Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Edward Green on 13 Apr 2008 13:17 On Apr 13, 12:03 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Apr 8, 11:31 am, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 8, 9:07 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > > > > If the data is correct and his predictions match the data, how could > > > he be wrong? > > > As a proposition in logic, that is false: > > Actually, he asked a question. He wasn't making a logical proposition. I was aware of that when I wrote, and also that somebody would probably make an issue of it. Congratulations. :-) > > in general we can be wrong > > even if we sometimes predict things that are right. > > Quite true. > > There again, this is physics, not logic. The two are only feebly > connected. Quite strongly, I would say -- unless you mean this as a sociological observation/insult against physicists. > Asking a slightly different question: > > Assuming firstly that Citizen 1 invokes a model and makes a prediction > which is subsequently matched by observational data. > > Assuming secondly that Citizen 2, invoking a different model, makes a > contary prediction which is not matched by that observational data. > > Do we prefer the model of citizen 2, and, if so, why? > > Is it because he made his prediction first or some other prejudicial > reason? (i.e have we prejudged the issue? Was making the observation > a waste of everybody's time? Is this Science or Dogma) I've read Kuhn. > Love, > Jenny
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 14:42 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Apr 13, 9:56 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >> On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Jerry >> <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >> >[Cahill] thinks nothing of throwing away multiple experimental >> >runs disagreeing with his prejudices, instead focusing on the single >> >run that seems to show some sort of sinusoidal modulation (you do >> >know the reference, I presume? >> >> The situation is not so simple. He has been able to derive consistent >> values for 3-space velocity from a number of experiments. > >I found the reference that I was referring to. >http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf > >In discussing the Joos experiment, Cahill writes: > The data for 22 rotations throughout the day of May 30, 1930 > are shown in Fig.15, and are reproduced from Fig.11 of [15]. > From that data Joos concluded, using an analysis that did not > take account of the special relativistic length contraction > effect, that the fringe shifts corresponded to a speed of only > 1.5 km/s. However as previously noted such an analysis is > completely flawed. As well the data in Fig.15 shows that for > all but one of the rotations the fringe shifts were poorly > recorded. Only in the one rotation, at 11 23 58, does the data > actually look like the form expected. This is probably not > accidental as the maximum fringe shift was expected at that > time, based on the Miller direction of absolute motion, and > the sensitivity of the device was �1 thousandth of a fringe > shift. In Fig.16 that one rotation data are compared with the > form expected for Jena on May 30 using the Miller speed and > direction together with the new refractive index effect,and > using the refractive index of helium. The agreement is quite > remarkable. So again, contrary the Joos paper and to > subsequent commentators, Joos did in fact detect a very large > velocity of absolute motion. > >In other words, out of 22 rotations performed that day, 21 of the >rotations showed nothing remotely resembling a sinusoidal signal. >Cahill throws away data from these 21 rotations and focuses on >the single outlier, even ignoring data from the immediately >preceding and following rotations that were separated from the >11:23 rotation by only a few minutes. > >This is biased data analysis at its most vicious. > You have a point. However, if police found 22 finger prints at a crime scene of which 21 were smudged and one was clear, would you accuse them of "biased data analysis at the most vicious" if they used the clear one to identify a suspect? In some cases I think its valid to distinguish between data of "the form expected" and data not of "the form expected". Of course such a single item of data is only a clue. It wouldn't prove anything in isolation.
From: Jerry on 13 Apr 2008 16:12 On Apr 13, 1:42 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:38:23 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >I found the reference that I was referring to. > >http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V11NO1PDF/V11N1CA2.pdf > > >In discussing the Joos experiment, Cahill writes: > > The data for 22 rotations throughout the day of May 30, 1930 > > are shown in Fig.15, and are reproduced from Fig.11 of [15]. > > From that data Joos concluded, using an analysis that did not > > take account of the special relativistic length contraction > > effect, that the fringe shifts corresponded to a speed of only > > 1.5 km/s. However as previously noted such an analysis is > > completely flawed. As well the data in Fig.15 shows that for > > all but one of the rotations the fringe shifts were poorly > > recorded. Only in the one rotation, at 11 23 58, does the data > > actually look like the form expected. This is probably not > > accidental as the maximum fringe shift was expected at that > > time, based on the Miller direction of absolute motion, and > > the sensitivity of the device was ±1 thousandth of a fringe > > shift. In Fig.16 that one rotation data are compared with the > > form expected for Jena on May 30 using the Miller speed and > > direction together with the new refractive index effect,and > > using the refractive index of helium. The agreement is quite > > remarkable. So again, contrary the Joos paper and to > > subsequent commentators, Joos did in fact detect a very large > > velocity of absolute motion. > > >In other words, out of 22 rotations performed that day, 21 of the > >rotations showed nothing remotely resembling a sinusoidal signal. > >Cahill throws away data from these 21 rotations and focuses on > >the single outlier, even ignoring data from the immediately > >preceding and following rotations that were separated from the > >11:23 rotation by only a few minutes. > > >This is biased data analysis at its most vicious. > > You have a point. However, if police found 22 finger prints at a crime > scene of which 21 were smudged and one was clear, would you accuse > them of "biased data analysis at the most vicious" if they used the > clear one to identify a suspect? > > In some cases I think its valid to distinguish between data of "the > form expected" and data not of "the form expected". Sorry, you raise an invalid point. The VERY PURPOSE of the experiment was to determine, "What is the form to be expected?" In statistics, we refer to the null hypothesis, H_0, and the alternative hypothesis, H_1. In this case, one possible formulation of the null hypothesis would be, "No sinusoidal modulation of fringe shift occurs as the Joos apparatus is rotated," while the alternative hypothesis would be, "A statistically significant sinusoidal modulation of fringe shift occurs as the Joos apparatus is rotated." Given such a formulation of H_0 versus H_1, all data must be considered equal, barring such clearly identifiable anomalies as, "Eberhard got drunk and fell on the photographic recording apparatus," or "Earthquake Richter scale 7.4 occurred during the 17:45:23 revolution," in which case the data from that revolution could justifiably be thrown out. Cahill's highly selective use of one single revolution of data, throwing out twenty-one revolutions that disagree with his prejudices, is an atrocity. > Of course such a single item of data is only a clue. It wouldn't prove > anything in isolation. Not in isolation, but in conjunction with an analysis of the rest of Cahill's writings, it can easily be proven that Cahill is a lying crackpot unworthy of attention. Jerry
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 17:06 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Apr 13, 9:56�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: >> >> Regarding the mainstream vacuum mode "NULL" experiments, here is >> something to bear in mind. >> >> Since 1983 the meter has been defined as the distance light travels in >> a vacuum in exactly 1/299,792,458th of a second (17th CGPM, Resolution >> 1). >> >> If you use this definition to define a distance of one meter in any >> direction, and you measure how long it will take light to travel that >> distance in a vacuum, then by definition it will always take >> 1/299,792,458th of a second ! > >(sigh) >You think the experimenters are so ignorant? > >If testing for light speed anisotropy, one uses a "test theory" >in which light speed anisotropy is possible. Such a test theory >necessarily abandons the 1983 definition. > The test theory may allow the possiblity of light speed anisotropy. But an additional problem for experimenters is that interatomic spacing is controlled by the speed of light. If the speed of light varies, interatomic spacing will vary in proportion. So if experimenters attempt to use normal equipment to directly detect variations of speed of light in a vacuum, they should always get a null result, because their equipment will expand and contract in proportion. But here is my hypothesis (not necessarily correct) about detection of lightspeed anisotropy by analysing spacecraft earth flyby doppler radar results. The speeds of the spacecraft are not controlled by any kind of equipment with interatomic spacing, but rather by the laws of Newtonian dynamics. So variation of lightspeed with direction should have no effect on the speeds of the craft. This could create a situation where lightspeed anisotropy produces an effect on doppler frequency that is not cancelled by any proportional effect on equipment, thus allowing the effect of the anisotropy to be detected. > >Are you familiar with relativistic kinematics? Time dilation plus >observed kinematics equals length contraction, i.e. the entirety >of the Lorentz transformations are confirmed, and there is no room >for variable light speed. > My understanding is that owing to time dilation plus length contraction, the directly measured in vacuo speed of light is always found to be isotropically c. But that leaves room for calculated speeds to be different. Thanks for useful information about relativistic kinematics. I am quite sure SR applies in such cases.
From: Jerry on 13 Apr 2008 18:38
On Apr 13, 4:06 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:31:21 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >(sigh) > >You think the experimenters are so ignorant? > > >If testing for light speed anisotropy, one uses a "test theory" > >in which light speed anisotropy is possible. Such a test theory > >necessarily abandons the 1983 definition. > > The test theory may allow the possiblity of light speed anisotropy. > But an additional problem for experimenters is that interatomic > spacing is controlled by the speed of light. If the speed of light > varies, interatomic spacing will vary in proportion. > > So if experimenters attempt to use normal equipment to directly detect > variations of speed of light in a vacuum, they should always get a > null result, because their equipment will expand and contract in > proportion. > > But here is my hypothesis (not necessarily correct) about detection of > lightspeed anisotropy by analysing spacecraft earth flyby doppler > radar results. > > The speeds of the spacecraft are not controlled by any kind of > equipment with interatomic spacing, but rather by the laws of > Newtonian dynamics. > > So variation of lightspeed with direction should have no effect on the > speeds of the craft. > > This could create a situation where lightspeed anisotropy produces an > effect on doppler frequency that is not cancelled by any proportional > effect on equipment, thus allowing the effect of the anisotropy to be > detected. > > >Are you familiar with relativistic kinematics? Time dilation plus > >observed kinematics equals length contraction, i.e. the entirety > >of the Lorentz transformations are confirmed, and there is no room > >for variable light speed. > > My understanding is that owing to time dilation plus length > contraction, the directly measured in vacuo speed of light is always > found to be isotropically c. > > But that leaves room for calculated speeds to be different. > > Thanks for useful information about relativistic kinematics. > I am quite sure SR applies in such cases. Let me see if I understand you correctly: 1) The speed of light is not really constant, but a conspiracy of effects, i.e. time dilation plus length contraction, make it impossible to observe light speed anisotropy using earthbound apparatus. OK. What you have so far is pre-1905 LET theory. But now you add something new: 2) Length contraction only applies to condensed matter. It does not apply to the spacings between the free molecules in gases. As condensed matter objects travel through whatever they travel through, the interatomic spacings vary exactly as predicted by the length contraction equation, and clocks vary in their speed exactly as predicted by the time dilation equation. 3) However, the spacing of disconnected objects in free space do NOT vary according to the length contraction equation. Although the objects themselves will contract, the spacings between the objects do not. 4) If the above hypothesis is true, light speed anisotropies between objects in free space should be observable. Please correct me if I have misunderstood your position. Also, please answer the following: 5) Do you believe that light in free space propagates according to ballistic rules, or do you believe that it propagates at a fixed speed with respect to an "aether" or "quantum foam" or other such background? Jerry |