Proposed experiment for detection of absolute motion
in [Relativity]
|
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 09:26 On 7/16/10 1:51 AM, JT wrote: > On 15 Juli, 20:56, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/15/10 11:39 AM,JTwrote: >> >>> On 15 Juli, 15:22, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 7/15/10 7:16 AM,JTwrote: >> >>>>> So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at >>>>> 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, >>>>> so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you >>>>> do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) >> >>>> Rotation is absolute. Laser gyro measures rotation. >> >>> So Sam what RPM does earth rotate with. >> >>> JT >> >> Little weak on the unit conversions,JT? >> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm > > Oh i also noted you did not answer, admit you have no idea about > earths absolute rotation velocity in RPM. > > You are just as slow as usual, just handwaving that is what bots are > good for no critical thinking going. > JT Try not to be so stooopid, JT, I gave you the answer in rpm here: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm
From: PD on 16 Jul 2010 10:33 On Jul 16, 1:44 am, JT <jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 15 Juli, 22:53, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jul 14, 4:51 am,JT<jonas.thornv...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 12 Juli, 01:27, "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote: > > > > > "Androcles" <Headmas...(a)Hogwarts.physics_z> wrote in message > > > > >news:WEq_n.205263$k15.183421(a)hurricane... > > > > > > "Socratis" <socra...(a)alice.it> wrote in message > > > > >news:i1d9b3$ele$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's not moving. > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you - it goes directly > > > > > | to the person across from you. > > > > > | > > > > > | Out in space on a merry-go-round that's rotating. > > > > > | You toss the ball straight away from you (directly toward > > > > > | the person opposite) - it curves away toward someone else. > > > > > | > > > > > | Not trying to be a troll - I just don't understand the physics. > > > > > | It seems clear to me that this demonstrates that the merry-go-round > > > > > | is (absolutely) rotating in the second case. > > > > > | > > > > > You are already "out in space" riding the merry-go-round called "Earth". > > > > > There is a thin layer of air above you for 100 km (65 miles) straight up > > > > > and if you ride up in a balloon to that height you'd see the blackness of > > > > > space. The blue you see in daylight is scattered sunlight. It is scattered > > > > > by dust. At night you will be in the Earth's shadow, and if your view is > > > > > clear (no clouds) you'll see stars. As you turn, you'll see the stars > > > > > cross > > > > > the sky until you turn toward the Sun. Then it will be dawn, and as you > > > > > watch, you'll turn with the Earth and the Sun will appear to rise in the > > > > > sky > > > > > and then set in the west, but it is really not moving at all, you are as > > > > > you > > > > > ride the Earth. Thus the Sun crossing the sky is RELATIVE motion. There is > > > > > no absolute motion. Go outside and look up until you understand you are on > > > > > a > > > > > merry-go-round called Earth and the universe is standing still while *you* > > > > > are moving. Pick any star, then look where it is every hour of the night. > > > > > Do > > > > > this at least once in your life. I've done it many times, as do all > > > > > amateur > > > > > astronomers. If you get bored, do some night fishing. Be alone with Nature > > > > > for company, for just one night. You may get to like it, I know I do. Get > > > > > away from city lights, get away from people anywhere and enjoy the > > > > > universe > > > > > you live in the way that people did before there was such a thing as > > > > > electricity to spoil the glory of the heavens. I can't do it for you, only > > > > > you can do it for yourself. If you have some impediment that prevents you, > > > > > overcome it. I don't know you or anything about you, I can only suggest > > > > > you > > > > > learn to live alone for one night without TV, radio or people telling you > > > > > what to do, how to think. Listen to the insects, look at the sky, catch a > > > > > fish. Do not light a fire, stay in the dark and *see*. > > > > > Unfortunately, this is a typical answer that ignores the basic question. It > > > > seems to me that rotation proves that absolute motion exists, and I > > > > can't seem to find a coherent explanation otherwise. When something > > > > is rotating, objects on it and part of it are forced to the outside by > > > > something we typically call 'centrifugal force', a term I'm aware is > > > > controversial. When something isn't rotating, objects on that > > > > something don't experience that 'force'. > > > > > Please, if you know of a coherent way of explaining this, point me > > > > to it and I'll try to understand it, because I want to understand it. > > > > If you're tired of typing, just point me to a link. > > > > I and many others realize there are a lot of smart physicists who > > > > state there is no absolute motion, and many laymen who are > > > > directly aware that a rotating object is quite different from a > > > > non-rotating object. Unlike the speed of light issues (which > > > > all make sense to me) the difference between rotating and > > > > non-rotating objects can be experienced by anyone, providing > > > > compelling and immediate evidence that absolute motion exists.- Dölj citerad text - > > > > > - Visa citerad text - > > > > I also find your questions interesting i do not know anything about > > > physic > > > This seems to be a significant improvement in your self-assessment > > skills.- Dölj citerad text - > > > - Visa citerad text - > > It is all true but i am a bad genius on deductive reasoning. Two steps forward, one step back. > > JT- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: Craig Markwardt on 16 Jul 2010 11:26 On Jul 15, 7:50 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Jul 14, 8:55 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 12:57 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> Friends, > >> Last year I had held detailed discussions in these forums, on > >> the feasibility of experimental detection of absolute motion. > >>http://groups.google.com/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/e24d067ec6.... > >> Subsequently I compiled a formal paper titled "Proposed experiment for > >> detection of absolute motion" and submitted to Physics Essays (An > >> International Journal dedicated to fundamental questions in Physics) > >> for publication. After a detailed peer review, this paper has now been > >> published in this journal [http://www.physicsessays.com/]. The > >> abstract of this paper is reproduced below. > > > This paper is an example of poor refereeing by the reviewer and also > > your own neglect of criticism that occurred in the previous thread. > > As noted by Mark L. Ferguson now - and myself a year ago - you have > > assumed something which is not SR as your starting point, and thus, > > your conclusions are irrelevant regarding SR. Your fundamental error > > is that you assumed that somehow the clocks attached to the moving > > "spacecraft" were simultaneously synchronized in the spacecraft frame > > and a "universal" frame. Since this is impossible in SR, your > > conclusions are invalid. Even a marginally knowledgable reviewer > > should have picked up on this. > > > The irony is that your paper does attempt to derive the up- and down- > > link times using the principles of SR in section 2, but then you > > immediately discard the results because it does not provide the answer > > you desire. The truth is that - assuming the principles of SR - the > > up- and down-link times *will* be different as measured by observers > > co-moving in two different frames with their own co-moving clocks. In > > fact, by exchanging up- and down-link timing information after the > > observations were taken, the two observers could estimate their > > relative velocity. But this is not a measurement of "absolute" > > motion. That is, unless you could have already placed one observer at > > "absolute rest" before the experiment started, which presupposes what > > you are trying to measure in the first place. This was noted one year > > ago, but you ignored it. > > At the end of section 2 I have stated, "The inability to directly > measure the signal propagation times T_u and T_d in the stationary > reference frame K, is not due to any technological limitations, but is > a logical consequence of the relativity of time and the corresponding > clock synchronization constraints, induced by the second postulate of > SR. Therefore, if we begin by assuming the validity of the second > postulate of SR, we cannot detect absolute motion because successful > detection of such absolute motion will itself invalidate the second > postulate of SR." > > You keep stressing that I must invalidate SR by first using the > infrastructure of SR and then demonstrating the internal > contradictions in it. However, I have repeatedly clarified to you that > there are no mathematical contradictions in SR which could have been > demonstrated the way you want it. What I want is irrelevant. If you admit that SR is internally consistent and consistent with observations, then I'm not sure what there is left to discuss. On the other hand, a proof by contradiction *requires* one to assume that the proposition be assumed to be true, and yet the logical consequences yield a contradiction. Assuming the proposition is *not true* yields meaningless results. > ... What I am trying to invalidate is > the foundation of SR, its second postulate, for which I don't have to > use the internal structure of SR. You are incorrect. The two postulates of SR - assumptions - lead logically to a theory which describes how measurements of length and time will be made. The second postulate by itself does not describe consistently how measurements will occur, but your experiment involves such measurements. *You* made additional assumptions in deriving your theory. *You* assumed that clocks must be synchronizable in all frames simultaneously. By making this additional assumption, you created a new theory - call it "not relativity." What you claim to measure in your proposed experiment regarding "not relativity" will be absolutely irrelevant to the postulates of SR, because you accepted different postulates. > > The real title of your paper should be, "Proposed experiment for > > detection of absolute motion ASSUMING THAT NEWTONIAN RELATIVITY IS > > TRUE". But since we know that Newtonian relativity is not true based > > on so many other experiments, the conclusions of the paper are not > > relevant. > > There is a logical flaw in your argument. Since the proposed > experiment is primarily aimed at showing the invalidity of the second > postulate of SR, logically I cannot ASSUME THAT EINSTEINIAN RELATIVITY > IS TRUE. ... Huh? You might be having problems understanding logic. See above, and discussion from a year ago, about "proof by contradiction." The best your experiment+theory could do is disprove your assumptions, i.e. disprove Newtonian relativity. .... > Kindly remember that we are not discussing some theoretical paper, the > conclusions of which could be disputed or disagreed to. ... You are in error. Your "proposed experiment" is based on faulty premises which lead to a faulty measurement theory. Your proposed experimental setup is not disagreeable, but the theoretical basis under which it would be interpreted is irrelevant. > (a) If the results of an actual experiment confirm the predicted > results illustrated at figures 3 and 4, will you gracefully agree that > the second postulate of SR has been invalidated? Or will you try your > level best to search for some lame excuse for not accepting the > results? > > (b) Using your knowledge of SR and GR, can you predict the result of > the proposed experiment in terms of the maximum difference in the to > and fro flight times, |T_u-T_d| expected under Relativity; especially > if YOU expect them to be much DIFFERENT from zero? It is my understanding of SR and GR that an experiment such as your proposed setup, with clocks and receivers non-moving in the terrestrial frame, the light time of the two legs should be equal in duration, regardless of the motion of the earth. Ignoring other effects such as Sagnac, variations in propagation media, etc, a measurement of a different value could point to a contradiction within SR/GR, but not necessarily a single postulate. > (c) We know that the two clocks A and B fixed on the surface of earth, > can be seen to be MOVING at DIFFERENT velocities in the ECI, BCRF and > Galactic Reference Frames. Do you think this fact can CONFUSE the two > clocks whether they should display the *time* of ECI or BCRF or of > Galactic Reference Frames? Huh? Clocks do not get "confused." "Displaying the time" is a human social convention. A cloud of cesium atoms fixed in a terrestrial lab would emit radiation at a frequency of 9,192,631,770 Hz, as measured in the lab frame. A frequency counter could be used to show clock "ticks." Another observer at rest with respect to the solar system barycenter with his own cesium clock would see the same frequency from his own clock. However he would see a different frequency from the lab clock, and would note that his clock would drift out of synchronization with the lab clock. CM
From: Sam Wormley on 16 Jul 2010 12:34 On 7/16/10 8:26 AM, Sam Wormley wrote: > On 7/16/10 1:51 AM, JT wrote: >> On 15 Juli, 20:56, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Little weak on the unit conversions,JT? >>> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm >> >> Oh i also noted you did not answer, admit you have no idea about >> earths absolute rotation velocity in RPM. >> >> You are just as slow as usual, just handwaving that is what bots are >> good for no critical thinking going. >> JT > > Try not to be so stooopid, JT, I gave you the answer in rpm here: > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm .00069634577038 rpm
From: JT on 16 Jul 2010 13:18
On 16 Juli, 15:26, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 7/16/10 1:51 AM, JT wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 Juli, 20:56, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 7/15/10 11:39 AM,JTwrote: > > >>> On 15 Juli, 15:22, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 7/15/10 7:16 AM,JTwrote: > > >>>>> So what do you suppose the ship rotate relative (i said it rotate at > >>>>> 100 000RPM relative earth but what make you say it is really rotating, > >>>>> so tell me what is the real rotational RPM and versus what i guess you > >>>>> do not hold our earth for the origo of nonerotation?) > > >>>> Rotation is absolute. Laser gyro measures rotation. > > >>> So Sam what RPM does earth rotate with. > > >>> JT > > >> Little weak on the unit conversions,JT? > >> http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm > > > Oh i also noted you did not answer, admit you have no idea about > > earths absolute rotation velocity in RPM. > > > You are just as slow as usual, just handwaving that is what bots are > > good for no critical thinking going. > > JT > > Try not to be so stooopid, JT, I gave you the answer in rpm here: > http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0.72921158553E-4+rad%2Fs+in+rpm And this would be the absolut rotation or the rotation relative sun? |