarded as rain-drop, light speed may not be the same. Added on 19 Nov 07 * [Digression] Above mention seems not to stand up about star light. Because star light is waves and the number of light waves that reach optional two points on the face of the prism (per unit time) is the same always. It's unrelated in what way the prism moves (horizontal, vertical too. so, diagonal also). Look at the points. Not faces but points. Added on 20 Feb 09 (from mark *) ADDITIONAL (stellar aberration and light speed) ¡ù¡ù There are two stars. One star is at the upper left just 45 degrees. Another star is at the upper right just 45 degrees. On the ground, there are two telescopes, and these are pointed at two stars. Now, it's supposed that right direction is the moving direction of the earth. Therefore, because of aberration, one telescope is erected somewhat. Another telescope is laid somewhat. Telescope's length is the same. So, when the inlets of these are set at the same height from the ground, height of the outlets is not the same. Light rays that enter two inlets at the same time, go out outlets at the same time or not ? And light rays reach ground at the same time or not ? It seems that in two telescopes, light speed is not equal. [P.S.] Telescopes are supposed to be hollow tubes (without lens). Light passes as rain-drops. * More simple illustration (seen from reference frame of aether (star)) may be as follows : Inlets are line A, outlets are line B and C, ground is line D. Four lines are horizontal. To these, light rays come at just 45 degrees (it's premise, given condition). Light rays that pass A at the same time may reach D at the same time. ADDITIONAL (blue shift and light speed : about Orbis) ¡ù¡ù An observer is emitting a laser light (frequency is constant) to approaching mirror, and observes reflected light. And supposition is as follows : speed of emitted light and reflected light is equal (to this observer). Then, frequency of this two lights is not equal and wave length is not equal also (because, blue shift is visible). However, what combination is possible about mirror's inertial frame (about incident light and reflected light) ? Only this combination (frequency is equal (as already noted, it's unquestionable !). wave length is not equal and light speed is not equal also) is possible. * If the emission theory is right, above supposition may not stand up. * Too late !! but i find that this ADDITIONAL may be principle itself of Orbis (uses micro wave or laser) or speed gun. Added on 4 Jul 07 (from mark *). * In a web site, the formula of Orbis is shown. There are that terms (c+v), (c-v) in it. Really?? If it's real, the phoenix !! Added on 21 Jul 07 (from mark *). * A car is moving (at a uniform speed) toward the Orbis. On the path of both waves, there is an imagined point (distance from the car is close and fixed). The number of both waves that pass this point (per unit time) is equal always. Then, if light speed is equal, wave number (wave length) is equal. But how about these at inertial frame of Orbis ? Wave number of both waves is equal also. Therefore, if light speed is equal, Doppler effect doesn't occur (may not be observable). Added on 29 Jul 07 (from mark *). [P.S.] In the air, it's as follows. At inertial frame of observer (at a standstill in the air : and windless) : Lightspeed is equal. Frequency and wave number is not equal. At inertial frame of moving car : Frequency is equal. Lightspeed and wave number is not equal. [P.S.] In the vacuum (outer space), it's as follows. At inertial frame of observer : Light speed is not equal. At inertial frame of moving reflector : Light speed is not equal also. This ADDITIONAL is partially rewritten on 14 Apr 06. ADDITIONAL (standing wave) ¡ù¡ù Standing wave (in other word, stationary wave) of light is formed by mirror (when incident light is coherent). Now, incident light is hitting a mirror vertically. Then, i ask, if light speed is equal, how about standing wave to considerably distant observer ? Writing on distant extent seems not to be in any book. Laser beam is written that it keeps its coherency (ability of interference) within 2 or 3 km. How about direct star light ? It's formed intermittently ? ADDITIONAL (light speed in a moving tube) ¡ù¡ù There is a tube. In the middle of it, a transparent plate glass is set (like a lens). On the right, a star glitters, and star light is passing through this tube (from the right to the left). When this tube moves (at different uniform speed) to the right or the left, in the formula "light speed = frequency x wave length", frequency and wave length may change in the left part of this tube. Frequency and light speed may change in the right part of it (at tube's inertial frame). Added on 12 Oct 06 (from mark *). [Explanation] Aether is very weak. So, in the left part of the tube, the emission theory is right. Light speed is constant c (at tube's inertial frame). In the right part of the tube, speed of light (that comes from far more than planet) is constant on the aether. Tube moves at variable speed relative to the aether. Therefore, light speed is variable also. EVERYTHING IS VISIBLE AT ITS TRUE POSITION !! ¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù The earth is moving in space. Therefore, if previously mentioned view (light sphere's expansion is independent of its source motion) is actual, everything on the earth may not be visible at its true position. Position from where light ray emitted is fixed (stays) in space, and light sources are moving in space. Therefore, some gap (a sort of parallax) may occur to observer (and on the optical surveying instruments, evident effect may occur). It's logical inference. But this gap seems not to be observable (may be). There is a hypothesis. Its sayings are as follows. This gap exists actually. But we don't see it. Because this gap is offset (canceled) fully by that aberration (aberration may also exist about everything on the earth logically). Yes fully, because this gap and aberration both are composed of only earth's speed and light speed. And we see everything at the position that Einstein says (light sphere's expansion is dependent on its source motion. because any rest frame doesn't exist). This gap and aberration both are hidden in everywhere around us. Both are not phenomena only of starry heavens (but how tricky !!). * In an encyclopedia, i found this gap (and mechanism of offset). It's planetary aberration (in a figure, the earth is passing an outer planet. in this situation, offset is partial). It's difficult to me to accept that such a phenomenon is peculiar only to planets (unsuitably named !). * This hypothesis came from a thought experiment as follows. An observer's cabin is moving in space of the solar system. Its speed and moving direction are the same as these of the sun. This cabin has several wings on its side, and at wing's ends, light sources are set (the length of a wing is ten meters and a hundred million km). To observer, at what position are light sources visible? * It (full offset) may be the same about all heavenly bodies of solar system (caused by solar system's linear motion). * However, a voice said in my head that about earthly sights (and also, about nearby sights (anywhere and everywhere in the universe)), Einstein (light sphere's expansion is dependent on its source motion. it's the same as matter) may be right. No, only Ritz may be right (about light sphere, both theories look alike). Therefore, about the light sphere's expansion, there may be clear difference (in these way (aspect) and law) between within earth-moon scale and over planet-planet scale (on the surface of water, waves at different speed coexist. it may be the same in the space. thus, aether is weak). If it's right, the result of Michelson-Morley experiment is quite natural (in addition, mirrors and half mirror may behave as light source. these each may be light source that follows Ritz's emission theory). Added on 13 Sep 05 (from mark *). * Therefore, apparent position of the sun and the moon may be settled by different mechanism. And the result is the same. * [Correction] In an encyclopedia, i found a word "Light-time correction". Meaning is the same to above "gap" (however, it seems to be a notion about heavenly bodies only. so, earthly sight isn't referred). And the planetary aberration is written as follows. It is composed of two phenomena : this light-time correction and annual aberration (caused by the earth's motion). Allow me to correct as this (and sorry, previous writings of this item are untouched). Added on 21 Jul 09 (from mark *). [P.S.] Light-time correction seems to show the existence of the rest frame. DOPPLER EFFECT : RECONSIDERATION ¡ù¡ù¡ù In a space ship, an observer is observing a star. When this space ship jets out gas and moves (at different uniform speed) in the direction of the light path, frequency of star light changes (change corresponds to gas emission). Following is reexamination of Doppler effect. * Change of wave number (it may be inevitable outcome of the theory of constancy of light speed) of the light path (from observer to the star) is unimaginable (In the first and the second PROOF, there are notes). * Doppler effect may be caused immediately by relative motion between observer and light wave. Not light source but light wave (not an action at a distance. never !!). * When Doppler effect is caused by the motion (relative to the aether) of light source (it's far more than planet), change of wave number (of incident light) may be actual. On the other hand, when Doppler effect is caused by the motion of observer, change of wave number (of incident light) is unimaginable (like moving train and railroad ties). Added on 26 Jan 06 (from mark *). * When distance between observer and light source is within earth-moon scale, Doppler effect may be caused by relative motion between both (strictly, between observer and light wave). And change of wave number (of incident light) is unimaginable. * Common view says that Doppler effect of sound and light are different. But both may be the same fundamentally. Because, sound and light are propagated through medium (for light, aether is one of media. these media are reference frames of propagation !!) at constant speed (explained later). Then, formula of light must be the same to formula of sound. Only in the vacuum, and only in an instant (after emission from light source : may be for a few second), Doppler effect of light may be unique (formula differs). Added on 9 Jun 09 (from mark *) This ITEM is added on Dec 06. REST FRAME OR AETHER (PART 2) ¡ù¡ù About relativity of motion, there is a passage (in a book on physics) as follows. "An observer on the moving earth is able to say (insist) that he is at a standstill. It also gives a clear explanation for Doppler effect or aberration of star light (without inconsistencies)". What !? Then, how about binary star ? Each star's proper motion has no effect on the value of aberration. Motion (star's and earth's) is not relative. About Doppler effect, it's the same (as mentioned before). * [Relativity of motion : false] The value of aberration of a certain fixed star observed on each planet of the solar system differs. Added on 30 Oct 07 (from mark *). * [Relativity of motion : false] To explain annual aberration (one tour in 365 days) by relative motion may be impossible. "Einstein-Ptolemaic system" !! Added on 19 Feb 08 (from mark *). * [Summary] Star light is propagated through the aether. Emitted position is fixed on the frame (coordinate) of the aether. Any motion of the light source relative to the aether is neglected (however, trace (memory) that is caused by this neglect is visible to observer. it's change of wave length and frequency). Emitted position is also fixed on the celestial sphere (recall planetary aberration). So, between two light rays that are coming from two light sources (adjacent on the celestial sphere), there is no difference (photon's vector is the same). The value of stellar aberration depends only on the speed (and the direction) of motion of the earth relative to the aether. Any light source's motion has no effect. * [A thought experiment about aether] A space ship (mother ship) is at a standstill in outer space. Close by the mother ship, plenty number of probes are standing by (at a standstill also). To each probe, a star is assigned (scatteringly on the celestial sphere). On each probe, telescope that is pointed at assigned star is loaded. Now all the probes begin uniformly accelerated motion toward the assigned star at the same time. States of acceleration are the same. Because of stellar aberration, star may disappear from the field of view of the telescope at certain time. This time (and disappeared direction) are informed from probes to the mother ship. These informations may disclose the motion (direction and speed : vector) of the space ship relative to the aether (and also relative to the celestial sphere). Added on 4 Feb 08 (from mark *). [P.S.] It's one of ways to measure the motion relative to the aether. OTHERS ¡ù¡ù¡ù¡ù In a book, i saw E.Mascart's works (any effect by the motion of the earth isn't detected on 7 optical phenomena (reflection by mirror and so on)). For these works, he was awarded the prize of Paris academy of sciences in 1873. There may possibly be many other phenomena and experiments that are connected with Einstein's postulate (constancy of light speed to every observer). However, many books on relativity are telling about M-M experiment only. Bad dream (to an amateur). * Word "wave number" seems not to be in books on SRT. Can SRT explain Doppler effect by this word ?? There may possibly be many other irrational matters. * Allow me to show a hasty question. Is the speed (relative to the aether) of expansion of light sphere (its scale is over planet-planet) c ? It may probably be slower than c (if two ways of light sphere's expansion (noted before) is actual). Roemer's value is 214,000 km/sec. It's written in a book, reexamination has not been done. Added on 25 Feb 07 (from mark *). * Above reexamination may not show the value c. Reasons are planetary aberration, uniform linear motion of the solar system (true distance to Jupiter may be shorter than the value that is measured by triangular surveying) and unknown value of the speed of light relative to the aether. Added on 1 Sep 08 (from mark *). * A light clock is working in a moving train. Light path of light clock (illustrated in books and the like) is vertical . But this light clock leans somewhat to the right (or to the left). So, to an observer who stands on the ground, zigzag of the light path (saw-tooth like) may warp. Common theory says that the diagonal of the light path shows delay of time (time dilation). In two ways ? And if two clocks work, and if these lean differ ? Added on 25 Jun 07 (from mark *). * Dark matter is aether ? Not dark but transparent. * A tube is rotating like propeller. In the middle of the tube (inside), a light source is set. When the speed of rotation gains, light may be impossible to leave the tube. This may be the Newton's bucket also (light version). Added on 24 Sep 07 (from mark *). * It's a variation of the Fizeau experiment (with flowing water : 1851). A pillar made of glass is set horizontally. Two laser beams are passing through this glass (supposed from the left to the right). One light source is at a stand-still (distance between the glass is fixed). Another light source is approaching toward the glass at a uniform speed. The frequency of two incident beams (at the glass) is the same (thus arranged). From above, what is able to say ? If the speed of two incident beams is the same, speed of beams in the glass may be the same also (any reason to object may not be found). Therefore, if the speed of two beams in the glass is not the same, the emission theory seems to be actual. Added on 4 Dec 08 (from mark *). [P.S. : Question] i found a word "extinction" in a book "Special Relativity" by French, A.P. 1968. It's written as follows (in 5-2). "Thus, for example, with visible light, a thickness of about 10-5cm of glass or 0.1mm of air at atmospheric pressure is almost enough to erase any possible memory, as it were, of the motion of the original source" (10-5cm is 0.0001mm : quoted from "Google book"). What ?? Is the light speed equalized in the medium ? If so (on frequency or on wave length, memory is not erased), what about above thought experiment ? What about Fizeau experiment ("dragging" (effect on speed) by a moving medium isn't partial !? Imagine an observer and the medium that move together) ?? * It's written in above passage that 0.1mm of air is enough to "extinction". The result of Michelson-Morley experiment seems to be explained (and the explanation by "extinction" seems to be the most reasonable of all). If so, bad dream (no book seems to refer to it). [Note] There is a word "extinction" in some encyclopedias of physics. But it's written on other matter. Added on 24 Jan 09 (from mark *) * The notion of extinction seems to be about light speed (in the medium). In a forum (in English), i was shown a web-site below (see a heading "Optical Extinction"). i am grateful to Mr.cincirob. http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html * In a book "Theory of Relativity" by W.Pauli 1958, it's written as follows. "From view point of an observer who moves with moving medium, light must be considered that it's propagated at the speed of c/n (always and to every direction) in the medium" (translated from Japanese edition). Because of "extinction" ? But why it's not an explanation for M-M experiment ?? For what reason ?? [Note] About vacuum, the emission theory. Added on 2 Feb 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] In a library, i found English edition of Pauli's book. Quoted passage above is as follows (it's in 1-6). "Rather should one say that for an observer moving with the medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions." [P.S.] There is Einstein's passage the same as above Pauli's. Therefore he may say he didn't know M-M experiment. There may be no other way but to say so (And he mutters, "common explanation on M-M experiment is absurd and I am not concerned with it"). * In a forum, i wrote about M-M experiment as follows. "If the air moves at the speed of 30km/sec relative to the apparatus (interferometer), expected result may be gotten. But the air was at a stand-still. Null result is only natural". Propagation of light wave in the air is simple (the same to that of sound wave). But it seems not to be grasped. * If "extinction" is actual, wind may be influential in Orbis or speed gun. * It's a question on Fresnel-Fizeau light drag effect. On the moon's surface, long pillar (section is square) made of glass is set horizontally (we see a long side). To the upper face of the pillar, light waves of a star (plane waves) are entering horizontally. These plane waves reach bottom face horizontally also (it must be so geometrically). This pillar is moving from the right to the left because of the motion of the moon. Whether light rays go straight or are bent (from view point of rest frame : aether) ? If light rays go straight, light rays are not perpendicular to the wave front (from view point of inertial frame of glass). And speed of both in the medium may differ. It's unimaginable (according to the "extinction" view, the speed of light waves (wave-front speed) is constant). Therefore light rays may be bent (from view point of rest frame : aether). And light rays must be perpendicular to the wave front (from view point of inertial frame of glass). Then, "dragging" (effect on direction) by a moving medium may not be partial. Added on 30 Jan 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] Above may stand up also about two pillars (medium A and medium B) that are in relative motion (like two trains passing each other). [P.S.] There may be three kinds of motion of medium. These are relative to light source, to other medium, and to aether. * On the moon's surface, there is a pillar made of glass that lies horizontally. From the upper right and the upper left, two plane waves of star light are coming. Wave length/wave number (it's invariant) of both waves is supposed to be the same. Now this pillar moves to the right or the left. Frequency and light speed of the incident lights (seen from view point of the inertial frame of the pillar : before incidence) may change. And in the glass, frequency and wave length/wave number (refraction angle also) may change. These changes show the motion of the glass relative to the aether. Added on 12 Dec 09 (from mark *) * On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car. Its roof is plate glass. From just above, light waves (plane waves) of a star are entering this roof horizontally. These plane waves reach floor horizontally too (it must be so geometrically). According to Einstein's "right triangle", when the passenger car moves, number of waves that stay between the roof and floor may increase. And it may be the same also to an observer who is in the passenger car (it's irrational. speed of light ray in the moving car is appearance). Added on 1 Feb 10 (from mark *) [P.S. : 3 Feb 10] The speed of wave front (horizontal) in above passenger car (moving) may be visible to be the same to an observer who stands on the moon's surface (because number of waves is invariant). There may be no need to bring up light ray. * From the roof of a passenger car, light ray is emitted down diagonally (to the right at 45 degrees). One passenger car is moving to the right, another passenger car is moving to the left at the same speed. To an observer who stands on the ground, the length of two light rays is not the same. Added on 17 Apr 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] Einstein's theory stands up only on vertical light ray (in a passenger car) ? Einstein's theory does not stand up on diagonal light ray (in a passenger car) ? * From the roof of a passenger car, several light rays are emitted radially down (at intervals of ten degrees). How does Einstein's theory explain this (passenger car is moving to the left or to the right) ? Added on 27 Apr 09 (from mark *) * From the roof of a passenger car, a light ray is emitted down. When the moving car is filled with water, diagonal of light ray is more gentle to an observer who stands on the ground. And the diagonal (depends only on c/n and v) may be simple appearance. It may be the same about air or vacuum too. Added on 17 Apr 09 (from mark *). [P.S.] Galilean transformation may stand up about all. * If certain angle (not perpendicular) of light ray to the wave front (of a star) is detected in outer space, it may be an effect of observer's motion relative to the aether. Added on 6 Feb 09 (from mark *). * On the moon's surface, there is a passenger car (railway carriage). To the roof of the passenger car, waves of sun-light (plane waves) are coming horizontally. In the roof, there is a small hole. When the passenger car moves to the right (or the left), whether projection of the hole (spot-light on the floor) moves or not ? Added on 7 Sep 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] If it (the spot-light on the floor moves qualitatively (or theoretically). because of aberration) is actual, moon's motion may have an effect (on the spot-light) also. The angle of light ray (in the passenger car) may not be 90 degrees. Moreover, the motion of the solar system may have an effect also. [P.S.] To adjust (match) a plane plate to plane waves may be possible theoretically. * Stellar aberration may be caused by mechanism as follows. From outer space, a light ray of a star is entering atmosphere of the earth. The angle of incident light ray may be affected by the motion of the earth (it's "dragging" by a moving medium). If so, the result of Airy experiment (aberration with a telescope filled with water : 1871) is natural. Analogy with rain-drop is unsuitable. Added on 4 Feb 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] The "dragging" may not be partial (because, the value of aberration depends on the light speed and the speed of the earth's motion). * In the outer space, the object lens of telescope may "drag" (as a moving medium) the ray (path) of star light. Then, aberration occurs. In the outer space, aberration may occur about hollow tube also (photons pass through like rain drops). Added on 18 Feb 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] The former's value may be larger (this is that Airy's telescope), and the latter's value may be nearly usual. * The aether may be one of media also. For "extinction", thickness of several hundred thousand km may be. Added on 3 Feb 09 (from mark *) * They are crying, GPS ! GPS ! (and are silent about Orbis or speed gun). But how about that satellite : the moon ? Is time dilation detected ? No, any sign of the time dilation of the moon may not be detected (for example, in the tide : flood and ebb). * [question] If there is any heterogeneity or flow (partial) of the aether, are these detectable or not ? * It's a question on Fizeau experiment. There is a pillar made of glass (laid horizontally). A light ray (emitted from a light source that is fixed at the upper face of the glass) is propagated through the glass like letter V (reflected by a mirror : 30 degrees : from the left to the right). In front of an observer (at a stand-still), one pillar is moving to the right, another pillar is moving to the left at the same speed. To an observer, whether speed of light in the glass is different or not ? Added on 28 Oct 09 (from mark *) [P.S.] Galileo transformation seems to stand up. [P.S.] If another light ray is propagated from the right to the left (on the same path) ? [P.S.] In the above pillar, two laser beams (are propagated to the right and the left) are crossing like letter X. The state of interference fringes may be the same to all (including the one who moves relative to the pillar). Thank you for visiting. i also thank Yahoo (geocities) and forums (that admitted my submitting). i am thankful to administrator CCC (anti-relativity.com) for his kind help. i am thankful to a site : www.crank.net/einstein.html and to persons who wrote favorable reply in forums. Sorry my English is bad. Feel free to link or citation. Former title was MYSTERY OF LIGHT. [Key word] wavenumber, extinction, aether or ether, invariant, reference frames. * [A pending question] Is the direction of aberration opposite (to the direction of rain-drop model) ?? This question is not settled. Added on Mar 09 (from mark *) * All writings of this site owe (are derived from) Mr.Kubota,Takashi's works. i saw 2 books of his own, 4 joint work books (6 books were published from 1993 to 1997) and his web-site. Shown below is his web-page (written in English). http://www.d1.dion.ne.jp/~kubota_t/treatise.html/ * Allow me to grumble a little, please. Number of visitors to English page is fewer (often under 20 per month) than that to Japanese page (below). For what reason ?? http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/lig.html |
¥á¥¤¥ó / ¥³¥ß¥å¥Ë¥Æ¥£ / ¥¢¥Ù¥Ë¥å¡¼ / E-List / ³¹³Ñ¹¾ì
¥¤¥ó¥Õ¥©¥á¡¼¥·¥ç¥ó¥»¥ó¥¿¡¼ / ¸¡º÷ / ¥Ø¥ë¥× / ¥¬¥¤¥É¥é¥¤¥ó