 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Natural Science Forum / Physics / Relativity / December 2005What is the correct explanation for the Null result of MM Experiment?
It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM experiment. GSS > It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for > the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more > and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics > of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as > to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM > experiment. According to Androcles, prominent member of the Scientific SR Sceptics Community, the correct explanation is that they used the Wrong Mirror Orientation: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroMMX.html According to Henri Wilson, slightly more prominent member of the Scientific SR Sceptics Community, the correct explanation is that there is Some Kind of Speed Unification at work: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SpeedUni.html According to Ken Seto, most prominent member of the Scientific SR Sceptics Community, the correct explanation is the Isotropy of the Absolute Vertical Direction: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IsoVert.html Dirk Vdm > It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for > the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more > and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics > of SR. References please. > I would like to request these members to give their opinion as > to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM > experiment. Since I do not know to what you are referring to when you say 'more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics of SR' I can not really comment. However on sci.physics.relativity we have a contingent of posters with zero understanding of error bars who incorrectly claim it did not produce a null result. Thanks Bill > GSS >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more >and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics >of SR. There are no "members of the scientific community" skeptical of Special Relativity, because they know the bounds of the theory. > I would like to request these members to give their opinion as >to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM >experiment. >GSS The "skeptics" here are not members of the scientific community, they are wackos. The few members of the scientific community here do express the limitations of SR correctly. Special Relativity is an idealistic model, requiring the same _RIGID_ rectilinear reference frame of rods and clocks that the "scientific in 1900, but nonsense in 2000" model called LET. The use of _RIGID_ rods and clocks in General Relativity makes it "local". There has to exist a reference system that allows General Relativity to be global, because nature is global. Scientific models really are not altered by opionion or democratic voting, even the most unpopular model may turn out to be the most accepted. And SR is valid within the ideal situations it specifies. But it is boring, hashed and rehashed daily. Joe Fischer > It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for > the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more > and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics > of SR. I know of a Ph.D. biologist who is skeptical of SR. He also is mathematically unqualified to even follow the derivations. > I would like to request these members to give their opinion as > to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM > experiment. If there are any SR skeptics out there who are also mathematical physicists and qualified to understand and explain analytical geometry and tensor calculus in Minkowski space-time, I too would like to hear their comments on MM. I won't hold my breath waiting for them, however. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA >> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for >> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I know of a Ph.D. biologist who is skeptical of SR. He also is >mathematically unqualified to even follow the derivations. [stunned emoticon here] How in the world did he get through the prerequisites for his biology degrees? <snip> /BAH >> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for >> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > I won't hold my breath waiting for them, however. You don't need analytical geometry or tensor calculus to understand an invalid definition, [quote] we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle 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/ or why x'/(c+v) is not equal to x'/(c-v) to be unable to derive the cuckoo transforms. I doubt you can see that, I won't be holding my breath until or if you ever do. I fully expect you to go on thinking nonsense for the rest of your natural life, ignorant of the most simple of mathematics and your biologist colleague's greater perception than your own. Androcles. > >> It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for > >> the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Androcles. You don't even need to know how to properly handle a single equation to gain the right to call yourself "an electronic engineer, professionally" http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Engineer.html :-) Dirk Vdm >If there are any SR skeptics out there who are also mathematical >physicists and qualified to understand and explain analytical geometry >and tensor calculus in Minkowski space-time, I too would like to hear >their comments on MM. Minkowski space-time is mathematical model of space and time. The MM experiment was done in real space and time. What happens in real space and time happens. What might happen in a mathematical model of space and time isn't relevant to the outcome of the experiment. <snip repost> > Minkowski space-time is mathematical model of space and time. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What might happen in a mathematical model of space and time isn't > relevant to the outcome of the experiment. The relevance is complete and perfect, because: (1) The entire point of physics is to construct mathematical models that, when manipulated, behave in the same manner as the observable universe. (2) When our models do not accurately depict what happens in the experiment, we refine the old models or build new ones under the guidance of our empirical results. (3) The outcome of the experiment tells us whether or not our models are working. Minkowski space-time models the domain in which electromagnetism is Lorentz-invariant, and in which gravitation is a scalar field with the properties of 'curvature.' The model is as "real" as numbers, and as accurate as our best measurements. Physicists are not in danger of confusing our models and reality, but we are not going to separate them. Tom Davidson Richmond, VA >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more >and more members of the Scientific community are turning to be skeptics >of SR. I would like to request these members to give their opinion as >to what is the correct explanation for the Null result of the MM >experiment. I found the following papers very interesting. =================== The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute Motion Reginald T. Cahill School of Chemistry, Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide 5001, Australia http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF Physics textbooks assert that in the famous interferometer 1887 experiment to detect absolute motion Michelson and Morley saw no rotation-induced fringe shifts the signature of absolute motion; it was a null experiment. However this is incorrect.Their published data revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a speed of some 8 km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was less than the 30 km/s orbital speed of the Earth. A 2002 post relativistic-effects analysis for the operation of the device however gives a different calibration leading to a speed > 300 km/s. So this experiment detected both absolute motion and the breakdown of Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this first detection of absolute motion in 1887. ======================== From classical to modern ether-drift experiments: the narrow window for a preferred frame. M. Consoli, E. Costanzo Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania Physics Letters A, Volume 333, Issues 5-6, 13 December 2004, Pages 355-363.) http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0311/0311576.pdf Historically, the Michelson-Morley experiment has played a crucial role for abandoning the idea of a preferred reference frame, the ether, and for replacing Lorentzian Relativity with Einsteins Special Relativity. However, our re-analysis of the Michelson-Morley original data, consistently with the point of view already expressed by other authors, shows that the experimental observations have been misinterpreted. Namely, the fringe shifts point to a non-zero observable Earths velocity v obs = 8 4 ±0 5 km s. Assuming the existence of a preferred reference frame, and using Lorentz transformations to extract the kinematical Earths velocity that corresponds to this v obs , we obtain a real velocity, in the plane of the interferometer, v earth = 201 ±12 km s. This value is in excellent agreement with Millers calculated value v earth = 203 ±8 km/s and suggests that the magnitude of the fringe shifts is determined by the typical velocity of the Solar System within our galaxy. This conclusion, which is also consistent with the results of all other classical experiments, leads to an alternative interpre- tation of the Michelson-Morley type of experiments. Contrary to the generally accepted ideas of last century, they provide experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred reference frame. This point of view is also consistent with the most recent data for the anisotropy of the two-way speed of light in the vacuum. ==================== Nobel Prize winner Maurice Allais supports the claim that Miller detected absolute motion. http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm ===================== Precision test for the new Michelson-Morley experiments with rotating cryogenic cavities M. Consoli Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Catania http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0506005 A new ether-drift experiment in Dusseldorf is currently measuring the relative frequency shift of two cryogenic optical resonators upon active rotations of the apparatus. I point out that the observed fractional amplitude of the sidereal variations of the signal in February..... is entirely consistent with the expectations based on Millers observations in the same epoch of the year. This leads to predict that, with future data collected in August-September, the observed sidereal variations should increase by .+70%..... retaining the present normalization. This would represent clean experimental evidence for the existence of a preferred frame. ==================== Cahill's home page at: http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html ==================== > >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for > >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Adelaide 5001, Australia > http://www.geocities.com/ptep_online/PP-03-04.PDF http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Steene.pdf | "Flinders University theoretical physicist Reg Cahill has | turned the scientific world on its ear by claiming he has | found science's Holy Grail - the fabled Theory of | Everything." http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/ | "Key responsibilities: | Deputy Head of School | School Courses and Curricula (Chairman) | School Space Committee (Chairman)" http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics... | "A new paradigm for the modelling of reality is | currently being developed called Process Physics. | In Process Physics we start from the premise that | the limits to logic, which are implied by Gödel's | incompleteness theorems, mean that any attempt to | model reality via a formal system is doomed to failure. | Instead of formal systems we use a process system, | which uses the notions of self-referential noise and | self-organised criticality to create a new type of | information-theoretic system that is realising both the | current formal physical modelling of reality but is also | exhibiting features such as the direction of time, the | present moment effect and quantum state entanglement | (including EPR effects, nonlocality and contextuality), | as well as the more familiar formalisms of Relativity | and Quantum Mechanics. In particular a theory of | Quantum Gravity has already emerged. | | In short, rather than the static 4-dimensional modelling | of present day (non-process) physics, Process Physics is | providing a dynamic model where space and matter are | seen to emerge from a fundamentally random but self- | organising system. The key insight is that to adequately | model reality we must move on from the traditional non- | process syntactical information modelling to a process | semantic information modelling; such information is | `internally meaningful'. " Dirk Vdm > >It is generally accepted that SR provides the correct explanation for > >the Null result of Michelson-Morley Experiment. However, of late more [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > rotation-induced fringe shifts -the signature of absolute motion; it > was a null experiment. Even if the fringe shifts had been detected, there is always more than one explanation for them, or for anything else in physics, for that matter. Explanations in physics are not unique. > However this is incorrect.Their published data > revealed to them the expected fringe shifts, but that data gave a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Newtonian physics. So far another six experiments have confirmed this > first detection of absolute motion in 1887. What is the absolute velocity of the earth relative to this frame, then? >What is the absolute velocity of the earth relative to this frame, >then? From the Introduction P2 of "The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 A Critical Review of the Evidence" Reginald T. Cahill http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412039 While the relativistic effects are well established experimentally it is now belatedly understood, in 2002 [4,10], that numerous experiments, beginning with the Michelson-Morley experiment [1] of 1887, have always shown that postulates (1) and (2) (excepting the 2nd part) are false, namely that there is a detectable local frame of reference or `space', and that the solar system has a large observed galactic velocity of some 420±30km/s in the direction (RA=5.2hr, Dec= -67deg) through this space [2,3,5,8,10]. This is different from the speed of 369km/s in the direction (RA=11.20hr, Dec= -7.22deg) extracted from the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropy, and which describes a motion relative to the distant universe, but not relative to the local space. >From the Introduction P2 of >"The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 >A Critical Review of the Evidence" >Reginald T. Cahill >http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0412039 From that document page 2: The Miller data and the DeWitte data are symmetrically balanced to zero, they are symmetric. Why is this? Does the experimental setup enforce symmetry of the resulting data swing? Why not such a picture? + + + + + + + + + + + 0-------------------------+--------+--- + + w. >>From the Introduction P2 of >>"The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >0-------------------------+--------+--- > + + I think the data is a plot of deviations from the mean. Here is a link to a detailed paper by Miller himself http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/Miller1933.pdf An analysis by Maurice Allais http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/yellow01.htm And some history here http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm > >>From the Introduction P2 of > >>"The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > And some history here > http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm Interesting history on the author's homepage http://www.orgonelab.org | Welcome to James DeMeo's research web site, and home page for the | Orgone Biophysical Research Laboratory. DeMeo has been investigating | the work of the late Dr. Wilhelm Reich since 1970, and founded OBRL | in 1978. With cooperative assistance from a network of professionals | and institutes supportive of Wilhelm Reich's original discoveries, | OBRL has grown to become one of the world's primary centers for | genuine and uncompromised research and educational programs focused | upon Orgonomy, the science of orgone (life) energy functions in | nature, as developed by Reich in the first half of the 20th Century. And even more interesting: http://www.orgonelab.org/cgi-bin/shop.pl/page=xpulse.htm | Heretic's Notebook: | Emotions, Protocells, Ether-Drift and Cosmic Life Energy: | with New Research Supporting Wilhelm Reich | Orgone Biophysics | ================= | - "Dayton Miller's Ether-Drift Experiments: A Fresh Look", | by James DeMeo | - "The Experiments of Dayton Miller and the Theory of Relativity", | by Maurice Allais | - "Reconciling Miller's Ether-Drift with Reich's Dynamic Orgone", | by James DeMeo | - "The Implications of Current Consciousness Research on Orgonomic Theory", | by Richard Blasband | - "Orgonometry: A New Detector", | by Courtney Baker | - "Orgone Field Observations Using Dowsing Rods", | by Nikolas Nikolaidis | - "Orgone Accumulator Stimulation of Sprouting Mung Beans", | by James DeMeo | - "West-East Asymmetry and Diurnal Effect of Cosmic Radiation", | by Dave Marett | - "Confirmation of an Oranur Anomaly", | by Victor Milian, et al Dirk Vdm >Interesting history on the author's homepage > http://www.orgonelab.org [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > | upon Orgonomy, the science of orgone (life) energy functions in > | nature, as developed by Reich in the first half of the 20th Century. Newton also had some strange beliefs. From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/22/newto n_2060.shtml Newton set 2060 as the end of the world Newton: The Dark Heretic; Saturday 1 March, BBC TWO, 8.05-9.05pm A BBC documentary uncovers, for the first time, the original manuscript where Newton forecast the date of the end of the world. Newton, the father of modern mathematics, dedicated a large part of his life to a quest to decode the Bible which he believed to be the word of God. For over 50 years, he studied the Bible trying to unravel God's secret laws of the Universe. He was fanatical in his quest to discover the date for the Second Coming of Christ and the end of the world. Scholars have spent years trying to unravel Newton's writings on the Book of Revelation to establish when he thought the apocalypse was coming. For the first time, Newton: The Dark Heretic reveals the date he forecast is within many people's lifetimes - 2060. The BBC was given rare access to Newton's original manuscripts in the Hebrew National Library in Jerusalem. Buried in his papers, Dr Stephen Snobelen, from the University of King's College in Nova Scotia, found the original document where Newton had written down his prediction. In 2060, Newton believed the dramatic events forecast in the apocalyptic Book of Revelation would occur: massive plagues and fires; the terrible battle of Armageddon between good and evil and the destruction and eternal damnation of the wicked. Producer Malcolm Neaum says: "Newton prayed daily for the end of the world which he believed would herald the Second Coming of Christ. This would usher in the 1000 year rule of the Saints and Newton believed he would then take his place as Chief Saint." >>Interesting history on the author's homepage >> http://www.orgonelab.org [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > would usher in the 1000 year rule of the Saints and Newton believed he > would then take his place as Chief Saint." And the point of this bit of irrelevant trivia is? Bill; >"Peter" <no_spam@unknown.net> wrote in message >> Newton also had some strange beliefs. >> >> From: >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/02_february/22/newto n_2060.shtml > >And the point of this bit of irrelevant trivia is? I was trying to illustrate that strange beliefs in one area of life don't necessarily prevent a person doing good science in another. So although DeMeo believes in "orgone", that does not rule out the possibility that he has done a good job at having a second look at the Miller experiment. > >"Peter" <no_spam@unknown.net> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So although DeMeo believes in "orgone", DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not believe in bending spoons, Von Daniken does not believe in ancient cosmonauts and Cahill does not believe in ether. They only believe in the money generated by their books. > that does not rule out the > possibility that he has done a good job at having a second look at the > Miller experiment. It shows that he does a good job at continuing the work of Reich, that other impostor. If you think that DeMeo believes in orgone, or even in ether, then you are just the imbecile he needs you to be to make his living. Dirk Vdm "Peter" <no_spam@unknown.net> who wrote in message news:i1t1p1lfeon6ubc92044i1392clhgl7gdl@4ax.com... to "Bill Hobba"'s <rubbish AND junk. commentary> [Dirk] > DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski > did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not > believe in bending spoons, Von Daniken does not believe > in ancient cosmonauts and Cahill does not believe in ether. > They only believe in the money generated by their books. > Dirk Vdm [hanson] What's wrong with that/them? They certainly have tune right. They are certainly smarter then Einstein who had to give all his (Nobel) money to his first wife Maric, as hush money, to keep his own con and kacksackering going on ... ahahaha... http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/c317bb71e593ff8b ahaha.... ahahanson >> >"Peter" <no_spam@unknown.net> wrote in message >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > in ancient cosmonauts and Cahill does not believe in ether. > They only believe in the money generated by their books. Well said. Thanks Bill >> that does not rule out the >> possibility that he has done a good job at having a second look at the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dirk Vdm > >> >"Peter" <no_spam@unknown.net> wrote in message > >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > believe in bending spoons, Von Daniken does not believe > > in ancient cosmonauts and Cahill does not believe in ether. ... and Dennis McCarthy does not believe in expanding globes. > > They only believe in the money generated by their books. Trying to thrive on the gullible and their wallets... It has always been around and it will always stay around. But perhaps this kind of scam is less dangerous to society than real religious fanatism ;-) Dirk Vdm > Well said. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > > > Dirk Vdm In article <3Lokf.63850$1m.3990576@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes: >"Bill Hobba" <rubbish@junk.com> wrote in message news:uhokf.10310$ea6.2766@news-server.bigpond.net.au... >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >But perhaps this kind of scam is less dangerous to society >than real religious fanatism ;-) Of course it is less dangerous. Crooks are low-harm parasites on society. It takes idealists to cause real big damage. Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" > In article <3Lokf.63850$1m.3990576@phobos.telenet-ops.be>, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> writes: > > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Of course it is less dangerous. Crooks are low-harm parasites on > society. It takes idealists to cause real big damage. Good point. So as long as O'Barr doesn't gain too much momentum, we can remain optimistic. Dirk Vdm > Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, > meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same" >DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski >did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not >believe in bending spoons, Von Daniken does not believe >in ancient cosmonauts and Cahill does not believe in ether. >They only believe in the money generated by their books. You might be right. But here is a question. Consider a rocket passing Mars on its way to Earth. At the instant that the rocket passes Mars, a radio on the rocket and a radio on Mars send a signal to the Earth. Along the whole path traveled by those signals, they remain side by side and they arrive at the Earth simultaneously. They travel together despite the fact that they were transmitted from sources having a velocity difference. How can Nature compensate for the velocity difference of the sources and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of some kind of medium? Peter > >DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski > >did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of > some kind of medium? Water molecules move up and down, producing a water wave in a sea. People stand up and sit down, producing a Mexican wave in a sea of people. The electric and magnetic fields increase and decrease, producing a light wave in what? Under some circumstances the probability of finding an electron travels along in the form of some wave packet, producing a probability wave in what? Why would light and probabilities need a physical medium? Because Mexican waves and water waves happen to have one? How can Nature compensate for the mass difference of the sources and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of some kind of medium? How can Nature compensate for the age difference of the sources and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of some kind of medium? Dirk Vdm >>DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski >>did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Peter Magic! And one of the signals was blue doppler shifted, of course. But then it wasn't, because time dilated on the ship. But it was. Magic! What really happens is what happens in Sagnac, and what would happen if someone on Mars and someone on the ship fired bullets at the same time. The bullet from the ship arrives first. Dork Van de merde (real name) is NEVER right, and he's too stupid to understand time dilation and blue doppler shift cancel. Androcles. > Consider a rocket passing Mars on its way to Earth. At the instant > that the rocket passes Mars, a radio on the rocket and a radio on Mars [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of > some kind of medium? Who says any "compensation" is needed? In SR and GR, spacetime simply has a geometry such that light always travels with speed c relative to any locally-inertial frame. This is akin to the "phenomenon" that a straight line is the shortest distance between two points -- what "compensation" would be needed to make that happen? Remarkably, this abstract feature of Lorentzian manifolds was not "put in" specially, it is simply there as part of the geometry. It's remarkable that a basic geometrical property of Lorentzian manifolds has such strong experimental confirmation. Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com >>DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski >>did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of > some kind of medium? How, in Euclidian geometry, can two parallel lines never meet without some agency directing it? One can either go searching for the answer, or recognize such questions are pretty useless. Exactly the same with why light travels at the same speed regardless of the relative speed of the source - it is just how the space-time geometry of nature works - simple as that. The POR all by itself implies that an invariant speed exists - it may be infinity. If it is finite then its actual value contains no physics because it can be made 1 by a suitable choice of units. That effects always happen at a finite speed is called locality. So your question is what agency enforces locality? As far as we can tell it is simply how nature works. Thanks Bill > Peter >How, in Euclidian geometry, can two parallel lines never meet without some >agency directing it? One can either go searching for the answer, or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >agency enforces locality? As far as we can tell it is simply how nature >works. That seems a good answer in the light of what is currently known. Cheers, Peter > >DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski > >did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > some kind of medium? > Peter That's a very clearly phrased question. How does the Doppler Effect sound. The rocket signal has a higher frequency at earth, because it was bunched up when it was sent by the rocket speeding toward earth, (you can blame speeding tickets on cops Doppler radar). Instead of the speed changing, the frequency and wavelength is altered, and that keeps energy conserved. Rgds Ken Ken S. Tucker wrote : > > >DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski > > >did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > it was sent by the rocket speeding toward earth, (you can > blame speeding tickets on cops Doppler radar). See http://copradar.com/ Perhaps you will be able to avoid a speeding ticket :-) Marcel Luttgens > Instead of the speed changing, the frequency and wavelength > is altered, and that keeps energy conserved. > > Rgds > Ken > >DeMeo does not believe in orgone, just like Velikowski > >did not believe in colliding worlds, Uri Geller does not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > and impose equal velocities upon the signals, without the presence of > some kind of medium? You make the mistaken presumption that light needs something material to "push off" against, and so that if it doesn't push off the source, then it MUST push off a medium. One way to get a handle on the truth is to recognize that the equations of electrodynamics that give rise to the propagation of the fields at speed c only refer to the *fields themselves* and not to any substrate or physical referent. The other thing to keep in mind is that while speed is always defined with respect to something, this *something* does not need to be a physical object. It was precisely Einstein's starting point to recognize that speed is defined with respect to *coordinate systems* which do not have to have a physical object at the origin (or indeed anything in them at all). PD So is this coordinate system a bunch of fixed absolute points in empty space (absolute space?) > So is this coordinate system a bunch of fixed absolute points in empty > space (absolute space?) Not quite. The coordinate system is a bunch of points with fixed position *relative to each other* in empty space. Let's call that coordinate system A. However, Einstein (actually Galileo) went further and noticed that I could just as well choose a different coordinate system B, a bunch of points with fixed position relative to each other in empty space, but such that every point in B is moving with some velocity u with respect to every point in A. This is not hard to imagine -- one coherent grid of points in empty space moving through another coherent grid of points in empty space. It was then noticed that if you could do that for B, it would be possible to do that to define a coordinate system C, D, E, F, G,... and so on, with infinite possibilities. Einstein then proposed that all the laws of physics, including electrodynamics, hold *in exactly the same way and in exactly the same form* for all such coordinate systems A, B, C, D, E, F, G, ...., without preference or difference in any one of those frames. So far, that proposal has matched experiment. PD The problem with your coordinate system is that you assumed the observer is in a state of absolute rest and thus he sees all clocks moving wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are contracted. This assumption leads to the incompleteness of SR. IRT includes the fact that the observer is also in a state of motion. Therefore his clock can run slow or fast compared to all the clocks moving wrt to him. Similarly his rod can be contracted or expanded compared to all the rods moving wrt him. That's the reason why IRT is complete. A description of IRT is in the following link (page 4): http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Unification.pdf Ken Seto > The problem with your coordinate system is that you assumed the > observer is in a state of absolute rest Once again, I'll point out that SR says no such thing. SR makes no statement, either explicit or implied, about an observer in any frame of reference being in a state of absolute motion or in a state of absolute rest. To say that it does reveals a profound lack of understanding of SR. Period. > and thus he sees all clocks > moving wrt him are running slow and all rods moving wrt him are [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Ken Seto Once again if SR didn't assume that the observer is at a state of absolute rest then it can't say that the observe clock is running slow. Why?? Because only the observer at the absolute rest frame can say that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. BTW the SR assumption that the observer is at a state of absolute rest is the reason why SR is incomplete. Ken Seto > Once again if SR didn't assume that the observer is at a state of > absolute rest then it can't say that the observe clock is running slow. > Why?? Because only the observer at the absolute rest frame can say that > all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. That is simply not true. What you are assuming is that there is one and only one frame that can correctly say that other clocks are running slow. This is a false assumption and one that SR *explicitly* disavows. In SR, an observer tied to coordinate system A will view a clock that is moving relative to coordinate system A (and which is stationary relative to coordinate system B) to be running slow. However, an observer tied to coordinate system B will view a clock that is moving relative to coordinate system B (and which is stationary relative to coordinate system A) to be running slow. Neither observer has to assume anything about absolute motion for this observation to take place. *Both* observations are *correct*, and both observers note only relative motion. The fact that you do not understand that SR says this symptomatic of your misrepresentation of SR. > BTW the SR assumption that the observer is at a state of absolute rest > is the reason why SR is incomplete. > > Ken Seto PD: That is simply not true. What you are assuming is that there is one and only one frame that can correctly say that other clocks are running slow. This is a false assumption and one that SR *explicitly* disavows. KS: I said no such thing. I said that only the observer at the absolute rest frame can claim that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. All other observers will see clocks moving wrt him are running slow or fast compared to his clocks. PD: In SR, an observer tied to coordinate system A will view a clock that is moving relative to coordinate system A (and which is stationary relative to coordinate system B) to be running slow. KS: The observer sets up the coordate system A and B. In that process he assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. That's why he concldue that his clock is running the fastest and that the observed clocks are running slow. PD: In SR, an observer tied to coordinate system A will view a clock that is moving relative to coordinate system A (and which is stationary relative to coordinate system B) to be running slow. However, an observer tied to coordinate system B will view a clock that is moving relative to coordinate system B (and which is stationary relative to coordinate system A) to be running slow. Neither observer has to assume anything about absolute motion for this observation to take place. *Both* observations are *correct*, and both observers note only relative motion. The fact that you do not understand that SR says this symptomatic of your misrepresentation of SR. KS: This is not different than what I said. I said: An observer in system A assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and thus all the clocks in the universe (system B) moving wrt him are running slow. Ken Seto > PD: > That is simply not true. What you are assuming is that there is one and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > All other observers will see clocks moving wrt him are running slow or > fast compared to his clocks. That is simply not true. All other observers will see clocks moving with respect to him are running slow (and ONLY running slow) compared to his clocks. This is true for ANY observer in ANY inertial coordinate system. This is what's seen in experiment and what SR predicts. You fail to accurately represent what SR says. > PD: > In SR, an observer tied to coordinate system A will view a clock that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The observer sets up the coordate system A and B. In that process he > assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. This is simply not true. He is at rest *relative* to a particular coordinate system and moving *relative* to any other inertial coordinate system. He makes no assumption nor statement about absolute rest at all. You fail to accurately represent what SR says. > That's why he concldue > that his clock is running the fastest and that the observed clocks are [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > This is not different than what I said. I said: An observer in system > A assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest No, you didn't read what I said. There is no statement about absolute rest anywhere. > and thus all the > clocks in the universe (system B) moving wrt him are running slow. No, you didn't read what I said. It is *also* true that for the observer tied to coordinate system B, all the clocks in the universe (system A) moving wrt him are running slow. And for that matter, if there is *another* observer in system C, all the clocks in the universe (systems A and B) moving wrt him are running slow. And for that matter, if there is *another* observer in system D, all the clocks in the universe (systems A, B, and C) moving wrt him are running slow. All of these observations are simultaneously true. This is what's confirmed by experiment and what SR predicts. You fail to accurately represent what SR says. PD > KS: I said no such thing. I said that only the observer at the absolute > rest frame can claim that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. > All other observers will see clocks moving wrt him are running slow or > fast compared to his clocks. PD: That is simply not true. All other observers will see clocks moving with respect to him are running slow (and ONLY running slow) compared to his clocks. This is true for ANY observer in ANY inertial coordinate system. This is what's seen in experiment and what SR predicts. You fail to accurately represent what SR says. KS: Sigh....When an observer declares that the all clocks moving wrt him are running slow he is assuming that he is in a state of absolute rest. What this mean is that each SR observer assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest and that's why each SR observer sees all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. In real life each observer sees the clocks moving wrt him can run fast or slow compared to his clock. This is the IRT interpretation. > PD: > In SR, an observer tied to coordinate system A will view a clock that > is moving relative to coordinate system A (and which is stationary > relative to coordinate system B) to be running slow. > KS: > The observer sets up the coordate system A and B. In that process he > assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. PD: This is simply not true. He is at rest *relative* to a particular coordinate system and moving *relative* to any other inertial coordinate system. He makes no assumption nor statement about absolute rest at all. You fail to accurately represent what SR says. KS: Sigh....in SR the assumption of absolute rest is automatic by each observer. That's why he is able to say that all clcoks moving wrt him are running slow. PD: No, you didn't read what I said. There is no statement about absolute rest anywhere. KS: > and thus all the > clocks in the universe (system B) moving wrt him are running slow. PD: No, you didn't read what I said. It is *also* true that for the observer tied to coordinate system B, all the clocks in the universe (system A) moving wrt him are running slow. And for that matter, if there is *another* observer in system C, all the clocks in the universe (systems A and B) moving wrt him are running slow. And for that matter, if there is *another* observer in system D, all the clocks in the universe (systems A, B, and C) moving wrt him are running slow. All of these observations are simultaneously true. This is what's confirmed by experiment and what SR predicts. You fail to accurately represent what SR says. KS: I did read what you said. You said that an observer in syatem B will also see the clocks in system A are running slow. That means that the observer in system B assume that he in in a state of absolute rest and that's why he sees all the clocks in system A are running slow. Ken Seto > > KS: I said no such thing. I said that only the observer at the absolute > > rest frame can claim that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sigh....When an observer declares that the all clocks moving wrt him > are running slow he is assuming that he is in a state of absolute rest. That is a *misrepresentation* of what SR says. Period. If you have a reference that makes this statement, cite it. > What this mean is that each SR observer assumes that he is in a state > of absolute rest and that's why each SR observer sees all the clocks > moving wrt him are running slow. > In real life each observer sees the clocks moving wrt him can run fast > or slow compared to his clock. Except this is NEVER seen in experiment. Period. If you have a reference that indicates otherwise, cite it. > This is the IRT interpretation. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Sigh....in SR the assumption of absolute rest is automatic by each > observer. That is a *misrepresentation* of what SR says. Period. If you have a reference that makes this statement, cite it. > That's why he is able to say that all clcoks moving wrt him > are running slow. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > observer in system B assume that he in in a state of absolute rest and > that's why he sees all the clocks in system A are running slow. And SR recognizes that such a statement is patently ridiculous. Two observers A and B will look at each other and recognize that they have nonzero relative motion, and they will therefore conclude that it would be *foolish* for both of them to assume that they are in a state of absolute rest. It is recognized by any *fool* that it is impossible for two observers in relative motion to both be in a state of absolute rest. Thus, *neither* is required to make that assumption. Your claim is a *misrepresentation* of what SR says. Period. If you have a reference that makes this statement, cite it. PD > KS: > Sigh....When an observer declares that the all clocks moving wrt him > are running slow he is assuming that he is in a state of absolute rest. PD: That is a *misrepresentation* of what SR says. Period. If you have a reference that makes this statement, cite it. KS: So according to you SR doen't say that an observer sees all clocks moving wrt him are running slow???? In that case you don't understand SR. KS: > What this mean is that each SR observer assumes that he is in a state > of absolute rest and that's why each SR observer sees all the clocks > moving wrt him are running slow. > KS: > I did read what you said. You said that an observer in syatem B will > also see the clocks in system A are running slow. That means that the > observer in system B assume that he in in a state of absolute rest and > that's why he sees all the clocks in system A are running slow. PD: And SR recognizes that such a statement is patently ridiculous. Two observers A and B will look at each other and recognize that they have nonzero relative motion, and they will therefore conclude that it would be *foolish* for both of them to assume that they are in a state of absolute rest. It is recognized by any *fool* that it is impossible for two observers in relative motion to both be in a state of absolute rest. Thus, *neither* is required to make that assumption. KS: What you said above is SR's mutual time dilation. I agree with you that the SR assertion of mutual time dilation is absurd. When an SR observer declares that the observed clcok is running slow he assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. KS: > In real life each observer sees the clocks moving wrt him can run fast > or slow compared to his clock. PD: Except this is NEVER seen in experiment. Period. If you have a reference that indicates otherwise, cite it. KS: That's because all earthly experiments are based on that the observed object has a higher state of absolute motion than the lab observer. The higher state of absolute motion of the object is achieved by acceleration. Clocks not originated from earth can run faster (or slower) than the earth clock.....and these clocks are not within the domain of applicability of SR. Ken Seto > > KS: > > Sigh....When an observer declares that the all clocks moving wrt him [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > moving wrt him are running slow???? In that case you don't understand > SR. No, Ken. Let's be absolutely boneheadedly simple about this, shall we? SR says an observer sees all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. SR does NOT SAY that this has anything to do with his assuming he is in a state of absolute rest. Only an idiot would say that SR says both. > KS: > > What this mean is that each SR observer assumes that he is in a state [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > When an SR observer declares that the observed clcok is running slow he > assumes that he is in a state of absolute rest. No, Ken. Let's be absolutely boneheadedly simple about this, shall we? SR says that mutual time dilation is a *fact*. SR does NOT SAY that this has anything to do with his assuming he is in a state of absolute rest. Only an idiot would say that SR says both. > KS: > > In real life each observer sees the clocks moving wrt him can run fast [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's because all earthly experiments are based on that the observed > object has a higher state of absolute motion than the lab observer. No, Ken. Let's be absolutely boneheadedly simple about this, shall we? SR's tests are not confined to earthly experiments. Only an idiot would assert that about SR. > The > higher state of absolute motion of the object is achieved by > acceleration. > Clocks not originated from earth can run faster (or slower) than the > earth clock.....and these clocks are not within the domain of > applicability of SR. No, Ken. Let's be absolutely boneheadedly simple about this, shall we? SR does not restrict itself to earthly experiments and earthly applications. Only an idiot would assert this about SR. PD > KS: > So according to you SR doen't say that an observer sees all clocks > moving wrt him are running slow???? In that case you don't understand > SR. PD: No, Ken. Let's be absolutely boneheadedly simple about this, shall we? SR says an observer sees all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. SR does NOT SAY that this has anything to do with his assuming he is in a state of absolute rest. Only an idiot would say that SR says both. KS: Ah....so you now agree that "SR says an observer sees all clocks moving wrt him are running slow". We are indeed making progress. The next point would be: What observer can claim that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow? The answer to this question: Only the observer who is in a state of absolute rest can make such a claim. KS: > The > higher state of absolute motion of the object is achieved by > acceleration. > Clocks not originated from earth can run faster (or slower) than the > earth clock.....and these clocks are not within the domain of > applicability of SR. PD: No, Ken. Let's be absolutely boneheadedly simple about this, shall we? SR does not restrict itself to earthly experiments and earthly applications. Only an idiot would assert this about SR. KS: So why do we need GR?? Ken Seto > > KS: > > So according to you SR doen't say that an observer sees all clocks [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > are running slow? The answer to this question: Only the observer who is > in a state of absolute rest can make such a claim. And that is an *incorrect* answer, Ken. It does not follow. SR does not claim it. Experiment does not show it. SR states, and it is backed by experiment, that *all* inertial observers can make such a claim. Your failure to understand that is tied to your failure to understand SR. Your claims that SR asserts that is tied to many other ridiculous things you say about SR. > KS: > > The [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > KS: > So why do we need GR?? Certainly not to be able to account for non-earthly experiments! Your failure to understand that is tied to your failure to understand SR. Your claims that SR asserts that is tied to many other ridiculous things you say about SR. PD > Ah....so you now agree that "SR says an observer sees all clocks moving > wrt him are running slow". We are indeed making progress. The next > point would be: What observer can claim that all clocks moving wrt him > are running slow? The answer to this question: Only the observer who is > in a state of absolute rest can make such a claim. Give the conditions under which an observer would see a clock running fast. Bob  Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein An observer would see a clock running fast if his state of absolute motion is higher than the observed clock. SRT does not include this possibility and that's why SR is incomplete. IRT in the following link includes this possibility and that's why IRT is complete and it includes SRT as a subset. Ken Seto > An observer would see a clock running fast if his state of absolute > motion is higher than the observed clock. SRT does not include this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Ken Seto (Sigh) You really should take the time to learn SR, Seto! Wormy is a runt of the SR experts. > Give the conditions under which an observer would see a clock running fast. Well, I can describe several situations in which that has been observed (though for some the observer was electro-mechanical, not human). But I doubt kenseto can give any sort of coherent description.... Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Worng....ken seto can indeed give example: From the ground clock's point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow compared to the ground clock. Fron the GPS clock point of view: The SR effect effect on the ground clock is not 7 us/day running slow. So I guess your assertion about what I know is based your naive and indoctrinated SR religion opinion.:-) Ken Seto > Worng....ken seto can indeed give example: From the ground clock's > point of view: The SR effect on the GPS clock is 7 us/day running slow [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Ken Seto One component of time correction in GPS is due to gravity. Wormy is a runt of the SRians. > Wormy is a runt of the SRians. One component of time correction in GPS is due to gravity. >> Ah....so you now agree that "SR says an observer sees all clocks moving >> wrt him are running slow". We are indeed making progress. The next [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Bob It appears that Ken responded to this but for some reason it was removed from my server. I'd appreciate a repost. Thanks, Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein > >> Ah....so you now agree that "SR says an observer sees all clocks moving > >> wrt him are running slow". We are indeed making progress. The next [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It appears that Ken responded to this but for some reason it was removed > from my server. I'd appreciate a repost. Ken said: > An observer would see a clock running fast if his state of absolute > motion is higher than the observed clock. SRT does not include this > possibility and that's why SR is incomplete. IRT in the following link > includes this possibility and that's why IRT is complete and it > includes SRT as a subset. Of course, he didn't describe how experimentally to *put* an observer in a state of absolute motion higher than the clock's. PD >>>> Ah....so you now agree that "SR says an observer sees all clocks moving >>>> wrt him are running slow". We are indeed making progress. The next [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Of course, he didn't describe how experimentally to *put* an observer > in a state of absolute motion higher than the clock's. Or even what a "higher state of absolute motion" means. Bob Signature"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler." A. Einstein It means: 1. the clock is running at a slower rate. 2. the light path length is longer. The combimation of these gives a constant math ratio for light speed as follows: Light path length of rod (299,792m458m)/the absolute time content for a clock second co-moving with the rod. Ken Seto Sigh....that's easy. The traveling twin is in a higher state of absolute motion and thus he sees the earth clcok as running at a faster rate. Ken Seto > Sigh....that's easy. The traveling twin is in a higher state of > absolute motion and thus he sees the earth clcok as running at a faster > rate. > > Ken Seto Let's see your equations, Seto! > Sigh....that's easy. The traveling twin is in a higher state of > absolute motion and thus he sees the earth clcok as running at a faster > rate. > > Ken Seto Actually, no he doesn't. Not while he's in an inertial frame. He sees the earth clock run *slower* on the inertial legs of the trip. The fact that you do not know this is indicative of how you misrepresent SR. PD Actually he does. The fact that SR asserts that he doesn't is a failing of SR. Also that's the reason why SR is incomplete. Ken Seto > Actually he does. The fact that SR asserts that he doesn't is a failing > of SR. Also that's the reason why SR is incomplete. > > Ken Seto Ah, so just so we're clear: You say not saying that SR claims that the traveling twin says the earth twin's clock runs faster. You are saying that SR *should* say that this happens, and that SR's accounting of what happens in the twin puzzle is incorrect. PD An observer in the GPS location would see the SR effect on the ground clock to run faster than his clock.....even though including the effect of gravity the ground clock is running at a slower than the GPS clock. Ken Seto > An observer in the GPS location would see the SR effect on the ground > clock to run faster than his clock.....even though including the effect > of gravity the ground clock is running at a slower than the GPS clock. > > Ken Seto Let's see you calculations, Seto! >> KS: I said no such thing. I said that only the observer at the absolute >> rest frame can claim that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >In real life each observer sees the clocks moving wrt him can run fast >or slow compared to his clock. This is the IRT interpretation. Let's call him Observer A. He declares that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow. So he is in a state of absolute rest? Then there's another observer, Observer B, moving relative to A. B also claims that all clocks moving wrt him are running slow, including A's clock! Now we have two different states of absolute rest. Nice. We can get more by introducing an Observer C, Observer D... as many as you like. Signature"The average person, during a single day, deposits in his or her underwear an amount of fecal bacteria equal to the weight of a quarter of a peanut." -- Dr. Robert Buckman, Human Wildlife, p119. Hey fool that's the SR interpretation. SR says each observer can claim all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. IOW, SR claims that each observer is in a state of absolute rest. Ken Seto > Hey fool that's the SR interpretation. SR says each observer can claim > all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. Yes, SR claims that. > IOW, SR claims that > each observer is in a state of absolute rest. No, SR does not claim that. YOU claim that. That is because you find SR unbelievable. PD In sci.physics.relativity, PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote on 8 Dec 2005 12:37:22 -0800 <1134074242.433799.245560@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>: >> Hey fool that's the SR interpretation. SR says each observer can claim >> all the clocks moving wrt him are running slow. > > Yes, SR claims that. Unless the clock is moving towards the observer, in which case the observer will see it as running *fast* -- for a time. But that's a quibble. In any event, the multiplier is sqrt(c-v)/sqrt(c+v) for a "pure SR" problem (GTR introduces additional factors). >> IOW, SR claims that >> each observer is in a state of absolute rest. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > PD Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. > Yes, SR claims that. Unless the clock is moving towards the observer, in which case the observer will see it as running *fast* -- for a time. NO....you are wrong. Clocks don't change rate because it is moving toward you or away from you. Ken Seto But that's a quibble. In any event, the multiplier is sqrt(c-v)/sqrt(c+v) for a "pure SR" problem (GTR introduces additional factors). > Clocks don't change rate because it is moving > toward you or away from you. > > Ken Seto A pulsar is a useful clock... it appears to "speed up" when coming toward us... appears to slow down going away from us. This non relativistic effect (Doppler) is used to infer planets around pulsars. In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto@erinet.com <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote on 9 Dec 2005 06:33:15 -0800 <1134138795.351532.326480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>: >> Yes, SR claims that. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > NO....you are wrong. Clocks don't change rate because it is moving > toward you or away from you. Be *very* careful here. I did not say the clockrate changed. I said the clockrate was observed to change. There's a very big difference. Of course the only method by which one can verify the former is by riding along with the clock; that's changing reference frames. > Ken Seto > > But that's a quibble. In any event, the multiplier is > sqrt(c-v)/sqrt(c+v) for a "pure SR" problem (GTR introduces > additional factors). And as one can see, if one changes v's sign, the multiplier becomes the reciprocal. Therefore, an approaching clock is observed to speed up; a receding clock is observed to slow down. Oh, and do fix your newsreader; it doesn't seem to do includes from other's posts very well. :-P Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. What is the correct explanation for the Null result of MM Experiment? ************** Refer to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. In sci.physics.relativity, donstockbauer@hotmail.com <donstockbauer@hotmail.com> wrote on 9 Dec 2005 23:42:40 -0800 <1134200560.885281.246940@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>: > What is the correct explanation for the Null result of MM Experiment? > > ************** > > Refer to Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. *INCORRECT*. Not that SR hasn't been validated numerous times, or that there's an alternate, better theory. It's simply that the above statement suffers from two misconceptions: [1] That there is any correct explanation for the results of an experiment. Consistent with, yes. Correct, not necessarily. [2] That there is exactly one such explanation. For instance, MMX's null result is perfectly compatible with Newtonian ballistic light theory if a stationary lightsource is used. It takes other experiments, such as Pound-Rebka and Sagnac, to discredit Newtonian ballistic light theory -- or, to put it more correctly, Pound-Rebka and Sagna both show results that the ballistic light theory cannot account for without major buttressing. Pound-Rebka cannot be explained by SR; it's in a curved space and utilizes gravity. Sagnac requires a little work using integrals. I'd have to work out the details or point to a Webpage. (I have no idea what, if anything, went awry with Miller's work; Miller *did* show a non-null result and was attempting to be careful regarding his measurements, controlling, for instance, temperature, using cork insulation on his unit [the original MMX used a large granite block, Miller used various metals such as platinum-iridium].) So in part this is my fault (the above is my statement, from <ue8q63-3bn.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net>; your newsreader unfortunately mangles chevrons) for implying that there is such a statement, but it's clear that SR is the most consistent theory we have at this time, within its limitations, and GR is the most consistent theory we have at this time, within *its* limitations. But that's about all we can say -- and given the issues with "dark energy", which sounds very close to phlogiston [*] to me, and "dark matter", which at least can be explained by strewing boulders, comets, and whatnot everywhere (watch out, future faster-than-lightspeed travelers, if ever there can be any! :-) ) but which cannot presently be observed, SR may be under attack for its "correctness", and may have to be replaced by more esoteric theories which diverge from SR in exotic situations but are almost exactly coincident with it in most experiments, even as SR and Newton are today. (There is some good news. Detailed observations of some galaxies suggests that we have a halo surrounding the Milky Way, not unlike the Kuiper belt (named for Gerard Kuiper). Therefore, some of that "dark energy" might very well be matter, instead. A dry as dust accounting problem, perhaps. :-) I can swallow dark matter, but not dark energy, though there might be some vibrational modes of very very very low frequency radio waves that nobody's tried to pick up yet.) [*] an ancient concept which was eventually explained by oxygen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston Signature#191, ewill3@earthlink.net It's still legal to go .sigless. Hey fool....So how can an SR observer claim that his clock is the fastest clock in the universe if he is not in a state of absolute rest?? In case your are denying that the observer's clcok is not the fastest clcok in the universe then yo |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message