Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #357789 > unrolled thread

Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula Peter Riedt <riedt1@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-07-18 23:57 -0700
    Re: Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-19 05:13 -0700
    Re: Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2015-07-19 21:04 +0200
    Re: Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2015-07-19 16:40 -0500

#357789 — Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula

Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula

The Kennedy and Thorndyke experiment used an interferometer with unequal arms (about 16cm difference) and observations were made over a long period of time to study the effect of the differences of the speed of the earth around the sun (the range is from a max of 30287m/sec to a min of 29292m/sec with an average of 29780m/sec). As with MMX the result was null which some authorities interpreted as a confirmation of contraction AND time dilation and some others as negative or inconclusive.

My anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) applied to an KTX interferometer predicts the following transit times:

For a perpendicular arm of 11.16m (dper) and a parallel arm of 11m (dpar): 
At v=30287m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
0.000000074451506428167200000sec
and at v=29292m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
0.000000074451506403613400000sec.

For a perpendicular arm of 11m (dper) and a parallel arm of 11.16m (dpar):
At v=30287m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
0.000000074451506428167200000sec
and at v=29292m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
0.000000074451506403613400000sec.

The range in the speed of the earth is not large enough to have an effect in KTX
and the difference in the length did not influence the outcome.

Peter Riedt

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#357795

On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 12:57:57 AM UTC-6, Peter Riedt wrote:
>
> My anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc)

Your "anisotropic light formula" is refuted by copious experimental evidence:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.1318

http://lightspeedtest.com/LightSpeed.pdf

Other Mossbauer experiments reduce the uncertainty even farther.

Gary

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357842

On 19.07.2015 12:28, underante wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 7:57:57 AM UTC+1, Peter Riedt wrote:
>> Kennedy-Thorndyke and the Riedt Anisotropic Light Formula
>>
>> The Kennedy and Thorndyke experiment used an interferometer with unequal arms (about 16cm difference) and observations were made over a long period of time to study the effect of the differences of the speed of the earth around the sun (the range is from a max of 30287m/sec to a min of 29292m/sec with an average of 29780m/sec). As with MMX the result was null which some authorities interpreted as a confirmation of contraction AND time dilation and some others as negative or inconclusive.
>>
>> My anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc) applied to an KTX interferometer predicts the following transit times:
>>
>> For a perpendicular arm of 11.16m (dper) and a parallel arm of 11m (dpar):
>> At v=30287m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
>> 0.000000074451506428167200000sec
>> and at v=29292m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
>> 0.000000074451506403613400000sec.
>>
>> For a perpendicular arm of 11m (dper) and a parallel arm of 11.16m (dpar):
>> At v=30287m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
>> 0.000000074451506428167200000sec
>> and at v=29292m/sec the transit times for both arms were an equal
>> 0.000000074451506403613400000sec.
>>
>> The range in the speed of the earth is not large enough to have an effect in KTX
>> and the difference in the length did not influence the outcome.
>>
>> Peter Riedt
>
> erm, where did you get this arm length of 11 m from?
> the reported path lengths used in the1932 paper are conspicuous by their absence, all they say is that the maximum (total) difference was 318 mm, and the paths were not perpendicular to each other either, the half silvered mirror being inclined at the brewster angle.
> and apart from this webpage:
> http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Kennedy/Kennedy.html
> which gives individual path lengths of about 220 and 60 mm, i have so far been  unable to find any  more  information on that, (though i have every confidence that  someone reading this will have all the relevant facts and figures readily to hand!!)
>
> {{and by the bye, it is thorndike with an i not a y! -- but i am not entirely sure how to change that in the title to this thread))
>

https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#357853

On 7/19/15 7/19/15   11:52 AM, Ignorant Raving Crackpot wrote:
> On Sunday, July 19, 2015 at 10:11:40 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> On 7/19/15 7/19/15   1:57 AM, Peter Riedt wrote:
>>> My anisotropic light formula c' = c*1/sqrt(1-vv/cc)
>> How is that "anisotropic"????
>
> Instead of the longitudinal arm being contracted in the direction of
> motion, Peter proposes that the *bidirectional* speed of light
> increases by the Lorentz factor along the interferometer's direction
> of motion.

That may be what he claims, but it is NOT what his "formula" says. This is just 
one more instance of him contradicting himself.


> His numbers make no sense, [...]

Yes. Nor does most of what he says.


Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web