Light rays don't travel on ballistic curves.

NoEinstein

unread,

Jan 3, 2009, 2:45:44 PM1/3/09

to

Most optical experiments are designed from a schematic drawing of the
expected light path. The M-M experiment can be explained in a simple
line drawing showing the light’s travel along two different tee-shaped
courses. Arrows on the centerline of those light paths give the
direction of movement of the photons in traveling from the light
source to the target.

At the center of the two crossing arms of the light paths is a half-
silvered beam splitter set at a 45 degree angle. The presence of that
beam splitter can have dramatic effects on the times of travel of the
light over those two light courses. As most of you should know, if
the photons in either light course arrive at the target earlier or
latter than those in the other light course, there will be visible
fringe shifts in the interference pattern bulls eye on the target.
But Michelson and Morley—much to their chagrin—observed zero fringe
shifts, even though their apparatus was carefully rotated 360 degrees
in a horizontal plane.

Every person, heretofore, who has tried to understand that 1887 M-M
experiment has always assumed that the light paths, therein, always
match the schematic line drawing, and have both light courses passing
through the designed centerline of that 45 degree beam splitter. My
own rationale for the nil results of M-M is this: Photons traveling in
the air from the light source to the target are NOT physically
connected to the optical apparatus, itself. That means that the
apparatus is continuing to move while the light is in transit to
mirrors or to the target. The amount of movement will depend on the
Earth’s velocity vector at the time and place of the experiment.
Because the apparatus moves while the light is in transit to that 45
degree beam splitter, the light beam will hit OFF-CENTER of such. And
off-center hits will cause a physical change in the distance of travel
to the target.

A curious thing about 45 degree mirrors, such as in M-M, is this: An
off-center hit by a light beam on the near side—while shortening that
leg of the light course—will automatically LENGTHEN the distance of
travel on the next leg by an identical amount; and vice versa! 45
degree mirrors or beam splitters automatically NEGATE the only
indication of time of travel differences in the two light courses.
The latter statement is the reason that the M-M experiment had nil
results!

‘Rubber-ruler’ Lorentz, and his gang of shallow thinkers, preferred to
suppose that all matter will contract due to velocity, and contract
identically regardless of the material. The latter idea is ludicrous,
of course. Everyone who agrees with Einstein anything… must accept
Lorentz’s laughable notion that matter is easily compressed by
velocity.

There is a quality of light required for Lorentz’s shallow-minded
notion to be true. Namely: All light (photons) must move along
ballistic curves so that the light rays will always hit the 45 degree
beam splitter on the exact centerline. If a bomb is dropped from a
fast plane, such will follow a ballistic path to the Earth.

The light source, and all of the optical components in the M-M
experiment are Earth mounted. And those components are moving with
the identical velocity as the Earth at the time and place of the
experiment. If the light happens to be traveling at some angle
relative to Earth’s velocity vector, then trigonometry will allow
calculating the times of travel.

Suppose a light beam is shined straight down from a very fast plane.
If those photons behave like a dropped bomb, they will hit a distance
ahead of the location of the plane (at the instant of emission)
dependent on the velocity of the plane. Now, suppose that the plane
and the Earth are both moving with identical velocity and direction.
The photons will hit the Earth right below the plane every time. But
is such light traveling in a straight line? No way! An observer in
space, will record the light following the same bomb-like ballistic
curve as before, only this time the Earth moves forward enough to be
waiting at the apt impact points of the photons. Note: The above is a
supposition, NOT a fact.

Bombs have mass. Thus, bombs have a forward momentum at the instant
of their release. But photons have zero mass. So photons have zero
forward momentum. The atomic level events that release photons are
instantaneous. And instantaneous events don’t allow the photons to be
influenced by the speed of the moving plane. The result? Photons
never travel along ballistic paths! The latter statement is true, and
negates Lorentz’s rubber-ruler notion about M-M (for yet another
reason), because the light will hit off-center of that 45 degree beam
splitter (except in the lone case in which the path of travel of the
light is aligned with Earth‘s velocity vector).

The following simple experiment can prove that photons never follow
ballistic paths: Using a laser as the light source, position two
small, precision pin-holes in alignment with such, and spaced as
widely apart as possible on a common rotating beam. The spacing on
the beam could be say 3’-0” from the laser to the first pinhole, and
another 3’-0” to the second pin hole. If light passes through to a
paper target, the four optical elements are aligned, right? Not
necessarily.

If light is traveling ballisticly (it isn’t), the optical elements
must be NON ALIGNED in order for the photons to pass through! A most
interesting aspect of the above apparatus is that the supposed
ballistic curve of the light must be DIFFERENT for every azimuth of
the beam’s rotation relative to Earth’s velocity vector! It can be
proved that light NEVER travels along ballistic courses, simply by
observing that the light beam will remain constant on the paper target
through 360 degrees of rotation of that beam! If ballistic courses
were involved, the light would vary, or go out, at the target as the
beam is rotated.

The above is yet another way in which I have invalidated the M-M
experiment, Lorentz, Einstein and the entire CENTURY of the Dark Ages
of Einstein. Those who are interested should read the following
sampling of my + New Posts over the past two years.

Respectfully submitted,

— NoEinstein —

Eric Gisse

unread,

Jan 3, 2009, 2:59:53 PM1/3/09

to

On Jan 3, 10:45 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
[snip]

Why don't you post this on a blog?

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:13:26 AM1/4/09

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com

Dirk Van de moortel

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:17:01 AM1/4/09

to

NoEinstein <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com

Unless we arrange the setup to make the beam hit ON-center.

> And
> off-center hits will cause a physical change in the distance of travel
> to the target.

That's why they are arranged to hit ON-center.

[remainder disrespectfully ignored]

>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> — NoEinstein —

Quite.

Dirk Vdm

Eddie Correct

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 1:13:08 PM1/4/09

to

Light waves don't travel, you Google-posting twat.

"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

"Whear my brane be at?"

NoEinstein

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 9:08:08 PM1/4/09

to

On Jan 4, 1:13 pm, "Eddie Correct" <inva...@example.com> wrote:
> Light waves don't travel, you Google-posting twat.
>

> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>
> news:5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Whear my brane be at?"

Dear Eddie Wrong: Light ISN'T waves. I never ever said such! Light
is packets of IOTA's (the smallest energy unit of the ether). Such
will traverse space either filled with ether, or not. Therefore,
light requires no medium for it's propagation.

Since gravity is flowing ether; and since there are 'Swiss cheese'
voids in the ether between galaxies, then gravity will not act across
those voids. Therefore, there was never a Big Bang, nor is the
Universe expanding or contracting. The billion dollar 'gravity wave
experiments' are a waste; as are missing mass experiments; microwave
background experiments and etc. When I disproved Einstein I
eliminated the "necessity" for the NSF, which is just an education-
sponsored con to bilk tax dollars from the naive citizens. —
NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:29:17 PM1/4/09

to

On Jan 4, 1:13 pm, "Eddie Correct" <inva...@example.com> wrote:

> Light waves don't travel, you Google-posting twat.
>

> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

>
> news:5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Whear my brane be at?"

Dear Eddie Wrong: Apparently your 'brane' is eroding away in a 'head'
of beer... — NoEinstein —

NoEinstein

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:31:31 PM1/4/09

to

Dear Eric: My ideas are being aired within sci.physics. What would
be the advantage of switching to a blog? — NoEinstein —

doug

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:44:27 PM1/4/09

to

NoEinstein wrote:

> On Jan 4, 1:13 pm, "Eddie Correct" <inva...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Light waves don't travel, you Google-posting twat.
>>
>>"NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>>
>>news:5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>"Whear my brane be at?"
>
>
> Dear Eddie Wrong: Light ISN'T waves. I never ever said such! Light
> is packets of IOTA's (the smallest energy unit of the ether). Such
> will traverse space either filled with ether, or not. Therefore,
> light requires no medium for it's propagation.

It is amazing how much physics you are ignorant of. You should study.

>
> Since gravity is flowing ether; and since there are 'Swiss cheese'
> voids in the ether between galaxies, then gravity will not act across
> those voids. Therefore, there was never a Big Bang, nor is the
> Universe expanding or contracting. The billion dollar 'gravity wave
> experiments' are a waste; as are missing mass experiments; microwave
> background experiments and etc. When I disproved Einstein I
> eliminated the "necessity" for the NSF, which is just an education-
> sponsored con to bilk tax dollars from the naive citizens. —
> NoEinstein —

You have disproved nothing about Einstein. You have proved that you
do not know any physics. It is a mystery why you want to continue
to look so stupid.

Eddie Correct

unread,

Jan 4, 2009, 10:53:51 PM1/4/09

to

"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:8fcc310e-4064-4e22...@f11g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

On Jan 4, 1:13 pm, "Eddie Correct" <inva...@example.com> wrote:
> Light waves don't travel, you Google-posting twat.
>
> "NoEinstein" <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:5d614705-2e99-4981...@l38g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
>
> "Whear my brane be at?"

> traverse space either filled with ether, or not. Therefore,

> light requires no medium for it's propagation.

Learn about apostrophe's and they're use's, imbecile.

PD

unread,

Jan 5, 2009, 10:37:51 AM1/5/09

to

On Jan 3, 1:45 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Most optical experiments are designed from a schematic drawing of the
> expected light path.

That depends on the optical experiment. Optical experiments with a
diffraction grating, for example, do not.

> The M-M experiment can be explained in a simple
> line drawing showing the light’s travel along two different tee-shaped
> courses. Arrows on the centerline of those light paths give the
> direction of movement of the photons in traveling from the light
> source to the target.
>
> At the center of the two crossing arms of the light paths is a half-
> silvered beam splitter set at a 45 degree angle. The presence of that
> beam splitter can have dramatic effects on the times of travel of the
> light over those two light courses.

Really? Calculate the size of the effect you expect, and explain the
basis of the effect.

> As most of you should know, if
> the photons in either light course arrive at the target earlier or
> latter than those in the other light course, there will be visible
> fringe shifts in the interference pattern bulls eye on the target.
> But Michelson and Morley—much to their chagrin—observed zero fringe
> shifts, even though their apparatus was carefully rotated 360 degrees
> in a horizontal plane.
>
> Every person, heretofore, who has tried to understand that 1887 M-M
> experiment has always assumed that the light paths, therein, always
> match the schematic line drawing, and have both light courses passing
> through the designed centerline of that 45 degree beam splitter. My
> own rationale for the nil results of M-M is this: Photons traveling in
> the air from the light source to the target are NOT physically
> connected to the optical apparatus, itself. That means that the
> apparatus is continuing to move while the light is in transit to
> mirrors or to the target. The amount of movement will depend on the
> Earth’s velocity vector at the time and place of the experiment.
> Because the apparatus moves while the light is in transit to that 45
> degree beam splitter, the light beam will hit OFF-CENTER of such. And
> off-center hits will cause a physical change in the distance of travel
> to the target.

Well, that's an interesting remark. If I'm standing on a stationary
train and I hold a penny directly over the toe of my shoe from waist-
height and drop it, it lands on my shoe. If I'm standing on a train
that is moving at 85 mph and I hold a penny directly over the toe of
my shoe from waist-height and drop it, where do you think the penny
will land?

>
> A curious thing about 45 degree mirrors, such as in M-M, is this: An
> off-center hit by a light beam on the near side—while shortening that
> leg of the light course—will automatically LENGTHEN the distance of
> travel on the next leg by an identical amount; and vice versa! 45
> degree mirrors or beam splitters automatically NEGATE the only
> indication of time of travel differences in the two light courses.
> The latter statement is the reason that the M-M experiment had nil
> results!

I'm not sure I follow. All you've demonstrated is that the "dramatic
effect" introduced by the beam splitter, due to the light hitting off-
center on the beam splitter, now seems not to be a dramatic effect at
all. What is it exactly that you're trying to say?

>
> ‘Rubber-ruler’ Lorentz, and his gang of shallow thinkers, preferred to
> suppose that all matter will contract due to velocity, and contract
> identically regardless of the material. The latter idea is ludicrous,
> of course. Everyone who agrees with Einstein anything… must accept
> Lorentz’s laughable notion that matter is easily compressed by
> velocity.

Einstein did not say that matter is compressed by velocity. Here he
disagreed with Lorentz. You didn't know that?

>
> There is a quality of light required for Lorentz’s shallow-minded
> notion to be true. Namely: All light (photons) must move along
> ballistic curves so that the light rays will always hit the 45 degree
> beam splitter on the exact centerline.

Actually, you just demonstrated that if it doesn't hit the beam
splitter on the exact centerline, it doesn't change much of anything
because any shortening of the path length leading up to the beam
splitter is compensated by a lengthening of the path length going away
from the beam splitter. I'm quite certain you said that yourself. See
above.

> If a bomb is dropped from a
> fast plane, such will follow a ballistic path to the Earth.
>
> The light source, and all of the optical components in the M-M
> experiment are Earth mounted. And those components are moving with
> the identical velocity as the Earth at the time and place of the
> experiment. If the light happens to be traveling at some angle
> relative to Earth’s velocity vector, then trigonometry will allow
> calculating the times of travel.
>
> Suppose a light beam is shined straight down from a very fast plane.
> If those photons behave like a dropped bomb, they will hit a distance
> ahead of the location of the plane (at the instant of emission)
> dependent on the velocity of the plane.

This is counter to experiment.

> Now, suppose that the plane
> and the Earth are both moving with identical velocity and direction.
> The photons will hit the Earth right below the plane every time. But
> is such light traveling in a straight line? No way! An observer in
> space, will record the light following the same bomb-like ballistic
> curve as before, only this time the Earth moves forward enough to be
> waiting at the apt impact points of the photons. Note: The above is a
> supposition, NOT a fact.
>
> Bombs have mass. Thus, bombs have a forward momentum at the instant
> of their release. But photons have zero mass. So photons have zero
> forward momentum.

This is also counter to experimental fact. Photons deliver momentum.
You are using an antiquated expression for momentum that is not
correct.

> The atomic level events that release photons are
> instantaneous. And instantaneous events don’t allow the photons to be
> influenced by the speed of the moving plane. The result? Photons
> never travel along ballistic paths! The latter statement is true, and
> negates Lorentz’s rubber-ruler notion about M-M (for yet another
> reason), because the light will hit off-center of that 45 degree beam
> splitter (except in the lone case in which the path of travel of the
> light is aligned with Earth‘s velocity vector).
>
> The following simple experiment can prove that photons never follow
> ballistic paths: Using a laser as the light source, position two
> small, precision pin-holes in alignment with such, and spaced as
> widely apart as possible on a common rotating beam. The spacing on
> the beam could be say 3’-0” from the laser to the first pinhole, and
> another 3’-0” to the second pin hole. If light passes through to a
> paper target, the four optical elements are aligned, right? Not
> necessarily.
>
> If light is traveling ballisticly (it isn’t), the optical elements
> must be NON ALIGNED in order for the photons to pass through!

This is easy to test and is counter to experiment. One simple way is
to thread a rod through the two holes, or preferably three holes. If
the rod is not straight, then spinning the rod on its long axis will
cause the curve to flip over and there will be no way for the rod to
fit through all three holes.

It is quite easy, in fact, to determine if a path is straight, using
some process that mimics a parity transformation.

Eric Gisse

unread,

Jan 5, 2009, 10:47:05 AM1/5/09

to

Nobody takes what you have to say seriously either way, so the
advantage is that we don't have to see your idiotic spew.

rustyj...@gmail.com

unread,

Jan 5, 2009, 10:57:47 AM1/5/09

to

Dear Eddie Wrong: Light ISN'T waves. I never ever said such! Light

is packets of IOTA's (the smallest energy unit of the ether). Such

will traverse space either filled with ether, or not. Therefore,

light requires no medium for it's propagation

Such
will traverse space either filled with ether, or not. Therefore,

light requires no medium for it's propagation

not true aether is a energy plasma with different pressure densities
remove the energy from the aether and the iota's wont travel through
it like if you use a sodium gas at low tempatures it removes the
lights ability to move through it becuse the energy is reduced and a
photon can be frozen within it as long as the molecular energy is
stopped within the medium of the sodium gas.

Eddie Correct

unread,

Jan 5, 2009, 3:22:00 PM1/5/09

to

Moran. Light is a parametric molecule composted
of two photons tightly bonded by their gravitational
field. They don't "travel". Light can only be refracted.
Moran.

"NoEinstein" <noein...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message

news:90c285b9-77eb-4b3e...@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...