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: funkenstein on 14 Jul 2010 03:38 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? 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.
From: JT on 14 Jul 2010 05:51 On 12 Juli, 01:27, "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.- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about physic but to me it seem like the centrifugal and centripetal force only is adjacent when you have rotation within a gravitational field. So rotational forces is the result of a body trying to break out from the ruling gravitational field. A ship in deepspace rotating at a 100 000 RPM versus earth will put no strain or forces upon the inhabitants nor the ship.......... It is only when the ship get close to a big gravitational body the g- forces will start to act upon both ship and its inhabitants. This could all be wrong, but then there probably is a centra of gravity in the universe so absolute rotation can be measured even in deep space far away from gravitational attractors. JT
From: Painius on 14 Jul 2010 07:15 "NoEinstein" <noeinstein(a)bellsouth.net> wrote in message... news:fedcd3ab-b914-4fc2-8e99-5a776495829a(a)z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... On Jul 13, 2:50 am, "Painius" <starswirlern...(a)maol.com> wrote: > Dear Painus: Access to links��some close to three years old��is Google's problem, not mine. I have copies of any post you would like to see. I'll send you a copy. But I won't make New Posts on the same subjects, because Google might fix the problem. � NoEinstein � P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A P I T A Never mind. happy days and... starry starry nights! -- Indelibly yours, Paine Ellsworth P.S. "What you do makes a difference, and you only need to decide what kind of difference you want to make." > Jane Goodall P.P.S.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Paine_Ellsworth
From: Craig Markwardt on 14 Jul 2010 11:55 On Jul 10, 12:57 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. This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread. As noted by Mark L. Ferguson now - and myself a year ago - you have assumed something which is not SR as your starting point, and thus, your conclusions are irrelevant regarding SR. Your fundamental error is that you assumed that somehow the clocks attached to the moving "spacecraft" were simultaneously synchronized in the spacecraft frame and a "universal" frame. Since this is impossible in SR, your conclusions are invalid. Even a marginally knowledgable reviewer should have picked up on this. The irony is that your paper does attempt to derive the up- and down- link times using the principles of SR in section 2, but then you immediately discard the results because it does not provide the answer you desire. The truth is that - assuming the principles of SR - the up- and down-link times *will* be different as measured by observers co-moving in two different frames with their own co-moving clocks. In fact, by exchanging up- and down-link timing information after the observations were taken, the two observers could estimate their relative velocity. But this is not a measurement of "absolute" motion. That is, unless you could have already placed one observer at "absolute rest" before the experiment started, which presupposes what you are trying to measure in the first place. This was noted one year ago, but you ignored it. The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not relevant. I am sorry that the refereeing system failed in this case. CM
From: NoEinstein on 14 Jul 2010 19:46
On Jul 14, 5:51 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Dear JT: You preface by saying that you know nothing about physics. Then, you claim that physical rotating a space ship 10,000 RPM won't impose stress on the occupants. So, you prove your own point: You don't know anything about physics! The laws of physics don't require closeness to mass for their existence. In most likelihood, every person on your spaceship would be dead, from draining their blood from their brain, or stopping their heart because of the compressive forces put on the bodies. The best way for you to learn physics is to observe what happens in real life. Put a rat in a cage and spin it 10K rpm, and the rat dies. Of course that same thing will happen halfway between galaxies. NoEinstein > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "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.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > physic but to me it seem like the centrifugal and centripetal force > only is adjacent when you have rotation within a gravitational field. > So rotational forces is the result of a body trying to break out from > the ruling gravitational field. > > A ship in deepspace rotating at a 100 000 RPM versus earth will put no > strain or forces upon the inhabitants nor the ship.......... > It is only when the ship get close to a big gravitational body the g- > forces will start to act upon both ship and its inhabitants. > > This could all be wrong, but then there probably is a centra of > gravity in the universe so absolute rotation can be measured even in > deep space far away from gravitational attractors. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |