Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 10:29 On Jul 18, 6:31 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Craig: Thanks for... BITING to my challenge! You say: "(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." Now, Craig, you must either show or PARAPHRASE 'a' fairly simple analysis which will show that KE = 1/2mv^2 isn't a blatant violation of the Law of the Conservation of Energy! You should be made aware that the parabolic distance of fall curve for all objects would be... a straight line if not for the ACCRUING COASTING distances that carry- over from the end of EVERY second of fall. 75% of the distance of all objects in just FOUR seconds of fall is due to COASTING. If you understand such factfirst recognized by yours trulythen, you are qualified to discuss the KE of falling objects, which is correctly expressed by my own equation: KE = a/g (m) + v/32.174 (m). NoEinstein > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: NoEinstein on 19 Jul 2010 10:36 On Jul 19, 2:41 am, oriel36 <kelleher.ger...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Bravo! NoEinstein
From: Hayek on 19 Jul 2010 11:01 funkenstein wrote: > On Jul 10, 6:57 pm, 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. >> >> "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 and assume the speed c of >> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal >> constant in that frame. > > > Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition of > this reference frame. Center of mass of what? I think he means the average mass distribution around the test point. > By "universe" do you mean your forward and back light > cones? The set of all possible observable masses > where the observer is you? A Universal set is not > permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Even if > you could somehow define this "universal rest frame" > in a consistent way, it is unclear to me what effect > it would have on the propagation of light. Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets c by means of an inertia causing field, generated by all these masses. As soon as a photon is emitted, its speed is set by this inertial field. What else could do it ? Not the lab, not the Earth, not the Sun. The inertial field of the Earth, is about a few parts of a trillionth of that of the surrounding masses, and the mass of the Earth slows the speed of light by about a few parts of a trillionth. So the speed of light is set by all the masses surrounding the photon, the other few trillion parts. The fact that the two way light speed is isotropic for any inertially moving observer, stems from the fact that these observer's rods and clocks also react to motion in this inertial field. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: oriel36 on 19 Jul 2010 11:30 On Jul 19, 4:01 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: > funkenstein wrote: > > On Jul 10, 6:57 pm, 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. > > >> "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 and assume the speed c of > >> propagation of light to be an isotropic universal > >> constant in that frame. > > > Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition of > > this reference frame. Center of mass of what? > > I think he means the average mass distribution around > the test point. > > > By "universe" do you mean your forward and back light > > cones? The set of all possible observable masses > > where the observer is you? A Universal set is not > > permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. Even if > > you could somehow define this "universal rest frame" > > in a consistent way, it is unclear to me what effect > > it would have on the propagation of light. > > Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets c by > means of an inertia causing field, generated by all > these masses. > Mach was as irritated by Newton like I have not seen before or since,he can't make heads nor tails of what Newton was doing with absolute/relative time having excepted the stellar circumpolar reference of the 'fixed stars' as a background framework as you all still do to this day - "This absolute time can be measured by comparison with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der Empfindungen, 6th ed. As was just explained in the previous post,the difference between absolute and relative time is a matter of timekeeping references and it is here and here alone that we either succeed or fail.It may be that readers today are just not confident enough to be original or that their make-up is not suited to handle the dizzying array of distortions,fiction,fact and overall mayhem originally created by Flamsteed but built on by Isaac Newton. With so many intent and content to remain within the fiction that give rise to relativity,there is little sense pressing ahead with some sort of authoritative treatment of the issues. > As soon as a photon is emitted, its speed is set by this > inertial field. What else could do it ? Not the lab, not > the Earth, not the Sun. The inertial field of the Earth, > is about a few parts of a trillionth of that of the > surrounding masses, and the mass of the Earth slows the > speed of light by about a few parts of a trillionth. > > So the speed of light is set by all the masses > surrounding the photon, the other few trillion parts. > > The fact that the two way light speed is isotropic for > any inertially moving observer, stems from the fact that > these observer's rods and clocks also react to motion in > this inertial field. > > Uwe Hayek. > > -- > We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate > inversion : the stage where the government is free to do > anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by > permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of > human history. -- Ayn Rand > > I predict future happiness for Americans if they can > prevent the government from wasting the labors of the > people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- > Thomas Jefferson. > > Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of > ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue > is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: Hayek on 19 Jul 2010 11:47
oriel36 wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:01 pm, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> > wrote: >> funkenstein wrote: >>> On Jul 10, 6:57 pm, 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. "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 and assume the speed c of propagation >>>> of light to be an isotropic universal constant >>>> in that frame. >>> Greetings. I'm still confused by your definition >>> of this reference frame. Center of mass of what? >>> >> I think he means the average mass distribution >> around the test point. >> >>> By "universe" do you mean your forward and back >>> light cones? The set of all possible observable >>> masses where the observer is you? A Universal >>> set is not permitted in Zermelo-Fraenkel set >>> theory. Even if you could somehow define this >>> "universal rest frame" in a consistent way, it is >>> unclear to me what effect it would have on the >>> propagation of light. >> Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets >> c > by >> means of an inertia causing field, generated by all >> these masses. > > Mach was as irritated by Newton like I have not seen > before or since,he can't make heads nor tails of what > Newton was doing with absolute/relative time having > excepted the stellar circumpolar reference of the > 'fixed stars' as a background framework as you all > still do to this day - > > "This absolute time can be measured by comparison > with no motion; it has therefore neither a practical > nor a scientific value; and no one is justified in > saying that he knows aught about it. It is an idle > metaphysical conception." Mach, Analyse der > Empfindungen, 6th ed. > > As was just explained in the previous post,the > difference between absolute and relative time is a > matter of timekeeping references and it is here and > here alone that we either succeed or fail.It may be > that readers today are just not confident enough to > be original or that their make-up is not suited to > handle the dizzying array of distortions,fiction,fact > and overall mayhem originally created by Flamsteed > but built on by Isaac Newton. > > With so many intent and content to remain within the > fiction that give rise to relativity,there is little > sense pressing ahead with some sort of authoritative > treatment of the issues. Mach's principle is not so much about what Mach said about time and inertia, but more about what Einstein made of it. I regard Mach's Principle as "mass over there creates inertia over here". GR says "mass over there creates clock slowing over here" So I deduce : a clock is an inertiameter. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill. |