Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Ives-Stilwell


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Thales et al

Thales et al

    Quark

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 1 January 2017 - 05:35 PM

zztop:

 

This is my current drawing:

 

ives stilwell 08.jpg

 

In my drawing the positive ion moves from the container on the left to the spectrometer on the right.

 

However, you said:

 

“1. Light coming directly from the ion is redshifted because the source (the ion) is moving AWAY from the receiver

2. Light going into the mirror has the same frequency as the light reflected from the mirror (due to the energy conservation). So, light reflected by the mirror into the receiver is blueshifted because the source (the ion) is moving TOWARD the mirror.”

 

And so I’ve changed my drawing:

 

ives stilwell 11.jpg

 

(I changed the arrow on the moving ion from left to right to right to left)

 

Is this now right?

 

If so, then this clears up my red-shift/blue-shift confusion.  Cool.

 

But, then … if this is correct … my basic understanding that the ion comes out of the container of gas … and so would then move from left to right is all askew.

 

My question (simple, like all of my previous ones): how does the ion end up moving from right to left?  (This is so simple, I know it must be dumb.)

 

Thank you.

 

 


  • 0

#22 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Banned
  • 180 posts

Posted 1 January 2017 - 05:45 PM

zztop:

 

This is my current drawing:

 

attachicon.gifives stilwell 08.jpg

 

In my drawing the positive ion moves from the container on the left to the spectrometer on the right.

 

However, you said:

 

“1. Light coming directly from the ion is redshifted because the source (the ion) is moving AWAY from the receiver

2. Light going into the mirror has the same frequency as the light reflected from the mirror (due to the energy conservation). So, light reflected by the mirror into the receiver is blueshifted because the source (the ion) is moving TOWARD the mirror.”

 

And so I’ve changed my drawing:

 

attachicon.gifives stilwell 11.jpg

 

(I changed the arrow on the moving ion from left to right to right to left)

 

Is this now right?

 

If so, then this clears up my red-shift/blue-shift confusion.  Cool.

 

But, then … if this is correct … my basic understanding that the ion comes out of the container of gas … and so would then move from left to right is all askew.

 

My question (simple, like all of my previous ones): how does the ion end up moving from right to left?  (This is so simple, I know it must be dumb.)

 

Thank you.

 

 

The ions are accelerated by a very strong electrostatic potential (of the order of 50000V)



#23 Thales et al

Thales et al

    Quark

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 3 January 2017 - 08:01 PM

Okay.

 

I think I'm starting to get it.

 

Thank you all for helping me out!


  • 0

#24 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Banned
  • 180 posts

Posted 3 January 2017 - 09:57 PM

Okay.

 

I think I'm starting to get it.

 

Thank you all for helping me out!

you are welcome



#25 Thales et al

Thales et al

    Quark

  • Members
  • 29 posts

Posted 19 March 2017 - 09:11 PM

This thread ended a long time ago.

 

But I found a page that includes a pretty good description of what is physically happening in the Ives-Stilwell experiment.

 

http://spiff.rit.edu...er/doppler.html

 

And so I figured I'd post it here if anyone is interested.

 

Cheers!


  • 0

#26 madmac

madmac

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 115 posts
  • LocationKangaroo land.

Posted 21 March 2017 - 09:26 AM

Thales et al asks -- what is being claimed in this experiment.(???)

TIME AND THE METAPHYSICS OF RELATIVITY -- WILLIAM LANE CRAIG -- 2001. 

Craig says..........

...............Ives & Stilwell were themselves neo-Lorentzians & so interpreted their results as a vindication of clock retardation for inertial frames in motion relative to the aether frame. "The conclusion drawn from these experiments is that the change of frequency of a moving light source predicted by the Larmor-Lorentz theory is verified," they concluded. Einsteinian relativists point out, however, that the results can be equally interpreted as a verification of the Einsteinian interpretation of Special Relativity..........

 

Prof Reg Cahill shows that Ives & Stilwell were correct -- Einsteinians wrong -- the results do not equally verify Einstein.

Simply google -- cahill ives stilwell.

A wonderful paper by perhaps the most important scientist alive.


Edited by madmac, 21 March 2017 - 09:31 AM.

  • -2

#27 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Banned
  • 180 posts

Posted 21 March 2017 - 01:29 PM

Thales et al asks -- what is being claimed in this experiment.(???)

TIME AND THE METAPHYSICS OF RELATIVITY -- WILLIAM LANE CRAIG -- 2001. 

Craig says..........

...............Ives & Stilwell were themselves neo-Lorentzians & so interpreted their results as a vindication of clock retardation for inertial frames in motion relative to the aether frame. "The conclusion drawn from these experiments is that the change of frequency of a moving light source predicted by the Larmor-Lorentz theory is verified," they concluded. Einsteinian relativists point out, however, that the results can be equally interpreted as a verification of the Einsteinian interpretation of Special Relativity..........

 

Prof Reg Cahill shows that Ives & Stilwell were correct -- Einsteinians wrong -- the results do not equally verify Einstein.

Simply google -- cahill ives stilwell.

A wonderful paper by perhaps the most important scientist alive.

Cahill is a crank. Stop rubbishing the forum with your own crankreries.



#28 madmac

madmac

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 115 posts
  • LocationKangaroo land.

Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:07 AM

zztop.

Thales et al had trouble finding original info on Ives & Stilwell. So did i.  Wiki stuff is Einsteinian propaganda, & heavily censored.

 

If Ives & Stilwell were fully anointed & baptised apostles of Einstein, & if their experiment was a heavenly example of the truth of the SR, then why cant we find any of the original Gospel according to Ives & Stilwell? All we see is propaganda. Einsteinians have even used Ives & Stilwell to "prove" Einstein's transverse Doppler.

 

I would love to see some or all of Ives & Stilwell's original paper.

What was their intention -- theory & equations -- test results (in full) -- conclusions (as Thales et al says -- what were their claims).

 

Also, any info on Ives or Stilwell in the wake of their experiment. Any history re papers leading up to or following the experiment, & how it all influenced their professional lives.

 

If u google wiki for -- Herbert E Ives -- u will see some breathtakingly disgusting Einsteinian propaganda twisting Ives' beliefs.


Edited by madmac, 22 March 2017 - 12:30 AM.

  • -3

#29 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Banned
  • 180 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:32 AM



zztop.

Thales et al had trouble finding original info on Ives & Stilwell. So did i.  Wiki stuff is Einsteinian propaganda, & heavily censored.

 

If Ives & Stilwell were fully anointed & baptised apostles of Einstein, & if their experiment was a heavenly example of the truth of the SR, then why cant we find any of the original Gospel according to Ives & Stilwell? All we see is propaganda. Einsteinians have even used Ives & Stilwell to "prove" Einstein's transverse Doppler.

 

I would love to see some or all of Ives & Stilwell's original paper.

What was their intention -- theory & equations -- test results (in full) -- conclusions (as Thales et al says -- what were their claims).

 

Also, any info on Ives or Stilwell in the wake of their experiment. Any history re papers leading up to or following the experiment, & how it all influenced their professional lives.

 

If u google wiki for -- Herbert E Ives -- u will see some breathtakingly disgusting Einsteinian propaganda twisting Ives' beliefs.

Here is the copy of the paper, contrary to your claims it is readily available. You need to stop spewing crankeries.



#30 madmac

madmac

    Baryon

  • Senior Members
  • 115 posts
  • LocationKangaroo land.

Posted 22 March 2017 - 02:01 AM

zztop.

Thanx very much for that,

I also found a free read only copy on MyJSTOR of a book by Roberto Lalli -- Anti-Relativity In Action: The Scientific Activity of Herbert E Ives between 1937 and 1953. Which looks to answer my other wish re history papers in the wake of the experiment.

These will take me a few days to digest.

Thanx again.


  • 0

#31 imatfaal

imatfaal

    lazy do-nothing mudslinger

  • Moderators
  • 7,558 posts
  • LocationSt James's Park

Posted 22 March 2017 - 11:21 AM

!

Moderator Note

madmac

 

If you have a problem with mainstream physics then the debate belongs in the speculations forum - however you will be asked to defend your assertions.  If you post such nonsense in the main fora you will be sanctioned. 

 

Do not reply to this moderation in the thread.  You can report this message if you feel it is not fair.


  • 0

A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again.

- Alexander Pope

 

feel free to click the green arrow  ---->

 


#32 Tim88

Tim88

    Atom

  • Senior Members
  • 391 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 12:43 PM

Here is the copy of the paper, contrary to your claims it is readily available. You need to stop spewing crankeries.

 

Readily available indeed - did you notice from where you linked that paper? <_<


  • 0

#33 zztop

zztop

    Baryon

  • Banned
  • 180 posts

Posted 22 March 2017 - 02:10 PM

 

Readily available indeed - did you notice from where you linked that paper? <_<

Yes, I did.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users