Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 18 Jul 2010 12:45 On Jul 18, 8:05 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > (GSS) Dear (dead) Einstein: Absolute time isn't in any way determined by the velocity of light, regardless of the direction the light travels! NoEinstein > > On Jul 17, 11:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> > wrote: > > > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > >news:3ea0c941-3192-4033-8e49-3a2d46ae7aed(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com.... > > On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > ... > > >>> The irony is that your paper does attempt to derive the up- and down- > > >>> link times using the principles of SR in section 2, but then you > > >>> immediately discard the results because it does not provide the answer > > >>> you desire. The truth is that - assuming the principles of SR - the > > >>> up- and down-link times *will* be different as measured by observers > > >>> co-moving in two different frames with their own co-moving clocks. In > > >>> fact, by exchanging up- and down-link timing information after the > > >>> observations were taken, the two observers could estimate their > > >>> relative velocity. But this is not a measurement of "absolute" > > >>> motion. That is, unless you could have already placed one observer at > > >>> "absolute rest" before the experiment started, which presupposes what > > >>> you are trying to measure in the first place. This was noted one year > > >>> ago, but you ignored it. > > > >> At the end of section 2 I have stated, "The inability to directly > > >> measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary > > >> reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is > > >> a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding > > >> clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of > > >> SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second > > >> postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful > > >> detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second > > >> postulate of SR." > > > >> You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the > > >> infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal > > >> contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that > > >> there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been > > >> demonstrated the way you want it. > > > > What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally > > > consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what > > > there is left to discuss. > > > No, I have only stated that *there are no mathematical contradictions > > in SR*. > > =========================================== > > Yes there are. > > > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c is a contradiction of "constant velocity". > > > There is no way that go-there-stop-turn-round-go-back-again is a constant > > velocity. > > Yes, I agree that referring to c as a constant velocity is wrong. > 'They' say this mistake has crept up during translation from original > German to English. Generally c is referred as a constant speed of > light propagation. > > If we treat c as a constant speed, still the above quoted relation > involves a 'conceptual mistake'. This conceptual mistake is introduced > by way of an arbitrary definition of common time in Einstein's 1905 > paper: > "We have so far defined only an A time and a B time. We have not > defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined > at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by > light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel > from B to A."- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Craig Markwardt on 18 Jul 2010 18:25 On Jul 17, 2:08 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > ... many edits ... > > You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead > > logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and > > time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe > > consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves > > such measurements. .... > > *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your > > theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all > > frames simultaneously. > > No, I did not *make* any additional assumptions, I simply did not > *use* additional false assumptions of SR. You are in error: Assumption G1. "However, as per the Newtonian notion of absolute time and length, we may define an absolute or universal reference frame..." Assumption G2. "Let us further assume that the two spacecrafts A and B are fitted with appropriate .. mutually synchronized identical atomic clocks." Assumption G3. You then proceed in your section 1 to assume that those clocks are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute" reference frame. *You* made those extra assumptions. SR specifically does *not* make those assumptions. In fact, it is a formal logical consequence of the two postulates of SR that clocks in different inertial frames are not synchronizable. It is no wonder that if you arrive at contradictory results. The contradiction arises because *you* made mutually contradictory assumptions. You seem to think that the assumption of Newtonian relativity is somehow not an assumption, which is bizarre and incorrect. CM
From: Craig Markwardt on 18 Jul 2010 18:31 On Jul 16, 6:42 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "Craig Markwardt" <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:54258e84-c421-4040-8d56-08aa45185817(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... > On Jul 16, 4:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 11:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. > > Huh? You probably need to check your algebra more carefully before > claiming the formula increases "exponentially." > > CM > > x^b defines b as an exponent. > You probably need to check your definitions more carefully before > claiming the formula doesn't increase "exponentially." (a) "exponential" has a specific meaning in mathematics which is certainly not what you describe (instead it is e^x where e is a constant); (b) a fairly simple analysis shows that the SR equation for energy grows as 1/2 mv^2 for small v, just as expected from classical mechanics; "NoEinstein" is incorrect. CM
From: oriel36 on 19 Jul 2010 02:41 On Jul 18, 11:25 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2:08 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 8:26 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > ... many edits ... > > > You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead > > > logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and > > > time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe > > > consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves > > > such measurements. > ... > > > *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your > > > theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all > > > frames simultaneously. > > > No, I did not *make* any additional assumptions, I simply did not > > *use* additional false assumptions of SR. > > You are in error: > Assumption G1. "However, as per the Newtonian notion of absolute > time and length, we may define an absolute or universal reference > frame..." > Assumption G2. "Let us further assume that the two spacecrafts A and B > are fitted with appropriate .. mutually synchronized identical atomic > clocks." > Assumption G3. You then proceed in your section 1 to assume that > those clocks are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute" > reference frame. > > *You* made those extra assumptions. SR specifically does *not* make > those assumptions. In fact, it is a formal logical consequence of the > two postulates of SR that clocks in different inertial frames are not > synchronizable. It is no wonder that if you arrive at contradictory > results. The contradiction arises because *you* made mutually > contradictory assumptions. > > You seem to think that the assumption of Newtonian relativity is > somehow not an assumption, which is bizarre and incorrect. > > CM I have never seen so much fuss over a few timekeeping references and especially that remarkable period 300 years ago when they decided to disrupt the accurate,precise and stable principles which fixed timekeeping to the raw astronomical cycles.Newton,as a mathematician, is unsure about what references belong where and eventually builds his absolute/relative space on motion on Flamsteed's reasoning insofar as he comes out with an orbital value of 365.256 days corresponding to sidereal time reasoning whereas Huygen's accurate summation between time and the raw astronomical cycles determine the 365.242 value or 365 days 5 hours 49 minutes.This is easy enough to check - "Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal, though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time; astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured " Isaac Newton "Here take notice, that the Sun or the Earth passeth the 12. Signes, or makes an entire revolution in the Ecliptick in 365 days, 5 hours 49 min. or there about, and that those days, reckon'd from noon to noon, are of different lenghts; as is known to all that are vers'd in Astronomy." Huygens The continuous progression of equable 24 hour days derived artificially from natural noon also substituted for constant daily rotation at a rate of 15 degrees per hour and it still does,hence there is no external reference for rotation through 360 degrees as Flamsteed had it in his attempt to tie daily rotation directly to stellar circumpolar motion in 'sidereal time'. All these absolute/relative definitions of space,motion,at least as they are used today,have very little in common with Isaac's intentioned uses and it appears readers are absolutely content to ignore the difference between fact and fiction in order to make relativity and the later 'no center/no circumference' ideologies more interesting on account of a few screwed up references and a few bad assumptions.From my seat it is an amazing spectacle on two fronts,the actual train wreck of timekeeping references as they are derived from astronomical sources being the major one but also the willingness of readers to subdue their own reasoning abilities in accepting the story that evolved and emerged as a result of not comprehending exactly what Isaac was up to.And so it remains to this day.
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 10:13
On Jul 18, 12:22 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear JT: You said: > I thought it was quite clear i was hear to criticise not to contribute. If i wanted to > contribute i would have sent a bot. > But you can be assured i would still been firmly resting layback, doing some lazy reading and > critique from my armchair. > JT Fellow, science is too important to be little more than recreation for the lazy. If you can't contribute anything, at least don't belittle those who can and do. NoEinstein > On 18 Juli, 18:09, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 16, 5:21 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Nice try, JT. Please list, in the order of importance, your > > contributions to science. Chatting about science from your "armchair" > > doesn't count as contributing. NE > > > > On 16 Juli, 22:21, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:10 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > > > On 16 Juli, 04:55, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:16 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > DearJT: Are you drunk? Rotation much beyond 60 per minute would > > > > > > incapacitate everyone on board. Get off the sauce, man! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 01:46, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > DearJT: You preface by saying that you know nothing about physics. > > > > > > > > Then, you claim that physical rotating a space ship 10,000 RPM won't > > > > > > > > impose stress on the occupants. So, you prove your own point: You > > > > > > > > don't know anything about physics! The laws of physics don't require > > > > > > > > closeness to mass for their existence. In most likelihood, every > > > > > > > > person on your spaceship would be dead, from draining their blood from > > > > > > > > their brain, or stopping their heart because of the compressive forces > > > > > > > > put on the bodies. The best way for you to learn physics is to > > > > > > > > observe what happens in real life. Put a rat in a cage and spin it > > > > > > > > 10K rpm, and the rat dies. Of course that same thing will happen > > > > > > > > halfway between galaxies. NoEinstein > > > > > > > > So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > > > > > > > 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > > > > > > > so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > > > > > > > do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > > > > > > > The rotation of earth is measured against a fixed point origo, namely > > > > > > > our sun in euclidian space, using a Cartesian cordinate system if > > > > > > > earth never would change face relative the sun we would still have an > > > > > > > orbit but earth would be a nonerotating object by definition. > > > > > > > > Do you propose that our sun is the origo of the nonerotating Euclidian > > > > > > > space we travel? > > > > > > > > OR what is the nonerotating frame of the universe do you try to say > > > > > > > there is an absolute nonerotational frame in the the universe, i think > > > > > > > everyone is keen to now what you propose it is. > > > > > > > > I say rotational forces is only present when something breaks out from > > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > > In deepspace the body will not experience any g-forces, the only thing > > > > > > > that will let you know that you rotate is the background stars, If you > > > > > > > propose that there is a g-forces relative these foreign starts you > > > > > > > will have to invent a new longdistance gravitational force, i am all > > > > > > > pro that many have proposed such a force. > > > > > > > > But your handwaving doesn't do it for me. > > > > > > > > JT > > > > > > > > > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > > > > > > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > > > > > > > > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > > > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > > > > > > > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > > > > > > > > > > > | to the person across from you. > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > > > > > > > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > > > > > > > > > > > | the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else. > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > | Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > > > > > > > > > > > | It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > > > > > > > > > > > | is (absolutely) rotating in the second case. > > > > > > > > > > > | > > > > > > > > > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > > > > > > > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > > > > > > > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > > > > > > > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight. It is scattered > > > > > > > > > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > > > > > > > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > > > > > > > > > cross > > > > > > > > > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > > > > > > > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > > > > > > > > > sky > > > > > > > > > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > > > > > > > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > > > > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > > > > > > > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > > > > > > > > > Do > > > > > > > > > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > > > > > > > > > amateur > > > > > > > > > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > > > > > > > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > > > > > > > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > > > > > > > > > universe > > > > > > > > > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > > > > > > > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > > > > > > > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > > > > > > > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > > > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > > > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > > > > > > > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > > > > > > > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*.. > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question. It > > > > > > > > > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > > > > > > > > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > > > > > > > > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > > > > > > > > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > > > > > > > > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > > > > > > > > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > > > > > > > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > > > > > > > > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > > > > > > > > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > > > > > > > > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > > > > > > > > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > > > > > > > > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > > > > > > > > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > > > > > > > > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > > > > > > > > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > > > > > > > > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > > > > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > > > > > > > > > physic but to me it seem like the centrifugal and centripetal force > > > > > > > > > only is adjacent when you have rotation within a gravitational field. > > > > > > > > > So rotational forces is the result of a body trying to break out from > > > > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > > > > > A ship in deepspace rotating at a 100 000 RPM versus earth will put no > > > > > > > > > strain or forces upon the inhabitants nor the ship........... > > > > > > > > > It is only when the ship get close to a big gravitational body the g- > > > > > > > > > forces will start to act upon both ship and its inhabitants. > > > > > > > > > > This could all be wrong, but then there probably is a centra of > > > > > > > > > gravity in the universe so absolute rotation can be measured even in > > > > > > > > > deep space far away from gravitational attractors. > > > > > > > > > >JT- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > > > Bullshit you have no clue about what rotation is, rotation is not > > > > > measured RPM an objects absolute rotation is measured by tension and > > > > > stress forces within the material. > > > > > > And as i told you there will not be any on an object rotating in deep > > > > > space, unless you invent some new type of gravitational force working > > > > > over vast distances. > > > > > > Centrifugal and centripetal forces is created when an object moving > > > > > within a gravitational field, so when you spinn it is trying to break > > > > > lose from the stronger gravitational field. > > > > > > But what is this force you seem to think exist that work over deep > > > > > space and still manage to hold your object from not rotating, and will > > > > > create the > > > ... > > > läs mer »- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > I thought it was quite clear i was hear to criticise not to > contribute. > If i wanted to contribute i would have sent a bot. > > But you can be assured i would still been firmly resting layback, > doing some lazy reading and critique from my armchair. > > JT |