EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Aug 2008 13:08 Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:f11a95b5-633a-486e-a024-0b7b2ecc019c(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... On Aug 8, 10:41 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > <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. We are measuring a variance between physics "elsewhere", and physics "here". But you asked how it could be done. >> > Remember, you aren't allowed to reference anything >> > to abnything else. > >> How about assuming something about your local physics? No answer. So I assume without referencing anything, even local physics is out. >> >> 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. It is precisely a count, and it is exactly the same as measuring. > 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. Not a very good sylogism for counting fringes. If both wheels rotate 0 times a minute, what does that mean? >> > A measurement necessitates reference to a standard. > >> Like a "unit"? > > In essence. Apples, atoms, or globular clusters, somehow counting is comparison to a standard... not sure I buy this. >> > 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. They actually *have* to be, with a non-monochromatic light source. This is the only way you get a clear constructive / destructive interference pattern from a grey body radiator like a flame. > We then rotate the apparatus and count the fringe > shifts again. Then we compare the counts. > > Two references/comparisons by my count. One reference, rotation by 90 degrees. Zero fringe shift is the result, so no reference required. David A. Smith
From: N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) on 9 Aug 2008 13:14 Dear Yuancur(a)gmail.com: <Yuancur(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:3b9d67fa-5158-4c87-9b65-6a4721e369b0(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... On Aug 6, 4:01 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: .... >> 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? Do you know that special relativity applies to inertial frames? Do you see the thread title? Why do you cloud the issue with that which is explicitly excluded? If I measure c over a small enough region in GR (with acceleration), yes it always returns c. But when part of its path is non-local, you can spin any sort of tale you like about the "velocity" of light. David A. Smith
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 15:42 On Aug 9, 12:14 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Yuan...(a)gmail.com: > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:3b9d67fa-5158-4c87-9b65-6a4721e369b0(a)x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 6, 4:01 pm, Uncle Al <Uncle...(a)hate.spam.net> wrote: > ... > > >>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? > > Do you know that special relativity applies to inertial frames? > Do you see the thread title? Why do you cloud the issue with > that which is explicitly excluded? > If the velocity of light is c in inertial frames, don't you think that we can calculate that the velocity of light is not c in accelerating frames? Don't you think that such a result can be calculated entirely within SR? Don't you think that SR, like Newtonian Mechanics, can be applied to accelerating frames? When I wrote "But surely the times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's rotation", Uncle Al disagreed and replied "Know something empirical before you offer opinion". Do you agree with me that "times of travel do vary, because of the Earth's rotation", or do you agree with with Uncle Al? Do you agree that the surface of the Earth is an accelerating frame? If no, how do you explain Sagnac? If yes, why are you disagreeing with me and not Uncle AL? Love, Jenny
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 16:06 On Aug 5, 9:57 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 5, 4:39 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Aug 1, 6:12 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 1, 12:23 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 1, 12:20 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Sam: And in just one hour of analysis in my local library, I > > > > realized that M-M lacked a CONTROL. > > > > That's because it is an interferometer. > > > > [snip] > > > Dear Eric: I REPEAT: "All measurements require a point of reference, > > fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL. > > No, they don't. > > [snip rest, unread] Dear Eric: In your deluded DREAMS they don't. Are there any mensurationists out there who can set Eric straight? NoEinstein
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 16:11
On Aug 9, 12:08 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Dear Yuan...(a)gmail.com: > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:f11a95b5-633a-486e-a024-0b7b2ecc019c(a)79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com... > On Aug 8, 10:41 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> > wrote: > > > > >> 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. > > We are measuring a variance between physics "elsewhere", and > physics "here". But you asked how it could be done. > No we're not, we're discussing whether we can measure anything without reference to something else. Eric thinks that we can. Apparently that's how he does physics. He doesn't agree that "(a)ll measurements require a point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL ". > >> How about assuming something about your local physics? > > No answer. So I assume without referencing anything, even local > physics is out. > Without referencing anything, all physics is out, isn't it. Specifically with temperature 98.6 relates to specific reference standards. You can say that body temperature is 98.6 scrubles, but it means nothing unless it's referenced to something else. > > > 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. > > It is precisely a count, and it is exactly the same as measuring. > If I count 6 transitions and you count 12 transitions, what does that mean? How do we reconcile/compare our results? > > 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. > > Not a very good sylogism for counting fringes. If both wheels > rotate 0 times a minute, what does that mean? We're referencing the count to some standard time *and* referencing (comparing) the counts to each other. In this case, we're co-moving. > >> > 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. > > They actually *have* to be, with a non-monochromatic light > source. This is the only way you get a clear constructive / > destructive interference pattern from a grey body radiator like a > flame. > So we've set the fringe shift to zero and made that our reference. > > We then rotate the apparatus and count the fringe > > shifts again. Then we compare the counts. > > > Two references/comparisons by my count. > > One reference, rotation by 90 degrees. Zero fringe shift is the > result, so no reference required. > First reference, equating zero fringe shift to equal lengths. That is setting a "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL ". Which is what Eric claims is not happening, and you're agreeing with him. Second reference, having set the count to zero, rotate, count again and then *compare*. But that second count means nothing if we haven't set a "point of reference, fiducial zero, bench mark or CONTROL ". Love, Jenny |