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: Sue... on 27 May 2010 19:00 On May 27, 5:53 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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. ;-) "physical meaning" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation Retarded potentials http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node50.html Sue...
From: eric gisse on 27 May 2010 21:05 ...@..(Henry Wilson DSc) wrote: [...] > > This experiment was performed BY relativists FOR relativists. > the knew the answer they wanted beforehand....forget it.... So, by your estimation, any experiment that supports relativity and proves you wrong is itself wrong because it was performed by scientists. Interesting belief system you have there, Ralph. [...]
From: Paul Stowe on 27 May 2010 21:37 On May 27, 1:25 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On May 27, 3:27 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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. Of course the MMX is mute. I chuckle that Tom gets his shorts in a knot when, what I said was that it 'appears', 'measured', that the arms are unchanging. However, one has to realize that for the LT to apply between different moving systems SOMETHING! must regulate and cause that to occur. IF! time dilation is real then Lorentz's version must be the underlying cause. NO OTHER EXPLANATION has EVER BEEN PROFFERED. Just because, or 'we imagine space-time is hyperbolic because the math matches that' is not an adequate and a circular argument. > > 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. > > > > 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/ Look, you don't need to synchronize any clocks. You need a repeating transmitter and a receiving recorder. The recorder does need to be a very precise clock since what you are looking for is variances in the spacing of the signals received. IF! the transmitter is pulsing at any steady cycle then that cycle will be altered in any speed changes by that predicted by the LT. The receiving clock likewise. BUT! if the whole system is changing speed (like the Earth's vector wrt to the Sun) then the actual distance the signal must traverse from the transmitter to the receiver will chaange along the axis of motion, and that axis is changing. IF! that occurs, the actual difference, or spacing, between reception times should also change. Your NOT! looking for phase interference between to signals nor are you trying to measure the actual transit times from source to receiver thus you don't need to synchronize clock. The clock or timers just must be steady and reliable. One IS! looking for any variances in the spacing between signal receptions, period. > > 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. So what??? > > > [..] > > > > > > > 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? You don't, you look for differences in transit times with rotation... Paul Stowe
From: whoever on 27 May 2010 22:06 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:5PidnS1nnJ834WPWRVn_vwA(a)giganews.com... > 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. Not if you are talking about the measured speed in LET. Only if you're talking about the 'real' speed in the hidden Galilean / Euclidean / Newtonian reality of LET .. before our view of it is distorted by compression and slowing due to motion thru the LET aether. You seem to be a little inconsistent in which you are talking about (or perhaps just not clear) .. you claimed earlier that in LET the proper / intrinsic length of a rod is unchanged by motion, because a co-moving ruler will always measure it as being the same (ie talking about what we measure using our 'distorted' tools). Using that same view of talking about measurements made be commoving clocks and distances, the OWLS is c in LET just as it is in SRT, and does not depend on distance. With LET there are always two views of the world .. what we measure with distorted tools, and what is 'real' (ie. which is only the same as what we measure when at rest in the aether) One needs to be careful about which view one is talking about when one said things like the speed of light .. whether one means the 'measured' speed or the 'real' speed. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: whoever on 27 May 2010 23:42
"Paul Stowe" <theaetherist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ef781c24-3b18-4906-aea6-facc6417ba87(a)p5g2000pri.googlegroups.com... > On May 27, 7:07 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> Paul Stowe wrote: >> > [... Lorentz contraction] BUT! because it physically DOES occur >> >> What God whispered in your ear and told you this? > > No God, the physical existence of time dilation... Yes .. we measure time dilation .. consistent with both LET and SR (as they predict the same measurements). We actually also measure it consistent with GR .. LET does not predict what we actually measure in those cases. So how does that indicate that there is actual Lorentz compression due to movement through an aether? How does that show that the reason for time dilation is movement through an aether? No experiment has ever shown that there is any aether, because the properties of the aether have been invented such that (conventiently) you cannot measure it So if you claim it must be an aether doing this .. how do you knoow? Did God whisper in your ear? --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net --- |