Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone [Archive]

TeV

Mar18-04, 01:52 PM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk.
Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE

You should have posted this to Special @ General Relativity forum -;)
Do you know that "the patent clerk" (Einstein) didn't know of MM experiment when he published his paper(*) in 1905.?
SR is naturally established when one recognizes that laws of classical Electromagnetics (ie. Maxwell eqs.) must be equally valid in every inertial reference frame in unifom motion.For that matter,ol' Galilei relativity principle was just expanded to EM phenomena in isotropic space.Accordingly,need for ether to explain phenomena became unnecessary,and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.
Poethicaly one may say that there is a extremly high level of Democracy in Nature at work and this is in a very core of SR.
One more beautiful side of SR is it units two seemingly distinct things (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian dynamics).Greatest theories in history of science are the theories that unite.
From Faraday times on.SR expanded to accelerated systems,recognized equality of gravitational and inertial mass,leaded to the theory of Gravity as we know it today.Not bad for a patent office clerk..
______
*=Larmour and Lorentz had some (mathematical) results the same as Einstein prior to 1905.,but they were derived on different basis than it was Einstein'S theory.There is more to tell:Einstein was 16 year old high school student (in 1895) when he envisioned fact that speed of light can't be fixed to any specific reference frame.At the time he was barely heard of Maxwell's EM.

Zero

Mar18-04, 01:55 PM

Ways you can tell someone hasn't "disproved" relativity:

#1) They make disparaging remarks about Einstein being a "patent clerk"

russ_watters

Mar18-04, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by EL
Then I'm not man enough!;) Me neither.

paulanevill, just out of morbid curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote. Pardon me for my skepticism though, as I use my GPS capable cell phone...

Tom Mattson

Mar18-04, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by wisp
Is a special theory of relativity necessary. I think not.

Funny, the question Einstein was asking was, "Is an aether necessary? I think not."

Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

I find it amazing that critics of SR (I'm not singling you out, wisp) always focus on the MM experiment, as if a "correct" reinterpretation of that would cause the whole house to come down. The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?

ahrkron

Mar18-04, 04:28 PM

Oh boy.

One more engineer thinking he has the answer to the "nonsense" of SR. One more for the count.

cookiemonster

Mar18-04, 04:51 PM

I don't have much to say other than:

Okay.

cookiemonster

Janus

Mar18-04, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk.
Einstein held a Phd in physics, he merely worked as a patent clerk as he was having difficultly getting a university or research position, (because he had a few personality conflicts with the people who controlled these openings)

I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

Which means absolutely nothing when it comes to Relativity. If I want medical advice, I go to an MD, not to an auto mechanic, no matter how many years experience he's had, or how many difficult auto problems he's repaired.

If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE

The real question is whether I have the time to waste in order to pour over the work of yet another engineer who's deluded himself into thinking that he's been able to find the flaw in Relativity that has somehow eluded generations of Physicists, any one of which would have sold his soul to make a name for himself by finding such a flaw. Especially considering the fact that I'll most likely just find that said engineer has completely misinterpreted Relativity in the first place.

Nereid

Mar18-04, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk. I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEE Did your efforts produce testable predictions? Do any of those predictions differ, to any significant extent, from the predictions for SR and GR? If so, please present, succinctly:
a) your prediction
b) the corresponding SR/GR prediction
c) a list of experiments, with their results, conducted to date, in the domain of your prediction.

For your reference, here is a list of experimental tests of SR (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), and a similar one for GR (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/)

russ_watters

Mar19-04, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by ahrkron
Oh boy.

One more engineer thinking he has the answer to the "nonsense" of SR. One more for the count. The real question is whether I have the time to waste in order to pour over the work of yet another engineer who's deluded himself Easy on the engineers, guys: most of us know that all the tools and technology and math we use were developed by scientists. Most of us know that science and engineering are complimentary fields.

Yeah, this particular crackpot happens to be an engineer, but there are just as many who are failed scientists thinking they were snubbed due to the 'dogma' or some conspiracy of modern science.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar19-04, 04:57 AM

Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise. But then I don't wish to harp on about this as I know how upsetting it is for you people. You know what they say though - An engineer will take something complicated and make it look simple, whereas a scientist will take something simple and make it look complicated.
What about the ability of the 45 degree mirror to reduce the horizontal path length due to a movement in the vertical path, and vice versa. What about the true speed of the earth and solar system due to a sideways velocity through space as a result of being part of a circulating galaxy.

Cogitate for a while.

Paul

wisp

Mar19-04, 04:57 AM

and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.

How can this be pointless? If all the effects predicted by relativity can be explained clearly with regards to an absolute frame, surely that is progress.

I'm not bothered whether ether or SR theories are correct. But the ether still has a lot of credibility and shouldn't be dismissed just because SR is a good theory.

I'm open-minded enough to look at both theories with equal weight, but I'm more convinced that the ether route is the way to go.

cookiemonster

Mar19-04, 05:02 AM

So what're the physical characteristics of this mysterious ether?

Last I heard it had some pretty remarkable things that it had to have going for it, and it was more of a stretch for me to imagine that such a substance could exist than space could bend a little bit.

Then again, I haven't read the entire thread, so maybe this has already been answered. If so, I apologize.

cookiemonster

zoobyshoe

Mar19-04, 05:19 AM

I would like to see Paula address Nereid's post.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar19-04, 05:30 AM

Put yourself out and email me: paulanevill@fsmail.net

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar19-04, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by TeV
You should have posted this to Special @ General Relativity forum -;)
Do you know that "the patent clerk" (Einstein) didn't know of MM experiment when he published his paper(*) in 1905.?
SR is naturally established when one recognizes that laws of classical Electromagnetics (ie. Maxwell eqs.) must be equally valid in every inertial reference frame in unifom motion.For that matter,ol' Galilei relativity principle was just expanded to EM phenomena in isotropic space.Accordingly,need for ether to explain phenomena became unnecessary,and some absolute (superior) reference frame became pointless concept as well.
Poethicaly one may say that there is a extremly high level of Democracy in Nature at work and this is in a very core of SR.
One more beautiful side of SR is it units two seemingly distinct things (Newtonian mechanics and Maxwellian dynamics).Greatest theories in history of science are the theories that unite.
From Faraday times on.SR expanded to accelerated systems,recognized equality of gravitational and inertial mass,leaded to the theory of Gravity as we know it today.Not bad for a patent office clerk..
______
*=Larmour and Lorentz had some (mathematical) results the same as Einstein prior to 1905.,but they were derived on different basis than it was Einstein'S theory.There is more to tell:Einstein was 16 year old high school student (in 1895) when he envisioned fact that speed of light can't be fixed to any specific reference frame.At the time he was barely heard of Maxwell's EM.

Thank you for the history lesson, but you ought to get your facts straighter. The whole point why SR is no good is that it relies upon a frame of reference. Maxwell equations (which I understand perfectly, having worked as an RF engineer) merely shows the osillatory nature of EM. What people don't realise thought is (on sine waves) is that they may be drawn with height on the page, but they only represent strength, ie zero space taken up.

Now, perhaps you have something useful to contribute, rather than poorly reciting a mixture of old lectures. With Absolute Motion, one needs no reference, the equations can be viewed from anywhere or any angle. You really need to put yourself out more. Chew on this for a while. Perhaps then you may decide to read my complete solution by emailing me your address: paulanevill@fsmail.net

The 45 degree mirror of the MMX, when moving in the vertical direction (or component of), reduces the horizontal path length of the light beam (laser parallel of not). And vice versa.
The solar system (being part of a galaxy) circulates in space, thus the spped of the MMX (and earth) is not the obital speed of 30,000 m/s, but varies sinusionally during the year. On the day of the 1887 experiment, the true speed of the MMX was +/- 5500 m/s. The +/- is not particularly relevant as the MMX apparatus is symmatrical about the 180 degree rotation. Plug this lot in and you get the correct mathematical result

Paul

zoobyshoe

Mar19-04, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
Put yourself out and email me: paulanevill@fsmail.net
Nereid's post is good. I would like to see your response to Nereid's post.

GRQC

Mar19-04, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
On the day of the 1887 experiment, the true speed of the MMX was +/- 5500 m/s.

I think the Michaelson-Morley experiment was performed more than once in the past 100 years.

Mar19-04, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
What people don't realise thought is (on sine waves) is that they may be drawn with height on the page, but they only represent strength

Is this the level you think we are on?

wisp

Mar19-04, 10:55 AM

cookiemonster
So what're the physical characteristics of this mysterious ether?

Go to
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/what_is_Q_A/what_is_Q_A.html

I believe it’s unique.

TeV

Mar19-04, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n

Now, perhaps you have something useful to contribute, rather than poorly reciting a mixture of old lectures. With Absolute Motion, one needs no reference, the equations can be viewed from anywhere or any angle. You really need to put yourself out more.

Huh,with absolute motion you need a reference frame too.And that one would be Absolute reference frame (and there is no such).
Otherewise ,without any reference frame,there would be no detectable motion at all,including absolute one.You must observe motion with respect to something,mustn't you?

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar20-04, 04:58 AM

Originally posted by TeV
Huh,with absolute motion you need a reference frame too.And that one would be Absolute reference frame (and there is no such).
Otherewise ,without any reference frame,there would be no detectable motion at all,including absolute one.You must observe motion with respect to something,mustn't you?

Look, the point is that you only need one reference point and it can be anywhere, the outcome will always be accounted for. You appear to be a novice, why don't you use a piece of paper next time you have a thought, to work it out, instead of merely throwing the idea at someone else in search for an answer. If you could have overcome you fear of actually getting the right answers, then maybe you would have delighted in receiving a copy of the solution by email. Next person please.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar20-04, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by EL
Is this the level you think we are on?

Apply it to the photo electric effect. Why do you add adjacent electric fields together. They only sum when integrated by a surface. The reality is that they travel in quanta wave bundles.

All of you, except one so far, on this site, like arguing but are scared of getting results due to a fear of then having nothing left on their mind. Engineers normally put employees like you in the corner to sit on their own, until they have matured into someone who actually stops talking big and starts producing solutions.
Dont' forget, my email is paulanevill@fsmail.net, do call for the article.

Mar20-04, 05:36 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
Apply it to the photo electric effect. Why do you add adjacent electric fields together. They only sum when integrated by a surface. The reality is that they travel in quanta wave bundles.

Is this an answer to my question or? I don't get your point...

TeV

Mar20-04, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
Look, the point is that you only need one reference point and it can be anywhere, the outcome will always be accounted for.
And,since the reference point can be anywhere there's no point of introducing absolute (prefered) reference frame.It's the ARBITRARY choice.By this part of your sentence,looks like you actually start talking in terms of relativity (althougt I'm not sure how much of it you understand it,after all you have said).In what way *your* theory disprove SR PREDICTIONS.Give one example.Physical test or formula that predicts different outcome.If All the results of your model predicts the same outcome as SR then there's no conflict.It's than matter of phylosophy,not physics.

regards

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar20-04, 07:35 AM

Originally posted by TeV
And,since the reference point can be anywhere there's no point of introducing absolute (prefered) reference frame.It's the ARBITRARY choice.By this part of your sentence,looks like you actually start talking in terms of relativity (althougt I'm not sure how much of it you understand it,after all you have said).In what way *your* theory disprove SR PREDICTIONS.Give one example.Physical test or formula that predicts different outcome.If All the results of your model predicts the same outcome as SR then there's no conflict.It's than matter of phylosophy,not physics.

regards

Read the paper. My file is too large to leave here. Leave you email address and I'll send it to you. You can't get somewhere without applying yourself. Short sentences here are not prodcutive enough.

Paul

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar20-04, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by russ_watters
Me neither.

paulanevill, just out of morbid curiosity, I'd be interested in seeing what you wrote. Pardon me for my skepticism though, as I use my GPS capable cell phone...

GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar20-04, 07:56 AM

Originally posted by Tom
Funny, the question Einstein was asking was, "Is an aether necessary? I think not."

Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

I find it amazing that critics of SR (I'm not singling you out, wisp) always focus on the MM experiment, as if a "correct" reinterpretation of that would cause the whole house to come down. The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?

It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity. Not the question of an aether or not.

A correct interpretation will cause the whole house to come down, and it has. And of course, Einstein admitted later in life that he had read the MMX prior to his theory, not that chronological order makes a whole lot of difference when an error is involved. The whole thing is explained, but unsually (there can't be any engineers on this site) only one person is brave enough to leave me their email address, in order that they can receive a copy of my solution. I may as well be trying to make out that black is white, but then what you must take into account is, it is not often physics has to change, so it is understandable that there is this resistance.

Zero

Mar20-04, 08:29 AM

So, do we get a discussion of ideas, or do we get more of this emotional attack on reason and science? In other words, instead of making claims without support, support your claims.

Nereid

Mar20-04, 08:43 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them. Which company does he work for? Is he a PF member? Can we contact him to get his opinion directly?

Nereid

Mar20-04, 08:55 AM

paulanevill@fsmail.n wrote: It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity. If MMx were the only experiment that tested SR, this might be worth looking into.

However, there have been plenty more - are 'the mathematical model(s)' of *ALL* of those other experiments wrong too?

Further, since SR is just a special case within GR, and since there've been plenty of experiments - which have nothing to do with MMx - that have validated GR, you should (IMHO) take the time to find out why they gave results consistent with GR.

Earlier, I posted:
Did your efforts produce testable predictions? Do any of those predictions differ, to any significant extent, from the predictions for SR and GR? If so, please present, succinctly:
a) your prediction
b) the corresponding SR/GR prediction
c) a list of experiments, with their results, conducted to date, in the domain of your prediction.

For your reference, here is a list of experimental tests of SR, and a similar one for GR

I haven't seen any reply to my questions (despite several times having the questions repeated).

Zero

Mar20-04, 08:57 AM

GPS data is fudged for the civilian market. The military versions are accurate to within about a meter, and I should know, I was a military surveyor. The signal is intentionally degraded to prevent a GPS being used for enemy missile targeting.

Tom Mattson

Mar20-04, 12:05 PM

Tom: The best tests of SR have nothing to do with MM, or time dilation, or length contraction. The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Paul: It's the mathematical model of the MMX that is wrong, that used to decide upon relativity. Not the question of an aether or not.

A correct interpretation will cause the whole house to come down, and it has. And of course, Einstein admitted later in life that he had read the MMX prior to his theory, not that chronological order makes a whole lot of difference when an error is involved.

Did you notice the part of my post that I have quoted above?

Do you know what QED is?

The whole thing is explained, but unsually (there can't be any engineers on this site) only one person is brave enough to leave me their email address, in order that they can receive a copy of my solution.

edit:
On second thought, you can just hang on to that file.

Thanks Hurkyl! [;)]

Hurkyl

Mar20-04, 12:18 PM

This page is interesting:

http://lists.t0.or.at/wwsympa.fcgi/arc/coninfo/2004-03/msg00004.html

Do a text search for paulanevill@fsmail.net

And he seems so insistent on e-mailing things...

Nereid

Mar20-04, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by Hurkyl
This page is interesting:

http://lists.t0.or.at/wwsympa.fcgi/arc/coninfo/2004-03/msg00004.html

Do a text search for paulanevill@fsmail.net

And he seems so insistent on e-mailing things... I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please?

Zero

Mar20-04, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please? Something about computer viruses, I think...suggesting that whoever thsi person is, they want to infect your system with a virus. That is why he or she has refused to post a single idea, and insists on sending you a huge attachment to download.

zoobyshoe

Mar20-04, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by Nereid
I tried this, but couldn't interpret the results (seems to be zero matches) ... a summary please?
It is an e-mail to a huge list of e-mail addresses telling them that a large number of viruses have been detected being sent from those addresses with instructions on what to do to remove them (the viruses). One of the people on this list is our friend paulanevill@fsmail.net. In other words, s/he is trying to provoke people into giving their e-mail address so s/he can send them a virus.

Good work, Hurky!

Nereid

Mar20-04, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by zoobyshoe
It is an e-mail to a huge list of e-mail addresses telling them that a large number of viruses have been detected being sent from those addresses with instructions on what to do to remove them (the viruses). One of the people on this list is our friend paulanevill@fsmail.net. In other words, s/he is trying to provoke people into giving their e-mail address so s/he can send them a virus.

Good work, Hurky! Doesn't that violate the conditions of being a PF member (maybe not specifically in terms of clause b sub-clause iii, but in terms of what PF is clearly about)?

wisp

Mar21-04, 12:22 PM

I've downloaded Paul's 180K word file and it's passed my virus checker. He is expressing his views on the MM experiment.
I haven't read it yet as I've had a busy weekend.

russ_watters

Mar22-04, 12:17 AM

Originally posted by paulanevill@fsmail.n
GPS is fudged, my colleague designs them. Is that the technical term for it? Where's the roll-eyes smiley when you need it? I guess this will have to do: [*(] GPS data is fudged for the civilian market. The military versions are accurate to within about a meter, and I should know, I was a military surveyor. The signal is intentionally degraded to prevent a GPS being used for enemy missile targeting. Actually, selective availability (the little knob in an office in the Pentagon that a general could turn on a whim to degrade accuracy to as much as 100m) was done away with under the Clinton administration. And with things like WAAS and DGPS, civilians can get 3m accuracy. Surveyors gps uses a different process which time-averages signals to get a much higher precision.

The ship I was on had a crappy old military GPS that only got 10m accuracy so the Captain got me some money to get us a commercial one with waas and dgps and a laptop for computerized navigation. Ironic.

Now, the military does have better - an additional encryped signal for even higher accuracy (1m), but the old not knowing at any one time if you were getting 10m or 100m accuracy is gone.

Antonio Lao

Mar22-04, 08:05 AM

The simplicity of it all is to know what moves with respect to what that don't move.

The ether concept is the immovable where other things move.

But if there is only the ether and you. How do you know that you move? Maybe it's the ether that moves?

Anything that moves is a function of time. If there is no time, nothing moves. Everything exists forever.

wisp

Mar23-04, 06:08 AM

Paul

I've read your MM theory, but I'm not convinced that the new Nevill term (in square brackets) is correct.
This is used in (A3) in the term (t11=d+vxt11+[-evxt11])/c
I can't see how the Nevill term can be added to the equation.
With angle theta = 45 degrees vx=vy, but this causes the motion of the large mirror to move parallel to its self. And so it doesn't move towards or away form the light source. So how can the term have an effect?
Sorry I'm not convinced.
Have you tried making a model or running a computer simulation?

I think MM took about 6000 readings. This experiment was repeated later by Dayton Miller, who took over 30000 readings using equipment that was more accurate. He confirmed the MM result in a concrete basement, but found differences high up on a mountain.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar24-04, 04:46 AM

Originally posted by wisp
Paul

I've read your MM theory, but I'm not convinced that the new Nevill term (in square brackets) is correct.
This is used in (A3) in the term (t11=d+vxt11+[-evxt11])/c
I can't see how the Nevill term can be added to the equation.
With angle theta = 45 degrees vx=vy, but this causes the motion of the large mirror to move parallel to its self. And so it doesn't move towards or away form the light source. So how can the term have an effect?
Sorry I'm not convinced.
Have you tried making a model or running a computer simulation?

I think MM took about 6000 readings. This experiment was repeated later by Dayton Miller, who took over 30000 readings using equipment that was more accurate. He confirmed the MM result in a concrete basement, but found differences high up on a mountain.

The beam does not strike the 45 degree mirror in its centre. Computer simulation has been carried out, producing the associated graph in the appendix. Regardless of how many experiments and readings have been carried out, the maths have changed, not the experimental results. These maths will fit all the experiments.
Remember, that beam is not connected to the apparatus, it is on a separate level if you like.

wisp

Mar24-04, 07:46 AM

The beam does not strike the 45 degree mirror in its centre.

Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar25-04, 04:24 AM

Originally posted by wisp
Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

The light beam from the source is straight, not diagonal. Move the apparatus, not the beam. It's true that the two (straight) beams strike the final lens side by side, but the lens integrates them.

The reason for the beam striking the mirror off centre is because of the slew effect of the moving mirror. I.e. the mirror moves upwwards and the part of the mirror which is struck is lower than the centre. The same would be true using the laser (parallel beam) experiment, which of course is the ideal experiment. Remember what we are trying to establish. Whether or not (even with ideal stright laser beams) that orthogonal path times are the same or not.

If you move the light beam (following the mirror upwards) then you are moving the coordinates of space as well.

Paul

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Mar26-04, 04:36 AM

Paul,

When analysing your work I thought about that. The light fires out from the source and the apparatus moves forward leaving the light to do its own thing. The result is that the light will strike the mirror slightly off centre. And it will travel between mirrors and arrive at the viewing telescope slightly off line.
But isn't the light the viewer looks at the light that struck the centre of the mirror. In which case this is the light that left the source at a slight forward angle?

The light the viewer looks at, is the light that he is lined up with. Please find one page file attached.

Paul

wisp

Mar29-04, 04:38 PM

Paul

I read this and let you know my thoughts.

Thanks

wisp

Apr2-04, 10:01 AM

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Apr5-04, 04:45 AM

Paul

Yes, there is something interesting here. Although I think that there is something more fundamental that is responsible for the MM "near null" result.
You are correct in that the light does not behave the way MM thought it did, i.e. it does not meet back at the centre of the mirror. This is an interesting observation and needs further investigation.
I will run mathcad on a model using your findings and see what happens.

I use the term MM to refer to all experiments. With the true speed of the earth being 5500m/s on MM's day, and it varying sinusiodally during the year, this model (given the exact prediction of amplitude, phase and offset of MM original experiment) will undoubtably predict all the other experimental results.
With such an exact fit, the chances of it not matching other experiments is very unlikely.

Paul

chroot

Apr5-04, 04:54 AM

Doesn't that violate the conditions of being a PF member (maybe not specifically in terms of clause b sub-clause iii, but in terms of what PF is clearly about)?
I don't believe we have enough evidence to conclude that Paul here is really trying to send anyone a virus. More than likely, he just fell victim to MyDoom a while back like many other innocent people.

This guy seems harmless, though a little daft and suffering from a scorching superiority complex.

- Warren

chroot

Apr5-04, 04:57 AM

Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise.
That's simply one of the funniest statements I've ever read on pf. Engineers making mathematical discoveries?

(And I hold an engineering degree, but I'm objective about engineers' training. It certainly doesn't prepare an engineer to make mathematical discoveries, of all things!)

- Warren

Antonio Lao

Apr5-04, 08:36 AM

Dirac was an engineer before he made giant contributions in quantum mechanics, a turning point in modern physics.

Severian596

Apr5-04, 10:50 AM

Well,Well, I was certain that 90% of all products, were developed by the engineer, along with most great discoveries, mathematical or otherwise.

Dirac was an engineer before he made giant contributions in quantum mechanics, a turning point in modern physics.

Most engineers create.
One engineer was responsible for a great discovery.
Therefore most engineers are responsible for most great discoveries.

hmm... :rolleyes:

Antonio Lao

Apr5-04, 02:32 PM

Severian596

Apr5-04, 02:36 PM

The ancient builders of the pyramids are foremost engineers and second mathematicians. It took them many years to find out the stability angle of the slope to the pyramids which is about 54 degrees. The mystery of how they builts the pyramids still remains to these days.

It also took Thales (the Greek philosopher/scientist) to teach them how to calculate a pyramid's height, because they didn't know how :wink:

PS Sorry, even further OT, but interesting nonetheless! The abstraction of numbers was an invention and we take it for granted.

Antonio Lao

Apr5-04, 02:44 PM

I didn't realize there were exchange students between Greece and Egypt at that time?

What happens when one needed new math to describe new physical concept?

Severian596

Apr5-04, 03:43 PM

I didn't realize there were exchange students between Greece and Egypt at that time?

What happens when one needed new math to describe new physical concept?

I should definitely quote my source, as I'm not a history scholar (especially not the history of geometry). But the book Euclid's Window (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684865238/102-0299636-8512971?v=glance) is very interesting, and discusses the progression of geometry from ancient civilization to modern theory.

Not "exchange students" per se, but traveling men who were interested in the pursuit of knowledge and truth. But these men (Pythagoras in particular) found different systems of math everywhere they traveled.

The author (Mlodinow) explains that few cultures looked for meaning behind the numbers, and instead applied them immediately to applications. Babylonians engineered canals and projected anticipated man hours to dig a canal based on the area of its trapazoidal cross section, its anticipated length, and how much dirt a man could shovel per hour. The egyptians crafted the pyramids utilizing the crucial 3, 4, 5 triangle. But only the greeks were interested in finding the answer to the following connundrum:

Given a triangle with sides measuring one unit of length, what's the length of the third side?

In Thales' elder years he was affraid of his own growing bewilderment, and offered some guidance to Pythagoras (in whom he must have seen some of himself). Thales was named one of the 7 wisest men in the world (one of the seven sages) by the Greek civilization.

Good stuff!

Antonio Lao

Apr5-04, 04:49 PM

Thanks for these information. I will look them up more thoroughly.

Severian596

Apr5-04, 05:16 PM

Sure! It really was my pleasure. The book is very entertaining, and you can get a used copy pretty cheap :)

elas

Apr6-04, 01:16 AM

The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most accurate scientific theory ever developed.

Wrong. SR is not a scientific theory and recently books and TV progs on related subjects (such as "The Planets", "Universe" "Neutrinos" and "The elegant universe") are careful to draw a distinction between mathematical prediction theories that are properly classified as philosophies and scientific theories that are theories related to reality. Greene in "The elegant universe" makes the point on several occassions. If you do not have the book, you will find the quotes on my webpage (see 'Strings and vacuum' forum).

Antonio Lao

Apr6-04, 09:18 AM

Einstein used to say that the objective reality has its independent existence. All physical theories can do but to approximate this reality to only a very trivial degree of model (mathmatical or physical) building. All empirical data can help in understanding the reality but not fully in the sense of complete understanding.

russ_watters

Apr6-04, 11:45 AM

SR is not a scientific theory... elas: The Scientific Method (http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html). Learn it, live it, love it.

2clockdude

Apr6-04, 12:30 PM

---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of QED, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."

"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------

2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of QED has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

And the answer is, no one.

Indeed, how can it be tested?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.

elas

Apr6-04, 04:46 PM

elas: The Scientific Method. Learn it, live it, love it.

russ waters
I agree and according to leaders in the field of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge and to leaders in the field of physics (including Prof. Greene author of The elegant universe), the Standard Model fails that test. I wrote at length on this subject in a forum titled 'Why all the nutcases'. If you really want to learn something look up SSK and physic on the web, it's a real education for those who mistakenly believe ST is a science subject.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Apr7-04, 04:41 AM

---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mattson wrote, in part:
"The best tests of SR are tests of <acronym title='Quantum Electrodynamics' style='cursor:help;'>QED</acronym>, which is the most
accurate scientific theory ever developed."

"Do you SR critics have anything to say about that?"
---------------------------------------------------------

2clockdude replies:
Well, here's what this particular SR critic has to say:
Which part of <acronym title='Quantum Electrodynamics' style='cursor:help;'>QED</acronym> has anything to do with the basis of SR,
namely, Einstein's light postulate?

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.)

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

And the answer is, no one.

Indeed, how can it be tested?

I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).

And here is my firm prediction:
No one will rise to this challenge.

That is what the interferometer does, by comparing path times. The answer is clear, just give me your email address and you shall receive a copy of the discovery.
PAN

wisp

Apr7-04, 07:48 AM

2clockdude

Well put. The only person that I know of who carried out a similar test - using an electrical pulse instead of light - was Roland DeWitte, in 1991, and his finding show SR to be wrong. His test ran for 178 days and used a set of 3 caesium standard clocks at point A and 3 at point B.
Krisher et al, in 1990, did a 5-day test using two clocks and light travelling down a fibre optic cable. Their result has too much noise to be conclusive, but they say it supported SR!

russ_watters

Apr7-04, 08:28 AM

(Both Maxwell's equations and the Michelson-Morley experiment
predated SR, so their results were not predicted by Einstein;
his specific and sole prediction was the invariance of light's
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks.) That's his postulate, not a prediction. The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope. And the answer is, no one. We've been over this oh, so many times. Which one of the dozens of examples already given would you like to discuss?I challenge anyone who believes in SR to simply show on paper
how light's speed can be experimentally measured by using two
clocks (which are at rest wrt the table upon which they sit).
This is absolutely trivial: so trivial in fact, that most scientists wouldn't consider it useful. We are far, far beyond that. GPS (designed and built by engineers using Einstein's math), for example uses the one-way invariance of the speed of light, combining SR and GR time dilation predictions. Far more sophisticated than what you suggest.

And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident: synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them. Simple.

wisp, I find it ironic that in some threads you trumpet how ether theory makes accurate predictions (which is to say it is mathematically equivalent to Relativity in some cases) and in other threads you say Relativity is wrong. You can' have it both ways.

2clockdude

Apr7-04, 08:59 AM

russ_watters wrote:
"That's his postulate, not a prediction.
The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope."

You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:

Postulate (verb):
a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

Axiom (noun):
a statement accepted as true

How can a statement be "accepted as true" or "assumed to
be true" when it makes a physically impossible claim?

Einstein's light postulate is his claim that "The law in
the one-way, two-clock light speed case is invariance."

SR is based entirely upon Einstein's light postulate.

However, as I hinted at above, there cannot be such a
postulate because it calls for that which cannot happen.

That is, it calls for nature to give us the natural or physical
law in the one-way, two-clock case, but this, as anyone should
be able to see, simply cannot be.

If you think otherwise, then please tell me how - given two
clocks which are not even started - nature can give us her
law in the one-way case. Indeed, I will even let you give her
started clocks, as long as you don't force them to obtain
what you think should be the result (as did Einstein).

Einstein's clock synchronization involves forcing clocks to
obtain one-way invariance and isotropy. This is not a result
from nature. This is a mere convention.

No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

Man's input is disallowed because this controls the output.

Only Nature's input is allowed because we are looking for
the natural law when we experiment.

russ_watters wrote:
"And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident:
synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them.
Simple."

Simple but wrong. Try again!

russ_watters

Apr7-04, 09:06 AM

You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir: Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence: In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate? Perhaps you use the two interchangeably. There is a difference. Simple but wrong. Try again! Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few actual arguments.

2clockdude

Apr7-04, 10:54 AM

russ_watters wrote:
"Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:"

Let me go over it in more detail, as follows:
A statement that is accepted as true is a definition of a
postulate. Of course, if that which has been (properly)
postulated has yet to occur and involves science, then the
postulate is a scientific prediction. However, if that which
has been (allegedly) postulated simply cannot possibly occur,
then we have a problem; i.e., there cannot be a scientific
postulate or prediction of that which cannot happen.

russ_watters wrote:
"Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these
threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few
actual arguments."

If you had fully read my last post, then you would have had
what you just asked for.

I wrote:
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

As I also explained, only if nature can give us her result
during an experiment will the result be a law of nature.
Which part of this do you not understand?

I also explained that man cannot be allowed to interfere in
any critical way (no input from man) or we will not have
a law of nature, but a law tainted by man. (This is what
would happen if man sawed off the end of one of the rods
in the Michelson-Morley experiment during the experiment.)

It is an SR claim that two clocks will experimentally yield
light speed invariance as a law of nature. I don't care if you
call this claim an axiom, a postulate, a hunch, a wild guess,
a hypothesis, a theory, or a corn dog; it doesn't matter because
this claim calls for that which is impossible.

I hope you know the meaning of the word "impossible."

elas

Apr12-04, 01:09 AM

UK newspapers are laughing at a recent schools football league ruling that no team shall be allowed to win by more than 14-0 (to avoid humiliation). So the team that won 29-0 was recorded at 14-0.
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.

zoobyshoe

Apr12-04, 08:22 AM

Elas, I think you're on to an idea that deserves more attention and study.

Nereid

Apr12-04, 02:12 PM

At the risk of sounding like a broken record ... a bunch of dudes and dudettes go to uni, learn about SR and GR. They get jobs working for EDO Corporation, Lockheed, etc. These companies win contracts to build and maintain the GPS system. The dudes and dudettes work hard for many months, the GPS satellites are tested, launched, tested, etc. The FAA (or whoever) pays EDO, Lockheed etc lots of $$ for delivering on their contracts; the dudes and dudettes keep their jobs, some even get paid bonuses.

Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.

Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.

Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.

Is there a better theory/theories of physics than SR/GR? Depends what 'better' means:
-> if 'within its domain, gives predictions that match observations and experiments more closely than GR does in its (and the two domains overlap significantly)', then we're all waiting to hear;
-> if 'has a domain broader than GR's, and defaults to something very close to GR in the limit of GR's applicability' then several approaches may become such (e.g. String/M Theory, LQG), but they've a long way to go.

Lots of Greeks and Egyptians in the world today. :cool:
(Edit: fixed formats)

Nereid

Apr12-04, 02:42 PM

*SNIP
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

The inter-galactic medium (IGM) isn't empty, just has a very low electron, proton, etc density. There are a number of predictions from this low density - e.g. a mean free path of charged cosmic ray particles, inverse Compton scattering of the CMBR - many of which can, in principle, be tested (and several have been). Does elas have a prediction re what may be observed? Perhaps distant point-sources will appear different at different wavelengths (anywhere from radio to ~>1 TeV gammas)? Perhaps there will be differential travel times from distant objects, depending on wavelength, or maybe smeared images of such objects as seen through gravitational lenses (again, depending on wavelength)?

And why limit ourselves to the IGM? One effect of supernovae, esp in a young cluster, is to blow a giant bubble in the ISM (inter-stellar medium), inside that bubble the electron density may be lower than that in the IGM. Then too there are the radio lobes of QSOs and AGNs, which are also enormous regions of ultra-low density gas ...

zoobyshoe

Apr12-04, 02:58 PM

Personally my mind is boggled at the fact that if I were to be traveling at 99% the speed of light I would still meaure a ray of light passing me to be passing me at c.

I do not know enough about SR and GR to know if you would have to contradict them to explain this. I would, however, like to know why it is.

Antonio Lao

Apr12-04, 03:12 PM

I think, one way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2

as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.

Antonio Lao

Apr12-04, 03:23 PM

As one's speed approaches .99c, one's mass approaches infinity and one's physical dimension approaches zero. But if one becomes pure energy in the form of light, no such restrictions are imposed.

zoobyshoe

Apr12-04, 03:30 PM

I think the way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.

ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2

as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.
The equation looks simple enough that I might be able to make some sense out of it. What do all the variables stand for?

Antonio Lao

Apr12-04, 03:37 PM

The x-y-z stands for a Cartesian coordinate system. the t stands for time coordinate. The c is the speed of light in vacuum.

The equation is a four dimensional quadratic form for the determination of a four-dim distance ds. This form is Lorentz invariance. It is the same in any coordinate system.

zoobyshoe

Apr12-04, 04:07 PM

Do me a favor and show me what it would look like with some real numbers plugged into all the variables.

Antonio Lao

Apr12-04, 04:20 PM

It's not going to be easy for me since there are more equations needed for a complete description.

I can refer some books on special relativity if it's easier for you?

But we can start by saying that ds=0, therefore

dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = c^2 dt^2

and

dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2

so that

dr^2 = c^2 dt^2

and

\frac {dr}{dt} = c

zoobyshoe

Apr12-04, 05:36 PM

Formulas and equations generally mean little to me untill I plug numbers into them and try them out. I had good luck with this when I plugged some actual numbers into the lorenz transforms in SR, and came away with a much more concrete understanding of the slower clocks and shorter rods. I'm not sure what would be realistic, useful values to plug in to the equation you gave. Chroot and Ambitwistor spent some time once explaining the importance of the spacetime interval to me, but I haven't ever worked one out, so it remains too vague for me to understand how it applies to the situation where going at 99% of the speed of light, I would still measure light passing me in the same direction to be passing me at c.

Antonio Lao

Apr12-04, 06:43 PM

As you already have done, if you replace all v's in the Lorentz transformation equations for a Cartesian system with .99c and then calculate the spacetime interval you will not get a value of zero for the interval.

elas

Apr13-04, 01:29 AM

russ_watters

Apr13-04, 08:09 AM

So your explanation fits observation better even though you don't know what the problems are with the accepted explanation? Hmm...

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr13-04, 08:33 AM

The speed of light c is only locally proven, it might just change outside of our solar system, we do NOT know yet...

As for MM, there is an experiment that can be conducted that rectifies this appearance of a problem...

BTW it was a Janitor who came up with it!

Antonio Lao

Apr13-04, 08:35 AM

After reading a book on entanglement, I am not so sure whether the photons we detected by our astronomical instruments are the original photons that transmitted the information.

Entangled photons are verified by experiments to propagate beyond light speed but still cannot send a message faster than light. Entanglement is controlled by a property of no-choice. No one can choose the resulting quantum state of the photon but only the input direction for the spin or polarization. The moment one photon takes a state, the other entangled photon although light-years away, instantly takes the "opposite" state.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr13-04, 08:37 AM

BTW paulanevill@fsmail.n I find your Idea of someones intellect as being a measuable function from their employ(s), rather silly, childish, and especailly & intently ignorant.....

Nereid

Apr13-04, 10:42 AM

]Nereid

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.

Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.

My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?
I have no idea what the Encyclopedia Britainica is referring to! Without any specific problems identified, let's assume there are no problems. :wink:

The 'low density' predictions refer to different phenomena, and AFAIK there are no inconsistencies nor observations that don't match theory. Later I'll post a few more details.

Maybe I missed your explanation (I'll read this thread again); are there *predictions* from this explanation which differ from 'the standard explanations'? If there are, and if those predictions are inconsistent with observations, then your explanation is unacceptable.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr14-04, 08:26 PM

Well there is a problem intergalactically, sorta, closer to home two of the probes that were sent out, to explore the outer planets, have been leaving our solar system, and it is being remarked upon that they appear to be slowing down....

This begs a great question, is this appearance of slower motion simple a reality of the speed of light actually being different as we progress away from the Sun's gravitational field, or is the Sun's gravitational field somehow more active, or stronger, as you get farther away from it?.....is it lightspeed changing, or gravity getting stronger? (or both?)

Nereid

Apr14-04, 09:49 PM

*SNIP
My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching? Here's the only elas explanation that I found on this thread:*SNIP
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.I really don't follow this explanation.

Let's go back to a time way before Einstein and Maxwell, to the 17th century.
Olaus Roemer (http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae22.cfm) calculated the speed of light by measuring a time difference and a (calculated) distance difference. Similar methods, of the kind

(calculated) speed = known distance/measured time

gave reasonable values for the speed of light, again well before Einstein or the publication of Maxwell's equation. Notice: no 'instrument' measures the speed, so the idea that any such is 'not allowed to record a greater speed than X' is meaningless, IMHO.

I also cannot follow the second part of your explanation - Young's double slit experiment (http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/interference/doubleslit/) shows that light has both a wave and particle nature. If, under your assumption that light has two forms - wave, and particle - which travel at different speeds, how to account for the results of the Young double slit experiment?

wisp

Apr15-04, 12:47 AM

2clockdude:
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

Agree. This is how the GPS works and it is not proof that the speed of light one-way is invariant.

Nereid:
Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.

Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.

Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.

Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way light speed test? No.

russ_watters

Apr15-04, 12:24 PM

No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result. Agree. This is how the GPS works and it is not proof that the speed of light one-way is invariant. If we aren't allowed to set up the initial conditions of the experiment, then no experiment we ever do has any meaning. Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way light speed test? No. Every person who has ever turned on a GPS reciever has done a 1 way speed of light test, an SR time dilation test, and a GR time dilation test all at the same time.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Apr16-04, 04:52 AM

BTW paulanevill@fsmail.n I find your Idea of someones intellect as being a measuable function from their employ(s), rather silly, childish, and especailly & intently ignorant.....

Don't get me wrong, I'm really alright. It's just a case of the only way to motivate the intellectual is to wind him or her up a little. It was all done on purpose. Sorry folks.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr16-04, 05:29 AM

Don't get me wrong, I'm really alright. It's just a case of the only way to motivate the intellectual is to wind him or her up a little. It was all done on purpose. Sorry folks.Hummm so you assume that everyone' intellect needs "winding up"....and if your wrong, then people react to your "winding up" attempt and not to the actual question/answer needs, good dodge (I suppose) but I really do not believe that that is why you did that, but have 'no proof', soooooo.....have a nice life!

petrichor

Apr16-04, 11:26 AM

If your idea is really all that great, why are you harassing people on an internet forum, rather than submitting a detailed paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal? :rolleyes:

Even Einstein as a patent clerk submitted papers.

russ_watters

Apr16-04, 11:33 AM

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr16-04, 07:42 PM

I tried that once.....sorta...... (sorry bout that 'Guys' didn't always know my own stength, kinda easier with that feedback impairment y'all gots)....getting published in a Journal? Nah, I was a.....Uhmmm, Truck driver at that time, Nope! I was self employed?.......uhmmm, maybe it was that other guy I was working for, or at that other place? anyways.......don't even recall (right this second/minute) what Job I had, Hee hee heeeeeeee :cool: !

2clockdude

Apr16-04, 09:54 PM

["2clockdude" wrote:]
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.

[Russ W replied:]
If we aren't allowed to set up the initial conditions of the
experiment, then no experiment we ever do has any meaning.

[2clockdude notes:]
That comment is much better than the standard "Hey, you silly
crank, don't you know that SR's right as rain!"

Let's see if we can go forward from here.

It is clear that setting up the initial conditions cannot involve
rigging the outcome; however, in the case of light's one-way speed,
man _must_ rig the outcome by relating the clocks his way because
clock synchronization is a necessary part of any two-clock case,
and only man can synchronize clocks.

For example, if man forces clocks (as did Einstein) to obtain
one-way light speed invariance/isotropy, then of course they will
obtain this, but this result was not given by nature, it was given
only by man, so it is not a law of nature.

For another example, if man were to somehow absolutely synchronize
clocks, then they will obtain one-way light speed variance/anisotropy,
but this result would not be given by nature, so it would be a law of
nature.

If that which is critical to the output is controlled by man, then
the output (or result) cannot be a law of nature or a natural result.

Only if that which is critical to the output is fully controlled by
nature will the output (or result) be a law of nature or a natural
result.

This is why there could be a law of nature in the round-trip, one-
clock case. In that case, unlike the one-way, two-clock case, there
is not only _no_ synchronization, but nature herself fully controls
all of the critical parts of the experiment, namely, the clock's
intrinsic rhythm, and the rods' intrinsic lengths.

By slowing the clock and contracting the rods of the round-trip
experiment, nature was able to cause the outcome to be null; thus,
the law of nature in the round-trip case is invariance/isotropy.

Contrastingly, since the one-way, two-clock case calls for clock
synchronization, and since nature cannot synchronize clocks, it is
impossible to obtain a law of nature in the one-way case. This is
exactly why no one has ever performed the one-way Michelson-Morley
experiment.

Here is the only way that such an experiment could be performed:

Step 1: Nature conceives of a clock synchronization definition.
Step 2: Nature starts and relates two spatially-separated clocks
in accordance with Her synchronization definition.
Step 3: Nature uses the clocks to measure the one-way speed of a
passing light ray.

I hope that everyone can now clearly see that Nature cannot give us
Her result (or a law of nature) in the one-way case.

However, it is clear to me that Einstein did not see this at all
because of the following three steps he took:

[a] Einstein took it for granted that a one-way light speed law
of nature existed.

[b] Einstein firmly believed that this one-way light speed law of
nature was invariance.

[c] Accordingly, Einstein based all of his special relativity solely
upon his firm belief that the "law of nature" in the one-way case is
"invariance."

But, as we know, there cannot be a law of nature in the one-way case,
so there cannot be a one-way postulate or any scientific theory based
upon such a postulate; ergo, special relativity is not a scientific
theory.

Special relativity makes no predictions that are not entirely based
upon a mere definition given by man, namely, Einstein's definition of
clock synchronization (which forces light speed invariance/isotropy
in the one-way case.)

Therefore, special relativity makes no scientific predictions about
the nature of nature.

For a prime example, once more consider the critical case of the
one-way speed of light per two clocks:
Einstein's invariance of this speed was/is due only to his clock
synchronization definition, which, as we said, simply forces clocks
to obtain one-way invariance, so this is certainly not a scientific
prediction, but is a mere man-given (rigged) result.

For another example, consider the case of special relativity's so-
called "time dilation"; all that happens in this case is that due
to the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks, one observer will see
another observer's clock apparently run slow when it is compared
with the two clocks in the first observer's frame.

This last example is much easier to see pictorially, as follows:

[4]-->
[4]----Frame A-----[3]

................................[5]-->
[5]----Frame A-----[4]

As is _forced_ by Einstein's definition of clock synchronization,
the observers in Frame A see the passing clock "run slow." This is
a result that was not given by nature, so it is not a law of physics;
indeed, it has nothing whatsoever to do with real time dilation (or
with real or intrinsic clock rhythms).

["wisp" noted:]
Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way
light speed test? No.

[Russ W replied:]
Every person who has ever turned on a GPS reciever has done a
1 way speed of light test, an SR time dilation test, and a GR
time dilation test all at the same time.

Question:
How did these persons synchronize their clocks?

(The only known method for synchronizing clocks is Einstein's
definition of synchronization, but this, as we know, merely
forces one-way invariance/isotropy, and so is _not_ a law of
nature.)(Also, since Einstein has only relative simultaneity,
it is clear that his clocks are not absolutely synchronous,
but are asynchronous, so they are incorrectly related.)(Of
course, no one in GPS cares because of their error corrections;
they openly state that such corrections can even override the
deliberate governmental barrier for civilian usage.)

And as far as the part about a SR time dilation test goes, how
can SR say anything about actual clock rhythms when each SR
frame's observers find _different_ "rhythms" for one and the
same passing clock? (I say that it is physically impossible for
a single (steady-speed) clock to have more than one atomic
rhythm.)

zoobyshoe

Apr16-04, 11:57 PM

2clockdude,

I think your post is very interesting.

I would like to correct one error I noticed. You said that Einstein "firmly believed that his one-way light speed law of nature was invariance"

In fact, though, Einstein was not proceeding from any such belief. He said:

"That light requires the same time to traverse the path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a [i]stipulation[/] which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."

From Chapter VIII, ON THE IDEA OF TIME IN PHYSICS, SR

Einstein stipulated the speed of light as constant in order to have a tool to explore the greater point he was working toward about the Relativity of Simultaneity. Apparently he hadn't heard about the Michelson-Morley experiment at the time he wrote SR.

I don't know if this changes your interesting train of thought at all, but I thought you should know.

-Zooby

2clockdude

Apr17-04, 09:30 AM

[zoobyshoe wrote, in part:]
Einstein stipulated the speed of light as constant in order to
have a tool to explore the greater point he was working toward
about the Relativity of Simultaneity. Apparently he hadn't heard
about the Michelson-Morley experiment at the time he wrote SR.

I don't know if this changes your interesting train of thought at
all, but I thought you should know.

[2clockdude replies:]
Hey, we're really making progress here! Yes, 'Zooby,' I am well aware
of Einstein's two different versions of light's one-way speed!
One version was that one-way invariance/isotropy is a LAW of nature
per experiment, and the other was that it was merely a _stipulation_
given only by mere man, which means that it would have exactly nothing
to do with physics (or with the nature of nature).

How do I know for sure that Einstein had _two_ versions; well, I
know for sure that he claimed to use the principle of relativity,
and I also know for sure that he claimed to have a scientific
theory called special relativity, and these two facts alone tell
us in no uncertain terms that Einstein was talking about a LAW
of nature in the one-way light speed case. (The principle of
relativity pertains _only_ to laws of nature, and any scientific
theory must of course pertain to the nature of nature.)

Furthermore, take a quick look at the title of Chapt. VII in
Einstein's book _Relativity_:

"The Apparent Incompatibility of the LAW of propagation of light
with the Principle of Relativity"

We know that here he was speaking of the one-way light speed LAW
because he gave a math formula showing that this LAW is c - v
in the Galilean case (for a departing light ray).

And, as I said above, since he was talking about the principle of
relativity, he had to have been talking about some sort of LAW of
nature. (Not to re-mention the fact that he claimed to have a
scientific theory based on a scientific postulate about the one-way
speed of light per two clocks.)

[Before I proceed to clear up the "two versions" theme, I should
address your claim that Einstein apparently had not heard of the
MMx when he created SR; please ponder the following from the first
page of Einstein's 1905 SR paper: "Examples of this sort, together
with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth
relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that ...."]

[I would also like to say that even though I was aware of the two
versions prior to my last post, I deliberately ignored the mere
definition (or mere stipulation) version in order to focus on the
more important version (re SR), namely, Einstein's claim that there
is a LAW in the one-way light speed case, and that SR was based on
this LAW being invariance.]

Well, there can be no doubt that Einstein had two entirely different
stories regarding one-way light speed invariance/isotropy, but the
problem for Einstein is this: Neither version has any real value for
or any relevance to science!

Here is the problem with Version One ("the one-way, two-clock light
speed law not only exists, but is invariance/isotropy"):

Since nature cannot synchronize clocks, and since there cannot be a
one-way, two-clock law without two synchronized clocks, it is clear
that there cannot be such a law, and it follows that there cannot be
a scientific postulate regarding such a law, and it further follows
that there cannot be a scientific theory based on such a postulate;
therefore, special relativity cannot be a scientific theory. (It says
absolutely nothing about nature that is not based 100% upon a mere
man-given definition of clock synchronization because 100% of the math
of special relativity is derived using Einstein's clocks in all frames.)

Here is the problem with Version Two ("one-way, two-clock light speed
invariance/isotropy is purely a mere stipulation given in order to have
a working definition of 'simultaneity."):

As the twin SR phrases "relative time" and "relative simultaneity"
tell us, Einstein's time and Einstein's simultaneity are not absolute,
but are merely relative. But I dislike the use of the terms "relative"
and "absolute"; for clarity, they should be replaced with the terms
"incorrect" and "correct."

In other words, Einstein's stipulation produced incorrectly-related
(i.e., absolutely asynchronous) clocks.

Therefore, Einstein's definition of synchronization (i.e., his stipulation
of one-way light speed invariance/isotropy) gives us _incorrect_ clocks.

So here are the bottom lines for Einstein:

Bottom Line 1:
[one-way "law" case:]
Einstein has no scientific theory because there cannot be a law of
nature in the one-way, two-clock light speed case.

Bottom Line 2:
[definition of clock synchronization (stipulation) case:]
Clocks which are baselessly and arbitrarily forced to obtain one-way
light speed invariance/isotropy will not be correctly related.
(Of course, over relatively small distances and for measuring relatively
slow speeds, Einstein's clocks will suffice because their error of
synchronization in such cases is very small due to the very rapid speed
of light through space, but as far as theory goes, clocks which are
asynchronous are simply asynchronous clocks, period.)

In either case, Einstein loses in a big way.

zoobyshoe

Apr17-04, 11:34 AM

2clockdude,

I googled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and I agree that the sentence you quoted strongly indicates Einstein must have been aware of MM, since he was aware of "...the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the `light medium'..."

I happened to notice, just below this, the following:

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the `Principle of Relativity') to the status of a, postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistant theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies."

Here Einstein describes both the Principle of Relativity and the invariance of c as postulates. I don't see him asserting that one or the other (or both) is a law of nature.

2clockdude

Apr17-04, 04:53 PM

[zoobyshoe wrote:]
Here Einstein describes both the Principle of Relativity and the
invariance of c as postulates. I don't see him asserting that one
or the other (or both) is a law of nature.

[2clockdude replies:]
You need to know the meaning of the phrase "scientific postulate."

A scientific postulate is the prediction of a law of nature (given
solely by nature, with zero interference by man) or of the physical
existence of some specific phenomenon.

Here is an example of the latter:
"The American theorists Murray Gell-Mann & George Zweig independently
postulated the existence of quarks."
[from American Physical Society - "A Century of Physics" - a
physics timeline at http://timeline.aps.org/servlet/Event?evtId=113]

Dictionary definition of postulate (verb):
To assume to be true.

A scientific postulate is a guess, a supposition, a
hunch, or a hypothesis about the nature of nature.

All scientific postulates must pertain to the nature of nature.

All scientific postulates must be experimentally testable.

Given that your claim is that Einstein claimed that his one-way
light speed invariance was a postulate, I have to ask you the
following simple question:

How can one-way light speed invariance occur experimentally?

One cannot postulate one-way invariance if one has already forced
it via one's definition of clock synchronization.

Note carefully that all scientific postulates and theories _must_
be falsifiable (or at least testable), but it is clearly impossible
to falsify (or to even test) Einstein's one-way light speed invariance
because it is _mandated_ via definition (just as are the length of an
inch and the value of water's boiling point in degrees F).

One can postulate one-way light speed invariance IFF (if and only
if) it could possibly happen in nature (at least in principle), but,
as I have taken great care to point out, one-way light speed invariance
simply cannot happen experimentally, so it cannot be scientifically
postulated.

If you really believe that Einstein postulated one-way invariance,
then tell us how this postulate could possibly be tested experimentally.
(Just show on paper a test for one-way invariance.) (There can be no
such test because one-way invariance cannot occur in nature. This is
why no one has ever performed the one-way Michelson-Morley experiment,
including Michelson, Maxwell, Lorentz, and Einstein.) (In fact, no one
has ever even shown _on paper_ how such an "experiment" could be carried
out!) (And, as I said, this is because no such "experiment" exists, not
even in principle!)

wisp

Apr17-04, 06:07 PM

No journal submission?

I considered submitting my theory to a journal. But it meant signing away copyright and you loose control of your work, and the journals make profit from selling your work.
I think that placing your ideas freely on the Internet or self-publishing is just as effective.

zoobyshoe

Apr17-04, 06:17 PM

2clockdude,

A postulate (noun) is:

a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or premise of a train of reasoning.

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition

postulate - OneLook Dictionary Search
Address:http://www.onelook.com/?w=postulate&ls=a

The definitions you gave lack the important point that a postulate is put forth in the service of a train of logic to see where it will lead if followed. Postulates are similar to stipulations in that they don't have to be proven to start the train of logic. Einstein took his two postulates and followed the train to his theory of relativity.

Experimental testability is, I believe, a requirement of a scientific theory, not of a postulate. You do not go about testing a theory by testing its postulates. If you could do that they wouldn't be postulates to begin with, but facts. To the extent SR has been experimentally tested and passed it lends credence to the postulates.

petrichor

Apr17-04, 06:56 PM

I considered submitting my theory to a journal. But it meant signing away copyright and you loose control of your work, and the journals make profit from selling your work.
I think that placing your ideas freely on the Internet or self-publishing is just as effective.

"Signing away copyright" doesn't mean squat. It just means you can't make money off of photocopied/reproduced copies of the paper. This is because the journal took time typesetting it for you. You still own intellectual property rights, if you have applied for a patent. Journals are not a profit-making venture. Have you seen any journal publishers driving Ferraris? I haven't. Most barely make back enough to break even. And even then, scientists gripe all the time about how expensive subscription or page charges are.

An independent person can submit their work to a journal without page charges for free, which is a pretty good deal, considering how many people will read it. Journal articles have been reviewed and are much more respected than some e-mailed Word document on some theory. We scientists get this stuff all the time. Usually we hit delete. Submission to a journal is the essence of the scientific process. Let a few people look at it and judge the merit and suggest improvements before the rest of us waste any time.

I promise that the vast majority of scientists are open minded and would welcome an overturn of a paradigm, since it gives us all a lot of interesting problems to work on.

Mr. Robin Parsons

Apr17-04, 08:34 PM

As long as they are not requiring you to sign away your Moral rights (your right to your name, on your work....and no one else's!) in copyright law, then you have nothing to worry about....what they want is the right to grant the right, to others, to copy the work(s)

2clockdude

Apr17-04, 10:13 PM

[zoobyshoe noted:]
A postulate (noun) is:
a hypothesis advanced as an essential presupposition, condition, or
premise of a train of reasoning.

[2clockdude replies:]
You are merely repeating what I said re postulates, only with slightly
different words.

[zoobyshoe noted:]
Postulates are similar to stipulations in that they don't have to be
proven to start the train of logic. Einstein took his two postulates
and followed the train to his theory of relativity.

[2clockdude replies:]
Postulates don't have to be proved, but they must pertain to that
which could happen in nature - if only in principle; however, that
which Einstein "postulated" - as I have said - _cannot_ happen in
nature even in principle. (It cannot happen naturally because nature
cannot synchronize clocks.)

And a postulate is definitely not anything like a stipulation; the
latter is merely a man-given convention, like the length of an inch,
and, as I said, such conventions or definitions have nothing to do
with the nature of nature or with experimental results.

A physics postulate is the assumption of the truth of the occurrence
of something physical. As you said above, it is simply a scientific
hypothesis or a supposition. But the problem in Einstein's case is the
fact that his postulate or hypothesis or supposition assumed the truth
of that which cannot happen, not even in principle.

Perhaps the following will clear this matter up for you:

Do you believe that Einstein believed that he was hypothesizing that
the natural value of light's one-way speed is c in all frames? If so,
then you are saying that Einstein believed that the outcome of the
experiment which uses two clocks to measure light's one-way speed is
supposed to be invariance. But there cannot be such an experiment
due to the inability of Nature to synchronize clocks. (The one-way,
two-clock speed of light cannot be measured without two clocks
which have been temporally related in some way, and only if Nature
relates the clocks will the result be a natural one, i.e., one that
can be hypothesized about.)

[zoobyshoe noted:]
Experimental testability is, I believe, a requirement of a scientific
theory, not of a postulate. You do not go about testing a theory by
testing its postulates. If you could do that they wouldn't be postulates
to begin with, but facts. To the extent SR has been experimentally
tested and passed it lends credence to the postulates.

[2clockdude replies:]
Since a scientific postulate is a scientific hypothesis, it is clear
that a scientific postulate must be testable and falsifiable or it
says nothing about the nature of our world.

There are two major problems with the following sentence of yours:
"To the extent SR has been experimentally tested and passed it lends
credence to the postulates."

In the first place, SR = Einstein's light postulate, and in the second
place, this makes it impossible to test SR.

I challenge you to list a single scientific test of SR, i.e., any
experiment which either tests the sole basis of SR (namely, Einstein's
claim of one-way invariance) or any experiment which was _not_ rigged by
the use of clocks related by Einstein's definition of synchronization
(which forces one-way invariance).

Bear in mind that SR's "time dilation," SR's "mass increase," and SR's
"length contraction" are all fully dependent upon Einstein's clocks, so
are simply circular and therefore irrelevant results. (They are circular
because of the following fact: If one artificially forces clocks to obtain
one-way light speed invariance, and if one then uses these clocks to make
any measurements, then all such measurements are merely given by man, and
not by nature, so they have nothing to do with the nature of nature or
with physics per se. For example, here is how light's one-way invariance
is circular in Einstein's world: If I force clocks to obtain one-way light
speed invariance, then I will obtain it. For another example, here is how
SR's "time dilation" is circular: If I compare two of Einstein's absolutely
asynchronous clocks in Frame A with a passing clock, then I must of course
"see the passing clock running slow" because of the _given_ (mandated by
sheer man-given definition) absolute asynchronousness of Einstein's A-frame clocks.)

So far, you have tried to use a scientific postulate, a stipulation, and
a combination of the two, but you still have failed to show how SR be a
scientific theory or how Einstein's so-called light postulate can be a
scientific postulate or hypothesis.

No one can test a stipulation or a definition, but a scientific postulate
or a scientific hypothesis or a scientific theory must be both testable
and falsifiable.

And just in case none of the above hits home, here is my backup
version:
I need you to tell me the full physical meaning of Einstein's light
"postulate" (my quotes). In other words, what exactly was Einstein's
hypothesis, presupposition, condition or premise in this case? What
physical process was being presupposed or hypothesized? I claim that
he was hypothesizing that if two clocks were used to measure light's
one-way speed, then the experimental result must be invariance. I
also claim that no such experiment can be performed due to the simple
fact that clock synchronization is not a natural phenomenon. But I
would like to hear your claim as to the exact physical meaning of
Einstein's light "postulate" (my quotes).

IooqXpooI

Apr17-04, 10:16 PM

So I suppose you don't want the correct solution to the michelson and morley interferometer. You'd rather keep on talking about relativity, and such, as if you really understand it. The problem has been solved and there is no need for the likes of you to waste you time on it any longer. Einstein was wrong, but then he was only a patent clerk. I on the other hand, I have spent over twenty years as a professional engineer, creating products and solutions to problems far more difficult than a silly, incorrect, interferomter model.

If you want the solution which destroys relativity then email me a request at paulanevill@fsmail.net, the file is too big to leave here. If on the other hand you are not man enough, then please feel free to continue your unprofessional tittle tattle. Ta ra.

Paul A Nevill BEng (Hons.), MIEESo, tell me, can you prove it by taking pictures of the experiment and such?(Not really pictures, but you get my point)

zoobyshoe

Apr18-04, 01:44 AM

Well, 2clockdude, I have recently been reading another thread on this very subject started by someone with a different name than you but who seems to have an identical argument to yours. I find this odd because your argument is so idiosynchratic.

I suspect, at this point, that you and he are the same person, and that this peculiar argument that relativity doesn't even qualify as a proper theory is being offered here for entertainment purposes.

2clockdude

Apr18-04, 02:35 PM

['zoobyshoe' noted:]
... this peculiar argument that relativity doesn't even
qualify as a proper theory is being offered here for
entertainment purposes.

['2clockdude' replies:]
Authorship is irrelevant to the argument, and my argument
was certainly not for entertainment; if that is all you
have gathered, then you have not understood a word that I
have said. (OTOH, you may just be copping out.)

Let me make one more valiant attempt to get through:

Somebody, somewhere, at some time has made the claim that
light's one-way speed per two clocks is invariant. My
question to you is How can that be?
(Show us on paper how it can happen experimentally.)

elas

Apr19-04, 11:11 AM

Tom Mattson

Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is, "Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of an aether?"

What about all the superfluous assumptions that have crept into ST for historical reasons, I have made it clear time and time again that I do not criticise the mathematics, but, I do criticise the vast array of entities used to explain the numbers; most of which cannot not be defined. This includes the latest addition ie 'strings'.

paulanevill@fsmail.n

Apr20-04, 04:40 AM

So, tell me, can you prove it by taking pictures of the experiment and such?(Not really pictures, but you get my point)

Without wish to repeat myself, the solution can be obtained by leaving me your email address here, or emailing me on paulanevill@fsmail.net

2clockdude

Apr20-04, 08:16 AM

[Tom Mattson noted:]
Of course, we don't have to use SR. There are aether theories that
are experimentally indistinguishable from it. But the question is,
"Why on Earth would you want to add the superfluous assumption of
an aether?"

[twoclockdude replies:]
For one thing, SR is not a scientific theory because it makes no
predictions about nature. Everything in SR is based solely on a
definition - including light's one-way speed invariance - so none
of SR pertains to the nature of nature (because, as I just said,
it is nothing but a mere convention plus its irrelevant results).

Definitions and conventions from man are not natural laws or parts
of nature. For example, the length of an inch is a mere convention,
so it is not a part of nature, so it does not belong in any theory
of nature as a hypothesis. This is exactly why Einstein's invariance
of the one-way speed of light does not belong in any scientific
theory. (This 'invariance' is given only by convention or by mere
definition, just as is the length of an inch.) (Nothing in nature
says - or could say - that light's one-way speed is invariant,
so no scientific theory can say this.)

For another thing, as far as light's speed through space is
concerned, the aether essentially exists. Why? Because we know
the value of this speed (it is c, and it was given by Maxwell's
equations as well as the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment), and we
know that it does not vary in 'empty' space. What more could you
ask for re 'absolute' motion detection? (Well, as Einstein said,
you would need truly or absolutely synchronous clocks in order to
correctly measure light's passing speed in order to determine
your own speed through space. There, now, wasn't that simple!
(And no actual aether was even needed!)

Antonio Lao

Apr21-04, 09:44 AM

I would like to step backward to the original purpose of MM null experiment.

The purpose was to find the special frame of reference required by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism.

Newton's laws of motion and law of universal gravitation work on all frames of reference. And space and time are separated frames.

The rest frame that MM experiment was looking for is the ether frame. And this cannot be found.

In order to remove the requirement of EM for a special frame, the frames of space and time were combined into spacetime.

Unless the ether is found, special relativity will just have to remain the best theory of finding the rest frame of the universe.

The truth is there is no such "rest frame" anywhere in the universe. Everything is in motion even at the local infinitesimal region of spacetime as what GPB probe will detect the gravitomagnetism of spinning spacetime. But GPB might still fail to detect this local motion since it's more of a double spins configuration than that analogous to the gyroscope. If one of the double spins is much more dominant, GPB might be able to detect the precession and wobbles.

russ_watters

Apr21-04, 11:34 AM

For one thing, SR is not a scientific theory because it makes no predictions about nature. Have you checked out Nereid's links to the numerous predictions/experiments verifying SR? Any specific ones you disagree with? This 'invariance' is given only by convention or by mere definition, just as is the length of an inch. No. Thats a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of SR - and possibly experimental physics itself.
There, now, wasn't that simple!
(And no actual aether was even needed!) So....you are saying you agree that there is no aether?

2clockdude, your posts display a rather severe misunderstanding of the way science works - ie, how experiments must work, what a "theory" is, what is and isn't acceptable in a theory, experiment, postulate, etc., etc. I've used the baseball analogy before: if you want to play baseball, you have to follow the rules. You're not following the rules: the game you are playing is therefore not science.

2clockdude

Apr22-04, 01:24 PM

[2clockdude wrote:]
For one thing, SR is not a scientific theory because it makes
no predictions about nature.

[russ_watters replied:]
Have you checked out Nereid's links to the numerous
predictions/experiments verifying SR? Any specific ones
you disagree with?

[2clockdude replies:]
Name one that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition
of clock synchronization. All two-clock measurements in SR are
dependent upon this definition, so all of the so-called SR
"predictions/experiments" are merely the direct results of
said definition, so none are given by nature, and all are given
only by man via a definition.

For example, here is SR's "time dilation":

Given, a single clock passing two Frame A clocks:
[4]->
[4]----Frame A----[3]

---------------------[5]
[5]----Frame A----[4]
The A-Frame observers declare, "Look, Ma, the passing clock is
running slow!"

But, as anyone can see, this "time dilation" of SR has nothing to
do with

There are at least two physical reasons why SR's "time dilation"
has nothing to do with actual or intrinsic clock rhythms, as follow:

[1] No two real clocks can both be slower than each other.

[2] No single real atomic clock moving inertially can have more
than one atomic rhythm (and yet Einsteinian observers in various
frames find that a single passing clock "runs at many different
rates.")

[2clockdude wrote:]
This 'invariance' is given only by convention or by mere definition,
just as is the length of an inch.

[russ_watters replied:]
No. Thats a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of SR - and possibly experimental physics itself.

[2clockdude replies:]
So you tell me what's the basis for one-way, two-clock light speed
invariance.

[2clockdude wrote:]
There, now, wasn't that simple!
(And no actual aether was even needed!)

[russ_watters replied:]
So....you are saying you agree that there is no aether?

It's easy to prove that there is no aether, but the proof is moot
because as far as light's speed through space is concerned, there
is an aether. This is because this speed is known, and it never
changes. (No light ray can outrun another in 'empty' space; all
light rays in space always move at the same speed.)

As Einstein himself said, given the absolutely synchronous clocks
of classical physics, light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary
with frame velocity. This is due to the two facts I just mentioned.

We don't need an actual aether to have absolute time and to measure
our speed through space. All we need is a pair of (absolutely or
actually) synchronous clocks.

Einstein's clocks are not truly or absolutely asynchronous because
he was unable to determine absolute simultaneity, as he freely
admitted, but as his followers seem determined to ignore or twist
into something else.

Einstein's SR is not a scientific theory because it says nothing
at all about nature. ALL of SR's results are given only by man
via a mere definition of clock synchronization because ALL of SR's
two-clock times (i.e., the times in the SR transformation equations
and its composition of velocities theorem times) are dependent upon
Einstein's definition of synchronization. (None of SR's times are
given by experiment or by nature, so none are a part of physics.)

kurious

Apr22-04, 01:53 PM

Michelson Morley can be explained by photons receiving gravitons from a particle-the faster the particle is moving TOWARDS the photon, the more the graviton is blueshifted and the more energy it has to slow a photon down so the sum of velocities stays constant as c m/s.

russ_watters

Apr22-04, 02:05 PM

It's easy to prove that there is no aether, but the proof is moot
because as far as light's speed through space is concerned, there
is an aether. This is because this speed is known, and it never
changes. (No light ray can outrun another in 'empty' space; all
light rays in space always move at the same speed.) Now you're saying that even though we don't have evidence of an aether, we know there has to be an aether because we know there has to be an aether. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds? Especially in light of your complaints about Relativity requiring assumptions. As Einstein himself said, given the absolutely synchronous clocks
of classical physics, light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary
with frame velocity. This is due to the two facts I just mentioned.
Quite right - if those two "facts" are right, then the conclusion you draw is right. But oops: those two "facts" are not facts, they are assumptions. Why are those assumptions worse than the ones in SR? They have been experimentally proven to be wrong (or rather, both are erroneous applications of Newtonian physics to a non-Newtonian situation).

2clock, the whole reason Einstein developed his Relativity is that Newtonian physics does not accurately explain experimental data. You keep saying 'if we assume Newton's laws work in all cases, then...XXXX....' Well Newton's laws don't work in all cases.Name one [experiment] that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition Name one that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. First tell me what is wrong with Einstein's (and the rest of the scientific community's) definition of clock synchronization - and tell me how clocks should be synchronized.

2clock - again, this simply comes down to the fact that you don't like the implications of the data and as a result refuse to accept real, hard data at face value. Until you can do that, you'll never move past this problem.

zoobyshoe

Apr22-04, 02:05 PM

[2clockdude wrote:]
There are at least two physical reasons why SR's "time dilation"
has nothing to do with actual or intrinsic clock rhythms, as follow:

[1] No two real clocks can both be slower than each other.

I brought this up here a few months ago. If observer A sees observers Bs clock as running slow, and observer B simultaneously sees observer A's clock as running slow by an equal rate, all it means is that measuring a faster moving clock by this method results in the illusion of time dilation. The fact the illusion is reciprocal demonstrates both clocks are running at the same rate. Any authentic asymetry in the passage of time would result in one measuring the other's clock as running fast and the other measuring the other's clock as running slow.

The conclusion "fast clocks run slow" should be changed to "fast clocks will be measured as running slow".

Chroot and Ambitwistor demonstrated, however, that in a situation involving two separate and different spacetime intervals there is an authentic asymetry that leads to the asymetric aging found in the twin paradox.

As far as I understand it, the fact that "fast clocks run slow" is an inaccurate characterization of what is actually happening, does nothing whatever to change the fact that the mathematical concepts of Relativity work in its application to the GPS etc. It just makes it harder to understand.

2clockdude

Apr23-04, 01:41 PM

[russ_watters noted:]
Now you're saying that even though we don't have evidence of an
aether, we know there has to be an aether because we know there
has to be an aether. Do you have any idea how absurd that sounds?
Especially in light of your complaints about Relativity requiring
assumptions.

[2clockdude responds:]
Hmmm ... have you had your reading comprehension checked lately?

[2clockdude continues:]
What's really absurd is how bad this forum can be.

[2clockdude continues:]
Read or reread what I said about the aether.

[russ_watters quoted me:]
Quote:
As Einstein himself said, given the absolutely synchronous clocks
of classical physics, light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary
with frame velocity. This is due to the two facts I just mentioned.

[russ_watters noted:]
Quite right - if those two "facts" are right, then the conclusion
you draw is right. But oops: those two "facts" are not facts, they
are assumptions. Why are those assumptions worse than the ones in SR?
They have been experimentally proven to be wrong (or rather, both
are erroneous applications of Newtonian physics to a non-Newtonian
situation).

[2clockdude responds:]
Are you saying that you believe that a light ray's speed can change
in 'empty' space? Or are you saying that we do not know the value
of light's propagational speed in 'empty' space? Or are you saying
both of these things?

[2clockdude continues:]
Maxwell long ago told us the value of light's propagational speed
through space, and everyone but you knows that light rays do not
speed up or slow down as they travel through ('empty') space, so I
fail to see how you could deny that either of my statements is a
fact.

[2clockdude continues:]
Here is the schoolkid version (because apparently it's needed here):
Long, long, long ago, every physicist realized that if there were
only a Giant Tortoise in space whose speed through space were known,
and whose speed through space were constant (i.e., nonchanging), then
we would have all we need to determine our own speed through space.
All I was saying with my two facts is that each and every light ray
in space is exactly like the Giant Tortoise which was so long, long
ago dreamt of. Yes, Virginia, some Fairy Tales do indeed come true.
(In fact, we have had the Giant Tortoise [in the form of light rays]
for literally billions of years. It's just that Einstein failed to
appreciate this! Indeed, he did everything in his power to ignore
and to nullify it!)

[2clockdude responds:]
2clock, the whole reason Einstein developed his Relativity is that
Newtonian physics does not accurately explain experimental data.
You keep saying 'if we assume Newton's laws work in all cases,
then...XXXX....' Well Newton's laws don't work in all cases.

[2clockdude responds:]
When did I say that Newton's physics works?
How does SR explain any experimental data?
SR does not even explain the MMx.

[russ_watters quoted me:]
Quote:
Name one [experiment] that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's
definition Name one that is not fully dependent upon Einstein's
definition of clock synchronization.

[2clockdude wrote:]
First tell me what is wrong with Einstein's (and the rest of the
scientific community's) definition of clock synchronization - and
tell me how locks should be synchronized.

[2clockdude responds:]
I asked first.
And while you are at it, try to prove that Einstein's clocks are
correctly synchronized.

[russ_watters noted:]
2clock - again, this simply comes down to the fact that you don't
like the implications of the data and as a result refuse to accept
real, hard data at face value. Until you can do that, you'll never
move past this problem.

[2clockdude responds:]
Here is some real, hard data for you:
One-way light speed invariance is given only by definition, not by
experiment, and it cannot be given by experiment because no such
experiment exists. And, in case you don't remember, all of SR was
based solely on Einstein's baseless claim of one-way invariance,
so all of SR is utterly baseless, and SR is not a scientific theory.

[2clockdude continues:]
Here is some more real, hard data for you:
No one has proved the correctness of Einstein's clocks, so all
the results thereof have yet to be validated, including the SR
transformation equations, the SR composition of velocities
theorem, and every other two-clock-based result of SR.

[2clockdude continues:]
And here is even more real, hard data for you:
Einstein himself admitted that he could not determine absolute
simultaneity, which is the same thing as saying that he could
not absolutely synchronize clocks. And this proves that his
clocks are absolutely asynchronous, so are not correctly
related temporally.

wisp

Apr25-04, 12:34 AM

Am I correct in thinking that a positive result of the Gravity Probe B in its GR test will have no affect on the one-way 2-clock test?

This GR mission costs $700 million and takes at least a year to analyse the data when the mission is complete.

What is the point in spending all this money, when they could do a simpler test using 2 clocks and a laser!
:cool:

Nigel

Apr25-04, 07:15 AM

‘The Michelson-Morley experiment has thus failed to detect our motion through the aether, because the effect looked for – the delay of one of the light waves – is exactly compensated by an automatic contraction of the matter forming the apparatus.’ – Professor A.S. Eddington, MA, MSc, FRS (Plumian Professor of Astronomy and Experimental Philosophy, Cambridge), Space Time and Gravitation: An Outline of the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921, p. 20.

‘To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever... Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity, space is endowed with physical qualities... therefore there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable.’ – Albert Einstein, Leyden University, 1920. (Einstein, A., Sidelights on Relativity, Dover, New York, 1952, pp. 15, 16, and 23.)

‘The idealised physical reference object, which is implied in current quantum theory, is a fluid permeating all space like an aether.’ – Sir Arthur Eddington, MA, DSc, LLD, FRS, Relativity Theory of Protons and Electrons, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1936, p. 180. (For further details: http://members.lycos.co.uk/nigelbryancook/)