OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: shevek4@yahoo.com on 5 Jun 2005 10:17 Jerry wrote: > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > > > It doesn't have to be light and clocks.. some kind of > > > > sensitive effect on the metric tensor for example, or a > > > > quantum mechanical effect. The symmetries of the Lorentz > > > > transform do not prove that nobody we cannot know the > > > > velocity of the aether. > > > > > > I think you still missed my point. There is *no* > > > way you can eliminate the issue of clocks. > > > > Prove that! > > I'm afraid that if you believe a method exists for measuring > OWLS with one clock, or for detecting local aether flow, the > onus is on -you- to provide a precise description of means > for doing so. Vague descriptions of some "sensitive effect on > the metric tensor for example, or a quantum mechanical effect" > amounts to nothing more than bandying words about. > > Jerry Very true Jerry, the onus is on me to provide such a description. However, if you wish to claim such a thing is not possible, an inherent logical contradiction, than you have to prove it. Good luck - shevek
From: kenseto on 5 Jun 2005 10:59 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117980946.691398.319460(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > kenseto wrote: > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > news:1117977112.464092.305300(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > 3. Numerous experiments were performed to confirm that > > > > OWLS is isotropic and thus from that OWLS is equal to TWLS > > > > and equal to c because TWLS is measured to be isotropic c. > > > > The question is: Why were the values of OWLS for these > > > > experiments not reported? > > > > > > Because an experiment designed to test for OWLS anisotropy > > > is not necessarily capable of providing a figure for OWLS > > > itself. > > > > This is bull. > > Consider a photofinish camera used at horse races, track events, > etc. The design of the camera allows it to assess very accurately > the winner of a race. But it is useless for assessing the time > it took for a horse to run the track. Then you are not talking about isotropy. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of isotropy? Isotropy means the same speed in different directions. > > An instrument designed to test OWHS anisotropy (one way horse > speed anisotropy) is not necessarily capable of measuring OWHS. You are not testing OWHS anisotropy. You are testing whether the two horese are running at the same speed in the same direction. The only true test for isotropy is by determining the flight times of light between the two synchronized clocks A and B in both directions (A--->B and B--->A). If the flight time in both directions is the same then you have isotropy. The value of of OWLS can be determined simply by measuring the distance between A and B using a physical ruler. > > > > You are lacking in basic logic skills, if you think there is > > > any way around the fact that isotropic OWLS implies OWLS=TWLS. > > > > No it is you who lack logic skills. On earth OWLS can be isotropic > > and yet have a different value than TWLS. The following link > > will explain why: > > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf > > You write: > "Michelson-Morley failed to ask the relevant question: > What is the direction of absolute motion of the > apparatus with respect to the defined horizontal plane > of the light rays that will produce a null result > for all the orientations of the horizontal arms? The > answer to this question is: If the apparatus is > moving vertically then a null result will be obtained > for all the orientations of the horizontal arms." > > Michelson-Morley took measurements six hours apart during > separate experimental runs spaced months apart. > Are you saying that the apparatus was moving vertically > on all occasions? The apparatus is moving vertically WRT the defined horizontal light rays in all experimental locations. This is confirmed by the experimental facts that the MMX null results were obtained in all experimental locations. Also this is confirmed by the fact that the gravitational red shift is observed in the vertical direction in all experimental locations. >Are you saying that -everybody- who > has repeated the MMX experiment with ever increasing > sensitivity over the years has had their apparatus oriented > vertically with respect to Earth's absolute motion through > space? You seem to have comprehension problem. The MMX null result is due to the apparatus is moving perpendicularly wrt the defined direction of the light rays in all experimental locations. > > Are you stating that the Earth spirals through space > in a direction perpendicular to whatever MMX experiment > is being run at the moment? Sigh....the motion of the earth got nothing to do with the MMX null result. The null result is due to how the apparatus move wrt the light rays. If you orient the plane of the light rays of the MMX apparatus vertically then you will get the non-null result as you rotate the apparatus. Why? Because you will get different light path length as the arms are rotated. Ken Seto > > Oh, yes. Your incomprehensible E-matrix garbage... > > Jerry >
From: rotchm@gmail.com on 5 Jun 2005 11:38 >1. Two touching and synchronized clocks will remain synchronized after >moving in the opposite directions at the same speed and came to rest again. Correct. SR says that. >2. It is impossible to determine the value of OWLS because OWLS is dependent >on the synchronization procedure choosen. The question is: Why can't we use >the synchronized clocks described in item #1 to measure OWLS? First, as I claim, that experiment implicitly has twls effects involved. It is not quite apparent, but a carefull analysis of the thought experiment will reveal that. Second, I am uneasy with the asertion "OWLS is dependent on the synchronization procedure choosen". The speed of something is independent of the synch procedure. "Speed" is defined independently of the concept of synching. ( I am refering to the mathematical definition of speed). Remark that in any math book that deals withs speeds (velocities- see classical differential geometry or kinematics), there is no use of "synching". But, if you define a speed measurement *procedure*, then the measurement procedure will (or often, as in most experiments) have the need of a synching procedure too. In that case, speeds measurements do depend on the synch procedure, but that does not imply that the synch procedure is valid. This is why I asked you what synck procedure you are refering to and what procedure you are refering to when you say that two distant clocks are in synch. So, to answer your #2 question "Why can't we use the synchronized clocks described in item #1 to measure OWLS?" : a) in SR you can. In Ether theories, it is not an owls exp. because it implicitly has twls effect... but you seem to ignore this. b)The synch procedure is an "initial" synch procedure. How does one verify that they remain in synch? In SR, using ususal SR concept of synching, they *remain* in synch. In Ether theories, they are no longer in synch but a verification of their synchronicity will yield that they are in synch >3. Numerous experiments were performed to confirm that OWLS is isotropic and >thus from that OWLS is equal to TWLS and equal to c because TWLS is measured >to be isotropic c Proof of iso of owls does not imply the owls=twls. What experiment are you refering too? >Here's what a correct ether theory would say: >1. Two touching and synchronized clocks will remain synchronized after >moving in the opposite directions at the same speed and came to rest again. Not in the ether theories I am acquianted with. >These two clocks can be used to measure the value and isotropy of OWLS. Not in the ether theories i am acquainted with. >2. The OWLS is measured to be isotropic using the clocks described in item #1 In the Ether theories I am acquainted with, that is not a owls experiment and the result of that experiment will yield that the ratio 2L/(Tb-Ta) = constant = 299792458.
From: Jerry on 5 Jun 2005 12:47 kenseto wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1117980946.691398.319460(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > > > news:1117977112.464092.305300(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > > > > > 3. Numerous experiments were performed to confirm that > > > > > OWLS is isotropic and thus from that OWLS is equal to TWLS > > > > > and equal to c because TWLS is measured to be isotropic c. > > > > > The question is: Why were the values of OWLS for these > > > > > experiments not reported? > > > > > > > > Because an experiment designed to test for OWLS anisotropy > > > > is not necessarily capable of providing a figure for OWLS > > > > itself. > > > > > > This is bull. > > > > Consider a photofinish camera used at horse races, track events, > > etc. The design of the camera allows it to assess very accurately > > the winner of a race. But it is useless for assessing the time > > it took for a horse to run the track. > > Then you are not talking about isotropy. Perhaps you don't understand the > meaning of isotropy? Isotropy means the same speed in different directions. > > > > An instrument designed to test OWHS anisotropy (one way horse > > speed anisotropy) is not necessarily capable of measuring OWHS. > > You are not testing OWHS anisotropy. You are testing whether the two horese > are running at the same speed in the same direction. Sheesh! Can't you understand a JOKING use of words? Nevertheless, the important point is that an arrangement sensitive to DELTA velocity is not necessarily going to be sensitive to velocity. > The only true test for isotropy is by determining the flight times > of light between the two synchronized clocks A and B in both directions > (A--->B and B--->A). If the flight time in both directions is the same then > you have isotropy. The value of of OWLS can be determined simply by > measuring the distance between A and B using a physical ruler. > > > > > > > You are lacking in basic logic skills, if you think there is > > > > any way around the fact that isotropic OWLS implies OWLS=TWLS. > > > > > > No it is you who lack logic skills. On earth OWLS can be isotropic > > > and yet have a different value than TWLS. The following link > > > will explain why: > > > http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf > > > > You write: > > "Michelson-Morley failed to ask the relevant question: > > What is the direction of absolute motion of the > > apparatus with respect to the defined horizontal plane > > of the light rays that will produce a null result > > for all the orientations of the horizontal arms? The > > answer to this question is: If the apparatus is > > moving vertically then a null result will be obtained > > for all the orientations of the horizontal arms." > > > > Michelson-Morley took measurements six hours apart during > > separate experimental runs spaced months apart. > > Are you saying that the apparatus was moving vertically > > on all occasions? > > The apparatus is moving vertically WRT the defined horizontal light rays in > all experimental locations. This is confirmed by the experimental facts that > the MMX null results were obtained in all experimental locations. Also this > is confirmed by the fact that the gravitational red shift is observed in the > vertical direction in all experimental locations. > > >Are you saying that -everybody- who > > has repeated the MMX experiment with ever increasing > > sensitivity over the years has had their apparatus oriented > > vertically with respect to Earth's absolute motion through > > space? > > You seem to have comprehension problem. The MMX null result is due to the > apparatus is moving perpendicularly wrt the defined direction of the light > rays in all experimental locations. > > > > Are you stating that the Earth spirals through space > > in a direction perpendicular to whatever MMX experiment > > is being run at the moment? > > Sigh....the motion of the earth got nothing to do with the MMX null result. > The null result is due to how the apparatus move wrt the light rays. If you > orient the plane of the light rays of the MMX apparatus vertically then you > will get the non-null result as you rotate the apparatus. Why? Because you > will get different light path length as the arms are rotated. As I said, your reasoning (or lack of reasoning) is incomprehensible.
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 5 Jun 2005 13:00
In sci.physics, Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote on 5 Jun 2005 06:11:52 -0700 <1117977112.464092.305300(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > kenseto wrote: > >> 3. Numerous experiments were performed to confirm that >> OWLS is isotropic and thus from that OWLS is equal to TWLS >> and equal to c because TWLS is measured to be isotropic c. >> The question is: Why were the values of OWLS for these >> experiments not reported? > > Because an experiment designed to test for OWLS anisotropy > is not necessarily capable of providing a figure for OWLS > itself. > >> Why did they have to use the isotropy of OWLS to conclude >> that it is equal to c? Is it because the measured value of >> OWLS is not equal to c even though that OWLS is isotropic? >> I think so. What do you think? > > I think you have never bothered to familiarize yourself with > the details of the experiments that have verified OWLS > isotropy. I recommend that you download, read, and try to > understand the three papers that I posted on the subject at > http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/LightSpeed.htm > > You are lacking in basic logic skills, if you think there is > any way around the fact that isotropic OWLS implies OWLS=TWLS. It is theoretically possible to have OWLS != TWLS and to have perfect OWLS isotropy, if one assumes that mirrors take non-zero time to reflect. However, I for one have little knowledge in that area, and in any event most people, myself included, assume zero time for mirror reflection, at least for thought experiments posted on this and other forums. > > Jerry > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. |