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: Androcles on 28 May 2010 04:28 "harald" <hvan(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message news:3713dd32-a6a6-405d-901e-821bc6f3481e(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... On May 28, 5:42 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(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? "Whoever" thinks that Lorentz contraction is a "compression" is clueless... [...] Harald ==================================================== Whoever doesn't think that Lorentz contraction is a "compression" has never read Lorentz...
From: harald on 28 May 2010 05:14 On May 28, 3:37 am, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 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. No, the argument that nothing is observed for v=0 is irrelevant for the theoretical description of what is observed for v=/=0. > 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. I agree that a mathematical description of events should not be confused with a physical explanation. > > > 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. Ok, you mean measurements of changes of one-way speeds, while making assumptions about the emitted signal. > 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. Good! I admit that I haven't thought about such one-way set-ups for quite some time. For such experiments, SRT predicts that *changes* in speed can be detected. In theory that still doesn't permit the measurement of *absolute speed*. > > > 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??? The transit time to traverse any given distance is in SRT operationally defined, and depends on the synchronization which is a function of velocity; it is not defined by nature but by convention. Depending on our synchronization setting, we also "set" the transfer time that we "measure" (we can even do that after the actual measurement!). [..] Harald
From: harald on 28 May 2010 05:20 On May 28, 6:02 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > [...] > > > Of course the MMX [...] > > I find the fixation on the Michelson-Morley experiment to be curious given > the CENTURY OF EXPERIMENTAL PHYSICS THAT CAME AFTER IT. And MMX-like experiments continue (thanks Uncle Al): http://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2031
From: harald on 28 May 2010 05:23 On May 28, 10:28 am, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "harald" <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote in message > > news:3713dd32-a6a6-405d-901e-821bc6f3481e(a)l6g2000vbo.googlegroups.com... > On May 28, 5:42 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: > > > > > "Paul Stowe" <theaether...(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? > > "Whoever" thinks that Lorentz contraction is a "compression" > is clueless... > > [...] > > Harald > ==================================================== > Whoever doesn't think that Lorentz contraction is a > "compression" has never read Lorentz... Where did Lorentz make such a blunder?
From: harald on 28 May 2010 05:30
On May 28, 4:06 am, "whoever" <whoe...(a)whereever.com> wrote: [..] > 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. Yes indeed! In SRT "the speed of light" is defined as the speed as measured with a standard inertial reference system. Some confuse that with "true" or "absolute" speed of light. Harald |