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: Jerry on 5 Jun 2005 13:38 shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > 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. Rather than try to prove it to you, I shall refer you to several papers and a book dealing with the subject of "test theories" and what reasonable forms non-SR theories might take, that might fit within the "error bars" of current experiment. The list is from the SR FAQ. I've read the Roberson, the Edwards, and the Mansouri papers, which are all readily available in the typical good university library. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to get hold of a copy of the Zhang book yet. Robertson, Rev. of Mod. Phys. 21, p378 (1949). Edwards, Am. J. Phys. 31 (1963), p482. Mansouri and Sexl, Gen. Rel. Grav. 8 (1977), p497, p515, p809. Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations. The most important of them for you to read, within the context of this discussion, is the Edwards paper, with its discussion of the issue of clock synchronization. OK. Tag you're it! Onus back on you to do your homework! :-) Jerry
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 5 Jun 2005 14:00 Dear shevek4: <shevek4(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1117949142.619913.282460(a)g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: >> shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: >> > > shevek wrote: >> > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: >> > > > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > [snip] >> > > > > >> > > > > > > It simply is not possible to measure any sort of >> > > > > > > one-way speed using a >> > > > > > > single clock. No matter what you do you must >> > > > > > > arrange for the start and >> > > > > > > stop signals to both reach the clock, and that >> > > > > > > necessarily involves a >> > > > > > > closed path for the signals. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Would such a thing be possible if you had knowledge >> > > > > > (from another >> > > > > > source) of the local rest state of the aether? >> > > > > >> > > > > How? You would still have to synchronize two clocks, >> > > > > or >> > > > > alternatively do a TWLS measurement and infer OWLS >> > > > > from >> > > > > theory. Arguably that inference would seem more >> > > > > natural, >> > > > > but it would still be an inference. >> > > > >> > > > Yes, it would be an inference. Of course if your >> > > > knowledge of local >> > > > aether flow speed is justified, the inference and >> > > > measurement of OWLS >> > > > is justified. >> > > >> > > How are you going to measure the local aether flow without >> > > two clocks? You have the same problem. Note that Roberts >> > > said *any* one-way velocity measurement; he wasn't >> > > limiting >> > > his comments to light. >> > >> > Good question, I guess this was the point all along of >> > trying to >> > measure OWLS. >> > >> > 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! A defined length is a remote synchronized clock. You will have "clock issues" if you depend on length, changes in length with respect to time, or differential length. David A. Smith
From: Jerry on 6 Jun 2005 00:51 Jerry wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > > The idea is that since the phase velocity of the RF beams > > traveling through the two waveguides is different, then > > the two beams would be differentially sensitive to the > > effects of motion through any hypothetical aether. > > Uh, I guess I shouldn't have used the word "any". > A Lorentz aether, for example, would not be detectable by > this or any other experiment. Whoops! My fault again...cancel the above comment... Gagnon et al. write: "The one-way measurement also remains the definitive point of experimental distinction between the special theory of relativity and a semiclassical absolute space theory such as the Lorentz ether theory." The ad hoc cancellation of effects that presumably occurs in the MMX experiment as a result of Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction does not occur in the one-way experiment. In conclusion, Gagnon et al. write: "Our results are consistent with the special theory of relativity and do not tend to support the semiclassical theory or the existence of a preferred frame of reference. Jerry
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 06:27 On 1 Jun 2005 14:57:25 -0700, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Indeed. See the really excellent summary of SR tests in: > >http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#moving-source%20tests > >Here's a small subsection: > >Experiments Using Terrestrial Sources > >Beckmann and Mandies, Radio. Sci. 69D (1965), p623. > A moving mirror experiment. >Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters 12, >260 (1964). > Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975 >c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million. >Sadeh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10 no. 7 (1963), p271. > Measured the speed of the gammas emitted from e+e- annihilation (with >center-of-mass v/c ~ 0.5) to be c within 10%. >Babcock and Bergmann, Journal Opt. Soc. Amer. Vol. 54, pg 147 (1964). > - >Filipas and Fox, Phys. Rev. 135 no. 4B (1964), p B1071. > Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.2 c) >in an experiment specifically designed to avoid extinction effects. >Their results are in complete disagreement with the assumption c + v, >and are consistent with SR. > >Because of the high energies of the gammas in Alvaeger, extinction is >not a problem for it; Filipas and Fox specifically designed their >experiment to avoid extinction." > > >COMMENT: > >We've had some people arguing that one way speed of light velocities >from stars are dithered by the extinction and re-radiation effects of >passage through atmospheres. This turns out to be an OLD argument that >goes all the way back to Ritz in about 1913. Experiments in the 1960's >disproved it finally by using gamma rays, which are not absorbed >re-radiated, and thus retain their initial speed, whatever that is. And >that turns out to be c, even if the gammas come from very fast objects. >Conclusion: Einstein was right. You Silly twisted boy! > >SBH HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 6 Jun 2005 06:33
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:36:08 GMT, "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote: >The one-way speed of light is not c if the distance of separation between >the two synchronized (using slow transport of the clocks in the opposite >directions) clocks is measured using a physical ruler instead of using a >light second to measure length. Why? Using light-second to measure length is >the same as defining the speed of light equal to c as follows: >The definition for a meter=1/299,792,458 light-second >Therefore 1 light-second=299,792,458m >Therefore the speed of light is by definition =1 light-second/1 second > = >299,792,458m/1 second Ken, OWLS can theoretically be anything from + infintiy to - infinity. But it is never likely to be very different from c because the RMS velocity at 3K is pretty small. Very few objects in the whole universe are moving at anywhere near c wrt anything else. In a TW light speed experiment in which the components are mutually at rest, OWLS=TWLS=c (in a vacuum). > >Ken Seto > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |