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: spudnik on 2 Jun 2010 14:45 ladies & germs, nature abhors a refractive index equal to 1.0000..., and I thank Pascal for his dyscovery of it, and damn Einstein for his damn "photon" reification of Newton's God-am corpuscle -- so, let's get on with it! thusNso: Michelson and Morely did not get no results, as has been amply demonstrated by follow-on researchers, and documented by "surfer" herein. Minkowsi's silly statement about time & space --then, he died -- has been hobbling minds, ever since; it is just a phase-space, clearly elaborated with quaternions (and the language of "vectors" taht Hamilton created thereby .-) thusNso: clearly, NeinStein#9 doesn't know what *mathematica* is; it's not just a "visualization programme" from the Wolframites! http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/LightMill/light-mill.html Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. Any rational EIR would show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage, as many responsible folks do. As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop British Petroleum's capNtrade rip-off; tell your legislators, a tiny tax on carbon could achieve the result, instead of "let the arbitrageurs/hedgies/daytrippers make as much money as they can on CO2 credits!" http://wlym.com
From: Surfer on 3 Jun 2010 13:16 On Tue, 1 Jun 2010 13:50:15 -0700 (PDT), YKhan <yjkhan(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jun 1, 9:33�am, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:09:52 -0700 (PDT), YKhan <yjk...(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) 25-29http://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. > >So why would you count relativistic effects, if you're trying to >disprove relativity? > Its a question of what kind of relativity. Lorentzian Relativity considers that relativistic effects such as time dilation and length contraction are real effects caused by motion of objects through the ether or vacuum etc., or in other words by absolute motion. Special Relativity considers that relativistic effects such as time dilation and length contraction are perspective effects that occur when an observer observes an object moving relative to himself. The above paper argues that absolute motion has been detected and that therefore it is Lorentzian Relativity that is correct. >It's a bit like saying, "I know god doesn't exist, because god himself >told me this!" > >> >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. > >So it's the vacuum's fault? If you see different results in a gas, >liquid, or solid, then that means you've messed up your experiment. > No. It just means that Michelson-Morley apparatus containing vacuum isn't sensitive to absolute motion. >Also outer space is all vacuum, while Earth has solids, liquids and >gases. Does that mean absolute motion only exists on Earth but not in >outer space? > Absolute motion occurs when an object moves through space. So if you put a moving object in space, then by definition it would experience absolute motion. >> >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. > >You can't have it both ways. You can't say that these experiments are >insensitive enough to detect absolute motion, but sensitive enough to >disprove relativistic motion. > I mentioned two types of experiment. 1) If the vacuum experiments can't detect gravitational waves predicted by GR, that might make us suspect that the spacetime concept is wrong. 2) If the experiments containing optical media in the light path detect absolute motion that would prove for sure that the spacetime concept is wrong. The two possibilities are consistent. > >The real answer is that Relativity is the right theory, just an >incomplete one. We haven't discovered gravity waves from the cosmos >because we don't have a complete enough description of how gravity >works at several different vast distance scales (i.e. solar system vs. >galactic vs. cosmic). The differences in gravitational behaviour among >these length scales likely serves to dampen out gravity waves. But our >current theory of Relativity only covers gravity within the solar >system scale. > I guess we shouldn't draw final conclusions yet. Surfer
From: spudnik on 3 Jun 2010 17:49 yes, but special relativity assumes general relativity in the "twin paradox," because acceleration is required to get the home-leaving twin, relativistical (I mean, Duh .-) > Special Relativity considers that relativistic effects such as time > dilation and length contraction are perspective effects that occur > when an observer observes an object moving relative to himself. thusNso: anyway, Einstien's **** is not really dysprovable, if it is merely a matter of odd interpretations (viz, *photon* means "particle" ipso facto "herr Albert thought, So.") thusNso: always the "doubling" of CO2 is used as an outcome in the GCMs, when it is clear that there would be change of the whole phase of the weather, before that was reached (if you are familiar with studies of the Quaternary Period, Shackleton et al e.g.). Dear Editor; The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. A rational EIR'd show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, a) they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, but everyday observation shows, they just don't last so long.) As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is just too much of an environmental & economic burden. --Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrageur rip-off! http://wlym.com
From: BURT on 3 Jun 2010 19:18 On Jun 3, 2:49 pm, spudnik <Space...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > yes, but special relativity assumes general relativity > in the "twin paradox," because acceleration is required > to get the home-leaving twin, relativistical (I mean, Duh .-) > > > Special Relativity considers that relativistic effects such as time > > dilation and length contraction are perspective effects that occur > > when an observer observes an object moving relative to himself. > > thusNso: > anyway, Einstien's **** is not really dysprovable, if > it is merely a matter of odd interpretations (viz, *photon* > means "particle" ipso facto "herr Albert thought, So.") > > thusNso: > always the "doubling" of CO2 is used as an outcome in the GCMs, > when it is clear that there would be change of the whole phase > of the weather, before that was reached (if you are familiar > with studies of the Quaternary Period, Shackleton et al e.g.). > > Dear Editor; > The staff report on plastic bags, given when SM considered a ban, > before, refused to list the actual fraction of a penny, paid for them > by bulk users like grocers & farmers at markets. A rational EIR'd > show that, at a fraction of a gram of "fossilized fuel (TM)" per bag, > a) > they require far less energy & materiel than a paper bag, and b) > that recycling them is impractical & unsanitary, > beyond reusing the clean ones for carrying & garbage. (Alas, > the fundy Greenies say that the bags are not biodegradeable, > but everyday observation shows, they just don't last so long.) > > As I stated at that meeting, perhaps coastal communities *should* ban > them -- except at farmers' markets -- because they are such efficient > examples of "tensional integrity," that they can clog stormdrains by > catching all sorts of leaves, twigs & paper. But, a statewide ban is > just too much of an environmental & economic burden. > > --Stop BP's and Waxman's capNtrade arbitrageur rip-off!http://wlym.com If a twin is on a fast moving train passing the station what does it see? If the train sees the station's clock running slower than his then when does the train age slower than the station? Mitch Raemsch; There is no lost time
From: kenseto on 3 Jun 2010 20:45
On Jun 2, 6:54 am, YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 2, 4:04 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 1, 4:00 pm, YKhan <yjk...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 7:04 pm, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > The MMX failed to detect absolute motion because the speed of light is > > > > isotropic in the same gravitational potential....as i pointed out in > > > > the paper, if the MMX is performed with the plane of the arms oriented > > > > vertically then it will be able to detect fringe shift due to > > > > gravitational red shift. Such modified MMX will be able to confirm > > > > that the speed of light in the vertical direction is not c as asserted > > > > by relativity. > > > > Yes, I read that in your paper. It might be a valid argument -- if the > > > Earth were the *only* source of gravity in the entire Universe. > > > This is not a valid arguement. Expedriments on earth (in the same > > gravitational potential) shows that the speed of light is isotropic > > and that's why the MMX null result. If the plane of the arms is > > oriented vertically then fringe shift should be observed as the > > apparatus is rotated. > > > >But as > > > it turns out, we live in a Universe with many other big, powerful, and > > > local gravity sources, such as the Sun and the Moon. If these two > > > objects are big enough to raise tides on the Earth, then I am sure > > > they can cause "the needles" to go off in an MMX (metaphorical, no > > > real needles are used). > > > Again this is not a valid arguement.....the speed of light in the same > > gravitational potential is isotropic. the effect of the moon's gravity > > has no effect on the isotropy of the speed of light on earth. > > Explain why? The speed of light is measured to be isotropic on earth in the same gravitational potential (horizontally). > > > > When the Sun or the Moon are on the horizon of these various modern > > > MMX apparatus, then their gravity is aligned with the arms of these > > > experiments. During this time, all sorts of shifts should be seen. > > > Again, on earth the speed of light in the same gravitational potential > > is isotropic and thus the MMX null rsult. > > But these arms are in different gravitational potentials with respect > to the Moon or the Sun, depending on what's on the horizon. No....the MMX is on earth and it is affected only by rath's gravitational potential. > > > > > > > > > My proposed experiments will reveal the length of the path of the > > > > laser traced out on the photographic paper before it settled on the > > > > final spot. The length of this path in combination with the > > > > Pythagorean Theorum will give us the absolute motion of the > > > > photographic paper. > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > Uh, you do realize that that's not how the MM experiments work, right? > > > No....the MMX does not work because the speed of light in the same > > gravitational potential is isotropic. > > > > The laser doesn't ever shift its position, like some vibration meter. > > > In my proposed experiment it does shift. > > > > All they're looking for is a change in the interference patterns > > > between the lights coming from the two arms of the experiment. > > > My proposed experiment is not the same as the MMX. The laser will > > trace out a line on the photographic paper if there is absolute > > motion. > > > Ken Seto > > Okay, good luck with that experiment.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |