Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: Androcles on 20 Jul 2010 14:07 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:19dc3bb4-0c90-4ea5-8df4-ac53cce43d0d(a)n19g2000prf.googlegroups.com... On Jul 19, 3:25 am, 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: .... >>> On the other hand, a proof by contradiction >>> *requires* one to assume that the proposition be assumed to be true, >>> and yet the logical consequences yield a contradiction. Assuming the >>> proposition is *not true* yields meaningless results. I have already done that at the end of section 1. Specifically, I have shown that the assumed validity of the second postulate of SR alone (that is without further assuming the relativity of time) leads to logical contradictions. "However, under Newtonian notion of absolute time, we have only one set of up-link and down-link signal propagation times (Tu and Td) data recorded in the on-board computers, which cannot change with a change in reference frame. If we assume the same isotropic speed c of light propagation in all IRF as per second postulate of SR, it can be easily seen that equation (7) cannot be satisfied for different values of U, U_1, U_2 corresponding to various reference frames considered above. This points to a significant conclusion that with �absolute time�, c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference frames in relative uniform motion." >>>> ... What I am trying to invalidate is >>>> the foundation of SR, its second postulate, for which I don't have to >>>> use the internal structure of SR. >>> 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. The second postulate of SR is *just* a bold ASSUMPTION, nothing more than that. It does not involve any description of procedures of measurements. Specifically, it *does not* prescribe how to record a digital time readout from a precision atomic clock. This ASSUMPTION simply concerns the isotropy of speed of light in different inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. There is a popular 'belief' that to support one LIE, often a dozen more LIES will be needed. Accordingly, to support one false ASSUMPTION (the second postulate) a dozen more false assumptions (like, relativity of space and time, arbitrary 'definition' of common time, length contraction, time dilation etc.) were needed to provide consistency to the mathematical structure of SR. > ... >>> *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. There is some misunderstanding on your part. In section 1, I have no where assumed that the two clocks *are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute" reference frame*. ================================================== That is assumed - nay - DEFINED by Einstein. "In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if t_B-t_A = t'_A-t'_Bb " http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img6.gif and "It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary system.'' -- Einstein "Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be L" -- Einstein "However, as per the Einsteinian notion of stationary time and length, we may define a stationary or universal reference frame..."
From: Autymn D. C. on 20 Jul 2010 14:33 On Jul 10, 4:19 pm, xxein <xxxx...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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 c stands for celerity, not constant. Celerity is not constant but variant on elèctric and magnètic fields; Huygens, Coulomb, Ampère, and Maxwell knew so. Newton, Coulomb, Ampère, Doppler, and Schrödinger knew all interactions of miht and work were between two bodies-- therefore, their waves must be relative of two bodies' stalls (no Einstein needt). Wavespeed therebetween must hang on a background field, and any eles than celerity at infinity of two bodies must call for a third body, which is outside the framework of your still-silly and -wittleas seekout. -Aut
From: Autymn D. C. on 20 Jul 2010 14:35 relative :â absolute relative on univers :â absolute
From: Autymn D. C. on 20 Jul 2010 14:56 On Jul 12, 7:11 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 10, 7:38 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Mark: The Universe is (wrongly) assumed to be expanding. > (There's no 'Doppler shift', just the aging of light.) Even so, > astronomers haven't been able to locate any area of sky that doesn't > seem about equally dense with stars. If the Universe is now just a Huh? Stars are not as eld as the univers. If there was no start, why is there a surface of last scattering and no red-shifted stars beyond some span? > thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain' thin(: cloud) -> shallow > of the surface should show more stars than looking perpendicular to > the surface of the "balloon", inward or outward. Since no such > difference can be observed, then the Universe couldn't be expanding... > from a Big Bang, because no BB ever happened! As he said, it's a fourth dimension. -Aut
From: oriel36 on 20 Jul 2010 15:09
On Jul 20, 7:35Â pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > relative :â absolute > relative on univers :â absolute Want to see relative and absolute time - 'To reduce Watches to the right measure of dayes, or to know how much they goe too fast or too slow in 24. hours.' " 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. Now between the longest and the shortest of those days, a day may be taken of such a length, as 365 such days, 5. hours &c. (the same numbers as before) make up, or are equall to that revolution: And this is call'd the Equal or Mean day, according to which the Watches are to be set; and therefore the Hour or Minute shew'd by the Watches, though they be perfectly Iust and equal, must needs differ almost continually from those that are shew'd by the Sun, or are reckon'd according to its Motion. But this Difference is regular, and is otherwise call'd the Aequation" Huygens http://www.xs4all.nl/~adcs/Huygens/06/kort-E.html The difference between natural noon and 24 hour noon or absolute and relative time as I would have it is a longitudinal correction where the combined dynamics and characteristics of daily and orbital motion wrt the central Sun combine to generate variations in natural noon.The steady progression of 24 hour days was then used to substitute for steady rotation by a simply exquisite quirk of intellectual brilliance so that there is no external reference for daily rotation through 360 degrees no more than there is an external reference for the equable 24 hour day,just as Isaac said - "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 There is absolutely no mystery to this absolute/relative time thing,I mean for people who are actually curious as to what was going on and the very fact that Isaac gives an orbital value of 365.256 days demonstrates how little he actually comprehended the thing he was attempting to define.I don't mind the guys 100 years ago who built a cracking good science fiction story around Isaac's distortions but I don;t see why our era should be stuck praising a group of mathematicians who couldn't figure out what Newton was actually up to. Absolute time indeed !,I may the only person around enjoying the spectacle,at least in a forum that is dead serious about absolute/ relative time without actually considering what it originally signified. |