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 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#426497 — A Way to Measure the Earth's Absolute Speed....

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.

Wilson's Mechanical Aether Detector (WMAD):

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

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.

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

So, any difference in the timing of the adjacency of the opposite ends 
would mean that an aether exists and furthermore, that the Earth's 
absolute speed can be determined by performing the experiment at 
different speeds and monitoring the times.

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

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 WMAD is so easy I think I might apply for funding....
..(no joke's about the acronym please.)
-- 

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#426499

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 7:54:38 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:


> Wilson's Mechanical Aether Detector (WMAD):
> 
> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together...
> 
> 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.

Yes, taking the meaning of 'same instant' in the absolute sense. Not the
relativistic (& applied/doable) sense. 


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

Nope. The corresponding ends will usually NOT be adjacent at the same 'instant' meaning 'at the same time' meaning 'simultaneously' in the usual/SR/doable sense. 

Now, how can you know at what time (or if simul) that the ends be adjacent?
IOW, how do you define 'time' for your setup?

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

#426551

On 29/07/17 12:03, rotchm wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 7:54:38 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>
>
>> Wilson's Mechanical Aether Detector (WMAD):
>>
>> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together...
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, taking the meaning of 'same instant' in the absolute sense. Not
> the relativistic (& applied/doable) sense.
>
>
>> According to normal physics, the four ends will ALWAYS be adjacent
>> at the same instant, no matter what their speeds are.
>
> Nope. The corresponding ends will usually NOT be adjacent at the same
> 'instant' meaning 'at the same time' meaning 'simultaneously' in the
> usual/SR/doable sense.
>
> Now, how can you know at what time (or if simul) that the ends be
> adjacent? IOW, how do you define 'time' for your setup?

Quite easily. I will describe the experiment again.

Two rods are made identical while together.
One, labeled stationary, is fitted with a laser at each end pointing
normally at an attached detector. The other has a very small hole in
each end through which the laser beam can pass.

  _                         _ detectors
_ _________________________ _Rm
_|_________________________|_Rs

In the experiment, Rm will be moved past Rs at different speeds. The
timing of the coincidence of the ends is facilitated with the detectors.
They fire when the laser beam passes through the holes.

Neither Rs nor its detectors are subjected to accelerations at any time
and so the method should be capable of directly detecting any physical
length change in Rm due to its movement.

This is a thought experiment and the rods can be 1 LY long if that 
helps. (Note, both LET and SR are based entirely on thought experiments)

Get the picture now?

The whole point is this. As a consequence of the concoction of the LTs
to explain the MMX null result, it was deemed impossible to detect
absolute movement and therefore impossible to detect the existence of 
the presumed absolute frame. (But Lorentz, Einstein and Co. only 
considered using light in their attempts to do that.)

I have shown that this is not true because, according to all aether 
theories, the actual physical length of Rm will vary with its absolute 
speed...and if that were true, the above MECHANICAL experiment would be 
capable of detecting such a variation...at least in theory. (it may even 
be just possible today)

This of course has ramifications for Einstein's SR too because his claim 
that the aether was 'superfluous', followed directly from and is 
entirely dependent on the notion that its existence could never be 
detected.

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

#426575

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 2:41:34 PM UTC-4, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 29/07/17 12:03, rotchm wrote:


> Get the picture now?

No. Can you do a better visual jpg sketch? 

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

#426596

On 30/07/17 11:35, rotchm wrote:
> On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 2:41:34 PM UTC-4, HGW, DSc. wrote:
>> On 29/07/17 12:03, rotchm wrote:
> 
> 
>> Get the picture now?
> 
> No. Can you do a better visual jpg sketch?

No. The one I gave you should make the setup obvious to anyone. The 
detectors are connected to the stationary rod, of course, and detect the 
laser beams when they pass through the holes in the moving rod.. It's so 
simple only a real idiot would not understand the procedure.
One rod is moved past the other and if the four ends are not adjacent at 
the same instant, there must be an absolute reference frame. Changing 
the speed should change the time difference, if any.



-- 

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

#426614

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 5:12:16 AM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

> > No. Can you do a better visual jpg sketch?
> 
> No. 

? Are you saying that you cant (you dont have the knowhow) make an appropriate sketch ? You need to learn how to do so if you want to be better understood!

> The one I gave you should make the setup obvious to anyone. 

A pic is worth a thousand words and clears up misunderstandings. 
If you dont want to be understood, then you will forever remain stuck where you are. 

> One rod is moved past the other and if the four ends are not adjacent 
> at the same instant, 

What does your 'at the same instant' mean? What is the procedure to verify if two events are 'at the same instant' ? 

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

#426620

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 11:41:34 AM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> It was deemed impossible to detect absolute movement 
> and therefore impossible to detect the existence of 
> the presumed absolute frame. But Lorentz, Einstein 
> and Co. only considered using light in their attempts
> to do that.

Not true.  An important experiment was Trouton-Noble, which looked at the torque on a plate, which (according to non-relativistic theory) should have been present if the apparatus was moving through the ether.  But no torque was detected.  This experiment is discussed at the end of Lorentz's 1904 paper.  Likewise the motions of high speed particles were studied, and these too showed the relativistic increase in inertia with speed, making it impossible to determine a distinguished rest frame.

In fact, ALL of the ether drift experiments involved at least some mechanical component.  That was the whole point, because Maxwell's equations were known to be invariant under Lorentz transformations but mechanical processes were thought to be invariant under Galilean transformations, so there should be a discrepancy between the mechanical and the electromagnetic parts, which would reveal a preferred frame.  But no such discrepancy could ever be detected, so either Maxwell's equations must be wrong or else Newton's equations must be wrong.  Based on careful measurements, especially of high speed particles, it was found that Newton's equations are wrong.  When the were corrected, they were found to be Lorentz invariant.

> I have shown that this is not true because, according to all aether 
> theories, the actual physical length of Rm will vary with its absolute 
> speed...and if that were true, the above MECHANICAL experiment would be 
> capable of detecting such a variation...

The experiment you described doesn't show a preferred frame, it merely confirms the existence of length contraction.  The length contraction will depend only on the speed of the "moving" bar in terms of the inertial coordinates of the "stationary" bar.  If you perform the experiment in various directions relative to the Earth's direction of orbital motion, or at different times of the year, you will get exactly the same length contraction for the same relative velocity.

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

#426627

Den 29.07.2017 20.42, skrev HGW, DSc.:
> 
> I will describe the experiment again.
> 
> Two rods are made identical while together.
> One, labeled stationary, is fitted with a laser at each end pointing
> normally at an attached detector. The other has a very small hole in
> each end through which the laser beam can pass.
> 
>   _                         _ detectors
> _ _________________________ _Rm
> _|_________________________|_Rs
> 
> In the experiment, Rm will be moved past Rs at different speeds. The
> timing of the coincidence of the ends is facilitated with the detectors.
> They fire when the laser beam passes through the holes.
> 
> Neither Rs nor its detectors are subjected to accelerations at any time
> and so the method should be capable of directly detecting any physical
> length change in Rm due to its movement.
> 
> This is a thought experiment and the rods can be 1 LY long if that 
> helps. (Note, both LET and SR are based entirely on thought experiments)
> 


So Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge can measure the absolute speed of
the Earth with a thought experiment!

Well done, fully qualified experimental physicist Doctor Ralph! :-D

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#426651

On 31/07/17 03:31, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 29.07.2017 20.42, skrev HGW, DSc.:
>>
>> I will describe the experiment again.
>>
>> Two rods are made identical while together.
>> One, labeled stationary, is fitted with a laser at each end pointing
>> normally at an attached detector. The other has a very small hole in
>> each end through which the laser beam can pass.
>>
>>   _                         _ detectors
>> _ _________________________ _Rm
>> _|_________________________|_Rs
>>
>> In the experiment, Rm will be moved past Rs at different speeds. The
>> timing of the coincidence of the ends is facilitated with the detectors.
>> They fire when the laser beam passes through the holes.
>>
>> Neither Rs nor its detectors are subjected to accelerations at any time
>> and so the method should be capable of directly detecting any physical
>> length change in Rm due to its movement.
>>
>> This is a thought experiment and the rods can be 1 LY long if that 
>> helps. (Note, both LET and SR are based entirely on thought experiments)
>>
> 
> 
> So Henry George Wilson can measure the absolute speed of
> the Earth with a thought experiment!

The Earth does not have an absolute speed...but if it did, I have 
described a way to measure it.

> Well done, fully qualified experimental physicist Doctor Henry! :-D

Paul yet again misses the point...as he always does these days...he is 
very old now...I'll miss him when he has gone....

My intention was simple and straightforward. It was to show that if an 
aether exists, there are mechanical ways to detect it even if that is 
impossible when using light.



-- 

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

#426555

On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 7:54:38 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> 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.
> 
> Wilson's Mechanical Aether Detector (WMAD):
> 
> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together. Can everyone 
> understand that?
> 
> 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.

This is according to your aether......not according to my aether, the E-Matrix. According to the E-Matrix:
1. The physical length of a meter stick is not sensitive to motion.
2. The light-path length of a meter stick is sensitive to motion (absolute motion).....the higher is the absolute motion of the meter stick the longer light-path length is needed for light to cover the physical length of the meter stick.
3. Past experiments and proposed experiments to detect absolute motion are available in the following link:
http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf

> 
> According to normal physics, the four ends will ALWAYS be adjacent at 
> the same instant, no matter what their speeds are.
> 
> So, any difference in the timing of the adjacency of the opposite ends 
> would mean that an aether exists and furthermore, that the Earth's 
> absolute speed can be determined by performing the experiment at 
> different speeds and monitoring the times.
> 
> If the timing was always the same irrespective of speed, that would be 
> proof that no aether exists and Einstein's theory is wrong.
> 
> 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 WMAD is so easy I think I might apply for funding....
> ..(no joke's about the acronym please.)
> --

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

#426566

On 30/07/17 04:59, kenseto wrote:
> On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 7:54:38 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
>> 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.
>> 
>> Wilson's Mechanical Aether Detector (WMAD):
>> 
>> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together. Can everyone 
>> understand that?
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> This is according to your aether......not according to my aether, the
> E-Matrix. According to the E-Matrix: 1. The physical length of a
> meter stick is not sensitive to motion. 2. The light-path length of a
> meter stick is sensitive to motion (absolute motion).....the higher
> is the absolute motion of the meter stick the longer light-path
> length is needed for light to cover the physical length of the meter
> stick.

...your first error. The light path length would depend on the direction
of the light. It would be longer in one direction and shorter in the 
other. You are half way towards agreeing with ballistic theory.

> 3. Past experiments and proposed experiments to detect absolute
> motion are available in the following link: 
> http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf

They probably wont work if light and interferometry are used.




-- 

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

#426607

On Saturday, July 29, 2017 at 6:50:08 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 30/07/17 04:59, kenseto wrote:
> > On Friday, July 28, 2017 at 7:54:38 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> >> 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.
> >> 
> >> Wilson's Mechanical Aether Detector (WMAD):
> >> 
> >> Let two rods be made identical when aligned together. Can everyone 
> >> understand that?
> >> 
> >> 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.
> > 
> > This is according to your aether......not according to my aether, the
> > E-Matrix. According to the E-Matrix: 1. The physical length of a
> > meter stick is not sensitive to motion. 2. The light-path length of a
> > meter stick is sensitive to motion (absolute motion).....the higher
> > is the absolute motion of the meter stick the longer light-path
> > length is needed for light to cover the physical length of the meter
> > stick.
> 
> ...your first error. The light path length would depend on the direction
> of the light. It would be longer in one direction and shorter in the 
> other. You are half way towards agreeing with ballistic theory.

The unique structure of the E-Matrix enables the E-Strings to carry light isotropically in all directions. In the E-Matrix a meter stick will have no specific direction of absolute motion......this means that if you send light from end “A” of the meter stick to end “B” light will have to travel gamma meters to reach  end “B” and similarly if you send light from end “B” to end “A” light will need to travel gamma meters to reach end “A”.

Your problem is that you assumed that light-path length is dependent on the direction of absolute motion....that’s a false assumption.

> 
> > 3. Past experiments and proposed experiments to detect absolute
> > motion are available in the following link: 
> > http://www.modelmechanics.org/2015experiment.pdf
> 
> They probably wont work if light and interferometry are used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --

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

#426652

On 30/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:

>>> 
>>> This is according to your aether......not according to my aether,
>>> the E-Matrix. According to the E-Matrix: 1. The physical length
>>> of a meter stick is not sensitive to motion. 2. The light-path
>>> length of a meter stick is sensitive to motion (absolute
>>> motion).....the higher is the absolute motion of the meter stick
>>> the longer light-path length is needed for light to cover the
>>> physical length of the meter stick.
>> 
>> ...your first error. The light path length would depend on the
>> direction of the light. It would be longer in one direction and
>> shorter in the other. You are half way towards agreeing with
>> ballistic theory.
> 
> The unique structure of the E-Matrix enables the E-Strings to carry
> light isotropically in all directions. In the E-Matrix a meter stick
> will have no specific direction of absolute motion......this means
> that if you send light from end “A” of the meter stick to end “B”
> light will have to travel gamma meters to reach  end “B” and
> similarly if you send light from end “B” to end “A” light will need
> to travel gamma meters to reach end “A”.

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.

> Your problem is that you assumed that light-path length is dependent
> on the direction of absolute motion....that’s a false assumption.

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

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

#426685

On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 30/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:
> 
> >>> 
> >>> This is according to your aether......not according to my aether,
> >>> the E-Matrix. According to the E-Matrix: 1. The physical length
> >>> of a meter stick is not sensitive to motion. 2. The light-path
> >>> length of a meter stick is sensitive to motion (absolute
> >>> motion).....the higher is the absolute motion of the meter stick
> >>> the longer light-path length is needed for light to cover the
> >>> physical length of the meter stick.
> >> 
> >> ...your first error. The light path length would depend on the
> >> direction of the light. It would be longer in one direction and
> >> shorter in the other. You are half way towards agreeing with
> >> ballistic theory.
> > 
> > The unique structure of the E-Matrix enables the E-Strings to carry
> > light isotropically in all directions. In the E-Matrix a meter stick
> > will have no specific direction of absolute motion......this means
> > that if you send light from end “A” of the meter stick to end “B”
> > light will have to travel gamma meters to reach  end “B” and
> > similarly if you send light from end “B” to end “A” light will need
> > to travel gamma meters to reach end “A”.
> 
> 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.

> 
> > Your problem is that you assumed that light-path length is dependent
> > on the direction of absolute motion....that’s a false assumption.
> 
> 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 the light-path length does depend on relative speed and the LT shows that clearly. Your problem is that you assumed that the first photon generated by the source will reach the other end and that why you said that speed of light is variable.  In real life, light from any source moves according to the inverse square law. That means that the first photon generated generated by the source will fail to hit the target....the photon that hits the target is generated at a later time. This is the cause of longer or shorter light path length for a moving meter stick.

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

#426751

On 31/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:
> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

>>> 
>>> The unique structure of the E-Matrix enables the E-Strings to 
>>> carry light isotropically in all directions. In the E-Matrix a 
>>> meter stick will have no specific direction of absolute 
>>> motion......this means that if you send light from end “A” of
>>> the meter stick to end “B” light will have to travel gamma meters
>>> to reach  end “B” and similarly if you send light from end “B”
>>> to end “A” light will need to travel gamma meters to reach end
>>> “A”.
>> 
>> 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.

Ken, the speed of the light sources relative to the rod is vital.

>>> Your problem is that you assumed that light-path length is 
>>> dependent on the direction of absolute motion....that’s a false 
>>> assumption.
>> 
>> 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 the 
> light-path length does depend on relative speed and the LT shows
> that clearly.

Ken, that statement makes no sense at all.
You don't seem to understand that every light source in the universe is
inside every frame in the universe.

> Your problem is that you assumed that the first photon generated by
> the source will reach the other end and that why you said that speed
> of light is variable.

Ken, are you completely drunk?

> In real life, light from any source moves according to the inverse
> square law. That means that the first photon generated generated by
> the source will fail to hit the target....the photon that hits the
> target is generated at a later time. This is the cause of longer or
> shorter light path length for a moving meter stick.

Ken, I think he others might be right about you.

If a rod is moving TOWARD a light source, the light path across it is
shorter than the rod...and vice versa.



-- 

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

#426752

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 5:21:37 PM UTC-7, HGW... wrote:
> It was deemed impossible to detect absolute movement 
> and therefore impossible to detect the existence of 
> the presumed absolute frame. But Lorentz, Einstein 
> and Co. only considered using light in their attempts 
> to do that.

Not true.  An important experiment was Trouton-Noble, which looked at the torque on a plate, which (according to non-relativistic theory) should have been present if the apparatus was moving through the ether.  But no torque was detected.  This experiment is discussed at the end of Lorentz's 1904 paper.  Likewise the motions of high speed particles were studied, and these too showed the relativistic increase in inertia with speed, making it impossible to determine a distinguished rest frame.

In fact, ALL of the ether drift experiments involved at least some mechanical component.  That was the whole point, because Maxwell's equations were known to be invariant under Lorentz transformations but mechanical processes were thought to be invariant under Galilean transformations, so there should be a discrepancy between the mechanical and the electromagnetic parts, which would reveal a preferred frame.  But no such discrepancy could ever be detected, so either Maxwell's equations must be wrong or else Newton's equations must be wrong.  Based on careful measurements, especially of high speed particles, it was found that Newton's equations are wrong.  When the were corrected, they were found to be Lorentz invariant.

> I have shown that this is not true because, according to all aether 
> theories, the actual physical length of Rm will vary with its absolute 
> speed...and if that were true, the above MECHANICAL experiment would be 
> capable of detecting such a variation... 

The experiment you described doesn't show a preferred frame, it merely confirms the existence of length contraction.  The length contraction will depend only on the speed of the "moving" bar in terms of the inertial coordinates of the "stationary" bar.  If you perform the experiment in various directions relative to the Earth's direction of orbital motion, or at different times of the year, you will get exactly the same length contraction for the same relative velocity.

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

#426776

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

>On 31/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

>> If the source is outside the frame of the moving meter stick the 
>> light-path length does depend on relative speed and the LT shows
>> that clearly.

>Ken, that statement makes no sense at all.
>You don't seem to understand that every light source in the universe is
>inside every frame in the universe.

Wow, Ken, are you really so bad off that even Ralph Rabbidge actually
understands physics better than you? Can you imagine that? Being worse at
physics than Ralph Rabbidge?

>> Your problem is that you assumed that the first photon generated by
>> the source will reach the other end and that why you said that speed
>> of light is variable.

>Ken, are you completely drunk?

Ken, it looks like you are so bad at physics that not only does Ralph
Rabbidge actually correct you, you are so far gone that even to him you
act drunk.

>Ken, I think he others might be right about you.

Wow. I asked before which was the bigger failure, DirtyBaThWater or
IRT/Model Mechanics. It appears that IRT/Model Mechanics is the bigger,
more spectacular failure!

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

#426808

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 8:21:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 31/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> 
> >>> 
> >>> The unique structure of the E-Matrix enables the E-Strings to 
> >>> carry light isotropically in all directions. In the E-Matrix a 
> >>> meter stick will have no specific direction of absolute 
> >>> motion......this means that if you send light from end “A” of
> >>> the meter stick to end “B” light will have to travel gamma meters
> >>> to reach  end “B” and similarly if you send light from end “B”
> >>> to end “A” light will need to travel gamma meters to reach end
> >>> “A”.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Ken, the speed of the light sources relative to the rod is vital.

So? I didn’t say that the speed of the source is not important. I said that light from any source in any direction will cover the length of a moving meter stick at the same time. I disagree with your assertion that direction of relative motion will affect the distance light need to travel to cover the length of a moving meter stick. 
> 
> >>> Your problem is that you assumed that light-path length is 
> >>> dependent on the direction of absolute motion....that’s a false 
> >>> assumption.
> >> 
> >> 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 the 
> > light-path length does depend on relative speed and the LT shows
> > that clearly.
> 
> Ken, that statement makes no sense at all.
> You don't seem to understand that every light source in the universe is
> inside every frame in the universe.
> 
> > Your problem is that you assumed that the first photon generated by
> > the source will reach the other end and that why you said that speed
> > of light is variable.
> 
> Ken, are you completely drunk?
> 
> > In real life, light from any source moves according to the inverse
> > square law. That means that the first photon generated generated by
> > the source will fail to hit the target....the photon that hits the
> > target is generated at a later time. This is the cause of longer or
> > shorter light path length for a moving meter stick.
> 
> Ken, I think he others might be right about you.
> 
> If a rod is moving TOWARD a light source, the light path across it is
> shorter than the rod...and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> --

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

#426812

On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 8:21:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> On 31/07/17 22:44, kenseto wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2017 at 8:58:01 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:
> 
> >>> 
> >>> The unique structure of the E-Matrix enables the E-Strings to 
> >>> carry light isotropically in all directions. In the E-Matrix a 
> >>> meter stick will have no specific direction of absolute 
> >>> motion......this means that if you send light from end “A” of
> >>> the meter stick to end “B” light will have to travel gamma meters
> >>> to reach  end “B” and similarly if you send light from end “B”
> >>> to end “A” light will need to travel gamma meters to reach end
> >>> “A”.
> >> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Ken, the speed of the light sources relative to the rod is vital.
> 
> >>> Your problem is that you assumed that light-path length is 
> >>> dependent on the direction of absolute motion....that’s a false 
> >>> assumption.
> >> 
> >> 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 the 
> > light-path length does depend on relative speed and the LT shows
> > that clearly.
> 
> Ken, that statement makes no sense at all.
> You don't seem to understand that every light source in the universe is
> inside every frame in the universe.

A frame is a coordinate system set up by the observer and it is moving along with the observer as he moves in the E-Matrix.  That means that every light source is inside the E-Matrix, not inside a frame as you asserted. That means that a frame is just a tool use to predict the behavior of a moving object. So that means that every light source in the universe is inside every frame makes no sense.

> 
> > Your problem is that you assumed that the first photon generated by
> > the source will reach the other end and that why you said that speed
> > of light is variable.
> 
> Ken, are you completely drunk?
> 
> > In real life, light from any source moves according to the inverse
> > square law. That means that the first photon generated generated by
> > the source will fail to hit the target....the photon that hits the
> > target is generated at a later time. This is the cause of longer or
> > shorter light path length for a moving meter stick.
> 
> Ken, I think he others might be right about you.
> 
> If a rod is moving TOWARD a light source, the light path across it is
> shorter than the rod...and vice versa.
> 
> 
> 
> --

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

#426850

On 02/08/17 00:01, kenseto wrote:
> On Monday, July 31, 2017 at 8:21:37 PM UTC-4, HGW... wrote:

>>> 
>>> So how is that devious? I was just stating the fact.
>> 
>> Ken, the speed of the light sources relative to the rod is vital.

>> Ken, that statement makes no sense at all. You don't seem to
>> understand that every light source in the universe is inside every
>> frame in the universe.
> 
> A frame is a coordinate system set up by the observer and it is
> moving along with the observer as he moves in the E-Matrix.  That
> means that every light source is inside the E-Matrix, not inside a
> frame as you asserted. That means that a frame is just a tool use to
> predict the behavior of a moving object. So that means that every
> light source in the universe is inside every frame makes no sense.

Ken, a frame is basically a set of infinite axes. The whole universe is 
inside every frame. No frame has an 'outside'.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web