Can we measure absolute motion of Earth and Sun?

[zasvitim]

You forgot the motion of the planet again. Add my telescope to the diagram in the post I quoted and your reasoning will show that no particles can enter the telescope because it's all in the "shadow" of the lower edge - yet the animation shows that they can enter. What has happened is that you drew the Earth where it is at the end of the particles' motion, and assumed that this is the only time and place where it blocks the particle trajectories. You treated it as transparent at all other times.

@jbriggs444 has already noted the simplest way to see that the shadow area is the same - do the analysis in the test frame. Then you note that the moving frame animation would be identical whether the Earth and Sun are moving, or the "camera" is moving in the opposite direction. Obviously the camera can make no difference to the result, and hence neither can the Earth and Sun moving. In fact, there is literally no difference between the two cases, an observation known as the principle of relativity. No experiment has ever detected a violation of this principle, and there have been some very sensitive efforts.

In some situations we will still get green particles yet don't get red particles because they bump into planet.
On the other side we should get red particles when sun is not visible already.

 

[zasvitim]

What is your diagram supposed to show? You have to consider multiple timepoints from two frames, like Ibix' animation does. Can you modify the animation to add the two points you are worried about? Free Software like GIMP should be able to edit the GIF file.

Some of timepoints will be within the planet.

 

[Ibix]

In some situations we will still get green particles yet don't get red particles because they bump into planet.

No we won't. You still aren't factoring in the motion of the Earth in this frame.

Again, by your reasoning, there cannot possibly be particles arriving at the left of the telescope - yet I've demonstrated how it works. The maths to prove it doesn't need anything more complex than vectors.

 

[PeroK]

View attachment 355885
In some situations we will still get green particles yet don't get red particles because they bump into planet.
On the other side we should get red particles when sun is not visible already.

You seem to be trying to prove that relative motion between the Sun and Earth is detectable. This has nothing to do with absolute motion.

 

[Ibix]

You seem to be trying to prove that relative motion between the Sun and Earth is detectable.

I don't think that's what he's trying to do, but agree that it is one interpretation of what he is doing

 

[Charles Link]

I've been following this a little, and I think that is a possibility. (That he is considering relative motion of the two). What would happen if we slowed the solar wind down considerably, so that the earth's movement was clearly in a circular motion? Please ignore if my idea is irrelevant. I don't mean to interrupt the discussion.

 

[A.T.]

View attachment 355885
In some situations we will still get green particles yet don't get red particles because they bump into planet.
On the other side we should get red particles when sun is not visible already.

Now try to animate it like Ibix did, or create separate images for each of his frames, each with the current location of the signals and of the planet.

 

[Ibix]

I've been following this a little, and I think that is a possibility. (That he is considering relative motion of the two).

That this is not what his animation in #2 shows, nor his words (see also the title and post #1), but all his still frames do.

What would happen if we slowed the solar wind down considerably, so that the earth's movement was clearly in a circular motion?

You'd be able to detect that, yes. In an Earth centered frame fixed wrt the stars the Sun moves across the sky, so earlier and later emissions come from different places. What you cannot detect is inertial motion of the Sun/Earth center of mass, which is what the OP seems to be talking about.

 

[zasvitim]

That this is not what his animation in #2 shows, nor his words (see also the title and post #1), but all his still frames do.

You'd be able to detect that, yes. In an Earth centered frame fixed wrt the stars the Sun moves across the sky, so earlier and later emissions come from different places. What you cannot detect is inertial motion of the Sun/Earth center of mass, which is what the OP seems to be talking about.

Ok, seems like I was wrong.
Yet there is a way to detect absolute motion. But it's of course out of this thread. And cannot be posted "unless peer reviewed" and can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

 

[A.T.]

Ok, seems like I was wrong.
Yet there is a way to detect absolute motion. But it's of course out of this thread. And cannot be posted "unless peer reviewed" and can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

It's OK to post questions, as to why something doesn't detect absolute motion. You only need peer reviewed references if you make claims.

 

[Ibix]

Yet there is a way to detect absolute motion.

If there were such a thing it would show up as a violation of Lorentz covariance. People actively research this, and nothing has ever been found.

can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

Given your struggles with frame changes in this thread, to put it bluntly it's a lot more likely that anything you submitted didn't pass peer review due to being directly self-contradictory.

 

[zasvitim]

If there were such a thing it would show up as a violation of Lorentz covariance. People actively research this, and nothing has ever been found.

Given your struggles with frame changes in this thread, to put it bluntly it's a lot more likely that anything you submitted didn't pass peer review due to being directly self-contradictory.

Lorentz transformation is about electromagnetic radiation. Some phenomena like heat may be excluded from it. Just an example: Why would there be much more cyclones in northern hemisphere if hemispheres are equal? Why equatorial counter current is in northern hemisphere etc.

 

[A.T.]

Just an example: Why would there be much more tornados in northern hemisphere if hemispheres are equal?

The Earth's hemispheres are definitely not equal. Compare the amount of landmass for example.

 

[zasvitim]

The Earth's hemispheres are definitely not equal. Compare the amount of landmass for example.

And how that "pushes" equatorial countercurrent?

 

[PeroK]

And how that "pushes" equatorial countercurrent?

Land and water heat and cool at different rates. "Sea breeze by day; land breeze by night."

 

[A.T.]

And how that "pushes" equatorial countercurrent?

You should start a new thread on this in an appropriate sub forum, if you cannot figure it out by own research.

 

[Ibix]

Lorentz transformation is about electromagnetic radiation.

No, it underlies literally every physical phenomenon - that it wasn't just about electromagnetism was the key insight Einstein made. Also you are completely missing the point: if he were wrong and Lorentz covariance were only about electromagnetism then violations of Lorentz covariance would be abundant. They aren't.

 

[zasvitim]

No, it underlies literally every physical phenomenon - that it wasn't just about electromagnetism was the key insight Einstein made. Also you are completely missing the point: if he were wrong and Lorentz covariance were only about electromagnetism then violations of Lorentz covariance would be abundant. They aren't.

Just look at Earth: cyclones, currents, tidal waves in Canada.

 

[Ibix]

Just look at Earth: cyclones, currents, tidal waves in Canada.

The Earth with asymmetric heat capacities has asymmetric weather distributions. This is not surprising.

 

[zasvitim]

Land and water heat and cool at different rates. "Sea breeze by day; land breeze by night."

There is no any "sea breeze" in pacific ocean and it takes almost half of planet.
Yet the same phenomena: heated water finds itself in northern hemisphere.
As if there is some mechanism that "slows down" it and does not let freely move with the planet.

 

[weirdoguy]

So @zasvitim you're not here to learn, you're here to push you very basic misunderstandings.

can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

Physics is an experimental science! Why all of people accusing physicists of some sort of conspiracies forget that? Absolute motion is refuted by milions of experiments and observations. Really, take your time to analise that, instead of wasting your (and ours) time. This is elementary and high-school physics, nothing advanced. Really.

 

[zasvitim]

So @zasvitim you're not here to learn, you're here to push you very basic misunderstandings.



Physics is an experimental science! Why all of people accusing physicists of some sort of conspiracies forget that? Absolute motion is refuted by milions of experiments and observations. Really, take your time to analise that, instead of wasting your (and ours) time. This is elementary and high-school physics, nothing advanced. Really.

How am I not to learn if I accepted being wrong? I've accepted that, thank you.
Absolute motion is confirmed by directional light existence. And can be confirmed in experiment that will generate slow photons.

 

[weirdoguy]

Absolute motion is confirmed by directional light existence.

Nonsense.

 

[zasvitim]

Nonsense.

Is this experimental science?

 

[Ibix]

Is this experimental science?

Yes. See the aforementioned failure to detect violation of Lorentz covariance.

 

[zasvitim]

Yes. See the aforementioned failure to detect violation of Lorentz covariance.

Lorentz covariance could have absolutely different nature and have nothing to do with light.
For example it could be about mutually exclusive events:

Imagine that you are playing a game in which you have a sack of red and blue stones. You take a random stone out of the sack. If you get a red stone, you move to the right. If you get a blue stone, you draw a dash on a piece of paper. After that you put the stone back in the sack and mix the stones. You repeat this operation N times. At the end of the game, you measure how many steps you have taken and divide by the number of dashes. You call the result "speed".Let's say during the first game session you have 50 red stones and 50 blue stones in the sack. The probability of getting red and blue stones is the same, therefore the speed equals one.We put one additional red stone to the sack and play again. The probability of getting a red stone is now 51/101.At the same time, the probability of getting a blue stone has decreased. No it's 50/101. Thus, at the end of the game, we will not only take more steps to the right, but also find fewer dashes on the sheet. We divide the number of steps by the number of dashes and see that the dependence is not linear, but quadratic.We get Lorentz transformations.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread is now closed. Thanks for everyone who tried to help.

 

[Dale]

And cannot be posted "unless peer reviewed" and can not be peer reviewed unless "agrees with everything".

I know this thread is closed, but I wanted to respond directly to this standard complaint. This claim is nothing more than a fantasy held by crackpots to shift blame for their failures from themselves to others.

The actual fact is that the peer reviewed literature already has a huge amount of disagreement and conflict. Scientists are highly motivated to disprove the work of other scientists, and greater social and economic rewards accrue to those who can overthrow greater predecessors.

Searches for violations of Lorentz covariance are an active area of research. A scientist who can actually show that will be published in the most prestigious journals, their research funding will be secured for the rest of their career, and their name will be remembered for centuries to come. The journal that rejects such a paper will lose credibility and citations. The incentives on all sides favor publishing such studies.

The social and economic factors all favor overthrowing great scientists. The reason it doesn’t happen often is not because there is some conspiracy or conformity requirement. It doesn’t happen often because it is very difficult to do. So far not even any skilled, motivated, and experienced scientist has been able to overthrow Einstein, let alone a typical crackpot with little understanding, poor arguments, and no supporting experimental evidence.