Measuring speed of light emitted by a moving frame by Koorosh Shahdaei

Dear Koorosh Shahdaei,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Koorosh,

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of light, the luminiferous medium moves with a very large variance of the speed of motion, due to the action of a set of gravitational waves in form of streams of gravitins. Some gravitational waves finish the action on the device, others start, and can act from different sides. Therefore strangely enough, but your device belongs to the class of an optical gravitational wave recorder, like LIGO and LISA projects, but it is much more compact and simpler.

An important advantage of your device is its lack of inertia, it does not have inert mass, but registers both low frequency and high-frequency variations of the action of gravitational waves by measuring of the speed of movement of the luminiferous medium. I hope that the sensitivity of the device will be much higher than the inertial devices.

Therefore, your work will allow to rethinking the mechanism of gravity, which determines the self-organization of matter and, thus, to get more accurate answers to the questions posed in the competition.

Everyone expected the Earth to move in the laminar flow of the luminiferous medium, but in fact, on its act turbulent streams of gravitons in the gravitational waves. The light-bearing medium is a superfluid medium in which there are practically no laminar streams.

Many tried to repeat the experiment of Michelson and Morley, somebody received a low speed of luminiferous medium, and someone did not get no speed , because the gravitational waves on the surface of the Earth operate mainly from 12 to 24 hours of solar time. Who and when measured speed - history is silent.

My essay states that Michelson and Morley were to get the averaged velocity of the Earth in a light-bearing medium of 8 km/s and they received it . The speed of motion of the light-bearing medium relative to the Earth is transformed in the first cosmic velocity of the Earth, the square of which determines the gravitational potential of the Earth's surface.

I.e., gravity has the dynamic cause; its mechanism is considered in my essay. By the simple detector of gravitational waves, I was able to also register the turbulence light medium register the turbulence light medium .

I wish you creative success.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Koorosh,

Sorry, the previous message does not work links. I expose the message a second time.

Your work to develop a compact meter of variations in the speed of light is an interesting and important work.

I did not accidentally write about variations in the speed of light, because for the time being almost no one understands that during the measurement of the speed of light, the luminiferous medium moves with a very large variance of the speed of motion, due to the action of a set of gravitational waves in form of streams of gravitins. Some gravitational waves finish the action on the device, others start, and can act from different sides. Therefore strangely enough, but your device belongs to the class of an optical gravitational wave recorder, like LIGO and LISA projects, but it is much more compact and simpler.

An important advantage of your device is its lack of inertia, it does not have inert mass, but registers both low frequency and high-frequency variations of the action of gravitational waves by measuring of the speed of movement of the luminiferous medium. I hope that the sensitivity of the device will be much higher than the inertial devices.

Therefore, your work will allow to rethinking the mechanism of gravity, which determines the self-organization of matter and, thus, to get more accurate answers to the questions posed in the competition.

Everyone expected the Earth to move in the laminar flow of the luminiferous medium, but in fact, on its act turbulent streams of gravitons in the gravitational waves. The light-bearing medium is a superfluid medium in which there are practically no laminar streams.

Many tried to repeat the experiment of Michelson and Morley, somebody received a low speed of luminiferous medium, and someone did not get no speed , because the gravitational waves on the surface of the Earth operate mainly from 12 to 24 hours of solar time. Who and when measured speed - history is silent.

My essay states that Michelson and Morley were to get the averaged velocity of the Earth in a light-bearing medium of 8 km/s and they received it . The speed of motion of the light-bearing medium relative to the Earth is transformed in the first cosmic velocity of the Earth, the square of which determines the gravitational potential of the Earth's surface.

I.e., gravity has the dynamic cause; its mechanism is considered in my essay. By the simple detector of gravitational waves, I was able to also register the turbulence light medium register the turbulence light medium .

I wish you creative success.

Kind regards,

Vladimir Fedorov

Dear Koorosh,

On page 7 of my essay "Towards more reasonable evolution" I argued for the one-way definition of the speed of light in vacuum. I am ready to defend this view.

My first posting, directed to all, was deleted, perhaps it was reported as inappropriate.

Regards,

Eckard Blumschein

Dear Koorosh Shadaei

I invite you and every physicist to read my work "TIME ORIGIN,DEFINITION AND EMPIRICAL MEANING FOR PHYSICISTS, Héctor Daniel Gianni ,I'm not a physicist.

How people interested in "Time" could feel about related things to the subject.

1) Intellectuals interested in Time issues usually have a nice and creative wander for the unknown.

2) They usually enjoy this wander of their searches around it.

3) For millenniums this wander has been shared by a lot of creative people around the world.

4) What if suddenly, something considered quasi impossible to be found or discovered such as "Time" definition and experimental meaning confronts them?

5) Their reaction would be like, something unbelievable,... a kind of disappointment, probably interpreted as a loss of wander.....

6) ....worst than that, if we say that what was found or discovered wasn't a viable theory, but a proved fact.

7) Then it would become offensive to be part of the millenary problem solution, instead of being a reason for happiness and satisfaction.

8) The reader approach to the news would be paradoxically adverse.

9) Instead, I think it should be a nice welcome to discovery, to be received with opened arms and considered to be read with full attention.

11)Time "existence" is exclusive as a "measuring system", its physical existence can't be proved by science, as the "time system" is. Experimentally "time" is "movement", we can prove that, showing that with clocks we measure "constant and uniform" movement and not "the so called Time".

12)The original "time manuscript" has 23 pages, my manuscript in this contest has only 9 pages.

I share this brief with people interested in "time" and with physicists who have been in sore need of this issue for the last 50 or 60 years.

Héctor

Koorosh

Dear Koorosh

You have described your proposal well. Question: having the emitter on a rocket moving at velocity v will introduce Doppler shifts in the wavelength. Why a moving emitter at all?

In my theory of light moving through a discrete universal ether at a maximum speed c Beautiful Universe Theory n pure vacuume, but at slower speeds in gravitational or otherwise energized fields, c would be faster on the Space Station than c measured on Earth. Or would it ? Since clocks would give slower time? Needs thinking out by experts!

Good luck

Vladimir

Kooroosh.

Off topic but worthy of comment. I've studied this issue for some time and agree that better experiments are required as theory and analysis are incorrect, that yours is reasonable set-up, but also that the findings will be analysed as finding precisely 'c'. Are you familiar for instance with Lodges 'spinning glass disc' experiments? and Ruyon Wang's recent advanced 'Sagnac' experiments? i.e.Modified Sagnac experiment etc.

Lodge and other key experimental analysis to inform new experimental set ups are in my own joint papers here; Stellar Aberration & paradox free SR, and with full interferometer analysis here Resolving emission theory anomalies; http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.7163

Lastly my 2010 finalist essay here fully addressed the topic and describing the only coherent and consistent solution matching ALL the evidence; 2020 Vision.

We also need to refine your specification. When you write; "The measuring frame which comprising of measuring devices, is stationary relative to the emitting frame" that by convention means it is NOT IN RELATIVE MOTION with respect to (wrt) the emitter rest frame. But I see that is not what you meant, so it should strictly read; 'at rest in the stationary frame.' However it'd be better to define the frames as K1 and K2 because EITHER could be arbitrarily considered 'stationary', unless you assign some frame K to the vacuum (which is reasonable, but you don't).

Now a question. If your 'light detectors' have a glass lens with a free electron surface structure and dense medium with refractive index 'n' at what speed wrt the lens rest frame would you expect light to pass through? Now lets take TWO lenses with one in motion at 0.1c towards the emitter and one at 0.1c away from it. Would you expect light to pass through the glass lenses at different speeds? of course not, and in experiments we always find c/n, but with Doppler shifts. So what may that be telling us?

I hope you understand all that. Do challenge or ask if you don't.

Very best,

Peter

Kooroosh,

That shows flexible thinking so is very good. However my prediction of 'c' remains and matches all findings. Yet doctrine is still wrong. For 'why'; consider this carefully;

ALL matter (not just what we call a 'lense'!) has a surface 'fine structure' of free fermions, familiar as electrons, (or in plasma physics 'surface plasmons' etc.) In Maxwell terms, adding physical reality, this forms the TRANSITION ZONE (TZ) between his 'near' and 'far' fields. An aerial engineer will tell you exactly where it is, varying with wavelength but for light it's around max 1 micron. For a spacecraft or plane it's some metres off the body (it can even often be seen!)

Light will therefore be modulated to the LOCAL rest frame c on arrival at the 'near field' ALL matter and on ALL electron interactions!

So if your receptors are anywhere near each other I fear the result will be 'c' and reinforce poor science. But if they're far apart, then most will likely say their relative range can't be precise enough. It is a big problem, and past experiments have similarly just served to re-inforce doctrine as interpretation is flawed. But do keep working at it!

None the less your low score is rather an insult so adding mine now will help. I hope you may get other constructive responses. I also hope you may read, like and score mine - which I think contains a very important finding also not analysed by most!

Best wishes

Peter

Hi dear Koorosh,

Actually you have touching to very important old problem of fundamental physics that however now stands somewhat out of agenda. There was the decision to take this (speed of light) as it is represented in SR and do not to try to change anything here. But some contradictions still continued remains there. That is why your suggestion on new measurement of light's speed can change a lot of things.

But I'm really sceptical that someone will take this opportunity to again put under doubt the declared principles of relativity. The questions however continued to excitate truly thinkers. That is why I decide to support you with my rating.

Please to open my work and check there Ref. [3] where me also put this question and have describe the principle of similar experiment that can causally to explain how we can get the Lorentz transformation and SR without mysteries. But ... who will listen to us?

Be well, my dear!

Kooroosh,

I assume that such an experiment has not been tried before -- rocket to ISS. Does the speed of the target, about 17,000 and the speed of the rocket matter in this endeavor? What about rotation speed?

I support out-of-the-box ideas and will rate accordingly. As a science fiction writer, I endeavor to consider unknown factors like quantum entanglement, for example, as a possible factor in speed, something a type 0 civilization does not have the knowledge to consider.

My essay considers speculative ventures to look at dark matter as well. Hope you can check mine out as well.

Jim Hoover

Koorosh,

I checked out your prior essay and tend to agree with you: "The human being are shaped to comprehend discontinuous chunks of a wholeness or totality." It is something we don't seem to perceive in that light. I was also in that contest and missed reading your essay at that point.

Regards,

Jim