Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 12 Jul 2010 14:28 On 7/12/10 9:23 AM, NoEinstein wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the > 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined > via an Earth mounted experiment? The answer is a resounding YES! But > a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be > needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of > such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed > so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT > expanding from the BB. � NoEinstein � Nature contradicts you!
From: oriel36 on 12 Jul 2010 15:27 On Jul 12, 12:27 am, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > news:WEq_n.205263$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. Sure,you want to know what is going on,try Orwell - ".. to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety;" Orwell 1984
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 16:16 On Jul 12, 9:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the > 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined > via an Earth mounted experiment? Is the experiment documented? Where? > The answer is a resounding YES! But > a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be > needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of > such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed > so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT > expanding from the BB. NoEinstein > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: nuny on 12 Jul 2010 16:52 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.) This claim is impossible to prove without finding some way to compare the intensity of light at the beginning and end of a long- distance trip. Suppose we fold that trip distance over on itself many times- take a sufficiently large pair of mirrors facing each other; fire photons in at nearly normal incidence and let them bounce back and forth a few zillion times. Measure their intensity after exiting the mirrors, correct for absorption on each reflection, and Bob's you're uncle. Oddly, no "tiring" of light is ever seen in real-world etalons. > 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 > thin surface, like on an expanding balloon, looking along the 'plain' > 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! The universe is not "just a thin surface, like on an expanding balloon". It's an analogy, involving dropping a dimension. If you don't know about it, you can look it up. Anyway, sticking to the analogy, light can not travel perpendicular to the "skin", it can only travel along the "skin". But the farther the light you see has traveled, the smaller the balloon was when the light started on its way. That's why the Hubble deep-sky photos show a crowded sky. All this is irrelevant to my observation that the OPs suggested experiment assumes GR to be false, in the face of evidence supporting GR such as gravitational lensing. Mark L. Fergerson
From: PD on 12 Jul 2010 17:06
On Jul 12, 3:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 12, 9:23 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > On Jul 11, 1:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Dear Sam: Mine was (is) a $2,000.00 experiment intended to answer the > > 'yes or no' question: Can Earth's velocity and direction be determined > > via an Earth mounted experiment? > > Is the experiment documented? Where? Now, it would be wonderful if you would say something to the effect of: "I'm not obligated to live by the rules you mortals live by! I'm not obliged to do anything as mundane as documentation! All that is sufficient is for me to know that I have plumbed the secrets of the universe in my back yard, and everyone should be lining up on my street in Easley, South Carolina, bringing burnt sacrifices and valuable gifts in laud and praise of my stunning achievements! In the meantime, I will sit in my La-Z-Boy and acknowledge them myself -- Ha HA!" > > > > > The answer is a resounding YES! But > > a new generation of experiment, costing a great deal more, will be > > needed to give the absolute numbers. I can envision having dozens of > > such interferometers functioning in unison to determine absolute speed > > so accurately, that it can be proven that the Universe is NOT > > expanding from the BB. NoEinstein > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |