Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #426497 > unrolled thread

A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed....

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-29 09:54 +1000
    Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-28 19:03 -0700
      Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-07-30 04:42 +1000
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-29 18:35 -0700
          Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:12 +1000
            Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 06:20 -0700
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-07-30 08:30 -0700
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-07-30 19:31 +0200
          Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:51 +1000
    Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-29 11:59 -0700
      Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 08:50 +1000
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-30 05:44 -0700
          Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 10:57 +1000
            Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-07-31 05:44 -0700
              Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-01 10:21 +1000
                Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-07-31 17:42 -0700
                Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 04:07 +0000
                Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 06:43 -0700
                Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2017-08-01 07:01 -0700
                  Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-08-02 08:39 +1000
              Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-08-01 03:43 +0000
    Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-30 01:35 +0000
      Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-30 19:21 +1000
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-30 10:37 +0000
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... rotchm <rotchm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-30 06:35 -0700
        Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 00:18 +0000
          Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-07-31 12:08 +1000
            Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-07-31 14:23 +0000
              Re: A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed.... Jeèným Ludnými <hovae@ieuuio.org> - 2017-07-31 18:40 +0000

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#426773

kenseto <setoken@att.net> writes:

>On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> On 30/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:

>> Ken, you are as devious as Einstein was when he formulated his bogus
>> RoS.. You haven't specified where your light sources are located. If
>> they are attached to A and B respectively, the path lengths are
>> obviously the same.fact.

>So how is that devious? I was just stating the fact.

Stupid Ken, your blitherings about absolute motion and other failures of
IRT are not facts.

>> The true solution is that the light path length is dependent on the
>> relative speed between source and rod.

>If the source is outside the frame of the moving meter stick

Stupid Ken, if you write a phrase like that, then it is *obvious* that
you just don't understand the concept of a frame in physics. No wonder why
Model Mechanics has failed so spectacularly!

<snip even stupider blithering>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426576

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>Of course we know there is no aether but when people believed there was 
>one, they found that any attempt to determine the Earth's absolute speed 
>produced a null result. Lorentz and Fitzgerald then concocted the 
>contraction idea and that seemed to explain the impossibility.

>Well, while that might be impossible with light, there is a mechanical 
>method that at least in principle would be able to either measure the 
>Earth's absolute speed or prove that no absolute frame exists.

>Rabbidge's Mechanical Aether Detector (RMAD):

>Let two rods be made identical when aligned together. Can everyone 
>understand that?

Sure, Ralph.

>Separate them and then repeatedly move them towards each other at a 
>range of relative speeds.

>According to aether theories, their four ends will only be adjacent at 
>the same instant IF they have the same absolute speed.

"Same instant" defined how?  Also, how to communicate sameness from the
different sensing locations that are separated by a distance, Ralph?

>According to normal physics, the four ends will ALWAYS be adjacent at 
>the same instant, no matter what their speeds are.

"Normal" how, Ralph? Do you mean "Newtonian", Ralph?

>So, any difference in the timing of the adjacency of the opposite ends 
>would mean that an aether exists

Or that SR is valid.

> and furthermore, that the Earth's 
>absolute speed can be determined by performing the experiment at 
>different speeds and monitoring the times.

Of course such measurements have been done, and cannot come up with any
sort of absolute speed, Ralph, because there isn't such a thing.

>If the timing was always the same irrespective of speed, that would be 
>proof that no aether exists and Einstein's theory is wrong.

But no aether supports Einstein's theory, Ralph.

>Whilst this experiment might appear impractical, that might not be true. 
>In fact, the rod with a clock at each end need not be moved at all. The 
>ends of the moving rod could be detected with laser beams and mirrors, 
>even using a single detector at the mid point.

>In fact RMAD is so easy I think I might apply for funding....
>..(no joke's about the acronym please.)

It's already been done, Ralph.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426597

On 30/07/17 11:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
> 
>> Of course we know there is no aether but when people believed there was
>> one, they found that any attempt to determine the Earth's absolute speed
>> produced a null result. Lorentz and Fitzgerald then concocted the
>> contraction idea and that seemed to explain the impossibility.
> 
>> Well, while that might be impossible with light, there is a mechanical
>> method that at least in principle would be able to either measure the
>> Earth's absolute speed or prove that no absolute frame exists.
> 
>> Rabbidge's Mechanical Aether Detector (RMAD):
> 
>> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together. Can everyone
>> understand that?
> 
> Sure, Ralph.
> 
>> Separate them and then repeatedly move them towards each other at a
>> range of relative speeds.
> 
>> According to aether theories, their four ends will only be adjacent at
>> the same instant IF they have the same absolute speed.
> 
> "Same instant" defined how?  Also, how to communicate sameness from the
> different sensing locations that are separated by a distance, Henry?

Poor fellow. they can be synched with light from the midpoint if 
necessary but the detectors could be replaced by 45 mirrors and one 
detector at the midpoint would suffice. Don't you know anything about 
experimental physics? I thought not....
Close synchronization is not very important because vaarying the speed 
of the rod should cause it to change length, according to LET and give a 
different pair of times for each speed.

>> According to normal physics, the four ends will ALWAYS be adjacent at
>> the same instant, no matter what their speeds are.
> 
> "Normal" how, Ralph? Do you mean "Newtonian", Ralph?
> 
>> So, any difference in the timing of the adjacency of the opposite ends
>> would mean that an aether exists
> 
> Or that SR is valid.

SR requires an aether to unify light speeds from differently moving sources.

>> and furthermore, that the Earth's
>> absolute speed can be determined by performing the experiment at
>> different speeds and monitoring the times.
> 
> Of course such measurements have been done, and cannot come up with any
> sort of absolute speed, Ralph, because there isn't such a thing.
> 
>> If the timing was always the same irrespective of speed, that would be
>> proof that no aether exists and Einstein's theory is wrong.
> 
> But no aether supports Einstein's theory, 

Then why did Einstein say his theory would collapse if there wasn't one?




-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426601

HGW... wrote:

>>> If the timing was always the same irrespective of speed, that would be
>>> proof that no aether exists and Einstein's theory is wrong.
>> 
>> But no aether supports Einstein's theory,
> 
> Then why did Einstein say his theory would collapse if there wasn't one?

excellent question, they don't want to hear and answer.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426615

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:21:56 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 30/07/17 11:35, Michael Moroney wrote:

> > "Same instant" defined how?  Also, 
> 
> Poor fellow. they can be synched with light from the midpoint if 
> necessary 

In the 'absolute' vire (LET), The synch light going forward takes more time to hit its end than the light going backwards; the clocks at the ends are not absolutely synched; But your synch procedure is to give them a same value, even if one started its count before the other. 


> but the detectors could be replaced by 45 mirrors and one 
> detector at the midpoint would suffice. 

Then the light going in the forward dir takes more time than the one going in the back dir  (LET view). This, coupled with the 'physical contractions' (also in LET), will insure that the center detector will not receive the signals simultaneously.  IOW, in all cases, the center detector will never receive the signals simultaneously; this is what both SR & LET predict. 


> Close synchronization is not very important 

No synch required if we use your "45 deg mirror" setup, the one we are discussing. 

> because vaarying the speed 
> of the rod should cause it to change length, according to LET 

And SR.

> and give a different pair of times for each speed.

As predict by SR too. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426646

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>On 30/07/17 11:35, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
>> 
>>> Rabbidge's Mechanical Aether Detector (RMAD):
>> 
>>> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together. Can everyone
>>> understand that?
>> 
>> Sure, Ralph.
>> 
>>> Separate them and then repeatedly move them towards each other at a
>>> range of relative speeds.
>> 
>>> According to aether theories, their four ends will only be adjacent at
>>> the same instant IF they have the same absolute speed.
>> 
>> "Same instant" defined how?  Also, how to communicate sameness from the
>> different sensing locations that are separated by a distance, Henry?

>Poor fellow. they can be synched with light from the midpoint if 
>necessary but the detectors could be replaced by 45 mirrors and one 
>detector at the midpoint would suffice.

OK, Ralph, so it will be at the "same instant" for the position of the
center of the stationary rod. But what about every other point in the
universe, Ralph?

> Don't you know anything about 
>experimental physics?

You made it obvious that you don't.

>>> So, any difference in the timing of the adjacency of the opposite ends
>>> would mean that an aether exists
>> 
>> Or that SR is valid.

>SR requires an aether to unify light speeds from differently moving sources.

No, Ralph, there isn't any "unification" of light speed, thus no need for
your aether.  How could there be a need for "unification", Ralph?  Light
moves at c, period. Nothing to unify.

>>> and furthermore, that the Earth's
>>> absolute speed can be determined by performing the experiment at
>>> different speeds and monitoring the times.
>> 
>> Of course such measurements have been done, and cannot come up with any
>> sort of absolute speed, Ralph, because there isn't such a thing.
>> 
>>> If the timing was always the same irrespective of speed, that would be
>>> proof that no aether exists and Einstein's theory is wrong.
>> 
>> But no aether supports Einstein's theory, 

>Then why did Einstein say his theory would collapse if there wasn't one?

No, Ralph, Einstein explicitly stated that an aether was superfluous and
would not be used in his SR paper.  If Einstein states the aether was
unnecessary, then the aether is unnecessary, and any proof of no aether
would help validate Einstein theory, not show it's wrong, Ralph.

Ralph, I still don't know how you could come up with an idea as dumb as
saying a theory that explicitly states the aether is unnecessary would be
proven wrong if it was proven that there was no aether.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426657

On 31/07/17 10:18, Michael Moron-y wrote: "I model my messages on the 
sounds that emanate from my country shithouse in N. Ireland. Sometimes I 
sit near it all day, just listening and inhaling the sweet gasses."


-- 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426696

"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:

>"I model my messages on the sounds that emanate from my country shithouse
>in N. Ireland. Sometimes I sit near it all day, just listening and 
>inhaling the sweet gasses."

You're very strange to do that, Ralph. I thought you were in Oz, not
Northern Ireland, Ralph. Are you visiting your Rabbidge relatives?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#426716

Dne 28.7.2017 v 12:11 Michael Moroney napsal(a):

> "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes:
> 
>>"I model my messages on the sounds that emanate from my country
>>shithouse in N. Ireland. Sometimes I sit near it all day, just listening
>>and inhaling the sweet gasses."
> 
> You're very strange to do that, Ralph. I thought you were in Oz, not
> Northern Ireland, Ralph. Are you visiting your Rabbidge relatives?

Please do NOT forget. You are severely unemployable in each and every 
civilized country of Europe.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web