Compelling evidence for in vacuo light speed anisotrophy
in [Relativity]
|
From: Surfer on 12 Apr 2008 13:06 On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 09:23:48 -0700 (PDT), Dono <sa_ge(a)comcast.net> wrote: >On Apr 12, 9:08 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > >> >> Cahill has provided an explanation that works very well. >> I know you don't like it, but do you know of any alternatives? > >No , Cahill provided paragraph 2, the one that is rife with rookie >mistakes. >Like him, you are trying to give some respectability to the paper by >attempting to associate it with a respectable reference. >"Rag" Cahill does this all the time, he comes up with a short >paragraph (mistake-ladden) and tries to associate it with mainstream >references. In the past, I have pointed out his mistakes, > You didn't identify any mistakes that would qualify as mistakes within his theory. Any new theory has to differ in some way from existing theories otherwise it wouldn't be a new theory !
From: Dono on 12 Apr 2008 17:08 On Apr 12, 10:06 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > You didn't identify any mistakes that would qualify as mistakes within > his theory. Of course not. I want his paper to remain what it is, a dirty asswipe. He sends you, his lackey, to pick our brains in order to correct his junk. I like it the way it is, pure junk. This will not stop him Rag from "publishing" either in Apeiron or in Regress in Physics, as he always does. > Any new theory has to differ in some way from existing > theories otherwise it wouldn't be a new theory ! But Rag's theory is not "new". It is the old , tired "emission" (or "ballistic") theory. His paragraph 2 reads as if it were written by "dr" Henri Wilson aka Ralphie Babbage from this forum. Maybe it is :-)
From: Jerry on 13 Apr 2008 09:43 On Apr 12, 2:08 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Jerry > > <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >On Apr 12, 12:18 am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.please.net> wrote: > >> I was discussing experiment. Not theory. > >> Time dilation is an experimentally observed phenomenon. > > >So is the constancy of the speed of light. > > It depends on how you define your space and time coordinates. > If you assume the speed of light is constant (in vacuum) and use the > radar method to define the coordinates, then when you measure the > speed of light in those coordinates, then it will of course be > constant. That is usually the most convenient way to do things, but it > is not the only way. Hence: > > Paragraph 2, Page 3http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.0039 > > "The repeated detection of the anisotropy of the speed of light is not > in conflict with the results and consequences of Special Relativity > (SR), although at face value it appears to be in conflict with > Einstein's 1905 postulate that the speed of light is an invariant in > vacuum. However this contradiction is more apparent than real, for one > needs to realise that the space and time coordinates used in the > standard SR Einstein formalism are constructed to make the speed of > light invariant wrt those special coordinates. To achieve that > observers in relative motion must then relate their space and time > coordinates by a Lorentz transformation that mixes space and time > coordinates - but this is only an artifact of this formalism. Of > course in the SR formalism one of the frames of reference could have > always been designated as the observable one. Such an ontologically > real frame of reference, only in which the speed of light is > isotropic, has been detected for over 120 years. The usual literal > interpretation of the 1905 Einstein postulate, viz that "the speed of > light in vacuum is invariant", is actually experimentally shown to be > false." Cahill and his "gas mode" interferometric measurements again? Rather than call them "gas mode" interferometric measurements, call them "ancient" measurements using equipment far less sensitive and far less stable than current instrumentation, using manual means of data collection allowing human bias, analyzed using data reduction methods that are now known to be dangerous (averaging methods capable of converting random fluctuations into an apparent periodic signal). Cahill's writings are filled with highly "creative" reinterpretations of old data. He 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? Or are you so impolite as to insist on forcing me to dig up this evidence of Cahill's dishonesty?) You are blind, Surfer. Jerry
From: Surfer on 13 Apr 2008 10:56 On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 06:43:03 -0700 (PDT), Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote: > >Cahill and his "gas mode" interferometric measurements again? > >Rather than call them "gas mode" interferometric measurements, call >them "ancient" measurements using equipment far less sensitive and >far less stable than current instrumentation, using manual means of >data collection allowing human bias, analyzed using data reduction >methods that are now known to be dangerous (averaging methods capable >of converting random fluctuations into an apparent periodic signal). > >Cahill's writings are filled with highly "creative" reinterpretations >of old data. > >He 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. Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W. Am. J. Sc. 34, 333-345, 1887. Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933. Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927. Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930. Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964. Torr D.G. and Kolen P. in Precision Measurements and Fundamental Constants, Taylor, B.N. and Phillips, W.D. eds. Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Pub., 617, 675, 1984. Munera H.A., et al. in Proceedings of SPIE, vol 6664, K1- K8, 2007, eds. Roychoudhuri C. et al. Cahill R.T. A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006. Cahill R.T. Optical-Fiber Gravitational Wave Detector: Dynamical 3-Space Turbulence Detected, Progress in Physics, 4, 63-68, 2007. Cahill R.T. and Stokes F. Correlated Detection of sub-mHz Gravitational Waves by Two Optical-Fiber Interfer-ometers, Progress in Physics, 2, 103-110, 2008. 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 ! That will be the case irrespective of whether the speed of light varies with direction. So if you attempt to measure the speed of light using such a set up, you will always get the same value, irrespective of whether a light speed anisotrophy exists or not. That is to say, the experimental setup will by its very nature, hide any underlying light-speed anisotropy. This or an analogous flaw is probably built into all the modern vacuum mode experiments that have attempted and failed to detect light-speed anisotropy, so Cahill would seem entitled to disregard them.
From: Jerry on 13 Apr 2008 11:31
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 and his "gas mode" interferometric measurements again? > > >Rather than call them "gas mode" interferometric measurements, call > >them "ancient" measurements using equipment far less sensitive and > >far less stable than current instrumentation, using manual means of > >data collection allowing human bias, analyzed using data reduction > >methods that are now known to be dangerous (averaging methods capable > >of converting random fluctuations into an apparent periodic signal). > > >Cahill's writings are filled with highly "creative" reinterpretations > >of old data. > > >He 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. Oh, yes, it -is- so simple. > He has been able to derive consistent > values for 3-space velocity from a number of experiments. Using highly creative data analysis, a willingness to ignore experimental runs inconsistent with his prejudices, and a total ignorance of error bars. > Michelson A.A. and Morley E.W. Am. J. Sc. 34, 333-345, > 1887. > > Miller D.C. Rev. Mod. Phys., 5, 203-242, 1933. > > Illingworth K.K. Phys. Rev. 3, 692-696, 1927. > > Joos G. Ann. d. Physik [5] 7, 385, 1930. > > Jaseja T.S. et al. Phys. Rev. A 133, 1221, 1964. > > Torr D.G. and Kolen P. in Precision Measurements and > Fundamental Constants, Taylor, B.N. and Phillips, W.D. > eds. Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.), Spec. Pub., 617, 675, 1984. > > Munera H.A., et al. in Proceedings of SPIE, vol 6664, > K1- K8, 2007, eds. Roychoudhuri C. et al. > > Cahill R.T. A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: > Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected, > Progress in Physics, 4, 73-92, 2006. > > Cahill R.T. Optical-Fiber Gravitational Wave Detector: > Dynamical 3-Space Turbulence Detected, Progress in > Physics, 4, 63-68, 2007. > > Cahill R.T. and Stokes F. Correlated Detection of sub-mHz > Gravitational Waves by Two Optical-Fiber Interfer-ometers, > Progress in Physics, 2, 103-110, 2008. > > 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. > That will be the case irrespective of whether the speed of light > varies with direction. > > So if you attempt to measure the speed of light using such a set up, > you will always get the same value, irrespective of whether a light > speed anisotrophy exists or not. > > That is to say, the experimental setup will by its very nature, hide > any underlying light-speed anisotropy. This or an analogous flaw is > probably built into all the modern vacuum mode experiments that have > attempted and failed to detect light-speed anisotropy, so Cahill would > seem entitled to disregard them. You are being willfully ignorant. I note that you accept the existence of time dilation as an experimental observable. 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. If you take two equal mass particles and "throw" one at the other so that they collide and rebound elastically, then, according to Newtonian mechanics, conservation of energy plus conservation of momentum means that they shoot off at right angles to each other. In other words, allowing for the limitations of ascii art: _ _/ _/ -----------------<_ 90 degrees \_ \_ There are no ifs, ands, or buts about this prediction of Newtonian kinematics. I can write out the proof for you, if you want. It's easiest to explain if you are familiar with transforming back and forth from center of mass coordinates, but it's not impossible to "do it the hard way" if you aren't familiar with the concept. Here is a cute applet that illustrates this rule: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Applets/Collision/jarapplet.html Hopefully google doesn't truncate the above link. If it does, click on the following: http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/more_stuff/Applets/ Then click on the link to "Two-dimensional collisions" Anyway, what's found in particle accelerators is that collisions do not obey Newtonian kinematics. In particular, the scattering angle between two equal-sized particles is always LESS THAN 90 degrees. __ ___/ ___/ -----------------<___ less than 90 degrees \___ \__ This is impossible according to Newtonian kinematics, but is explained exactly assuming the validity of special relativity. REPEAT: 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. Jerry |