Miles Mathis

[altonhare]

Any individual light wave has the same velocity wrt the device, i.e. the outgoing wave and the incoming wave are 2 different light pulses. We could debate over whether it's one pulse being reflected or a pulse being absorbed and another pulse being emitted, but the more important point is the latter is how I intended the statement.

I see what you mean, but that would mean you would assign the velocity of the device to all lightwaves? That simply means all lightwaves move through the device at c+v and you will find no fringe. Miles mentions this as a valid representation.

I could assign the light pulses a velocity relative to the aether, which is always the same, and calculate the velocity relative to the device, which will vary depending on the device's motion through the presumed aether. The result I get, a fringe, is consistent with a "field wave" model of light.

Alternatively I could assign the light pulses a velocity relative to the pulses' emitters (the device), which is always the same. The result, no fringe, is consistent with a "bullet" i.e. corpuscular model of light.

It was not known a priori which was correct.

Now you are talking nonsense to me. Your first option is equal to what I described above and should give no fringe since light just moves through the device as a wave with velocity c+v. Your second option also does not give a fringe. I find the bullet model less attractive since it supposedly should fire bullets at an angle if the bullets only move at speed c.

You're losing the forest for the trees. Maybe check the diagrams I drew again, they seem pretty direct.

First, assume no aether. Sitting in the device we just see a pulse go there and back, whether we are in the parallel arm or the perpendicular arm. No fringe.

Sitting outside the device with v(device) = 0. We see the same thing. Sitting outside the device wth v(device) != 0, we calculate a staggerred arrival of the pulses to their respective mirrors, but it is compensated for on the return trip.

The above is what Miles did.

Now, assume an aether. Sitting in the device we see pulses go there and back. If the device is moving wrt the aether at v, in the parallel arm we calculate c-v/c on the way out and c+v/c on the way back. In the perpendicular arm we calculate sqrt((v/c)2+(x/c)2) on the way there and the way back, where x is the length of the arm.

The best way to see this is in terms of distances-traveled. In the parallel arm, on the way out the pulse must traverse a longer distance through the aether than on the way in to get from source to target, if the device is moving wrt the aether. The distance through the aether is longer by v/c on the way out ad shorter by v/c on the way back in the parallel arm. The distance through the aether in the perp arm is sqrt((v/c)2+(x/c)2) both ways.

[webolife]

Alton,
You incorrectly restated my hypothesis as "infinite light", which certainly might connote something religious.
However, I observe an "instantaneous light" phenomenon, which like your hypothetical ropes simultaneously connects any two pertinent points across space. Any change in the "potential" of that connection, such as a collapsing electron shell or the like, produces an instantaneous change in that connection across space. Your loopy little chain gismos may travel at presumably c down the ropes from point A to point B, but my hypothesis requires no such traveling loops or torsioning impulses on dimensionless invisible structures. A result of this hypothesis would be that light reaching me tonight from some distant supernova is revealing a stellar event that is happening at that moment plus any delays caused by moving particles or such in the intervening space, such as the atmosphere, electrochemical reaction time in my retina, etc., and not at a time perhaps millions of years later. Another result is that stellar evolution/ages/times and distances presumed from the assumptions of big bang are out the window, leaving room for better understanding of Arp's redshift and electrical/plasma events in the universe. Note I said "observe" because, although you presume that c is somehow being directly measured with respect to moving light "objects" or waves, the only measurement of light happens when it "arrives". There is no lag time measured before that, except for lags associated with the absolute necessity of the receiver and/or light source themselves moving wrt each other or other reference standards, and as aforementioned delays associated with reaction times of the measuring devices. To elucidate this further [from your own perspective], you would need to produce actual experimental evidence that is incontrovertible of light "stuff" being timed from points A to B . I know you think I would not "believe" anything, but believe me on this: I have searched for such experimental evidence for nearly 30 years now, trying to prove this hypothesis wrong. Everything I read, see and hear points to confirmation of instantaneous light, eg. "quantum entanglement" and Sansbury's Pockel's cell experiment. I am not eager to be found trusting a premise that is unfounded... if I am wrong you do me the utmost favor proving it to me.

[webolife]

As for the fringe, as even a cursory look at slit experiments will show you, the tighter you "confine" the central line of sight the broader the "fringe" spectrum grows, until it is spread beyond a viewable angle to "null" vectors.
It can be easily demonstrated that this fringe of color is connected [through the slit] by straight lines to the light field on the "source" side of the slit device. This contradicts Young's supposition of interfering waves in a moire pattern, which are essentially hyperbolic in shape, not rectilinear.

[Sovereign]

simultaneously connects any two pertinent points across space

my hypothesis requires no such traveling loops or torsioning impulses on dimensionless invisible structures

So you are claiming two points are connected, yet they are not connected by anything?

I'm having a bit'o'trouble understanding this.

[altonhare]

Alton,
However, I observe an "instantaneous light" phenomenon, which like your hypothetical ropes simultaneously connects any two pertinent points across space. Any change in the "potential" of that connection, such as a collapsing electron shell or the like, produces an instantaneous change in that connection across space.

You're saying that the two events occur simultaneously? As one shell collapses, the other expands (for instance)?

Your loopy little chain gismos may travel at presumably c down the ropes from point A to point B, but my hypothesis requires no such traveling loops or torsioning impulses on dimensionless invisible structures.

Because you're not talking about causality, you're talking about simultaneous events. You're saying that AS atom A expanded, atom B contracted.

Note I said "observe" because, although you presume that c is somehow being directly measured with respect to moving light "objects" or waves, the only measurement of light happens when it "arrives".

It is impossible to do otherwise. The only measurement of anything occurrs when it "arrives". The basketball coming at you, you're not seeing the basketball or its atoms, you're seeing whatever the basketball is hurling at your eyes. When the basketball slams into your head, that's when you see the basketball itself.

There is no lag time measured before that, except for lags associated with the absolute necessity of the receiver and/or light source themselves moving wrt each other or other reference standards, and as aforementioned delays associated with reaction times of the measuring devices.

According to you, any lags etc. measured are attributed to "anything but light".

To elucidate this further [from your own perspective], you would need to produce actual experimental evidence that is incontrovertible of light "stuff" being timed from points A to B .

Your demand of me is impossible and my demand of you is paltry. Name one experimental result that, if obtained, would convince you that light propagates at finite velocity. Impossible experiments/results don't count! I can't detect anything unless it's "right here". That includes light, basketballs, and stars. The best I can do is trust my partner who claims it was there with him when he started his stopwatch, and he'll have to trust me when I say that I sent it back to him when I started my stopwatch.


There is no incontrovertible evidence to be found anywhere. A person can always think of an excuse. This is why science is not, first and foremost about experiments and evidence. Science is first/foremost about communicating your ideas clearly, unambiguously, and rationally. After that's done each person applies their own criteria to the evidence (various razors, funding, etc.) to decide whether to support the theory or not.

I know you think I would not "believe" anything, but believe me on this: I have searched for such experimental evidence for nearly 30 years now, trying to prove this hypothesis wrong. Everything I read, see and hear points to confirmation of instantaneous light, eg. "quantum entanglement" and Sansbury's Pockel's cell experiment. I am not eager to be found trusting a premise that is unfounded... if I am wrong you do me the utmost favor proving it to me.

I will explain why you have not found any evidence that indicates to you this theory is wrong. It's because the theory is unfalsifiable. It's the perfect theory or not a theory, depending on if your a priest or a scientist respectively.

If we measured the speed of light between two things at different distances and found the velocity to increase with distance, this would convince me that you're on the right track. This is technically feasible. It does not require I measure something without measuring it, which is essentially what you are asking for (detect "something" en route is impossible, you can only detect "something" that arrived).

[altonhare]

As for the fringe, as even a cursory look at slit experiments will show you, the tighter you "confine" the central line of sight the broader the "fringe" spectrum grows, until it is spread beyond a viewable angle to "null" vectors.
It can be easily demonstrated that this fringe of color is connected [through the slit] by straight lines to the light field on the "source" side of the slit device. This contradicts Young's supposition of interfering waves in a moire pattern, which are essentially hyperbolic in shape, not rectilinear.

Oh, I see why we had some difficulty earlier. You're talking about fringes in the slight/hair experiment. Steven and I were talking about fringes in the MM experiment, and I thought you were too. My apology on that.

In this case I absolutely agree with you. Each atom of the screen is connected to the atoms of the source. A "single photon" actually consists of all the connecting ropes/chains torquing:

slit_expt_0.jpg (8.57 KiB) Viewed 12072 times

See the full story:

[url2=http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/06QM ... 7Slit.html]Slit Experiment[/url2]

[webolife]

Alton,
No you are still not seeing my picture, and I'll try again:
When one atom contracts, it's entire field contracts with it.
For you that means a rope translates slightly toward the center of that contracting atom, perhaps necessitating an expansion at the other end of the rope. But for me the entire universe is, while bouncing around extensively, ultimately operating under a contractive force. Call it connectivity, condensation, compaction, mass, charge, or particularity, I refer to this as "centropic". So when the atomic shell collapses in the photosphere of Betelgeuse, my retina, which is ultimately connected to Betelgeuse as a distant peripheral member of its field, is "tugged" in that direction, and voila, there is light.
As for "c" you are still couching all of your arguments in terms of basketbally stuff moving through space, so of course you MUST still imagine from that a delay [of a few years] of the light action I just described. This despite no evidence for any delay at all, only the notion of c, which is never measured directly and only inferred from calculations based on angles and refraction.

On the fringes, your early statements about the nature of so-called interference and diffraction is what made me interested in the rope theory. I know from much observation that the lines are straight rather than hyperbolic, but for me the fringe lines are connected to the "source" object's light field and not to the object itself as you might define it. This discrepancy between our hypotheses is resolved if you decide to define objects as both the centroidal thingy and its surrounding field, but you are reticent to do this, and I understand that. OK, I define "centroidal thingy" as the object at the far end of the central line of sight.

My fringes are vectors from the pressure gradient surrounding the central line of sight, and behave [color] according to vectoral/geometric relationship to that line, a relationship referred to often as the theta angle, which led to the formulation of lambda, wavelength, and from which pretty much all reference to light as waves has subsequently been derived.

[webolife]

In the M/M experiment we are still relying on the detection of a light signal that has been "delayed", not by an inherent c-rate, as has been supposed, but by a delay in the responsivity of the reflecting surfaces. Now if you were to make a M/M device with the radius of say an AU, and find that the delay in signal is around 8 minutes, then you would disprove my theory fairly well. The sending/detecting unit would, however, have to be stationary in space relative to the reflecting mirrors, and therefore could not be on the earth or other orbiting body wrt to the reflectors.

[webolife]

Or if the calculations based on the M/M observations are assuming c from an application of the angle of reflection, then you may find that the delay in the AU sized device might nearly equal that in the table top whirlygig. The light beam cannot act in both directions on the same "vector" line at the same time [vector cancellation]... there must be a finite angle of reflection. So there will be a certain/slight lag in either space or time between the reception of the signal and its having been sent.

[webolife]

Under the conditions just described, the "fringe" of so-called diffraction shows up as a pressure gradient forced by the modified slit-like MM apparatus. So as I see it, the two versions of "fringe" are results of the same physical phenomenon.

[altonhare]

In the M/M experiment we are still relying on the detection of a light signal that has been "delayed", not by an inherent c-rate, as has been supposed, but by a delay in the responsivity of the reflecting surfaces. Now if you were to make a M/M device with the radius of say an AU, and find that the delay in signal is around 8 minutes, then you would disprove my theory fairly well. The sending/detecting unit would, however, have to be stationary in space relative to the reflecting mirrors, and therefore could not be on the earth or other orbiting body wrt to the reflectors.

Umm, the tabletop apparatus has the sending/detecting units stationary with respect to the mirrors. The whole thing is an inertial frame and considers itself at rest. Technically it accelerates vis a vis the sun or other planets, but if you demand we get rid of the rest of the cosmos you are again asking too much. Even an apparatus floating "out there" that is not anchored to a planet accelerates vis a vis other things in the U.

If I build a vacuum chamber and, contained within, are mirrors/lasers etc. I activate the laser and start some kind of timer. When it hits a mirror on the other side this activates some kind of timer, and when it returns back it stops the original timer, being reflected once again forth and stopping the second timer. I measure some tiny delay, i.e. my ticker ticks a few times before being stopped. I then increase the distance between source and mirror and repeat the whole thing. My ticker ticks more times, and the increase in ticks is proportional to the increase in distance. This would be enough to convince you? If so then this is at least technically feasible and I will talk no more of religious beliefs at least.

[webolife]

Well, thank you Alton! Yes, I think your variable radius M/M device may do the trick. The problem is that if there is a c differential due to moving light "stuff", the radius has to be significantly increased I think. The detectors would also have to be able to compensate for the differences in intensity of the light signals due to distance.
You are a hard task master, but I appreciate you not just writing me off!

[altonhare]

Well, thank you Alton! Yes, I think your variable radius M/M device may do the trick. The problem is that if there is a c differential due to moving light "stuff", the radius has to be significantly increased I think. The detectors would also have to be able to compensate for the differences in intensity of the light signals due to distance.
You are a hard task master, but I appreciate you not just writing me off!

The distance may not have to be varied as greatly as you think. Signal/noise ~ constant*sqrt(2) is the greatest ally of the best experimentalists. Very careful implementation can allow many repeated experiments to compensate for nonideal apparatus (no AU length arms).

The intensity won't matter, just whether the light is "there" or not, i.e. the switch gets thrown whether I flick it with my finger or smash it with a hammer.

[webolife]

I disagree on the intensity question... the hammer blow effects a quicker switch than a soft touch considering the entire time of contact. But there is an additional factor, that of the relative "energies" of the different colors in the spectral fringe that necessarily accompanies the central line of light upon which we are measuring "response time." Depending on the slit width aspect of the set-up, the spectrum will be "spread" differently (eg. narrower apparatus produces more spectral spread); and the relay will be thrown by light actions of differing "energy" (eg. blue will "contact" the system with greater energy than red).

[altonhare]

I disagree on the intensity question... the hammer blow effects a quicker switch than a soft touch considering the entire time of contact. But there is an additional factor, that of the relative "energies" of the different colors in the spectral fringe that necessarily accompanies the central line of light upon which we are measuring "response time." Depending on the slit width aspect of the set-up, the spectrum will be "spread" differently (eg. narrower apparatus produces more spectral spread); and the relay will be thrown by light actions of differing "energy" (eg. blue will "contact" the system with greater energy than red).

You're talking about velocity, i.e. hitting something faster makes it move faster. Agreed, if the light hits the detector moving at c it will activate the switch faster than if it hits the detector at c-v.

If light doesn't have a velocity at all, as you claim, the point is moot.

Intensity is the quantity of light hitting the detector. Again, whether I throw the switch with a sledgehammer moving at v or a marshmallow moving at v, the switch gets thrown.