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: Androcles on 16 Jul 2010 18:42 "Craig Markwardt" <craig.markwardt(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:54258e84-c421-4040-8d56-08aa45185817(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com... On Jul 16, 4:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 16, 11:26 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > Dear Long-Winded Craig: E = mc^2 / [1 - v^2 / c^2]^1/2 has only one > VARIABLE, 'v'. Increase the velocity UNIFORMLY, or linearly, and > Einstein has the output ENERGY, E, increasing exponentially. Huh? You probably need to check your algebra more carefully before claiming the formula increases "exponentially." CM x^b defines b as an exponent. You probably need to check your definitions more carefully before claiming the formula doesn't increase "exponentially."
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 19:56 On 7/16/10 4:29 PM, JT wrote: > On 16 Juli, 23:03, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> GRAVITATION AND INERTIA >>> by Ignazio Ciufolini and John Archibald Wheeler >>> Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ 1995 >>> QC173.59.G44C58 1995 530.1'1--dc20 94-29874 CIP >>> ISBN 0-691-03323-4 >> >>> In the first chapter Ciufolini and Wheeler introduce concepts and ideas >>> of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity which are developed in the >>> book. Part of the introductory material is reproduced here. >> >>> "Gravity is not a foreign and physical force transmitted through space >>> and time. It is a manifestation of the curvature of spacetime." That, >>> in a nutshell, is Einstein's theory. >> >>> What this theory is and what it means, we grasp more fully by looking >>> at its intellectual antecedents. First, there was the idea of Riemann >>> that space, telling mass how to move, must itself--by the principle of >>> action and reaction--be affected by mass. It cannot be an ideal >>> Euclidean perfection, standing in high mightiness above the battles of >>> matter and energy. Space geometry must be a participant in the world of >>> physics. Second, there was the contention of Ernst Mach that the >>> "acceleration relative to absolute space" of Newton is only properly >>> understood when it is viewed as acceleration relative to the sole >>> significant mass there really is, the distant stars. According to this >>> "Mach principle," inertia here arises from mass there. Third was that >>> great insight of Einstein that we summarize in the phrase "free fall is >>> free float": the equivalence principle, one of the best-tested >>> principles in physics, from the inclined tables of Galilei and the >>> pendulum experiments of Galilei, Huygens, and Newton to the highly >>> accurate torsion balance measurements of the twentieth century, and the >>> Lunar Laser Ranging experiment. With those three clues vibrating in his >>> head, the magic of the mind opened to Einstein what remains one of >>> mankind's most precious insights: gravity in manifestation of spacetime >>> curvature. >> >>> Euclid's (active around 300 B.C.) fifth postulate states that, given >>> any straight line and any point not on it, we can draw through that >>> point one and only one straight line parallel to the given line, that >>> is, a line that will never meet the given one (this alternative >>> formulation of the fifth postulate is essentially due to Proclos). This >>> is the parallel postulate. In the early 1800s the discussion grew >>> lively about whether the properties of parallel lines as presupposed in >>> Euclidean geometry could be derived from the other postulate and >>> axioms, or whether the parallel postulate had to be assumed >>> independently. More than two thousand years after Euclid, Karl >>> Friedrich Gauss, Jnos Bolyai, and Nikolai Ivanovich Lobacevskij >>> discovered pencil-and paper geometric systems that satisfy all the >>> axioms and postulates of Euclidean geometry except the parallel >>> postulate. These geometries showed not only the parallel postulate must >>> be assumed in order to obtain Euclidean geometry but, more important, >>> that non-Euclidean geometries as mathematical abstractions can and do >>> exist. >> >>> Consider the two-dimensional surface of a sphere, itself embedded in >>> the three-dimensional space geometry of everyday existence. Euclid's >>> system accurately describes the geometry of ordinary three-dimensional >>> space, but not the geometry on the surface of a sphere. Let us consider >>> two lines locally parallel on the surface of a sphere. They propagate >>> on the surface as straight as any lines could possibly be, they bend in >>> their courses one whit neither to left or right. Yet they meet and >>> cross. Clearly, geodesic lines (on a surface, a geodesic is the >>> shortest line between two nearby points) on the curved surface of a >>> sphere do not obey Euclid's parallel postulate. >> >>> The thoughts of the great mathematician Karl Friedrich Gauss about >>> curvature stemmed not from theoretical spheres drawn on paper but from >>> concrete, down-to-Earth measurements. Commissioned by the government in >>> 1827 to make a survey map of the region for miles around Gttingen, he >>> found that the sum of the angles in his largest survey triangle was >>> different from 180. The deviation from 180 observed by Gauss--almost 15 >>> seconds of arc--was both inescapable evidence for and a measure of the >>> curvature of the surface of Earth. >> >>> To recognize that straight and initially parallel lines on the surface >>> of a sphere can meet was the first step in exploring the idea of a >>> curved space. Second came the discovery of Gauss that we do not need to >>> consider a sphere or other two-dimensional surface to be embedded in a >>> three-dimensional space to define its geometry. It is enough to >>> consider measurements made entirely within that two-dimensional >>> geometry, such as, would be made by an ant forever restricted to live >>> on that surface. The ant would know that the surface is curved by >>> measuring that the sum of the internal angles of a large triangle >>> differs from 180, or by measuring that the ratio between a large >>> circumference and its radius R differs from 2 pi. >> >>> Gauss did not limit himself to thinking of a curved two-dimensional >>> surface floating in a flat three-dimensional universe. In an 1824 >>> letter to Ferdinand Karl Schweikart, he dared to conceive that space >>> itself is curved: "Indeed I have therefore from time to time in jest >>> expressed the desire that Euclidean geometry would not be correct." He >>> also wrote: "Although geometers have given much attention to general >>> investigations of curved surfaces and their results cover a significant >>> portion of the domain of higher geometry, this subject is still so far >>> from being exhausted, that it can well be said that, up to this time, >>> but a small portion of an exceedingly fruitful field has been >>> cultivated" (Royal Society of Gttingen, 8 October 1827). The >>> inspiration of these thoughts, dreams, and hopes passed from Gauss to >>> his student, Bernhard Riemann. >> >>> Bernhard Riemann went on to generalize the ideas of Gauss so that they >>> could be used to describe curved spaces of three or more dimensions. >>> Gauss had found that the curvature in the neighborhood of a given point >>> of a specified two-dimensional space geometry is given by a single >>> number: the Gaussian curvature. Riemann found that six numbers are >>> needed to describe the curvature of a three-dimensional space at a >>> given point, and that 20 numbers at each point are required for a >>> four-dimensional geometry: the 20 independent components of the >>> so-called Riemann curvature tensor. >> >>> In a famous lecture he gave 10 June 1854, entitled On the Hypothesis >>> That Lie at the Foundations of Geometry, Riemann emphasized that the >>> truth about space is to be discovered not from perusal of the >>> 2000-year-old books of Euclid but from physical experience. He pointed >>> out that space could be highly irregular at very small distances and >>> yet appear smooth at everyday distances. At very great distances, he >>> also noted, large-scale curvature of space might show up, perhaps even >>> bending the universe into a closed system like a gigantic ball. He >>> wrote: "Space [in the large] if one ascribes to it a constant >>> curvature, is necessarily finite, provided only that this curvature has >>> a positive value, however small.... It is quite conceivable that the >>> geometry of space in the very small does not satisfy the axioms of >>> [Euclidean] geometry.... The curvature in the three directions can have >>> arbitrary values if only the entire curvature for every sizable region >>> of space does not differ greatly from zero.... The properties which >>> distinguish space from other conceivable triply-extended magnitudes are >>> only to be deduced from experience." >> >>> But as Einstein was later to remark, "Physicists were still far removed >>> from such a way of thinking: space was still, for them, a rigid, >>> homogeneous something, susceptible of no change or conditions. Only the >>> genius of Riemann, solitary and uncomprehended, had already won its way >>> by the middle of the last century to a new conception of space, in >>> which space was deprived of its rigidity, and in which its power to >>> take part in physical events was recognized as possible." >> >>> Even as the 39-year-old Riemann lay dying of tuberculosis at Selasca on >>> Lake Maggiore in the summer of 1866, having already achieved his great >>> mathematical description of space curvature, he was working on a >>> unified description of electromagnetism and gravitation. Why then did >>> he not, half a century before Einstein, arrive at a geometric account >>> of gravity? No obstacle in his way was greater than this: he thought >>> only of space and the curvature of space, whereas Einstein discovered >>> that he had to deal with spacetime and the spacetime curvature. >> >>> Einstein could not thank Riemann, who ought to have been still alive. A >>> letter of warm thanks he did, however, write to Mach. In it he >>> explained how mass there does indeed influence inertia here, through >>> its influence on the enveloping spacetime geometry. Einstein's >>> geometrodynamics had transmuted Mach's bit of philosophy into a bit of >>> physics, susceptible to calculation, prediction, and test. >> >>> Let us bring out the main idea in what we may call poor man's >>> language. Inertia here, in the sense of local inertial frames, that is >>> the grip of spacetime here on mass here, is fully defined by the >>> geometry, the curvature, the structure of spacetime here. The geometry >>> here, however, has to fit smoothly to the geometry of the immediate >>> surroundings; those domains, onto their surroundings; and so on, all >>> the way around the great curve of space. Moreover, the geometry in each >>> local region responds in its curvature to the mass in that region. >>> Therefore every bit of momentum-energy, wherever located, makes its >>> influence felt on the geometry of space throughout the whole >>> universe--and felt, thus, on inertia right here. >> >>> The bumpy surface of a potato is easy to picture. It is the >>> two-dimensional analogue of a bumpy three-sphere, the space geometry of >>> a universe loaded irregularly here and there with concentrations and >>> distributions of momentum-energy. If the spacetime has a Cauchy >>> surface, that three-geometry once known--mathematical solutions as it >>> is of the so-called initial-value problem of geometrodynamics--the >>> future evolution of that geometry follows straightforwardly and >>> deterministically. >> >>> In other words, inertia (local inertial frames) everywhere and at all >>> times is toally fixed, specified, determined, by the initial >>> distribution of momentum-energy, of mass and mass-in-motion. The >>> mathematics cries out with all the force at its command that mass there >>> does determine inertia here. >> >>> One exciting experiment to be performed by the turn of the century will >>> be the measurement of frame-dragging by the Earth as it rotates. It is >>> estimated that the gravitational effect of the rotating Earth on the >>> local spacetime nearby is a measurable effect [330 milliarcsec per >>> year]. The mass of the Earth has about 0.698 billionth total voting >>> power as the rest of the universe on our local spacetime! > > Your answer it just loads of hogwash and i am pretty sure you are > aware it do not answer anything. > You are now down on the simplest bot level that of reharshing > meaningless citations out of context. > > Good luck. > > JT Try This JT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach's_principle
From: GSS on 17 Jul 2010 14:08 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: .... >>> 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. > >> At the end of section 2 I have stated, "The inability to directly >> measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary >> reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is >> a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding >> clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of >> SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second >> postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful >> detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second >> postulate of SR." > >> You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the >> infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal >> contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that >> there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been >> demonstrated the way you want it. > > What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally > consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what > there is left to discuss. No, I have only stated that *there are no mathematical contradictions in SR*. If the founding postulates (initial ASSUMPTIONS) of SR were true then it could have become a consistent and successful theory. Since there is no logical support to the second postulate of SR, I am proposing to experimentally verify or invalidate it. For doing that I am adopting a perfectly scientific methodology and there can be no logical objection to it. > 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. > By making this additional assumption, you > created a new theory - call it "not relativity." What you claim to > measure in your proposed experiment regarding "not relativity" will be > absolutely irrelevant to the postulates of SR, because you accepted > different postulates. > This is an utterly false and incoherent statement which does not mean anything. >>> 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. > >> There is a logical flaw in your argument. Since the proposed >> experiment is primarily aimed at showing the invalidity of the second >> postulate of SR, logically I cannot ASSUME THAT EINSTEINIAN RELATIVITY >> IS TRUE. ... > > Huh? You might be having problems understanding logic. See above, > and discussion from a year ago, about "proof by contradiction." The > best your experiment+theory could do is disprove your assumptions, > i.e. disprove Newtonian relativity. > Let me illustrate this logic with a little crude example. Consider a person cutting a thick dried up branch of a big tree. Obviously, he cannot *afford* to sit on that dried up branch and then cut it!! Similarly you cannot expect me to become a blind follower of Relativity and then try to invalidate it!! > >> Kindly remember that we are not discussing some theoretical paper, the >> conclusions of which could be disputed or disagreed to. ... > > You are in error. Your "proposed experiment" is based on faulty > premises which lead to a faulty measurement theory. No. My premises are the Newtonian notions of absolute time which do not lead to any 'faulty measurement theory'. By the way, which 'faulty' measurement theory are you talking about? The *only* measurement used in the proposed experiment is the automated digital recording of different time readouts from precision atomic clocks. Kindly let me know if there is some *more correct* way for obtaining such digital recording. > Your proposed > experimental setup is not disagreeable, but the theoretical basis > under which it would be interpreted is irrelevant. > >> (a) If the results of an actual experiment confirm the predicted >> results illustrated at figures 3 and 4, will you gracefully agree that >> the second postulate of SR has been invalidated? Or will you try your >> level best to search for some lame excuse for not accepting the >> results? > This is an extremely important part of our dialogue. Please answer it. >> (b) Using your knowledge of SR and GR, can you predict the result of >> the proposed experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to >> and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| expected under Relativity; especially >> if YOU expect them to be much DIFFERENT from zero? > > It is my understanding of SR and GR that an experiment such as your > proposed setup, with clocks and receivers non-moving in the > terrestrial frame, the light time of the two legs should be equal in > duration, regardless of the motion of the earth. Ignoring other > effects such as Sagnac, variations in propagation media, etc, a > measurement of a different value could point to a contradiction within > SR/GR, but not necessarily a single postulate. > Kindly spell out, what sort of contradiction you expect other than the invalidity of the second postulate. If we assume the speed of light c to be an isotropic constant in ECI frame, as is currently being assumed, then the the maximum difference in the to and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| cannot be much DIFFERENT from zero. >> (c) We know that the two clocks A and B fixed on the surface of earth, >> can be seen to be MOVING at DIFFERENT velocities in the ECI, BCRF and >> Galactic Reference Frames. Do you think this fact can CONFUSE the two >> clocks whether they should display the *time* of ECI or BCRF or of >> Galactic Reference Frames? > > Huh? Clocks do not get "confused." "Displaying the time" is a > human social convention. A cloud of cesium atoms fixed in a > terrestrial lab would emit radiation at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 > Hz, as measured in the lab frame. A frequency counter could be used to > show clock "ticks." Another observer at rest with respect to the > solar system barycenter with his own cesium clock would see the same > frequency from his own clock. However he would see a different > frequency from the lab clock, and would note that his clock would > drift out of synchronization with the lab clock. > > CM OK, let me put it slightly differently. We know that the two atomic clocks fixed on the surface of earth are actually not at rest in *ANY* inertial reference frame because of the rotational and orbital motion of the earth. Will the digital time readouts of these two clocks actually correspond to *ANY* inertial reference frame at all? More fundamentally, is it necessary that the digital time readouts of these two clocks must correspond to one or the other inertial reference frame? If not, then what is the relevance of considering synchronization of clocks in different reference frames in the proposed experiment? GSS
From: Androcles on 17 Jul 2010 14:20 "GSS" <gurcharn_sandhu(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:3ea0c941-3192-4033-8e49-3a2d46ae7aed(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com... 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: .... >>> 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. > >> At the end of section 2 I have stated, "The inability to directly >> measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary >> reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is >> a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding >> clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of >> SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second >> postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful >> detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second >> postulate of SR." > >> You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the >> infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal >> contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that >> there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been >> demonstrated the way you want it. > > What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally > consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what > there is left to discuss. No, I have only stated that *there are no mathematical contradictions in SR*. =========================================== Yes there are. 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c is a contradiction of "constant velocity". There is no way that go-there-stop-turn-round-go-back-again is a constant velocity.
From: GSS on 18 Jul 2010 08:05
On Jul 17, 11:20 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote: > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > > news:3ea0c941-3192-4033-8e49-3a2d46ae7aed(a)x18g2000pro.googlegroups.com... > 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: > ... > >>> 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. > > >> At the end of section 2 I have stated, "The inability to directly > >> measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary > >> reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is > >> a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding > >> clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of > >> SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second > >> postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful > >> detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second > >> postulate of SR." > > >> You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the > >> infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal > >> contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that > >> there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been > >> demonstrated the way you want it. > > > What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally > > consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what > > there is left to discuss. > > No, I have only stated that *there are no mathematical contradictions > in SR*. > =========================================== > Yes there are. > > 2AB/(t'A-tA) = c is a contradiction of "constant velocity". > > There is no way that go-there-stop-turn-round-go-back-again is a constant > velocity. Yes, I agree that referring to c as a constant velocity is wrong. 'They' say this mistake has crept up during translation from original German to English. Generally c is referred as a constant speed of light propagation. If we treat c as a constant speed, still the above quoted relation involves a 'conceptual mistake'. This conceptual mistake is introduced by way of an arbitrary definition of common time in Einstein's 1905 paper: "We have so far defined only an A time and a B time. We have not defined a common time for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A." |