| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2005 07:31:43 AM |
| Object: |
Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
Although "clever Einsteinians" is an oxymoron, I am still using this
expression in an attempt to stimulate zombis to try to think.
A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7:
"For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must, ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."
(A) This means that the principle of constancy of the speed of light is
a corollary of the principle of relativity?
(B) This does not mean that the principle of constancy of the speed of
light is a corollary of the principle of relativity?
(C) (typical of Einstein) This both means and does not mean that the
principle of constancy of the speed of light is a corollary of the
principle of relativity?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 02:41:07 PM |
|
|
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ddg1q002qie@drn.newsguy.com...
kk says...
bz wrote:
The claim that light is NOT isotropic was a proposed
physical law [an absolute ether].
It was invalidated by MMX.
That one experiment [replicated many times over the years]
was sufficient to kill the absolute ether.
The MMx did not "kill the absolute ether."
It killed a specific theory about the ether.
Daryl, you are talking to a well known troll.
Until now he has used the names: Cadwgan Gedrych, Martin
Miller, Edward Travis, Ron Aikas, Roy Royce, John Reid,
SRdude. Yhe first name he ever used is Brian D. Jones.
That probably is his real name.
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 03:00:11 PM |
|
|
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
-snip-
Daryl, you are talking to a well known troll.
If it were "well known," then surely Daryl would
know it (because he has been around for a while).
And what makes it trolling? (I am trying to make
some very valid, very important points. And Daryl
has even agreed with the most important one. Why
did you feel the need to step in and make your
useless comments? Could it be something you ate?)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 03:40:10 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123790411.137552.57300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
-snip-
Daryl, you are talking to a well known troll.
If it were "well known," then surely Daryl would
know it (because he has been around for a while).
Don't kid yourself.
You are very well known:
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aedward+author%3Atravis+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aron+author%3Aaikas+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aroy+author%3Aroyce+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Amartin+author%3Amiller+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajohn+author%3Areid+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Abrian+author%3Ajones+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajames+author%3Awhite+SR
and so very clumsy.
And what makes it trolling? (I am trying to make
some very valid, very important points. And Daryl
has even agreed with the most important one. Why
did you feel the need to step in and make your
useless comments? Could it be something you ate?)
and so very, very stupid:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GivenByMan.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 02:32:11 PM |
|
|
Daryl McCullough wrote:
-snip-
A theory can be *disproved* by a single experiment,
but it can't be *proved* by a single experiment.
The MMx disproved the prevailing theory about the
ether at that time.
-snip-
If there were only two possible theories, then I suppose
disproving one would prove the other. But there aren't
just two possible theories, there are *infinitely*
many possible theories.
The results of experiments are facts, not theories.
The MMx proved experimentally (factually) that light's
untimed, round-trip speed is invariant and isotropic
(for inertial reference frames).
Thanks to that single experiment, the MMx, untimed,
round-trip light speed invariance/isotropy is now
a LAW of physics. Case closed.
-snip-
kk wrote:
But all of the above is beside my main point here
that there can be no law of physics (as Einstein
claimed) in the one-way light speed case because
that case involves that which cannot occur
experimentally, namely, clock synchronization.
McCullough wrote:
That's true. However, you *can* disprove a theory
that describes both (1) the behavior of light, and
(2) the behavior of clocks when moved.
Yes, but that is changing the subject. Let's stick to
the topic. Einstein claimed that light's speed per two
unmoved clocks is c experimentally. (That is, he claimed
that such a speed is a general LAW of physics.) However,
as you and I know, there cannot be a LAW in this case
because there is no such experiment. And this is bad
news for Einstein because his theory of special relativity
was based on light's one-way speed being a LAW.
(Specifically, it was based on the one-way "LAW" being
isotropy/invariance, just as was the round-trip LAW.)
One cannot postulate about that which cannot occur, and
yet Einstein "postulated" one-way light speed invariance.
And where there can be no postulate, there can be no
theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 03:23:29 AM |
|
|
kk:
because there is no such experiment. And this is bad
news for Einstein because his theory of special relativity
was based on light's one-way speed being a LAW.
Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
(Specifically, it was based on the one-way "LAW" being
isotropy/invariance, just as was the round-trip LAW.)
One cannot postulate about that which cannot occur, and
yet Einstein "postulated" one-way light speed invariance.
And where there can be no postulate, there can be no
theory.
Your argument is stupid. However, since the second postulate isn't
necessary, your argument would be irrelevant, even if it wasn't
stupid.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 08:37:09 AM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
So, you are claiming that special relativity does not need
light's one-way speed between two always-relatively-at-rest
clocks to be invariantly and isotropically c? This would be
big news to Einstein!
(Specifically, it was based on the one-way "LAW" being
isotropy/invariance, just as was the round-trip LAW.)
One cannot postulate about that which cannot occur, and
yet Einstein "postulated" one-way light speed invariance.
And where there can be no postulate, there can be no
theory.
Your argument is stupid. However, since the second postulate
isn't necessary, your argument would be irrelevant, even if
it wasn't stupid.
Apparently, we have found our troll here, and it is "Bilge."
To prove otherwise, "Bilge" could show us how we can
experimentally measure light's one-way speed between
two always-relatively-at-rest clocks. (This eliminates
using clock transport, which complicates the deal by
bringing in possible clock slowing.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 09:08:25 AM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123853829.016928.223180@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Bilge wrote:
| > Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
| So, you are claiming that special relativity does not need
| light's one-way speed between two always-relatively-at-rest
| clocks to be invariantly and isotropically c? This would be
| big news to Einstein!
Bilge is correct. It is unneccessary. What is essential is Einstein's
definition
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
We could as easily make our own definition, the "time" required
by SOUND to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A.
The rest is just a copy of Einstein's math with "sound" replacing
"light",
and produces the same ridiculous result.
|
| > >(Specifically, it was based on the one-way "LAW" being
| > >isotropy/invariance, just as was the round-trip LAW.)
| > >
| > >One cannot postulate about that which cannot occur, and
| > >yet Einstein "postulated" one-way light speed invariance.
| > >
| > >And where there can be no postulate, there can be no
| > >theory.
|
| > Your argument is stupid. However, since the second postulate
| > isn't necessary, your argument would be irrelevant, even if
| > it wasn't stupid.
|
| Apparently, we have found our troll here, and it is "Bilge."
Bilge has always been a troll. Like Roberts he's in love with
the mathematics and has no idea what the true derivation
was. Bilge thinks relativity must be "right" because the math
works out for him, it's got nothing to do with physics.
You can't tell him either.
| To prove otherwise, "Bilge" could show us how we can
| experimentally measure light's one-way speed between
| two always-relatively-at-rest clocks. (This eliminates
| using clock transport, which complicates the deal by
| bringing in possible clock slowing.)
Bilge doesn't care about anything that would deny his
precious religion and neither does Roberts. Anything
that seems to support what they say they'll accept,
anything that denies it they'll bury their heads in the sand
about and say YOU are the troll.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
15 Aug 2005 09:54:37 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Bilge wrote (to kk):
Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
kk wrote (to Bilge):
So, you are claiming that special relativity does not need
light's one-way speed between two always-relatively-at-rest
clocks to be invariantly and isotropically c? This would be
big news to Einstein!
Bilge is correct. It is unneccessary. What is essential is
Einstein's definition....
Yes, as I explained in my recent message to "bz," Bilge can be
correct here because Einstein made two opposite claims, viz.,
(a) light's one-way speed between two clocks is forced by man
to be "invariant" and "isotropic," and
(b) light's one-way speed between two clocks is or must be
invariant and isotropic per experiment.
I fully agree with (a) if it is (as Einstein said) seen as
only a definition of "synchronization" to be used in lieu of
absolute synchronization.
But I fully disagree with (b) because there can be no such
experiment (given that neither clock is transported).
But Einstein's problem here is that ONLY (b) can lead to
a scientific theory.
In other words, only if one-way light speed invariance and
isotropy can happen experimentally can there be a scientific
theory which pertains to the experimental results, but, to
reiterate, there is no such experiment.
(Although the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887,
no one has ever performed the one-way "experiment" simply
because it does not exist.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
15 Aug 2005 11:13:51 AM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124117677.529385.115320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > Bilge wrote (to kk):
| >>> Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
|
| kk wrote (to Bilge):
| >> So, you are claiming that special relativity does not need
| >> light's one-way speed between two always-relatively-at-rest
| >> clocks to be invariantly and isotropically c? This would be
| >> big news to Einstein!
|
| > Bilge is correct. It is unneccessary. What is essential is
| > Einstein's definition....
|
| Yes, as I explained in my recent message to "bz," Bilge can be
| correct here because Einstein made two opposite claims, viz.,
| (a) light's one-way speed between two clocks is forced by man
| to be "invariant" and "isotropic," and
| (b) light's one-way speed between two clocks is or must be
| invariant and isotropic per experiment.
|
| I fully agree with (a) if it is (as Einstein said) seen as
| only a definition of "synchronization" to be used in lieu of
| absolute synchronization.
|
| But I fully disagree with (b) because there can be no such
| experiment (given that neither clock is transported).
|
| But Einstein's problem here is that ONLY (b) can lead to
| a scientific theory.
|
| In other words, only if one-way light speed invariance and
| isotropy can happen experimentally can there be a scientific
| theory which pertains to the experimental results, but, to
| reiterate, there is no such experiment.
|
| (Although the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887,
| no one has ever performed the one-way "experiment" simply
| because it does not exist.)
It does, actually.
Take a length of optical fibre (light guide as it is colloquially known)
and at each end place a light.
Now slide the fibre along the x-axis, lights as well.
In the frame of the observer, the speed of light in the fibre
must be c+v one way and c-v the other.
The observer must then detect doppler shifted light,
f1' = f(c+v)/c and f2' = f(c-v)/c.
Subtracting one from the other, we find a beat frequency
f_beat = f1'-f2'
It being impractical to slide a light guide along the x-axis,
we form the light guide into a circle and rotate it, and use
a single light where the ends are joined to guarantee
the frequency is emitted at each end is the same.
Thus we have Sagnac and f_beat is detected.
Applying the absurdityof SR, the wristwatch the observer
is wearing slows down the faster the sagnac ring is rotated,
he is the frame in which c+v and c-v take place, it remaining
c in the light guide and takes the same time to go once
around the ring one way as it does the other.
If you rotate the fibre at a tangential speed of c, his watch
stops because he must observe the speed of light
to be c also.
Here is the linear light guide equation from which the
cuckoo tranformations are derived :
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
Einstein (deliberately) confuses the length x' with the coordinate x'
which we can undo by curling the fibre into a circle, the length
remains but the coordinate vanishes.
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
We take out t, that's only 5:00 pm on a Monday afternoon whe
we do the experiment,
½[tau(0,0,0,0)+tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(0,0,0,x'/(c-v))
remove the superflous zeros
½[tau(0)+tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x'/(c-v))
Synchronize the clock on the ring with the watch of the
observer, so tau(0) = 0,
½tau(x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v)) = tau(x'/(c-v))
and for clarity let a = x'/(c-v), b = x'/(c+v)
½tau(a+b) = tau(a)
Einstein claims this function is linear.
It can only be linear if a = b, for the light gong in the other
direction around the ring must give tau(b) = tau(a)
and that can only happen if v = 0.
Einstein perpetrated a deliberate and mischievious hoax on the
scientific community to agree with Lorentz and gain fame and
fortune for himself.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
15 Aug 2005 12:41:50 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
kk wrote:
(Although the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887,
no one has ever performed the one-way "experiment" simply
because it does not exist.)
It does, actually.
Take a length of optical fibre and at each end place a light.
Now slide the fibre along the x-axis, lights as well.
In the frame of the observer, the speed of light in the fibre
must be c+v one way and c-v the other.
This is not _the_ experiment.
_The_ experiment was very specifically the use of two
relatively-at-rest clocks to measure light's one-way
speed.
Special relativity claims that this two-clock speed is
invariant and isotropic experimentally.
Indeed, special relativity is based solely on this claim.
And the main part of this specific claim is the implication
that clocks are not correctly set unless they obtain one-way
light speed invariance and isotropy.
And, as you can see, it is this _specific_ implication which
currently controls all 2-clock time measurement in physics.
In other words, _the_ way we set clocks today is given by
special relativity via the above implication.
However, what I have been trying to get across is the simple
fact that this implication is wrong.
It is wrong because it calls for a result for the one-way,
two-clock experiment, and yet there is no such thing.
There cannot be such an experiment because two clocks cannot
synchronize themselves.
Only man can synchronize clocks, and this means that man is
giving the result because how the clocks are synchronized
controls the result. (Input --> Output) (GIGO) (etc., etc.)
Forcing clocks to get c is not an experimental result, but
is jury rigging.
We do not need nor should we want Einstein's incorrectly
related clocks; we need and should want truly or absolutely
synchronized clocks.
BTW, Mr. Androcles, what is moving at speed v in your above?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
15 Aug 2005 01:00:14 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124127710.395349.105680@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > kk wrote:
| >> (Although the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887,
| >> no one has ever performed the one-way "experiment" simply
| >> because it does not exist.)
|
| > It does, actually.
| > Take a length of optical fibre and at each end place a light.
| > Now slide the fibre along the x-axis, lights as well.
| > In the frame of the observer, the speed of light in the fibre
| > must be c+v one way and c-v the other.
|
| This is not _the_ experiment.
|
| _The_ experiment was very specifically the use of two
| relatively-at-rest clocks to measure light's one-way
| speed.
|
| Special relativity claims that this two-clock speed is
| invariant and isotropic experimentally.
|
| Indeed, special relativity is based solely on this claim.
|
| And the main part of this specific claim is the implication
| that clocks are not correctly set unless they obtain one-way
| light speed invariance and isotropy.
|
| And, as you can see, it is this _specific_ implication which
| currently controls all 2-clock time measurement in physics.
|
| In other words, _the_ way we set clocks today is given by
| special relativity via the above implication.
|
| However, what I have been trying to get across is the simple
| fact that this implication is wrong.
|
| It is wrong because it calls for a result for the one-way,
| two-clock experiment, and yet there is no such thing.
|
| There cannot be such an experiment because two clocks cannot
| synchronize themselves.
|
| Only man can synchronize clocks, and this means that man is
| giving the result because how the clocks are synchronized
| controls the result. (Input --> Output) (GIGO) (etc., etc.)
|
| Forcing clocks to get c is not an experimental result, but
| is jury rigging.
|
| We do not need nor should we want Einstein's incorrectly
| related clocks; we need and should want truly or absolutely
| synchronized clocks.
|
| BTW, Mr. Androcles, what is moving at speed v in your above?
The fibre optic is moving at speed v, relative to the observer,
or the observer is moving at speed v, relative to the fibre.
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet
and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only
on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet"
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"For consider: Motion, in so far as It is and acts as motion, to that
extent exists relatively to things that lack it; and among things which
all share equally in any motion, it does not act, and is as if It did
not exist. Thus the goods with which a ship is laden leaving Venice,
pass by Corfu, by Crete, by Cyprus and go to Aleppo. Venice, Corfu,
Crete, etc. stand still and do not move with the ship; but as to the
sacks, boxes, and bundles with which the boat is laden and with respect
to the ship itself, the motion from Verflice to Syria is as nothing, and
in no way alters their relation among themselves. This is so because it
is common to all of them and all share equally in it. If, from the cargo
in the ship, a sack were shifted from a chest one single inch, this
alone would be more of a movement for it than the two-thousand-mile
journey made by all of them together."
http://webexhibits.org/calendars/year-text-Galileo.html
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
15 Aug 2005 10:15:12 PM |
|
|
The Aggie Bidet
"Rufus, this here motel in Hempstead ain't got no bee-day lak ahm used
to back in College Station."
"Buford, hell, when you're out in tha sticks ya gotta rough it. Lemme
show you how to make an effective Nasa-like simulation uh one. What
you do is jes go over to tha bathtub, plop yo butt over the side, get
down that Shower Massage up there an have at it!!!! Whooooo-Wheee,
boy, puts tha flow of a standard bee-day to shame, don't it, boy?"
"Rufus, I is forever indebted to you. Thanks a million."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
15 Aug 2005 10:19:36 PM |
|
|
Recent Greek Airliner crash:
2 sentences from the news coverage:
****************************
The pilots of two Greek F-16 air force jets sent up to help the plane
'saw two people in the cockpit'.
'We don't know if they were crew members or passengers appearing to
want to take over the controls,' said Greek government spokesman
Theodore Roussopoulos.
***********************
Hey, remember those old horrible movies where a passenger has to take
over flying the aircraft?
Mr. Thanatopolis: "HELLO, ATHENS, I'M TRYING TO FLY THIS FRIGGIN'
AIRLAPNE AND *****, I'VE NEVER FLOWN ONE, I DON'T EVEN DRIVE A
CAR!!!!!"
Athens Airport: "Just stay calm, Mr. Thanatopolis. See all those fancy
dials and readouts in front of you? Find the one that says "This is
your altitude. Please keep greater than zero"
Mr. Thanatopolis: "I'VE SOILED MY UNDERWEAR. I CAN'T FLY LIKE THIS.
WHY DIDN'T I JUST STAY AT HOME AND COMMUNICATE LIKE IN THE STORY "THE
MACHINE STOPS"? WHY DID I HAVE TO GET ON THIS PLANE AND HAND MY FATE
OVER TO STRANGERS. I HATE MYSELF."
Athens Airport: Mr. Thanatopolis, I'm sorry that life is such a *****,
but that's life in the big city. Do you want to try to save
yourself????"
Thanatopolis: "No. I've had it. Goodbye, cruel world. Everybody
except me's died of asphixiation anyway. Say ----- can yall get Tom
Cruise to play me in the movie??????"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
16 Aug 2005 10:27:53 AM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
kk wrote:
BTW, Mr. Androcles, what is moving at speed v in your above?
The fibre optic is moving at speed v, relative to the observer,
or the observer is moving at speed v, relative to the fibre.
See, that is the problem with your experiment - it does not
do the job - it does not give us speeds through space.
Only by correctly measuring the speed of a passing light
ray can we determine our speed through space.
And the only way to correctly measure light's passing
speed is by using two absolutely synchronous clocks.
This is why Einstein saw such clocks as the enemy.
Absolute time = synchronous clocks
Relative time = asynchronous clocks
Absolute time = correctly-measured time
Relative time = incorrectly-measured time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
16 Aug 2005 01:58:33 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124206072.898092.141440@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > kk wrote:
| >> BTW, Mr. Androcles, what is moving at speed v in your above?
|
| > The fibre optic is moving at speed v, relative to the observer,
| > or the observer is moving at speed v, relative to the fibre.
|
| See, that is the problem with your experiment - it does not
| do the job - it does not give us speeds through space.
|
| Only by correctly measuring the speed of a passing light
| ray can we determine our speed through space.
|
| And the only way to correctly measure light's passing
| speed is by using two absolutely synchronous clocks.
|
| This is why Einstein saw such clocks as the enemy.
|
| Absolute time = synchronous clocks
| Relative time = asynchronous clocks
|
| Absolute time = correctly-measured time
| Relative time = incorrectly-measured time
Not a problem, old chap.
Original Sagnac: (fixed font needed)
/______________\
/| |\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
\| |
\______________*
The light goes both ways around the square.
Both ways.
Mirrors at the corners. Cook in vacuum.
Stand on your head to rotate the square 180 degrees.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
16 Aug 2005 02:27:44 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
Original Sagnac: (fixed font needed)
-diagram snipped-
I accept the following re the Sagnac case:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
Here is a key excerpt:
"Michelson had proposed constructing such a device in 1904,
but did not pursue it at the time, since he realized it
would show only the absolute rotation of the device."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
16 Aug 2005 05:14:26 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124220464.571147.141860@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > Original Sagnac: (fixed font needed)
| -diagram snipped-
|
| I accept the following re the Sagnac case:
| http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
|
| Here is a key excerpt:
| "Michelson had proposed constructing such a device in 1904,
| but did not pursue it at the time, since he realized it
| would show only the absolute rotation of the device."
Yes, Michelson really did believe in aether, which was his
(and other's) absolute frame of reference.
Newton, 300 years earlier, said light came in corpuscles.
When it was found that the corpuscles had wavelike properties,
the aether was a born-again Ptolemaist.
Even today we have wave-particle duality unresolved.
You may wish to note that the angle alpha in the diagram
does not exist in the rotating frame. The start point moves
also. Alpha only exists in the observer's frame.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
16 Aug 2005 12:00:06 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Androcles
<Androcles@MyPlace.org>
wrote
on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:13:51 GMT
<3b3Me.538$Wq4.190@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124117677.529385.115320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > Bilge wrote (to kk):
| >>> Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
|
| kk wrote (to Bilge):
| >> So, you are claiming that special relativity does not need
| >> light's one-way speed between two always-relatively-at-rest
| >> clocks to be invariantly and isotropically c? This would be
| >> big news to Einstein!
|
| > Bilge is correct. It is unneccessary. What is essential is
| > Einstein's definition....
|
| Yes, as I explained in my recent message to "bz," Bilge can be
| correct here because Einstein made two opposite claims, viz.,
| (a) light's one-way speed between two clocks is forced by man
| to be "invariant" and "isotropic," and
| (b) light's one-way speed between two clocks is or must be
| invariant and isotropic per experiment.
|
| I fully agree with (a) if it is (as Einstein said) seen as
| only a definition of "synchronization" to be used in lieu of
| absolute synchronization.
|
| But I fully disagree with (b) because there can be no such
| experiment (given that neither clock is transported).
|
| But Einstein's problem here is that ONLY (b) can lead to
| a scientific theory.
|
| In other words, only if one-way light speed invariance and
| isotropy can happen experimentally can there be a scientific
| theory which pertains to the experimental results, but, to
| reiterate, there is no such experiment.
|
| (Although the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887,
| no one has ever performed the one-way "experiment" simply
| because it does not exist.)
It does, actually.
Take a length of optical fibre (light guide as it is colloquially known)
and at each end place a light.
Now slide the fibre along the x-axis, lights as well.
In the frame of the observer, the speed of light in the fibre
must be c+v one way and c-v the other.
The observer must then detect doppler shifted light,
f1' = f(c+v)/c and f2' = f(c-v)/c.
Subtracting one from the other, we find a beat frequency
f_beat = f1'-f2'
Add 3 mirrors (one half-silvered) and two more fibres at right
angles and one gets the MMX [+].
_ B
|
v
|
|
^
|
L M| A
*--------->----------/------->-------<----|
|
|
<<--------d-------->>|<<--------d-------->>
|
<= v v
|
|
v
D
In rLaT, one gets the following results, assuming the device
is moving as shown relative to the aether.
The light path #1 will have LM speed c+v, MA speed c+v, AM speed c-v,
MD speed one side of a right triangle whose hypotenuse is c and
whose other side is v -- or sqrt(c^2-v^2).
Total time t1= 2d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) + d/sqrt(c^2-v^2).
Light path #2 will go LMBMD, with a total time
t2 = d/(c+v) + 3d/sqrt(c^2-v^2).
Time difference: t = t1-t2 = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) - 2d/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
= (d/c)*(1/(1+v/c) + 1/(1-v/c) - 2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
= (d/c)*(sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) + sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) - 2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
= (d/c)*(1/r + r - 2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
where r = sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c).
This time difference manifests in the interferometer as a phase
difference. For d = 300m [*], 500 nm blue-green light, luminiferous
aether velocity 30 km/s = 10^-4 c one gets
r = sqrt(1.0001/0.9999) = 1.0001000050005
t = (300/(3*10^8)) * (1.0001000050005 + 0.9999000049995 - 2)/sqrt(.99999999)
= 1 * 10^-14 s
Since 500 nm / (3 * 10^8 m/s) = 1.6667 * 10^-14 s the
interferometer should see quite a difference, if rLaT is true;
it's about a 216 degree phase difference.
Since the observed result is actually 0 (except for the Sagnac
error factor because of the Earth's rotation), either
d = 0, 1/c = 0, r+1/r-2 = 0, or 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.
d=0 is ridiculous; so is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0.
1/c=0 yields an infinite lightspeed theory; this is inconsistent
with other observations.
r+1/r-2 = 0 iff r^2 - 2r + 1 = 0 iff r=1.
If r=1 then sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c) = 1
or sqrt(1-v/c) = sqrt(1+v/c) or
1-v/c = 1+v/c or -v/c = +v/c or v = 0.
rLaT simply does not work. nBaT works only because v *is* in
fact 0 in most MMX test setups.
Not that SR works all that well here, either; it simply elides
the problem entirely by assuming c lightspeed for both lightpaths.
This is consistent with observations but isn't satisfying; it's
a bit like cotton candy in that respect.
[rest snipped]
Sagnac isn't within the realm of SR.
[+] MMX = Michelson-Morley
rLaT = Rigid Luminiferous Aether Theory; lightspeed is c
relative to the aether
nBaT = Newtonian Ballistic Theory; lightspeed is c relative
to the source only
SR = Special Relativity; lightspeed is c relative to everything
and time and space distort in accordance with the Lorentz
Transformation
[*] the rotating base is actually not that big, because the
experimenters use a number of mirrors to make the lightpath
longer.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
16 Aug 2005 10:40:26 AM |
|
|
"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
message news:bo68t2-d3f.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
| In sci.physics, Androcles
| <Androcles@MyPlace.org>
| wrote
| on Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:13:51 GMT
| <3b3Me.538$Wq4.190@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
| >
| > "kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1124117677.529385.115320@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| > | Androcles wrote:
| > | > Bilge wrote (to kk):
| > | >>> Wrong. The postulate on the speed of light is unneccesary.
| > |
| > | kk wrote (to Bilge):
| > | >> So, you are claiming that special relativity does not need
| > | >> light's one-way speed between two always-relatively-at-rest
| > | >> clocks to be invariantly and isotropically c? This would be
| > | >> big news to Einstein!
| > |
| > | > Bilge is correct. It is unneccessary. What is essential is
| > | > Einstein's definition....
| > |
| > | Yes, as I explained in my recent message to "bz," Bilge can be
| > | correct here because Einstein made two opposite claims, viz.,
| > | (a) light's one-way speed between two clocks is forced by man
| > | to be "invariant" and "isotropic," and
| > | (b) light's one-way speed between two clocks is or must be
| > | invariant and isotropic per experiment.
| > |
| > | I fully agree with (a) if it is (as Einstein said) seen as
| > | only a definition of "synchronization" to be used in lieu of
| > | absolute synchronization.
| > |
| > | But I fully disagree with (b) because there can be no such
| > | experiment (given that neither clock is transported).
| > |
| > | But Einstein's problem here is that ONLY (b) can lead to
| > | a scientific theory.
| > |
| > | In other words, only if one-way light speed invariance and
| > | isotropy can happen experimentally can there be a scientific
| > | theory which pertains to the experimental results, but, to
| > | reiterate, there is no such experiment.
| > |
| > | (Although the round-trip experiment was performed in 1887,
| > | no one has ever performed the one-way "experiment" simply
| > | because it does not exist.)
| >
| > It does, actually.
| > Take a length of optical fibre (light guide as it is colloquially
known)
| > and at each end place a light.
| > Now slide the fibre along the x-axis, lights as well.
| > In the frame of the observer, the speed of light in the fibre
| > must be c+v one way and c-v the other.
| > The observer must then detect doppler shifted light,
| > f1' = f(c+v)/c and f2' = f(c-v)/c.
| > Subtracting one from the other, we find a beat frequency
| > f_beat = f1'-f2'
|
| Add 3 mirrors (one half-silvered) and two more fibres at right
| angles and one gets the MMX [+].
Don't need fibres at all.
The original Sagnac never used them.
Ref: http://www.ldolphin.org/sagnac.html
"It is possible to modify the Michelson-Morley apparatus to check for
the rotation of the earth within the ether, that is, to see if the earth
rotates with respect to the aether."
"The Sagnac effect can only be explained if the speed of the mirrors
through the aether is alternately added and subtracted to the speed of
light. In the usual wave-based analysis, the speed of light is constant,
c, through the aether, and the speed of the mirror, v, is added or
subtracted (depending on direction) to c when computing travel times.
Think of the mirror as a speedboat going upstream and downstream. Harald
adds or subtracts the speed also, claiming that the photon picks up the
speed, but the term is still c+v or c-v in both cases. So how can Harald
claim he has proven the ballistic theory when the wave theory gives the
same travel times for the experiment?"
Maybe "Harald" understands the PoR and physics, Gerardus D. Bouw, Ph.D.
does not.
Stop the turn-table and let Geradus run around the outside, Geradus's
watch will slow.
Stop Geradus and spin the turntable, Geradus's watch will slow.
The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of
Geradus and the turntable, whereas the customary view draws a sharp
distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other
of these bodies is in motion.
(cribbed from the first paragraph of
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)
You won't mind if I don't read the rest of your post, I hope?
I don't mean to be rude, but you are telling grandpa how to suck eggs.
If I missed anything, point it out.
Androcles.
|
|
| _ B
| |
| v
| |
| |
| ^
| |
| L M| A
| *--------->----------/------->-------<----|
| |
| |
| <<--------d-------->>|<<--------d-------->>
| |
| <= v v
| |
| |
| v
| D
|
| In rLaT, one gets the following results, assuming the device
| is moving as shown relative to the aether.
|
| The light path #1 will have LM speed c+v, MA speed c+v, AM speed c-v,
| MD speed one side of a right triangle whose hypotenuse is c and
| whose other side is v -- or sqrt(c^2-v^2).
|
| Total time t1= 2d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) + d/sqrt(c^2-v^2).
|
| Light path #2 will go LMBMD, with a total time
| t2 = d/(c+v) + 3d/sqrt(c^2-v^2).
|
| Time difference: t = t1-t2 = d/(c+v) + d/(c-v) - 2d/sqrt(c^2-v^2)
| = (d/c)*(1/(1+v/c) + 1/(1-v/c) - 2/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
| = (d/c)*(sqrt(1-v/c)/sqrt(1+v/c) + sqrt(1+v/c)/sqrt(1-v/c) -
2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
| = (d/c)*(1/r + r - 2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
|
| where r = sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c).
|
| This time difference manifests in the interferometer as a phase
| difference. For d = 300m [*], 500 nm blue-green light, luminiferous
| aether velocity 30 km/s = 10^-4 c one gets
|
| r = sqrt(1.0001/0.9999) = 1.0001000050005
| t = (300/(3*10^8)) * (1.0001000050005 + 0.9999000049995 -
2)/sqrt(.99999999)
| = 1 * 10^-14 s
|
| Since 500 nm / (3 * 10^8 m/s) = 1.6667 * 10^-14 s the
| interferometer should see quite a difference, if rLaT is true;
| it's about a 216 degree phase difference.
|
| Since the observed result is actually 0 (except for the Sagnac
| error factor because of the Earth's rotation), either
| d = 0, 1/c = 0, r+1/r-2 = 0, or 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = 0.
|
| d=0 is ridiculous; so is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)=0.
| 1/c=0 yields an infinite lightspeed theory; this is inconsistent
| with other observations.
| r+1/r-2 = 0 iff r^2 - 2r + 1 = 0 iff r=1.
|
| If r=1 then sqrt(1-v/c) / sqrt(1+v/c) = 1
| or sqrt(1-v/c) = sqrt(1+v/c) or
| 1-v/c = 1+v/c or -v/c = +v/c or v = 0.
|
| rLaT simply does not work. nBaT works only because v *is* in
| fact 0 in most MMX test setups.
|
| Not that SR works all that well here, either; it simply elides
| the problem entirely by assuming c lightspeed for both lightpaths.
| This is consistent with observations but isn't satisfying; it's
| a bit like cotton candy in that respect.
|
| [rest snipped]
|
| Sagnac isn't within the realm of SR.
|
| [+] MMX = Michelson-Morley
| rLaT = Rigid Luminiferous Aether Theory; lightspeed is c
| relative to the aether
| nBaT = Newtonian Ballistic Theory; lightspeed is c relative
| to the source only
| SR = Special Relativity; lightspeed is c relative to everything
| and time and space distort in accordance with the Lorentz
| Transformation
|
| [*] the rotating base is actually not that big, because the
| experimenters use a number of mirrors to make the lightpath
| longer.
|
| --
| #191,
| It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
22 Aug 2005 11:56:47 PM |
|
|
Bilge wrote:
[remove]
READER WARNING: David Semon (a.k.a Bilge) is a pathalogical liar and a
troll. Beware of malicious followup-to headers in all his posts.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 02:45:15 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123788731.541608.237510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Daryl McCullough wrote:
-snip-
A theory can be *disproved* by a single experiment,
but it can't be *proved* by a single experiment.
The MMx disproved the prevailing theory about the
ether at that time.
-snip-
If there were only two possible theories, then I suppose
disproving one would prove the other. But there aren't
just two possible theories, there are *infinitely*
many possible theories.
The results of experiments are facts, not theories.
The MMx proved experimentally (factually) that light's
untimed, round-trip speed is invariant and isotropic
(for inertial reference frames).
Thanks to that single experiment, the MMx, untimed,
round-trip light speed invariance/isotropy is now
a LAW of physics. Case closed.
Case opened, Brian D. Jones aka Kurt Kingston aka
Cadwgan Gedrych aka Martin Miller aka Edward Travis
aka Ron Aikas aka Roy Royce aka John Reid aka SRdude.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aedward+author%3Atravis+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aron+author%3Aaikas+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Aroy+author%3Aroyce+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Amartin+author%3Amiller+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajohn+author%3Areid+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Abrian+author%3Ajones+SR
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Ajames+author%3Awhite+SR
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 03:22:23 PM |
|
|
In article <1123788731.541608.237510@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, "kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> writes:
Daryl McCullough wrote:
-snip-
A theory can be *disproved* by a single experiment,
but it can't be *proved* by a single experiment.
The MMx disproved the prevailing theory about the
ether at that time.
-snip-
If there were only two possible theories, then I suppose
disproving one would prove the other. But there aren't
just two possible theories, there are *infinitely*
many possible theories.
The results of experiments are facts, not theories.
Aha.
The MMx proved experimentally (factually) that light's
untimed, round-trip speed is invariant and isotropic
(for inertial reference frames).
Nope. It proved experimentally that, the results of a specific
measurement performed at a specific location in space and time were,
to within the experimental accuracy of said experiment, consistent
with light's speed being invariant and isotropic. That's all.
Thanks to that single experiment, the MMx, untimed,
round-trip light speed invariance/isotropy is now
a LAW of physics. Case closed.
Capitalization of "law" in "law of physics" is more often than not a
strong indication that the author knows very little physics. Not a
proof, mind you, just a strong indication.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Herman Trivilino" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 07:30:49 PM |
|
|
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote ...
Thanks to that single experiment, the MMx, untimed,
round-trip light speed invariance/isotropy is now
a LAW of physics. Case closed.
Capitalization of "law" in "law of physics" is more often than not a
strong indication that the author knows very little physics. Not a
proof, mind you, just a strong indication.
Do a google search for something like "Faraday disc". You'll read endless
streams of nonsense written by people who have removed all such indications
from their writings.
They learn their lesson one trolling at at a time, until all that's left is
nonsense.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 07:38:43 PM |
|
|
In article <1123806797_8891@spool6-east.superfeed.net>, "Herman Trivilino" <physhead@kingwoodREMOVECAPScable.com> writes:
<mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu> wrote ...
Thanks to that single experiment, the MMx, untimed,
round-trip light speed invariance/isotropy is now
a LAW of physics. Case closed.
Capitalization of "law" in "law of physics" is more often than not a
strong indication that the author knows very little physics. Not a
proof, mind you, just a strong indication.
Do a google search for something like "Faraday disc". You'll read endless
streams of nonsense written by people who have removed all such indications
from their writings.
Well, yes, trolls evolve too.
They learn their lesson one trolling at at a time, until all that's left is
nonsense.
And, unfortunately, nonsense can be generated much faster than
anything sensible.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 03:39:43 PM |
|
|
Mati Meron wrote:
Capitalization of "law" in "law of physics" is more
often than not a strong indication that the author
knows very little physics. Not a proof, mind you,
just a strong indication.
And what does quoting-out-of-context indicate?
(My caps for LAW were used to contrast a real LAW
with Einstein's impossible "LAW," the so-called
basis of his special relativity, one-way light s
speed invariance.)
What do you call the untimed, round-trip invariance
and isotropy of light's speed in inertial frames?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 03:59:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1123792783.594857.27670@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, "kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> writes:
Mati Meron wrote:
Capitalization of "law" in "law of physics" is more
often than not a strong indication that the author
knows very little physics. Not a proof, mind you,
just a strong indication.
And what does quoting-out-of-context indicate?
(My caps for LAW were used to contrast a real LAW
with Einstein's impossible "LAW," the so-called
basis of his special relativity, one-way light s
speed invariance.)
Always nice to get additional support to first indications:-)
What do you call the untimed, round-trip invariance
and isotropy of light's speed in inertial frames?
What would you want to call it? Will "wundsgastenstrahf" do?
But, but, my little sig file is tagging at my sleeve, trying to hint
at something. I'll better listen.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 02:25:15 AM |
|
|
In article <8%OKe.33$45.4297@news.uchicago.edu>,
wrote:
<snip>
What would you want to call it? Will "wundsgastenstrahf" do?
Which I would immediately shorten to w-t-f.
<snip sleeve tug>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 02:16:44 PM |
|
|
In article <FrGdnRKrw4Pq8mHfRVn-rQ@rcn.net>, writes:
In article <8%OKe.33$45.4297@news.uchicago.edu>,
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
<snip>
What would you want to call it? Will "wundsgastenstrahf" do?
Which I would immediately shorten to w-t-f.
OK :-)))
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 06:55:35 PM |
|
|
Mati Meron wrote:
kk wrote:
What do you call the untimed, round-trip invariance
and isotropy of light's speed in inertial frames?
What would you want to call it? Will "wundsgastenstrahf" do?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 02:26:17 AM |
|
|
In article <1123804535.814710.138430@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote:
Mati Meron wrote:
kk wrote:
What do you call the untimed, round-trip invariance
and isotropy of light's speed in inertial frames?
What would you want to call it? Will "wundsgastenstrahf" do?
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Then why are you using this excuse?
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
