Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #478177 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-11-26 16:01 +0100 |
| Last post | 2018-12-01 07:34 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 79 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-26 16:01 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-26 15:50 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-26 21:48 +0100
Re: One way speed of light "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2018-11-27 07:07 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:09 +0100
Re: One way speed of light JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 13:04 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-26 21:29 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 15:31 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 15:59 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-27 16:26 +0100
Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-27 16:47 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:54 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-27 18:01 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 00:55 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-28 05:14 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:13 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-27 16:44 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-28 16:34 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Lee Primer <itoo@wodinwnc.cg> - 2018-11-28 15:40 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-28 17:20 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-29 20:43 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 20:53 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-29 22:21 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:15 +0100
Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-30 17:23 -0600
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:34 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:17 +0100
Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:32 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-02 13:50 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-02 05:11 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-03 12:23 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-03 18:53 +0000
Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 11:25 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-04 13:04 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-12-03 11:57 -0800
Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800
Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-12-03 13:56 -0800
Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-03 14:13 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:44 +0100
Re: One way speed of light "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-02 07:13 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-12-02 10:28 -0600
Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:42 +0000
Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-12-02 11:08 -0800
Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-12-02 18:49 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:57 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Mole Santiago <msb@awwnuvs.an> - 2018-12-02 18:58 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-02 21:23 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 18:20 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2018-11-29 16:03 -0600
Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 15:03 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:18 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-12-01 15:43 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-02 14:58 +0100
Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-29 23:38 +0000
Re: One way speed of light mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-11-29 16:40 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 03:22 +0000
Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:41 -0500
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 12:13 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-11-30 21:21 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> - 2018-11-30 22:10 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2018-12-01 16:26 +0100
Re: One way speed of light moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-30 23:01 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-30 23:03 +0000
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-12-01 00:43 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:01 +0100
Re: One way speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2018-11-29 02:04 +0100
Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-26 15:51 -0800
Re: One way speed of light Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-11-26 18:53 -0800
Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-27 09:49 -0800
Re: One way speed of light numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2018-11-28 15:11 -0800
Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:19 -0800
Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 14:36 -0800
Re: One way speed of light benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-11-29 22:28 -0500
Re: One way speed of light mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 20:08 -0800
Re: One way speed of light carleto4157990662@gmail.com - 2018-11-29 15:10 -0800
Re: One way speed of light alsor@interia.pl - 2018-11-30 12:48 -0800
Alex Sorokin, persistent imbecile "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> - 2018-12-01 07:34 -0800
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6atr4Fqqu8U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478316 |
Am 28.11.2018 um 18:20 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 27.11.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>> Am 26.11.2018 um 22:29 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> >>>>>>> This two way measurement could easily cancel out any effect (with or >>>>>>> without an ether) because acceleration of one trip would be balanced by >>>>>>> deceleration on the way back. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, actually. It's a high-school-level exercise to see that this is not so. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jan >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> To wit: >>>>> Jimmy can swim at 3 miles per hour with respect to the water. Jimmy decides >>>>> to swim in a river that has a current of 1 mile per hour. He swims upstream >>>>> a quarter mile relative to the shore, and then he turns around and swims >>>>> downstream a quarter mile to his starting point at the shore, a total of a >>>>> half mile swum. What is his average speed relative to the shore for the >>>>> trip? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The swimmer swims faster downstream and slower upstream, because we had >>>> to add the velocity of the water in one case and subtract it in the other. >>>> >>>> The time is an eighth of an hour up and a sixteenth downstream and that >>>> is 675 seconds for a half mile. The result is roughly 1.19 m/s >>> >>> And is his average speed 3 miles per hour? Yes or no? >> >> >> How could you STILL use miles? >> >> >> There average is not 3 miles per hour, since you make an average as >> distance traveled by time needed. > > Exactly. > > And for the same reason, if you have a 2-way light speed measurement such > as the MMX, then even if there were a luminiferous ether that the apparatus > was moving through, so that upstream speed is c-v and downstream speed is > c+v, the average speed for the round trip will not be c. > > Thus, though this was not technically available in 1887, it is now quite > easily attainable to simply do a 2-way light traverse over, say, a couple > hundred meters and TIME the flight of a light pulse and see if the time is > different than c. Because if there were an ether that the apparatus was > moving through with speed v, you’d expect to measure an average speed of c’ > = c(1-(v/c)^2). For v/c = 1/20, then c’ would differ from c by 1/4%, which > for a total distance of, say, 400 m, corresponds to a time resolution of > 3ns, which is VERY doable. No one does it today of course, because the > matter is already settled. But YOU could do it with a pulsed laser in a > long darkened pipe with a couple mirrors, a photodiode, and an > oscilloscope. Light moves round the Earth 7.5 times per second and Earth rotates once per day. The ratio is WAY smaller than 1/20. E.g: we have 86400 s per day to travel 40,000 km (for one rotation along the equator - for instance). That is 2,16 km/s. 2,16/300,000= 0,0000072 The error between a river at rest and a river flowing slowly (or in this case Earth rotating or not) is similar to a VERY narrow triangle, which is not exactly symmetric, but slightly lopsided. The difference is obviously dependent on the geometry of such a triangle or in this case on the ration between speed of light and rotational velocity of the Earth. I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what we could measure even today. Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second independent from the rotation of the Earth. We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth. So there is a conceptual difficulty to define space and time without reference to our home planet. IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an 'ether wind'? Earth rotation seems fine, but is not all that Earth moves relative to. So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is? TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 20:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptpjkr$1e7f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478431 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 28.11.2018 um 18:20 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>> Am 27.11.2018 um 17:44 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >>>>> Am 26.11.2018 um 22:29 schrieb Odd Bodkin: >>>>> >>>>>>>> This two way measurement could easily cancel out any effect (with or >>>>>>>> without an ether) because acceleration of one trip would be balanced by >>>>>>>> deceleration on the way back. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, actually. It's a high-school-level exercise to see that this is not so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Jan >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To wit: >>>>>> Jimmy can swim at 3 miles per hour with respect to the water. Jimmy decides >>>>>> to swim in a river that has a current of 1 mile per hour. He swims upstream >>>>>> a quarter mile relative to the shore, and then he turns around and swims >>>>>> downstream a quarter mile to his starting point at the shore, a total of a >>>>>> half mile swum. What is his average speed relative to the shore for the >>>>>> trip? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The swimmer swims faster downstream and slower upstream, because we had >>>>> to add the velocity of the water in one case and subtract it in the other. >>>>> >>>>> The time is an eighth of an hour up and a sixteenth downstream and that >>>>> is 675 seconds for a half mile. The result is roughly 1.19 m/s >>>> >>>> And is his average speed 3 miles per hour? Yes or no? >>> >>> >>> How could you STILL use miles? >>> >>> >>> There average is not 3 miles per hour, since you make an average as >>> distance traveled by time needed. >> >> Exactly. >> >> And for the same reason, if you have a 2-way light speed measurement such >> as the MMX, then even if there were a luminiferous ether that the apparatus >> was moving through, so that upstream speed is c-v and downstream speed is >> c+v, the average speed for the round trip will not be c. >> >> Thus, though this was not technically available in 1887, it is now quite >> easily attainable to simply do a 2-way light traverse over, say, a couple >> hundred meters and TIME the flight of a light pulse and see if the time is >> different than c. Because if there were an ether that the apparatus was >> moving through with speed v, you’d expect to measure an average speed of c’ >> = c(1-(v/c)^2). For v/c = 1/20, then c’ would differ from c by 1/4%, which >> for a total distance of, say, 400 m, corresponds to a time resolution of >> 3ns, which is VERY doable. No one does it today of course, because the >> matter is already settled. But YOU could do it with a pulsed laser in a >> long darkened pipe with a couple mirrors, a photodiode, and an >> oscilloscope. > > > Light moves round the Earth 7.5 times per second and Earth rotates once > per day. > > The ratio is WAY smaller than 1/20. Yes it is. And the rotational speed of the earth is only 1000 mph = 1470 ft/s, which is a tiny fraction of c, which is 980 million ft/s. But the speed of the earth around the sun is higher, and the speed of the sun around the galaxy is higher yet. So if there is an ether, where do think it is tied to. Certainly not the center of the earth. > > E.g: we have 86400 s per day to travel 40,000 km (for one rotation along > the equator - for instance). That is 2,16 km/s. > 2,16/300,000= 0,0000072 > > The error between a river at rest and a river flowing slowly (or in this > case Earth rotating or not) is similar to a VERY narrow triangle, which > is not exactly symmetric, but slightly lopsided. > > The difference is obviously dependent on the geometry of such a triangle > or in this case on the ration between speed of light and rotational > velocity of the Earth. > > I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what > we could measure even today. No, I don’t think so. Keep in mind that what I gave you was a bone-simple setup for amateurs and not nearly the sophistication that professional efforts can muster. > > > Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second > independent from the rotation of the Earth. > > We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual > environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth. There’s no rational reason to do that. > > So there is a conceptual difficulty to define space and time without > reference to our home planet. > > IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an > 'ether wind'? > > Earth rotation seems fine, but is not all that Earth moves relative to. > > > So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is? > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com.INVALID> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-29 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ptpl8p$ba5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #478431 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message: > I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what > we could measure even today. If what you say is true, the classical prediction for MMX in 1881 and 1887 would be zero result and Michelson would bother to test it. Have you asked yourself the question why it was expected to be measurable ? > > Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second > independent from the rotation of the Earth. > > We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual > environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth. Where have you been in last 51 years ? As since 1967, second is not defined by the Earth rotation and the mean day length does not last exactly 86400 s any more. Read about the leap second. > > IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an > 'ether wind'? The Earth is moving through the supposed aether there and back by cca 30 km/s. That is some wind. But contept of aether had sense when matter and light were considered to be continuous. With both being discontinuous, it lost even its speculative sense. Not speaking about experiments refuting all classical forms of aether. > > So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is? > Since 1967, it is the hyperfine transition of 137Cs kernel via spin-spin interaction of the kernel and unpaired electron spin. -- Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer) "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity." Miloš Forman ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 21:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6dk2jFedt7U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478449 |
Am 29.11.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Libor Striz: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message: > >> I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what >> we could measure even today. > > If what you say is true, > the classical prediction for MMX > in 1881 and 1887 > would be zero result > and Michelson would bother to test it. There was a much enhanced version of the MMX by Kennedy and Thorndike (if I spell that correctly). They did a LOT of things to keep expected influences away from the apparatus. E.g. they evacuated the interferometer and kept it a constant temperature by a difference of less then 0.001 degree. They estimated an effect of about 1/1000 of a fringe due to an eventual 'ether wind'. The original experiment was not remotely as precise and they could not possibly measure anything at all. The problem is: the difference between v=c-x on the way to the mirror and v=c-x on the way back would cancel out, if the relation between speed of light and speed of the 'ether' is very large. That is like trying to measure the pace of a snail from the ISS. Or: in the example with swimming up and down a river, the measurable effect stems from the difference in time in the way up to way down. But 2,2 km is extremely small in comparison to what light could pass in one second. That is as if the river is flowing slower than hair grows. How could you decide, whether or not the hair grows independent of the movement or not? > Have you asked yourself the question why it was expected to be > measurable ? Don't know.. > >> >> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second >> independent from the rotation of the Earth. >> >> We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual >> environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth. > > Where have you been in last 51 years ? > As since 1967, second is not defined by the Earth rotation > and the mean day length does not last exactly 86400 s any more. > > Read about the leap second. >> >> IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an >> 'ether wind'? > > The Earth is moving through the supposed aether > there and back by cca 30 km/s. > That is some wind. Well, yes, but if you compare it with the speed of light, 30 km/s is not that fast. > But contept of aether had sense > when matter and light > were considered to be continuous. > With both being discontinuous, > it lost even its speculative sense. > Not speaking about experiments > refuting all classical forms of aether. > > >> >> So: if rotation is not good enough, then what is? >> > Since 1967, it is the hyperfine transition of 137Cs kernel via > spin-spin interaction of the kernel and unpaired electron > spin. > > Yes. But my question was about the velocity of the 'ether' (not the definition of the second). In respect to what should the velocity of such an ether be measured (and why?) ? I would say, it makes sense to take Earth rotation into account (as cause of such an 'ether wind'). Earth orbit is actually not that obvious. I think, that such an ether would flow from North to South past the Earth surface. Reason: the disk of the solar system performs a screwlike movement along some sort of 'invisible screw', which runs from somewhere near the Polar Star to south. That would generate a flow from North to South - if at all. Then we could think about such an invisible flow from outer space to inside the Earth. This would cause an effect we call 'gravity' and another effect called 'Growing Earth'. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 22:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptsel2$aa6$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #478611 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> writes: >Am 29.11.2018 um 22:21 schrieb Libor Striz: >> Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> Wrote in message: >> >>> I would say, the difference (in two way speed of light) is beyond what >>> we could measure even today. >> >> If what you say is true, >> the classical prediction for MMX >> in 1881 and 1887 >> would be zero result >> and Michelson would bother to test it. >There was a much enhanced version of the MMX by Kennedy and Thorndike >(if I spell that correctly). >They did a LOT of things to keep expected influences away from the >apparatus. >E.g. they evacuated the interferometer and kept it a constant >temperature by a difference of less then 0.001 degree. >They estimated an effect of about 1/1000 of a fringe due to an eventual >'ether wind'. If they wanted to, the LIGO detectors, which are essentially giant super accurate MMX experiments fixed to the earth, could be used to look for this aether wind. However, since it is essentially settled science that the speed of light is fixed, nobody is going to waste the effort doing this. >The original experiment was not remotely as precise and they could not >possibly measure anything at all. >The problem is: >the difference between v=c-x on the way to the mirror and v=c-x on the >way back would cancel out, if the relation between speed of light and >speed of the 'ether' is very large. Wrong. The whole basis behind the MMX experiment was that the harmonic mean speed from c+v and c-v COULD be detected. It would produce a speed difference from c for the two-way trip. The speed couldn't be measured directly but indirectly by producing fringe shifts. >That is like trying to measure the pace of a snail from the ISS. Don't forget the LIGO apparatus, a giant MMX experiment, is measuring changes a fraction of the diameter of a proton over a few km arms length. Compared to that, tracking the snail's speed would be child's play. >Or: in the example with swimming up and down a river, the measurable >effect stems from the difference in time in the way up to way down. >But 2,2 km is extremely small in comparison to what light could pass in >one second. That is as if the river is flowing slower than hair grows. >How could you decide, whether or not the hair grows independent of the >movement or not? Scientists have to be (and frequently are) creative in doing things like that. Michelson and Morley measuring such a tiny deviation from c in the round trip speed of light by fringe shifts, rather than by direct measurement, was brilliant. Especially with late 1800s technology. Although they were famous for 'failure', they indirectly succeeded in showing that light does not move at c+v one way and c-v on return. >> Have you asked yourself the question why it was expected to be >> measurable ? >Don't know.. Because they were very clever at finding a way. >>> Another serious problem arises, if you try to define the second >>> independent from the rotation of the Earth. >>> >>> We actually base our measurements and their units on our usual >>> environment and that is obviously rotating with the Earth. >> >> Where have you been in last 51 years ? >> As since 1967, second is not defined by the Earth rotation >> and the mean day length does not last exactly 86400 s any more. >> >> Read about the leap second. >>> >>> IOW: in respect to what do we want to measure the velocity of such an >>> 'ether wind'? >> >> The Earth is moving through the supposed aether >> there and back by cca 30 km/s. >> That is some wind. >Well, yes, but if you compare it with the speed of light, 30 km/s is >not that fast. 0.0001c. Certainly measurable with good science techniques. >Yes. But my question was about the velocity of the 'ether' (not the >definition of the second). >In respect to what should the velocity of such an ether be measured (and >why?) ? In M-M, with respect to the earth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 17:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1v2dnTAJjJTAW5zBnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #478628 |
On 11/30/18 4:46 PM, Michael Moroney wrote: > If they wanted to, the LIGO detectors, which are essentially giant super > accurate MMX experiments fixed to the earth, could be used to look for > this aether wind. However, since it is essentially settled science that > the speed of light is fixed, nobody is going to waste the effort doing > this. Yes, it is settled science. Nobody will try this because the LIGO interferometers have no sensitivity at a frequency 1/12hours, which is where such an aether wind would be. Note also that if LIGO did have sensitivity comparable to that within its normal frequency range, then it would easily see the gravitational effect from the sun (a calculation I did many years ago out of curiosity). Since the frequencies are the same, it would be difficult to distinguish the sun from an aether wind.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 00:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <33d6ffa9-edab-d88e-ea6f-65895d5e6946@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #478611 |
Thomas Heger wrote: > The [MMX] was not remotely as precise and they could not > possibly measure anything at all. Bullshit. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-11-30 23:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ptshqb$faj$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478637 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: > Thomas Heger wrote: >> The [MMX] was not remotely as precise and they could not >> possibly measure anything at all. > > Bullshit. > It’s remarkable that people like Thomas are just boggled by the idea of a measurement good to a ppb. In their mind, unless it’s an effect larger than a part in a thousand, then it’s just impossible. -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 16:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6fn0kFsajdU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478640 |
Am 01.12.2018 um 00:40 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> wrote: >> Thomas Heger wrote: >>> The [MMX] was not remotely as precise and they could not >>> possibly measure anything at all. >> >> Bullshit. >> > > It’s remarkable that people like Thomas are just boggled by the idea of a > measurement good to a ppb. In their mind, unless it’s an effect larger than > a part in a thousand, then it’s just impossible. > No, not at all. But the MMX was conducted more than a hundred years ago with technology not even then state of the art. But I have more 'conceptual' doubts. The assumed result was: there is no ether, because there is no shift of interference patterns. But COULD there be shifts? There are two assumptions and the experiment was made to decide between those possibilities: a) there is no ether b) there is an ether and its movement past the surface of the Earth is measurable by the experiment. The possibility b) would assume, that v_light=c - v_ether in one direction and v_light_back=c + v_ether in the other. The speed of light is roughly 150,000 times faster than the ether is expected to flow past the surface of the Earth. This is like a perfect standstill in comparison in our usual view about such relations. So: how large would be the effect, which the device could eventually measure? If light is not effected by ether, the time needed back and force would be equal. If there is an ether, the time back and force would also be equal, if light would move with infinite velocity or if the speed of the ether is zero. But since the speed of light is not infinite, the average time has a tiny amount more of the time from the movement into direction of the mirror than on the way back. Since the velocity is a tiny bit different, this tiny bit of more time in one direction has a tiny bit of influence on the very small difference in velocity, hence spoils the average a tiny tiny bit. This small difference from the average is actually, what distinguishes a) from b). And that is nothing they could eventually measure at that time (prior to lasers, computers and other useful stuff). TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono," <sa_ge@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-01 07:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4e6d8166-8e5c-4e1c-97c4-8c60686a31fa@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478680 |
On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: > > But the MMX was conducted more than a hundred years ago with technology > not even then state of the art. > Crank, There re literally hundreds of MMX re-enactments with ever increasing precision and modernized technology. Learn. Stop posting idiocies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 13:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6i2o7FdlrlU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478683 |
Am 01.12.2018 um 16:32 schrieb Dono,: > On Saturday, December 1, 2018 at 7:17:43 AM UTC-8, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> But the MMX was conducted more than a hundred years ago with technology >> not even then state of the art. >> > > > Crank, > > There re literally hundreds of MMX re-enactments with ever increasing precision and modernized technology. Learn. Stop posting idiocies. > As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'. (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried to show in my OP.) If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, whether or not there is an ether (or not). The reason: if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same amount on the way back. There is only a tiny difference, since the light needs more additional time on the way to the mirror, than what is gained on the way back. Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a little more time. The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. The arm-length was about 1.2 m, but the beam was reflected four times, what resulted in 11m light-path. That takes about 32 ns and the half is 16ns. Within this 16 ns the beam is about 2,2 km/s slower (and about 2,2 km/s faster on the way back for 16ns- 16ns/150,000) than the usual speed of light in air. This does not add up perfectly, since for 16 ns light is actually moving 2km/s slower, hence uses on average more time on the way to the mirror than on the way back. ONLY: this effect is extremely small, since you need to multiply the ratio 1/150,000 (as effect of ether drift) by an also extremely small ratio as outcome of the very short interval (16 ns). In a geometric analogy: the arc-length is longer than the sinus. But if the angle of the arc/the corresponding triangle is very small, the difference is very small. And this small difference needs to be compared to the speed of light, since what the interferometer tries to measure is a shift of interference patterns. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-02 05:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6cb2fe24-5bfc-41d8-8b0d-118f4b55480f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478752 |
On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:50:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'. The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes it. > (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried > to show in my OP.) How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? SR predicts that you don't. > If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, > whether or not there is an ether (or not). BAloney! > The reason: > if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would > have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from > the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same > amount on the way back. But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can demonstrate. > There is only a tiny difference, since the light needs more additional > time on the way to the mirror, than what is gained on the way back. That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the mirror is from the source. > Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a > little more time. > > The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from > light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? > The arm-length was about 1.2 m, but the beam was reflected four times, > what resulted in 11m light-path. That takes about 32 ns and the half is > 16ns. > > Within this 16 ns the beam is about 2,2 km/s slower (and about 2,2 km/s > faster on the way back for 16ns- 16ns/150,000) than the usual speed of > light in air. > > This does not add up perfectly, since for 16 ns light is actually moving > 2km/s slower, hence uses on average more time on the way to the mirror > than on the way back. > > ONLY: this effect is extremely small, since you need to multiply the > ratio 1/150,000 (as effect of ether drift) by an also extremely small > ratio as outcome of the very short interval (16 ns). Irrelevant. > In a geometric analogy: the arc-length is longer than the sinus. But if > the angle of the arc/the corresponding triangle is very small, the > difference is very small. > > And this small difference needs to be compared to the speed of light, > since what the interferometer tries to measure is a shift of > interference patterns. > > TH Nope. You obviously don't understand the experiment. The MMX was capable of detecting a 30 km/sec difference in SoL. The sensitivity was about one fourth of that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 12:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6ki1dFu7csU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478753 |
Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:50:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >> >> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'. > > The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting > point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the > Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport > method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of > them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes > it. > >> (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried >> to show in my OP.) > > How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? > SR predicts that you don't. The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the stripes on both wheels. Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any input. The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This frequency is constantly measured at on wheel. This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one in the experiment. The frequency is wanted for the rotor speed, at what the intensity of the reflected beam is lowest. Then we have this sequence for the beam: -the beam is reflected to the first wheel -hits a gap between the stripes - gets reflected from the wheel to a little mirror -is mirrored towards the second wheel - gets delayed due to speed of light - gets mirrored towards the second wheel - hits a stripe - the beam intensity is lowest The frequency of stripes can be measured and the distance is known. From this you could calculate the speed of light (one way/one clock). >> If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, >> whether or not there is an ether (or not). > > BAloney! > >> The reason: >> if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would >> have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from >> the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same >> amount on the way back. > > But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can > demonstrate. The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light (on the way towards and back). But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to distinguish between both possibilities. Reason: both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost the same result. There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000 > That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the > mirror is from the source. That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only 1.3m (used four times). >> Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a >> little more time. >> >> The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from >> light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. > > Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? Lots... But these 16ns is not the measured result. The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way towards the mirror than on the way back. On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These cancel out. But since the beam is 2,2 km slower than c (that was the assumption, which we wanted to test), it collects within these 16ns a certain number of waves more in the distance traveled than on the other way are lost. A geometric analogy would be the difference between the arc-length of an arc on a unit circle and the sinus of a similar triangle. The sinus is 1/150,000. How much longer is than the arc? Not that much, since the triangle is so narrow. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pu3u35$as3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #478854 |
Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: > Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: >> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:50:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>> >>> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'. >> >> The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting >> point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the >> Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport >> method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of >> them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes >> it. >> >>> (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried >>> to show in my OP.) >> >> How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? >> SR predicts that you don't. > > > The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the > stripes on both wheels. And that’s the point. Arbitrarily high rigidity is an imagined condition that violates laws of physics. Because signals can travel at c at most, then if you have two wheels separated by, say, five feet, then a change in one wheel’s motion will at not produce ANY change in the other wheel’s motion for at least 5 nanoseconds. (In actuality it’s much longer than that, 300 microseconds in steel because it’s bound by speed of sound) There is no way, not just in practicality but also in principle, to have a system with rigidity higher than that. > > Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a > little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any input. > > The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This > frequency is constantly measured at on wheel. > > This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one > in the experiment. > > The frequency is wanted for the rotor speed, at what the intensity of > the reflected beam is lowest. Then we have this sequence for the beam: > > -the beam is reflected to the first wheel > -hits a gap between the stripes > - gets reflected from the wheel to a little mirror > -is mirrored towards the second wheel > - gets delayed due to speed of light > - gets mirrored towards the second wheel > - hits a stripe > - the beam intensity is lowest > > The frequency of stripes can be measured and the distance is known. > > From this you could calculate the speed of light (one way/one clock). > > > > >>> If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, >>> whether or not there is an ether (or not). >> >> BAloney! >> >>> The reason: >>> if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would >>> have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from >>> the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same >>> amount on the way back. >> >> But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can >> demonstrate. > > > The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of > light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light > (on the way towards and back). > > But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to > distinguish between both possibilities. > > Reason: > both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost > the same result. > > There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very > small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give > us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000 > >> That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the >> mirror is from the source. > > > That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only > 1.3m (used four times). > >>> Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a >>> little more time. >>> >>> The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from >>> light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. >> >> Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? > Lots... > > But these 16ns is not the measured result. > > The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are > added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way > towards the mirror than on the way back. > > On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These > cancel out. > > But since the beam is 2,2 km slower than c (that was the assumption, > which we wanted to test), it collects within these 16ns a certain number > of waves more in the distance traveled than on the other way are lost. > > A geometric analogy would be the difference between the arc-length of an > arc on a unit circle and the sinus of a similar triangle. > > The sinus is 1/150,000. How much longer is than the arc? > > > > Not that much, since the triangle is so narrow. > > > TH > -- Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <595c5d79-f496-46d7-85ca-182b9a9aa93a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478907 |
The speed of light is an absolute through all directions in the lower three dimensions. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-04 13:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <g6n8q0FjqcjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #478907 |
Am 03.12.2018 um 19:53 schrieb Odd Bodkin: > Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> wrote: >> Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: >>> On Sunday, December 2, 2018 at 5:50:18 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: >>>> >>>> As far as I know, there was never any 'one-way-speed-of-light-experiment'. >>> >>> The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting >>> point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the >>> Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport >>> method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of >>> them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes >>> it. >>> >>>> (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried >>>> to show in my OP.) >>> >>> How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? >>> SR predicts that you don't. >> >> >> The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the >> stripes on both wheels. > > And that’s the point. Arbitrarily high rigidity is an imagined condition > that violates laws of physics. Because signals can travel at c at most, > then if you have two wheels separated by, say, five feet, then a change in > one wheel’s motion will at not produce ANY change in the other wheel’s > motion for at least 5 nanoseconds. (In actuality it’s much longer than > that, 300 microseconds in steel because it’s bound by speed of sound) There > is no way, not just in practicality but also in principle, to have a system > with rigidity higher than that. > >> I think about something similar in size to a turbine in a power-plant. Turbines are large and very precise devices. Companies like e.g. Siemens have a lot of experience with making turbines, hence should be able to produce a device with enough rigidity. It is actually a question of precision in the manufacturing, the amount of material and the specific design. I would guess, it should be possible to make something, that dose not twist or flutter at high velocities. But my experience is actually limited in the realm of high speed turbines. Maybe you ask Siemens or -for instance- someone from Boing. TH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 11:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <89eeaa28-4899-4aba-bfcd-a55a05a086da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478854 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 4:23:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting > > point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the > > Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport > > method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of > > them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes > > it. > > > > > (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried > > > to show in my OP.) > > > > How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? > > SR predicts that you don't. > > The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the > stripes on both wheels. It the same problem as synchronization by light signals. You DO realize that e/m forces govern "rigid" matter, don't you? > Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a > little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any input. Oh, the problem is greater than mere torsion. > The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This > frequency is constantly measured at on wheel. > > This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one > in the experiment. Since it's not on the wheels, then you really don't know what the sync is. > > > If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, > > > whether or not there is an ether (or not). > > > > BAloney! > > > > > The reason: > > > if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would > > > have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from > > > the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same > > > amount on the way back. > > > > But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can > > demonstrate. > > The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of > light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light > (on the way towards and back). > > But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to > distinguish between both possibilities. > > Reason: > both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost > the same result. > > There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very > small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give > us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000 > > > That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the > > mirror is from the source. > > That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only > 1.3m (used four times). One can only conclude that you are completely oblivious to the science behind the MMX. > > > Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a > > > little more time. > > > > > > The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from > > > light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. > > > > Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? Lots... > > But these 16ns is not the measured result. The MMX doesn't measure time. It measures phase shift. > The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are > added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way > towards the mirror than on the way back. That is total bull plop. It's obvious that you are completely oblivious to the science behind the MMX. > On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These > cancel out. In the absence of an ether, yes. > [Baloney deleted]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 13:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bc09c807-f992-4d14-93bf-958b50642a7b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478927 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 3 grudnia 2018 20:57:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 4:23:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting > > > point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the > > > Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport > > > method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of > > > them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes > > > it. > > > > > > > (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried > > > > to show in my OP.) > > > > > > How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? > > > SR predicts that you don't. > > > > The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the > > stripes on both wheels. > > It the same problem as synchronization by light signals. You DO realize > that e/m forces govern "rigid" matter, don't you? > > > Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a > > little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any input. > > Oh, the problem is greater than mere torsion. > > > The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This > > frequency is constantly measured at on wheel. > > > > This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one > > in the experiment. > > Since it's not on the wheels, then you really don't know what the sync is. > > > > > If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, > > > > whether or not there is an ether (or not). > > > > > > BAloney! > > > > > > > The reason: > > > > if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would > > > > have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from > > > > the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same > > > > amount on the way back. > > > > > > But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can > > > demonstrate. > > > > The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of > > light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light > > (on the way towards and back). > > > > But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to > > distinguish between both possibilities. > > > > Reason: > > both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost > > the same result. > > > > There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very > > small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give > > us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000 > > > > > That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the > > > mirror is from the source. > > > > That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only > > 1.3m (used four times). > > One can only conclude that you are completely oblivious to the science > behind the MMX. > > > > > Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a > > > > little more time. > > > > > > > > The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from > > > > light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. > > > > > > Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? Lots... > > > > But these 16ns is not the measured result. > > The MMX doesn't measure time. It measures phase shift. > > > The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are > > added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way > > towards the mirror than on the way back. > > That is total bull plop. It's obvious that you are completely oblivious > to the science behind the MMX. > > > On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These > > cancel out. > > In the absence of an ether, yes. > > > [Baloney deleted] Your proposed measurement of the one-way speed is in fact not Your, but proposed and realized by Stefan Marinov long time ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov This method is rather still wrong, due to the Lorentz contraction. In fact no method exists to measure one-way in the local + vacuum conditions. One a simple and good method is MM - type of method but not with vacuum. The phase shift is lowered about: sqrt(n^2 -1) factor, hence Michelson measured 8 km/s, not 400-500 km/s. for air: n = 1.0003, hence: sqrt(1.0003^2-1) =~ 1/40 thus Michelson get in fact: 40 times bigger speed: 40 x 8 = 320 km/s So, the one-way light speed has been measured correctly long time ago. The end of story.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mitchrae3323@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 13:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bf0acd1a-a60f-4017-9385-f9c1b6938e67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478936 |
On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:29:00 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 3 grudnia 2018 20:57:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 4:23:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > > The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting > > > > point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the > > > > Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport > > > > method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of > > > > them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried > > > > > to show in my OP.) > > > > > > > > How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? > > > > SR predicts that you don't. > > > > > > The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the > > > stripes on both wheels. > > > > It the same problem as synchronization by light signals. You DO realize > > that e/m forces govern "rigid" matter, don't you? > > > > > Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a > > > little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any input. > > > > Oh, the problem is greater than mere torsion. > > > > > The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This > > > frequency is constantly measured at on wheel. > > > > > > This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one > > > in the experiment. > > > > Since it's not on the wheels, then you really don't know what the sync is. > > > > > > > If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, > > > > > whether or not there is an ether (or not). > > > > > > > > BAloney! > > > > > > > > > The reason: > > > > > if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would > > > > > have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from > > > > > the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same > > > > > amount on the way back. > > > > > > > > But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can > > > > demonstrate. > > > > > > The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of > > > light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light > > > (on the way towards and back). > > > > > > But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to > > > distinguish between both possibilities. > > > > > > Reason: > > > both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost > > > the same result. > > > > > > There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very > > > small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give > > > us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000 > > > > > > > That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the > > > > mirror is from the source. > > > > > > That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only > > > 1.3m (used four times). > > > > One can only conclude that you are completely oblivious to the science > > behind the MMX. > > > > > > > Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a > > > > > little more time. > > > > > > > > > > The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from > > > > > light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. > > > > > > > > Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? Lots... > > > > > > But these 16ns is not the measured result. > > > > The MMX doesn't measure time. It measures phase shift. > > > > > The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are > > > added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way > > > towards the mirror than on the way back. > > > > That is total bull plop. It's obvious that you are completely oblivious > > to the science behind the MMX. > > > > > On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These > > > cancel out. > > > > In the absence of an ether, yes. > > > > > [Baloney deleted] > > Your proposed measurement of the one-way speed is in fact not Your, > but proposed and realized by Stefan Marinov long time ago. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov > > This method is rather still wrong, due to the Lorentz contraction. > > In fact no method exists to measure one-way in the local + vacuum conditions. > > One a simple and good method is MM - type of method but not with vacuum. > The phase shift is lowered about: > sqrt(n^2 -1) factor, > > hence Michelson measured 8 km/s, not 400-500 km/s. > > for air: n = 1.0003, hence: sqrt(1.0003^2-1) =~ 1/40 > > thus Michelson get in fact: 40 times bigger speed: > 40 x 8 = 320 km/s > > So, the one-way light speed has been measured correctly long time ago. > > The end of story. Not by any complete accuracy... experiments never have it... right science...? Look at that as big principle in the quantum mechanics. Mitchell Raemsch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-12-03 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a0ff7a4e-f2f5-4c07-bb4d-7980eb0e5602@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #478943 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 3 grudnia 2018 22:56:37 UTC+1 użytkownik mitchr...@gmail.com napisał: > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 1:29:00 PM UTC-8, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 3 grudnia 2018 20:57:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Gary Harnagel napisał: > > > On Monday, December 3, 2018 at 4:23:28 AM UTC-7, Thomas Heger wrote: > > > > > > > > Am 02.12.2018 um 14:11 schrieb Gary Harnagel: > > > > > > > > > > The problem with OWLS measurement is synchronizing clocks at the starting > > > > > point (A) and the ending point (B). There are two ways to do it: the > > > > > Einstein method (which assumes constant speed of light) and the transport > > > > > method (synchronize two adjacent clocks at point A and then move one of > > > > > them to point B), but SR predicts that transporting a clock desynchronizes > > > > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > (It is actually possible to conduct such an experiment as I have tried > > > > > > to show in my OP.) > > > > > > > > > > How do you know what the synchronization is among the wheels and turbine? > > > > > SR predicts that you don't. > > > > > > > > The device is assumed to be rigid enough to maintain the relation of the > > > > stripes on both wheels. > > > > > > It the same problem as synchronization by light signals. You DO realize > > > that e/m forces govern "rigid" matter, don't you? > > > > > > > Torsion would be a subject, hence the rotor should be spun at a rate a > > > > little higher than necessary and then let rotate without any input. > > > > > > Oh, the problem is greater than mere torsion. > > > > > > > The frequency of rotation would slow down due to friction. This > > > > frequency is constantly measured at on wheel. > > > > > > > > This measuring device is connected to a clock and that is the only one > > > > in the experiment. > > > > > > Since it's not on the wheels, then you really don't know what the sync is. > > > > > > > > > If the experiment contains a mirror, there is little chance to find out, > > > > > > whether or not there is an ether (or not). > > > > > > > > > > BAloney! > > > > > > > > > > > The reason: > > > > > > if there is some kind of flow against the beam of light and this would > > > > > > have an influence on velocity of light, the effect on the way back from > > > > > > the mirror would be, that decelerated light is accelerated by the same > > > > > > amount on the way back. > > > > > > > > > > But they don't cancel, as anyone with a passing knowledge of algebra can > > > > > demonstrate. > > > > > > > > The experiment should be able to distinguish between: constant speed of > > > > light (on the way towards and back) vs. accelerated/decelerated light > > > > (on the way towards and back). > > > > > > > > But the setup of the Michelson Morley experiment does not allow to > > > > distinguish between both possibilities. > > > > > > > > Reason: > > > > both (constant speed vs decelerated/accelerated speed) would give almost > > > > the same result. > > > > > > > > There is a tiny difference, but this is incredibly small, since a very > > > > small fraction(1/150,000) goes into the calculation twice and would give > > > > us a fantastically small ratio of (1/150,000)^s=1/22500000000 > > > > > > > > > That "tiny" difference becomes larger and larger the farther apart the > > > > > mirror is from the source. > > > > > > > > That is actually true, but the arm length of the interferometer was only > > > > 1.3m (used four times). > > > > > > One can only conclude that you are completely oblivious to the science > > > behind the MMX. > > > > > > > > > Since the beam is slower (by about 1/150,000 times c) the light needs a > > > > > > little more time. > > > > > > > > > > > > The time for light to pass through the Michelson interferometer from > > > > > > light source to the mirror was roughly 16 ns. > > > > > > > > > > Do you even realize how many wavelengths that is? Lots... > > > > > > > > But these 16ns is not the measured result. > > > > > > The MMX doesn't measure time. It measures phase shift. > > > > > > > The result, (what should be measured,) is the number of waves, that are > > > > added into the beam, because the beam is slightly longer on the way > > > > towards the mirror than on the way back. > > > > > > That is total bull plop. It's obvious that you are completely oblivious > > > to the science behind the MMX. > > > > > > > On the way towards and back we have the same number of waves. These > > > > cancel out. > > > > > > In the absence of an ether, yes. > > > > > > > [Baloney deleted] > > > > Your proposed measurement of the one-way speed is in fact not Your, > > but proposed and realized by Stefan Marinov long time ago. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Marinov > > > > This method is rather still wrong, due to the Lorentz contraction. > > > > In fact no method exists to measure one-way in the local + vacuum conditions. > > > > One a simple and good method is MM - type of method but not with vacuum. > > The phase shift is lowered about: > > sqrt(n^2 -1) factor, > > > > hence Michelson measured 8 km/s, not 400-500 km/s. > > > > for air: n = 1.0003, hence: sqrt(1.0003^2-1) =~ 1/40 > > > > thus Michelson get in fact: 40 times bigger speed: > > 40 x 8 = 320 km/s > > > > So, the one-way light speed has been measured correctly long time ago. > > > > The end of story. > > Not by any complete accuracy... experiments never have it... right science...? > Look at that as big principle in the quantum mechanics. > > Mitchell Raemsch Use a bit more advanced version of MM and You get perfect result: V = 500 km/s - speed of the whole Sol. system in the Lorentz Ether... or something other you like. The two-media version of MM produces linear shift with function of speed: v/c. df = v/c (n1^2 - n2^2) then use for example: n1 - air -> n1 = ~1; and: n2 - CO2 at pressure 100 atm -> n2 = 1.01 ? Now the measured result would be very nice, without problem: 500 km/s.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web