How can the MMx math be corrected?
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What is the experimentally measurable difference between rest mass and the 'relativistic mass' of the photon ??!!
Next: Dark Matter hipotessis
From: harald on 26 May 2010 04:30 On May 23, 11:30 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 23, 12:15 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > On 23 mei, 21:01, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > [...] > > > > > > > The OP invited people to make a sketch of the moving apparatus (of > > > > > > course "moving" means for the case that v>0, for example in the solar > > > > > > frame) and draw the light paths in it. > > > > > > > Now, he claimed that the *only* way we can obtain the MMX "null" > > > > > > result is if we make the lengths of the legs in our sketch different > > > > > > from each other - if indeed we assume that the speed of > > > > > > light is everywhere in vacuum constant. [..] > > > > > > Such a consideration and associated sketch are nothing extraordinary, > > > > > > and one may even say that it's the "A" of the "ABC" of SRT. A possible > > > > > > argument concerns his claim that no other possibility exists. > > > > > > Let's hope that this helps... [..] > > I take note that you also did not comment > > on his claim. [...] > > Do you agree with the SRT sketch? I do, on > > the assumption that the LT are correct. > > I am unfamiliar with the term 'SRT Schetch'? Essentially it's the same sketch as that of M-M in their paper, except that in SRT everything is shortened by factor gamma along the direction of motion. > I am intimately > familiar with how extended 'fields' conform to a form who radii for > its center (r') is > > r' = Sqrt(1 - unv'^2) > > and > > v' = v Cos t > > Where t is any angle subtended relative to the line of motion. > Therefore for any given r' the change in r' is simply related > directly to the corresponding change in v. I'm not familiar with unv'. However, the sketch that the OP gave and that I reminded you of here is really the A of the ABC of SRT; I'm sure that you know it, and that what you write is consistent with MMX plus Lorentz contraction. > Thus the radial length (L) when moving for anything consisting of > fields is, > > L = L (Sqrt(1 - unv'^2)) > o > > At angles 90 & 270 relative to the line of motion L = L > o > > Therefore, for the round trip at any angle the total path length > remains exactly equal. Thus, since we define speed as distance > traversed divided by time it takes. Thus the measure of speed at any > angle must in turn be equal. The rest of the so-called Lorentz > Transforms are simple trigometric expressions relating transverse > speed to actual speed. This is, > > c'^2 = c^2 - v^2 -> c'^2 = c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) -> c'/c = Sqrt(1 - > [v/c]^2) > > If the hypotenuse path P is related to the transverse path (L ) by > Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) such that, > > P = L /Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > o > > and if c is constant the the time to traverse distance P for any given > L at any speed v is, > > t = t /Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > o > > Finally therefore, > > L /t = P/t > o o > > Thus one can choose any baseline wish by simply declaring that its > initial velocity is to be 'defined' as zero. This process is called > normalizing to the baseline. For example Earth's atmospheric pressure > is defined as 14.7 psi but is also known as 0 psig, or the normalized > base for the gauge system. Doing so however does not make the Earth's > atmosphere dissapear. Likewise, declaring the local velocity to be > zero does not make the aether dissapear. This is evident by the fact > that u (permeability) and n (permittivity) are still present and not > zero. This is why I cast r' in terms of these more fundamental > properties. I agree with that, but that isn't the topic. The discussion was if Lorentz contraction (or even the family of shape change) is the only theoretical option. My reply to the OP was that MMX in itself is not sufficient to conclude that shape must change (let alone in what way), but that MMX in combination with a few other key experiments does lead to that conclusion. > > > That does not mean that > > > measuring absolute velocity wrt to theaetheris impossible, or, even > > > difficult. It just means that you have to use OWLS timing like > > > DeWitte Rolands did. > > > If Lorentz was right, then DeWitte could not have measured what he > > thought he measured. Scientists are open minded but sceptical. ;-) > > In the direction of motion the one-way paths are not symmetrical. You > can 'define' them to be by an appropriate clock synchronization > process but, that won't change the underlying physics. Even with the > 'contraction' the time to traverse each way is along the axis of > motion should be (if Lorentz was right), > > t' = L/(c - v) and t'' = L/(c + v) > > So, as v changes so does t' (the outbound leg) and t'' (the inbound > leg). So, if the source is sending a steady periodic pulse of a known > dt at a given location at some distance L the receiving signal pulse > spacing should vary as the relative speed changes. This is what > DeWitte Rolands was measuring. Paul, one cannot measure "absolute speed" if the LT are correct; any "absolute speed" is masked by the "relativistic" effects. [..] > > > To me, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. But, I > > > tried to explain why. > > > What whole thing? It appears that most people can't even make an > > SRT sketch of a moving M-M interferometer, let alone consider > > alternative sketches. > > The whole 'thing' is the fixation on the TWLS measurements. It is > such an insignificant aspect of the overall physics picure. As we can "set" one-way speed as we like, it's smart to look at TWLS measurements. Cheers, Harald
From: PD on 26 May 2010 10:18 On May 25, 5:04 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2010 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On May 24, 6:53 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: > >> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:36:26 -0700 (PDT), PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >Note also that the measurements of the gammas are consistent with the SR > >> >> >kinematics of the pi0 decay. > > >> >> Hahahha! ...and how were the OW speeds of the gammas actually measured? > > >> >With photon counters and time gates. Why? > > >> :) > >> not very accurate, eh? > > >Actually, quite accurate. The precision, and how that is determined, > >is described in the paper. You should read it sometime, rather than > >just making stuff up about it without reading it. > > Not at all accurate.... Just making stuff up and tossing it out there doesn't do much for your credibility, Henri. Not that there's any there to compromise... > > > > > > >> >> >To attempt to model this with any sort of ballistic > >> >> >theory is EXTREMELY difficult, as the angle between the gammas (in the lab) > >> >> >varies strongly with the speed of the pi0 as it decays -- Galilean kinematics > >> >> >simply does not work. > > >> >> If a golf ball breaks in half when in flight, what would you say about the > >> >> speeds of the two halves. > > >> >They are different, in the ground frame. > >> >And this is quite measurable, as the arrival times at planes > >> >equidistant from the golf ball at break-up are very different. > >> >Compare this with the contrary result with gammas from the pion. > > >> There's probably some kind of 'explosion' as well. > > >Which makes absolutely no difference whatsoever. That's the whole > >point of conservation of momentum, that the quantity is conserved in a > >closed system REGARDLESS of the nature of the interactions within the > >system. Thus momentum would be conserved for the two halves of the > >golf ball, whether they separated by explosion or by a gentle push- > >off. > > True, but it affects the angles at which the halves might fly off. True, but that doesn't change a thing about what I just said. > > >This wouldn't at all change the results that the arrival times in the > >case of the golf ball are observably different, and the arrival times > >in the case of pi0->2gamma are identical. > > ...arrival times where? At planes equidistant from the source at decay -- the golf ball at breakup or the pion at decay. I already said that. > > >> >> Tom, it is now obvious that Einstein's silly theory has to rely on fringe > >> >> experiments like this just to maintain its existence in an increasingly > >> >> skeptical scientific world. > > >> >I love this: "fringe experiments". As in, "Any experiment that is > >> >specifically aimed to test a prediction of relativity and in fact > >> >shows support for relativity should be discredited as 'fringe' > >> >because... well, just because." > > >> 'Fringe' means 'right on the edge of credibility'. > > >Alrighty then, as in "Any experiment that is specifically aimed to > >test a prediction of relativity and in fact shows support for > >relativity should be discredited as 'right on the edge of credibility' > >because... well, just because." > > ALL experiments that are claimed to support Einstein are on the fringe. > > Not one is believable Not believable by YOU. But science has a pretty good, objective, and consistent metric for the believability of an experimental result. This is the basis by which the papers describing the results are analyzed in the review process. These criteria are in fact integral to the scientific process. Now, I understand that you do not share those criteria, and that you have your own and completely separate metric for the believability of an experimental result -- that is, whether it is consistent with what you want to believe, and nothing else. This is what enables you to decide that a paper is not believable by you, even without reading it. All it takes is, "Does the result agree with what I think? No. Then I don't believe it." That's fine for you, Henri. Everyone here has known for quite some time that what you do has nothing to do with science. > > Henry Wilson... > > .......A relativist's IQ = his snipping ability.
From: eric gisse on 26 May 2010 20:32 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > Diaper, people will believe anything if their faith is sufficiently > strong. Self awareness is a beautiful thing. [...]
From: Paul Stowe on 26 May 2010 21:27 On May 26, 1:30 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On May 23, 11:30 pm, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > > > Do you agree with the SRT sketch? I do, on > > > the assumption that the LT are correct. > > > I am unfamiliar with the term 'SRT Schetch'? > > Essentially it's the same sketch as that of M-M in their paper, except > that in SRT everything is shortened by factor gamma along the > direction of motion. > > > I am intimately > > familiar with how extended 'fields' conform to a form who radii for > > its center (r') is > > > r' = Sqrt(1 - unv'^2) > > > and > > > v' = v Cos t > > > Where t is any angle subtended relative to the line of motion. > > Therefore for any given r' the change in r' is simply related > > directly to the corresponding change in v. > > I'm not familiar with unv'. c^2 = 1/un Where u -> Permeability, n -> Permittivity. Thus, given v^2/c^2 substitute 1/un for c^2. V' is defined above... > However, the sketch that the OP gave and > that I reminded you of here is really the A of the ABC of SRT; I'm > sure that you know it, and that what you write is consistent with MMX > plus Lorentz contraction. The Lorentz contraction is symmetrical, thus not direction dependent... > > Thus the radial length (L) when moving for anything consisting of > > fields is, > > > L = L (Sqrt(1 - unv'^2)) > > o > > > At angles 90 & 270 relative to the line of motion L = L > > o > > > Therefore, for the round trip at any angle the total path length > > remains exactly equal. Thus, since we define speed as distance > > traversed divided by time it takes. Thus the measure of speed at any > > angle must in turn be equal. The rest of the so-called Lorentz > > Transforms are simple trigometric expressions relating transverse > > speed to actual speed. This is, > > > c'^2 = c^2 - v^2 -> c'^2 = c^2(1 - [v/c]^2) -> c'/c = Sqrt(1 - > > [v/c]^2) > > > If the hypotenuse path P is related to the transverse path (L ) by > > Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) such that, > > > P = L /Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > > o > > > and if c is constant the the time to traverse distance P for any given > > L at any speed v is, > > > t = t /Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > > o > > > Finally therefore, > > > L /t = P/t > > o o > > > Thus one can choose any baseline they wish by simply declaring that its > > initial velocity is to be 'defined' as zero. This process is called > > normalizing to the baseline. For example Earth's atmospheric pressure > > is defined as 14.7 psi but is also known as 0 psig, or the normalized > > base for the gauge system. Doing so however does not make the Earth's > > atmosphere dissapear. Likewise, declaring the local velocity to be > > zero does not make the aether dissapear. This is evident by the fact > > that u (permeability) and n (permittivity) are still present and not > > zero. This is why I cast r' in terms of these more fundamental > > properties. > > I agree with that, but that isn't the topic. The discussion was if > Lorentz contraction (or even the family of shape change) is the only > theoretical option. My reply to the OP was that MMX in itself is not > sufficient to conclude that shape must change (let alone in what way), > but that MMX in combination with a few other key experiments does lead > to that conclusion. BUT! because it physically DOES occur SRT proponents can claim (and pretend) that in the local frame (their rest frame) nothing ever changes. No matter IF the arms do, in fact, contract & expand when rotated. If you can't see it, it does not exist. How many people died of this belief with radiation poisoning? Including Madam Curie. > > > > That does not mean that > > > > measuring absolute velocity wrt to theaetheris impossible, or, even > > > > difficult. It just means that you have to use OWLS timing like > > > > DeWitte Rolands did. > > > > If Lorentz was right, then DeWitte could not have measured what he > > > thought he measured. Scientists are open minded but sceptical. ;-) > > > In the direction of motion the one-way paths are not symmetrical. You > > can 'define' them to be by an appropriate clock synchronization > > process but, that won't change the underlying physics. Even with the > > 'contraction' the time to traverse each way is along the axis of > > motion should be (if Lorentz was right), > > > t' = L/(c - v) and t'' = L/(c + v) > > > So, as v changes so does t' (the outbound leg) and t'' (the inbound > > leg). So, if the source is sending a steady periodic pulse of a known > > dt at a given location at some distance L the receiving signal pulse > > spacing should vary as the relative speed changes. This is what > > DeWitte Rolands was measuring. > > Paul, one cannot measure "absolute speed" if the LT are correct; any > "absolute speed" is masked by the "relativistic" effects. Please, in the same detail (with mathematics) as I did above, show me how the symmetrical Lorentz contraction can offset the c +/-v asymmetrical aspect of the transit times from source to reflector. I fully understand that, with such a contraction, the sum total of the round trip along the axis of motion is equals to the perpendicular round trip. I don't understand your comment since there is nothing in LR that predicts that. The transit time to traverse any given distance D is always D/c. The one-way distances for the perpendicular paths and parallel paths for any speed greater than zero are never equal, the round trip, with contractionl is always equal, for v < c. > [..] > > > > > To me, this whole thing is much ado about nothing. But, I > > > > tried to explain why. > > > > What whole thing? It appears that most people can't even make an > > > SRT sketch of a moving M-M interferometer, let alone consider > > > alternative sketches. > > > The whole 'thing' is the fixation on the TWLS measurements. It is > > such an insignificant aspect of the overall physics picure. > > As we can "set" one-way speed as we like, it's smart to look at TWLS > measurements. We can, by definition, define clock synchronization by TW transit signaling (back & forth), and because the asymmetrical aspects always cancel under this condition, claim that the one-way transit time is tw transit time divided by two. That however, does not make it so. So, the real way to test this is to do transit time measurements like DeWitte did. Regards, Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 26 May 2010 22:08
Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > BUT! because it physically DOES occur SRT proponents can claim (and > pretend) that in the local frame (their rest frame) nothing ever > changes. No matter IF the arms do, in fact, contract & expand when > rotated. If you can't see it, it does not exist. How many people > died of this belief with radiation poisoning? Including Madam Curie. This week's stoooooooooopid analogy goes to Paul Stowe. [...] |