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: russell on 7 Jun 2005 11:56 Jerry wrote: > 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. Ok, my earlier trouble was on my end. I see it now. I won't have time to read it critically for a while, and indeed it may be entirely above me for longer than that; indeed indeed I shudder to pit myself against those guys -- BUT offhand it looks like they are just transforming their theoretical interpretation of the experiment into a LET-style absolute frame, which is the same as assuming that a different synchronization convention will be used for clocks. I really have to ask, what would the equations have been if they stuck to Einstein convention? I *think* some implicit TW phenomenon would emerge, but can't say yet what. In any case the bottom of my paragraph (quoted below) is inescapable: *if* they had succeeded in getting a non-null result, then that would have guaranteed that an identical TWLS anisotropy must hold under Einstein synch. And btw, of course SR would be falsified as another consequence; I'm not saying *that* would be impossible. > > I will need to be taking the link down soon. Fine by me. I can get it elsewhere. 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: Jerry on 7 Jun 2005 13:34 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > 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. > > Ok, my earlier trouble was on my end. I see it now. > > I won't have time to read it critically for a while, and > indeed it may be entirely above me for longer than that; Actually, the basic concept of the experiment is very simple. If you split a single RF signal into two beams traveling in the same direction through two waveguides of differing properties such that the phase velocity of the RF traveling through the two waveguides is different, then the two beams should be differentially sensitive to movement of the apparatus through the hypothetical aether, and a phase comparator should be able to detect a signal as the apparatus rotates relative to Earth's direction of travel through the aether. > indeed indeed I shudder to pit myself against those guys -- > BUT offhand it looks like they are just transforming their > theoretical interpretation of the experiment into a LET-style > absolute frame, Correct. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was invented to explain away the MMX null result. The point of Gagnon et al.'s mathematical exercise was to show that the ad hoc cancellation of effects that yields a null result in measurements of TWLS anisotropy does not happen in measurements of OWLS anisotropy. Given a Lorentz aether, a residual second order effect should have been detectable. It wasn't detected, and LET appears to have been disproven. > which is the same as assuming that a different > synchronization convention will be used for clocks. Well, that is where I differ from Roberts, Hobba, and others. I agree with Gagnon et al. that there is only one clock in their experimental setup, and no round-trip loops. Their experiment thus does not appear to be dependent on synchronization convention. I have elsewhere posted a link to the thread where Roberts, Hobba and I were arguing our points, so you can see both sides of the debate. > I really > have to ask, what would the equations have been if they stuck > to Einstein convention? SR would have predicted a null result, of course. > I *think* some implicit TW phenomenon > would emerge, but can't say yet what. In any case the bottom > of my paragraph (quoted below) is inescapable: *if* they had > succeeded in getting a non-null result, then that would have > guaranteed that an identical TWLS anisotropy must hold under > Einstein synch. And btw, of course SR would be falsified as > another consequence; I'm not saying *that* would be impossible. > > > > > I will need to be taking the link down soon. > > Fine by me. I can get it elsewhere. > > 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: russell on 7 Jun 2005 22:25 Jerry wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > Jerry wrote: > > > > 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. It occurs to me there's a nagging inconsistency here in what you say. If you can measure OWLS anisotropy and you can measure TWLS, doesn't that amount to measuring OWLS? So it seems to me you have to go all the way pro or con Roberts, don't you? > > > > > > Have you succeeded in accessing my link? > > > http://imaginary_nematode.home.comcast.net/Gagnon_et_al_1988.pdf > > > I would appreciate your comments. > > > > Ok, my earlier trouble was on my end. I see it now. > > > > I won't have time to read it critically for a while, and > > indeed it may be entirely above me for longer than that; > > Actually, the basic concept of the experiment is very simple. > If you split a single RF signal into two beams traveling in the > same direction through two waveguides of differing properties > such that the phase velocity of the RF traveling through the > two waveguides is different, then the two beams should be > differentially sensitive to movement of the apparatus through > the hypothetical aether, and a phase comparator should be able > to detect a signal as the apparatus rotates relative to Earth's > direction of travel through the aether. Right, thanks, that much was clear; I meant rather that I'm not at all qualified to evaluate the nitty gritty details that the devil may be in. AFAICS it's really good work, I agree on that. > > > indeed indeed I shudder to pit myself against those guys -- > > BUT offhand it looks like they are just transforming their > > theoretical interpretation of the experiment into a LET-style > > absolute frame, > > Correct. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was invented to explain > away the MMX null result. The point of Gagnon et al.'s mathematical > exercise was to show that the ad hoc cancellation of effects > that yields a null result in measurements of TWLS anisotropy does > not happen in measurements of OWLS anisotropy. Given a Lorentz > aether, a residual second order effect should have been detectable. > It wasn't detected, and LET appears to have been disproven. Thanks for the clear statement of your position. My intuition says this can't be right, but we all know how intuitions can be. I'm going to have to think it out some more, and particularly this specific claim. Very nice puzzle. > > > which is the same as assuming that a different > > synchronization convention will be used for clocks. > > Well, that is where I differ from Roberts, Hobba, and others. > > I agree with Gagnon et al. that there is only one clock in > their experimental setup, and no round-trip loops. Their experiment > thus does not appear to be dependent on synchronization convention. Except insofar as the whole definition of speed is. But that's an idle point and I've said it too many times -- moreover it does not address the substantive claim that you have made, and to which I have no counter yet. [snip]
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 8 Jun 2005 02:00 In sci.physics, kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote on Tue, 07 Jun 2005 14:09:20 GMT <kUhpe.25608$XA6.20997(a)tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>: > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in > message news:qgkbn2-fue.ln1(a)sirius.athghost7038suus.net... >> In sci.physics, kenseto >> <kenseto(a)erinet.com> >> wrote >> on Sun, 05 Jun 2005 13:53:13 GMT >> <dtDoe.13776$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. Well, since a light pulse of 500 nm is 600 THz, a pulse width less than about 1.66 femtosecond wouldn't be much use, at that... :-) Of course since the uncertainty is on the order of hbar = h / (2*Pi) = (6.626 * 10^-34) / (6.283) = 1.0546 * 10^-34 joule-seconds, I'd say that the pulse width can be very short -- a few nanoseconds wouldn't bother it at all. > 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. An interesting idea, that. >> >> [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. Noted. So I ask again: why those values -- 3mm and 20 cm -- in particular? > 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. V_100 = D_100 / 2 * (Delta T" 1). I do not know D_100 (it's a measured "critical diameter" ). I do not know Delta T"1. I *do* know V_100, as I've assumed it. If I substitute V_100 = 10^-4 c, I get D_100 / (2 * (Delta T" 1) = 30,000 m/s. That doesn't tell me an awful lot. >> >> [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. Maybe not of the apparatus, but there are some interesting possibilities -- are you measuring the absolute motion of the light source in this case? How do the absolute motion of the light source and the detection apparatus interrelate? >> >> 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. Well, OK, be that way: 0.20 m and 0.003 m. :-) > > Ken Seto > > -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: Jerry on 8 Jun 2005 04:02
russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > It occurs to me there's a nagging inconsistency here > in what you say. If you can measure OWLS anisotropy > and you can measure TWLS, doesn't that amount to > measuring OWLS? Uh, I gotta think this through. I've been saying that you can't measure OWLS with one clock, but you can measure delta OWLS with one clock. You can measure TWLS with one clock... > So it seems to me you have to go all > the way pro or con Roberts, don't you? Gulp! I never thought of it that way... :-( Anyhow, I don't ask you to accept my position without thinking things through -very- carefully. Roberts, Hobba and I left discussion without having managed to convince each other of our differing positions. So somebody is wrong, and I'm just as fallible as anybody. <snip> > > Actually, the basic concept of the experiment is very simple. > > If you split a single RF signal into two beams traveling in the > > same direction through two waveguides of differing properties > > such that the phase velocity of the RF traveling through the > > two waveguides is different, then the two beams should be > > differentially sensitive to movement of the apparatus through > > the hypothetical aether, and a phase comparator should be able > > to detect a signal as the apparatus rotates relative to Earth's > > direction of travel through the aether. > > Right, thanks, that much was clear; I meant rather that > I'm not at all qualified to evaluate the nitty gritty > details that the devil may be in. AFAICS it's really > good work, I agree on that. > > > > > > indeed indeed I shudder to pit myself against those guys -- > > > BUT offhand it looks like they are just transforming their > > > theoretical interpretation of the experiment into a LET-style > > > absolute frame, > > > > Correct. Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction was invented to explain > > away the MMX null result. The point of Gagnon et al.'s mathematical > > exercise was to show that the ad hoc cancellation of effects > > that yields a null result in measurements of TWLS anisotropy does > > not happen in measurements of OWLS anisotropy. Given a Lorentz > > aether, a residual second order effect should have been detectable. > > It wasn't detected, and LET appears to have been disproven. > > Thanks for the clear statement of your position. My > intuition says this can't be right, but we all know > how intuitions can be. I'm going to have to think it > out some more, and particularly this specific claim. > Very nice puzzle. > > > > > > which is the same as assuming that a different > > > synchronization convention will be used for clocks. > > > > Well, that is where I differ from Roberts, Hobba, and others. > > > > I agree with Gagnon et al. that there is only one clock in > > their experimental setup, and no round-trip loops. Their experiment > > thus does not appear to be dependent on synchronization convention. > > Except insofar as the whole definition of speed is. > But that's an idle point and I've said it too many > times -- moreover it does not address the substantive > claim that you have made, and to which I have no > counter yet. > > [snip] Jerry |