Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Physics]
|
Prev: HMLS Theory of Gravitation? (was Discrete Scale Relativity...)
Next: asteroid visited by a "satellite"
From: nuny on 13 Jul 2010 07:30 On Jul 12, 3:07 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 12, 4:52 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear Mark: No experiments of any kind are required for my disproof. (snip) I repeat: > > 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. Please explain observed gravitational lensing without GR. Mark L. Fergerson
From: GSS on 13 Jul 2010 10:23 On Jul 12, 1:41 pm, "n...(a)bid.nes" <alien8...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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: >> ... >>> "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 Well, instead of arguing about our different viewpoints regarding the existence of 'center of mass of the universe', 'absolute reference frame' and the 'isotropy of speed of light in only the absolute reference frame', let us clinch the issue with the result of the proposed experiment. [In brief, the proposed experiment involves measurement of to and fro light propagation times between two fixed points on earth. Let us consider two points A and B fixed on the surface of earth (at equal gravitational potential) and aligned along east-west direction. Let the separation distance AB be about 30 to 50 km. Position two identical precision atomic clocks mid-way between A and B and mutually synchronize them in close-by position. After synchronizing, shift the two clocks to stations A and B by slow transport. Now as part of the experiment, send a light pulse from A to B and record its time of flight with the two clocks at A and B. Let this measured time of flight be T_ab. Then send another light pulse from B to A and record its time of flight with the two clocks. Let this measured time of flight be T_ba. Repeat these to and fro time of flight measurements for a period of 24 hours. Find the maximum difference in the to and fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| over the test period. As per SR (if the second postulate is true), this to and fro flight time difference |T_ab-T_ba| must be of the order of zero (or a random scatter of values within +/- 5 nanoseconds). On the other hand, if the second postulate is not true, then the maximum difference in the to and fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| is expected to be in the range of about 200 nanoseconds.] For a moment, let me agree with you that both SR and GR are perfectly valid and well tested theories. Kindly apply your knowledge of SR and GR and predict the result of the above experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to and fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| expected under Relativity. Thereafter, the result of the experiment will clinch the issue whether Relativity theories are valid or not. Isn't it fair enough. GSS
From: PD on 13 Jul 2010 12:08 On Jul 12, 9:33 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/12/10 9:28 PM, NoEinstein wrote: > > > Dear Sam: Again, you only attack the messenger. Please state ONE > > instance in which my New Science is wrong, and paraphrase your counter- > > argument. You've never been able to do that. So, it's YOU who flunk > > the course! NoEinstein > > Look in the posting records... I have shown you to be wrong many > times. Look in the posting record. The arguments are all there. > You can't fool mother nature. Oh, but Sam, for NoEinstein, you've not shown anything unless you've gotten him to acknowledge it! And this he simply refuses to do. Of course, so would a turkey leg. But for NoEinstein, "victory" is paramount, and this he counts as a "victory". By the same measure, of course, a turkey leg is just as victorious. PD
From: PD on 13 Jul 2010 12:09 On Jul 12, 9:26 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 12, 6:38 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 12, 4:53 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 12, 4:16 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD the DUNCE School Teacher: Read some of the following links to > > > see how clearly I've documented what I've done. > > > I've looked them over and can find no adequate documentation of your > > $2,000 interferometer. > > Are you sure you made one, or did you just make that up too? > > > > Oh... Have you > > > replicated that $40.00 dropped ball experiment? That color photo I > > > sent you is all the documentation needed to disprove Coriolis and > > > Einstein, etc. NE > > > You know, if you put up a "color photo" of your apparatus at a 4th > > grade science fair and called it your experimental description, you > > wouldn't get even a C for it. > > > > Where Angels Fear to Fallhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/8152ef3e... > > > Last Nails in Einstein's Coffinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thre... > > > Pop Quiz for Science Buffs!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/43f6f316... > > > An Einstein Disproof for Dummieshttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/f7a63... > > > Another look at Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/41670721... > > > Three Problems for Math and Sciencehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics/browse_thread/thread/bb07f... > > > Matter from Thin Airhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/ee4fe... > > > Curing Einsteins Diseasehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4ff9e... > > > Replicating NoEinsteins Invalidation of M-M (at sci.math)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/d9f98526... > > > Cleaning Away Einsteins Mishmashhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci..physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847... > > > Dropping Einstein Like a Stonehttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e1... > > > Plotting the Curves of Coriolis, Einstein, and NoEinstein (is > > > Copyrighted.)http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/713f8... > > > Are Jews Destroying Objectivity in Science?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d4cbe... > > > The Gravity of Masses Doesnt Bend Light.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/efb99... > > > KE = 1/2mv^2 is disproved in new falling object impact test.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/51a85... > > > Light rays dont travel on ballistic curves.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/c3d7a... > > > A BLACK HOLE MYTH GETS BUSTED:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a1702... > > > SR Ignored the Significance of the = Signhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/56247... > > > Eleaticus confirms that SR has been destroyed!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/browse_thread/thread/c3cdedf3... > > > NoEinstein Finds Yet Another Reason Why SR Bites-the-Dust!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a3a12... > > > NoEinstein Gives the History & Rationale for Disproving Einsteinhttp://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/81046... > > > There is no "pull" of gravity, only the PUSH of flowing ether!http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/a8c26... > > > PD has questions about science. Can any of you help?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/4a2ed... > > > Taking a Fresh Look at the Physics of Radiometers.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3ebe8... > > > A Proposed Gravity-Propelled Swing Experiment.http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/3052e... > > > Shedding New Light on Comet Tailshttp://groups.google.com/g/d8e7fef4/t/fbb6a213b8c465b3/.../187797453b...... > > > What is sci.research seeking if not the truth?http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/d3082... > > > > > 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 -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Maybe you are right, PD. But fourth grade school teachers know no > more about physics than that 'speck' at the bottom the Science Hill > that I am the King of. NE - There's a little bit of foam on the corner of your mouth, there. No, the other side. PD
From: Surfer on 13 Jul 2010 13:33
On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:23:45 -0700 (PDT), GSS <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >As per SR (if the second postulate is true), this to and fro flight >time difference |T_ab-T_ba| must be of the order of zero (or a random >scatter of values within +/- 5 nanoseconds). On the other hand, if the >second postulate is not true, then the maximum difference in the to >and fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| is expected to be in the range of >about 200 nanoseconds.] > >For a moment, let me agree with you that both SR and GR are perfectly >valid and well tested theories. Kindly apply your knowledge of SR and >GR and predict the result of the above experiment in terms of the >maximum difference in the to and fro flight times, |T_ab-T_ba| >expected under Relativity. Thereafter, the result of the experiment >will clinch the issue whether Relativity theories are valid or not. > I think you should have a close read of: Combining NASA/JPL One-Way Optical-Fiber Light-Speed Data with Spacecraft Earth-Flyby Doppler-Shift Data to Characterise 3-Space Flow Progress in Physics, 4, 50-64, 2009. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2009/PP-19-05.PDF This shows that the validity of SR depends on circumstances. Eg the measured speed of light in vacuum is consistently found to be c, but passing light though a medium, which reduces the speed to less than c, can introduce anomalous effects that allow absolute motion to be detected. |