Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: GSS on 12 Jul 2010 03:23 On Jul 12, 9:56 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: .... > AFAIK nobody says that rotation is not absolute. > > Unaccelerated linear motion is said to be "relative" (nothing to do > with Einstein, mind) because you cannot determine your state of linear > motion without measuring it with respect to some external reference > object. > > Accelerated linear motion *is* absolute because you can measure it > locally (meaning you don't need any external reference) with any of > several types of accelerometer. > > Similar for rotational motion; such things as Foucault's pendulum or > gyroscopes (physical or optical) measure it easily without any > external reference required. > > "Absolute" velocity, as usually used, is the alleged velocity of an > object with respect to the entire universe; but if such exists, > there's no clear way to measure it. > > Mark L. Fergerson It is precisely this "absolute velocity" of the earth which is going to be measured with the proposed experiment. If you study the paper, you will definitely find a very clear description of a simple way to measure it. Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010) http://physicsessays.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000003000442000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&ref=no It is indeed very interesting to find how by simple automated measurements of two atomic clock readings, we can compute the magnitude as well as direction of this absolute velocity of the earth. GSS
From: nuny on 12 Jul 2010 04:41 On Jul 12, 12:23 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 9:56 am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > ... > > > > > AFAIK nobody says that rotation is not absolute. > > > Unaccelerated linear motion is said to be "relative" (nothing to do > > with Einstein, mind) because you cannot determine your state of linear > > motion without measuring it with respect to some external reference > > object. > > > Accelerated linear motion *is* absolute because you can measure it > > locally (meaning you don't need any external reference) with any of > > several types of accelerometer. > > > Similar for rotational motion; such things as Foucault's pendulum or > > gyroscopes (physical or optical) measure it easily without any > > external reference required. > > > "Absolute" velocity, as usually used, is the alleged velocity of an > > object with respect to the entire universe; but if such exists, > > there's no clear way to measure it. > > > Mark L. Fergerson > > It is precisely this "absolute velocity" of the earth which is going > to be measured with the proposed experiment. If you study the paper, > you will definitely find a very clear description of a simple way to > measure it. > Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010)http://physicsessays.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal... Yeah, I know. The external reference it proposes to use is the center of mass of the universe, but the existence of such is predicated on the assumption that GR is false. Mark L. Fergerson
From: Androcles on 12 Jul 2010 06:07 "Helmut Wabnig" <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote in message news:o5fl36pbca9l8941l6ssdlc2k587itjh5v(a)4ax.com... | On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 16:27:23 -0700, "Socratis" <socratis(a)alice.it> | wrote: | | > | >"Androcles" <Headmaster(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message | >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... | >> | >> "Socratis" <socratis(a)alice.it> wrote in message | >> news:i1d9b3$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 | | | ###We cannot detect absolute motion### | | that's what physicists say. | | reread your statement once again: | | >state there is no absolute motion | | see the difference? | | w. Can't make someone understand what they don't want to understand. | | | >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. | > | |
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 12 Jul 2010 08:20 On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:23:45 -0700 (PDT), GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Jul 12, 9:56�am, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >... >> � AFAIK nobody says that rotation is not absolute. >> >> � Unaccelerated linear motion is said to be "relative" (nothing to do >> with Einstein, mind) because you cannot determine your state of linear >> motion without measuring it with respect to some external reference >> object. >> >> � Accelerated linear motion *is* absolute because you can measure it >> locally (meaning you don't need any external reference) with any of >> several types of accelerometer. >> >> � Similar for rotational motion; such things as Foucault's pendulum or >> gyroscopes (physical or optical) measure it easily without any >> external reference required. >> >> � "Absolute" velocity, as usually used, is the alleged velocity of an >> object with respect to the entire universe; but if such exists, >> there's no clear way to measure it. >> >> � Mark L. Fergerson > >It is precisely this "absolute velocity" of the earth which is going >to be measured with the proposed experiment. If you study the paper, >you will definitely find a very clear description of a simple way to >measure it. >Phys. Essays 23, 442 (2010) >http://physicsessays.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PHESEM000023000003000442000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=Yes&ref=no > >It is indeed very interesting to find how by simple automated >measurements of two atomic clock readings, we can compute the >magnitude as well as direction of this absolute velocity of the >earth. > >GSS The document probably isn't worth the 15.- $$ it costs. Make it downloadable for free. w.
From: NoEinstein on 12 Jul 2010 09:57
On Jul 10, 6:34 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sam: You don't understand the real world well enough to dictate to anyone. It is YOU who should learn. But of course School Teachers are incapable of doing that. Ha, ha, HA! NoEinstein > > On 7/10/10 11:57 AM, GSS 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/]. > > Hidden in the law of inertia is that fact the whether an object is > in motion or not depends strictly on the point of view of the > observer. Suggest learning some basic physics. |