Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: xxein on 10 Jul 2010 19:19 On Jul 10, 5:15 pm, Michael Helland <mobyd...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 9:57 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > Hello, congratulations. > > I know this probably took you a great deal of work, and you may feel > short changed by my criticism, which obviously took a great deal less > work, but I tell you me immediate concerns. > > > However, we may define an absolute or > > universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to > > the center of mass of the universe and assume the speed c of > > propagation of light to be an isotropic universal constant in that > > frame. > > I think that what you are proposing here is not an experiment for > detecting absolute motion, but a proposal for a definition of an > absolute reference frame, one that I don't find particularly > convincing. > > Why must the center of mass in the Universe be moving with respect to > some absolute? xxein: I swiched isps again so I hope this gets through. The better question is "if everything is moving, how can c be a constant?". It takes a while to understand the significance of this and I hope you can. It puts profound limits on what the nature of this universe must comply with besides a subjective obsrvation put into a math description.
From: nuny on 10 Jul 2010 19:38 On Jul 10, 9:57 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Friends, > Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on > the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6... > Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for > detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An > International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics) > for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been > published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The > abstract of this paper is reproduced below. The peer review was faulty; someone should have caught the obvious flaw. > "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative > and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of > reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other > inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or > universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to > the center of mass of the universe There's the flaw. General Relativity assumes a three-dimensional space which is curved through a fourth dimension such that the three- dimensional space is unbounded but finite in extent; the usual analogy is the two-dimensional surface of a balloon which is curved through a third dimension leaving the surface equally unbounded but of finite extent. No point *on the surface of the balloon* can be considered its center of mass; it is located at a point within the balloon. Analogously, no point in three-dimensional space can be considered the center of mass of the Universe. Your proposal to falsify Special Relativity seems to tacitly assume that space must be Euclidean. It thus has the prerequisite of unambiguously falsifying the concept of curved space and with it all of General Relativity in order for the center of mass of the universe to be contained within observable three-dimensional space. You might consider starting with an alternate explanation for observations attributed to GR, for instance gravitational lensing. Mark L. Fergerson
From: xxein on 10 Jul 2010 23:35 On Jul 10, 7:38 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 10, 9:57 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Friends, > > Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on > > the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6... > > Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for > > detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An > > International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics) > > for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been > > published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The > > abstract of this paper is reproduced below. > > The peer review was faulty; someone should have caught the obvious > flaw. > > > "According to special theory of relativity, all motion is relative > > and existence of any privileged or absolute inertial frame of > > reference, which could be practically distinguished from all other > > inertial frames, is ruled out. However, we may define an absolute or > > universal reference frame as the one which is at rest with respect to > > the center of mass of the universe > > There's the flaw. General Relativity assumes a three-dimensional > space which is curved through a fourth dimension such that the three- > dimensional space is unbounded but finite in extent; the usual analogy > is the two-dimensional surface of a balloon which is curved through a > third dimension leaving the surface equally unbounded but of finite > extent. No point *on the surface of the balloon* can be considered its > center of mass; it is located at a point within the balloon. > Analogously, no point in three-dimensional space can be considered the > center of mass of the Universe. > > Your proposal to falsify Special Relativity seems to tacitly assume > that space must be Euclidean. It thus has the prerequisite of > unambiguously falsifying the concept of curved space and with it all > of General Relativity in order for the center of mass of the universe > to be contained within observable three-dimensional space. You might > consider starting with an alternate explanation for observations > attributed to GR, for instance gravitational lensing. > > Mark L. Fergerson xxein: You have a lot to learn too.
From: isw on 11 Jul 2010 00:49 In article <50ad2b40-c562-4b45-b9ba-791327139a03(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com>, GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Friends, > Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on > the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion. 1) Do the experiment. 2) Collect the Nobel Prize (assuming it works the way you hope it will). Isaac
From: Surfer on 11 Jul 2010 03:28
On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT), GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >In brief, the proposed experiment involves measurement of to >and fro light propagation times between two fixed points on earth. > A number of such experiments have been performed in the past. It wouldn't hurt for more to be done. The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment (to the Memory of Roland De Witte) Progress in Physics, 3, 60-65, 2006. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-06-11.PDF "....His results are in excellent agreement with the extensive data from the Miller 1925/26 detection of absolute motion using a gas-mode Michelson interferometer atop Mt.Wilson, California...." Here is a paper which did not claim detection of absolute motion, but graphs provided in the paper, appear to show such effects. Test of the Isotropy of the One-Way Speed of Light using Hydrogen-Maser Frequency Standards, Krisher T.P., Maleki L., Lutes G.F., Primas L.E., Logan R.T., Anderson J.D. and Will C.M. Phys Rev D, 42, 731-734, 1990. Here is a paper containing a diagram (Fig. 6) that graphically compares the results of the above mentioned experiments and other similar experiments, plotted against sidereal time. Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF The correlations suggest a common cause related to sideral time, which would be consistent with absolute motion effects. |