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: russell on 2 Jun 2005 15:51 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.
From: kenseto on 2 Jun 2005 17:17 <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1117735453.817886.184510(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > >If that synch procedure were done then as one of the clocks indicates > > >say 30 seconds and sends a light signal to the other clock, then the > > >other clock will also indicate 30 seconds on reception of the light > > >signal. > > >This is wrong. See below. > > In my statements, I used an offset of L/c. In your terms then I restate > what I meant: > > Two clocks are together at the position x=0. When they start ticking, > they travel in oposite directions with a same speed.These speeds can be > measured by a thought observer fixed at x=0, or the speeds can be > measured by both clocks wrt the point x=0 or whatever.) When each > clocks indicate, say 12:00h, they stop their movement but continue to > tick. We wait a litlle while.... > at 13:00h, the clock to the right sends a light signal to the other > clock. (or vice-versa) > > Is this the synch procedure you are talking about? > > If so, > > according to SR and ether theories, the receiving clock will receive > the signal when its clock indicates 13:00 + L/c, where L is the > distance between both clocks (measured with a ruler or measured with > twls technique) and c is the value 299792458 ( the result obtained by a > twls measurement). > > >No.....if you have two synchronized clocks and if you send a signal from one > >of the clock at 12:00 and the signal arrive at the other clock at 12:01 then > >the flight time is (12:01-12:00).....which is one second. Then you measure > >the distance between the two clocks with a physical ruler (L). The OWLS is > >equal to L/(12:01-12:00). If SR is correct then L/(12:01-12:00) should be > >equal to c. > > No. The procedure you propose is not really a owls measurement. It > implicitly has the twls involved. > The twls effect is in the "same speeds" of the clocks during their > movement. The measurement process involved in measuring the speeds v > (acording to ether theories) creates an offset that cancells out the > effect you look for and hence, as often happens, SR and ether theory > conclude the same thing for that experiment. You would need to specify > a way to measure the speeds of the clocks that does not involve twls. No twls is involved. The two synchronized clocks are moving apart in the opposite directions with conveying screws. The two clocks will remain synchronized after they come to a complete stop again.....this is true according to all theories. Ken Seto
From: Martin Hogbin on 2 Jun 2005 17:52 "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117668600.661462.252110(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Martin Hogbin wrote: > > Although it is clearly impossible to measure OWLS without > making assumptions about clock synchronization, I believe > it to be possible to make measurements of delta-OWLS (i.e. > OWLS anisotropy) that are free of such assumptions. > > On April 8, I started a thread on this topic: > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/094d4ebd8ed246d4 > > While I believe that the experimental setup of Gagnon et al. > (1988) provides a true test of delta-OWLS without requiring > assumptions about clock synchronization, please note that both > Tom Roberts and Bill Hobba disagree with me, and believe > Gagnon et al.'s experiment to have hidden clock synchronization > assumptions. I never found their arguments convincing, and I > would appreciate your comments. I have read Tom Roberts' reply and I agree with it. Martin Hogbin
From: Jerry on 2 Jun 2005 19:44 Martin Hogbin wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:1117668600.661462.252110(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Martin Hogbin wrote: > > > > Although it is clearly impossible to measure OWLS without > > making assumptions about clock synchronization, I believe > > it to be possible to make measurements of delta-OWLS (i.e. > > OWLS anisotropy) that are free of such assumptions. > > > > On April 8, I started a thread on this topic: > > http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/094d4ebd8ed246d4 > > > > While I believe that the experimental setup of Gagnon et al. > > (1988) provides a true test of delta-OWLS without requiring > > assumptions about clock synchronization, please note that both > > Tom Roberts and Bill Hobba disagree with me, and believe > > Gagnon et al.'s experiment to have hidden clock synchronization > > assumptions. I never found their arguments convincing, and I > > would appreciate your comments. > > I have read Tom Roberts' reply and I agree with it. What response do you make to the claims made in Gagnon et al.'s paper? Since it appeared in a refereed journal, the reviewer(s) did not find them objectionable. Jerry
From: Paul Stowe on 2 Jun 2005 21:02
On 2 Jun 2005 00:24:19 -0700, russell(a)mdli.com wrote: >Paul Stowe wrote: >> On 1 Jun 2005 19:44:11 -0700, russell(a)mdli.com wrote: >> >> >Paul Stowe wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>> If you wish to orient distances based upon OWLS it's pretty >>>> straight forward. The Earth rotates and there is a directional >>>> in the CMBR. Pick a point on the Earth that is most parallel >>>> to the orientation of the CMBR. Next, Set up opposing tracks >>>> that are the distance you want. Then, when one of the track >>>> direction aligns with the CMBR have the receiver move outward >>>> from a repeating pulse transmitter until the desired delay in >>>> the reception is achieved. This is a OWL pulse moving from the >>>> Transmitter to the receiver. The receiver (having a high >>>> precision clock) is computing the difference in reception times >>>> to get the increasing delay. >>>> >>>> Now, wait until the Earth rotates 180ý and the other track aligns >>>> in the same direction & repeat. This will assure that BOTH! >>>> distance are equal based upon an OWLS measurement. >>> >>> What does CMBR have to do with this? >> >> If the aether exists, the CMBR illuminates the rest frame. > > What does it mean for a *frame* to "be illuminated"? > Why don't you just say what you mean -- that you assume > that the CMBR is isotropic in the rest frame of the aether. > That might be a reasonable assumption based on some > cosmological model you are attempting to verify. But it > *is* an assumption and cannot be said to be true until > verified. In a compressible medium it is not an assumptiion, but a undeniable physical result of the very property of compressibility. Background noise (wave activity) will be omnipresent and isotropic to all local regions. > Any motion wrt this will be detectable by a directionalized >> Doppler shift. Thus, using the CMBR dipole allows you to >> orient wrt that possible aether rest frame. We know the >> the entire solar system is moving at ~ 370 kps wrt to the >> CMBR zero. Thus, sending a signal along (up or down) that >> direction will maximize any OWLS asymmetry. > > So you think. Perhaps a reasonable place to look first > for asymmetry, but you really don't know. Yes, if by reasonable you mean something based upon known physical process models. >>> You are using slow transport as your synchronization method; >> >> I'm not synchronizing anything (or trying to). Well, see below, > I can believe you're not trying to. Then show me where in this it is. > We're moving >> a predefined distance based upon an assume ct where t is >> a predefined delta (or delay). Starting with the transmitter >> and receiver together (no delay) and separating while just >> listening for the pulses from the transmitter. > > Understood; and you have a high precision clock at the > receiver. You assume (or posit) that it stays synchronized > with the pulsing source as it moves. This is what we call > "slow transport". It is a synchronization convention. > However, this only matters if you want to know the exact > distance; I concede that it's not important if your intent > is merely to set equal distances as you describe below. Right! a variant of the above, instead of listening & 'timing' the delay lag of multiple pulses, simply have the receiver move out at a set constant speed (by definition, inertial) until it receives a single signal to stop. No clock at all except the 'one' at the transmitter. If you have two moving in opposite directions at the same initial 'constant' speed. When each receives the signal to stop they simply clamp the rail/wire/whatever. If OWLS is isotropic the distances should be the same. But, at no time is there any timing OR two clocks. > When the lag >> between pulses have increase the defined amount the receiver >> stops. The Light pulses all move in one direction only. Thus, >> if there is any c +/- v effects they will be 'in there'. >> >> > the lengths are equal if and only if slow transport in >> > the two directions induces the same time difference per >> > unit distance. >> >> That's the point of waiting for the Earth to rotate 180ý. >> The second rail then aligns in space in exactly the same >> direction as the earlier one. Same c +/- v, same distance. >> EVEN IF, there is an anisotropic OWLS, Right? > >Ok, I get your point this time. There's a problem, though. >Even though you can say that the two tracks are exactly the >same length (i.e. you can in effect use your method as a >definition of length) you still don't know how the aether >affects propagation of signals down wires laid along the >respective tracks. One signal may well propagate faster >than the other, exactly counteracting the anisotropy in LS >that you are attempting to measure. Or perhaps partially. >You can never know by how much, except by measuring it with >a pair of clocks -- and that requires you to specify a >synchronization convention. That scotches any hope of >getting a OWLS measurement independent of convention. I wasn't proposing using the wire, radio. >> Look at my first sentence, >> >> "If you wish to orient distances based upon OWLS it's >> pretty straight forward." >> >> To clarify, I should have said, >> >> "If you wish to orient distances of equal length based >> upon OWLS it's pretty straight forward." >> >>> Now, if indeed you found that, having done this, the >>> wires when brought together are different lengths, you >>> would have a significant result, one in conflict with >>> Michelson-Morley etc. > > My details here are wrong, based as they were on my > misunderstanding of your setup. Rather, a groundbreaking > result (overthrowing SR) would be any difference in the > respective arrival times of a light pulse emitted from the > central point. This type of setup might be able to discriminate this. >> No, it wouldn't, even IF so. MMX is TWLS not OWLS. Isn't >> that the point? > > Sorry, but your method is TWLS too, if you use signals > traveling down the tracks that you have measured. But the signal is alway outward, from the center TO the distant receiver. Paul Stowe |