EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
in [Physics]
|
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 17:59 On Aug 9, 8:22 am, Yuan...(a)gmail.com wrote: > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Dear Jenny: Because of all of the reflections from 45 degree mirrors, there are ZERO variations in the TIMES of travel to any mirror. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 18:04 On Aug 9, 8:57 am, Yuan...(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? > > 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 Dear Jenny: The speed of the light from two approaching spaceships is the sum of the closing velocities. I've never had need to assume that the "frame of reference" is accelerating. If it was, the closing velocity of the light would, instantaneously, be just the VELOCITY of the light at the instant of its emission from the speeding spaceship. NoEinstein
From: NoEinstein on 9 Aug 2008 18:06 On Aug 9, 10:26 am, "Spaceman" <space...(a)yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote: > 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 Dear Spaceman: :-) NoEinstein
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 18:53 On Aug 9, 4:08 pm, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dl...(a)cox.net> wrote: > > <Yuan...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > DZLC wrote: > >> 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? > > Read. > The. > Thread. > Title. > Do you think that the velocity of light not being c in accelerating frames is an experimental argument against SR? Or do you think that the velocity of light not being c in accelerating frames is an experimental in favour of SR? > > Don't you think that such a result can be > > calculated entirely within SR? > > No, in general it cannot. > And yet, I read , in the FAQ at http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/acceleration.html _____________________________ In SR... ...it is still possible to use co-ordinate systems corresponding to accelerating or rotating frames of reference just as it is possible to solve ordinary mechanics problems in curvilinear co-ordinate systems.... ... Note that the speed of light is rarely constant in non-inertial frames and this has been known to cause confusion. _______________________________ As I recall, there's even an horizon issue here. If I accelerate fast enough, an horizon develops behind me from beyond which light cannot ever reach me, unless I slow my acceleration. All classical SR as far as I know. > > Don't you think that SR, like Newtonian > > Mechanics, can be applied to accelerating > > frames? > > Only special ones. > Maybe look at the FAQ > > 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? > > The "times of travel" are measured in the same frame. One > process changes, they would all change the same, locally. No > variation should be detectable, *locally*. > What "locally" means here seems to mean is that the variations are small, because the rotation rate is slow. I believe that they are measurable. > > Do you agree that the surface of the Earth is > > an accelerating frame? > > Yes. Weak, but yes. > > > If no, how do you explain Sagnac? > > Not local. Not SR. Not experirmental argument against SR. > Who said it was "an experirmental argument against SR". > > If yes, why are you disagreeing with me and > > not Uncle AL? > > You don't know where you are standing when you make your claims. > You answered (grudgingly) "weak, but yes" Either you agree with what I say or you don't. It seems that you agree with me (albeit weakly),. Where I'm standing (or whether or not I know where I'm standing) is not relevant to the issue. Love, Jenny
From: Yuancur on 9 Aug 2008 18:59
On Aug 9, 2:07 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)mchsi.com> wrote: > Yuan...(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 anything 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 > The pendulum does what, and how do you know? > I can determine tidal flexing caused by at least two > bodies... How do you determine the tidal flexing? Love, Jenny |