Hubble an experience to disprove relativity

Home page
Section 1) Einstein's theory where it comes from?
Section 2) Focal displacement with light speed change
A) If Einstein was wrong the effect on space telescope
B) Wave theory and focal displacement in reflection
Section 3) Hubble proves our theory
A) It was not a structural defect.
B) Astronomers comments for near objects
C) Astronomers comments for far objects
D) Press release as published
Section 4) Theory light propagation
Section 5) Michelson Morley experiment
Section 6) Details of calculations

Hubble's mirror at inspection

The mirror from Hubble's telescope

Section 3) Hubble proves our theory

A)It was not a structural defect.

Put yourself in their position, you have a 2 billions $ project that went wrong. Public founds are involved, politic is mixed into it, you must come out with a good explanation that the public will accept.
What could possibly be wrong ? Well a space telescope is not that complicated, it is essentially made up of two mirrors. We can quickly pin down the problem on the 94 inches main mirror. The images received are not on focus. What else than a faulty main mirror could cause the problem?
NOTHING according to our actual knowledge of science. Finally, NASA concentrate the search on the mirror polishing process and reach the conclusion that it was the measuring tool.
From reading the press release they don't have proof but speculate on the problem. Their investigation starts around the 1990 with a misplaced cap on a measuring rod causing the 1.3 millimeter error and than by April 2000 to : "a speck of paint had affected an optical measuring rod". Finally a press release in Oct. 2001 reads : "Ultimately the problem was traced to miscalibrated equipment" a very general statement.

Hubble proves our theory

There was a contradiction in the diagnostic to explain the myopia. Normally with a concave mirror the focus is best with far objects. See Ref. "Animation of a spherical mirror "


DÚtails of how a telescope works
But here the reverse happened, the galaxy M100 was blurred when Saturn was clear. Scientist called some of the nearer object's picture : "shockingly good pictures, including a dazzling image of Saturn".

Pictures of Saturn taken before (Object NEAR)

Pictures taken before repairs August 26, 1990, when the planet was at a distance of 1.39 billion kilometers (860 million miles) from Earth.
August26,1990 planet at 1.39 billion kilometers

Pictures of Saturn after repairs
(Object NEAR)

Pictures taken after repairs December 21, 1994
December 21, 1994

Galaxy M100 taken before and after repairs
(Objects FAR) Distance 600 million ly Dimension 7x6 (arc min)

Pictures taken before and after repairs to telescope

Pictures taken before and after repairs to telescope

Our hypothesis best correspond to the facts. The telescope is nearsighted not because of a construction error. We calculate that the light in free space travelling at 312 000 km/sec would displace the focus point the same as if the mirror was too flat by 1.3 millimetre. The 1.3 mm is the corresponding adjustment made to the mirror through a special camera. See calculations at the end for more explanations on the 1.3 mm.


At the end our hypothesis best correspond to the facts. The telescope is nearsighted not because of a construction error. In the centre of the controversy is Michelson's experience.
The theory of relativity is anchored with that experiment by providing a theoretic explanation never proven. We must remember that Michelson conducted his experience to understanding light nature. He was trying to find out how light travels and we still do not know. Is light a magnetic wave or particles ? We are still searching for an answer, therefore we should not reach a direct conclusion of his experiments results. NASA recently tried to prove the theory with two separate space projects, the "probe A" and the "probe B". The project Probe A was not conclusive and Probe B is presently collecting data out in space. We also present at the end a new theory to relate together the propagation of light as a wave and as a particle in order to explain Michelson's experiment. Researcher have succeeded to stop a ray of light, this is very interesting to us, see the reference at the end under "Theory light propagation".

D) Press release as published

1) See Ref. "REF 1" The first indication of trouble appeared as the polishing team was assembling the null corrector. As they tried to move the errant lens into position, they found that the lens adjustment screws would not turn far enough. The report concludes that the opticians were probably taking incorrect readings from a high-precision measuring rod. But at the time, they did not try to find out what was wrong. Instead, they simply added some 1.3 millimetre thick spacers to extend the lens range of motion. Once they were done, they treated this null corrector as being "certified" correct.

2) See Ref. "REF 2a" Sept. 16, 1990 Investigators have found that a 1.3 - millimetre spacing error in the null corrector - caused by a misplaced cap on a measuring rod - has resulted in the blurry images being transmitted from the $1.5 billion telescope, greatly reducing its capabilities. "The real error, in my opinion, was that there was no requirement for an independent check," said Laurance. Oct. 5, 1990 See Ref. "REF 2 b" BALTIMORE - For a jittery, nearsighted robot, the Hubble Space Telescope has produced what one scientist called some "shockingly good pictures," including a dazzling new image of Saturn, and what may be light bounced from the walls of a black hole.

3) See Ref. "REF 3" Oct. 1, 1990 The device for checking the shape of the Hubble space telescope's main mirror, called a null corrector, was set up with a spacing error of about 1.3 millimetres. A metering rod was used to set up the device. The end was supposed to reflect a light beam centred by a pinhole. Investigators say the measurements were confused by light reflected from the end cap

4) See Ref. "REF 4" Friday, 14 April, 2000 Paint speck What had happened was that many years before, when the mirror was being made, a speck of paint had affected an optical measuring rod. The subsequent measurements were very slightly wrong.

5) See Ref. "REF 2" Date: 2001-10-04Ultimately the problem was traced to miscalibrated equipment

AstroShopping.com "Ó voir en franšais "clic" Home page
Copyright Michel Masson