EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 9 Aug 2008 03:07 Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > > I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my acceleration? > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything to abnything else. CLOSED LAB You said standing on earth, so I know that the earth moon system is in free fall around the Sun... but I can't see the sum moon or stars. I can determine that the earth is rotating... pendulum gyroscope I can determine tidal flexing caused by at least two bodies... and over time determine that we are likely in orbit about the sun and a companion moon.... getting the masses and distances correct... and therefore determining the forces and acceleration. But.... acceleration is absolute and can be measured by a number of different techniques. If one can see starlight, the aberration of starlight is an accurate way to determine orbital and rotational velocity. > > Counting is not the same as measuring. Counting is a measurement > > A measurement necessitates reference to a standard. Most measurements are differential and do not require a reference standard.... some type of measurement do. and many standard are easy to find in many laboratories. > > When you count 10 fringe shifts, what does that mean, if you don't > compare it with some standard count? I assume you are asking about the MichelsonMorley experiment interferometer -- lots of resources on the web. > > Love, > > Jenny > >
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 08:22 On Aug 8, 10:41 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Yuancur: > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:6d202070-208a-401b-8221-9aedb1461f1a(a)a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 6, 7:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Aug 5, 9:37 pm, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >> > Eric, how do you measure something without reference > >> > to something else? > > >> Acceleration is absolute - no reference required. > > > I'm standing on the Earth, how do you measure my > > acceleration? > > Assume you have a body temperature of 98.6 degF. Measure the > apparent temperature very carefully, and the difference will be > indicative of your acceleration. > Then we're using a thermometer and a standard value (98.6 deg F) as references. > > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything > > to abnything else. > > How about assuming something about your local physics? > > >> Counting fringe shifts is absolute - no reference > >> required. > > Counting is not the same as measuring. > > You are kidding, right? "microfine transitions of a caesium > atom" is not a measurement? The odometer of your car counts the > number of times your wheels rotate, but this is not a > measurement? > It's just a count if it isn't calibrated, i.e. referenced to some standard. Until then, all I know is that my wheel revolved 40 times a minute. If yours revolved at 30 times a minute (a reference), then I'm going faster than you (*if* our wheels have the same dimater (another reference) etc. > > A measurement necessitates reference to a standard. > > Like a "unit"? > In essence. > > When you count 10 fringe shifts, what does that > > mean, if you don't compare it with some standard > > count? > > Not in this experiment, it is "is it greater than zero"? > First you compare the lengths of the arms (a reference). That comparison (those measurements) has an error factor, so why not adjust the lengths until there are zero fringe shifts and assume that this means the arms are of equal length. We then rotate the apparatus and count the fringe shifts again. Then we compare the counts. Two references/comparisons by my count. Love, Jenny
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 08:57 On Aug 6, 4:01 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > > But surely the times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's > > rotation. > > http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 > > Know something empirical before you offer opinion. > Do you think that the velocity of light is c in an accelerating frame? Do you think that the velocity of light is the same in every direction in an accelerating frame? Do you think that the velocity of light is constant in a frame of varying acceleration? Love, Jenny
From: Spaceman on 9 Aug 2008 10:26 N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote: > You are kidding, right? "microfine transitions of a caesium > atom" is not a measurement? The odometer of your car counts the > number of times your wheels rotate, but this is not a > measurement? Dear David, It is a measurement locally only but once it is moving a transistion actually will move further even if it is doing the same "local" motion before it began to move. Lets think about it simply, Take a transition of a pendulum, sitting still the clock will allow this pendulum to move 6 inches in a curved arch back and forth. (that is local transistion) If we move this clock sideways does the each transition of the pendulum still move the same distance "non locally"? Of course not. so the non local transition does not coinside with the local transistion. It will move further in one direction and less in the other if moved sideways. The direction it moves and speed will change the non local transition. -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman
From: Spaceman on 9 Aug 2008 10:29
Yuancur(a)gmail.com wrote: > On Aug 6, 4:01 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: >> Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > >>> But surely the times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's >>> rotation. >> >> http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287 >> >> Know something empirical before you offer opinion. >> > > Do you think that the velocity of light is c in an accelerating > frame? Depends on what observer is measuring it. :) > > Do you think that the velocity of light is the same in every > direction in an accelerating frame? Depends on what observer is measuring it. :) > Do you think that the velocity of light is constant in a frame of > varying acceleration? Depends on what observer is measuring it. :) Unless all observers are in the same "inertial frame" they will not measure the c to be the same. -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman |