 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / June 2007Some theoretical support for Cahill
On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. Eg See: Re-Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiments http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0205070 This simplified re-analysis has been criticised on the grounds that if the effect had been included (by applying the SR velocity addition formula), the re-analysis would predict a null result. However it is easy to show that application of the SR velocity addition formula would not be appropriate in the case of interferometers that contain gases. Consider a medium that has refractive index n when at rest in a preferred frame. Next consider it moving at speed v relative to the preferred frame. If the medium is solid, then due to being held together by molecular bonds, it will experience a Lorentz contraction in its direction of motion. As a result of this and other relativistic effects, the speed of light in the solid is c/n irrespective of the value of v, and the speed of light in the solid relative to the preferred frame can be calculated using the SR velocity addition formula as: (v + c/n)/(1 + v/nc) On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in their direction of motion, but the gas as a whole would not. So the speed of light in the gas would not be found to be c/n by an observer moving with the gas. So the above formula would not hold. Now it can be argued that if the gas was enclosed in an apparatus, then it would be compressed by the apparatus as the apparatus undergoes a Lorentz contraction. However, since gas can flow in any direction, this external compression would not be equivalent to the longitudinal self contraction that would be experienced by a solid. So even in this situation the speed of light in the moving gas would not be c/n (where n is the refractive index when at rest in the preferred frame) and so the above formula would not hold in this case either. Accordingly it would seem that Cahill is justified in not using the above formula in his simplified re-analysis. And although a full re-analysis would be better, we can expect that a full re-analysis that took all factors into account, would also predict fringe shifts. -- Surfer > On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > bonds, it will experience a Lorentz contraction in its direction of > motion. Error 1: No, it won't. The "contraction" as envisaged by Lorentz has been disproved by a series of Trouton experiments more than 100 years ago. > As a result of this and other relativistic effects, the speed of light > in the solid is c/n irrespective of the value of v, and the speed of > light in the solid relative to the preferred frame can be calculated Error 2: There is no "preferred" frame. > using the SR velocity addition formula as: > > (v + c/n)/(1 + v/nc) Finally you learned the proper speed addition formula. Congratulations! > On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed > v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in > their direction of motion, but the gas as a whole would not. Error 3: There is ample disproof of the Lorentz atom/molecule contraction. Try something more original next time. > And although a full re-analysis would be better, we can expect that a > full re-analysis that took all factors into account, would also > predict fringe shifts. > > -- Surfer Error 4: ....what fringe shifts? The ones that Cahill is phantasizing about having seen? >> On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of >> Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >been disproved by a series of Trouton experiments more than 100 years >ago. Lorentz envisaged the contraction would be an electrodynamic effect. However a modern theory would attribute the contraction to quantum effects. I doubt this was ruled out by the Trouton experiments. >> As a result of this and other relativistic effects, the speed of light >> in the solid is c/n irrespective of the value of v, and the speed of >> light in the solid relative to the preferred frame can be calculated > >Error 2: There is no "preferred" frame. There are different opinions of course... >> using the SR velocity addition formula as: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Error 3: There is ample disproof of the Lorentz atom/molecule >contraction. Try something more original next time. I think my response to "Error 1" also applies here. >> And although a full re-analysis would be better, we can expect that a >> full re-analysis that took all factors into account, would also [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Error 4: ....what fringe shifts? The ones that Cahill is phantasizing >about having seen? Cahill is not necessarily correct. But here is a lesson from history: "Mach opposed Ludwig Boltzmann and others who proposed an atomic theory of physics. Since atoms are too small to observe directly, and no atomic model at the time was consistent, the atomic hypothesis seemed to Mach to be unwarranted, and perhaps not sufficiently "economical". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Mach -- Surfer [snip] > Cahill is not necessarily correct. But here is a lesson from history: You pick one success out of how many failures? Cahill is massively ignorant of modern physics and error analysis. Talk about betting on a losing horse. [snip] > >> On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > >> Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > However a modern theory would attribute the contraction to quantum > effects. I doubt this was ruled out by the Trouton experiments. Surfer, You always "forget" the killer experiment: "Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 p2489 (1974). A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one- millionth of the earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational velocity." The other leg of the interferometer was in .....air. Last I checked , air is .....gas. So, you have a beautiful experiment, each leg of the interferometer in a different material, one in glass (which according to your stupid theory is subjected to Lorentz length contraction) and the other one in air (which according to the same stupid theory is not subjected to Lorentz length contraction). Yet, the result is.... null. Try something better next time. > > >> On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > > >> Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > millionth of the earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its > rotational velocity." You are aware you just cited a paper that disproves every single one of Cahill's experiments, right? > The other leg of the interferometer was in .....air. Last I checked , > air is .....gas. So, you have a beautiful experiment, each leg of the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > subjected to Lorentz length contraction). Yet, the result is.... > null. The "stupid theory" is called "special relativity" which has never been empirically contradicted. Furthermore, gas is affected by relativistic effects no less than a solid is. > Try something better next time. Try bringing someone who knows what they are talking about. > > > >> On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > > > >> Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > You are aware you just cited a paper that disproves every single one > of Cahill's experiments, right? Yep, this is why I called it the "killer" experiment. Hopefully , after reading it, Surfer will go away for a long, long time. > > The other leg of the interferometer was in .....air. Last I checked , > > air is .....gas. So, you have a beautiful experiment, each leg of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > been empirically contradicted. Furthermore, gas is affected by > relativistic effects no less than a solid is. Of course, but none of the arguments has swayed Surfer (so far). [...] Y'know, I was really confused there. The post showed up as having been written by Surfer, but when I come back later it comes from you. > [...] > > Y'know, I was really confused there. > > The post showed up as having been written by Surfer, but when I come > back later it comes from you. Take a deep breath, read carefully, heck, I just sunk the Surfer ship :-) > [...] > > Y'know, I was really confused there. > > The post showed up as having been written by Surfer, but when I come > back later it comes from you. I don't know if this has any relevance, but a few posts seem to have gotten cross-linked in Google Groups. Jerry > The "stupid theory" is called "special relativity" which has never > been empirically contradicted. The "stupid" theory I was talking about is the "selective length contraction" coined by Surfer, not SR. Try paying attention next time.. > > Try something better next time. > > Try bringing someone who knows what they are talking about. Try paying attention before you post attacks , ok? You completely misunderstood my post. >Surfer, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >subjected to Lorentz length contraction). Yet, the result is.... >null. Their interferometer may have been too small to show any fringe shift. And since SR would predict zero fringe shift, their analysis must have been non-standard and not necessarily compatible with the method developed by Cahill. Here is what Cahill says about such experiments in his paper: Dynamical 3-Space: A Review http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146v2 "There have been many attempts to detect any supposed light-speed anisotropy and there have so far been 8 successful and consistent such experiments, and as well numerous unsuccessful experiments, i.e. experiments in which no anisotropy was observed. The reasons for these different outcomes is now understood: any light-speed anisotropy produces not only an expected direct effect, being that which is expected to produce a signal, but also affects the very physical structure of the apparatus, and with this effect usually overlooked in the design of some detectors. In some designs these effects exactly cancel." -- Surfer > >Surfer, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > been non-standard and not necessarily compatible with the method > developed by Cahill. Is "not doing error analysis" a method Cahill pioneered? [~~~] > "There have been many attempts to detect any supposed > light-speed anisotropy and there have so far been 8 successful and > consistent such experiments, and as well numerous unsuccessful > experiments, i.e. experiments in which no anisotropy was observed. > The reasons for these different outcomes is now understood: any It's called the Grasping at Straws effect. > light-speed anisotropy produces not only an expected direct > effect, being that which is expected to produce a signal, but also [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > -- Surfer > >Surfer, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Their interferometer may have been too small to show any fringe shift. You are grasping at straws. Try a different field, like law. > And since SR would predict zero fringe shift, their analysis must have > been non-standard and not necessarily compatible with the method > developed by Cahill. The point is that Cahill's (and your) analysis predicts a result that is contradicted by the Trimmer experiment. Bye. > [to Surfer]: > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > The other leg of the interferometer was in .....air. Good point! I had forgotten that two legs were in air. This is significantly more sensitive than the other experiments Cahill quotes. Tom Roberts > > [to Surfer]: > > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Tom Roberts Trimmer effectively kills Cahill's nonsense for good. RIP. >> > [to Surfer]: >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Trimmer effectively kills Cahill's nonsense for good. RIP. I disagree. To predict fringe shifts they must have used some form of non-standard analysis (ie an analysis that deviates from pure SR). It is very likely that with this non-standard analysis the size of the predicted shifts was almost entirely dominated by the effect of the glass, because of its vastly greater index of refraction compared to air. But we know that a non-standard analysis only works for gases. So if they applied their non-standard analysis to both the glass and the air legs of the interferometer, the size of the predicted shifts would have been grossly overestimated. In which case their results only prove that their analysis was wrong. -- Surfer > >> > [to Surfer]: > >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > To predict fringe shifts they must have used some form of non-standard > analysis (ie an analysis that deviates from pure SR). Why don't you perform the analysis then, and submit it to a journal? [snip rot] > > >> > [to Surfer]: > > >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > [snip rot] He's full of sh.t, just grasping at straws. Trimmer really did him in. > >> > [to Surfer]: > >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > I disagree. Who gives a sh.t about what you think, you are just Cahill's toadie. > To predict fringe shifts they must have used some form of non-standard > analysis (ie an analysis that deviates from pure SR). You keep trying to avoid the point that the measured results are in agreement with the SR PREDICTIONS. That is, they contradict your statements (is Cahill prompting you) about "gas and solids being affected differently" by "Lorentz contraction". The experiment clearly shows that the effect has NOTHING to do with the state of aggregation: solid,liquid and gas follow the same exact law of speed composition. > It is very likely that with this non-standard analysis the size of the > predicted shifts was almost entirely dominated by the effect of the > glass, because of its vastly greater index of refraction compared to > air. Grasping at straws. The prediction (analysis) is SR. The results are confirming SR and CONTRADICTING your hare-brain "Lorentz contraction". > But we know that a non-standard analysis only works for gases. "We"? Meaning you and Reg? While everybody else KNOWS that this is not the case? > So if they applied their non-standard analysis "They" didn't. Stop grasping at straws, you are sunken under a ton of sh.t already. > to both the glass and > the air legs of the interferometer, the size of the predicted shifts > would have been grossly overestimated. The results COMNCIDE with an incredible precision with SR precision. You are so lame.... > In which case their results only prove that their analysis was wrong. > > -- Surfer You managed to pull the last straw at the bottom of your intellectual latrine. - Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > >> > [to Surfer]: > >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: > >> > "Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 p2489 > >> > (1974). A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an > >> > upper limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one- > >> > millionth of the earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its > >> > rotational velocity." > >> > The other leg of the interferometer was in .....air. > >> Good point! I had forgotten that two legs were in air. This is > >> significantly more sensitive than the other experiments Cahill quotes. > >> Tom Roberts > >Trimmer effectively kills Cahill's nonsense for good. RIP. > I disagree. Who gives a sh.t about what you think, you are just Cahill's toadie. > To predict fringe shifts they must have used some form of non-standard > analysis (ie an analysis that deviates from pure SR). You keep trying to avoid the point that the measured results are in agreement with the SR PREDICTIONS. That is, they CONTRADICT your statements (is Cahill prompting you?) about "gas and solids being affected differently" by "Lorentz contraction". The experiment clearly shows that the effect has NOTHING to do with the state of aggregation: solids,liquids and gases follow the SAME exact law of speed composition. Here it is, for your education v=(u+c/n)/(1+u/(cn)) > It is very likely that with this non-standard analysis the size of the > predicted shifts was almost entirely dominated by the effect of the > glass, because of its vastly greater index of refraction compared to > air. Grasping at straws. The prediction (analysis) is SR. The results are confirming SR and CONTRADICTING your hare-brain "Lorentz contraction". > But we know that a non-standard analysis only works for gases. "We"? Meaning you and Reg? While everybody else KNOWS that this is not the case? > So if they applied their non-standard analysis "They" didn't. Stop grasping at straws, you are sunken under a ton of sh.t already. > to both the glass and > the air legs of the interferometer, the size of the predicted shifts > would have been grossly overestimated. The results COMNCIDE with an incredible precision with SR precision. You are so lame.... > In which case their results only prove that their analysis was wrong. > -- Surfer You managed to pull the last straw with you at the bottom of your intellectual latrine. >> Trimmer effectively kills Cahill's nonsense for good. RIP. > > To predict fringe shifts they must have used some form of non-standard > analysis (ie an analysis that deviates from pure SR). Trimmer PERFORMED AN EXPERIMENT. He made no "predictions of fringe shifts". And he measured no significant fringe shift with an accuracy MUCH higher than any of the experiments Cahill quotes. And there was air in two of the three legs of his interferometer. Tom Roberts >>> Trimmer effectively kills Cahill's nonsense for good. RIP. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Trimmer PERFORMED AN EXPERIMENT. He made no "predictions of fringe >shifts". Then how was he able to use his observations to place an upper limit on ether wind? If he had not calculated some kind of relationship between fringe shifts and velocity, the velocity could be anything. >And he measured no significant fringe shift with an accuracy >MUCH higher than any of the experiments Cahill quotes. And there was air >in two of the three legs of his interferometer. His optical path through air was probably far too short to be effective--resulting in nil sensitivity. Miller used an optical path that was 210 feet long. http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf Surfer > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:08:16 GMT, Tom Roberts > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > on ether wind? If he had not calculated some kind of relationship > between fringe shifts and velocity, the velocity could be anything. My god. Have you _EVER_ done any experimental physics? [snip crap] >> Then how was he able to use his observations to place an upper limit >> on ether wind? If he had not calculated some kind of relationship [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Have you _EVER_ done any experimental physics? Hmm..., if you don't know the relationship between two quantities A and B, how would measuring A tell you anything about the value of B? -- Surfer > On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:09:27 -0000, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > -- Surfer uhhhhhhhhhhhhh If the observed relationship does _NOT_ obey theory within error bars, then the theory is wrong. Welcome to experimental physics. Enjoy your stay. >> > [to Surfer]: >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Trimmer effectively kills Cahill's nonsense for good. RIP. It has been killed for ages. - he simply refuses to recognise it. Kind of sad really - a professor at a reputable institution here in Australia can't see the obvious Thanks Bill > >> > [to Surfer]: > >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Thanks > Bill Yes, embarassing. To have a toadie like Surfer makes things even worse. >> >> > [to Surfer]: >> >> > You always "forget" the killer experiment: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Yes, embarassing. To have a toadie like Surfer makes things even worse. It is obvious Surfer is Reg. Thanks Bill > >> "Dono" <s...@comcast.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Thanks > Bill Surfer APPEARS to know much less physics than Reg. Is this a well devised act? Who knows? Who cares? They both stink. > > If the medium is solid, then due to being held together by molecular > > bonds, it will experience a Lorentz contraction in its direction of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > been disproved by a series of Trouton experiments more than 100 years > ago. Error 1: The Trouton-Rankine experiment showed that the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction is not measurable in the rest frame of the object. Well, at least that's what I cut and pasted from wikipedia, I'd be interested to hear your comments. > > As a result of this and other relativistic effects, the speed of light > > in the solid is c/n irrespective of the value of v, and the speed of > > light in the solid relative to the preferred frame can be calculated > > Error 2: There is no "preferred" frame. Personally, I always prefer the reference frame which requires the least work to solve the problem. Of course, it should be made explicit what this frame is before one starts talking about the "preferred frame". [..] Cheers - On Jun 13, 8:04 am, luke.s...@gmail.com wrote: > > > If the medium is solid, then due to being held together by molecular > > > bonds, it will experience a Lorentz contraction in its direction of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The Trouton-Rankine experiment showed that the Lorentz-FitzGerald > contraction is not measurable in the rest frame of the object. That is, the lab frame, where the measurements are being done. The frame that Surfer is talking about in his "theory". > > > As a result of this and other relativistic effects, the speed of light > > > in the solid is c/n irrespective of the value of v, and the speed of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > [..] In relativity all frames are equal, there is no such thing as "preferred frame". Cahill (and Surfer) use the term to describe "detection of absulute motion with respect to a preferred frame". No experiment to date has managed to do that. At least, this is the interpretation in mainstream physics. > Cheers - > The "contraction" as envisaged by Lorentz has > been disproved by a series of Trouton experiments more than 100 years > ago. Not really, as long as it is combined with the other aspects of Lorentz's theory (namely time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity). This, of course, makes his theory completely indistinguishable from SR (which is the only reason there is any discussion of LET at all). Tom Roberts > > The "contraction" as envisaged by Lorentz has > > been disproved by a series of Trouton experiments more than 100 years [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Tom Roberts Tom, You were not paying attention, Surfer is talking about the old Lorentz contraction (the one suffered by atoms as described in his 1904 paper). Such contraction (in the proper frame of the experiment) has been disprove by the Troton-Rankine, followed by Tomaschek. > On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > -- Surfer A Fresnel drag is supposed to be understood as a gas. When the reader mistakes the gas neglect, it means they cannot read. It is a highly exact third direct question. Can you read? Cahill is trying to ask questions of serious readers. And the denires of serious contention are wrong always. [...] > On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed > v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in > their direction of motion, but the gas as a whole would not. Really, how do you figure? I'd love to see the analysis that supports this amusing conclusion. [...] >[...] > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >[...] Suppose we can supply some kind of field to make the gas molecules accelerate (eg ionised gas in an electric field). Consider two that initially have the same velocities. Then if they maintain equal velocity while they accelerate, the distance between them must remain constant. -- Surfer > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 03:06:29 -0000, EricGisse<jowr...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Then if they maintain equal velocity while they accelerate, the > distance between them must remain constant. I said "analysis", not "verbiage". > -- Surfer > On occasion, Reginald Cahill AKA Surfer > has presented a simplified re-analysis of > Michelson-Morley experiments Translation - he ignores Tom Roberts, and others, excellent analysis of it, and experiments done by Miller, that conclusively prove no aether was detected. Not only that, he consistently keeps posting as if such analysis had not been done. I am not formally trained in physics but, I am in statistics, and Tom Roberts analysis is quite simply bullet proof - no amount of squirming can find something that is not there. Rest of Reg's usual rot snipped. Bill > I am not formally trained in physics but, I am in >statistics, and Tom Roberts analysis is quite simply bullet proof - His analysis is worth reading but it might not be bullet proof as it did not take the "Hicks effect" into account. To quote from: Dynamical 3-Space: A Review http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146v2 "As Miller knew, the mirrors must be made slightly non-orthogonal with the degree of non-orthogonality determining how many fringe shifts were visible in the field of view. Miller experimented with this effect to determine a comfortable number of fringes: not too few and not too many. Hicks [25] developed a theory for this effect however it is not necessary to be aware of this analysis in using the interferometer: the non-orthogonality reduces the symmetry of the device, and instead of having period of 180 the symmetry now has a period of 360 , so that to (68) we must add the extra term... Now, if you look at: An Explanation of Dayton Miller's Anomalous "Ether Drift" Result http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 you will see that the paper nowhere mentions the Hick's effect, and on Page 3 it contains the following comment: "Because of the 180 degree symmetry of the interferometer, any real signal can depend only on orientation modulo 180 degrees, and whatever real signal is present in these data must have the same value for every reading at Markers 1 and 9." So it would seem the error analysis is based from the start, on a false premise. -- Surfer >> I am not formally trained in physics but, I am in >> statistics, and Tom Roberts analysis is quite simply bullet proof - > http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608238 > > His analysis is worth reading but it might not be bullet proof as it > did not take the "Hicks effect" into account. It is completely bulletproof in showing that Miller's results are not significant. It is completely bulletproof in showing how and why Miller, and so many others, were fooled by flaws in their analysis. One of the reasons it has not yet been submitted to RMP is that I must compute the size of this "Hicks effect", and modify the re-analysis accordingly. Tom Roberts >One of the reasons it has not yet been submitted to RMP is that I must >compute the size of this "Hicks effect", and modify the re-analysis >accordingly. I look forward to it becoming available. I believe the Hicks effect would cause a non-varying real signal to produce different values for markers 1 and 9, even with zero systematic error. So to take the effect into account, would you need to replace the histogram in Fig 4 with separate histograms for markers 1 and 9? Then we might see more statistical error and less systematic error. Surfer >>One of the reasons it has not yet been submitted to RMP is that I must >>compute the size of this "Hicks effect", and modify the re-analysis [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Then we might see more statistical error and less systematic error. And you could not do the analysis yourself? Bill > Surfer > >>One of the reasons it has not yet been submitted to RMP is that I must > >>compute the size of this "Hicks effect", and modify the re-analysis [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > Surfer He's unable to accept the obvious, asking him to do the math for the Trimmer experiment is way beyond his abilities. All he does is posting "verbiage", he's unable to execute any calculations. >> >>One of the reasons it has not yet been submitted to RMP is that I must >> >>compute the size of this "Hicks effect", and modify the re-analysis [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Trimmer experiment is way beyond his abilities. All he does is > posting "verbiage", he's unable to execute any calculations. For sure. However, for those reading this, it is rather embarrassing pointing out that those of competence would have done the calculations themselves, rather than heckle on the sidelines that Miller et all provided definite proof for the existence of an aether, and when a genuine analysis like Tom's come along, claim they have ignored some subtlety - when the claim to begin with was no subtlety was involved. And the fact he refuses to work out and post the details of that subtlety, and wants Tom to do it (ie his work for him since he is the one making the claims current science has got wrong) is simply another nail in his coffin. Thanks Bill >> I am not formally trained in physics but, I am in >>statistics, and Tom Roberts analysis is quite simply bullet proof - [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > So it would seem the error analysis is based from the start, on a > false premise. Nope - it isn't. It does not matter how you cut and dry it, Tom's analysis shows conclusively the experiment did not detect an aether, and why Miller and others were 'fooled'. That is not to say an aether has been ruled out with 100% certainty - no competent scientist will ever tell you that - it simply says Miller, MM etc, nor any other experiment known, did not detect it. It you believe it did detect 'something' - your supposed "Hicks Effect', then publish a paper showing it did - not claim others analysis are flawed because it may contain 'something' - especially when your claim has always been that no subtleties were involved - the data proved conclusively that an aether existed. Bill. > -- Surfer > On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > addition formula would not be appropriate in the case of > interferometers that contain gases. So why does it seem to be impossible for anyone who makes that claim to show that? > Consider a medium that has refractive index n when at rest in a > preferred frame. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bonds, it will experience a Lorentz contraction in its direction of > motion. Exactly where in a coordinate transformation do the molecular bonds enter the picture? Look. If relativity was as bizarre as you make it out to be, no one else would believe it either. Have you cut out every possible polygon from construction paper and tried to form a polyhedron that plato might have missed through some fantastic blunder that has misled everyone since then to believe there are only five regular polyhedra? Why not? > As a result of this and other relativistic effects, the speed of light > in the solid is c/n irrespective of the value of v, and the speed of > light in the solid relative to the preferred frame There is no any to define a preferred frame which is consistent with relativity. You define one and I'll find a frame that isn't consistent with your definition. [...] > Accordingly it would seem that Cahill is justified in not using the > above formula in his simplified re-analysis. > And although a full re-analysis would be better, we can expect that a > full re-analysis that took all factors into account, would also > predict fringe shifts. I can invoke unicorns to explain the same thing with the added benefit of not being derailed by the effects that those unicorns have on any other physical phenomena, since no one knows of any. > Consider a medium that has refractive index n when at rest in a > preferred frame. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bonds, it will experience a Lorentz contraction in its direction of > motion. Lorentz contractions are in all directions, as many as directions as there are relatively moving obsevers. > So even in this situation the speed of light in the moving gas would > not be c/n (where n is the refractive index when at rest in the > preferred frame) and so the above formula would not hold in this case > either. Unlike your moving "preferred" frame, the moving gas would be interacting with the light. > Accordingly it would seem that Cahill is justified in not using the > above formula in his simplified re-analysis. It's not simplified, it's more complicated. > And although a full re-analysis would be better, we can expect that a > full re-analysis that took all factors into account, would also > predict fringe shifts. http://www.google.com/search?q=michelson+interferometer+index+of+refraction > > Consider a medium that has refractive index n when at rest in a > > preferred frame. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > http://www.google.com/search?q=michelson+interferometer+index+of+refr... Excellent analysis. The link shows the countless applications of MMX + SR in calculating the refraction index of gasses . Too bad that Cahill is totally ignorant of mainstream physics and keeps posting (directly or via his minion, Surfer) the same regurgitated vomit in this forum. > On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed > v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in > their direction of motion, but the gas as a whole would not. Nonsense. You need to re-read what Lorentz wrote. In particular, his "length contraction" is a COORDINATE CHANGE, and applies to the space between objects as well as to the objects themselves. How could it be otherwise? -- we now know that ALL atoms are mostly made up of space, and ALL materials are made up of atoms. So if your claim were true, this theory is SOUNDLY refuted by ordinary observations of how matter behaves. This is not "theoretical support for Cahill", this is just a mistake. Tom Roberts > > On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed > > v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Tom Roberts Surfer is talking about the "atom contraction" from the 1904 Lorentz paper. Surfer is stuck in a time warp that predates the later Lorentz papers. >> You need to re-read what Lorentz wrote. In particular, his >> "length contraction" is a COORDINATE CHANGE, and applies to the space [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > paper. Surfer is stuck in a time warp that predates the later Lorentz > papers. Lorentz's 1904 paper EXPLICITLY uses a COORDINATE CHANGE. And in the 1921 version of _Theory_of_Electrons_ Lorentz EXPLICITLY acknowledged his theory was equivalent to SR. Surfer is just plain wrong. Tom Roberts >>> You need to re-read what Lorentz wrote. In particular, his >>> "length contraction" is a COORDINATE CHANGE, and applies to the space [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > version of _Theory_of_Electrons_ Lorentz EXPLICITLY acknowledged his > theory was equivalent to SR. Just to elaborate further, these days many would count LET and SR as pretty much the same since they have the same math. I, and many regulars who post here, do not subscribe to the equivalence, as the physical causes are totally different in both theories. In one length shortening results from motion through the aether, in SR it is simply an artefact of space-time geometry. But such is a philosophical issue rather than one that is scientifically testable - indeed the equivalence of the two mathematically makes it impossible to test, so almost by definition is outside the scope of science. Of course future research may show LET or SR is preferable on other grounds - but right now philosophy is really the only way to choose. Thanks Bill > Surfer is just plain wrong. > > Tom Roberts > Just to elaborate further, these days many would count LET and SR as pretty > much the same since they have the same math. I, and many regulars who post > here, do not subscribe to the equivalence, The only equivalence I claim is that they are experimentally and mathematically indistinguishable. That is, both theories make identical predictions for any experimental measurement, and both theories include the same set of mathematical theorems. I, too, do not consider them to be the same theory. There is a much larger class of theories that are experimentally indistinguishable from SR and LET. > Of course future research may show LET or SR is preferable on > other grounds - but right now philosophy is really the only way to choose. IMHO such research is already many decades old -- SR satisfies and establishes Lorentz invariance, and LET does not. Lorentz invariance has proved to be CRUCIAL to the development of theoretical physics beyond classical electrodynamics. That's why we teach SR in our classrooms, and LET is at best a historical footnote (and rarely even that). Tom Roberts > > Just to elaborate further, these days many would count LET and SR as pretty > > much the same since they have the same math. I, and many regulars who post [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > proved to be CRUCIAL to the development of theoretical physics beyond > classical electrodynamics. That's why we teach SR in our classrooms, Roberts Roberts a few years ago you discovered that, even if "light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform", "SR would be unaffected": http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/194c5ec3 87a7e789? Tom Roberts: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Do you teach this in your classrooms Roberts Roberts? Do students go into convulsions? Pentcho Valev >> > Just to elaborate further, these days many would count LET and SR as >> > pretty [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz > transform", "SR would be unaffected": Tom did not discover that - it is a simple consequence of the fact light can be modelled by, for example, the Proca equations, with a very small mass instead of the usual one, and be in agreement with all current evidence, provided the mass is taken as small enough. > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/194c5ec3 87a7e789? > Tom Roberts: "if it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Do you teach this in your classrooms Roberts Roberts? Do students go > into convulsions? What would cause convulsions is to show your rubbish to even 10 year olds - the massive errors in logic would be obvious to even them. Bill > Pentcho Valev >> Just to elaborate further, these days many would count LET and SR as >> pretty much the same since they have the same math. I, and many regulars [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > classical electrodynamics. That's why we teach SR in our classrooms, and > LET is at best a historical footnote (and rarely even that). Without doubt. Using LET as the foundation of QFT would be silly - but probably possible by making adhoc assumption on adhoc assumption. Thanks Bill > Tom Roberts >> On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed >> v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"length contraction" is a COORDINATE CHANGE, and applies to the space >between objects as well as to the objects themselves. I was not considering a change of coordinates in this case. Suppose we can supply some kind of field to make gas molecules accelerate (eg an ionised gas in an electric field that is stationary wrt an inertial frame). Consider two molecules that initially have the same velocities. Then if they maintain equal velocity wrt the frame while they accelerate, then the distance between them (as determined within that frame) must remain constant. In contrast, if we used the field to make a charged rod accelerate lengthwise then as it accelerates the distance between the ends of the rod (as determined within the inertial frame) must decrease due to Lorentz contraction. Hence I deduce that gaseous dielectrics do not experience Lorentz contraction in the same way as solid dielectrics. -- Surfer > On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:18:34 GMT, Tom Roberts > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -- Surfer Trimmer says you are full of sh.t. Since 1973. >> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:18:34 GMT, Tom Roberts >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Trimmer says you are full of sh.t. Since 1973. As I said before: 1) The arms of his interferometer that contained air were probably far too short to cause measurable fringe shifts. 2) The arm that contained glass could not have caused shifts due to the perfect Lorentz contraction of solids. To take advantage of the special properties of gas dielectrics to detect absolute motion, one probably needs very much larger interferometers, such as those used by MM and Miller. -- Surfer > [about Trimmer's experiment] > 1) The arms of his interferometer that contained air were probably far > too short to cause measurable fringe shifts. You should learn to do science rather than whatever it is you are trying to do. Physics is a QUANTITATIVE science. Trimmer concluded that the speed of light varied by less than 0.025 m/s for different orientations of his interferometer. So if it varied by more than that he WOULD have seen the corresponding fringe shift. This upper limit is about 500,000 times smaller than Miller's reported result which Cahill touts. But the real thing you should do is COMPUTE what Cahill's theory predicts for this experiment, and compare with Trimmer's published result. THAT would be science -- your guesses and Cahill's special pleads are not. <shrug> Of course to the rest of us it appears that Cahill's theory will predict a value FAR above that upper limit. > 2) The arm that contained glass could not have caused shifts due to > the perfect Lorentz contraction of solids. Hmmmm. It is THE OTHER TWO ARMS that we are trying to discuss. Since you and Cahill claim only gas can observe this "absolute motion", why didn't his OTHER TWO ARMS observe it? > To take advantage of the special properties of gas dielectrics to > detect absolute motion, one probably needs very much larger > interferometers, such as those used by MM and Miller. I repeat: learn to do science, not whatever it is you are trying to do. In particular, adding a new special plead for every result that is pointed out to you is NOT science. Tom Roberts >Since you and Cahill claim only gas can observe this "absolute motion", why didn't >his OTHER TWO ARMS observe it? That is a good question. The answer I suggested is that the arms were too short. But there could have been other reasons. Eg since the fringes are build up photon by photon, these experiments are really quantum interference experiments. Hence there could be some unexplored phenomena involved. Perhaps the photons have to be stretched to some kind of limit before they reveal absolute motion effects. Perhaps they need to be stretched in orthogonal directions. Consider how different parts of the wavefunction of a single photon would have to zigzag their way along different paths through Miller's interferometer, all the while interacting with the chaotic motion of gas molecules. Then after all that, the whole thing has to "collapse" to a point on the observers retina. Perhaps by that time the photon has lost the perfect coordination that is required to hide absolute motion effects. -- Surfer >>Since you and Cahill claim only gas can observe this "absolute >>motion", why didn't his OTHER TWO ARMS observe it? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > are really quantum interference experiments. Hence there could be some > unexplored phenomena involved. > Perhaps the photons have to be stretched to some kind of limit before > they reveal absolute motion effects. Perhaps they need to be stretched > in orthogonal directions. See: ``Quantum Correlations with Spacelike Separated Beam Splitters in Motion: Experimental Test of Multisimultaneity,'' Gisin, et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 120404 (2002) That pretty much clinches the relativistic concept of not being able to define any self-consistent absolute time-ordering for events with spacelike separations. > Consider how different parts of the wavefunction of a single photon > would have to zigzag their way along different paths through Miller's > interferometer, all the while interacting with the chaotic motion of > gas molecules. That is a really bizarre (and incorrect) notion regarding the quantum picture. The uncertainty relation between the number and phase operators tells you that (1) If you can count the number of photons associated with each path, the relative phases are indeterminate and you get no interference, or (2) If you can measure the relative phases, (i.e., you have interference) which path the photon traverses is indeterminate (which means indeterminate, not unknown). > Then after all that, the whole thing has to "collapse" to a point on > the observers retina. > > Perhaps by that time the photon has lost the perfect coordination that > is required to hide absolute motion effects. That argument fails for the same reason all attempts to invoke hidden variables fails to explain anything in quantum mechanics fails. Quantum mechanics is unitary. A process which, to use your terminology, results in ``losing that perfect coordination,'' destroys the interference pattern. >> Since you and Cahill claim only gas can observe this "absolute motion", why didn't >> his OTHER TWO ARMS observe it? > > That is a good question. > The answer I suggested is that the arms were too short. But there > could have been other reasons. Adding new special pleads to a theory, one for each experiment, is not science. But your claim is simply wrong -- Trimmer used a VASTLY more sensitive technique than Miller, MMX, etc. His measurement is more than a million times better, but his arms are less than a hundred times shorter. Until you learn about the importance of errorbars and resolution you will remain confused. <shrug> > [... outrageously NAIVE speculations showing a complete lack of understanding of QED and modern physics in general] Tom Roberts > But his arms are [duh*] less than [*duh] a hundred times shorter. > Until you learn about the importance of errorbars and resolution $$ < SNiCKER > $$ The THREE (3) MOST UNreal (GR-sample of the) *PROBLEM* DOCTORs: 1. [Dr Feynman, "solved" ANY physics PROBLEM with ARROWs-of-TiME]. 2. [Dr Pusch, "solving" ANY physics PROBLEMs with 'ASAP MOMENTs']. 3. [Dr Roberts RE-solves ANY physics PROBLEM with his ERROR-BARs]. $$ With THREE of THE most POPULAR "SOLUTiONs" in "modern physics": $$ 1. Overly, *oscillating* ARROWs-of-TiME. $$ 2. Sudden 'ASAP' *delayed* "MOMENTs". $$ 3. Too, *GR re-solved* ERROR-BARs. $$ Similar to Feynman, Tom Roberts is too embarassed, to refer to $$ ..or sign his own posts, as a REAL doctor. (A typical GR Ph.D). A GENERAL UNiVERSAL EQUATiON-of-STATE SYSTEM 'frame-of-reference'. The BiG ToE < Transcendental Physics (TP) >< TRUE physical 2007 >. Hi Surfer, Didn't you notice that they were taking you for a ride? About half the comments you got were pure crap, such as for example the below one by Tom Roberts According to Fig.1, in Trimmer's experiment there were NO "other two arms" that could "observe" something. Instead there was only ONE light path! Cheers, Harald >> [about Trimmer's experiment] >> 1) The arms of his interferometer that contained air were probably far [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Tom Roberts > Didn't you notice that they were taking you for a ride? About half the > comments you got were pure crap, such as for example the below one by Tom > Roberts > According to Fig.1, in Trimmer's experiment there were NO "other two arms" > that could "observe" something. Instead there was only ONE light path! Nonsense. Trimmer et al's Fig. 1 quite clearly shows a triangle interferometer with THREE arms arranged in a triangle, one of which is mostly in glass and two of which are completely in air (we apparently use the word "arm" slightly differently here). There are TWO light paths, as required in any interferometer; in this case they are counter propagating around the triangle. If Cahill and Surfer's supposed effect were valid, and air does not propagate light isotropically here on earth while glass does, then this experiment MUST see the effect, the only question is how large of a signal they should see. Their arms are much shorter than Millers', but their detector is VASTLY more sensitive than Miller's eyeball, so they SHOULD have seen it, but didn't -- their upper limit is ~400,000 times smaller than Miller's "signal" (which we now know to be false). As I said before, the right thing for Surfer and Cahill to do is to COMPUTE using their theory what Trimmer's instrument should observe, but they haven't bothered to do that. Interestingly, Trimmer et al acknowledge conversations with Dr. Kevin Cahill -- small world! Tom Roberts > Cheers, > Harald [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >> >> Tom Roberts >> Didn't you notice that they were taking you for a ride? About half the >> comments you got were pure crap, such as for example the below one by Tom [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > required in any interferometer; in this case they are counter propagating > around the triangle. Sorry, it was meant to be a message to Surfer. Anyway, what I tried to communicate to him was that there is ONE light path going through ALL three "arms" sequentially - together they form ONE interferometer leg, whereby the two air "arms" partly compensate each other for the effect that Surfer seeks. Of course, the experiment was NOT designed to detect possible effects in gas. > If Cahill and Surfer's supposed effect were valid, and air does not > propagate light isotropically here on earth while glass does, then this [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > theory what Trimmer's instrument should observe, but they haven't bothered > to do that. ANYONE who makes pertinent claims about what that experiment would have detected should first make such computations and show them - as far as I know Surfer did NOT make such claims, but you did. > Interestingly, Trimmer et al acknowledge conversations with Dr. Kevin > Cahill -- small world! Who is Kevin Cahill? Harald On Jun 19, 12:47 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > >> Didn't you notice that they were taking you for a ride? About half the > >> comments you got were pure crap, such as for example the below one by Tom [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > seeks. Of course, the experiment was NOT designed to detect possible effects > in gas. Why are you lying , O'Harry? Here is exactly what you wrote: "Hi Surfer, Didn't you notice that they were taking you for a ride? About half the comments you got were pure CRAP, such as for example the below one BY Tom Roberts According to Fig.1, in Trimmer's experiment there were NO "other two arms" that could "observe" something. Instead there was ONLY ONE light path! > > If Cahill and Surfer's supposed effect were valid, and air does not > > propagate light isotropically here on earth while glass does, then this [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Harald >Sorry, it was meant to be a message to Surfer. Anyway, what I tried to >communicate to him was that there is ONE light path going through ALL three >"arms" sequentially - together they form ONE interferometer leg, whereby the >two air "arms" partly compensate each other for the effect that Surfer >seeks. Of course, the experiment was NOT designed to detect possible effects >in gas. Hi Harry, Thanks for the feedback. I don't think anyone fully understands the processes involved in quantum wavefunction collapse. But that could play a key role in where photons ends up and hence in whether or not a fringe shift occurs. In which case it might be to early to hope to understand why some experiments detect absolute motion while others do not. >Who is Kevin Cahill? He appears to be another quantum physicist, so I guess people confuse him with Reg Cahill from time to time. Regards, Surfer >>Sorry, it was meant to be a message to Surfer. Anyway, what I tried to >>communicate to him was that there is ONE light path going through ALL three [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > quantum wavefunction collapse. But that could play a key role in where > photons ends up and hence in whether or not a fringe shift occurs. What is it that makes you and other kooks believe that nature has to be perverse? > In which case it might be to early to hope to understand why some > experiments detect absolute motion while others do not. It's not too early at all. The reason you think some experiments have detected absolute motion is because you think an error bar that overlaps zero indicates a non-zero number due to some wishful thinking that nature should be perverse. >>Sorry, it was meant to be a message to Surfer. Anyway, what I tried to >>communicate to him was that there is ONE light path going through ALL [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>effects >>in gas. > Hi Harry, > > Thanks for the feedback. > I don't think anyone fully understands the processes involved in > quantum wavefunction collapse. But that could play a key role in where > photons ends up and hence in whether or not a fringe shift occurs. You are shooting in the dark. There is nothing wrong with wild speculations, but usually it leads nowhere. > In which case it might be to early to hope to understand why some > experiments detect absolute motion while others do not. See my post in your new thread... >>Who is Kevin Cahill? >> > He appears to be another quantum physicist, so I guess people confuse > him with Reg Cahill from time to time. Funny. Harald > I don't think anyone fully understands the processes involved in > quantum wavefunction collapse. But that could play a key role in where > photons ends up and hence in whether or not a fringe shift occurs. Clearly you don't have a clue about modern physics. Perhaps you should LEARN about quantum theory rather than writing mumbo-jumbo like this. > In which case it might be to early to hope to understand why some > experiments detect absolute motion while others do not. Except that NONE have done so SIGNIFICANTLY. Until you learn about errorbars and resolutions, both you and Cahill will remain confused. <shrug> >> Who is Kevin Cahill? >> > He appears to be another quantum physicist, so I guess people confuse > him with Reg Cahill from time to time. I doubt very much that anyone confuses them. I just thought the name coincidence was remarkable -- worthy of remark, not "significant". Tom Roberts >>> On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed >>> v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > -- Surfer Your first version at the start of this thread was very unconvincing: there is IMO no reason to think that a gas in equilibrium would not behave according to the PoR. However, your new attack on current assumptions looks a bit better, as the dynamics of accelerated bodies versus that of gasses is little explored and calculations promise to be complex. If someone knows a good article on that topic, then I'm interested in the reference. :-) Thanks, Harald On Jun 14, 8:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: [...] > Your first version at the start of this thread was very unconvincing: there > is IMO no reason to think that a gas in equilibrium would not behave [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > calculations promise to be complex. If someone knows a good article on that > topic, then I'm interested in the reference. :-) Abstract-The famous Fizeau's interferometry experiment with flowing water is commonly cited as a demonstration of the velocity transformation in the special relativity. In this investigation, by taking into account the modification of the propagation velocity due to the motion of dielectric medium and the modification of the propagation length due to the Sagnac effect, an entirely different interpretation of this experiment is presented. Physically, the influence of the medium velocity on the phase velocity is associated with an effect of the polarization current. Both the medium velocity and the Sagnac e ect depend on earth's rotation, while its influence on the phase difference in Fizeau's experiment cancels out substantially. >> http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f3c.pdf Sue.... > Thanks, > Harald- > On Jun 14, 8:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Sue.... Actually, I would like to see a paper on acceleration of gasses vs. solid objects that is based on SRT and published in a physics journal. Thanks anyway! ;-) Harald On Jun 14, 10:00 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > > On Jun 14, 8:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > objects that is based on SRT and published in a physics journal. > Thanks anyway! ;-) Would you like it double spaced, single spaced or supportive of preconceived notions? http://www.rle.mit.edu/QuantumMuri/publications/Additions4_05/Shahriar_8.pdf Sue... > Harald- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - > > Actually, I would like to see a paper on acceleration of gasses vs. solid > > objects that is based on SRT and published in a physics journal. > > Thanks anyway! ;-) > > Would you like it double spaced, single spaced or supportive > of Preconceived Notions? good one! > On Jun 14, 10:00 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> > wrote: >> "Sue..." <suzysewns...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message [...] >> >> If someone knows a good article on that >> >> topic, then I'm interested in the reference. :-) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Sue... :-)) >>>> On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed >>>> v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> Hence I deduce that gaseous dielectrics do not experience Lorentz >> contraction in the same way as solid dielectrics. I think that maybe clock sync issues would apply to stop that apparent discrepancy On Jun 14, 4:57 am, "harry" <harald.vanlintelButNotT...@epfl.ch> wrote: > However, your new attack on current assumptions looks a bit better, as the > dynamics of accelerated bodies versus that of gasses is little explored and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Thanks, > Harald Yes, Harry, try reading the experiment that disproved all of Surfer's (and Cahill's) claims before they even started all this nonsense: Trimmer et al., Phys. Rev. D8, p3321 (1973); Phys. Rev. D9 p2489 (1974). A triangle interferometer with one leg in glass. They set an upper limit on the anisotropy of 0.025 m/s. This is about one-millionth of the earth's orbital velocity and about 1/10,000 of its rotational velocity. The other leg was in....air. Surfer (and Cahill) have also missed the refutation of the Lorentz contraction that they try to resuscitate. Try reading this: 1. ^ Trouton F. T., Rankine A. (1908). "On the electrical resistance of moving matter". Proc. Roy. Soc. 80 (420). 2. ^ Carl T. Chase (1927). "The Trouton-Noble Ether Drift Experiment". Phys. Rev. 30 (516): 516-519. 3. ^ R. Tomaschek (1924). "The conduct of light of extraterrestrial light sources". Annalen der Physik 73: 105-126. 4. ^ R. Tomaschek (1925). "Attempt at the locating of the electrodynamic effect of earth movements at high altitudes I". Annalen der Physik 78: 743-756. 5. ^ R. Tomaschek (1926). "Concerning an experiment on the location of electrodynamic effects of the movement of the Earth at high altitudes II". Annalen der Physik 80: 509-514. 6. ^ R. Tomaschek (1927). "Comments on my tests on the detection of electrodynamic effects at high altitudes". Annalen der Physik 84: 161- 162. >> You need to re-read what Lorentz wrote. In particular, his >> "length contraction" is a COORDINATE CHANGE, and applies to the space >> between objects as well as to the objects themselves. >> > I was not considering a change of coordinates in this case. But Lorentz WAS DOING SO. That's why you're wrong here. YOU might have some sort of model in which length contraction does not apply to the space between atoms, but Lorentz did not. <shrug> > [comparison of accelerating gas and rod] You accelerated the gas and the rod differently, so your comparison is invalid. Your rod was accelerated via Born rigid motion, but the gas was not -- the accelerations are different at the two ends of the rod, but not for the two gas particles. > Hence I deduce that gaseous dielectrics do not experience Lorentz > contraction in the same way as solid dielectrics. The difference between your two examples is due to the way you applied acceleration (or force) to them, and is independent of whether they are gas or solid. So your conclusion is unwarranted. Tom Roberts >>> On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed >>> v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > wrt an inertial frame). Consider two molecules that initially have the > same velocities. There are none so blind as those who cannot see the implications of their own speculations beyond an effect that requires infinite refinement of the most naive experiment. If what you hypothesize were correct, the current conservation in maxwell's equations goes out the window and so do maxwell's equations. If the interference pattern measured in the lab frame due to apparatus and sources in the lab frame, depends upon some absolute velocity, then so do the electric and magnetic fields that are responsible for the interference pattern. It doesn't matter what particular piece of the apparatus is responsible or why it was responsible. That violates the gauge invariance of maxwell's equations This doesn't depend upon any assumptions about materials, gases, solids or liquids. If the fields have any dependence at all on some absolute velocity, then so do the charges and currents that are responsible for the fields. I'll wait for you to try arguing against that with the most obvious (but not totally naive) attempt to avoid that problem before shooting it down as well. >>>> On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed >>>> v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >with the most obvious (but not totally naive) attempt to avoid that problem >before shooting it down as well. I don't know enough to argue against that, but it would be interesting if you could see any problems with Cahill's generalised forms of the Schrodinger and Dirac equations. Eg pages 8 onward in: Dynamical 3-Space: A Review http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146 These couple quantums systems to a velocity field. In the above paper he also presents generalised forms of Maxwells equations that couple EM radiation to a velocity field. He uses these to predict the same bending of light by the sun as GR. To me it all looks very ingenious, but my maths isn't good enough to judge how well it really holds together. -- Surfer >>>>> On the other hand, if the medium is a gas, then when moving at speed >>>>> v, individual gas molecules would experience a Lorentz contraction in [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > These couple quantums systems to a velocity field. If you don't know enough about this to say anything, what would be interesting about any problems I find? I can find a fatal one based only on what you've posted. Velocities are not quantum mechanical observables and the only velocity eigenvalues of the dirac equation are +/-c. Adding a velocity field is not a generalization. It's an inconsistency. Cahill is merely trying to prop up a philosophical viewpoint with technobabble. > In the above paper he also presents generalised forms of Maxwells > equations that couple EM radiation to a velocity field. He uses these > to predict the same bending of light by the sun as GR. > > To me it all looks very ingenious, but my maths isn't good enough to > judge how well it really holds together. I've made the mistake of reading articles referenced to cahill before. Basically, every one I've read consists of a hodgepodge of jargon lifted from various topics of physics and stripped of all physical content. If you don't know enough to argue his point (whatever he thinks it is), then you are asking me to waste my time for no particular reason. Tell cahill to spend some time studying this subject. > Suppose we can supply some kind of field to make gas molecules > accelerate [...] > Hence I deduce that gaseous dielectrics do not experience Lorentz > contraction in the same way as solid dielectrics. This is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT -- that is NOT what these experiments do. These experiments do NOT use "some kind of field...". What these experiments do is enclose a volume of gas or solid in a small, rigid container, place that container on the earth, and measure the properties of light propagating through the gas or solid (the solid is usually its own container; the container for the gas is usually the room). The fact that you can concoct a scenario in which gas behaves differently from solids is IRRELEVANT -- you must look at what the experiments ACTUALLY DO. And as I pointed out before, your claim that gas behaves differently from a solid here is due to the different physical situation you subjected them to -- the difference is not inherent but is due to your different conditions. Tom Roberts > On occasion, Reginald Cahill has presented a simplified re-analysis of > Michelson-Morley experiments that omits the Fresnel drag effect. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > addition formula would not be appropriate in the case of > interferometers that contain gases. If Cahill would replace his contracting molecules with coherent molecules he could point to a device. http://www.zeiss.com/C125716F004E0776/0/DB95426F0494AB1DC125717500445CEE/$File/I nnovation_10_18.pdf But conherent molecules aren't Lorentz contractring molecules are they? http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/liquids/inddip.html Sue... > Consider a medium that has refractive index n when at rest in a > preferred frame. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > -- Surfer |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.