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: Paul Stowe on 29 May 2010 09:04 On May 27, 8:42 pm, "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: > >> PaulStowewrote: > >> > [... 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. LET, like SR was not intended to address the issue that GR does. But LR (Lorentzian Relativity) does indeed cover GR. In LR the central equation is, t^2/un = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 Where u -> coefficient of compressibility of the medium and n -> the density of the medium and, like all mediums (and like Maxwell modeled), c^2 = 1/un Since t^2/un = ds^2 then, ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 which, of course, is the basis for so-called Minkowski space-time. There is NOTHING! special about this, or it it unique in any way to empty space. It should be apparent to you that this expression is true for all mediums. > 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 There is no 'compression'. The fact is, when a source of a field is moving within the medium the speed of propagation (c) does not, and can not change. Therefore the actual distance the field can propagate wrt the source is c - v' Where v' = v Cos j and j is the angle relative to the direction of motion. If you want to learn more about this general behavior for acoustical moving sources see "Theoretical Acoustics", http://www.amazon.com/Theoretical-Acoustics-Philip-M-Morse/dp/0691024014 Or his (Uno Ingard) article (acoustics) in Condon & Odishaw's "Handbook of Physics". You will find the contraction there, x* = x/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2) > So if you claim it must be an aether doing this .. how do you knoow? Did > God whisper in your ear? Given this 'contraction' then the 'actual' paths all acoustical fields must propagate for any given 'round trip' path is xg where g = 1/ Sqrt(...). Thus the time to complete this is tg. IOW, it takes longer. If the only way thing are changed is by field 'interactive effects' these will also take longer. For local observers who have normalized their system to the measured value of c this longer process rate is built into the base. BUT! for every other state, moving relative to theirs, this rate IS, PHYSICALLY different. If this is true AND is precisely at the rate of tg then the physical basis is an aetherial medium. Now why does God have to whisper anything into anyone's ear to see this??? If you're religious then you can claim God gave us the brains to figure it out. Paul Stowe
From: Paul Stowe on 29 May 2010 14:13 On May 28, 2:14 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > 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: > > [..] > > > > 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. It is for SRT if the local frame is the rest frame. You could do the MMX on a jetliner and as long as the speed isn't changing for SRT v = 0. That's the whole point of renormalization. > > 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. I guess that the transmitter tick rate will match the receiver's tick rate in an inertial frame is an assumption. > > 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. Really? Not if SRT demands and declares OWLS = TWLS/2 for inertial frames. This is certainly not true for LR and is the only clear distinction between the two theories that I know of. > In theory that still doesn't permit the measurement of > *absolute speed*. In fact, it does. The actual asymmetry of OWLS should be based upon the total speed, not just the delta, Further, Krisher et al probably saw this. When they analyzed their complete data set they found what they described in the paper as "unwanted higher frequency oscillations". To remove these they removed 99% of the data collected. This is completely descibed in their paper. What they didn't show is the scatter plot of the data either. Given that the wavelength of their signal was such, and the 21 km path long enough that, the phases would have mutiple overlapses within the time frame of 24 hours (given Earth speed wrt the CMBR @ ~660 KPS). This indeed would have resulted in "higher frequency oscillations" than a simpe 12/24 cycle. > > > > 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!). Again, so what? Nature cared not what we 'define' Regards, Paul Stowe
From: eric gisse on 29 May 2010 15:18 Paul Stowe wrote: [...] > It is for SRT if the local frame is the rest frame. You could do the > MMX on a jetliner and as long as the speed isn't changing for SRT v = > 0. That's the whole point of renormalization. Y'know, nobody but you calls it that. [...] > Really? Not if SRT demands and declares OWLS = TWLS/2 for inertial > frames. This is certainly not true for LR and is the only clear > distinction between the two theories that I know of. Soooo, you think one way light speed is c/2? How many experiments need to show c before you say 'huh, maybe I'm wrong!' ? http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one- way_tests > >> In theory that still doesn't permit the measurement of >> *absolute speed*. > > In fact, it does. The actual asymmetry of OWLS should be based upon > the total speed, not just the delta, This is stupid. In what fantasy universe do you live in is it the case that an asymmetry in speeds only shows up in the total speed as opposed to the difference of the two? > Further, Krisher et al probably > saw this. What a subtle way of saying you think the experimenters are as stupid as you. > When they analyzed their complete data set they found what > they described in the paper as "unwanted higher frequency > oscillations". To remove these they removed 99% of the data > collected. This is completely descibed in their paper. Why yes Paul, that's completely standard. The fact this was explained (and the paper still got published, as well) ought to tell you at least two things. > What they > didn't show is the scatter plot of the data either. They didn't show the data in a pie chart either. Learn data analysis, please. > Given that the > wavelength of their signal was such, and the 21 km path long enough > that, the phases would have mutiple overlapses Uh, phases don't have 'overlapses'. Perhaps you don't know what is meant by 'phase' ? You know Paul, maybe you should find a hobby. One you know something about. > within the time frame > of 24 hours (given Earth speed wrt the CMBR @ ~660 KPS). This indeed > would have resulted in "higher frequency oscillations" than a simpe > 12/24 cycle. [...]
From: harald on 29 May 2010 18:56 On May 29, 8:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 28, 2:14 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > 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: > > > [..] > > > > > 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. > > It is for SRT if the local frame is the rest frame. That is irrelevant for MMX as I already made clear. The experiment relates to any theoretical frame in which the apparatus is considered to be *moving*. Similarly, Einstein did *not* call his 1905 paper the "electrodynamics of stationary bodies. :)) > You could do the > MMX on a jetliner and as long as the speed isn't changing for > SRT v = 0. That's the whole point of renormalization. The whole point of MMX is that it is performed at different velocities... [..] > > > > > 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. > > I guess that the transmitter tick rate will match the > receiver's tick rate in an inertial frame is an assumption. I don't understand why you characterize a variation of velocity with "inertial frame"... [..] > > > 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. > > Really? Not if SRT demands and declares OWLS = TWLS/2 for > inertial frames. I suppose that you meant OWLT = TWLT/2. However, the experiment is *not* at rest in an inertial frame! And yes, really: such one-way experiments illustrate perhaps better than clock retardation experiments that a change of state corresponds to a real and permanent physical change. In order to "make" again OWLS=TWLS, clocks would need to be re-adjusted. > This is certainly not true for LR and is the only clear > distinction between the two theories that I know of. I don't know "LR"; does it give a different "correction" of MMX and one-way experiments than SRT? > > In theory that still doesn't permit the measurement of > > *absolute speed*. > > In fact, it does. The actual asymmetry of OWLS should be > based upon the total speed, not just the delta, ?? This is the point where math is essential. Do you have a problem with either Einstein's or Lorentz's-Poincare's derivation of the LT? > Further, Krisher et al probably > saw this. When they analyzed their complete data set they found what > they described in the paper as "unwanted higher frequency > oscillations". To remove these they removed 99% of the data > collected. Wasn't that about a 2-way MMX experiment? If so, that brings us back to the topic of this thread, although not exactly... > This is completely descibed in their paper. What they > didn't show is the scatter plot of the data either. Given that the > wavelength of their signal was such, and the 21 km path long enough > that, the phases would have mutiple overlapses within the time frame > of 24 hours (given Earth speed wrt the CMBR @ ~660 KPS). This indeed > would have resulted in "higher frequency oscillations" than a simpe > 12/24 cycle. Sorry, you completely lost me here. I don't even recall that experiment - different topic again! [..] > > 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!). > > Again, so what? Nature cared not what we 'define' We have no alternative for what we cannot measure; and even if we could, there may be practical arguments to keep it. The definition of "simultaneity" started in a pragmatic way, just like that of the direction of current in a wire (except that we now do know that real current goes from minus to plus, although we still define it from plus to minus). Regards, Harald
From: Paul Stowe on 29 May 2010 23:59
On May 29, 3:56 pm, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > On May 29, 8:13 pm, Paul Stowe <theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On May 28, 2:14 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > On May 28, 3:37 am, PaulStowe<theaether...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 27, 1:25 am, harald <h...(a)swissonline.ch> wrote: > > > > [..] > > > > > > 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. > > > It is for SRT if the local frame is the rest frame. > > That is irrelevant for MMX as I already made clear. The experiment > relates to any theoretical frame in which the apparatus is considered > to be *moving*. Similarly, Einstein did *not* call his 1905 paper the > "electrodynamics of stationary bodies. :)) > > > You could do the > > MMX on a jetliner and as long as the speed isn't changing for > > SRT v = 0. That's the whole point of renormalization. > > The whole point of MMX is that it is performed at different > velocities... > > [..] > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > I guess that the transmitter tick rate will match the > > receiver's tick rate in an inertial frame is an assumption. > > I don't understand why you characterize a variation of velocity with > "inertial frame"... > > [..] > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > Really? Not if SRT demands and declares OWLS = TWLS/2 for > > inertial frames. > > I suppose that you meant OWLT = TWLT/2. However, the experiment is > *not* at rest in an inertial frame! > > And yes, really: such one-way experiments illustrate perhaps better > than clock retardation experiments that a change of state corresponds > to a real and permanent physical change. In order to "make" again > OWLS=TWLS, clocks would need to be re-adjusted. > > > This is certainly not true for LR and is the only clear > > distinction between the two theories that I know of. > > I don't know "LR"; does it give a different "correction" of MMX and > one-way experiments than SRT? > > > > In theory that still doesn't permit the measurement of > > > *absolute speed*. > > > In fact, it does. The actual asymmetry of OWLS should be > > based upon the total speed, not just the delta, > > ?? This is the point where math is essential. Do you have a problem > with either Einstein's or Lorentz's-Poincare's derivation of the LT? > > > Further, Krisher et al probably > > saw this. When they analyzed their complete data set they found what > > they described in the paper as "unwanted higher frequency > > oscillations". To remove these they removed 99% of the data > > collected. > > Wasn't that about a 2-way MMX experiment? If so, that brings us back > to the topic of this thread, although not exactly... No... See: http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus_alienus/papers/Krisher_et_al_1990.pdf > > This is completely descibed in their paper. What they > > didn't show is the scatter plot of the data either. Given that the > > wavelength of their signal was such, and the 21 km path long enough > > that, the phases would have mutiple overlapses within the time frame > > of 24 hours (given Earth speed wrt the CMBR @ ~660 KPS). This indeed > > would have resulted in "higher frequency oscillations" than a simpe > > 12/24 cycle. > > Sorry, you completely lost me here. I don't even recall that > experiment - different topic again! No, since we're talking about OWLS. Go to Google Scholar and search for, "Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow" since it appears the author got his hands on the total Krisher raw data... > [..] > > > > 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!). > > > Again, so what? Nature cares not what we 'define' > > We have no alternative for what we cannot measure; and even if we > could, there may be practical arguments to keep it. The definition of > "simultaneity" started in a pragmatic way, just like that of the > direction of current in a wire (except that we now do know that real > current goes from minus to plus, although we still define it from plus > to minus). It is very important to proper understanding... > Regards, > Harald |