failure of Michelson-Morley?
King Coffee
I'm not sure how Michelson-Morley conducted their famous experiment, but to
me they shown that aether (the medium which carries light) has a velocity of
zero (no aether winds in free space). The conclusion that soon follow: the
speed of light is independent of all moving reference frame seam ad hoc
reasoning.
Consider sound wave in a medium (like air, with medium velocity = zero) it
radiates in all directions at constants speed and produce a Doppler shift in
a relativistic reference frame.
The same is true for light. The Doppler shift of wavelength and the BEC
experiment suggest the speed of light is medium specific (free space is a
fix medium/aether with velocity = 0). Just as you do not directly add the
sound wave velocity to the observer velocity... why would you do it for
light.
In 1998, laser pulses were slowed in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of
sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the
speed of light in vacuum. It experiment shows that if the light medium is
moving, then you can add the velocity of the medium to the velocity of the
propagation light, just like sound in air.
On an astrological scale, phenomenon's dealing with simultaneous events,
time dilation, and length contraction can be explained by considering the
time delay of light. The time it takes light to travel to the observer with
the event information. For instant, when you view a rod traveling very fast,
you view photons carrying the back of the rod and the front of the rod
simultaneously (one instant of time). The rod appears to shrink because
photons carrying the true front position is not synchronized with the
photons carrying the true rear position, the front photon must travel the
length of the rod to be synchronized with the rear.
The problems I'm having with this classical view of relativity is I do get a
one to one formulas match with the Lorentz transforms. That might be because
I'm not assuming c for all reference frames. I argue you can't measure
particles moving faster than the speed of light because of the inherit
propagation delay, but I do not know why all moving inertial reference frame
must measure the same speed of light. They explain this by defining
space-time as a curve, so that Galilean geometry isn't appropriate.
My point is the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment is
insufficient evident to conclude "speed of light is independent of all
moving reference frame".
King
Dirk Van de moortel
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message news:d5H8f.189696$qY1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hello,
>
> I'm not sure how Michelson-Morley conducted their famous experiment, but to
> me they shown that aether (the medium which carries light) has a velocity of
> zero (no aether winds in free space). The conclusion that soon follow: the
> speed of light is independent of all moving reference frame seam ad hoc
> reasoning.
It is not a conclusion.
It is a hypothesis that could explain the result.
>
> Consider sound wave in a medium (like air, with medium velocity = zero) it
> radiates in all directions at constants speed and produce a Doppler shift in
> a relativistic reference frame.
>
> The same is true for light. The Doppler shift of wavelength and the BEC
> experiment suggest the speed of light is medium specific (free space is a
> fix medium/aether with velocity = 0). Just as you do not directly add the
> sound wave velocity to the observer velocity... why would you do it for
> light.
>
> In 1998, laser pulses were slowed in a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) of
> sodium to only 17 m/s, more than seven orders of magnitude lower than the
> speed of light in vacuum. It experiment shows that if the light medium is
> moving, then you can add the velocity of the medium to the velocity of the
> propagation light, just like sound in air.
>
> On an astrological scale, phenomenon's dealing with simultaneous events,
> time dilation, and length contraction can be explained by considering the
> time delay of light.
Actually they can't.
> The time it takes light to travel to the observer with
> the event information. For instant, when you view a rod traveling very fast,
> you view photons carrying the back of the rod and the front of the rod
> simultaneously (one instant of time). The rod appears to shrink because
> photons carrying the true front position is not synchronized with the
> photons carrying the true rear position, the front photon must travel the
> length of the rod to be synchronized with the rear.
Yes, but that has nothing to do with lenght contraction.
This only happens when the rod is approaching you.
When it is receding from you, it will appear to be longer.
In both cases light signals are sent out simultaneously
according to some who moves together with the rod.
The phonomenon that is called length contraction, does
not work this way. With length contraction, the distances
to the two ends of the moving rod are to be measured at
the same time according to the one who does the measuring.
So, when probing the ends, signals must be sent out to the
end points at different times, in order to make sure that
the reflection events occur simultaneously. When we do
that, we find a "measured length" that is shorter than the
"proper length", both in the approaching and in the receding
case.
>
> The problems I'm having with this classical view of relativity is I do get a
> one to one formulas match with the Lorentz transforms. That might be because
> I'm not assuming c for all reference frames.
Hm, I think it is because your view of relativity is wrong :-)
> I argue you can't measure
> particles moving faster than the speed of light because of the inherit
> propagation delay, but I do not know why all moving inertial reference frame
> must measure the same speed of light.
There is no *obligation* for these frame to measure the same
speed of light. We just assume it. And it seems to work.
> They explain this by defining
> space-time as a curve, so that Galilean geometry isn't appropriate.
No, not at all.
That's a completely different story.
>
> My point is the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment is
> insufficient evident to conclude "speed of light is independent of all
> moving reference frame".
It certainly is sufficient evidence to assume it, and see where
it leads us... and it seems to lead us very far, actually :-)
If you have a good alternative that also "works", you are
free to propose it...
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message news:d5H8f.189696$qY1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| I'm not sure how Michelson-Morley conducted their famous experiment,
'nuff said.
Androcles.
Sue...
A "reference frame" is a imaginary construct.
In scientific fields, no experiment is necessary
to show that physicial phenomena are not connected
to our imaginations.
Sue...
Monist__
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/processphysics.html
The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of Absolute
Motion
Published: Progress in Physics, 3, 25-29, 2005.
Abstract: 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 8km/s using a Newtonian theory for the calibration of
the interferometer, and so was rejected by them solely because it was
less than the 30km/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 > 300km/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.
Electronic copy of paper at:
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/CahillMM.pdf
Dirk Van de moortel
"Monist__" <no_...@filter.net> wrote in message news:gc17m1h865tc26mq3...@4ax.com...
Ahem...
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/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
>
Monist__
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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."
>
It will be interesting to see if his theory can pass the test of
Gravity Probe B :-)
================================
Novel Gravity Probe B Gravitational Wave Detection
To be published: Relativity, Gravitation, Cosmology
http://www.scieng.flinders.edu.au/cpes/people/cahill_r/HPS23.pdf
Abstract: The Gravity Probe B (GP-B) satellite experiment will measure
the precession of on-board gyroscopes to extraordinary accuracy. Such
precessions are predicted by General Relativity (GR), and one
component of this precession is the frame-dragging or Lense-Thirring
effect, which is caused by the rotation of the earth, and the other is
the geodetic effect. A new theory of gravity predicts, however, a
second and much larger frame-dragging or vorticity induced spin
precession. This spin precession component will also display the
effects of novel gravitational waves which are predicted by the new
theory of gravity, and which have already been seen in several
experiments. The magnitude and signature of these gravitational wave
induced spin precession effects is given for comparison with the GP-B
experimental data.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message
news:d5H8f.189696$qY1.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
...
> My point is the null results of the Michelson-Morley
> experiment is insufficient evident to conclude "speed
> of light is independent of all moving reference frame".
Right. It only shows that the aether is undetectable to
propagating light in different directions, with different
relative path speeds, near the surface of the Earth. This leaves
dragged aether (which is obviated by other experimental results),
the Lorentz aether, or no aether. You cannot differentiate
between the last two.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1130592677....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| A "reference frame" is a imaginary construct.
Nonsense. Cars, buses, trains, aircraft are NOT imaginary constructs,
they are very real.
| In scientific fields, no experiment is necessary
| to show that physicial phenomena are not connected
| to our imaginations.
So why say that they are?
Androcles.
King Coffee
A comment on length contraction explanation.
First, I don't mean to plagiarize the
www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html web page... but its enssential in
illustrating my point.
Note, the physical of geometry space movement and the mathematic derivation
stated below... does not include the latency time of light to travel back to
the lab observer.
L + v*t1 = c*t1 (= the position expanded by the front of the rocket at time
t1. The photon is at that coordinate at t1. But somehow that information is
assumed to be instantly back at the observer (a Galilean point of view of
time and space). At t =0 the pulse had 0 distance to transverse, but at t1
the pulse had an add distance to transverse. We are summing implicit in
measuring a speed -- information of its position is available at that some
time. I'm summing that photons carring information to the observer.
Relativity enthusiastic brounce back and front on the speed of information
transfer. For instant, to show envents do not need to be simultaneous in
relativitic reference frames, they assume positional information travels on
photons at the speed of light/
Lorentz Contraction
This is a derivation of the Lorentz-contraction formula. We will go over the
ideas in class, but the algebra is a bit gruesome. So, I'm putting that part
here. Refer to Fig. 2.
As with the time dilation example, imagine a pulse of light reflects from a
mirror back to a receiver. Light will be the "yardstick" used to measure the
length of an object in the lab and rocket frames.
Some notation:
L' = length of stick in the "rocket"
L = length of stick in the "lab"
t1 = travel time of light pulse to the end of the stick (lab)
t2 = travel time of light pulse back from the end of the stick (lab)
t = t1+t2 = total travel time in the lab
t' = total travel time in the rocket
v = speed of rocket in the lab frame
In the lab:
L + v*t1 = c*t1
L - v*t2 = c*t2
t = t1 + t2 = (2L/c)/(1-v2/c2)
In the rocket:
2L' = c*t'
t' = 2L'/c
We know from the time dilation formula that
t' = t*sqrt(1-v2/c2)
So,
2L'/c = (2L/c)/sqrt(1-v2/c2)
L' = L/sqrt(1-v2/c2)
L = L'*sqrt(1-v2/c2)
The stick appears shorter in the lab frame since sqrt(1-v2/c2)<1.
Sue...
I see what you mean.
I just now cycled past a crew of surveyors.
I will go back and set them straight about their
monuments.
Cars, buses, trains, aircraft will be easier to
see than wooden stakes anyway. :o)
Sue...
> Androcles.
King Coffee
> A "reference frame" is a imaginary construct.
> In scientific fields, no experiment is necessary
> to show that physicial phenomena are not connected
> to our imaginations.
>
> Sue...
>
Reference frames give real physical meaning to the explanation of
events/phenomena's in time and space, which are real parameters. So
reference frames are a real concept for communicating of real construct.
Them are not abstract. Because they are not a real object and contrived in
our imaginations, do not meaning they have not physical meaning. They can be
represented in time and space.
King Coffee
> A "reference frame" is a imaginary construct.
> In scientific fields, no experiment is necessary
> to show that physicial phenomena are not connected
> to our imaginations.
>
> Sue...
>
Reference frames give real physical meaning to the explanation of
Sue...
Nature seems to have done fine before we invented 'reference frames'
but I know as well as anyone how easy to become dependant on
modern conveniences so I'll won't argue that they are not now
essential to the conduct of physical phenomena. They must be
sort of like gasoline. People now become motionless without it.
Sue...
Dirk Van de moortel
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message news:u%N8f.239$zb5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Hi again,
>
> A comment on length contraction explanation.
>
> First, I don't mean to plagiarize the
> www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html web page... but its enssential in
> illustrating my point.
>
> Note, the physical of geometry space movement and the mathematic derivation
> stated below... does not include the latency time of light to travel back to
> the lab observer.
Indeed, this latency time does not enter the picture.
>
> L + v*t1 = c*t1 (= the position expanded by the front of the rocket at time
> t1. The photon is at that coordinate at t1. But somehow that information is
> assumed to be instantly back at the observer (a Galilean point of view of
> time and space).
> At t =0 the pulse had 0 distance to transverse, but at t1
> the pulse had an add distance to transverse. We are summing implicit in
> measuring a speed -- information of its position is available at that some
> time. I'm summing that photons carring information to the observer.
> Relativity enthusiastic brounce back and front on the speed of information
> transfer. For instant, to show envents do not need to be simultaneous in
> relativitic reference frames, they assume positional information travels on
> photons at the speed of light/
>
> Lorentz Contraction
[snip copy of www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html ]
Yes, this is one of the ways to derive and illustrate length
contraction, where one already uses the previously derived
time dilation.
Due to the setup of the situation, we have the following:
L is defined as the length according to the lab
c t1 = the distance traveled by the pulse going from
the back of the stick to the front (as seen in the
lab frame)
v t1 = the distance traveled by the front of the stick
(where the mirror is) while the pulse is going from
back to front
Likewise:
L' is defined as the length according to the rocket
c t2 = the distance traveled by the pulse going from
the front of the stick (with the mirror) to the back
(as seen in the lab frame)
v t2 = the distance traveled by the rear of the stick
while the pulse is going from front to back.
The situation is set up such that
L + v t1 = c t1
L - v t2 = c t2
This information has not to be "sent" anywhere. This information
just follows from the definitions and the situation.
This is about distances, and distances are defined as the products
of speeds (which are given as v and c) and times (which are
measured on clocks on the rocket and in the lab).
Everyone agrees that this is what the lab observer will measure.
--------------------
What I meant with measuring the distances of the back and
front ends of the stick, is when we explain length contraction
with the Lorentz transformation:
dt' = g ( dt - v dx/c^2 )
dx' = g ( dx - v dt )
with
g = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).
In the rocket:
dx' = L' (known)
In the lab
dx = L (to be expressed in terms of L')
dt = 0 (we measure the distance to both ends simultaneously [*])
We can use the equation
dx' = g ( dx - v dt )
giving
L' = g L
resulting in
L = 1/g L' = L' sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
which is the result from the link you gave.
[*] Here is where that "simultaneously measuring" both ends
comes into the picture. If we want to really *measure* dx = L,
for instance to verify that the above result is correct, we must
know the distance to both ends at the same time (expressed
by dt = 0). There are many ways to measure the distance to
the ends. One way would be with measuring rods and clocks
in the lab frame. Another way is by sending light signals to the
ends of the stick and waiting for the reflections. When we do
that, we must make sure that the reflection events on the two
ends take place at the same time (as seen in the lab).
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Monist__" <no_...@filter.net> wrote in message news:gc17m1h865tc26mq3...@4ax.com...
[snip 24 lines of utter crap]
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months).
NO fucking aether, stooopid.
Androcles.
King Coffee
Hi again,
A comment on length contraction explanation.
First, I don't mean to plagiarize the
www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html web page... but its enssential in
illustrating my point.
The graphics attachment cause the original reply not to be posted, so, I'm
resending it with the request to look for the illustration at the bottom
portion of
the page, located at the above web address.
Note, the physical of geometry space movement and the mathematic derivation
stated below... does not include the latency time of light to travel back to
the lab observer.
L + v*t1 = c*t1 (= the position expanded by the front of the rocket at time
t1. The photon is at that coordinate at t1. But somehow that information is
assumed to be instantly back at the observer (a Galilean point of view of
time and space). At t =0 the pulse had 0 distance to transverse, but at t1
the pulse had an add distance to transverse. We are summing implicit in
measuring a speed -- information of its position is available at that some
time. I'm summing that photons carring information to the observer.
Relativity enthusiastic brounce back and front on the speed of information
transfer. For instant, to show envents do not need to be simultaneous in
relativitic reference frames, they assume positional information travels on
photons at the speed of light/
Lorentz Contraction
This is a derivation of the Lorentz-contraction formula. We will go over the
ideas in class, but the algebra is a bit gruesome. So, I'm putting that part
here. Refer to Fig. 2.
As with the time dilation example, imagine a pulse of light reflects from a
mirror back to a receiver. Light will be the "yardstick" used to measure the
length of an object in the lab and rocket frames.
Some notation:
L' = length of stick in the "rocket"
L = length of stick in the "lab"
t1 = travel time of light pulse to the end of the stick (lab)
t2 = travel time of light pulse back from the end of the stick (lab)
t = t1+t2 = total travel time in the lab
t' = total travel time in the rocket
v = speed of rocket in the lab frame
In the lab:
L + v*t1 = c*t1
Dirk Van de moortel
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message news:ecQ8f.185$qk4...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> Hi again,
>
> A comment on length contraction explanation.
This seems to be the same message as before,
only this time without the binary attachment.
I already replied to your previous message.
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1130606105.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The reference frame of the monument is more real than
the monument, obviously, they've put down stakes to mark where
the reference frame is.
Thinking of slaying Dracula?
You'll need a reference rib.
Go back and tell the surveyors their reference frame is not real.
They may look at you askance and consider you a dingbat.
BTW, did you move relative to your bicycle frame as you cycled
past, or did your wider region (the origin of coordinates in the moving
frame) remain on that saddle?
Androcles.
Sue...
Androcles wrote:
> "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1130606105.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> |
> | Androcles wrote:
> | > "Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1130592677....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> | > | A "reference frame" is a imaginary construct.
> | >
> | > Nonsense. Cars, buses, trains, aircraft are NOT imaginary constructs,
> | > they are very real.
> | >
> | > | In scientific fields, no experiment is necessary
> | > | to show that physicial phenomena are not connected
> | > | to our imaginations.
> | >
> | > So why say that they are?
> |
> | I see what you mean.
> | I just now cycled past a crew of surveyors.
> | I will go back and set them straight about their
> | monuments.
> | Cars, buses, trains, aircraft will be easier to
> | see than wooden stakes anyway. :o)
>
> The reference frame of the monument is more real than
> the monument, obviously, they've put down stakes to mark where
> the reference frame is.
> Thinking of slaying Dracula?
> You'll need a reference rib.
> Go back and tell the surveyors their reference frame is not real.
> They may look at you askance and consider you a dingbat.
They have already surveyed me in that frame because I
advised them to drive 100 meter long stakes. Otherwise
they will be too short to see when cosmic particles
zip past and Lorentz contract them. :o)
Sue...
Androcles
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message news:u%N8f.239$zb5...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| Hi again,
|
| A comment on length contraction explanation.
|
| First, I don't mean to plagiarize the
| www.drphysics.com/syllabus/time/time.html web page... but its enssential in
| illustrating my point.
|
| Note, the physical of geometry space movement and the mathematic derivation
| stated below... does not include the latency time of light to travel back to
| the lab observer.
|
| L + v*t1 = c*t1 (= the position expanded by the front of the rocket at time
| t1. The photon is at that coordinate at t1. But somehow that information is
| assumed to be instantly back at the observer (a Galilean point of view of
| time and space). At t =0 the pulse had 0 distance to transverse,
traverse <> transverse.
"enssential" is a typographical error to be ignored; "transverse" is a blunder.
Refer to http://www.m-w.com/ if uncertain.
but at t1
| the pulse had an add distance to transverse. We are summing implicit in
| measuring a speed -- information of its position is available at that some
| time. I'm summing that photons carring information to the observer.
| Relativity enthusiastic brounce back and front on the speed of information
| transfer. For instant, to show envents do not need to be simultaneous in
| relativitic reference frames, they assume positional information travels on
| photons at the speed of light/
|
| Lorentz Contraction
| This is a derivation of the Lorentz-contraction formula. We will go over the
| ideas in class, but the algebra is a bit gruesome. So, I'm putting that part
| here.
Class? Some idiot is teaching you garbage?
Print this out and shove it up his nostril. Tell him where it came from.
The light leaves the caboose and arrives at the engine, then reflects
back to the caboose.
If you want to piss a relativist off let the light leave the engine,
reflect at the caboose and return to the engine.
The diagram is like this (fixed font needed).
|
|
| C'
| /
| B /
| ____________Mirror
| /\ /
| / \ /
C / \ /
|\ / \ /
| \ / \A'
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \ / /
| \ / | /
| \ / /
| \/ |
| /\ /
| / \ / |
| / \ /
| / \ / |
| / ____\/__________Mirror
| /
| / D |
|/
/ ____________|____|________________
A D B A' C'
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to [A'].
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
We establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from C to D equals the "time" it requires to travel from D to C'.
Distance between mirrors is x'
Einstein's equation:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
What it means in the diagram:
½[tau(A,t)+tau(A',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(B,t+x'/(c-v))
½[tau(C,t)+tau(C',t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(D,t+x'/(c PLUS v))
So the time at B, the engine, equals the time at D, the caboose,
but it doesn't. Ergo Einstein was a phuckwit.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Comments in square brackets are mine.
"Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and
General Theory. 1920.
The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity.
THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according
to which light is propagated in empty space
[except the Principle of Relativity, a really simple law].
Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this
[Harry Potter]
propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity
c = 300,000 km./sec
[relative to the source, but cosmic muons can win that race by a mile,
literally. Einstein seems to have forgotten he said "we shall, however,
find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the
part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity"].
At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity
is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case
[prisms would split white light into different colours and we
never see that, and ]
the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously
for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark
neighbour
[except that Algol has no dark neighbour, John Goodricke, 18 years
old with a toy telescope in 1782 forgot to include the velocity of
light into his calculations and an eclipse means no light at all,
not a reduction in magnitude, besides which calculations reveal
that such a system is unstable, the "dark neighbour" is at the Roche
limit and will break up]
By means of similar considerations based on observations of
double stars
[Sirius, 8 light years away with a period of 50 years,
http://www.star.ucl.ac.uk/~apod/apod/ap001006.html
no other double has ever been seen]
the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the
velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity
of motion of the body emitting the light
[oh really? how? I see no significant velocity v from Sirius to add to c].
The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent
on the direction "in space" is in itself improbable
[but factually true. Compare http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm
(fig 3 with http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Real scientists don't deal in assumptions and probables or persuasion].
In short, let us assume
[No, I will not assume]
that the simple law
[because Einstein says it is a law]
of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably
believed by the child at school
[who also believes in Santa Claus, but not believed by thinking
rational adults].
Who would imagine that this simple law has plunged the conscientiously
thoughtful physicist into the greatest intellectual difficulties?
[and solved them, not being a peanut brain like Einstein, it wasn't that difficult]
Let us consider how these difficulties arise
[because Einstein can make up stories] ."
[Skip silly train story]
At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena.
(Einstein wants to be famous]
As a result of an analysis of the physical conceptions of time
and space,
[insert here this 'analysis' in Einstein's own words]
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."
[end insert. Some great analysis, that was.]
it became evident that
[Einstein is lying through my teeth]
in reality there is not the least incompatibility between the
principle of relativity
[which he hasn't discussed at all]
and the law of propagation of light
[Because Einstein says so, it's a LAW, stomp foot]
and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a
logically [huh?] rigid theory could be arrived at
[such as the speed of light being infinitely great in his theory].
This theory has been called the special theory of relativity
[or the special theory of the excrement of the male bovine]
to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which
we shall deal later.
In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas
of the special theory of relativity
[but the conscientiously thoughtful physicist isn't taken in by it]."
[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/
[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle.
Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Same idiot math, though.
| Merc | Venus |Earth |Solar | Pulsar| Wheel |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| |88/ |88/ | 88 / | 88/ | 88/ |
Mercury | 1 | 225 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 225/ | | 225/ | 225/ |225/ | 225/ |
Venus | 88 | 1 | 365 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 365/ | 365/ | | 365/ | 365/ | 365/ |
Earth year| 88 | 225 | 1 | 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| 1/ | 1/ | 1/ | | 1/ | 1/ |
Solar day| 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
Distant | N/ | N/ | N/ | N/ | | N/ |
Pulsar | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | 1 | M |
|_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
| M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | M/ | |
Balance | 88 | 225 | 365| 1 | N | 1 |
wheel |_______|_______|_______|_______|_______|________|
Each entry in the table is a ratio of counts between oscillators.
Change one oscillator, you change all its row and colum entries.
The remainder are unaffected. Time is universal.
Sam, Joe, a mosquito and a ladder.
by Androcles
Much of this story is credited to Daryl McCullough, only the ladder
and the story was added by me. It explains the origins of Einstein's
Special Relativity scaled for those having difficulty grasping the
subject.
Scale 1 ft : 60,000 km
Sam and Joe are housepainters, and are walking along the street at 3 fps
in still air carrying a 32 ft long ladder between them, Joe leading the
way. Sam is carrying some paint cans and Joe has the brushes and
rollers.
At some point along their journey a mosquito named Albert buzzes past
Sam's ear. Sam swats at it, but drops a can of red paint as he does so.
Albert the mosquito flies along the ladder from Sam to Joe at a constant
speed of 5 fps. When it reaches Joe, Joe also swats at it, but drops a
paint roller. Albert, still hungry but not liking the smell of Joe's cigar,
flies back along the ladder toward Sam, again with a constant speed of
5 fps in the still air. Upon reaching Sam, once again Sam tries to swat
the wee beastie but drops a can of green paint. He yells as the mosquito
bites him and this startles Joe, who drops a paint brush.
Now it's your turn. I'll give the answers further down, but take a
moment to do the calculations for yourself.
1) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Sam to Joe?
2) How many seconds did it take for Albert to fly from Joe to Sam?
3) How far is it between the red paint can and the roller?
4) How far is it between the green paint can and the roller?
(Answers below)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Assume the speed of the mosquito is c = 5 fps.
The speed of Sam and Joe is v = 3 fps, given.
We then must have a distance along the road for Joe of
32ft + vt, and for the mosquito, a distance of ct.
Solving for t,
ct = 32 + vt
ct - vt = 32
t(c-v) = 32
t = 32 /(c-v) = 32/(5 - 3) = 16 seconds
So the answer to Q.1) is 16 seconds.
The mosquito coming back is going to meet Sam going forward,
so it flies along the 32 feet of the ladder in time
t = 32/(c+v) = 32/8 = 4 seconds.
The answer to Q.2) is therefore 4 seconds.
The distance from the dropped red paint can to the dropped roller
is just ct, or 5 * 16 = 80 feet, so the answer to Q.3) is 80 ft.
Or we could do it by vt + 32 = 3 * 16 + 32 = 80, once again.
(Remember Joe had a 32 ft head start over the mosquito)
Coming back, Albert again flies at 5 fps but this time
for only 4 seconds, so it reaches the green paint can 20 feet
from the roller, which is the answer to Q.4)
So, as Sam sees it, Albert takes 16 seconds to reach Joe, flying at
5-3 = 2 fps, and 4 seconds to return, flying along the ladder at
5+3 = 8 fps.
Now we think like Einstein with his mosquito brain. Sam wants to know
when the mosquito reached Joe.
He isn't able to see the mosquito, its too small at 32 feet away,
so he guesses that since it went 32 ft each way, and took 20 seconds to
fly away and back again, it must have reached Joe after 10 seconds = ½
of 20.
So we explain it carefully. First we label the red paint can "A" and the
dropped roller "B". We write:
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer called Sam at
the red paint can will determine the time values of events in the
immediate proximity of the red paint can by finding the positions of
the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at the
point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at
the red paint can, it is possible for an observer Joe at the dropped roller
to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighbourhood
of the roller at B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at the dropped
roller, B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time."
We have not defined a common "time" for the red paint can and the
dropped roller, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish
by *definition* that the "time" required by a mosquito to travel from
the red paint can to the dropped roller equals the "time" it requires to
travel from B to the red paint can, A.
Note the *definition*. Remember this is hypothetical, not real. The
definition is very important.
Now, we want to do this algebraically, because tomorrow Joe and Sam
might be carrying a different length of ladder, running at a different
speed, whatever, and we want a general solution.
So we write:
If we place x'=x-vt, it is clear that a point at rest in the system
ladder must have a system of values x', y, z, independent of time.
What that means is the ladder's length is x', so that
32 = 80 - 3 * 16,
and doesn't change as time passes. Did you think it would? Well,
we'll have to see. Maybe if we water it, it might grow.
According to Albert, we are to assume the speed of the mosquito is
independent of the speed of Sam (which is fair enough) and also we are
to assume that the time for the mosquito to make the round trip (20
seconds) when divided by 2 is equal to the time it took to reach Joe,
16 seconds, by Albert's DEFINITION.
We don't know yet about the 16 seconds, we can only write it
algebraically and pretend it is 10 seconds.
It is actually written as x'/(c-v) [or 32/(5-3) in real numbers].
Now we say:
From the origin of system ladder (Sam's end) let a mosquito be emitted
at the time tau0 along the ladder to x' (Joe's end), and at the time tau1
be reflected thence (that just means go back) to the origin of the
co-ordinates (which we are deliberately vague about as to whether
we mean Sam on the ladder or the red paint can), arriving there at the
time tau2; we then must have (don't you just love that phrase, "then
must have" ?) ½(tau0 + tau2) = tau1,
or ½([midmorning + 0] + [midmorning + 20]) = [midmorning + 16],
which is curious to say the least, since Sam and Joe could be doing this
in the late afternoon for all the difference it would make.
But ok, Einstein wanted to be complete, so I guess its fine.
But our hero and physics wizard isn't satisfied with this. Oh no, we
need to include the length of the ladder as well, or we won't have any
spacetime to prattle on about later so that people will see just how
smart we are.
It is very important to include the length of the ladder into the
equation. You'll see why later.
Here is Einstein's equation:
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
You can read about it at
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
(in Section 3)
Putting in the mosquito numbers,
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+32/(5-3)+32/(5+3))] = tau(32,0,0,t+32/(5-3))
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+20)] = tau(32,0,0,t+16)
In agreement with experience (gotta love that phrase!) clearly!
(0,0,0,t) is pretty meaningless, and we can drop the "t+" since we
really don't care if Sam and Joe are walking in the midmorning or
late afternoon.
So, (by the vector addition of (0,0,0,0) + (0,0,0,20) !)
½ * tau(0,0,0,20) = tau(32,0,0,16).
Now do you see why we need to include the length of the ladder into the
evaluation of time? We can't just say ½ * 20 = 16 without it. Even my
grandson would say that wasn't right, and he's not learning algebra yet.
There's some differentiation by Einstein to make himself look smart and
important, he has to show off all his skills if not his common sense,
because "common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age
eighteen", or so he tells us, and he eventually arrives at
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
xi = (x-vt) / sqrt( 1 - v^2/c^2 )
eta = y
zeta = z.
This is is the procedure so far:
1)
Define t = x'/(c-v) = x'/(c+v)
because the time for light to go from A to B equals the time it takes
to travel from B to A
2)
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
3)
½[1/(c-v)+1/(c+v)] * dtau/dt = dtau/dx' + 1/(c-v) * dtau/dt
4)
dtau/dx' + v/(c^2-v^2) * dtau/dt = 0
5)
tau = a * ( t - (vx' / (c^2-v^2)))
6)
tau = (t-vx/c^2) / sqr(1-v^2/c^2)
That is what you get when you treat time as if it were a vector and mix
in some distance. Time is NOT a vector quantity, it has no inverse.
There is no identity, no minus time to when you were.
We can forget y and z, the mosquito didn't fly up into a tree or into
the ditch at the side.
We apply this to the equations derived:
tau = (16 - 3 * 80 / 25) / sqrt (1 - 3^2/5^2)
= (6.4) / 0.8
= 8 seconds
xi = 32 / sqrt (1 - 9 / 25)
= 40 feet
Sanity check:
c = 40 ft / 8 seconds = 5 fps. Yep, that's the right speed for Albert.
So...
We are standing at the roadside watching Sam and Joe carry a 32 ft
ladder that they think is a 40 ft ladder, because the speed of
mosquitoes is 5 fps in all inertial frames of reference, and
½ * 20 * 0.8 = 8 seconds without batting an eyelid.
There is a slight hitch, though. In the roadside frame, where is A, at
the red paint can or the green paint can? We still want half the time
to travel from A to B to be equal to the time to travel the round trip,
and the distance from the red paint can to the roller is 80 ft, and back
to the green paint can is 20 ft.
Which is the "origin of the coordinates"?
This is best satisfied by beefing up Albert's speed to infinity, and as
Einstein says, the velocity of light... err... mosquitoes in out theory
plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."
It must be right, its only algebra after all is said and done.
So now you should be able to fully understand Special Relativity, all
you need do is replace the speed of the mosquito with the speed of
light, have Sam and Joe run at the relativistic speed of 0.6c, the
algebra is perfect, and who needs common sense anyway?
Just remember that 32 ft ladders stretch to 40 ft ladders when you run
with them at 180,000 km/sec, and you'll be as smart as Einstein the
cretin.
For myself, I'll keep the collection of prejudices I acquired by the
time I was eighteen, since that defines common sense.
Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif
Explanation:
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)
(Or stars explode twice in three months).
Whoever is teaching you crap, son, is an idiot.
Androcles.
Androcles B.A. (Math). M.Sc., Ph.D.
King Coffee
Group". I waited several hours and it never apprear as a newsgroup listing.
I assumed it was because of the binary attachment. So, I never got your
response.
King
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:FQQ8f.34741$KU1.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:1130618930.6...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Not a problem, the cosmic particles will see Nelson's column
and the Washington Monument at greater than normal length.
Androcles.
King Coffee
I'm not taking a class, I just trying to learn Relativity on my own and how
to interpret it.
I looked at the web page you sighted... and conclude: when they calculate
length or time, in relative theory, the progragation delay is impicit in the
way they define velocity. That gives me something to consider when thinking
of photons as carrying point positional information.
King
| Note, the physical of geometry space movement and the mathematic
derivation
| stated below... does not include the latency time of light to travel back
to
| the lab observer.
|
| L + v*t1 = c*t1 (= the position expanded by the front of the rocket at
time
| t1. The photon is at that coordinate at t1. But somehow that information
is
| assumed to be instantly back at the observer (a Galilean point of view of
| time and space). At t =0 the pulse had 0 distance to traverse, but at t1
| the pulse had an add distance to traverse. We are summing implicit in
| measuring a speed -- information of its position is available at that some
| time. I'm asumming that photons carring information to the observer.
Tom Roberts
> I'm not sure how Michelson-Morley conducted their famous experiment,
That is unconscionable, if you want to discuss it. The AIP has
generously made their original paper freely available:
http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> but to
> me they shown that aether (the medium which carries light) has a velocity of
> zero (no aether winds in free space). The conclusion that soon follow: the
> speed of light is independent of all moving reference frame seam ad hoc
> reasoning.
This depends in gory detail on what you mean by "aether", and what
properties you attribute to it. Note that the MMX alone is not
sufficient to rule out all aether theories, but the collection of
experiments known today does so, except for esoteric theories that are
either indistinguishable from SR or "live in the erorbars" of the
experiments (which is exceedingly difficult, and nobody has ever
presented a theory that does this).
> [...]
> My point is the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment is
> insufficient evident to conclude "speed of light is independent of all
> moving reference frame".
Sure. But the full collection of experiments we now today has only been
successfully explained by theories in which the speed of light is
measured to be c in any and all inertial frames.
If you truly want to understand this, you will have to STUDY -- SR is
subtle. Do not attempt to "learn" from sound bites on the internet. You
have received numerous replies, a few of which are valid but most are
not (the cranks outnumber the knowledgeable people around here by a wide
margin). Your replies indicate neither you nor they understand SR very
well (if at all). It can be difficult for a neophyte to distinguish
sense fron nonsense; the only way I know of is that knowldgeable people
often reference real physics textbooks, but the idiots and cranks never
do. I recommend:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Robert J. Kolker
> sense fron nonsense; the only way I know of is that knowldgeable people
> often reference real physics textbooks, but the idiots and cranks never
> do. I recommend:
>
> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
The older edition is better.
Bob Kolker
King Coffee
not get a Doppler shift ?
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:RSV8f.414$p37...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message
news:wJX8f.2880$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> I quess what I'm really wandering is if earth is rotation,
> how come they did not get a Doppler shift ?
Either there is no aether, or the MMX apparatus propagates
through the aether just like light (Lorentz aether).
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> I quess what I'm really wandering is if earth is rotation, how come they did
> not get a Doppler shift ?
Remember that each individual measurement of the MMX requires only a few
tens of nanoseconds (light rays go from source to eyeball). During such
a short period of time the apparatus can be considered to be at rest in
an inertial frame to exceedingly good accuracy. In that inertial frame,
source and receiver are at rest, so there is no Doppler shift.
Note also that the earth's rotation imparts a velocity on the source,
mirrors, and detector that is essentially tangential relative to that
inertial frame mentioned above (which includes the tangential motion of
the apparatus but not its tiny rotation), and such motion has no effect
on the image.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Note also that the earth's rotation imparts a velocity on the source,
> mirrors, and detector that is essentially tangential relative to that
> inertial frame mentioned above (which includes the tangential motion of
> the apparatus but not its tiny rotation), and such motion has no effect
> on the image.
Sorry about the confusing wording there -- I used "tangential" in two
COMPLETELY different ways.
The first "tangential" meant the motion of the source, mirrors, and
detector in that inertial frame is tangential to the propagation of the
light rays. The rays are horizontal, and the motions of those things are
all essentially vertical.
The second "tangential" (in the parenthetical) meant the tangential
velocity of the laboratory as it rotates around the earth's center.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
King Coffee
for interferences in the two paths. So, timing may not be an issue. I don't
claim to know the details of the MMX... but I do know, relative motion
between source and detector will produce a Doppler shift in wavelength.
That's how they determine the direction and speed of stars and galaxies
moving toward or away from Earth. I bet you -- you would see a Doppler shift
in wavelength if you compare the light spectrum of the sun between sun raise
and sun set.
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:GY69f.4042$8W....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> King Coffee wrote:
>> I guess what I'm really wandering is if earth is rotation, how come they
Bilge
>Hello,
>
>I'm not sure how Michelson-Morley conducted their famous experiment, but to
>zero (no aether winds in free space). The conclusion that soon follow: the
>speed of light is independent of all moving reference frame seam ad hoc
>reasoning.
And? Even if the idea came from tarot cards, the fact that it works
is good enough.
[...]
>I'm not assuming c for all reference frames. I argue you can't measure
>particles moving faster than the speed of light because of the inherit
>propagation delay,
Why would any propagation delay be ``inherent'' unless it was because
the speed of light is constant?
>but I do not know why all moving inertial reference frame
>must measure the same speed of light. They explain this by defining
>space-time as a curve, so that Galilean geometry isn't appropriate.
>
>My point is the null results of the Michelson-Morley experiment is
>insufficient evident to conclude "speed of light is independent of all
>moving reference frame".
Right. The other nails in the ether coffin are, (1) relativity makes
more sense, than the alternatives (2) relativity enabled rapid progress
in explaining lots of other physics, while the alternatives are being
promoted by people who are still trying to explain the physics known
before 1900, (3) physicists who actually have to calculate things and
understand the physics that goes into the calculations don't really
care if relativity makes sense to those who haven't ever tried to
use the alternatives to calculate something of interest to physics
in this century. If you could show me how to derive the electron to
muon to tau mass ratio, which no one knows how to do from scratch,
that would be one way to generate some interest.
Harry
"King Coffee" <king....@att.net> wrote in message
news:wJX8f.2880$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
did
> not get a Doppler shift ?
>
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:RSV8f.414$p37...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
> > King Coffee wrote:
> >> I'm not sure how Michelson-Morley conducted their famous experiment,
> >
> > That is unconscionable, if you want to discuss it. The AIP has
generously
> > made their original paper freely available:
> > http://www.aip.org/history/gap/PDF/michelson.pdf
> >
> >
> >> but to me they shown that aether (the medium which carries light) has a
> >> velocity of zero (no aether winds in free space). The conclusion that
> >> soon follow: the speed of light is independent of all moving reference
> >> frame seam ad hoc reasoning.
A little precision: that conclusion would have been wrong, and Sagnac showed
that
clearly with his experiment, as well as Michelson-Gale later. It's only
valid for the special case of straight line motion.
Harald