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: rotchm@gmail.com on 2 Jun 2005 22:30 >No twls is involved. The two synchronized clocks are moving apart in the >opposite directions with conveying screws. Even using such conveyers, both clocks are not travelling at the same speed wrt the lab, although a measurement of their speed (and the conveying aparatus) will indicate that they have a same speed, thats according to ether theories. It still implicitly has the twls effect. It is not obvious that this is the case but carfully working out the problem will indicate that the speeds are different but measured and seemingly conveyed with a same speed.
From: "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox on 2 Jun 2005 23:51 Dear rotchm: <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1117765834.317497.290820(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >No twls is involved. The two synchronized clocks are >> moving apart in the opposite directions with >> conveying screws. > > Even using such conveyers, both clocks are not > travelling at the same speed wrt the lab, although > a measurement of their speed (and the conveying > aparatus) will indicate that they have a same > speed, thats according to ether theories. It still > implicitly has the twls effect. It is not obvious > that this is the case but carfully working out the > problem will indicate that the speeds are > different but measured and seemingly conveyed > with a same speed. Absolutely correct. Length, and "change in length with respect to time" are still TWLS. David A. Smith
From: Jerry on 3 Jun 2005 04:32 Martin Hogbin wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117668600..661462.252110(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Martin Hogbin wrote: > > > > Although it is clearly impossible to measure OWLS without > > making assumptions about clock synchronization, I believe > > it to be possible to make measurements of delta-OWLS (i.e. > > OWLS anisotropy) that are free of such assumptions. > > > > On April 8, I started a thread on this topic: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/094d4ebd8ed246d4 > > > > While I believe that the experimental setup of Gagnon et al. > > (1988) provides a true test of delta-OWLS without requiring > > assumptions about clock synchronization, please note that both > > Tom Roberts and Bill Hobba disagree with me, and believe > > Gagnon et al.'s experiment to have hidden clock synchronization > > assumptions. I never found their arguments convincing, and I > > would appreciate your comments. > > I have read Tom Roberts' reply and I agree with it. Let me 1) describe Gagnon et al.'s experimental apparatus, 2) cite Tom's critique, and then 3) explain why I believe that Tom's critique is incorrect. *************************************************************** Part 1: Description of Gagnon et al.'s experimental apparatus *************************************************************** Gagnon use two parallel waveguides with different cutoff frequencies, one close to the oscillator frequency, the other widely different from the oscillator frequency. Near the cutoff frequency, the phase velocity of the microwaves in the first waveguide approaches infinity, and there is relatively little longitudinal position dependence for the electrical phase of the wave along the waveguide. On the other hand, the phase velocity of microwaves in the second waveguide is close the the speed of light. At the far end of the waveguides is a phase comparator. The signal is injected at one end of the two waveguides. The phase difference is measured at the other end of the two waveguides. =================================================== a o > ------------------------------Â--------------------- b ------------------------------Â--------------------- The top set of equal signs represents the first waveguide. The bottom parallel hyphens represents the second waveguide. The o represents the oscillator at one end. The > represent the phase comparator at the other end. The frequency of the microwaves emergent from the two waveguides at points a and b is, of course, identical with the frequency generated by the oscillator at o. Special relativity predicts that the phase comparator at > measures a constant phase difference between the emergent microwaves, regardless of the orientation of the apparatus with respect to the Earth's orbit. *************************************************************** Let us assume, for the sake of argument, a pre-Michelson aether. Let d represent the length of the two waveguides Let f represent the frequency of the microwaves generated at o Let nc represent the phase velocity of microwaves traveling in the first waveguide, where n is some large number. Assume that the phase velocity of microwaves traveling in the second waveguide is simply c. If the apparatus is motionless with respect to the pre-Michelson aether, then the number of waves fitting in the first waveguide is fd/nc, and the number of waves fitting in the second waveguide is fd/c. The phase comparator at > measures a phase difference of 2pi*fd(1/nc - 1/c) between the emergent microwaves. If n is very large, this simplifies to -2pi*fd/c If the apparatus is traveling to the right with respect to the pre-Michelson aether, then the number of waves fitting in the first waveguide is fd/(nc-v), and the number of waves fitting in the second waveguide is fd/(c-v). The phase comparator at > measures a phase difference of 2pi*fd(1/(nc-v) - 1/(c-v)) between the emergent microwaves. If n is very large, this simplifies to -2pi*fd/(c-v) If n is very large, the predicted shift in phase as the apparatus is accelerated from 0 to velocity v with respect to the pre-Michelson aether is 2pi*fd(1/c - 1/(c-v)) *************************************************************** Gagnon et al's apparatus is therefore a detector of changes in the one-way speed of light that apparently uses only one clock, the oscillator at o. *************************************************************** Please note, that n does not -have- to be very large for this apparatus to be capable of detecting motion through a pre-Michelson aether. In fact, the value of n does not even need to be known. It merely needs to be a constant greater than 1. *************************************************************** Please note also, that although I presented the calculations in terms of a pre-Michelson aether (i.e. one that would be detectable by an MMX apparatus), Gagnon et al's apparatus, using only one clock, should be capable of detecting other aethers as well. *************************************************************** Part 2: Tom Roberts' Critique *************************************************************** I originally thought of paraphrasing Tom's critique, but found it to be difficult to do so without risk of distorting his words. So I will merely cite key posts and recommend that anyone interested read the entire thread so that the context is understood. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/e730526861357f19/094d4ebd8ed246d4#094d4ebd8ed246d4 http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/e730526861357f19/094d4ebd8ed246d4#094d4ebd8ed246d4 *************************************************************** Part 3: Why I believe that Tom's critique was incorrect *************************************************************** Tom states that the receiver at the far end of the first waveguide, which operates near cutoff, serves as a "stand-in" for a second clock synchronized with the oscillator by slow transport. I wrote: >> First of all, Gagnon et al. were not attempting to measure OWLS >> with a single clock. That is an impossibility. They were >> attempting to measure delta OWLS. Tom wrote: > That, too, is an impossibility, unless one has a "stand-in" for a > pair of clocks. Gagnon et al use a wave in a waveguide near cutoff > as such a stand-in. Ask yourself: for what synchronization method > of the clocks is this a stand-in? the answer should be clear: this > will stand in for clocks synchronized in an inertial frame via > slow clock transport. So is it any wonder they obtained a null > result? For the receiver at the far end of the first waveguide to be synchronized with the oscillator, the precise value of n must be known. As I have shown above, the precise value of n does not need to be known for the apparatus to be capable of detecting changes in the value of OWLS. Since knowledge of the the precise value of n is not necessary for the apparatus to work, the receiver at the far end of the first waveguide is can not be considered synchronized with the source oscillator. I therefore believe that Gagnon et al.'s experiment has put strong limits on OWLS anisotropy using an apparatus that does not rely on assumptions concerning clock synchronization. Jerry
From: bz on 3 Jun 2005 08:03 "kenseto" <kenseto(a)erinet.com> wrote in news:wHKne.16466$JX5.4499 @tornado.ohiordc.rr.com: > No twls is involved. The two synchronized clocks are moving apart in the > opposite directions with conveying screws. The two clocks will remain > synchronized after they come to a complete stop again.....this is true > according to all theories. > > You will have to put your clocks and tracks on a platform that counter rotates to nulify the earths rotation and center it on the north or south pole. Otherwise the clocks have different velocities wrt 'the fixed stars'. -- 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: kenseto on 3 Jun 2005 08:56
<rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1117765834.317497.290820(a)g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > >No twls is involved. The two synchronized clocks are moving apart in the > >opposite directions with conveying screws. > > Even using such conveyers, both clocks are not travelling at the same > speed wrt the lab, That's not important. Both clocks will remain synchronized wrt each other according to all theories. >although a measurement of their speed (and the > conveying aparatus) will indicate that they have a same speed, thats > according to ether theories. That's according to SR also. >It still implicitly has the twls effect. No...no twls measurement involved. > It is not obvious that this is the case but carfully working out the > problem will indicate that the speeds are different but measured and > seemingly conveyed with a same speed. You can imagine anything that fits your assertion. But both SR and ether theories says that such a pair of clocks will remain synchronized. Perhaps you mean that they are not synchronized with the clock remains at the starting point. Ken Seto |