Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: nuny on 11 Jul 2010 06:46 On Jul 10, 8:35 pm, xxein <xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > > > xxein: You have a lot to learn too. Never said I didn't. I pointed out that the OP's basis of his suggested experiment (that it can falsify SR) tacitly assumes GR to be false, and then suggested ways to start trying to reconcile that assumption with observations that appear to disagree with it. Do you disagree with my assessment or my suggestion? Specifically, do you disagree that his assumption of an observable center of mass of the universe is in conflict with GR, that said conflict is due to observed gravitational lensing quantitatively supporting spatial curvature, that spatial curvature eliminates an observable center of mass for the universe, or do you think that he should ignore both? IOW, what have you got besides hip shots? Mark L. Fergerson
From: GSS on 11 Jul 2010 10:52 On Jul 11, 12:28 pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: > On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT), GSS > > <gurcharn_san...(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. Has the mainstream Physics community accepted the above referred results? If so, the second postulate of SR should have been invalidated by now. As per Isaac (previous post), very many persons should have won the Nobel Prize by now for detecting the absolute motion!! On the other hand, if mainstream Physics community has not accepted the above referred results, then could it be that they will never accept the results of any experiment that points to the invalidity of Relativity? GSS
From: Surfer on 11 Jul 2010 13:47 On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 07:52:36 -0700 (PDT), GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 11, 12:28�pm, Surfer <n...(a)spam.net> wrote: >> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 09:57:25 -0700 (PDT), GSS >> >> <gurcharn_san...(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. > >Has the mainstream Physics community accepted the above referred >results? > Not yet. But I don't think many will have read the above papers. >If so, the second postulate of SR should have been invalidated by now. > Personally, I think it has been invalidated. > >As per Isaac (previous post), very many persons should have won the >Nobel Prize by now for detecting the absolute motion!! > >On the other hand, if mainstream Physics community has not accepted >the above referred results, then could it be that they will never >accept the results of any experiment that points to the invalidity of >Relativity? > A few might be as committed to SR as that. But to convince the majority, there is probably merely a need for stronger evidence than the above. -- Surfer
From: Sam Wormley on 11 Jul 2010 13:59 On 7/11/10 12:07 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > Dear GSS: I have already detected Earth's absolute speed and > direction using my first-generation X, Y, and Z interferometer. What's the speed?
From: Socratis on 11 Jul 2010 14:29
"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message news:om5_n.122439$m87.15525(a)hurricane... > > "Socratis" <socratis(a)alice.it> wrote in message > news:i1an4q$98b$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > | "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > | news:50ad2b40-c562-4b45-b9ba-791327139a03(a)k1g2000prl.googlegroups.com... > | 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/e24d067ec6a49db2/e45663e989aca999#e45663e989aca999 > | 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. > | > | "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." > | > | All you have to do is stand on the Earth and swing a bucket of water > | around in a circle. This shows an absolute frame, and no relativist > | can ever provide a coherent explanation. > | > I'm not a relativist. Here is coherent explanation, no absolute frame > needed. > http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov > The movie strengthens the case for absolute motion - the motion of the merry-go-round (or the Earth) causing the coriolis effect. The effect is *not* caused by the relative motion of the merry-go-round and Earth; it is the absolute motion. If the merry-go-round was out in space a similar affect would be seen. There would be a vast difference between a still and rotating object. I would love to hear or see an explanation of why this doesn't prove absolute motion. |