# michelson morley experiment construction

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

When you write "subject to an unknown velocity vector" you seem to be under the impression that there is some absolute frame under which we could have such a velocity vector. Even in "Gallilean relativity" there is no such frame. Every object has 0 velocity relative to itself. If that is not what you mean, the "unknown velocity vector" is relative to what?
you're sitting in a box that has no windows in deep space. Can you say with absolute certainty that box is not moving at a constant velocity ?

I dont care what it is relative to. My mission is to find that velocity. Ill burn all other bridges when and if they come

If I was to go out on a limb and say what it is relative to, I would say it is relative to the center of a strobe photon wave front, which appears to me, as the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the observations of any observer, to have no horizontal or vertical displacement in (x,y,z,t) , for billions of years. That point cannot move as it must always be the same distance from any three photons in the wave front, for all time . Further as photons are not ballistic that point, and the photons in the wave front are unaffected by the movement of any other entity.

if any observer was to observe that point move, or moving, they would have to conclude that the speed of light is not invariant or alternatively that they are moving, and the point is not , which is a pretty stark choice

if anyone was to propose that that point moves they would have to concede that the speed of light is variant as that point would now be closer to some photons in the wave front and further from others.

As photons are non ballistic in nature if one was to propose that that point moved, the photons in the wave front would not move with it, so again the result is C is variant

it appears to me the point at the center of a strobe photon wave front is stationary in an absolute sense.

I simply dreamt up a way of placing a tangible object at that point.

Last edited:

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

Im sitting in a box that has no windows in deep space. Can you say with absolute certainty that box is not moving at a constant velocity ?
Now lets say I find the velocity of my box. I then cut a window in my box and see you flying buy in another box with a window. I see you and you see me.

You say to me , Ross your not moving and I am. I can say no I have a velocity x in direction y , You can then measure yr velocity in an absolute sense relative to me

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
you're sitting in a box that has no windows in deep space. Can you say with absolute certainty that box is not moving at a constant velocity ?

I dont care what it is relative to. My mission is to find that velocity. Ill burn all other bridges when and if they come

If I was to go out on a limb and say what it is relative to, I would say it is relative to the center of a strobe photon wave front, which appears to me, as the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the observations of any observer, to have no horizontal or vertical displacement in (x,y,z,t) , for billions of years. That point cannot move as it must always be the same distance from any three photons in the wave front, for all time . Further as photons are not ballistic that point, and the photons in the wave front are unaffected by the movement of any other entity.

if any observer was to observe that point move, or moving, they would have to conclude that the speed of light is not invariant or alternatively that they are moving, and the point is not , which is a pretty stark choice

if anyone was to propose that that point moves they would have to concede that the speed of light is variant as that point would now be closer to some photons in the wave front and further from others.

As photons are non ballistic in nature if one was to propose that that point moved, the photons in the wave front would not move with it, so again the result is C is variant

it appears to me the point at the center of a strobe photon wave front is stationary in an absolute sense.

I simply dreamt up a way of placing a tangible object at that point.
I'm afraid that you are going to have to burn some bridges. As HallsofIvy said, it simply can't be done in Special or General Relativities. This, along with the constancy of the speed of light are essentially axioms upon which these theories are based. Given that both theories have been thoroughly tested you can take these axioms as a given.

-Dan

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

I'm afraid that you are going to have to burn some bridges. As HallsofIvy said, it simply can't be done in Special or General Relativities.
-Dan
what cant be done ? Finding Vu?

Great if it cant be done , and I claim to have done it , it must be a very simple matter then to explain the flaw in my experiment

which is ?

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

Im pretty sure just making a bare assertion " It cant be done" is not an evidence or logic based argument with some kind of mathematical rigour

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

Hang on your assuming the new axiom I have postulated namely that as speed of light is invariant the point at the center of a strobe photon wave front is absolutely stationary, will invalidate all of the above results

I am not currently in a position to make that call and I dont think you are either.

Last edited:

#### topsquark

Forum Staff
Hang on your assuming the new axiom I have postulated namely that as speed of light is invariant the point at the center of a strobe photon wave front is absolutely stationary, will invalidate all of the above results

I am not currently in a position to make that call and I dont think you are either.
I haven't yet looked at your proposed experiment. However if you really want to throw down I have two degrees in Physics. I have studied both SR and GR in detail. Now, it is quite possible for me to make an error but I am well aware of the postulates that go into Special and General Relativities and from what I see your ideas will throw a wrench in them. Please forgive me, then, if I take the position that some 90 years worth of experiments will invalidate your ideas.

As I said I will look into your ideas. I have not yet had time to do the job properly. But if you start making comments about how either SR or GR are incorrect please remember that your ideas would have to not only prove that you can do something that is impossible according to the theories but you also have to be able to show that your ideas predict the same successes that SR and GR have made.

-Dan

1 person

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

Great if anyone can prove me wrong you are just the man for the job

Since we are vying for credibility, assuming it is even relevant (https://www.einstein-website.de/z_kids/certificatekids.html) I have a degree in engineering with honours , a degree in law and was on the Vice Chancellor list for academic excellent at university and was top of the state in chemistry in my final school exams. I have been studying many aspects of just SR for 20+ years.

a

#### RossBlenkinsopPerth

dddddd

with the Hafele and Keating Experiment if Vu is into, or out of, the page it will not affect the result

#### Attachments

• 9.5 KB Views: 0