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: bz on 15 Jun 2005 09:10 H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in news:202va1lrs7ndollrk8u7lrpdmuue4okd63(a)4ax.com: > On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 23:50:50 +0000 (UTC), bz > <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: > >>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>news:heepa1ddikcv2lu40ap0hgr3edia2usgso(a)4ax.com: >> >>> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 16:34:53 +0000 (UTC), bz >>> <bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote: >>> >>>>H@..(Henri Wilson) wrote in >>>>news:nk6oa1lm71u8fm7kt1p6etodtb1d08knpj(a)4ax.com: ..... >>We change our framework by accelerating it. We measure again. 'c' again. >>We look at various things in the universe. We use our reasoning. We >>watch the moons of Jupiter. We calculate. We get 'c' again. > > Roemer didn't get anything like c. > No other OW experiment has been attempted...so your claims mean nothing. The experiment has been performed many times since Roemer. Year Authors Observational Source Speed (km/sec) 1676 Rýmer Jupiter satellites 214 000 1726 Bradley Aberration of stars 301 000 1809 Delambre Jupiter satellites 300 300 http://www.stats.uwaterloo.ca/~rwoldfor/papers/sci- method/paperrev/node4.html [quote] Unfortunately, measurements of the speed made in this way depended on the astronomical theory and observations used. Simon Newcomb (1835-1909) tells of an inaugural dissertation in 1875 by Glasenapp whereby observations of the eclipses of Io from 1848 to 1870 show that widely ranging values for the speed ``could be obtained from different classes of these observations by different hypotheses'' ([42] page 114). It was shown that values for the sun to Earth time could be produced between 496 and 501 seconds resulting in speeds between 295,592.8 approx 295,600 and 298,572.6 approx 298,600 km/s. [unquote] The above reference details the history of the attempts to determine the speed of light. Science CONTINUES to test theories, despite Henri's religious beliefs that the tests ended when Einstein's theory was accepted by some international scientific clique that has since stopped all progress of science. >>We accelerate particles to high velocities. We measure their properies. >>We look at photons emitted, we measure THEIR properties. We get 'c' >>again. > > Too many other factors involved here. > > Let's stick to light from 'neutral particles'. The accelerated particles can be turned into neutral particles (and are in some experiments). Those can be excited into producing photons. >>>>That appears to be a major problem. Spontainous changes in speed? >>> >>> They are spontaneous changes but need not be rapid ones. They can be >>> small and take place over hundreds of LYs. >> >>Magic? > > No, quite logical really. > I certainly wouldn't expect anything to traverse 1 billion LYs without > something happening to its speed. You would expect subluminal BaT particles to GAIN speed????? >>>>> SR says nothing about that. >>>>> SR merely reiterates the aether principle that OWLS will always be >>>>> MEASURED as c. >>>> >>>>Einstein says light always moves at c. I see no distinction between OW >>>>and TW light. >>> >>> Speed must be specified as relative. >>> Einstein's statement is meaningless. >> >>Relative does not say OW or TW. > > OW is implied. > Let's try a TW experiment. > > Consider a mirror approaching me at 0.5c. 149,000 km/s > > The experiment involves sending a light pulse towards it so that the > pulse will strike it when it is a) 30000 m away, and b) when it is 3000 > m away. In both cases, the pulse returns to me at 2c. I disagree on the 2c! Even if BaT were true it could only return at 1.5c, where do you get 2c? > > In the first instance, the pulse takes time = 0.0001 secs + 0.00005 > secs to return to me. > The TW speed is 30000/0.00015 = 2E8 m/sec. 200 micro seconds for the two way trip at c both ways. > > For the second the pulse takes time 0.00001 + 0.000005 secs > The TW speed is again 2E8 m/s. 20 micro seconds for the two way trip at c both ways. > So one can perform a TWLS experiment using a moving reflector....but it > doesn't tell you much unless you know the speed very precisely.. You can know its speed very precisely. We can't move a mirror at .5 c, but a bunch of atoms could move that fast and we can bounce a laser beam off of it and measure the time it takes for the photons to get back to us. ..... > True. A TW experiment involving relatively moving sources is perfectly > valid. Finally! >>> Einstein postulated that it does...then he concocted a method of >>> synching clocks so that the two times MUST be the same, by definition. >>> He used circular logic to try to prove his own postulate. >> >>No. He started with data that showed they were the same. > > Einstein had NO DATA. He had MMX's results. >>He said 'let us postulate that light moves at c wrt all observers', what >>would the implications be. He worked out the math and found set out ways >>to sync clocks. He isn't using circular logic to PROVE his postulates. >>He is using the results of his postulates to predict things. > > He used the clock synch definition to make the aether an unnecessary > complication. Right. > He thought he succeeded. > But SR breaks down completely when it tries to explain how and why light > from differently moving source SHOULD end up traveling across space at > the same rate. Wrong. >>Scientist set out to check his predictions. So far none have failed. ..... > > Well. OK, I should have said SR claims that no experiment can measure > OWLS because such would involve two separated clocks, the synching of > which can only be carried out using light traveling the opposite way to > that being measured. That constitutes a TWLS experiment. TWLS experiments are valid for comparison of speeds. > SR postulates that OWLS and TWLS are always the same. That is SR per Henri. SR says nothing about OWLS vs TWLS. > ..but just to make > sure, Einstein decided to synch his clocks so that tAB=tBA by > definition. Einstein said 'clocks moving in different directions will not stay in sync.' > If you can't se the funny side to that then YOU don't understand SR. > > In actual fact, Einstein did the right thing. According to the BaT, > E-synching IS absolute synching...adn OWLS does =TWLS in any single > frame experiment Within any single frame, all clocks run at the same speed. Once sync'd, they stay in sync. InterFrame time keeping is where things start to get interesting. ..... >>MMX and every other experment, so far, are consistent with SR/GR. > > SR's explanation amount to saying "there is no fringe shift becasue > there is no fringe shift". > At least LET has a case. There is no fringe shift. The aether crutch can be thrown away. It does us no good because it is not testable. SR opened up many fields of research, allowing scientists to look for experiments to test its conclusions. LET was and is a dead end. >>> I feel a great sense of satisfaction in having straightened out >>> Einstein's misconception. >> >>Your faith is strong. >>You labor under a misconception and you don't see it. > > Einsein was probably on the verge of getting it right before Walter Ritz > died suddenly. After that, the momentum of his bandwagon swept him off > his feet. Your faith is strong. You labor under a misconception and you do not see it. -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+nanae(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu -- bz please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an infinite set. bz+sp(a)ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
From: russell on 15 Jun 2005 10:42 Jerry wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > > > I meant they're assuming that the aether wind > > > affects clocks without affecting the phase in a > > > waveguide. The problem with that is, they don't > > > need to make such an assumption at all -- they > > > can simply measure whether in fact it is true, > > > via the method Roberts described. They don't, > > > because they know that that would amount to a > > > synchronization of clocks, and they want their > > > experiment to be novel. This is unfortunately > > > bogus. They replaced a verifiable fact with an > > > unjustified assumption implying the same thing, > > > and surprise of surprises, the assumption was > > > confirmed. > > > > Ick, somewhere between top and bottom of that > > paragraph the assumption I was talking about got > > turned into its own negation. What they confirmed, > > in fact, was that clocks synchronized by the phase > > in the waveguide have the same reading as clocks > > synchronized by slow transport. But they could > > have verified this directly. > > The reference waveguide receiver does -not- have the > same reading as a clock synchronized with the source > by slow transport. > > That would only be if phase velocity in the reference > waveguide were infinite. It is not infinite, since > the reference waveguide is only run -near- cutoff, not > -at- cutoff. Of course. I was talking in terms of the idealization merely because it's difficult to talk in terms of the slightly non-ideal experiment. This non-ideality plays no essential role in our understanding of the experiment, i.e. perturb it slightly and you perturb the analysis only slightly. (I say more on this point later on, near the bottom of this post.) The precise multiple of speed of light > is not important in the reference waveguide, only that > it be relatively large. The exact phase relationship > between the reference receiver and the source > oscillator is unknown and irrelevant. That's right, it's unknown as far as Gagnon et al. report. But they *could* have measured it with a slowly transported clock. That's the point. The reference receiver is a stand-in for that hypothetical transported clock. > > What they confirmed, was that two receivers connected > by transmission lines of differing characteristics to > a common source oscillator show no variation in > relative phase as the experimental apparatus rotates > in the supposed aether wind. A pre-Michelson aether > wind would have been detectable; Yes, definitely. a Generalized > Galilean aether wind would have been detectable; a IMHO this gets into word play. An aether that affects every conceivable clock that might be transported, yet does not affect transmission through waveguides (or affects it differently enough) would have been detected. But there's no physical reason at all to think such an aether might exist; certainly Gagnon et al. don't give one. Furthermore, surely that aether was falsified long before Gagnon et al.; you need only try to synch your clocks by the waveguide and you find out this gives the wrong answer for such a theory, and the right answer for SR. But yes, Gagnon et al. is an indeed experiment that falsifies such an aether. It's not the more general result that they seem to have fooled you (at one time) and possibly themselves into believing they showed. Which is why I mentioned word play. > Lorentz aether wind would not. Correct. And note, they do not physically distinguish their hypothetical aether from Lorentz aether; all they say is that their aether obeys GGT [*if* the GGT synch convention is used, I have to add] and also that it obeys the LTE if Einstein synch is used. The same is true for Lorentz aether! So they need to give us some additional distinguishing feature that makes their aether different from Lorentz aether. Such a feature may be implicit in their waveguide assumptions -- and *would* be, if they want to claim they are falsifying something new -- but they don't come out and say this. So (I suggest) they might not have even considered this important point. The ability of their > setup to detect an aether wind has nothing to do with > whether or not the reference receiver is a "stand-in" > for a synchronized clock, which it isn't. I'd say this is word play at best. It's not a stand-in because they didn't look with a real clock to see whether it is or isn't? Ok, if you want to define stand-in that way, but that's not how Roberts was using the word. > > If the reference waveguide were run with a phase > velocity of, say, approximately 10x the speed of > light versus, say, 1.3x the speed of light in the > test waveguide, the apparatus should still have > been able to detect various forms of aether drift. > You would agree that in such a case the reference > receiver could not possibly be mistaken for a > clock which has been synchronized with the source > oscillator and slow-transported? Again this issue, which resembles what you said at the top. I think you missed my point. It doesn't matter that the phase remains constant as the clock gets transported down the wave; what matters is that the phase is always what is predicted by the theory of waveguide transmission, assuming that time is what that clock reads. As long as you can say yep, this phase is consistent with my clock reading, then it's a stand-in for that clock, to use the language of Roberts. For Gagnon et al. to have something to falsify, they must assume that waveguide theory is *not* accurate in our usual coordinates (which use Einstein synch) so what coordinates do they propose it to be accurate in, and why? Apparently they propose GGT, but they don't say why. Put another way, they don't say why such an odd theory, pulled out of their hat, is worth testing. > > Synchronized clocks were not necessary for the > experiment to have worked; only an aether with > cooperative characteristics. Ok, that's one way to put it. I think we are all in agreement on matters that don't have to do with word play. It remains the case, however, that one-way speed of anything is meaningless unless you specify how you are to synchronize your clocks. This was the point that brought me into the thread, and hopefully the one that will bring me to exit it, as I really have to devote my attention to other things now.
From: Jerry on 15 Jun 2005 11:00 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > It remains the case, however, that one-way speed of > anything is meaningless unless you specify how you > are to synchronize your clocks. I have never disagreed with you on this. However, Gagnon et al. have never claimed to be able to measure one-way speed of light. They have only claimed to be able to measure anisotropies in the one-way speed of light. > This was the point > that brought me into the thread, and hopefully the > one that will bring me to exit it, as I really have > to devote my attention to other things now. Thanks for the productive exchange of ideas! Jerry
From: russell on 15 Jun 2005 11:11 Jerry wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > It remains the case, however, that one-way speed of > > anything is meaningless unless you specify how you > > are to synchronize your clocks. > > I have never disagreed with you on this. However, > Gagnon et al. have never claimed to be able to measure > one-way speed of light. They have only claimed to be > able to measure anisotropies in the one-way speed of > light. And I think it was an empty claim, or amounts to that, because they had to assume the possible truth of a theory that has been falsified in two-way experiments. But this whole area is subtle, I admit, and that's why Zhang could write a whole book about it. (And btw. Zhang was published after Gagnon...)
From: russell on 15 Jun 2005 11:21
russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > > It remains the case, however, that one-way speed of > > > anything is meaningless unless you specify how you > > > are to synchronize your clocks. > > > > I have never disagreed with you on this. However, > > Gagnon et al. have never claimed to be able to measure > > one-way speed of light. They have only claimed to be > > able to measure anisotropies in the one-way speed of > > light. > > And I think it was an empty claim, or amounts to that, > because they had to assume the possible truth of a theory > that has been falsified in two-way experiments. But > this whole area is subtle, I admit, and that's why Zhang > could write a whole book about it. (And btw. Zhang was > published after Gagnon...) Furthermore, my earlier point that OWLS-anisotropy along with TWLS gives you OWLS, is not even subtle. I think this is what lay behind my disbelief of Gagnon from the start. Nice experiment, fishy analysis. |