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 7 Jun 2005 06:59 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > [snip] > > > Proxy methods may exist for indirectly measuring bullet, electron, > > and snail velocities, but it's a fallacy to believe that just because > > proxy methods may exist for measuring the speed of such entities, that > > there has "gotta" be a proxy method for measuring OWLS. > > And more fundamentally, either you need *one* entity > whose one-way speed (measured by the "proxy" of your > choice) *defines* clock synchronization, in which case > it's no longer a proxy, or your one-way speed is > entirely dependent on whatever other method you use > for clock synchronization, and any proxies you might > use must be calibrated to that. > > In other words, what I've been saying all along -- > you can't measure the OW speed of anything independently > of synch convention. > > That said, I can conceive that there may be methods, > not explicitly two-way or whose two-way equivalence > is difficult to discern, that hold out the prospect of > resolving an OWLS anisotropy *within* the current clock > synch conventions. As I've pointed out elsewhere in this thread, detection of OWLS anisotropy is an entirely different matter than the direct measurement of OWLS itself. I seem to be in the minority here in believing that Gagnon et al. have succeeded in devising a one clock method of measuring OWLS anisotropy. Have you succeeded in accessing my link? http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf I would appreciate your comments. I will need to be taking the link down soon. Posting a temporary link is, I think, the internet equivalent of photocopying a limited number of copies of an article for discussion. Keeping the link up indefinitely would be a violation of the "fair use" doctrine in copyright law. > The problem with that is, such a > finding would require that TWLS is *also* anisotropic > because current clock synch convention fixes OWLS=TWLS. > So, as it were in spite of itself, such a method amounts > to a TWLS anisotropy experiment and has to live or die > by comparison with existing explicit TWLS anisotropy > measurements whose error bars are small. Jerry
From: kenseto on 7 Jun 2005 09:21 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117990074.372011.269060(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > 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? What part of your sentence is joking? >Nevertheless, > the important point is that an arrangement sensitive to DELTA velocity > is not necessarily going to be sensitive to velocity. Arrangement sensitive to delta velocity in the same direction is not a test for one-way anisotropy. > > > 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. Since my reasoning agrees with experiments, it must be your understand of nature is incomprehensible. Ken Seto >
From: Jerry on 7 Jun 2005 09:32 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > ...I can conceive that there may be methods, > not explicitly two-way or whose two-way equivalence > is difficult to discern, that hold out the prospect of > resolving an OWLS anisotropy *within* the current clock > synch conventions. The problem with that is, such a > finding would require that TWLS is *also* anisotropic > because current clock synch convention fixes OWLS=TWLS. Not necessarily. There are test theories using "Edwards frames" that have the characteristic that one-way light speed is isotropic only in an aether frame, but in which the effects of slow clock transport exactly compensate for this anisotropy such that TWLS is always measured to be isotropic in any intertial frame. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html In the FAQ, Roberts states that such aether theories are eperimentally indistinguishable from SR. I disagree with that statement, because Roberts presumes that the measurement of OWLS anisotropy necessarily requires taking the difference of two OWLS measurements. In contrast, I believe that the experimental arrangement of Gagnon et al. provides a true one-clock measurement of OWLS anisotropy. If Gagnon is correct, semiclassical alternatives to SR such as Lorentz aether theory are excluded. > So, as it were in spite of itself, such a method amounts > to a TWLS anisotropy experiment and has to live or die > by comparison with existing explicit TWLS anisotropy > measurements whose error bars are small. Jerry
From: kenseto on 7 Jun 2005 09:53 <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1117985913.347924.144780(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >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. There is no twls involved.The distance between the two clocks is measured with a physical ruler. If the speed between the two clock is measured with a clock-second then twls is involved. > > Second, I am uneasy with the asertion "OWLS is dependent on the > synchronization procedure choosen". That's what the SRians claim. >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". You are wrong. If the clocks are synched according to Einstein's method then you get OWLS equal to c. > 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. You are missing the point. SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the opposite direction will remain synchronized. My question is: Why can we use those two clock to measure OWLS? > > 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. So why don't they do it? >In Ether theories, it is not an owls exp. because it > implicitly has twls effect... but you seem to ignore this. You are wrong. In my ether theory you can and there is no twls involved....you keep on throwing this twls around for no reason at all. My ether theory is described in the following link: http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf I suggest that you read the section entitled IRT (Improved Relativity Theory). Also I suggest that you read the section entitled "proposed experiments to detect absolute motion" > 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 You are wrong. In my ether theory they are synchronized wrt each other. But they are not synchronized with the clock that remains at the starting point. > > >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? Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821. Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated. Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/s. Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. D, 42, No. 2, pp. 731-734, (1990). Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21 km fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them. They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/s. Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241. Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965). Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255. Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/s. Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252. Uses a rotating source and fixed Moessbauer detector to place an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/s. > > >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. Then you are not acquainted with the correct ether theory. I suggest that you read my ether theory in the link I provided above. > > >These two clocks can be used to measure the value and isotropy of OWLS. > > Not in the ether theories i am acquainted with. Then you are not acquainted with the correct ether theory!!!!! > > >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. This is stupid. The actual experiment is AB/(Tb-Ta) and this is an OWLS measurement. Ken Seto >
From: kenseto on 7 Jun 2005 10:09
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:qgkbn2-fue.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... > In sci.physics, kenseto > <kenseto(a)erinet.com> > wrote > on Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:53:13 GMT > <dtDoe.13776$iu.1148(a)tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: > > > > "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. The 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. > > I notice that you snipped out my items #1 and 2. Here it is again: > > "SR says:" > > 1. Two touching and synchronized clocks will remain synchronized after > > moving in the opposite directions at the same speed and came to rest again. > > 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? > > > >> > >> > 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. > > > > 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 need to tighten up your experiment. > > [1] Why 1 second intervals? Why not 1 millisecond, microsecond, or > nanosecond intervals? Sigh....if you make the pulse length too short the whole pulse will miss the detector completely. BTW this is the reason for the uncertainty principle.....one can't determine the momentum and position of a photon simutlaneously due to the absolute motion of the detector wrt the photon. > > [2] Why 3-20mm aperature? I have no idea whta you are talking about. The detecting surface is 20 cm in diameter. A cover plate (20 cm in diameter) with a 3 mm diameter hole in the center covers the detecting surface. This ism used to test for the existence of absolute motion. Another cover plate (20 cm in diameter) with a 3mm radial aperture is cut from the center to the rim of the cover plate. This is used to determine the direction of absolute motion. > > [3] What are the expected values for D_25, D_50, and D_100, > assuming that the absolute motion of the Earth is on the > order of 10^-4 c? You do the calculation using equations 15 and 16. > > [4] Would the wavelength of the light make any difference? NO. > > [5] Would a moving light source make any difference? The you are not detecting absolute motion. > > At least you've answered one of my objections; the slit is rotatable > and 2mm wide, in front of a 3-20mm aperature. ..No you got it wrong....still. Ken Seto |