Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Way off topic: oil and politics (was: Hexagonal grid and its three directions)
Next: WHATS NEW Robert L. Park Friday, May 28, 2010 Washington,DC
From: Hawkman on 31 May 2010 22:00 Motion is weird and is very difficult to model because it is impossible to model motion on paper or on a computer screen. It is only possible to model motion in real life using all of our senses. In a perfectly dark place somewhere in outer space there is no way for you to know if you are moving if there is only one visible object in front of you because all you see is complete blackness around you + the object. You can still know if one of you is moving by measuring the distance to the object but you have no way to know which one of you is moving.
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 22:10 On May 31, 6:37 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 4:01 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 3:25 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > > > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > > > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > > > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. > > > > I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > > > > > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > > > > not me. > > > > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > > > > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. > > > > Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through > > > If acceleration is just changing speed then by measuring energy > > acceleration you can measure its end speed. > > "Energy acceleration"? What's that? > > Also, how can you know what it's *beginning* speed was? One side of beginning speed is its kinetic energy. If a fundamental mass is determined and it as a test body is heavier we can quantify how much speed through space it has by knowing how much of its energy is kinetic. Both time and energy are influenced by motion through space. Also we are looking at other background motions or gravitational orbits. We calculate these pre motions first. Then we turn to the earth's energy turn. Rotation is local motion. > > > You do it by calculating with energy's weight fluctuations in the > > opposite direction. > > I didn't ask about calculations, I asked about measurements. What do > you propose to *measure*? > > What form of energy do you mean ? How do you propose to measure its > weight? > By the mass form of energy. Only infinite density energy weighs in gravity or acceleration. Finite density is not mass and does not weigh. Mitch Raemsch > > > > > > "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or > > > phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. > > > > Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was > > > that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to > > > distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due > > > to force applied to the elevator car. You are claiming that unchanging > > > velocity is similarly measurable. > > > > Say I am in a small, enclosed space (the elevator car with no > > > windows) and I have performed experiments and have determined I am not > > > under acceleration. Now, my task is to measure my velocity through > > > space. How do you suggest I do it? What equipment will I need, how > > > shall I employ it, and what indications should I expect to see that > > > will tell me what my speed is? I expect that you can figure that out for yourself or you can show me where I am wrong. Acceleration creates first speed and is detectable as energy's weight in the opposite direction. Speed can be determined at its onset of creation. > > > If speed slows time then your clock running slow would give an idea of > > your motion. > > Except your clock can only be said to be "running slow" with respect > to some external standard moving at some *relative* velocity that is > different from yours, which you cannot observe from within the > elevator car. > > How do you propose to measure this *within* the elevator car? Why don't you get into the box you talk about and do more physics. > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: J. Clarke on 31 May 2010 23:02 On 5/31/2010 10:00 PM, Hawkman wrote: > Motion is weird and is very difficult to model because it is > impossible to model motion on paper or > on a computer screen. It is only possible to model motion in real life > using all of our senses. > > In a perfectly dark place somewhere in outer space there is no way for > you to know if you are moving if there is only one visible object in > front of you because all you see is complete blackness around you + > the object. You can still know if one of you is moving by measuring > the distance to the object but you have no way to know which one of > you is moving. Lemme guess00youv'e never taken a physics course in your life. > > > >
From: Surfer on 31 May 2010 23:33 On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:09:52 -0700 (PDT), YKhan <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Really, hasn't this been taken care of already by the Michelson-Morley >experiments -- more than a century ago? > That was thought to be the case and we have all been taught to believe that by our text books. But new research shows that the experiment may in fact have detected absolute motion. The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion Reginald T. Cahill (Flinders University) Progr.Phys. 3 (2005) 25-29 http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0508174 Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887 experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts - the signature of absolute motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect. Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a speed of some 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30km/s orbital speed of the earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different calibration leading to a speed >300km/s. So this experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first detection of absolute motion in 1887. > >They've come up with more and >more sensitive versions of experiments ever since, culminating in the >current LIGO, GEO600, and TAMA300 experiments which are basically >kilometer-scale versions of the Michelson-Morley apparatus. > Sensitive in terms of detection of fringe shifts. But if the two way speed of light relative to vacuum is equal to c, such vacuum experiments are incapable of producing fringe shifts, so in effect have zero sensitivity. In contrast it has been discovered that non-zero sensitivity can be achieved if MM experiments are performed with an optical medium in the light path. The easiest way to understand this is to suppose that Fresnel drag and/or refractive index varies somehow with absolute motion. > >None of them have detected any absolute motion as they travel with the >Earth around the Sun. > Due to those particular experiments having zero sensitivity. > >Incidently, they haven't detected any >gravitational waves either, which is what they were designed to look >for. > Quite true. This could indicate that the space time concept is wrong, and if so it would be consistent with the detection of absolute motion by MM experiments that include optical media in the light path.
From: BURT on 31 May 2010 23:45
On May 31, 6:32 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 31, 4:57 pm, Edward Green <spamspamsp...(a)netzero.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 31, 6:25 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 30, 9:21 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 29, 8:48 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On May 29, 2:19 pm, BURT <macromi...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 29, 12:14 pm, eon <ynes9...(a)techemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On May 29, 3:29 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Proposed and Past Experiments Detecting Absolute Motion: > > > > > > > > absolute motion with respect to what? > > > > > > > > you must have something which is fixed > > > > > > > > fixed wrt what ?? > > > > > > > Light and matter energy move through absolute space. > > > > > > Which you keep saying is unmeasurable. > > > > > No. I have never said that. I am actually saying the opposite. > > > > > The space frame reveals movement in terms of slow time. > > > > > > If it can't be measured in any way, why do you believe in it? > > > > > Mark. You are not going to get away with putting words into my mouth. > > > > I'm trying to get words *out* of your mouth. > > > > > You are the one who is saying that speed through space is imeasurable > > > > not me. > > > > > If distance is measurable so is any speed through it. > > > > It is not that hard. But you cany deny it if you want. > > > > Then please tell me how to measure speed (not acceleration) through > > > "absolute" space, without using any other physical object or > > > phenomenon as a reference as required in Relativity. > > > > Take Einstein's infamous elevator for example. Einstein's point was > > > that though acceleration is measurable, it isn't possible to > > > distinguish between acceleration due to gravity and acceleration due > > > to force applied to the elevator car. > > > A curious claim, since acceleration due to gravity involves curved > > spacetime, and ordinary acceleration involves (let's say for the sake > > of argument) flat spacetime. Are you saying there is no way to > > distinguish the local geometry of spacetime through local > > measurement? I'm not talking about tidal effects, either. > > Yes, if the experimental volume is limited to a "point" as in the > original gedankenexperiment. If you try to do measurements at > spatially separated points, then compare them, you cannot prove that > the (say flat spacetime) acceleration vector didn't change while you > were recording one measurement and moving to record the other (so as > to resemble curved spacetime). > > Real-world measurements, say with vertically separated gradiometers > or horizontally separated plumb bobs, kinda ignore this. > > Personally I think the way to resolve this is to carefully examine > what "point" means in this context. AIUI it means a zero-dimensional > mathematically ideal point, but also AIUI there cannot be such a thing > in the real world mainly thanks to Heisenberg et. al. Rather than talk > about "ideal" measurements, we should consider "ideally *achievable*" > ones using actual matter and energy tools which are forced to occupy > minimum volumes. > > This might seem like an "error bars" issue, but it isn't really. > It's about what matter and energy can be observed to do in the real > world, not what we'd like them to do in an "ideal" situation which can > not exist. > > Mark L. Fergerson- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Energy flows through the gravity continuum and floats through its aether. Orbit is energy floating in the space-time aether. Mitch Raemsch |