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: BURT on 19 Jul 2010 23:04 On Jul 19, 5:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question. > You asked: "2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends > on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the > quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?" > > The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been > accepted by scientists for over 500 years. Such Law was agreed to, > but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned > substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) > doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash > that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged > by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning > process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and > the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the > identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = > energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures > involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in > must = to the velocities out. > > Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will > cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He > contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by > being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to > try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error > was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple > acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple > acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two > reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation > for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling > (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big > Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be > exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with... > equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been > better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the > Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if > > > a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY > > > EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! > > > 1. I'm not a school teacher. > > > > But youa school teacher > > > must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of > > > time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of > > > the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, > > > or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. > > > 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one > > variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity > > must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. The most > > > > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > > > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > > > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > > > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > > > > :>) > > > > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > > > > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > > > > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > > > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase > > > > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - There can be extra energy or less as in red shift and blue shift to light and this does not harm the universe. Mitch Raemsch
From: JT on 20 Jul 2010 01:52 On 19 Juli, 16:13, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 18, 12:22 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Dear JT: You said: > > > I thought it was quite clear i was hear to criticise not to contribute. If i wanted to > > contribute i would have sent a bot. > > But you can be assured i would still been firmly resting layback, doing some lazy reading and > > critique from my armchair. > > JT > > Fellow, science is too important to be little more than recreation for > the lazy. If you can't contribute anything, at least don't belittle > those who can and do. NoEinstein > > > > > On 18 Juli, 18:09, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 5:21 pm, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > Nice try, JT. Please list, in the order of importance, your > > > contributions to science. Chatting about science from your "armchair" > > > doesn't count as contributing. NE > > > > > On 16 Juli, 22:21, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:10 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Ha, ha, HA! NE > > > > > > > On 16 Juli, 04:55, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jul 15, 8:16 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > DearJT: Are you drunk? Rotation much beyond 60 per minute would > > > > > > > incapacitate everyone on board. Get off the sauce, man! NoEinstein > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 01:46, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 5:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > DearJT: 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 > > > > > > > > > So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > > > > > > > > 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > > > > > > > > so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > > > > > > > > do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > > > > > > > > The rotation of earth is measured against a fixed point origo, namely > > > > > > > > our sun in euclidian space, using a Cartesian cordinate system if > > > > > > > > earth never would change face relative the sun we would still have an > > > > > > > > orbit but earth would be a nonerotating object by definition. > > > > > > > > > Do you propose that our sun is the origo of the nonerotating Euclidian > > > > > > > > space we travel? > > > > > > > > > OR what is the nonerotating frame of the universe do you try to say > > > > > > > > there is an absolute nonerotational frame in the the universe, i think > > > > > > > > everyone is keen to now what you propose it is. > > > > > > > > > I say rotational forces is only present when something breaks out from > > > > > > > > the ruling gravitational field. > > > > > > > > In deepspace the body will not experience any g-forces, the only thing > > > > > > > > that will let you know that you rotate is the background stars, If you > > > > > > > > propose that there is a g-forces relative these foreign starts you > > > > > > > > will have to invent a new longdistance gravitational force, i am all > > > > > > > > pro that many have proposed such a force. > > > > > > > > > But your handwaving doesn't do it for me. > > > > > > > > > JT > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > ... > > läs mer »- Dölj citerad text - > > - Visa citerad text - There have never been anyone here contritbuting to science, only loudmouth worshippers with low IQ. JT
From: Hayek on 20 Jul 2010 04:19 NoEinstein wrote: > On Jul 19, 11:01 am, Hayek <haye...(a)nospam.xs4all.nl> wrote: >> funkenstein wrote: >>> 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? >> I think he means the average mass distribution around >> the test point. >> >>> 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. >> Enter Mach's principle. This mass distribution sets c by >> means of an inertia causing field, generated by all >> these masses. >> > Really? No! 'c'is determined by the fact the tangential velocity of > the IOTAs (smallest energy units from which all matter is constructed) > is 'c'. The IOTAs are dense inside atoms and determine the valance > rings of the electrons much like magnets can control a mag-lev train. > Anything emitted from atoms, including photons is powered by the > IOTAs, and thus have velocity 'c'. >> As soon as a photon is emitted, its speed is set by this >> inertial field. What else could do it ? Not the lab, not >> the Earth, not the Sun. The inertial field of the Earth, >> is about a few parts of a trillionth of that of the >> surrounding masses, and the mass of the Earth slows the >> speed of light by about a few parts of a trillionth. >> >> So the speed of light is set by all the masses >> surrounding the photon, the other few trillion parts. >> >> The fact that the two way light speed is isotropic for >> any inertially moving observer, stems from the fact that >> these observer's rods and clocks also react to motion in >> this inertial field. >> >> Uwe Hayek. >> >> -- >> We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate >> inversion : the stage where the government is free to do >> anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by >> permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of >> human history. -- Ayn Rand >> >> I predict future happiness for Americans if they can >> prevent the government from wasting the labors of the >> people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- >> Thomas Jefferson. >> >> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of >> ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue >> is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > Hayek: You are held captive by your imagined understanding of science > nonsense which I have easily disproved. By all means, cure yourself first. > The velocity of light is > simply 'c' + or - the velocity of the source. Space-time and mass > distribution has absolutely nothing to do with it! � NoEinstein � Start with shapiro delay. Uwe Hayek. -- We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion : the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history. -- Ayn Rand I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. -- Thomas Jefferson. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. -- Winston Churchill.
From: PD on 20 Jul 2010 10:42 On Jul 19, 7:44 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > On Jul 19, 3:45 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Well PD, even a DUNCE like you can sometimes ask a logical question. > You asked: "2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends > on one variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the > quantity must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy?" > > The reason is simple: The Law of the Conservation of Energy has been > accepted by scientists for over 500 years. I'm sorry, but you'll still have to explain. What does linear dependence on variables have to do with conservation? The law of conservation is not "velocity in = energy out". > Such Law was agreed to, > but not understood, mathematically, by Einstein. Tests which burned > substances in closed glass containers showed that a mass (say wood) > doesn't disappear, it converts into gases, or to water vapor and ash > that continue in the tubing. The total mass and energy are unchanged > by burning; only distributed to different places by the burning > process. If a lump of coal goes into the container, the energy and > the residue will be, say, half as much as if two lumps of the > identical coal were put in. Conceptually, energy in (coal) must = > energy out (heat and light). When there are no high temperatures > involved, a FORCE 'in' must = the force 'out'. Or the velocities in > must = to the velocities out. > > Einstein assumed (wrongly) that a linearly increasing velocity will > cause an exponentially increasing Energy (and mass) to accrue. He > contended that speeding objects became larger and were FLATTENED by > being caught between their own inertia and the forces being applied to > try to keep accelerating the objects. Einstein's most elemental error > was his mistaking acceleration of the acceleration for simple > acceleration. He did such because he wrongly assumed that simple > acceleration was causing an exponential increase in velocity. The two > reasons he got that notion was Newton's miss-writing of the equation > for 'g'; and Coriolis's miss-writing of the KE that accrues in falling > (accelerating) objects. If Newton and Coriolis hadn't goofed, Big > Time, Einstein never would have written his SR equation to be > exponentially increasing. Einstein spent too much time with... > equations, and not enough time doing simple math. If he had been > better at math, he would have realized his SR violated the Law of the > Conservation of Energy. NoEinstein > > > > > > > On Jul 18, 11:30 am, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > On Jul 16, 6:36 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Dear PD, the Half-Confused School Teacher: FINALLY, you agree that if > > > a single variable increases linearly, the quantity (IN AN ENERGY > > > EQUATION, ONLY) must also increase linearly! > > > 1. I'm not a school teacher. > > > > But youa school teacher > > > must know that a DISTANCE, which increases to the second power of > > > time, is NOT an energy equation, and thus does NOT violate the Law of > > > the Conservation of Energy. ENERGY EQUATIONS, ONLY, MUST BE LINEAR, > > > or DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL. Half clear thinking won't cut it, PD. > > > 2. Ah. And why would the rule that if a quantity depends on one > > variable only, and the variable is varied linearly, then the quantity > > must vary linearly too, apply ONLY to energy? > > > > NoEinstein > > > > > On Jul 16, 3:30 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> 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. The most > > > > > basic understanding of math shows that to be a complete violation of > > > > > the Law of the Conservation of Energy. So... SR is shot all to hell, > > > > > by yours truly! Why, then, are you wasting your, and everyone elses > > > > > time to be discussing SR, or Einstein anything? NoEinstein > > > > > :>) > > > > Everybody knows that if you have a quantity that depends on only one > > > > variable, then if you increase the variable linearly, then the > > > > quantity must also increase linearly. Everybody knows that. > > > > > Like in d=(1/2)gt^2, where there is only the variable t. You increase > > > > the time linearly, and the distance must increase... whoops.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: GSS on 20 Jul 2010 13:01
On Jul 19, 3:25 am, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 17, 2:08 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > 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: .... >>> 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. > You are in error: > Assumption G1. "However, as per the Newtonian notion of absolute > time and length, we may define an absolute or universal reference > frame..." > Assumption G2. "Let us further assume that the two spacecrafts A and B > are fitted with appropriate .. mutually synchronized identical atomic > clocks." > Assumption G3. You then proceed in your section 1 to assume that > those clocks are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute" > reference frame. There is some misunderstanding on your part. In section 1, I have no where assumed that the two clocks *are also simultaneously synchronized to the "absolute" reference frame*. > *You* made those extra assumptions. SR specifically does *not* make > those assumptions. In fact, it is a formal logical consequence of the > two postulates of SR that clocks in different inertial frames are not > synchronizable. It is no wonder that if you arrive at contradictory > results. The contradiction arises because *you* made mutually > contradictory assumptions. > No, I did not make any mutually contradictory assumptions. The heading of section 1, "Motion under Newtonian notion of Absolute Time" makes it clear that my analysis of motion in section 1 is based on the Newtonian notion of absolute time. Further, at the end of section 1, I have stated, "However, in our attempt to detect absolute motion or the preferred reference frame, we are essentially attempting to invalidate the second postulate of SR regarding assumed isotropy of the speed of light propagation in all IRF. Any such attempt to invalidate the second postulate is logically not bound to make use of the consequent implications of that postulate, like length contraction and time dilation." > You seem to think that the assumption of Newtonian relativity is > somehow not an assumption, which is bizarre and incorrect. I have made it very clear in this thread as well as in the subject paper that the proposed experiment will yield one result if the assumption of absolute time is valid, and an entirely different result if the second postulate of SR is valid. This makes it an extremely important experiment for invalidation of Relativity. As a scientist with an 'open mind' you must not get scared of the outcome of the proposed experiment and should in fact welcome it in the spirit of Inquiry. You are therefore, requested to respond to some of the most pertinent points of the last post reproduced below. > 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. GSS |