OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: George Dishman on 4 Jun 2005 15:57 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117900964.246106.327390(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > Jerry wrote: > > > For the receiver at the far end of the first waveguide to be > > synchronized with the oscillator, the precise value of n must be > > known. As I have shown above, the precise value of n does not need > > to be known for the apparatus to be capable of detecting changes > > in the value of OWLS. Since knowledge of the the precise value of n > > is not necessary for the apparatus to work, the receiver at the far > > end of the first waveguide is can not be considered synchronized > > with the source oscillator. <snipped to avoid manual indenting> > Receiver "a" is clearly not equivalent to a synchronized > clock. Tom's argument, that receiver "a" is a "stand-in" for > a synchronized clock, does not appear to be valid. Then argument is valid if the waveguide is horizontal, however I think you are missing a more important consideration. What is the phase relationship between the ends? Does the receiving end detector respond to phase velocity or group velocity? If the ends are in phase as viewed by an observer at rest, what about an observer moving past? I haven't looked at the details so I can't venture an opinion but these aspects are key to the experimental claims. HTH George
From: Jerry on 4 Jun 2005 19:02 George Dishman wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1117900964.246106.327390(a)z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > > Jerry wrote: > > > > > For the receiver at the far end of the first waveguide to be > > > synchronized with the oscillator, the precise value of n must be > > > known. As I have shown above, the precise value of n does not need > > > to be known for the apparatus to be capable of detecting changes > > > in the value of OWLS. Since knowledge of the the precise value of n > > > is not necessary for the apparatus to work, the receiver at the far > > > end of the first waveguide is can not be considered synchronized > > > with the source oscillator. > > <snipped to avoid manual indenting> > > > Receiver "a" is clearly not equivalent to a synchronized > > clock. Tom's argument, that receiver "a" is a "stand-in" for > > a synchronized clock, does not appear to be valid. > > Then argument is valid if the waveguide is > horizontal, Even then, the argument is not valid. Although the first waveguide is operated "near" cutoff, n is not truly infinity. Therefore, if an aether exists, receiver "a" and clock "c" would deviate from each other depending on the orientation of the waveguide relative to the direction of motion through the aether. Gagnon et al.'s apparatus would have been sensitive to OWLS anisotropy even if they had chosen a relativly modest multiple for n. Although Gagnon et al. operated their reference waveguide near cutoff, so that n was extremely high, I do not believe that was necessarily the best choice. Near cutoff, most of the RF is absorbed by the waveguide walls. A major source of drift in Gagnon et al.'s results originated from heating effects causing the reference waveguide to warp and change dimensions. Had they chosen a more modest multiple for n, I believe their apparatus would have been more stable, at the cost of being somewhat less sensitive. > however I think you are missing > a more important consideration. What is the > phase relationship between the ends? That depends on the characteristics of the hypothetical aether. If the waveguides are stationary relative to the hypothetical aether, then the waves emergent from the first waveguide would be retarded by 2pi*fd/nc radians relative to the source oscillator, while the waves emergent from the second waveguide would be retarded by 2pi*fd/c radians relative to the source oscillator. Assuming a pre-Michelson aether (i.e. one that could have been detected by MMX), then if the waveguides are moving parallel relative to the hypothetical aether, the waves emergent from the first waveguide would be retarded by 2pi*fd/(nc-v) radians relative to the source oscillator, while the waves emergent from the second waveguide would be retarded by 2pi*fd/(c-v) radians relative to the source oscillator. The difference in phase between the microwaves emergent from "a" and "b" would amount to 2pi*fd(1/(nc-v)-1/(c-v)) radians. If n is very large, this simplifies to -2pi*fd/(c-v) radians. > Does > the receiving end detector respond to phase > velocity or group velocity? Gagnon et al. used continuous RF beams. The receiving end detector doesn't measure velocity. It is a phase comparator, measuring relative phase of the two emergent beams. The idea is that since the phase velocity of the RF beams traveling through the two waveguides is different, then the two beams would be differentially sensitive to the effects of motion through any hypothetical aether. > If the ends are > in phase as viewed by an observer at rest, > what about an observer moving past? Shouldn't make a difference. > I haven't > looked at the details so I can't venture an > opinion but these aspects are key to the > experimental claims. Jerry
From: The Ghost In The Machine on 4 Jun 2005 21:00 In sci.physics, Sam Wormley <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote on Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:39:14 GMT <Cn9oe.10555$_o.4638(a)attbi_s71>: > The Ghost In The Machine wrote: >> In sci.physics, Sam Wormley >> <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> >> wrote >> on Fri, 03 Jun 2005 15:16:11 GMT >> <%u_ne.9801$_o.6035(a)attbi_s71>: >> >>>kenseto wrote: >>> >>>>"Sam Wormley" <swormley1(a)mchsi.com> wrote in message >>>>news:reZne.9383$x96.8840(a)attbi_s72... >>>> >>>> >>>>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS satellites. >>>>> Known xyzt coordinates of GPS Receiver. >>>>> One can figure (measure) the one way speed of light 24/7. >>>> >>>> >>>>That's the reason I call you a runt of the SRians. In order to >>>>know the xyzt coordinates you need to use an assumed one-way >>>>speed of light. >>>> >>>>Ken Seto >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Wrong again Seto--Satellite xyzt coordinates are determined >>> from ephemeris data and Receiver xyzt coordinates can be >>> had from previous survey data. >>> >> >> >> All meter definitions are currently based on lightspeed. >> There is, of course, a good reason for this, but it does >> make the above somewhat self-defeating. > > Since distance is defined by light speed... you are essentially > condemning *all* measurements of the speed of light as self- > defeating? It's a bit problematic to measure lightspeed by defining the meter in terms of lightspeed. Of course, like I said -- the Kr-86 definition did not have sufficient accuracy and all measurements of lightspeed, before or since, are consistent with an exact definition of lightspeed as 299792458 m/s -- so why not use it? However, this does leave an opening for die-hard non-SRians to assert that there is a conspiracy out there. (Of course, there isn't anyway, but facts never got in the way of a good rant. :-) ) Personally, I'm not sure how to prove all of this, but it's clear that there's quite different results predicted from (my interpretation of) BaT and (my hopefully correct interpretation of) SR, when it comes to moving objects. I'll admit I'd like to see an experiment where a satellite enters Earth's orbit going at 30 km/s in the direction *opposite* (retrograde) to Earth. Every six months or so one could measure the delta-frequency shift as the satellite passes by; for a reference signal of 100 MHz one should get a SR-consistent shift of about 8 Hz, if my computations are correct. BaT (I think) predicts about 40 kHz. Extremely definitive; in fact, so much so that this experiment needn't require a retrograde satellite; a satellite otherwise destined to escape the Solar System would be more than enough. Such a satellite would have a velocity of about 12 km/s (4 * 10^-5 c) with respect to the Earth. BaT predicts a 4 kHz adjustment to a 100 MHz reference signal. SR predicts 0.16 Hz -- if I'm doing this all correctly. No doubt such considerations are routine for such missions as the ones to Mars, and the recent Cassini/Huyguens affair. And then there's the LHC specifications. I wonder why they assume protons moving at lightspeed (or so close to lightspeed that it makes no difference to the pulse frequency)? Obduh: Duh. :-) -- #191, ewill3(a)earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless.
From: shevek4@yahoo.com on 5 Jun 2005 01:25 russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > shevek wrote: > > > > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > > > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > It simply is not possible to measure any sort of one-way speed using a > > > > > > > single clock. No matter what you do you must arrange for the start and > > > > > > > stop signals to both reach the clock, and that necessarily involves a > > > > > > > closed path for the signals. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would such a thing be possible if you had knowledge (from another > > > > > > source) of the local rest state of the aether? > > > > > > > > > > How? You would still have to synchronize two clocks, or > > > > > alternatively do a TWLS measurement and infer OWLS from > > > > > theory. Arguably that inference would seem more natural, > > > > > but it would still be an inference. > > > > > > > > Yes, it would be an inference. Of course if your knowledge of local > > > > aether flow speed is justified, the inference and measurement of OWLS > > > > is justified. > > > > > > How are you going to measure the local aether flow without > > > two clocks? You have the same problem. Note that Roberts > > > said *any* one-way velocity measurement; he wasn't limiting > > > his comments to light. > > > > Good question, I guess this was the point all along of trying to > > measure OWLS. > > > > It doesn't have to be light and clocks.. some kind of sensitive effect > > on the metric tensor for example, or a quantum mechanical effect. The > > symmetries of the Lorentz transform do not prove that nobody we cannot > > know the velocity of the aether. > > I think you still missed my point. There is *no* > way you can eliminate the issue of clocks. Prove that! > The best > you can do is state what your synchronization convention > is, and what the one-way speed of the aether (or light, > or a bullet, or a standard snail or whatever) is *wrt* > that convention. > OK, well what this synchronization convention is could depend on other measurements. > Some conventions of course are more natural than others, > I don't deny that.
From: Jerry on 5 Jun 2005 07:30
shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > russell(a)mdli.com wrote: > > shevek4(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > > It doesn't have to be light and clocks.. some kind of > > > sensitive effect on the metric tensor for example, or a > > > quantum mechanical effect. The symmetries of the Lorentz > > > transform do not prove that nobody we cannot know the > > > velocity of the aether. > > > > I think you still missed my point. There is *no* > > way you can eliminate the issue of clocks. > > Prove that! I'm afraid that if you believe a method exists for measuring OWLS with one clock, or for detecting local aether flow, the onus is on -you- to provide a precise description of means for doing so. Vague descriptions of some "sensitive effect on the metric tensor for example, or a quantum mechanical effect" amounts to nothing more than bandying words about. Jerry |