Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Well yes...
Put the whole lot in the frame, spin it, fling it, whatever.
To me the splitter represents the source (in the frame) and the pattern the result, and is all in the frame. But hey... why not pop the lot on the turntable (in the frame)... to satisfy yourself.
Record the evidence to the ccd memory... now unless the ccd-memory acts as a relativity-time-domain capacitor.... so when you take out the result and view it, all the evidence magically re-arranges it'self because you just applied the relative 'rotated frames' for the entire experiment run... I've no doubt mathematics can be constructed to satisfy this, but the absurdity leaves me awestruck.
To me there are just so many variants of these experiments, that i simply cannot find data on.... to me due diligence has not been demonstrated. (do it again in magnetic fields, in space, in freefall, altitude, vertical)
I don' think this is exactly what we are after for your variable c request, it's more leaning towards detection of aether drift. The link you posted has the same introduced observer dilemma, relativity-theory has introduced in it's explanations. I'm ok with the splitter being the source... you're not... can we include it in the experiment?
|
The CCD is the key issue not the beamsplitter.
Put the CCD on the turnatable and you won't get an interference pattern.
The CCD is now the "observer".
This is the same as rotating the room containing the observer and the interferometer. The observer is now stationary relative to the interferometer as they are now both in the same frame of reference.
This is equivalent to a normally mounted interferometer except that the turntable is not rotating. The interferometer and the observer are in the same reference frame. As we already know interference doesn't occur under this condition.
Regards
Steven