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 27 May 2010 04:25 On May 27, 3:27 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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... [..] > > 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. That is mute for standard MMX. As I already pointed out, it is an essential aspect of MMX that the interferometer's readings must be compared at significantly different velocities relative to whatever single inertial reference system. In the MMX example calculation the solar "frame" was chosen because it corresponds to the minimal peak speed in any inertial frame, and that is, as the OP put it, the calculation which SRT had to "correct". The correction according to SRT is that in such a reference system the device is measured to contract by the Lorentz factor. > 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. Sorry, no. Without detail, this is taken care of by the synchronization procedure (corresponding to Lorentz's "local time"). With detail, that's done in sections 1-3 of Einstein's 1905 paper which can be read as a derivation for MMX and KTX but which is also keeping track of one-way "measurements": - http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ > 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. See above. I should not have called Lorentz contraction as based on MMX the "A" of the ABC of SRT, since hystorically speaking, local synchronization is the "A" of the ABC and also Einstein started with that in his paper. > > [..] > > > > > > 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. How could he measure one-way transit times without any synchronization? Harald
From: Tom Roberts on 27 May 2010 10:07 Paul Stowe wrote: > [... Lorentz contraction] > BUT! because it physically DOES occur What God whispered in your ear and told you this? If you had any understanding of science, you would KNOW that you cannot know this. And your capitalization emphasizes your ignorance. > 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. If you actually bothered to STUDY the theory, you would know how silly your claims are. > How many people > died of this belief with radiation poisoning? Including Madam Curie. You just don't have a clue.... This has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "Lorentz contraction" in SR. >> As we can "set" one-way speed as we like, it's smart to look at TWLS >> measurements. Hmmm. Because it is possible to synchronize clocks via any method whatsoever, the one-way speed of light cannot be well defined -- it's value INHERENTLY depends on the method you select to synchronize your clocks. Rather than "setting" it, it is MUCH better to construct a model (theory), and determine what the one-way speed is in the model. Then test the model exhaustively, and don't believe it until it passes hundreds of tests. Such as SR. In SR, the one-way speed of light is c relative to any inertial frame; there is no way to "set" it to any other value. LET of course passes the same experimental tests as SR. In LET the one-way speed of light depends on direction and the motion of the apparatus relative to the ether. So you can indeed "set" it to any value you wish -- indeed you MUST set it arbitrarily, as there is no way to determine the ether frame. But for real measurements using real clocks and rulers, LET always predicts the same MEASURED VALUES as predicted by SR. > the real way to test this is to do transit time measurements like > DeWitte did. You REALLY don't have a clue. DeWitte was even more clueless than you are. His "measurements" are completely worthless, because the errorbars in the data greatly exceed the difference he claims. He claims his data show the difference between sidereal and solar days. But if you look at just the first half of the data, the difference has about the correct value BUT THE WRONG SIGN; look at just the second half, and it gets the sign correct but gets the value wrong by a factor of two, so the total data set "just happens" to end at the correct difference. Indeed, HE APPEARS TO HAVE SELECTED THE LENGTH OF THE DATA SET TO DO JUST THAT -- just about any contiguous subset of the data does not support his claim. Such "cooking" of the data to get a pre-conceived result is beyond the pale. Other experimenters, such as Torr & Kolen, Cialdea, and Krisher et al, got null results (within their errorbars, which are MUCH smaller than DeWitte's, but of course DeWitte did not understand the necessity of computing the errorbars from the data). I realize that this won't bother you, because like DeWitte, Wilson, and other idiots around here, you will merely select the "experiments" that support what you want to believe. That is not science. If you were interested in doing science, you would look at ALL of the experiments, and see that the vast majority of them do not support your views. Contrary to the claims of many around here, physicists as a whole are not stupid. There is a reason that SR is a pillar of modern physics taught to every student, but LET is just a mostly forgotten historical anecdote. Tom Roberts
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 15:26 Tom Roberts wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: >> [... Lorentz contraction] >> BUT! because it physically DOES occur > > What God whispered in your ear and told you this? The god of gods: Zeus. [...]
From: Androcles on 27 May 2010 17:36 "Paul B. Andersen" <someone(a)somewhere.no> wrote in message news:4BFED1A6.9090505(a)somewhere.no... | On 25.05.2010 01:53, Henry Wilson DSc wrote: | > On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:36:26 -0700 (PDT), PD<thedraperfamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: | > | >> On May 24, 5:13 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: | >>> On Mon, 24 May 2010 15:54:21 +0900, Tom Roberts<tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> | >>> wrote: | >>> | >>> | >>> | >>>> Paul B. Andersen wrote: | >>>>> On 22.05.2010 06:51, Darwin123 wrote: | >>>>>> On May 20, 6:31 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: | >>>>>>> The pions had stopped in the berylium block before they decayed. | >>>>>> The pions were outside the beryllium when they decayed. | >>> | >>>>> Hardly. | >>>>> The neutral pion has a mean lifetime of 8.4E-17 s, which | >>>>> means that even if its speed is close to the speed of light, | >>>>> it will travel only in the order of 25 nm before it decays. | >>>>> But gamma rays are very penetrating, so the probability for | >>>>> for the gammas to interact with electrons in the 5um thick | >>>>> target is very small. So there are gammas that are coming out | >>>>> of the target, not pions. | >>>>> A gamma burst was produced every time a proton bunch passed | >>>>> through the target. | >>> | >>>> Yes, the pi0 decays well inside the target. But pi0 is also "very penetrating" | >>>> on the scale of its path length -- an atom is mostly empty space, and the pi0 | >>>> does not interact with electrons other than via elastic scattering (which does | >>>> no affect the pi0 or its lifetime). A small fraction of the pi0s created will | >>>> interact with nearby nuclei; the vast majority decay with speed close to c. | >>> | >>>> 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? | | Accurate enough to know that if the speed of the gammas were c + kv, | then k < 10^-4. | According to the emission theory, k = 1. My goodness, you've proven the speed of the beryllium is zero according to emission theory! Well done, Andersen! Now it only you could prove the speed of the gamma ray was independent of the motion of the beryllium...
From: harald on 27 May 2010 17:53
On May 27, 9:26 pm, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > Paul Stowe wrote: > >> [... Lorentz contraction] > >> BUT! because it physically DOES occur > > > What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > The god of gods: Zeus. > > [...] The god of physicists did whisper the "physical meaning" of the LT in their ears: For v->c all moving objects (viewed from the "stationary" system) shrivel up into plane figures. ;-) |