|
|
Al McDowell
Source: Provided by account holder, used by permission.

Author Menu

Author Wall

Please login to post a wall comment.
posted at 02/27/10 - 11:20 AM
The experiment to which zetavex refers and other similar experiments showing field effects of clockwise-spinning gyros seem consistent with the ether theory of gravity and electromagnetism developed in this book.
posted at 02/26/10 - 03:23 PM
http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-First-Test-That-Proves-General-Theory-of-Relativity-Wrong-20259.shtml
posted at 12/29/09 - 09:33 AM
This book has several unconventional conclusions that people find outrageous until they begin to see the extensive supporting experimental data, which may motivate those with inquiring minds to read the book. You can contact me at almcd999@earthlink.net. I can email you a brief summary of the Relativity issue. Thanks for your interest.
posted at 12/28/09 - 11:44 PM
Why did the debating stop? I'm really interested in this subject and especially on the topic at hand. Can I e-mail you Al McDowell and get a reply?
posted at 11/22/09 - 10:23 AM
In the train paradox, I agree with you that if each person is able to project into the other person's frame of reference using the equations of Relativity, the other person will be seen to also see the light flashes simultaneously. The problem is that in the single frame of reference of one of these people, they will see the flashes simultaneously at their location, but not simultaneously at the other person's location. Each person has to be analyzed only in their own frame of reference. As you say, the frames of reference cannot be mixed, and the rules of Relativity must be applied for only one frame of reference at a time. The passenger can see the outside observer in the passenger frame of reference and vice-versa.
posted at 11/22/09 - 09:27 AM
A car going 60 mph into a 6 mph wind would sense wind of 66 mph at the car, and going with the wind the car would sense 54 mph. Scientists agree that the CMB data show that Earth is moving through the universe at about 365 km/sec. The Relativity experiments tell me that the ether is space compresses linearly by about 50X on Earth to move at about 8 km/sec. An interferometer arm pointed toward the CMB apex sees light moving at 300,008 km/sec in one direction and 299,992 km/sec in the opposite direction, contradicting the Relativity assumption of constant light speed for al observers in any frame of reference. The 30 km/sec that earth moves around the Sun compresses by 50X to 0.6 km/sec in Earth interferometers. The book explains another factor in ether speed as well.

Denser ether slows light, as seen when light refracts in glass or water. Light goes fastest where the ether is less dense in space.

Experiments first done by De Sitter show that the velocity of light is not affected by the velocity of the source, like a binary star. All scientists agree. In Relativity, that is the assumption. In my theory, light speed depends only on the velocity and density of the ether it moves through.

I only discuss two theories—Relativity and mine—and never in the same situation.

In the train paradox, Relativity equations translating lengths, times, and velocities between the frames of reference of the passenger inside and the observer outside are not the problem, which is the underlying Relativity assumption that light is seen to move at the same speed in all frames of reference. This allows simultaneity at a single location to disappear in another frame. Each person sees the flashes simultaneously in their own frame, but they do not see the flashes arrive simultaneously for the other person.

We have already discussed the muon experiment, binary stars, the LHC, and kinetic energy near c. The airplane clock experiment is explained in my book and is too lengthy for this blog. The 1 second that gravity would come from the Moon to Earth at light speed is not much different than arriving virtually immediately. The bending of Sunlight around the Moon in eclipses is due to light going slower through denser ether around the moon.
posted at 11/21/09 - 07:58 PM
The speed 9km/s would have been significant if the earth was traveling at that speed. It’s like moving in a x direction with a car at 60 mph but detecting a wind speed of 6m/s. Then moving in a –x direction at 60m/s but detecting a wind speed of 6m/s again. Tell me how this result is significant, seems highly illogical to me. Not to mention ridiculous!
posted at 11/21/09 - 07:58 PM
Another of the dozens of arguments I already gave on why the ether doesn’t exist is the fact that if it does exist, it would need to be dense, since only a dense substance would be able to propagate light at such high speeds and at the same time have to be massless or at least have insignificant mass. On a philosophical basis alone, that would be highly improbable .

If the ether exist that would have some effects on light:
-Light would always go at speed C relative to the ether (like sound trough air)
If the ether doesn’t exist and behaves according to Newtonian Physics:
-light would always go at speed C relative to the source. (proven with telescopes to be wrong)
In your train thought experiment and in my big-smaller spaceship thought experiment, you added the speeds, which based on the ether theory would be incorrect as light is only relative to the ether and not to the source. Sound behaves this way as well.
You use the one theory in one situation, and the other in another. The only problem is, when you combine these two problems in one thought experiment, they contradict eachother. This is a huge mistake of yours. Choose your best theory, and choose wisely as you will be wrong regardless of which you wanna choose.
The problem with the ether’s existence I already solved, experiments on earth such as measuring the speed of light and comparing them with the calculated value (Maxwell’s equation) showed to be exactly the same amount predicted, 8 digits significant. 299792458m/s(can easily be done at a university by students on an simple experiment-table). So if the results of your(fictional)Michelson-Morley experiments are correct, then that would mean that a ether-wind coming in a parallel direction of 9km/s should give you a speed of either 299801458m/s(c+ ether-wind) or 299783458m/s(c-ether wind).
Last but not least, Michelson agreed with Einstein and very much respected Einstein aswel. His experiments were not ignored as the results of his experiments are known as one of the most famous and critical experiments in physics of the century. Give it up, the jig is up.
posted at 11/21/09 - 07:57 PM
That speed is indeed not slow, but was 1/9th of the speed they were supposed to get if the ether existed. The speed they predicted to get was supposed to be relative to the first experiment. This was not the case. getting a speed far lower than predicted does not mean that the ether might still exist but is simply travelling slower, but that they either made some sort of huge technical mistake or the ether doesn’t exist. The geometry would not make any sense. So the only way the ether would give such lower speed is if the geometry itself changes and some other weird effects would have to happen. This would make allot less sense then just accepting Relativity.

I showed you both theoretical and experiments that prove relativity to be correct. Far more experimental proof than your theory. For all my experiments that could easily be explained by relativity, you failed to predict with your theory. These are all facts and official well documented experiments you can easily search on the internet and physics magazines. You so far only showed me one experiment of which the results might not even be 100% correct.
I showed you :
1. Muons experiment.
2. Airplane experiment.
3. Binary star observations.
4. The LHC failure to achieve speed of light.
5. Kinetic Energy calculations failure at high speeds using Newton’s (yours) formula.

I still have 2 more …I’ll mention them:
1) Gravity has speed C and is not instantaneous. The idea of an instant gravity would make the Earth spin out of control around it’s axis. Thanks to the out of phase of the gravity of the moon on the Earth oceans is what creates a drag. The idea is that because the gravitational pull on the earth’s oceans creates a blob (higher sea level), and because this blob is always just behind the moon’s position, it creates a drag and slows down the earth. This was also proved to be correct simulated using computer simulations and assuming gravity propagates at the speed of light.
2) Observations on Solar eclipse also confirmed Relativity. The results where that light bends in close vicinity of the sun. Stars that where suppose to be behind the sun where very much visible at a solar eclipse. The only way this could happen is that if light is bended by the gravitational pull of the sun. Or well the fabric of space and time is bended. If light has no mass, this could never happen. If the ether exist and have “mass” would then mean that it will compress in the vicinity of the sun, increasing it’s density and so giving the opposite effect than expected because light would travel faster trough this more dense ether the same way sound waves travel faster in denser materials. In other words, the light would bend not towards the sun like predicted, but away. Try to picture it.
posted at 11/21/09 - 11:22 AM
In 1925, Dayton MIller said "The ether-drift experiments at Mount Wilson during the last four years, 1921 to 1925, lead to the conclusion that there is a relative motion of the earth and the ether at this Observatory, of approximately nine kilometers per second ..." Kennedy and Thorndike data indicate a somewhat faster ether than Miller found, but they considered this velocity too low to be signifiant in galactic scales, so they rounded the results to zero. The difference between a finite ether speed and zero is the difference between truth and fiction for Relativity. And 9 km/sec is not slow!
posted at 11/20/09 - 09:08 PM
The laws of motion apply equally in all frames of reference, but there is a single frame of reference for the ether which determines the velocity of light in any other frame to include the velocity of that frame relative to the preferred frame. F = ma in all frames as Galileo intended, and the velocity of light in any frame is c + the velocity of that frame relative to the ether. Even c is not constant in any one frame, for the velocity of light slows when it moves through more dense media, such as glass or water, to produce refraction.

I see my theory as logically and experimentally consistent, and I see Relativity as logically and experimentally inconsistent. It would be unreasonable for you to agree with me until you see more of my data and arguments. It would be unreasonable for me to agree with Relativity until I see data supporting it. We can agree to disagree for now. Scientists say that the many experiments that show 8-10 km/sec ether velocity from 11 hours sidereal time only showed zero ether velocity from any direction. Until we can agree on the factual results of these experiments, we cannot agree on the merits of Relativity. The Michelson, Morley, Miller, Silvertooth, Kennedy, Thorndike, Riis and other experiments are well-documented in peer-reviewed journals. One has only to retrieve and read them to see whether popular science is whitewashing the results.
posted at 11/20/09 - 07:05 PM
Special Relativity
Einstein:"The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion"(you agreed to this)

Funny, if you know this little sentence, you know all there is to know about relativity. This simple sentence, is special relativity and all that follows. Einstein simply went back to the old way of thinking an rejected the new idea then of an ether dividing electro-magnetism(maxwells equations) with Classical Mechanics.

Your theory is inconsistent. Put this little info trough your head. The speed of light was measured hundred of times and give us the same answer over and over again. If the ether exists, this would never ever ever ever ever be possible. the speed of light is predicted by Maxwell's equations to be exactly C. The question is, in what frame is Maxwell's equations valid?

In relativity, it's valid in all frames., Thats the problem, in a sense a macro Michelson-Morgan experiment is done every single year per university. So in history, it was done more than thousands of times in different locations. You ask, how can I compare 1 experiment with thousands of measurements of the speed of light? well the principle is the same, measuring the speed of light in different angles, should give out different speed. That my friend never happens.

Sorry but, your theory is incomplete and has been disapproved over and over and over again. If you ask me, relativity is allot more logical. Your theories have drastic flaws that don't add up. Like a lie, you need to make everytime more lies to cover the next.....your theory has officially become unpractical and so the world would never be able to advance with such a theory. The more practical, the better the theory is.
posted at 11/20/09 - 06:25 PM
sylverxi: Thanks for your suggestion to soften the wording of conclusions to sound less contentious. The book subtitle uses the words "New Science" rather than necessarily contradicting existing science. The book says that "Relativity is invalid;" the "Einstein was wrong" claim is used in the facebook ad to attract attention. Maybe this is overdone.

Science currently believes that the entire universe "inflated" at far, far above the speed of light so that we can now see the 'first light" after the claimed Big Bang coming back to Earth. This is the biggest violation of the light speed limit that I can imagine.

We both agree that what shows up in math may not exist in reality. There are equations that assume Relativity and other equations that deny Relativity.

In my theory, the measured mass of matter includes the captured ether dark matter within the atomic matter. When accelerated to high speeds, this mass may be increased by additional dark matter pulled along with the atomic matter. Anyone wishing to develop my spheriton theory will have lots of fun deriving the physics of this new model of reality.

I agree with Galileo, and my mechanism for matter coasting through the ether without loss of velocity or energy is vital to preserving the laws of motion for all frames of reference.
posted at 11/20/09 - 04:21 PM
Did we ever detect anything going faster than the speed C? the answer is still no. Particles that should have speeds exceeding the speed have been proven mathematically to exist and are called tachyons. The only problem is, these particles where never detected and are really weird if you look at its features.

the square root of -1 is non existent right? well guess what, in math they made this non existent number be called "imaginary number". i =V-1 (square root of minus 1).

now back to the tachyon-particles, these particles travel trough time, if you apply relativity that is, and have an imaginary mass. So what I'm saying, the only particles that are capable to travel faster than c, in a sense might not even exist and is only an mathematics trick.

In the Hadron Colider: The energy of a particle going for example 0.99c was detected to have far more Kinetic Energy than (1/2) x mass x 0.99c^2 (newtons equation for Kinetic energy). the only way they got the correct ammout, was by applying the mass-energy equivalence formula. Thus relativity must be correct.

Do you agree with the statement: Galileo Galilei : "The laws of physics are the same for all observers in uniform motion"?
posted at 11/20/09 - 03:58 PM
I would not say: "Einstein is wrong" but, "Alternate theories on relativity". When Einstein published his works, he didn't say Newton was wrong, but stated he was incomplete and was impossible to develop his theory's without Newton. Until now, we have for more proof supporting relativity than your ideas, unless your theory's are proven experimentally, you would never be taken seriously as this also goes for string theory. Physics is after all still an experimental subject.
posted at 11/20/09 - 02:16 PM
der.1988: You are quite right. The conclusions of this book are too heretical to be taken seriously by people who know about these science issues. On the other hand, people would not be interested in just another ho-hum book explaining relativity and cosmology as so many other authors already have. I am at a loss for how to market it. I have run ads in Nexus and Atlantis Rising magazines, whose readers are relatively open to new and controversial ideas.

The best audience is probably people just like you who care about truth in science. I have considered asking people to consider the book science fiction with loads of solid facts that the author believes support the outrageous conclusions. Any suggestions for what marketing approach might cause people like you to buy the book would be appreciated.
posted at 11/20/09 - 01:34 PM
If you sell a book with the premise: Relativity is wrong is like saying, I'm an IDIOT don't buy my book
posted at 11/20/09 - 01:31 PM
sylverxi: Without Relativity, the book derives three sizes of subatomic faster-than-light particles that explain gravity and electromagnetism as an extension of the Le Sage theory of gravity that was squashed by Relativity. These ether particles that I call "spheritons" cannot be detected directly in colliders like the LHC, but I expect they are emitted in some nuclear reactions. My gravity theory includes a mechanism for the larger spheritons of quarks and electrons to coast through the sea of smaller and faster ether spheritons without losing velocity or energy. This process becomes ineffective approaching the speed of light, but a secondary process reduces the atomic particle energy loss at this speed. The result is an eventual limit on the velocity of large spheritons as measured in the frame of reference of the sea of ether spheritons.

My Newton/Galileo/MIller world assumes ether compression near mass, but not Lorentz length contraction or clock-slowing. My theory conserves energy, momentum and mass, but not entirely as science now presumes. For example, if a particle with several orbiting ether spheritons splits up, the spheritons may decelerate in their orbits to emit gamma rays before they disappear into the invisible ether as dark matter, giving the appearance of mass becoming energy.
posted at 11/20/09 - 01:02 PM
der.1988: People seem to prefer to criticize the book without seeing it, limiting sales, whose royalties are still far from covering my publishing and marketing costs.
posted at 11/20/09 - 11:50 AM
Have you heard of the LHC?...then how come when we accelerate these particles you are never able to reach speeds exeding the speed of light?....Why can't we easily accelerate 1 tiny sub-atomic positive charged particle(proton) at the speed of light using HUGE Magnets cooled with liquid helium to make superconductivity possible and making the electric-resistance of these powerful gigantic magnets 0....Even with all these powerful devices we are still not able to accelerate these tiny particles to the speed of light. The reason is Mass-Energy equivalence which is a direct effect of Relativity.

The idea is that all object with a specific amount of energy has (E/C^2) amounts of mass. In other words, as we try to accelerate these sub-atomic particles to ever higher speeds, these particles become more massive and thus need every time more energy to increase their speed at the same rate. This also gives you the idea that if it was even possible to accelerate a massive object to the speed of light, it would have a infinite amounts of mass.

You say the understanding of nature would advance more quickly without relativity, funny thing is, without relativity, the explanations towards these phenomena's would be impossible.

You describe a world without relativity that can only explain Length Contraction(Ether Compression, Lorentz Contraction) that is if all your sources are accurate, but fail to explain any of the other effects that would bring such as Time Dilation & Energy-mass equivalence.
posted at 11/20/09 - 11:27 AM
is al actually flowing with cash?
posted at 11/20/09 - 06:49 AM
The most extensive ether experiments were performed by Dayton Miller at Mt. Wilson. When he plotted the data from tests at four different seasons of the year in sidereal time, the results coincided, showing that the ether comes from 11 hours sidereal time, the direction of the Cosmic Background Radiation, unknown to science at that time. Dayton Miller measured a peak ether velocity of 10 km/sec.

Ernest Silvertooth found the highest ether velocity three decades ago, and it came from the constellation Leo, the direction of the CMB. Roy Kennedy and Edward Thorndike did these experiments many times and consolidated their best results in 1932, concluding that the ether velocity is 10 km/sec. Erling Riis found in 1988 that the ether peaked at 11 and 23 hours sidereal time, confirming that the ether comes from the CMB direction.

How open-minded is science when they ignore the data from all of these experiments, including all of the original Michelson-Morley experiments, that show a small ether velocity from the CMB direction, the direction of an ether, if it exists? Relativity seems to be an elegant, but fictional, theory. If invalid, our understanding of nature will advance quickly when we put Relativity aside.
posted at 11/20/09 - 01:14 AM
The half life of the muons coming from the upper atmosphere where measured at the beginning of the test, or should I say, they where slowed down, and then measured. The cosmic ray we can create in laboratories is not weaker, but maybe less intense and even if the intensity of the cosmic ray had an effect on the half life of muons we would have surely detected some difrence in the half life of these sub-atomic particles, as the measurements in was done in many countries at different time and the intenseties and altitudes where for each country different and yet gave the same half-life for muons.

And yes, true, The Michelson-Morley got 1/9 th of the speed they wanted, but was later done with more accurate apparatus aswell, and was finnally confirmed. You should also believe this should be ignored as 6 months later the experiment was done again, and gave the same result. In other words, The direction moving through the ether changed and should give either a far higher or lower result. Thats why I said it was finally confirmed after the 6 months and not immediately after the first result.

Your just keeping an closed mind and try to find every flaw in every experiment. Atomic clocks inside an airplane in uniform motion was measured and compared to an atomic clock on Earth was also done, which is one of the most popular proof of time dilation. And yes they also took the time dilation affects created by the gravity into account, and got exactly the results as the formula described.
posted at 11/19/09 - 07:43 PM
sylverxi: Thanks again for your comments. I'm not trying to trick anyone. Just like you, I simply want to learn the truth, and just like you, some things I hear or read seem outrageously unrealistic. I believe everything in the book, but I have little doubt that my knowledge of the truth can be improved over time. Reader comments help me, and I believe that the book can help stimulate the reader's discovery of truth, even if the reader does not draw the same conclusions that I draw from the data.

I agree that Einstein's Theories of Relativity are ingenious and brilliant. My main problem with Relativity is that the experiments do not support it. The Michelson-Morley-Miller interferometer that you describe did not show an ether speed of zero, but only an ether speed smaller than the 30 km/sec they expected due to the Earth orbit of the Sun. My book describes the details of these experiments that actually indicate that light propagates in an ether with a speed on earth of about 8 km/sec coming from the constellation Leo. Scientists have chosen to ignore the data in these century-old experiments.

Muons in our atmosphere are produced by cosmic rays far more powerful than the cosmic rays we can produce in laboratories. Could incoming space muons have longer half-lives than the ones we see in the laboratory? What about the muons that are produced in the atmosphere below the altitude of the muon experiment starting point?


posted at 11/19/09 - 06:51 PM
EXTRA INFORMATION
Another prove on Relativity was done by detecting a vast amouts of mouns particles both on the top of a mountain called Washington in New Hampshire and on ground sea level(They even made a movie in the 1950’s concerning this experiment) . Now Mouns are radio-active particles and have a half life of 2.2 µs, so the experiment consisted of measuring mouns at the top and got lets say 100 mouns particle. The mountain lets say was 500 meters high, the particle I know travel at 0.994c. So if you don’t apply relativity, you would have to get 100 particles x (1/2)^((500/0.994C x 299792458m/s))/2.2µs) = 0.59 mouns….so about 59% chance of 1 moun particle. This was not the result they got, instead they detected allot more mouns on ground level. Based on my calculation, I got 8.34 mouns particles using special relativity. And the results showed exaclly around that amout.
I thank you Dr. McDowell as I can see you have lots of insight concerning nature. You also showed me that it is almost impossible to cover all the areas and evidence supporting Special relativity at once. There will always be an opening left off guard that you where capable to take advantage of.I am disappointed u use your intelligence to trick and cheat instead of trying to really state facts. You should maybe write a book on relativity and explain it. I suggest you keep an open mind and learn the reason behind relativity rather than just the statements. I myself despised Einstein’s Theory’s of relativity until I learned the reasons behind the theory itself. It’s quite amazing if you ask me.
posted at 11/19/09 - 06:51 PM
Actually, if there is such a thing as the ether and if it was traveling .2c towards earth, the light emited by the stars would follow Maxwell's equations and so go at speed C + the relative speed of the ether in Newtonian Physics. In this case 1.2c towards the earth then. Just like sound, I believe you even mentioned it below. unless offcourse you mean that the ether is moving away from us at 0.2c. Well then we should be able to detect an ether wind. This was done aswell with the Michelson-morley experiment.
The scheme of the experiment is as follows: a pulse of light is directed at an angle of 45 degrees at a half-silvered, half transparent mirror, so that half the pulse goes on through the glass, half is reflected. They both go on to distant mirrors which reflect them back to the half-silvered mirror. At this point, they are again half reflected and half transmitted, but a telescope is placed behind the half-silvered mirror. The observer should then see interference patters (which was not seen or detected) since the lasers would be traveling at different speeds and that the two lasers would be out of fase in respect to each other. Light is after all a wave and would then interfere just like a wave would and not a particle according to Hygens, funny thing Newton was rooting for The particle idea, while Einstein proved it is nor particle nor wave, but both. The results showed no sign of interference patterns nor then, nor 6 months later that finally proved once and for all that the ether doesn’t exist. The reason for the 6 months apart time has to do with the fact that every 6 month the earth is going at opposite directions relative to the non-existing ether. Conclusion: because we both stated that the earth IS moving relative to the ether, we should be able to detect some sort of ether-wind. The Michelson-Morley experiment failed to detect any ether-wind and so we are obligated to abandon the whole ether idea.
posted at 11/19/09 - 06:30 PM
Regarding Einstein's train paradox, Relativity seems to dictate that in the frame of reference of the passenger on the train, the two light bursts arrive simultaneously on the train and sequentially to the observer alongside the train, while in the frame of reference of the observer alongside the train, the light bursts arrive simultaneously at the observer off the train and sequentially to the passenger on the train. These conflicting outcomes cannot both occur, even in different frames of reference. If two light bursts arrive simultaneously at a given location in one frame of reference, either they arrive simultaneously at the same location in any frame of reference or we have a terribly irrational world, which relativity presumes. We are all welcome to our opinions about how weird nature is, but I decline to believe that the world is that weird. I am not alone in objecting to this much weirdness.
posted at 11/19/09 - 02:38 PM
sylverxi: Your discussion is well-informed and quite helpful. The issues seem to be partly communication and partly opposing views of Relativity. In the double-star case, let's assume that an ether wind moves at 0.2c in the direction of Earth to the two stars. If each star moves at 0.1c in its orbit, we see on Earth BOTH stars sending light to us at 0.8c in my Newton universe. We see both stars send light to us at 1.0c under Relativity. In both my Newton universe and under Relativity, both stars send light to us at 1.0c if the ether speed is zero in our frame of reference. The subtle point is that in my Newton universe, light from a source moving at ANY velocity sends light out at 1.0c in the local ether. In this example, the 0.2c ether relative to Earth reduces light speed to 0.8c when observed on Earth.

In your spacecraft experiment, I added velocities under my Newton rules. Your addition under Relativity is certainly different and holds all velocities below 1.0c. I am right in my model and you are right in your model; the issue is which model of the universe fits the facts. I examine all the facts I can find in my book, leading me to outrageous conclusions. It is for you to decide whether the majority of physicists or I am right. You are as able to make this choice as anyone.

By the way, the book is available in all online bookstores, only $10.99 at Borders.com. If you send me an address at almcd999@earthlink.net, I'll mail you a complementary copy. Your analytical skill and interest in the subject make you an ideal audience for this book.
posted at 11/19/09 - 01:43 PM
Subject 1, I know that you mean that the velocity of light is not effected by the stars, that's the trick, you fell just in. Look at my conclusion, the speed is constant and the only way this is possible is that if the earth, from all the planets and stars, is the only object in space, at rest relative to the ether. In other words, the ether somewhat adjust itself to the earth. Or relativity is true. Your saying things that contradicts themselves, and agree and disagree with me on the SAME issue. HOW? well you say the speed of light is not affected by the stars, but in your train thought experiment you say the speed of light IS affected by the train. And also in my two spacecraft thought experiments.....you add the velocity. That has been proven wrong for more than 50 years. The proper calculation would be. (0.8 + 0.8)/(1+(0.8 x 0.8)/1^2) = 0.98C and not 1.6C...
I'm not gonna waste my time with you, we both know your wrong, your only fighting to keep the cash flowing.
posted at 11/19/09 - 11:12 AM
der.1988: As you say, light propagates through the ether; it is not conducted, even if there is an ether. This shows how carefully basic physics questions must be analyzed.
posted at 11/19/09 - 10:54 AM
syllverxi: Thanks for your excellent comments. We agree that we must accept nature as the facts dictate. Our issues seem to deal with the interpretation of the facts.

Covering your subjects one at a time, I'll start with the distant binary star system. In both my theory and in Relativity theory, the speed of light is not affected by the speed of either star. In both theories, the wavelength and frequency is different for the two stars. I say that light velocity is governed by the velocity of the ether, which is the same for both binary stars relative to Earth or to any other single frame of reference.

Second, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) measurements show that it is moving toward Earth at about 370 km/sec from the direction of the constellation Leo. Assuming that the CMB is stationary in the universe, Earth is therefore moving through the universe toward Leo at this velocity. If there is an ether and if it is stationary in the universe, then Earth is moving through the ether at 370 km/sec toward Leo. I say that the ether compresses and therefore slows down to the 8 km/sec or so measured by Michelson, Morley and Miller.

Dayton Miller's papers were written in 1928 and 1933, more than 2 decades after science rounded off the Michelson-Morley results of a few km/sec to zero and pronounced Relativity true.

Third, in my Newtonian/Galilean/Miller model, a small spacecraft going 0.8c inside a big spacecraft going 0.8c would be going 1.6c in our frame of reference, 0.8c in the big spacecraft frame of reference, and it would be stationary in its own frame of reference. You should of course question this model of nature until you find facts to change your mind. I feel that I have found facts to change my mind from Relativity back to Newton, Galileo, and Dayton Miller.

Fourth, there are things going faster than light. For example, in a double-star system, gravity has to propagate from one star to another virtually instantly to keep the system stable. If gravity spread at only the speed of light, for example, each star would feel gravity from an earlier position of the other star, causing each star to accelerate out of the system. Since the universe is full of binary stars, they cannot be flying apart.

If you read my book, you are among the few people who will recognize an error with my discussion of the muon experiment, in which I incorrectly assumed that the experiment involved muon neutrinos. This is being revised at the printer now.

I still owe you thoughts about Relativistic velocity addition in the train experiment.

Thanks again for your thoughts on these issues.



posted at 11/19/09 - 10:31 AM
A little foot Dr. McDowell, you said that light is conducted through the ether, that is not proper physics, you must say it like this: light PROPAGATES through hypothetical medium known as the ether... I'm not saying you're wrong, i'm saying i'm right :-)
posted at 11/19/09 - 10:22 AM
The case for the apple falling is magical pixy dust... OH SNAP... I just pulled an Al McDowell
posted at 11/19/09 - 10:13 AM
1+1=3....ohhh crap! I just pulled an Al McDowell!
posted at 11/19/09 - 10:10 AM
This is true. Relativity MAY seem crazy, but because we do not deal with such high relativistic speeds we have not been able to build intuition for it. Relativity is correct, thank Sylverxi, you have a lot of insight, I would still very much like to download Al McDowell's book though
posted at 11/19/09 - 09:21 AM
The problem is not Einstein, the problem is nature.....Nature behaves against the common sense of man...
posted at 11/19/09 - 09:09 AM
Corrected version:
Your train explanation has a flaw that is, the speed of light does not add up like that of a tennis-ball thrown in a moving plane. This was the cause of a crisis in Physics in the first place. Physicsist where bafled by this for years, untill einstein came allong. So imagine you have a tennis-ball thrown at 20m/s in a airplane going at 100m/s, how fast will the ground observer se the ball going?.....well using Newtons mechanics you would find the speed 20m/s + 100m/s = 120m/s, if you apply Special relativity, you would find something like 120.00000000000000001m/s....the difference would be so small that you wouldn't even be able to see a difference. So if you would to do this to a speed of light (299792458m/s) the effects would be huge. So again, double-star systems, you know that they spin around each others gravitational field at high speeds right?.....so there is a point where star nr.1 is coming in our direction at speed v, and star nr.2 is going away from us at speed v. imagine if we observe only star nr.2 going away from us, we should see that the speed of the light emitted should be (c-v) right?...and when coming in our direction(becuase it's spinning around star nr.1) the speed of the light emitted should be (c+v) right?...so that would mean that some of the light emitted after the star is moving in our direction reaches at the same time as when it was moving away, because the light is slower when moving away from us. I suggest take a piece of paper, make two dots side by side. now make series of short lines representing light lines....make for the left 5 series of lines of 1 cm beign emited, and for the other 4 series of 1.25cm lines....the lenght represents the displacement in time (t)...the reason the left dot has five lines is because that dot started emitting light first at time t=0 and the right at t=1.This experiments shows you that you should be getting double images of the same star at t=5, and this is not true, when we look at these systems, we see them perfectly spinning around, hence, the speed of light is a constant speed. You can use a simple explanation using the ether for this effect, that is that the earth is NOT moving in respect to the ether. Funny thing is, Al McDowell is saying we ARE moving relative to the ether..
posted at 11/19/09 - 08:24 AM
Dayton Miller: In 1900, he began work with Edward Morley on the detection of aether drift, at the time one of the "hot" areas of fundamental physics. Following on with the basic apparatus as the earlier Michelson-Morley experiment, Miller and Morley published another null result in 1904. These experimental results were later cited in support of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity. I really don't know where you find your info.This a direct qoute from wikipedia...if the guy was alive, he would surely sue you for twisting his results and conclusions. The speed of light have been measured and is the speed C in vacuum in all frames of refrence. See my double-star system explanation again. That was the crisis in Physics....that the speed of light does not add up. In other words, if you measure the speed of light in any situation traveling in vacuum what so ever, you will measure the speed C. The speed of light is the maximum speed anything can reach, again the reason for this maximum speed is Relativity. picture 2 spacecraft, 1 big going at 0.8C and the small going at 0.8C inside the big spacecraft. I ask you, how fast will a grounded person on earth see the spacecraft inside the big spacecraft travel?....like I always say, all paradoxes can also be explain with relativity, the only problem is, they are really complex...I suggest you look up Lectures on Modern Physics by Ridchard wolfsenn which I found was best way to explain these phenomena's so far. See it and you might change your mind Mr.Open minded.
posted at 11/19/09 - 07:30 AM
Einstein’s Train Paradox is an example of the logical failure of Relativity. In this paradox, light flashes at both ends of a train occur simultaneously as seen by an observer on the ground halfway from each end of the train. A passenger in the middle of the train sees the lightflash from the front of the train first due to the movement of the train toward the front lightflash. This is the result expected without Relativity.

With Relativity, the train passenger is supposed to see the lightflashes arriving at the same speed and over the same distance in the passenger’s frame of reference. However, Relativity provides a conundrum for the observer on the ground; for if this person sees the flashes simultaneously, they see the passenger receive the front flash first; and if this person on the ground sees the passenger receive the flashes simultaneously, they do not see the flashes simultaneously at their location on the ground. To believe Relativity, one has to ignore intuition and accept things that cannot be explained.
posted at 11/19/09 - 07:21 AM
The Michelson-Morley experiments were documented in great detail by Dr. Dayton Miller, head of the American Physical Society. He concluded that light is conducted by an ether, and his data shows the ether coming from the direction that Earth moves through the more recently discovered Cosmic Microwave Background. Light is like a wave in water, moving with the speed of the water plus its own natural speed in water. Liight has no mass, but the ether "spheritons" that oscillate as light passes do have mass. At 0.8c in space, microwaves move at 0.2c going against the ether, 1.8c going with the ether, and 1.28c going transverse to the ether. The Sagnac experiment showed that the speed of a star does not affect the speed of light from the star. However, the speed of Earth does affect the speed of light we observe, as I claim the Michelson-Miller experiments show.
posted at 11/19/09 - 05:21 AM
In every single Physics book when you reach the chapter of Relativity, they refer to the ether as "The Hypothetical luminiferous Ether". Sylverxi I think you have the right idea, you seem to know your Physics quite well. I don't know what kind of Physics Al McDowell is reading, but I'm pretty sure most of the scientific community would disagree with this statement. But... I am always open to hearing people out. Al McDowell PROVE to me that Einstein is wrong, and when I say prove, I mean Mathematically, Conceptually, Experimentally, and not to mention you need to also Disprove all the CORRECT mathematics, physics of special relativity, prove to me that the ether Exists.
posted at 11/19/09 - 04:58 AM
The ether idea began with the experiment know as the double slit theory I believe was performed by Young, can't remember fully but well, that proved that light behaves like a wave rather than like Newtons idea of a particle so must have a medium, just like "sound" and so came up with the ether. After this they also tried to calculate the speed of light and some other experiments.1 of Maxwell's equations also gave the speed of light and showed it was a constant speed through vacuum. If the earth was not moving relative to the ether you should see that like a tennis ball in an airplane, the speed of light would be the speed of which it is trown at + the speed of the plane(observed by a grounded observer)So they did an experiments using the telescope observing double-star systems. The reason to this is when star 1 is coming in our direction, the image of the star should be traveling faster relative when the star is going away from us and should be getting some sort of delay in the image and even see double images for the same objects if light bahaved based on mechanics or with the earth not moving relative to the ether. Ironically, that wasn't the case, we didn't get a delay, the speed of light was constant in all frames. So the earth should be moving relative to the eather then? wel to prove this, they did the Michelson-Morley experiment and proved the earth was nor moving relative, nor not moving relative to the ether. so contradictive results...Then came Einstein with his theory of special relativity and explained this phenomenon with an illogical solution, but seemed to be right even today and 100% correct mathematically. Was also proven later to be correct using 3 synchronized clocks. Why 3....the reason you may ask is because you don't understand how relativity works, and many people have a misconception of it, even professors some time. The theory shows There is no way to detect whether your moving or not, you can only see if your moving relative to another objects. Which makes sense, if the ether exists, then you would never be able to microwave food on planets moving .80C away from the earth and this world would be a very weird place.
posted at 11/19/09 - 04:29 AM
Now thats just the problem, you manipulate the results, Some Physicist believe if Einstein didn't know about the Michelson-Morley experiment, Einstein never would have even develop The Theory of relativity. The reason is because the results showed that there is no such thing as the "ether wind" which you should detect if the earth was moving relative to the ether. Which Lorentz came with an idea that maybe the ether compresses( which is not 100% right, because the ether's existence is a contradiction....so it doesn't exist). Which was changed later from the ether, to the compression of space and time itself. Today we call the "Lorentz Contraction" . This the is the physical phenomenon of a decrease in length detected by an observer in objects that travel at any non-zero velocity relative to that observer. I suggest you look up this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson-Morley I personally also didi the calculation and got equal numbers in all in all direction, hence no ether wind, hence no ether. Seriously if you wanna prove something, use accurate results, not made up results. I don't have to read your book to know it's BS, you just showed how you manipulate results(we can all find on the internet), and say something is wrong. Well of course your gonna get as an answer "Einstein is wrong".
posted at 11/18/09 - 07:20 PM
sylverxi's doubts about this book are normal for someone who has not seen the book, which shows in detail how the Michelson-Morley experiments display the effects of an ether from the direction that we now know the Earth is moving through the universe. These experiments are shown to prove that light is carried by the ether and that Relativity is wrong. These conclusions are supported by many other experiments as well, and the book explains how the GPS system works without Relativity and how atomic clocks run at different speed on airplanes. A scientific journal called Galilean Electrodynamics, whose editor has a Ph.D. in math and physics, has peer-reviewed articles disclaiming Relativity. Anyone who would like a 1-page summary of my Relativity disproof and a 2-page description of "thought experiments" that disprove it can send me an email at almcd999@earthlink.net. Thanks for your interest.
posted at 11/18/09 - 04:23 PM
PhyUL09 are you serious?...The Michelson-Morley experimet proves that there is no such thing as the ether...how?...I suggest you look up Modern Physics for non-scientists by Richard wolfsen(a real Physicist)....in other words was unsuccesfull in detecting a so called "ether wind", which by the way was the basis in development of the theory of special relativity...if relativity is wrong, can u explain why GPS is so accurate...ohh right, you don't even know how the theory of relativity is used in GPS....your not open minded, your just a guy posing to know things you have no idea of....your a hoax trying to get some money... and the ether compression thing is called Lorentz contraption, which is a synonym of Einsteins theory of relativity(the space contraption part at least). so PhyUL09, you are saying that Einsteins math is correct(the ether compression), but disagree on a philosophical basis. Your basically proving Einstein right, and saying that he's wrong. This book is what we call Pseudo-science. It is based on both no experiments nor mathematics. So your even doubting the rest of your book, your saying am sure on chapters 3,4 and 8, what your not even certain the other chapters are correct?....stop messing around with physics, go do some astrology book, I heard there is allot more money involved.
posted at 10/19/09 - 12:56 PM
PhyUL09: Thanks for your interest. Most scientists would disavow my membership in their profession, but I believe that I am as open-minded as anyone. My main interest is to learn the truth, and anyone who is willing to communicate with me on these issues will assist in that objective. Parts of my book are speculative, but I am currently quite comfortable with the validity of chapters 3, 4 and 8 concerning Hubble's Law, Relativity, and the cause of gravity. You can use this Wall or my email at almcd999@earthlink.net.
posted at 10/18/09 - 11:38 PM
Also, I told to my physics student friends that they could send you questions, thoughts and comments on your email, if that doesn't bother you.
posted at 10/18/09 - 11:35 PM
Thank you, you seem to be an open minded scientist, as I may call you.
posted at 10/18/09 - 12:54 PM
PhyUL09: You can contact me directly at almcd999@earthlink.net. Your thoughts, comments or questions are more than welcome. Thanks for your interest. Al McDowell
posted at 10/18/09 - 12:23 PM
«Einstein's Relativity is disproved by the Michelson-Morley and other ether experiments that show light speed affected by ether from the direction that Earth moves through the universe at a speed reduced by ether compression in Earth gravity.» I would really love that the author contact me about that.
 

Author Community - Join

Fay Simos
manuela
Daniel Martin Molliver
gokulg67

Authors

Community

Publishers

Help

About Us

(C) Copyright 2010 FiledBy, Inc. All Rights Reserved.