Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics
GSS
A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
and notions derived from particular interpretation of different
physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics.
Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a
fundamental theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
and need not contain causal linkages for physical explanation.
However, it is a fact that the current paradigm does not provide
logical foundations to the mathematical models which are being
projected as physical theories. In the grand maze of the unknown, the
current paradigm has lead Fundamental Physics to a dead end. To come
out of this state, we need to change the direction of research and
hence, change the current paradigm of Fundamental Physics.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter23.pdf?attredirects=0
Dimensional Analysis
-------------------------
All equations in physics express some sort of inter-relationships
amongst various physical quantities associated with a particular
natural phenomenon. In order to ensure compatibility of physical units
on both sides of all equations, these equations must be dimensionally
balanced. Dimensional analysis is a powerful conceptual tool applied
in physics and engineering to check the plausibility of physical
equations. It is also used to study the inter-relationships of various
physical concepts and form reasonable hypotheses about complex
physical situations that can be tested by experiment or by more
developed theories of the phenomena. In short, dimensional analysis
provides a linkage between physical concepts and their mathematical
representation.We can employ dimensional analysis to study the
proportionality constants of permittivity and permeability associated
with free space or vacuum. Specifically, we need to understand how
these constants characterize the physical properties of free space.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter2.pdf?attredirects=0
Reference Frames
---------------------
Basically all laws of Nature will remain valid and operative
independent of reference frames. However, in physics we quantify the
laws of Nature, so as to represent them through certain mathematical
equations involving dimensional physical parameters. We need the
structure of coordinate systems and reference frames to quantify the
physical parameters of relative positions, velocities, accelerations,
force, momentum and kinetic energy of various interacting particles or
groups of particles. To ensure that the laws of physics remain
independent of the reference frame, the form or content of the
mathematical equation representing any law of physics must not change
with any change in the reference frame. Obviously therefore, some
constraints will be required to be imposed on the choice of valid
reference frames.
However, physical parameters of velocity, momentum and kinetic energy
are not invariant in the inertial reference frames (IRF) in relative
uniform motion. As such, some of the laws of physics, the
representative equations of which include the parameters of velocity,
momentum or kinetic energy, will no longer remain invariant in the
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. Hence it is
wrong to assume that all laws of physics are invariant in the group of
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
Out of all other inertial reference frames which could be constructed
for referring the positions and velocities of given N particles within
a closed volume V, the total mass-energy content measured in a center
of mass (CoM) reference frame is the minimum. Hence, a CoM reference
frame may be considered as an absolute or fixed reference frame for
the given N particles contained within a closed volume V. This is the
fundamental notion of an absolute reference frame in relation to
matter contained within a closed volume of space.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter4.pdf?attredirects=0
Curvature or Deformation of Space
----------------------------------------
The notion of deformed or strained state of the space continuum is
derived from the variability or invariance of arc element ds. Whenever
the arc element ds changes over to ds' under certain situations, the
changed state of the continuum will be termed as deformed or strained
state. The strained state can be considered fully defined or fully
determined once we know or uniquely determine the displacement vector
field U at all points of the continuum. The strained state can also be
defined through specification of strain tensor components provided
these strain components satisfy Saint Venant's compatibility
equations. Finally, the strained state can also be defined through
specification of modified metric coefficients from which the required
strain tensor components can be computed subject to the compatibility
conditions. However, the compatibility conditions require that the
modified metric must be Euclidean to ensure that the resulting
strained state of the continuum corresponds to smooth, finite and
continuous displacement components and to avoid discontinuities within
the continuum. This fact is of crucial importance for the invalidity
of the current mathematical model of General Relativity where the
deformation of space is presented as ‘curvature’ of space.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter6.pdf?attredirects=0
Spacetime Continuum
-------------------------
The notion of spacetime continuum or spacetime manifold is just a
mathematical abstract notion and not a physical entity as assumed in
GR. The spacetime manifold includes both positive and negative values
of time on its time axis. In GR, localized mass energy content in a
certain region of physical space (say the solar system) is 'supposed'
to influence the metric of whole spacetime, including the region of
spacetime identified with the past time. But the transmission of
'influence' from the present to the past region of spacetime is
logically impossible. Once we understand that spacetime is just an
abstract mathematical notion, we cannot accept GR to be a physical
theory. Even if we 'assume' spacetime continuum to be a physical
entity, it can be shown that the gravitation induced deformation of
space leads to an incompatible set of strain components which cannot
be valid due to physical constraints. At the most GR could be regarded
as a mathematical model in which an abstract notion of spacetime
manifold has been used as a graphical template with differential
scaling of its space and time axes, to represent the particle
trajectories as geodesic curves.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter8.pdf?attredirects=0
Physical Existence of Fields
--------------------------------
It is important to note that a value assigned to any space point in a
physical field, always represents some physical property associated
with that point (and its neighborhood). Of course, all physical fields
will have their mathematical representations. Let us consider a
continuum of space points representing the vacuum or empty space. We
can always define a mathematical field by assigning certain numbers or
mathematical functions to all points in the space continuum. If such
numbers or mathematical functions do not represent any physical
properties or parameters associated with these points of the empty
space or vacuum, such a field can have no physical significance or
physical 'existence'. A major contradiction prevailing in the current
viewpoint is that the space continuum representing vacuum or empty
space can support physical fields but the corresponding physical
properties associated with all space points, cannot represent any
physical medium.
Whenever the separation distance between neighboring points P and Q in
the space continuum, changes from ds to ds', it implies a relative
shift in the original positions of P and Q to the changed positions
say P' and Q' such that arc element P'Q' = ds'. This relative shift
in positions of P and Q to the changed positions P' and Q' may be
referred as the relative displacement of these points. Specifically,
the vector PP' may be defined as the displacement vector U and the
corresponding displacement of Q to Q' will then be represented by the
incremented displacement vector U+dU . The deformation of the
continuum can be said to be fully determined when the displacement of
every point P in the continuum is known or uniquely determined. This
explains how the values defining a displacement vector field, a
physical field, get physically associated with all points of the space
continuum. The derivatives of this displacement vector field will
yield the components of a strain tensor field in the space continuum.
Further, the GR postulates imply that the gravitation induced 'space
curvature' or the deformations in the space continuum are reversible
since the space returns to 'flat' or normal condition after removing
the source of gravitation from its vicinity. This reversibility of the
induced displacement vector field or the induced strain tensor field
will further imply the 'elastic' behavior of the space continuum. The
implied elasticity of the space continuum will associate a stress
tensor field with every strain tensor field. The development of strain
and stress tensor fields in the space continuum will consequently lead
to the association of strain energy with all displacement vector
fields. This strain energy associated with displacement vector fields
is popularly known as 'vacuum energy'. Maxwell's equations of
electromagnetism in vacuum can be fully expressed in terms of the
displacement vector field U in the space continuum. Further it can be
shown that all physical fields in Physics can be expressed in terms of
dynamic stress strain fields in the physical space continuum. All
forms of energy exist in the space continuum as the strain energy of
dynamic deformations in the physical space.
Existence of Matter Particles
---------------------------------
All forms of matter exist as standing strain wave oscillations in the
space continuum. A closed region of the Space Continuum in a strained
state, satisfying the equilibrium equations & boundary conditions, may
be termed as a strain bubble, provided the total strain energy content
in this closed region is time invariant constant. Although the strain
components at any point within the strain bubble are always functions
of space and time coordinates, yet the strain energy density at that
point may or may not vary with time. If the strain energy density at
all points within a strain bubble is time invariant, the strain bubble
is likely to be stable, otherwise unstable. The total strain energy
content E_0 of a strain bubble will represent its ‘rest mass’ m_0
through the famous energy equivalence relation E_0/c^2 = m_0.
At subatomic scale the primary constituents of matter, namely the
electrons and nuclear particles, are known to occupy an extremely
small volume fraction of the order of 10^ -12 percent of the physical
volume of any material body. These 'material particles' concentrated
in such a small volume fraction of entire space, consist of so called
'elementary particles' and are essentially characterized by their
'mass', 'charge' and interaction properties. In the parlance of
strain bubbles existing in the Elastic Space Continuum, the clusters
of pure and composite strain bubbles depicting 'elementary particles'
are essentially characterized by their 'strain energy content',
'strain wave fields' if any, and their interaction properties. In
principle, there could be a large number of different types of strain
bubbles occurring in the Space Continuum, that may be correlated with
equally large number of stable and unstable elementary particles.
Current Mathematical Models and Experimental Observations
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is generally believed that any mathematical model that accounts for
all experimental observations concerning certain physical phenomenon,
can be regarded as a physical theory of that phenomenon. Incorporation
of causal linkages and logical explanations of the phenomenon are no
longer considered essential components of a physical theory. To
illustrate this point, let us consider a modified form of a popular
tale of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant".
http://www.wordinfo.info/Blind-Men-and-Elephant-crop.html
Imagine, six scientists conducting a detailed study of an elephant
(representing a physical phenomenon) located in pitch dark
(representing absence of a physical theory). They conduct detailed
physical measurements in six different regions of the elephant body
and compile six data sets of measurements. With these data sets of
measurements, they develop impressive mathematical models for each of
the data sets. After verifying that each mathematical model fully
accounts for the corresponding measurement data set, they pronounce
particular interpretations (representing physical theory) for each of
the regions of the elephant body.
Now, if someone throws some light (representing a comprehensive theory
covering the entire phenomenon) on the elephant under study, then each
of the interpretations (particular theories) will be found to be
erroneous and misleading, even though the mathematical models will
still be valid and capable of fully accounting for the measurement
data sets.
Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields
----------------------------------------------
Obviously, a paradigm shift in Fundamental Physics cannot occur in a
day or a month. It is likely to take a few years if not a few decades.
During this transition period, prolonged serious discussions are
expected to take place among scientists holding opposing viewpoints
For the purpose of such discussions, I have presented an alternative
paradigm on the fundamental reality of Nature, through my just
published book "Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields".
Last year I had made a Request for Review of a pre-print book titled,
"Fundamental Nature of Matter and Fields".
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/206ff459d40f3c02/e94569a9cac9a346?q=#e94569a9cac9a346
This book has finally got published in May 2009, through iUniverse
Publishers.
http://www.iuniverse.com/Bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000127260
In this book I have presented a bold un-orthodox viewpoint that
demonstrates the feasibility of representing whole physical phenomenon
involving matter and fields in the form of orderly 'space-time'
distortions or dynamic deformations and strains in the physical space
continuum.
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
Since most of the mainstream scientists are not expected to 'visit'
these discussion forums, I wish to take the liberty of requesting the
learned readers to forward this note to their friends and other
scientists 'well known' to them.
Regards
G S Sandhu
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
Dirk Van de moortel
59b54596-3879-4584...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
> Friends,
"Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.
Dirk Vdm
BradGuth
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> 59b54596-3879-4584-aa92-ad1eaeb35...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
>
> > Friends,
>
> "Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
> You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.
>
> Dirk Vdm
He's also not Jewish, or perhaps merely not Jewish enough, by which is
your primary cause for taking those actions in the past, present and
future. As such, you wouldn't revise anything no matters what the
consequences. So what's the difference, or what's your point?
Are you suggesting that your sci.astro doesn't accommodate and
systematically promote mainstream "Nonsense"?
btw, what's with your incest approved "alt.marketing" bullshit?
~ BG
Cwatters
> Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a fundamental
> theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
Who gave you that idea?
VMCM1905
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59b54596-3879-4584...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Hello crackpot.
.
.
umm...
.
.
Goodbye crackpot.
Eric Gisse
[snip all, unread]
Nobody has purchased your book so you decided to spew here.
This is unappreciated. Go away.
GSS
<colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
have confirmed this viewpoint.
Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
foundations?
As per GR, mass-energy content in a certain region of space influences
the metric of spacetime without any physical or causal mechanism. Does
it represent a logical foundation.
SR is founded on its two postulates. Do you consider these two
postulates to be logical?
Do you consider the 'exchange theory of interactions' in SM to be
based on logical foundations?
GSS
GSS
I do not appreciate your close minded attitude!
Dono
>
> SR is founded on its two postulates. Do you consider
> these two postulates to be logical?
Yes.
>
> Do you consider the 'exchange theory of interactions' in SM to be
> based on logical foundations?
>
Yes.
Go away.
GSS
>
> > Friends,
>
> "Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
> You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Kindly refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S.
Kuhn
A Synopsis from the original by Professor Frank Pajares is available
here.
http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
I said,
A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
and notions derived from particular interpretation of different
physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics.
Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a
fundamental theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
and need not contain causal linkages for physical explanation.
However, it is a fact that the current paradigm does not provide
logical foundations to the mathematical models which are being
projected as physical theories. In the grand maze of the unknown, the
current paradigm has lead Fundamental Physics to a dead end. To come
out of this state, we need to change the direction of research and
hence, change the current paradigm of Fundamental Physics.
GSS
Dirk Van de moortel
> On Jun 1, 11:40 pm, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> 59b54596-3879-4584-aa92-ad1eaeb35...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com
>>
>>> Friends,
>>
>> "Paradigm Shift" is marketing lingo and amounts to "Nonsense".
>> You picked the wrong newsgroup for this.
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Kindly refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S.
> Kuhn
> A Synopsis from the original by Professor Frank Pajares is available
> here.
> http://www.des.emory.edu/mfp/kuhnsyn.html
>
> I said,
> A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
> and notions derived from particular interpretation of different
> physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics.
> Under the current paradigm,
"Paradigm" is marketing lingo.
You're lost.
Dirk Vdm
Sam Wormley
>
> SR is founded on its two postulates. Do you consider these two
> postulates to be logical [of or according to the rules of logic
> or formal argument]?
The 1905 paper postulates are not contradicted by observation.
Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
VMCM1905
---
Quit whining when people call you out for what you are, crackpot.
BradGuth
Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
lucky if not being shot in the back of your head. The mostly
republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
of anything.
~ BG
GSS
No, you are utterly wrong.
As per Merriam-Webster's online Dictionary, Paradigm means
" a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
experiments performed in support of them are formulated ; broadly : a
philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind"
GSS
GSS
No, you have snipped the issue out of context.
You are actually replying to this:
On Jun 2, 10:13 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 2, 1:39 am, "Cwatters"
>>
>> <colin.wattersNOS...@TurnersOakNOSPAM.plus.com> wrote:
>> > "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>>>news:59b54596-3879-4584...@f19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>> Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a fundamental
>>>> theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
>>
>>> Who gave you that idea?
>>
>> I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
>> last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
>> have confirmed this viewpoint.
>>
>> Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
>> foundations?
>>
>> As per GR, mass-energy content in a certain region of space influences
>> the metric of spacetime without any physical or causal mechanism. Does
>> it represent a logical foundation.
>>
>> SR is founded on its two postulates. Do you consider these two
>> postulates to be logical?
>>
>> Do you consider the 'exchange theory of interactions' in SM to be
>> based on logical foundations?
>>
>> GSS
>
> The 1905 paper postulates are not contradicted by observation.
>
> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Here the issue was no of so called 'observations', but of logical
foundations.
Be specific and confirm if you really believe that the two postulates
of SR are based on logical foundations? Give reasons in support of
your arguments.
GSS
Sam Wormley
If you want to post what you think are problems in logic, be my guest,
Gurcham. You are the one challenging--make your case.
You might want to read through this material:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity#Mathematical_formulation_of_the_postulates
Dirk Van de moortel
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:443a5c77-fb89-4b39...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
"As per" is silly marketing lingo.
> Paradigm means
> " a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or
> discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the
> experiments performed in support of them are formulated ; broadly : a
> philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind"
Like I said, you're lost.
Dirk Vdm
GSS
<dirkvandemoor...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> schreef in berichtnews:443a5c77-fb89-4b39...@c9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
You definitely appear to be lost in a silly marketing lingo.
Please come out of that obsession and discuss something useful.
GSS
> GSS wrote:
> > Here the issue was no of so called 'observations', but of logical
> > foundations.
>
> > Be specific and confirm if you really believe that the two postulates
> > of SR are based on logical foundations? Give reasons in support of
> > your arguments.
>
> > GSS
>
> If you want to post what you think are problems in logic, be my guest,
> Gurcharn. You are the one challenging--make your case.
No, I don't have any problems in logic. What I said was,
A set of beliefs, dogmas, postulates and axioms, along with concepts
and notions derived from particular interpretation of different
physical observations, constitute the paradigm of fundamental physics.
Under the current paradigm, it is generally believed that a
fundamental theory of Physics need not be based on logical foundation
and need not contain causal linkages for physical explanation.
However, it is a fact that the current paradigm does not provide
logical foundations to the mathematical models which are being
projected as physical theories. In the grand maze of the unknown, the
current paradigm has lead Fundamental Physics to a dead end. To come
out of this state, we need to change the direction of research and
hence, change the current paradigm of Fundamental Physics.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter23.pdf?attredirects=0
Do you have any objection to this?
Or do you want any clarification on any of the points made by me?
The above link refers to the last chapter of my book and represents
the summary of the book in a nutshell.
> You might want to read through this material:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity#Mathema...
Benj
> I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
> last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
> have confirmed this viewpoint.
>
> Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
> foundations?
Jeez. Do you get paid by the word or something? Your huge essay (which
I presume is a brief summary of your book) really comes down to one
central issue. Physics has been replaced by mathematics. Physics is
defined as the study of phenomena. But today "advanced" physics has
become synonymous with 'advanced mathematics" [in some ways due to the
popular influence of Einstein]. This results in a strange affliction
taking over physics. It is the widespread belief that mathematical
models are more real than reality!
Now mathematics is an abstract human construct with no conditions
other than self-consistency. No other limitations exist. Logic,
causality, agreement with experiment are not part of it. Hence once
mathematics is taken as the ultimate test, it opens the door to all
manner of "insane" and non-physical dogma. We find the blind
resurrection of the long discredited "action at a distance" theories
(now called "nonlocal" for marketing purposes) that require
transluminal information transfer. We find field theories which
mathematically require continuous and differentiable functions used to
describe events which are clearly quantized. We find the famous
"spacetime" which is obviously just an imaginative mathematical
construct becoming a dogma that says the construct actually IS space.
This is equivalent to trying to ascertain where the "poles" of Laplace
analysis are stored in networks! Maybe there is a "pole rack"
somewhere in the components?
And of course it gets worse. The university system, insures by
training students to blindly accept the most illogical of assertions
as ultimate "science truth", we have developed not a science but a
religion. I call it "faith-based physics".
And it gets still worse. There is a political side to this as well as
government and especially the military in the post-atomic era have
realized there is power in technology and have taken over the funding
and control of science. This means that certain ideas that may have
too much political or military potential, are withdrawn from public
view and erased from the public record. Often such are ideas are then
replaced by nonsense to act as "placeholders".
GSS if correct, it's a sad, sad, state of affairs in our profession
today. But at least a few are wising up in spite of the shills hired
to make sure everyone stays asleep. There is some hope. Internet
discussion of such issues being one.
Androcles
"Benj" <bja...@iwaynet.net> wrote in message
news:282c293b-195e-4966...@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Ah, would that it even were mathematics!
Physics has been replaced by sci-fi, nobody sane would claim
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.
That's not mathematics, that's insanity.
GSS
..........
>
> Unfortunately, here in Google Groups (aka Usenet/newsgroups) you're
> lucky if not being shot in the back of your head.
No, that is not the case. The fact is that neither anybody here can
ever shoot me in the back of my head nor anybody is ever going to even
think of shooting me in any way.
Of course, some of them will like to shoot my book out of existence.
But majority of them will simply like to close their eyes and feel as
if such a book does not exist at all.
> The mostly
> republican Zionist Nazis in charge of most everything that counts, as
> such they seem to dislike anyone suggesting a revision (good or bad)
> of anything.
>
> ~ BG
Isn't it a normal psychological compulsion for most of the mediocre
persons?
It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.
GSS
GSS
> On Jun 2, 1:13 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I have been discussing related issues on these Usenet groups for the
> > last one decade or so. Very many participants in these discussions
> > have confirmed this viewpoint.
>
> > Do you believe that current theories of Physics are based on logical
> > foundations?
>
> Jeez. Do you get paid by the word or something? Your huge essay (which
> I presume is a brief summary of your book) really comes down to one
> central issue. Physics has been replaced by mathematics. Physics is
> defined as the study of phenomena. But today "advanced" physics has
> become synonymous with 'advanced mathematics" [in some ways due to the
> popular influence of Einstein]. This results in a strange affliction
> taking over physics. It is the widespread belief that mathematical
> models are more real than reality!
>
to analyze the physical concepts and their interrelations with great
precision and conciseness. If some mathematicians misuse mathematics
to dominate and brow-beat physicists, it is not the fault of
mathematics. Physicists must learn to use mathematics as a powerful
tool, just as the engineers do.
> Now mathematics is an abstract human construct with no conditions
> other than self-consistency. No other limitations exist. Logic,
> causality, agreement with experiment are not part of it. Hence once
> mathematics is taken as the ultimate test, it opens the door to all
> manner of "insane" and non-physical dogma. We find the blind
> resurrection of the long discredited "action at a distance" theories
> (now called "nonlocal" for marketing purposes) that require
> transluminal information transfer. We find field theories which
> mathematically require continuous and differentiable functions used to
> describe events which are clearly quantized. We find the famous
> "spacetime" which is obviously just an imaginative mathematical
> construct becoming a dogma that says the construct actually IS space.
> This is equivalent to trying to ascertain where the "poles" of Laplace
> analysis are stored in networks! Maybe there is a "pole rack"
> somewhere in the components?
>
I have found during my prolonged discussions on these Usenet forums
that most scientists now agree with the notion of spacetime as a
mathematical model - a 4D space-time manifold. Spacetime is no longer
regarded as a physical entity.
In General Relativity, the Riemannian 4D space-time manifold is being
used as a differential scale template for getting the trajectories of
objects as geodesic curves. There is no doubt, what so ever, that GR
is just a mathematical model used for obtaining the trajectories of
objects as geodesic curves! However, the founders of GR did attempt to
elevate this mathematical model to the status of a physical theory by
assuming the 4D space-time manifold to be a physical spacetime
continuum and also assuming that the mass-energy content of a
gravitating body somehow controls the metric of this physical entity.
Once we realize that 4D spacetime manifold is just an abstract
mathematical construct and not a physical entity, then it is quite a
simple matter to understand that GR is just a mathematical model and
not a physical theory.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter8.pdf?attredirects=0
> And of course it gets worse. The university system, insures by
> training students to blindly accept the most illogical of assertions
> as ultimate "science truth", we have developed not a science but a
> religion. I call it "faith-based physics".
>
> And it gets still worse. There is a political side to this as well as
> government and especially the military in the post-atomic era have
> realized there is power in technology and have taken over the funding
> and control of science. This means that certain ideas that may have
> too much political or military potential, are withdrawn from public
> view and erased from the public record. Often such are ideas are then
> replaced by nonsense to act as "placeholders".
>
> GSS if correct, it's a sad, sad, state of affairs in our profession
> today. But at least a few are wising up in spite of the shills hired
> to make sure everyone stays asleep. There is some hope. Internet
> discussion of such issues being one.
Hope sustains life!
BradGuth
Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.
~ BG
GSS
Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, 2004 posted in these
newsgroups.
"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable bastard theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."
"Scientists have expended and are now expending huge sums of
taxpayer money to prove that all those jumbled mathematical
calculations really do point to something real. For years government
funding of the Einstein legend amounted to more than $2 million per
year just to develop technology that might help to find something. But
then in 1980, funding was increased to cover ground testing of
subsystems. By 1992, funding level had grown to $30 million each
year. When Relativity scientists announced the project had entered a
"science mission" phase, the annual outlay was raised to above $50
million. This is known as throwing good money down a black hole. What
a waste."
In my opinion, it should be possible to convince the general public to
stop wasting money in trying to test the validity of the current
paradigm. In stead, it should be more sensible to test for the
invalidity of the current paradigm by conducting a test for
establishing the Universal Reference Frame as proposed in chapter 5 of
my book. If public opinion is moulded in this direction, then such an
experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility at
a very nominal cost.
GSS
Dono
> If public opinion is moulded in this direction, then such an
> experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility at
> a very nominal cost.
>
Deep delusions.....
GSS
> On Jun 5, 7:58 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > If public opinion is moulded in this direction, then such an
> > experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility at
> > a very nominal cost.
>
>
> Deep delusions.....
Well, if you doubt the first part of the statement " If public opinion
is moulded in this direction", then let me assure you that given the
support of right thinking intellectuals, public opinion can be moulded
in this direction in about one to two years time.
On the other hand, if you doubt the second part of the statement "such
an experiment can be actually conducted in the existing LIGO facility
at a very nominal cost.", then let me reproduce the last portion of
chapter 5 of the book, to convince you.
[From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends on the
ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation time. The
minimum difference between the up-link and down-link timings depends
on the precision and accuracy of the synchronized time clocks used in
the experiment. For U/c of the order of 10^-8, time transfer accuracy
of 10^-10 seconds, the round trip signal propagation time is required
to be of the order of 10^-2 seconds that corresponds to D of the order
of a few thousand kilometers. But for U/c of the order of 10^-7, time
transfer accuracy of 10^-12 seconds, the round trip signal propagation
time is required to be of the order of 10^-5 seconds that corresponds
to D of the order of a few thousand meters.
With well below a nano-second time transfer accuracy feasible with
modern technology, the net velocity U of the space ship could be
determined to an accuracy of a few meters per second provided the
separation distance Dn is of the order of a few thousand kilometers.
This in turn amounts to the precision with which we can detect and
establish the Universal reference frame. The computation of velocity
components U1, U2 and U3 mainly depends on the isotropic constant
speed of light c in the chosen reference frame XYZ and a sequence of
discrete precision time measurements tn with a set of properly
calibrated and synchronized atomic clocks. Essentially, the
measurement of a sequence of discrete precision time intervals employs
a two way time transfer technique made feasible by modern cutting-edge
technology.
This leads us to the conclusion that we can experimentally determine
the velocity vector U of the observer station A with respect to the
universal coordinate reference frame XYZ. It obviously implies that
with respect to our known position A, or with respect to our local
coordinate frame X'Y'Z', we have determined the velocity (-U) of XYZ
or the Universal reference frame. With this, we confirm the detection
and establishment of the Universal Reference Frame.
Concluding Remarks. For conducting this experiment, we can
actually use the International Space Station (ISS) as our main
observer station A and three communication satellites in geostationary
orbits as the space probes. With the use of currently available front
line technology and special dedicated software, a continuous record of
velocity U of the observer station ISS with respect to the Universal
Reference Frame can be obtained in real time. Further since the
velocity of ISS is already known in BCRF, we can now compute the
velocity U' of the BCRF or the barycenter of the solar system in the
Universal Reference Frame. Possibly, the International Earth Rotation
and Reference Systems Service (IERS) could be the most appropriate
agency for undertaking this project to establish and maintain the
Universal Reference Frame. However, with the development of optical
atomic clocks underway, the time transfer accuracy of the order of
picoseconds (10^-12 s) will be feasible. With this accuracy, a LIGO
type experimental set up can be established on the ground for
determining U with an accuracy better than 0.1 km/second. ]
GSS
Dono
>
>
> [From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends...
But your equation (5.11) is wrong, dumbASS. This has been explained to
you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?
GSS
> On Jun 6, 5:31 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > [From equation (5.11), it is clear that the ratio U/c depends...
>
> you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
> Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?
You are wrong.
Refer to an old thread where this chapter had been discussed but you
did not participate in the entire discussions.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1ac9c7d0a9efe551?
GSS
doug
GSS wrote:
So since 2005 you have not learned anything. Your equation is still wrong.
Dono
>
> ASS
You are the same idiot as you were 5 years ago and your equation is as
wrong as it was in 2005.
GSS
> On Jun 6, 10:16 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 6, 7:12 pm, Dono <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 6, 5:31 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link signal
>
> > > But your equation (5.11) is wrong. This has been explained to
> > > you countless times in the past, you have conveniently "forgotten" .
> > > Is this why your chapter 5 is not available for free?
>
> > You are wrong.
> > Refer to an old thread where this chapter had been discussed but you
> > did not participate in the entire discussions.
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/1ac9c7d0a9e...
>
>
> You are the same idiot as you were 5 years ago and your equation is as
> wrong as it was in 2005.
What rubbish!
There were 36 posts in that thread and no one had found anything wrong
with those equations. You people did not participate in those
discussions. Most likely, you don't even know what the equation (5.11)
is, because after re-numbering the equations, I did not put the
manuscript on the web.
So, it is very likely that you are making stupid noises just for the
heck of it! May be you have assumed the role of a 'Barking Dog' to
guard the crumbling structure of Relativity.
Still, however, assuming that you are even remotely interested in the
derivation and validity of these equations, let me show you a
simplified derivation of the equation (for fixed separation distance)
which any undergraduate student can easily understand.
In this simplified derivation I will show that "the ratio U/c depends
on the ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link
signal propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation
time".
For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
spacecrafts are fitted with appropriate signal transmitters and
receivers. Let us assume the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse
from spacecraft A is t1, the epoch of reception and re-transmission
back, of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of
reception of the signal pulse back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us
assume that both A and B are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity
U along AB. The up-link signal propagation time Tu from A to B is
given by,
Tu = t2-t1 ....................... (1)
. ~ D
<t1> A1.........................B1
. -> ~
<t2> A2.........................B2
B1B2 = U*(t2-t1) = U*Tu ...................... (2)
and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu ........................... (3)
Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
given by,
Td = t3-t2 ....................... (4)
. ~
<t2> A2.........................B2
. ~ <-
<t3> A3.........................B3
A2A3 = U*(t3-t2) = U*Td .................... (5)
and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,
D - U*Td = c*Td ..................... (6)
Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,
U*(Tu+Td) = c* (Tu - Td)
Or,
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)
Putting it in words, equation (7) reads,
The ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times to the total round trip
signal propagation time.
This is precisely what I had written in my earlier post which you
stupidly declared as "wrong".
As an exercise, kindly let me know the difference between equation
(5.11) of chapter 5 and equation (7) given above.
Finally, let me politely request you to start behaving as a gentleman
and stop barking on the Usenet.
GSS
BradGuth
I agree 100%, but apparently you're not Jewish enough, or are you?
You see, being an outsider and a revisionist threat to boot is
apparently sacrilegious.
We need a true kind of open minded friend in the White House that's
not afraid of getting shot at by the mainstream mindset that's opposed
to any form of revision, that which might adversely impact their
insider cult/cabal of intellectual superiority, that's fully public
funded and otherwise job plus nifty benefits and retirement security
protected.
What's it going to take for getting your book or an edited textbook
version, as required public school and higher educational reading?
~ BG
BradGuth
Dono and similar folks are merely topic/author stalking and otherwise
perpetually trashing and bashing away on behalf of their mainstream
cult/cabal mindset. It's what these faith-based folks do best,
including obfuscating whatever suits their fancy. Obviously "Dono" as
a resident spook/mole as been assigned to stalk and nail your butt to
a stick, just like all the other trouble makers they got rid of.
~ BG
GSS
> On Jun 5, 7:58 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jun 5, 4:54 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jun 4, 6:53 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
Minister of India.
> You see, being an outsider and a revisionist threat to boot is
> apparently sacrilegious.
>
But I am certainly not the enemy of mainstream community of
scientists!!
Before my retirement, I had served as a 'mainstream scientist' for
about 20 years in the Defence Research and Development Organisation of
India. As such, I understand that most of the main stream scientists
will not consider me as their enemy or a sacrilegious person.
Pragmatically speaking, I have just offered a novel, un-orthodox
viewpoint of reality and it is upto the collective wisdom of the
scientific community to accept or reject it.
> We need a true kind of open minded friend in the White House that's
> not afraid of getting shot at by the mainstream mindset that's opposed
> to any form of revision, that which might adversely impact their
> insider cult/cabal of intellectual superiority, that's fully public
> funded and otherwise job plus nifty benefits and retirement security
> protected.
>
I don't think the issue need to go upto the White House. Dono type
individuals may keep attacking me for some time, but I have full faith
in the overall collective wisdom of the scientific community.
> What's it going to take for getting your book or an edited textbook
> version, as required public school and higher educational reading?
>
> ~ BG
To begin with, the book should reach the libraries of educational
institutes. For this purpose, the publishers of the book are going to
display it in the American Library Association Annual Conference in
July 2009.
GSS
Dono
>
>
> What rubbish!
>
> There were 36 posts in that thread and no one had found anything wrong
> with those equations.
Of course not, but the reason is that you will never admit to error,
cranko :-)
Dono
>
> Before my retirement, I had served as a 'mainstream scientist' for
> about 20 years in the Defence Research and Development Organisation of
> India
Did your Alzheimer also started before your retirement? Is this why
you were forced into early retirement?
GSS
........................
> In this simplified derivation I will show that "the ratio U/c depends
> on the ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link
> signal propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation
> time".
>
> For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
> in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
> distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
> spacecrafts are fitted with appropriate signal transmitters and
> receivers. Let us assume the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse
> from spacecraft A is t1, the epoch of reception and re-transmission
> back, of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of
> reception of the signal pulse back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us
> assume that both A and B are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity
> U along AB. The up-link signal propagation time Tu from A to B is
> given by,
>
>
> . ~ D
> <t1> A1.........................B1
> . -> ~
> <t2> A2.........................B2
>
>
> and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,
>
>
> Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
> given by,
>
> Td = t3-t2 ....................... (4)
>
> <t2> A2...........................B2
> . ~ <-
> <t3> A3...........................B3
>
> A2A3 = U*(t3-t2) = U*Td ................. (5)
>
> and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,
>
> D - U*Td = c*Td ..................... (6)
>
> Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,
>
> U*(Tu+Td) = c* (Tu - Td)
> Or,
> U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)
>
> Putting it in words, equation (7) reads,
>
> The ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-
> link and down-link signal propagation times to the total round trip
> signal propagation time.
>
spacecrafts A and B, along the direction AB. It is important to note
that this velocity does not depend on the separation distance D
between A and B. We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized Cesium atomic clocks and
identical microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and
receive coded signal pulses automatically.
We have also assumed that at time t1 the transponder at A is triggered
to send a signal pulse from A towards B with coded information of t1
contained in the pulse. When this pulse reaches B at time t2, it
triggers a return pulse from B towards A with the coded information of
time t2 contained in the return pulse. When the return pulse reaches A
at time t3, it triggers the next forward pulse from A towards B with
the coded information of time t3 contained in this forward pulse. This
process could keep repeating automatically, while the real time data
of up-link and down-link signal propagation times keeps getting
recorded in the on-board computers.
Now we need to focus our attention on this recorded data of up-link
and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td..
In the formulation of this example we had assumed that both A and B
are moving in the BCRF (Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame) with a
common velocity U along AB and that their separation distance D
remains constant.over the entire testing period.
If however, we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the GCRF (Geocentric Celestial Reference
Frame), the measure numbers depicting their positions and velocities
will change. In particular, the common velocity of spacecrafts A and B
along AB will now be a different value from U, say U1. But the
separation distance between A and B, which remained constant in BCRF,
will also remain constant in GCRF.
Similarly, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Galactic Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U2. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the.Galactic Reference
Frame.
Finally, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Universal Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U3. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the.Universal Reference
Frame.
But we have only one set of up-link and down-link time (Tu and Td)
data recorded in the on-board computers. Learned readers are requested
to kindly advise,
(a) Whether the recorded up-link and down-link time data corresponds
to the BCRF?
(b) Whether the recorded up-link and down-link time data corresponds
to the GCRF?
(c) Whether the recorded up-link and down-link time data corresponds
to the Galactic Reference Frame?
(d) Whether the recorded up-link and down-link time data corresponds
to the Universal Reference Frame?
(e) Whether the recorded up-link and down-link time data corresponds
to all Reference Frames?
(e) Whether the recorded up-link and down-link time data corresponds
to none of these Reference Frames?
Kindly treat it as important and please do give your opinion.
GSS
Dono
>
> Kindly treat it as important and please do give your opinion.
>
As usual, garbage. Important garbage :-)
GSS
> ........................
> > In this simplified derivation I will show that "the ratio U/c depends
> > on the ratio of the difference between the up-link and down-link
> > signal propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation
> > time".
>
> > For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
> > in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
> > distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
> > spacecrafts are fitted with appropriate signal transmitters and
> > receivers. Let us assume the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse
> > from spacecraft A is t1, the epoch of reception and re-transmission
> > back, of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of
> > reception of the signal pulse back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us
> > assume that both A and B are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity
> > U along AB. The up-link signal propagation time Tu from A to B is
> > given by,
>
>
> > . ~ D
> > <t1> A1.........................B1
> > . -> ~
> > <t2> A2.........................B2
>
>
> > and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,
>
>
> > Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
> > given by,
>
>
> > . D ~
> > <t2> A2...........................B2
> > . ~ <-
> > <t3> A3...........................B3
>
>
> > and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,
>
Well, if we refuse to get sucked into the general confusion created by
Relativity, the recorded up-link and down-link time data must remain
independent of the reference frames used to quantify the relative
positions of objects. Logically too, there is just no way in which the
recorded up-link and down-link time data could be physically different
for different reference frames. Practically also the Universal
Coordinated Time (UTC) is meant to be the universal time scale valid
for all practical reference frames.
Hence, with the understanding that the recorded up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data is valid for all practical reference frames, let
us re-write equation (7) for various reference frames considered
above.
(a) In BCRF
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7A)
(b) In GCRF
U1/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7B)
(c) In Galactic Reference Frame
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7C)
(d) In Universal Reference Frame
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7D)
As seen above, U, U1, U2 and U3 are all different values representing
the common velocity of spacecraft A and B along the direction AB in
four different reference frames. But the RHS of all the four equations
listed above (7A to 7D) is just one single value. Obviously all of the
above mentioned four equations cannot be valid.
In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same universal constant in all reference frames.
That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.
The foregoing analysis suggests that we can detect the common
velocity, say U3 of two objects A and B separated by distance D,
simply by measuring the up-link and down-link signal propagation times
as at equation (7D) above. This procedure can then be extended to a
general technique for establishing the Universal Reference Frame, just
like BCRF.
GSS
BradGuth
Thus far, how many times has your research been ignored or banished?
It seems you have a good shot at being master of physics, but while
outside of the mainstream that's public funded you may have only brick
walls to contend with.
Can a privately published book of physics or science ever become a
required textbook for the public education system?
~ BG
GSS
>> scientific community to accept or reject it.
>
>>> We need a true kind of open minded friend in the White House that's
>>> not afraid of getting shot at by the mainstream mindset that's opposed
>>> to any form of revision, that which might adversely impact their
>>> insider cult/cabal of intellectual superiority, that's fully public
>>> funded and otherwise job plus nifty benefits and retirement security
>>> protected.
>
>> individuals may keep attacking me for some time, but I have full faith
>> in the overall collective wisdom of the scientific community.
>
>>> What's it going to take for getting your book or an edited textbook
>>> version, as required public school and higher educational reading?
>
>>> ~ BG
>
>> To begin with, the book should reach the libraries of educational
>> institutes. For this purpose, the publishers of the book are going to
>> display it in the American Library Association Annual Conference in
>> July 2009.
>
>> GSS
>
> Thus far, how many times has your research been ignored or banished?
>
Only certain individuals from the mainstream have appreciated my work
from time to time. For example one well-wisher wrote about two years
back,
"You are doing REAL science. Keep up the good work."...
"Besides you are well advanced in articulating your position through a
lot of articles. I would suggest that you put together all of your
articles and re-structure them into a text book"...
"Who will publish the book? At worst, you can self-publish the book
with limited circulations."...
Well, I have followed his advice and published the subject book. I
have sincerely thanked him for the sincere advice.
> It seems you have a good shot at being master of physics, but while
> outside of the mainstream that's public funded you may have only brick
> walls to contend with.
>
Of course, I am aware of my limitations and know that as an
individual, I cannot do much beyond presenting my work before the
scientific community. As and when certain intellectuals, who are
themselves dissatisfied with the current paradigm, start appreciating
my work, the current hostile to indifferent attitude of the mainstream
may change for the better.
Ultimately, as I said before, it is up to the collective wisdom of the
scientific community to accept or reject the proposed paradigm shift.
I am already leading a very happy, healthy and contented retired life
with a high standard of living. My children are very well settled in
life. I do not need any monetary rewards or returns. I am only hoping
for a simple recognition that I have done a good work which will be of
some use to the humanity sooner or later.
> Can a privately published book of physics or science ever become a
> required textbook for the public education system?
>
> ~ BG
If the current book meets its limited objective of presenting my life-
time research work before the scientific community, it can then be
restructured into the text book format and published through some
reputed publishers. At present I have only granted non-exclusive
license to the publishers.
GSS
GSS
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
technique to measure the common velocity of two fixed objects A and B,
separated by distance D on the surface of earth. Even though the
objects A and B under consideration are fixed on the surface of earth,
we can well imagine their common motion in our solar system or in our
galaxy. Let U be the common instantaneous velocity of A and B along
the direction AB as measured in BCRF. Let us assume the speed of light
propagation in BCRF to be an isotropic constant c. As shown at
equation (7) above, the magnitude of U/c will be given by the ratio of
the difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation
times to the total round trip signal propagation time.
For conducting this experiment, let us select two microwave
communication towers, separated by a distance D of about 30 km, as the
two objects A and B mentioned above. Exact distance between A and B is
not required to be measured. Since the determination of up-link and
down-link signal propagation time between A and B will require line of
sight communication, we need to position identical sets of test
equipment at about 20 m height on each of the two towers.
Each set of the test equipment required at the two ends, consists of
(a) High Intensity Picosecond Pulsed Laser unit - 1 MHz PiLas with
single shot pulse option.
http://www.alsgmbh.com/?gclid=CIjMtrfgiJsCFSRPagodggNUpQ
(b) PiLas Control Unit EIG 1000D with external trigger input from
single shot to 1 MHz.
(c) UltraFast 20/35 FS free space Photo Detector with focusing optics.
(d) GPS synchronized Precision Timing System 'GRM-3000' from
SpectraTime
http://www.spectratime.com/index.php?m=spp_gps_rb_mod
(e) Data Acquisition Computer
The availability of Picosecond Pulsed Laser unit - 1 MHz PiLas from
"Advanced Laser Diode Systems" and the GPS synchronized Precision
Timing System 'GRM-3000' from "Spectra Time" is a crucial technology
input for the conduct of this experiment on the surface of earth. The
1MHz PiLas system with its control unit EIG 1000D can be operated with
external trigger input from single shot to 1MHz. This can be used in
combination with UltraFast Photo Detectors - "UltraFast 20/35 FS free
space photo detector" placed at the opposite end.
As per SpectraTime,"The patented SRO-100 is the industry’s first smart
Rubidium clock, integrating complex synchronization functionality all
in one low-cost, super-small package. The SRO intelligently
synchronizes, disciplines, and controls any Stratum-1 reference such
as GPS, Cesium and Hydrogen Maser, at cutting-edge 1 ns resolution".
Regarding its GRM-3000 Module, the SpectraTime claims, "The GRM-3000
is a low-cost, GPS and Rubidium custom board-level module. It uses a
powerful GPS receiver and the patented smart SRO-100 SynClock+®,
integrating complex disciplining and synchronization functionality all
in one low-cost, super-small package. The SRO integrates SmarTiming+®
technology, providing a suite of built-in timing features. SmarTiming+
filters and disciplines any type of input reference, auto-adaptively
at leading-edge 1ns resolution".
Before commencement of the main experiment, the two sets of test
equipment will be positioned close by, say at a separation distance of
about one meter, to synchronize and calibrate their clocks and to
monitor their system delays. Thereafter, one set of test equipment
will be positioned on each of the two towers at about 20 m height. The
system will be aligned in such a way that the Laser beam from point A
is focused on the Photo detector at point B and the Laser beam from
point B is focused on the Photo detector at point A.
Since the two clocks at points A and B are synchronized with the GPS
time standard, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in
absolute terms. That means, at any instant when the UTC time is t1,
both clocks will read t1. Their instantaneous time readouts, with
nanosecond time resolution, can be obtained with a trigger pulse.
For actual conduct of the experiment, the digital electrical pulse
generator or the PiLas controller is to be operated in a single shot
mode. In this mode the electrical pulse from the controller will
simultaneously trigger the Laser at point A to send out a short laser
pulse towards point B and also trigger the synchronized clock time
readout at A. This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will
get recorded in the data acquisition computer at A. When the laser
pulse transmitted from point A, reaches the photo detector at B, it
will be captured by the detector to produce a trigger pulse for time
readout at point B. This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution,
will get recorded in the data acquisition computer at B. The
difference between these two time readouts at B and A will provide the
up-link pulse propagation time Tu from point A to point B, in
nanoseconds.
Similarly, a single shot electrical pulse from the controller at B,
will simultaneously trigger the Laser at point B to send out a short
laser pulse towards point A and also trigger the clock B time readout.
This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will get recorded in
the data acquisition computer at B. When the laser pulse transmitted
from point B, reaches the photo detector at A, it will be captured by
the detector to produce a trigger pulse for time readout at point A.
This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will get recorded in
the data acquisition computer at A. The difference between these two
time readouts at A and B will provide the down-link pulse propagation
time Td from point B to point A, in nanoseconds.
As discussed above, the magnitude of U/c will be given by the ratio of
the difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation
times to the total round trip signal propagation time.
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)
For a separation distance D of about 30 km, the pulse return
propagation time (Tu + Td) will be of the order of 200,000
nanoseconds. We know that the orbital speed of earth in BCRF is about
30 km/s. But we also know that the orbital speed of our solar system
around the Galactic center is about 220 km/s. Further, our milky way
galaxy is estimated to be in motion with respect to the CMBR
background at about 500 km/s. Depending on whether we assume c to be
the isotropic speed of light propagation in BCRF, or the Galactic
Reference Frame or in the Universal Reference Frame, maximum value of
U in equation (7) can vary from about 30 km/s to about 500 km/s. Let
us therefore, aim to detect the common instantaneous velocity U (of A
and B along the direction AB) of the order of about 300 km/s in the
Universal reference frame. Then from equation (7),
Tu - Td = (300/300,000)*(200,000)
= 200 nanoseconds.
With the selected test equipment, as described above, we can surely
detect the up-link and down-link timing differences of the order of
100 or 200 nanoseconds. For this test we need to select points A and B
approximately along East-West direction and repeat the test at
different times of the day. Of course, another test series may be
conducted with line AB approximately aligned along North-South
direction. From the 24 hour recorded data of Tu and Td values, we can
estimate the maximum value of U/c, which will definitely show the
unique reference frame in which the speed of light propagation c has
to be regarded as an isotropic universal constant.
The simplified experimental test described above can be actually
conducted by students of Electronics and Telecommunication Engineering
as a part of their academic study project. This experiment can also be
conducted by Physics students provided their Head of the department or
other Faculty members permit them to do so. It is quite likely that
the academic staff in Physics departments, who are completely
indoctrinated into the present cult of Relativity, may not allow the
conduct of the proposed experiment on the ground that it aims to
invalidate the Relativity Theories. On the other hand, students of
many other engineering streams can easily conduct the proposed
experiment and play a pioneering role in the advancement of
Fundamental Science.
Learned readers are welcome to give their valuable opinions on this
issue.
I have also compiled a short article, demonstrating a logical
conclusion that the speed c of light propagation in vacuum can be an
isotropic constant only in the Universal Reference Frame and not in
all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. In this
article (isotropy_experiment.pdf) I have also detailed the proposed
simplified test procedure for experimentally detecting the Universal
Reference Frame by measuring our velocity in this frame. This pdf
article can be downloaded from the following link.
As mentioned above, the proposed experiment can be actually conducted
by many engineering and physics students as a part of their academic
project curriculum. If you happen to know such students who are
looking for some challenging project ideas, you may kindly forward the
above mentioned link or the pdf file to them. I shall also approach
various academic institutes and universities in this regard, to ensure
that very many groups of students undertake this experimental project,
all over the globe.
GSS
Rock Brentwood
> In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
> unproveable bastard theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
> holes, and black holes."
General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
each of these.
In particular it was MAXWELL who came up with the idea of vacuum
energy (and the negative energy sea); not Einstein & GR, not Dirac &
QED. But Maxwell.
From article 82 of the 1864 "A Dynamical Theory of the Electromagnetic
Field"
The 1864 paper (and 1861 paper) is included under: Maxwell's Original
Equations
http://federation.g3z.com/Physics/index.htm#MaxwellOriginal
Note on the Attraction of Gravitation
(82) After tracing to the action of the surrounding medium both the
magnetic and the electric attractions and repulsions, and finding them
to depend on the inverse square of the distance, we are naturally led
to inquire whether the attraction of gravitation, which follows the
same law of the distance, is not also traceable to the action of a
surrounding medium.
Gravitation differs from magnetism and electricity in this; that the
bodies concerned are all of the same kind, instead of being of
opposite signs, like magnetic poles and electrified bodies, and that
the force between these bodies is an attraction and not a repulsion,
as is the case between like electric and magnetic bodies.
The lines of gravitating force near two dense bodies are exactly of
the same form as the lines of magnetic force near two poles of the
same name; but whereas the poles are repelled, the bodies are
attracted. ...
As energy is essentially positive, it is impossible for any part of
space to have negative intrinsic energy. Hence those parts of space in
which there is no resultant force, such as the points of equilibrium
in the space between the different bodies of a system, and within the
substance of each body, must have an intrinsic energy per unit of
volume greater than [the energy assoited with the largest possible
gravitational force (i.e. what we'd now call the Planck energy
density)]
The assumption, therefore, that gravitation arises from the action of
the surrounding medium in the way pointed out, leads to the conclusion
that every part of this medium possesses, when undisturbed, an
enormous intrinsic energy, and that the presence of dense bodies
influences the medium so as to diminish this energy wherever there is
a resultant attraction.
GSS
> On Jun 5, 9:58 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In addition, the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
> > unproveable bastard theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
> > holes, and black holes."
>
> General Relativity (a) did not spawn any of these, (b) has nothing
> speciic to do with any of them, and (c) POSTDATES the emergence of
> each of these.
>
original message has put the quoted text out of context. To make the
context clear, let me reproduce the relevant part of the original
message.
----------------------------------------
> > It may appear that making sensible and plausible suggestions for any
> > advancement or revision of the status quo is a tough job; but the
> > testing and evaluation of such suggestions is in reality the toughest
> > and most challenging task which most people would like to avoid.
> > GSS
> Most of science and physics expertise will only test if publicly
> funded, and then look only for whatever supports their mainstream
> mindset. The spendy and time consuming GPB/SR fiasco is a good
> example of mainstream cover-thy-butt via obfuscation on steroids.
> ~ BG
Isn't it a pity that huge amount of public funds have been wasted for
testing the current paradigm when the general public is either being
mislead or being kept in the dark. In this regard let me reproduce an
old message of Leonard Pardin, dated Jul 12, 2004 posted in these
newsgroups.
"Never in the history of the scientific world has so much money been
spent to prove a theory that has provided so little benefit. Almost a
hundred years after Einstein first proposed his General Theory of
Relativity, the theory is still unproved and unproveable. In addition,
the theory has spawned an astonishing array of unproved and
unproveable bastard theories like time warps, vacuum energy, worm
holes, and black holes."
---------------------------------------
So what you have quoted me saying, was in fact written by Leonard
Pardin on Jul 12, 2004.
Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.
In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.
You may kindly give your valuable opinion on the proposed experiment.
doug
GSS wrote:
Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
will not be done, why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
of experiments which have all supported relativity. I know that involves
work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.
GSS
>
> Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
> will not be done,
I am not *hiding behind* proposals for a new experiment but am
*coming forward* with a proposal for a new experiment to break the
century old deadlock. I am sure the simplified experiment proposed
here can be actually conducted by most of the science students in all
colleges and universities. You have to just order the specified laser
and timer units and conduct the test.
> why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
> of experiments which have all supported relativity.
I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
arguments.
> I know that involves
> work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
> you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.
Kindly be honest and tell me if you have actually read whole of my
original post (along with links) in this thread.
doug
GSS wrote:
You have been trying to claim that the issue cannot be
settled until YOUR experiment is done. That is standard
crank talk.
>
>
>>why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
>>of experiments which have all supported relativity.
>
>
> I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
> doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
> you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
> that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
> arguments.
You have shown nothing but your dislike of relativity. You have
done nothing to refute any experiments much less all of the
experiments. Why should anyone pay any attention to your
ideas when they have been shown to be wrong?
>
>>I know that involves
>>work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
>>you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.
>
>
> Kindly be honest and tell me if you have actually read whole of my
> original post (along with links) in this thread.
I have looked at what you have done. Section 23.2 starts you off onto
philosophy instead of science. You want the explainations in a
form that you approve of. The universe is not under any requirement
to work the way you want it to. Section 23.3 has wandered off into
a complete fantasy and is in conflict with all current theories.
Section 2.5 would bring a laugh to high school students. Chapter 4 shows
you have a complete misunderstanding of reference frames.
You obviously spent a lot of time on this "book". It would have been
better spent learning some physics.
>
>
>>>You may kindly give your valuable opinion on the proposed experiment.
>>
We know the results--it will agree with all the other experiments.
You want to hide from the experiments that have been done to pretend
that you will see something different. It would be a total waste of
time to look for the anisotropy you somehow hate when it has been
measured to be smaller than any motion you could have.
>>>GSS
>>>http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/
>>
>>
>
Eric Gisse
[...]
> I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
> doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
> you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
> that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
> arguments.
Whereas people like you are completely unburdened by an education in
physics and are thus free to revolutionize the subject from the
comfort of the chair.
[...]
GSS
> GSS wrote:
> > On Jul 3, 9:10 pm, doug <x...@xx.com> wrote:
>>>> Main context of the discussion was regarding testing and evaluation to
>>>> prove or disprove a theory or hypothesis.
>
>>>> In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
>>>> detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
>>>> essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
>>>> and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
>>>> the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
>>>> between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
>>>> absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.
>
>
>>> Rather than hiding behind proposals for a new experiment which you know
>>> will not be done,
>
>> I am not *hiding behind* proposals for a new experiment but am
>> *coming forward* with a proposal for a new experiment to break the
>> century old deadlock. I am sure the simplified experiment proposed
>> here can be actually conducted by most of the science students in all
>> colleges and universities. You have to just order the specified laser
>> and timer units and conduct the test.
>
> You have been trying to claim that the issue cannot be
> settled until YOUR experiment is done. That is standard
> crank talk.
>
logically.
Let us make a beginning straight away. Kindly give a specific (not
evasive) response where ever you are specifically requested (with * *
marks) to do so.
Consider two objects A and B separated by distance D and moving in
BCRF with a common uniform velocity U along AB. If we assume that c is
the isotropic constant speed of light propagation in BCRF, then it can
be shown that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference
between the up-link (from A to B) and down-link (from B to A) signal
propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation time.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree that the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times will be non-zero whenever
their common uniform velocity U along AB is non-zero. If you don't
agree, give specific logical reasons for the same*
For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
spacecrafts are fitted with appropriate signal transmitters and
receivers. Let us assume the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse
from spacecraft A is t1, the epoch of reception and re-transmission
back, of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B is t2, and the epoch of
reception of the signal pulse back at the spacecraft A is t3. Let us
assume that both A and B are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity
U along AB. The up-link signal propagation time Tu from A to B is
given by,
Tu = t2-t1 ....................... (1)
. ~ D
<t1> A1.........................B1
. -> ~
<t2> A2.........................B2
B1B2 = U*(t2-t1) = U*Tu ......... (2)
and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu ..................... (3)
Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is
given by,
Td = t3-t2 ....................... (4)
. ~
<t2> A2.........................B2
. ~ <-
<t3> A3.........................B3
A2A3 = U*(t3-t2) = U*Td ........ (5)
and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,
D - U*Td = c*Td ..................... (6)
Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,
U*(Tu+Td) = c* (Tu - Td)
Or,
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7)
Putting it in words, equation (7) reads,
The ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times to the total round trip
signal propagation time.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the derivation and validity of
equation (7) above. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons
for the same*
In the above illustrative example, U is the common velocity of two
spacecrafts A and B, along the direction AB. It is important to note
that this velocity does not depend on the separation distance D
between A and B. We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized Cesium atomic clocks and
identical microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and
receive coded signal pulses automatically.
We have also assumed that at time t1(measured in UTC) the transponder
at A is triggered to send a signal pulse from A towards B with coded
information of t1 contained in the pulse. When this pulse reaches B at
time t2 (measured in UTC), it triggers a return pulse from B towards A
with the coded information of time t2 contained in the return pulse.
When the return pulse reaches A at time t3, it triggers the next
forward pulse from A towards B with the coded information of time t3
contained in this forward pulse. This process could keep repeating
automatically, while the real time data of up-link and down-link
signal propagation times keeps getting recorded in the on-board
computers.
Now we need to focus our attention on this recorded data of up-link
and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the measurement of clock times
t1, t2 and t3 in UTC standard. If you don't agree, give specific
logical reasons for the same*
In the formulation of this example we had assumed that both A and B
are moving in the BCRF (Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame) with a
common velocity U along AB and that their separation distance D
remains constant.over the entire testing period.
If however, we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the GCRF (Geocentric Celestial Reference
Frame), the measure numbers depicting their positions and velocities
will change. In particular, the common velocity of spacecrafts A and B
along AB will now be a different value from U, say U1. But the
separation distance between A and B, which remained constant in BCRF,
will also remain constant in GCRF.
Similarly, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Galactic Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U2. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the.Galactic Reference
Frame.
Finally, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Universal Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U3. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the Universal Reference
Frame.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree that values of U, U1, U2 and U3, as
described above, will be different. If you don't agree, give specific
logical reasons for the same*
But we have only one set of up-link and down-link time (Tu and Td)
data recorded in the on-board computers.
Well, if we avoid the general confusion created by Relativity, the
recorded up-link and down-link time data must remain independent of
the reference frames used to quantify the relative positions of
objects. Logically too, there is just no way in which the recorded up-
link and down-link time data could be physically different for
different reference frames. Practically also the Universal Coordinated
Time (UTC) is meant to be the universal time scale valid for all
practical reference frames.
Hence, with the understanding that the recorded up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data is valid for all practical reference frames, let
us re-write equation (7) for various reference frames considered
above.
(a) In BCRF
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ...... (7A)
(b) In GCRF
U1/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7B)
(c) In Galactic Reference Frame
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7C)
(d) In Universal Reference Frame
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7D)
As seen above, U, U1, U2 and U3 are all different values representing
the common velocity of spacecraft A and B along the direction AB in
four different reference frames. But the RHS of all the four equations
listed above (7A to 7D) is just one single value. Obviously all of the
above mentioned four equations cannot be valid.
In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
reference frames.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the above conclusion that c
cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference
frames. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons for the
same*
That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the above conclusion that the
speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c only in one
particular reference frame which we may identify as the Universal
Reference Frame. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons for
the same*
>
>>>why don't you try to show any mistakes in a century
>>>of experiments which have all supported relativity.
>
>> I along with many other learned readers in these forums, have been
>> doing just that for more than a decade. It is a different matter that
>> you people are so thoroughly indoctrinated into the cult of relativity
>> that you just turn a blind eye and deaf ear to all of 'our'
>> arguments.
>
> You have shown nothing but your dislike of relativity. You have
> done nothing to refute any experiments much less all of the
> experiments. Why should anyone pay any attention to your
> ideas when they have been shown to be wrong?
>
Well, if you close your eyes, you will see nothing!
>>>I know that involves
>>>work and you just want to complain but you would look as though
>>>you were serious if you put in at least a tiny bit of effort.
>
>> Kindly be honest and tell me if you have actually read whole of my
>> original post (along with links) in this thread.
>
> I have looked at what you have done. Section 23.2 starts you off onto
> philosophy instead of science. You want the explanations in a
> form that you approve of. The universe is not under any requirement
> to work the way you want it to. Section 23.3 has wandered off into
> a complete fantasy and is in conflict with all current theories.
> Section 2.5 would bring a laugh to high school students. Chapter 4 shows
> you have a complete misunderstanding of reference frames.
>
That is fair enough, at least you have *looked at* what I have done.
If you are willing to discuss with me, you will surely start
understanding what I have written. Let us begin with section 23.2
(a) Mathematical representations supposed to describe physical reality
are not sufficient to enable us to mentally visualize the associated
physical phenomenon. Such mathematical representations must be
supported by causal linkages, physical explanations and logical
foundations, to adequately describe physical reality.
What is your objection to it? Do you think it does not concern
physics?
How do you mentally visualize *spacetime*, *spacetime curvature* and
*spacetime metric*, if you consider them to be physical entities? Can
you distinguish between physical and mathematical entities?
What is the physical mechanism by which a massive body influences the
metric and the curvature of spacetime in its vicinity?
What is the logical foundation for the current belief that the speed c
of light propagation in vacuum must be an isotropic constant in all
inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion?
GSS
GSS
>>>>In my previous message under this thread, I have put forward a
>>>>detailed experimental technique to detect absolute motion in space. In
>>>>essence, this experiment involves precision measurement of an up-link
>>>>and a down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points on
>>>>the surface of earth. Successful measurement of tiny difference
>>>>between the up-link and down-link times will provide a measure of
>>>>absolute motion in space and invalidate Relativity.
>
>
> You have been trying to claim that the issue cannot be
> settled until YOUR experiment is done.
>
Consider two objects A and B separated by distance D and moving in
BCRF (Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame) with a common uniform
velocity U along AB. If we assume that c is the isotropic constant
speed of light propagation in BCRF, then it can be shown that the
ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the difference between the up-link
(from A to B) and down-link (from B to A) signal propagation times to
the total round trip signal propagation time.
For this purpose let us consider two Pioneer type spacecraft A and B,
in the outer regions of the solar system, such that their separation
distance D=AB remains constant during the period of test. Both
spacecrafts are fitted with identical synchronized precision clocks
and appropriate signal transmitters and receivers. Let us assume the
epoch of transmission of a signal pulse from spacecraft A is t1, the
equation (7) above.*
In the above illustrative example, U is the common velocity of two
spacecrafts A and B, along the direction AB. It is important to note
that this velocity does not depend on the separation distance D
between A and B. We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
signal pulses automatically.
We have also assumed that at time t1(measured in UTC) the transponder
at A is triggered to send a signal pulse from A towards B with coded
information of t1 contained in the pulse. When this pulse reaches B at
time t2 (measured in UTC), it triggers a return pulse from B towards A
with the coded information of time t2 contained in the return pulse.
When the return pulse reaches A at time t3, it triggers the next
forward pulse from A towards B with the coded information of time t3
contained in this forward pulse. This process could keep repeating
automatically, while the real time data of up-link and down-link
signal propagation times keeps getting recorded in the on-board
computers.
Now we need to focus our attention on this recorded data of up-link
and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td.
In the formulation of this example we had assumed that both A and B
are moving in the BCRF with a common velocity U along AB and that
their separation distance D remains constant over the entire testing
period.
If however, we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the GCRF (Geocentric Celestial Reference
Frame), the measure numbers depicting their positions and velocities
will change. In particular, the common velocity of spacecrafts A and B
along AB will now be a different value from U, say U1. But the
separation distance between A and B, which remained constant in BCRF,
will also remain constant in GCRF.
Similarly, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Galactic Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U2. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the Galactic Reference
Frame.
Finally, if we refer the positions and velocities of the same two
spacecrafts A and B to the Universal Reference Frame, the common
velocity of spacecrafts A and B along AB will now be a different value
say U3. But the separation distance between A and B, which remained
constant in BCRF, will also remain constant in the Universal Reference
Frame.
But we have only one set of physically measured up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data recorded in the on-board computers.
Well, as per the actual physical situation, the recorded up-link and
down-link time data must remain independent of the reference frames
used to quantify the relative positions of objects. Logically too,
there is just no way in which the recorded up-link and down-link time
data could be physically different for different reference frames.
Hence, with the understanding that the recorded up-link and down-link
time (Tu and Td) data is valid for all practical reference frames, let
us re-write equation (7) for various reference frames considered
above.
(a) In BCRF
U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7A)
(b) In GCRF
U1/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7B)
(c) In Galactic Reference Frame
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7C)
(d) In Universal Reference Frame
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu+Td) ....... (7D)
As seen above, U, U1, U2 and U3 are all different values representing
the common velocity of spacecraft A and B along the direction AB in
four different reference frames. But the RHS of all the four equations
listed above (7A to 7D) is just one single value. Obviously all of the
above mentioned four equations cannot be valid.
In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
reference frames.
*Kindly confirm whether you agree with the above conclusion that c
cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all reference
frames. If you don't agree, give specific logical reasons for the
same.*
That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.
The crux of the logic here is that once we accept the notion of UTC as
a universal measure of time, derived from the automated physical
measurements of real atomic clocks, the speed of signal propagation
cannot be an isotropic value c in all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion.
I have forwarded the above referred article, to most of the leading
space agencies, research centers and academic institutions, requesting
them to undertake the proposed project. In essence, this experiment
involves precision measurement of an up-link and a down-link signal
propagation times between two fixed points. Successful measurement of
tiny difference between the up-link and down-link times, will provide
a measure of absolute motion in space and invalidate Einstein's Theory
of Relativity.
Invalidation of Relativity could trigger a paradigm shift in
fundamental physics. For this reason I am keenly interested in the
proposed experiment to detect absolute motion in space. With
appropriate support, this experiment can be conducted by all competent
Physicists and Engineers, as a fundamental research project.
As you might be aware, billions of dollars have already been wasted in
trying to validate Einstein's Relativity Theories. The proposed
experiment is expected to cost about $20,000 or so and I am sure, it
will finally and firmly invalidate the Relativity Theories. If the
project is successful, it will be viewed as a pioneering contribution
for the advancement of Fundamental Physics.
Learned readers are requested to give their opinion whether, even
after successful demonstration of absolute motion in space, through
the proposed experiment, the Relativity theories can still manage to
sustain themselves through some weird excuses?
Craig Markwardt
> ...We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
> are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
> microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
> signal pulses automatically.
This is both a conceptual and practical problem.
Practically, there are no oscillators (atomic clocks), stable enough
and capable of being integrated onto a spacecraft, which could do such
precision ranging. All clocks drift. On the earth, keeping stable
time is problem enough, requiring large environmentally controlled
vaults, placed in many parts of the world.
Conceptually, relativity prescribes that distant clocks cannot be kept
synchronized, except by using the very light pulses you propose to
use.
In fact, the method you propose is used today for spacecraft clock
synchronization. One method used by NASA is known as USCCS (and uses
a relay satellite system known as TDRSS).
> In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
> constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
> vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
> that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
> constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
> mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
> of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
> that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
> reference frames.
It's odd that you are using classical physics to "disprove"
relativity. A more logical approach would be to use the full
prescriptions of relativity, and show that a contradiction exists.
That is known as a proof by contradiction. Instead you used the
partial assumptions mixing relativity and classical physics, and then
attempted to show a contradiction. The contradiction you claim would
only demonstrate that your initial mixed assumptions were incorrect.
CM
Sandcastle
1. You say that "Obviously all of the above mentioned four equations cannot
be valid." It is not so obvious as demonstrated by the twins paradox where
one travels and the other sits still ... resulting in different aging for
each member.
2. Your experiment ignores the distortion of space due to the mass of the
earth. At a minimum, you would have to perform the experiment at the same
time from opposite surfaces of the earth and compare the results to get any
kind of difference that would imply absolute motion. Actually you would have
to do it from a third location to prove that the failure to detect any
difference in those opposite points was not because you happened to pick two
places that were moving sideways to the absolute motion of the earth.
Clearly, I believe your experiment would fail the same way that the
Michaelson-Morley experiment failed.
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e77bc5e6-d09d-4b84...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
GSS
Let me first clear your conceptual problems in this post and leave the
discussion of practical problems to the next post. For this purpose,
let me first reproduce a relevant portion from my previously quoted
article on isotropy experiment.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
[Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "If at the point A of
space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values
of events in the immediate proximity of A. If there is at the point B
of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is
possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events
in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without
further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with
an event at B. We have so far defined only an 'A time' and a 'B time'.
We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter cannot
be defined at all unless 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." This arbitrary definition of 'common time'
constitutes the fundamental mistake of Einstein, which ultimately
leads to the invalidation of SR.
To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that points A and B in
space represent two Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of
the solar system. Let the separation distance AB, as measured in
Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF), be D which remains
constant over a period of time. Let us assume the two objects A and B
are moving in BCRF with a common uniform velocity U along AB. If we
assume that c is the isotropic constant speed of light propagation in
BCRF, then it can be shown that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of
the difference between the up-link (from A to B) and down-link (from B
to A) signal propagation times to the total round trip signal
propagation time.]
[Obviously, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times can be
equal only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF. This shows
that Einstein's fundamental assumption of equating the up-link and
down-link signal propagation times between A and B inherently implies
that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the BCRF of the solar
system. Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time
between A and B, to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in
relative uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that
*all such IRF in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest* in
BCRF. This simple contradiction shatters the facade of SR.]
Craig, the foregoing analysis constitutes the required first *proof by
contradiction* that Relativity is fundamentally invalid. In fact, in
the grand maze of the *unknown*, the Relativity represents a wrong
turn, a wrong direction, which has lead the fundamental physics to the
dead end. This mistake must be corrected, sooner the better.
For the second *proof by contradiction*, let me reproduce from my
previous post.
[In the above illustrative example, U is the common velocity of two
spacecrafts A and B, along the direction AB. It is important to note
that this velocity does not depend on the separation distance D
between A and B. We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
signal pulses automatically.
We have also assumed that at time t1(measured in UTC) the transponder
In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
mentioned **contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in
three of the four equations** (7A to 7D) points to a significant
conclusion that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in
all reference frames.
That is, the speed of signal propagation can be the isotropic value c
only in one particular reference frame which we may identify as the
Universal Reference Frame. This isotropic value of the speed of signal
propagation becomes the identifying characteristic feature of the
Universal Reference Frame.
The crux of the logic here is that once we accept the notion of UTC as
a universal measure of time, derived from the automated physical
measurements of real atomic clocks, the speed of signal propagation
cannot be an isotropic value c in all inertial reference frames in
relative uniform motion.]
Craig, leaving aside the practical problems associated with clock
synchronization and precision measurements of time, kindly let me know
if you have any specific conceptual problems with the two *proofs by
contradiction* presented above.
GSS
GSS
> Two major problems:
>
> 1. You say that "Obviously all of the above mentioned four equations cannot
> be valid." It is not so obvious as demonstrated by the twins paradox where
> one travels and the other sits still ... resulting in different aging for
> each member.
>
In Relativity, the twins paradox is 'cooked up' with two clocks,
moving at high speed 'relative' to each other. In the present case,
the two clocks are relatively at rest with respect to each other.
However, these clocks are simultaneously located in four different
reference frames, namely - the GCRF, BCRF, Galactic Reference Frame
and the Universal reference Frame. Whether we view the clocks to be
located in GCRF or BCRF, it will give the same unique time reading in
UTC. And it is this time reading which is used in the experiment.
> 2. Your experiment ignores the distortion of space due to the mass of the
> earth.
Yes, the 'distortion of space' (whatever you mean by this term) will
not affect the outcome of this experiment.
But I am curious to know, what exactly you mean by the term
'distortion of space'?
Let us consider a volume element of an 'undistorted' region of space
in the shape of a perfect cube. Let one corner of the cube define the
origin of a Cartesian coordinate system with its three edges
representing three coordinate (X, Y and Z) directions. Consider N (a
very large number) points within this cube with equal spacing between
adjoining points along coordinate directions. Now let us assume that
the space in the region (inside and outside) of the cube gets
'distorted'. What do you think will 'become' of the old cube when the
space in the region gets distorted.
(a) Will the old cube retain its perfect cubical shape?
(b) Or, will the old cubical shape get distorted such that it no
longer remains a perfect cube of same size?
(c) Will the spacing between the adjoining points get changed or
remain unchanged?
(d) In nutshell, will the old cubical volume of space get 'deformed'
or remain un-deformed?
> At a minimum, you would have to perform the experiment at the same
> time from opposite surfaces of the earth and compare the results to get any
> kind of difference that would imply absolute motion. Actually you would have
> to do it from a third location to prove that the failure to detect any
> difference in those opposite points was not because you happened to pick two
> places that were moving sideways to the absolute motion of the earth.
>
Yes, in this regard let me reproduce a relevant portion from my
previously quoted article on isotropy experiment.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
"With the selected test equipment, as described above, we can surely
detect the up-link and down-link timing differences of the order of
100 or 200 nanoseconds. For this test we need to select points A and B
approximately along East-West direction and repeat the test at
different times of the day cycle. Of course, another test series may
be conducted with line AB approximately aligned along North-South
direction. From the 24 hour recorded data of Tu and Td values, we can
estimate the maximum value of U/c, which will definitely show the
unique reference frame K in which the speed of light propagation c has
to be regarded as an isotropic universal constant."
> Clearly, I believe your experiment would fail the same way that the
> Michaelson-Morley experiment failed.
>
It is next to impossible for the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times, between two locations (with constant separation
distance), to be equal under all conditions. You are welcome to
experimentally verify it!
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Theodor Kaluza
http://images.google.fi/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=fi&rlz=1T4ADBF_fiFI258FI262&q=Theodor+Kaluza&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=3ISBStOYNZT2-AbHnfGoCg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4
The fifth dimension: Theodor Kaluza's ground-breaking idea
http://www.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AnP....12..519W
Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Theodor_Kaluza
Theodor Franz Eduard Kaluza 1885 - 1954
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Mathematicians/Kaluza.html
Theodor Kaluza and His Five-Dimensional World
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005tmgm.meet..982W
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:ac767834-d785-4bb7...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Craig Markwardt
> To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that points A and B in
> space represent two Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of
> the solar system. Let the separation distance AB, as measured in
> Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF), be D which remains
> constant over a period of time. Let us assume the two objects A and B
> are moving in BCRF with a common uniform velocity U along AB. If we
> assume that c is the isotropic constant speed of light propagation in
> BCRF, then it can be shown that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of
> the difference between the up-link (from A to B) and down-link (from B
> to A) signal propagation times to the total round trip signal
> propagation time.]
>
> [Obviously, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times can be
> equal only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF. This shows
> that Einstein's fundamental assumption of equating the up-link and
> down-link signal propagation times between A and B inherently implies
> that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the BCRF of the solar
> system. Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time
> between A and B, to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in
> relative uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that
> *all such IRF in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest* in
> BCRF. This simple contradiction shatters the facade of SR.]
Huh? The clocks of Einstein's thought experiment were *assumed* to be
stationary in arriving at the definition of simultaneity. Quoting:
'It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in
the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to
the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary
system."'
It is no surprise that if you relax the assumptions by changing to a
"moving" system, you arrive at a different conclusion. In fact, you
have noticed that simultaneity does not hold in different coordinate
systems. Congratulations!
> For the second *proof by contradiction*, let me reproduce from my
> previous post.
As noted previously, a proper proof by condradiction would be to
accept the postulates of the theory of relativity, and by using the
concepts of relativity consistently, to show that a contradiction
results. Since you did not do this, your conclusions about relativity
are irrelevant. In essence, you invented a "new" theory - not
relativity - which you immediately disproved. Congratulations again!
CM
GSS
Do you go with Einstein regarding the notion of a *stationary system*
or do you have your own notions regarding the same?
Usual meaning of 'stationary' is 'fixed' or 'not moving'. But the
important part of the meaning is contained in the implied notion -
'fixed' 'with respect to certain reference'. If we refer to a
*stationary coordinate system*, it must be clear *with respect to what
reference?*
Specifically, out of the four different reference frames considered in
my analysis, namely - BCRF, GCRF, Galactic Reference Frame, and the
Universal Reference Frame, which one will you regard as the
*stationary system*?
As far as Albert Einstein is concerned, he distinguishes the notion of
*stationary system* from the notion of *absolutely stationary system*.
For him the *absolutely stationary system* means the same as the
Universal Reference Frame and he specifically rules out the existence
of such a reference frame as something 'superfluous' or 'not required'
in his analysis.
As far as the notion of *stationary system* is concerned, he makes it
clear in the opening part of his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of
Moving Bodies".
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to *distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others* which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
''stationary system.'' ]
As per Relativity, all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in relative
uniform motion, constitute a Group of equivalent reference frames. No
particular member of this group can be considered special or preferred
or unique. Hence, out of this group of IRF in relative uniform motion,
there is no particular IRF which is designated as ''stationary
system.'' On the other hand, as per the term used by Einstein, while
comparing two or more IRF, any one of the IRF could be *called* the
''stationary system'' to distinguish it verbally from others.
Therefore, as per Einstein's usage of the term, at any time, any one
of the BCRF, GCRF and the Galactic Reference Frame could be *called*
the ''stationary system''.
Further, as per Einstein,
[We have so far defined only an ''A time'' and a ''B time.'' We have
not defined a common ''time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless 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. Let a ray of light start at the ''A
time'' t_A from A towards B, let it at the ''B time'' t_B be reflected
at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ''A time''
t'_A.]
[In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
t_B - t_ A = t'_A - t_B.]
[We *assume* that this definition of synchronism is *free from
contradictions*, and possible for any number of points.]
In my last post I had shown this assumption to be *not* free from
contradictions.
[In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2 AB/{t'_A- t_A} = c,
to be a universal constant -- the velocity of light in empty space.]
It is highly significant to note that this definition of the speed of
light propagation in empty space is based on the faulty assumption of
equating the up-link and down-link signal propagation times between A
and B. Since, through the second postulate, the speed of light
propagation in empty space has been assumed to be the same constant c
in all IRF in relative uniform motion, it implies that the faulty
assumption of equating the up-link and down-link signal propagation
times between A and B has been extended to all IRF.
It is for this reason that I had stated in my previous post ,
"Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time
between A and B, to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in
relative uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that
*all such IRF in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest* in
BCRF. This simple contradiction shatters the facade of SR."
Craig, this is an absolutely sound *proof by contradiction* that
Relativity is fundamentally invalid. In fact, in the grand maze of the
*unknown*, the Relativity represents a wrong turn, a wrong direction,
which has lead the fundamental physics to the dead end. This blunder
called Relativity, must be corrected, sooner the better.
>> For the second *proof by contradiction*, let me reproduce from my
>> previous post.
>
> As noted previously, a proper proof by contradiction would be to
> accept the postulates of the theory of relativity, and by using the
> concepts of relativity consistently, to show that a contradiction
> results.
No, it is wrong to suggest that a proof by contradiction must *use the
concepts of relativity consistently*.
The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR. In the second
proof by contradiction (presented in the previous posts), I have done
precisely that. By using the universal notion of UTC time, I have
simply shown that accepting the validity of the second postulate of
relativity, leads to a major contradiction. I have also shown that by
simply measuring the up-link and down-link times of signal propagation
between two points A and B (with constant separation), we can detect
the absolute motion in space. This contradicts the founding
assumptions (quoted below) of Albert Einstein.
{If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not
hold, then the Galilean co-ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc., which are
moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for
the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be
constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being
formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only on
condition that, from amongst all possible Galilean co-ordinate
systems, we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of
motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because
of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling
this system "absolutely at rest" and all other Galilean systems K "in
motion". }
{If the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore
expect that the direction of motion of the earth at any moment would
enter into the laws of nature, and also that physical systems in their
behavior would be dependent on the orientation in space with respect
to the earth. For owing to the alteration in direction of the velocity
of revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth cannot
be at rest relative to the hypothetical system K0 throughout the whole
year. *However, the most careful observations have never revealed such
anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space*, i.e. a physical
non-equivalence of different directions. This is very powerful
argument in favor of the principle of relativity. }
How naive! If appropriate technology did not exist in 1905 to reveal
such anisotropic properties in terrestrial physical space, how could
one declare that such technology will never be available in future too
and hence formulate a new theory based on a presumptuous postulate!
Dono.
> I have also shown that by
> simply measuring the up-link and down-link times of signal propagation
> between two points A and B (with constant separation), we can detect
> the absolute motion in space.
You haven't proven anything , Gurcharn.
Run your "experiment" and report back the results. If you are honest
(you aren't) the results will falsify your theory.
Androcles
> On Aug 11, 9:05 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 10, 12:00 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> In the foregoing analysis, c has been assumed to be the universal
>>>>> constant representing the speed of light or signal propagation in
>>>>> vacuum. It is only due to the Relativity dominated current paradigm
>>>>> that we had assumed the speed of signal propagation c to be the same
>>>>> constant in all four reference frames considered above. The above
>>>>> mentioned contradiction due to the inequality of LHS and RHS in three
>>>>> of the four equations (7A to 7D) points to a significant conclusion
>>>>> that c cannot be the same isotropic universal constant in all
>>>>> reference frames.
Craig Marktwit:
>>>> It's odd that you are using classical physics to "disprove"
>>>> relativity. A more logical approach would be to use the full
>>>> prescriptions of relativity, and show that a contradiction exists.
>>>> That is known as a proof by contradiction. Instead you used the
>>>> partial assumptions mixing relativity and classical physics, and then
>>>> attempted to show a contradiction. The contradiction you claim would
>>>> only demonstrate that your initial mixed assumptions were incorrect.
>>
>>>> CM
>> ...
GSS
>>> To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that points A and B in
>>> space represent two Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of
>>> the solar system. Let the separation distance AB, as measured in
>>> Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF), be D which remains
>>> constant over a period of time. Let us assume the two objects A and B
>>> are moving in BCRF with a common uniform velocity U along AB. If we
>>> assume that c is the isotropic constant speed of light propagation in
>>> BCRF, then it can be shown that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of
>>> the difference between the up-link (from A to B) and down-link (from B
>>> to A) signal propagation times to the total round trip signal
>>> propagation time.]
>>
>>> [Obviously, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times can be
>>> equal only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF. This shows
>>> that Einstein's fundamental assumption of equating the up-link and
>>> down-link signal propagation times between A and B inherently implies
>>> that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the BCRF of the solar
>>> system. Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time
>>> between A and B, to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in
>>> relative uniform motion within the BCRF, it obviously implies that
>>> *all such IRF in relative uniform motion are assumed to be at rest* in
>>> BCRF. This simple contradiction shatters the facade of SR.]
>>
Craig Marktwit:
>> Huh? The clocks of Einstein's thought experiment were *assumed* to be
>> stationary in arriving at the definition of simultaneity. Quoting:
>> 'It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in
>> the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to
>> the stationary system we call it ``the time of the stationary
>> system."'
>>
>> It is no surprise that if you relax the assumptions by changing to a
>> "moving" system, you arrive at a different conclusion. In fact, you
>> have noticed that simultaneity does not hold in different coordinate
>> systems. Congratulations!
>>
Androcles:
If simultaneity doesn't hold in a different coordinate system then
"the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will NOT be valid for all
frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. "
But it does, as shown by MMX.
Congratulations, Marktwit, you proved you are a contradictory idiot, in
fact!
Craig Marktwit:
>> As noted previously, a proper proof by contradiction would be to
>> accept the postulates of the theory of relativity, and by using the
>> concepts of relativity consistently, to show that a contradiction
>> results.
>
> No, it is wrong to suggest that a proof by contradiction must *use the
> concepts of relativity consistently*.
>
> The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
> postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
> invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
> postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
> mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR. In the second
> proof by contradiction (presented in the previous posts), I have done
> precisely that. By using the universal notion of UTC time, I have
> simply shown that accepting the validity of the second postulate of
> relativity, leads to a major contradiction. I have also shown that by
> simply measuring the up-link and down-link times of signal propagation
> between two points A and B (with constant separation), we can detect
> the absolute motion in space. This contradicts the founding
> assumptions (quoted below) of Albert Einstein.
>
Albert Fuckwit:
> {If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not
> hold, then the Galilean co-ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc., which are
> moving uniformly relative to each other, will not be equivalent for
> the description of natural phenomena. In this case we should be
> constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being
> formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only on
> condition that, from amongst all possible Galilean co-ordinate
> systems, we should have chosen one (K0) of a particular state of
> motion as our body of reference. We should then be justified (because
> of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in calling
> this system "absolutely at rest" and all other Galilean systems K "in
> motion". }
Albert Fuckwit:
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
http://images.google.fi/images?sourceid=navclient&hl=fi&rlz=1T4ADBF_fiFI258FI262&q=Emma+Lehmer&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=9fqDSs6QO43W-QbuvoC6Ag&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=5
Mathematician Emma Lehmer
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/05/11_emmalehmer.shtml
D�partement Enseignement des Math�matiques
http://ens.math.univ-montp2.fr/SPIP/-Emma-Lehmer-
Theorems of Morley and Emma Lehmer and their generalizations
http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/Binomial/morley.html
Normal integral bases for Emma Lehmer
http://www.emis.de/journals/JTNB/2004-1/SpearmanWilliams.pdf
--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> kirjoitti
viestiss�:717812bd-6b65-47ad...@w41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
GSS
Yes I have. Refer to,
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
Kindly let me know from where did you get the impression that I am not
honest. I consider myself to be one of the most honest persons on this
planet!
GSS
Dono.
> On Aug 13, 8:19 pm, "Dono." <sa...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 13, 8:06 am, ASS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I have also shown that by
> > > simply measuring the up-link and down-link times of signal propagation
> > > between two points A and B (with constant separation), we can detect
> > > the absolute motion in space.
>
> > You haven't proven anything , Gurcharn.
> > Run your "experiment" and report back the results. If you are honest
> > (you aren't) the results will falsify your theory.
>
>
> Kindly let me know from where did you get the impression that I am not
> honest. I consider myself to be one of the most honest persons on this
> planet!
>
You are still lying, Gurcharn
You haven't run any experiment.
Craig Markwardt
> Specifically, out of the four different reference frames considered in
> my analysis, namely - BCRF, GCRF, Galactic Reference Frame, and the
> Universal Reference Frame, which one will you regard as the
> *stationary system*?
As you hint, what is called "stationary" and what is "moving" are
mostly labels.
The referred-to Einstein 1905 document makes clear that the clocks in
question must be fixed in the "stationary" frame in order to be
synchronized. None of the reference frames you list above are
appropriately stationary for your thought experiment. The
"stationary" frame for your two equidistant spacecraft would be the
frame where they remain fixed, not changing coordinate position. In
that frame the spacecraft clocks can be synchronized.
> As per Relativity, all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in relative
> uniform motion, constitute a Group of equivalent reference frames. No
> particular member of this group can be considered special or preferred
> or unique. ...
While that may be true according to special relativity, being
"equivalent" does *not* mean that times and distances as measured by
observers in different coordinate frames will be numerically
identical.
> [In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
> 2 AB/{t'_A- t_A} = c,
> to be a universal constant -- the velocity of light in empty space.]
>
> It is highly significant to note that this definition of the speed of
> light propagation in empty space is based on the faulty assumption of
> equating the up-link and down-link signal propagation times between A
> and B.
It is not highly significant. In the "stationary" coordinate system
where your two spacecraft clocks remain at fixed coordinate positions,
the uplink and downlink times are equal, and Einstein's
synchronization proposition holds.
> Craig, this is an absolutely sound *proof by contradiction* that
> Relativity is fundamentally invalid.
No, it is only a sound proof that if you assume something differently
than Einstein's assumptions (fixed vs moving clocks), you get
different results. That's not a big surprise: different assumptions
lead to different results. Your "proof" has no bearing on the actual
theory of relativity.
> >> For the second *proof by contradiction*, let me reproduce from my
> >> previous post.
>
> > As noted previously, a proper proof by contradiction would be to
> > accept the postulates of the theory of relativity, and by using the
> > concepts of relativity consistently, to show that a contradiction
> > results.
>
> No, it is wrong to suggest that a proof by contradiction must *use the
> concepts of relativity consistently*.
>
> The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
> postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
> invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
> postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
> mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR.
You are incorrect. Postulates are propositions that are *assumed* to
be true. They cannot be formally proved or disproved since their
truth is asserted. (of course, postulates can be tested for
consistency using real world measurements, but you did not do this).
What you actually did was to assume that the numerical measurements of
distance and time were identical in both the solar system barycenter
coordinate frame and the frame where the clocks remain at fixed
coordinates. Under relativity, there is a set prescription for
transforming measured times and distances between two coordinate
frames moving with respect to each other -- the Lorentz transformation
-- which you did not apply. Thus, you got "inconsistent" results, but
only under assumptions that are not applicable to Relativity.
As I said, you essentially created a new theory - not Relativity -
which you then disproved. If you had bothered to apply the time and
distance transformations prescribed by the actual theory of
Relativity, there would not have been an inconsistency. I.e. no
contradiction.
CM
Androcles
"Craig Markwardt" <craig.m...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9198781d-14eb-4470...@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
While that may be true according to special relativity, being
"equivalent" does *not* mean that times and distances as measured by
observers in different coordinate frames will be numerically
identical.
==================================================
What would make them different, Marktwit?
Or should I ask what would *not* make them different, Marktwit?
Why don't you tell us what equivalent DOES mean, dork?
GSS
> On Aug 14, 6:18 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I have also shown that by
>>>> simply measuring the up-link and down-link times of signal propagation
>>>> between two points A and B (with constant separation), we can detect
>>>> the absolute motion in space.
>
>>> You haven't proven anything , Gurcharn.
>> Yes I have. Refer to,
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
>>> Run your "experiment" and report back the results. If you are honest
>>> (you aren't) the results will falsify your theory.
>> Kindly let me know from where did you get the impression that I am not
>> honest. I consider myself to be one of the most honest persons on this
>> planet!
> You are still lying, Gurcharn
> You haven't run any experiment.
I have cleared the ambiguity (as above) in last response.
Since, as a retired person, I am not in a position to undertake this
project, I have requested a large number of academic, research and
space agencies to do so. I hope the results to be available in about
one year.
Dono.
>
> I have cleared the ambiguity (as above) in last response.
>
> Since, as a retired person, I am not in a position to undertake this
> project, I have requested a large number of academic, research and
> space agencies to do so. I hope the results to be available in about
> one year.
>
Gurcharn,
Science agencies do not undertake experiments suggested by crackpots.
GSS
> On Aug 13, 11:06 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> What is a *stationary system*?
> ...
>> Specifically, out of the four different reference frames considered in
>> my analysis, namely - BCRF, GCRF, Galactic Reference Frame, and the
>> Universal Reference Frame, which one will you regard as the
>> *stationary system*?
>
> As you hint, what is called "stationary" and what is "moving" are
> mostly labels.
>
just a label in the present context of our discussions. Further, let
me reproduce a relevant portion of my last post which was deleted by
you.
[...Hence, out of this group of IRF in relative uniform motion, there
is no particular IRF which is designated as ''stationary system.'' On
the other hand, as per the term used by Einstein, while comparing two
or more IRF, any one of the IRF could be *called* the ''stationary
system'' to distinguish it verbally from others. Therefore, as per
Einstein's usage of the term, at any time, any one of the BCRF, GCRF
and the Galactic Reference Frame could be *called* the ''stationary
> The referred-to Einstein 1905 document makes clear that the clocks in
> question must be fixed in the "stationary" frame in order to be
> synchronized.
As has already been clarified, the term "stationary frame" does not
refer to any unique or special IRF. Out of a group of IRF, say K1, K2,
K3, and K4, in relative uniform motion, for any analysis at any time,
any one of these IRF can be *called* "stationary frame" and the "other
frames" then will be considered in motion. What you are trying to
convey here is that as per Relativity, in any IRF under consideration,
only the clocks which are *fixed* in that reference frame can be
synchronized in accordance with "Einstein Synchronization".
> None of the reference frames you list above are
> appropriately stationary for your thought experiment.
Wrong, as per Einstein's usage of the term, any one of the above
listed reference frames can be *called* "stationary frame" at any
time, as explained above.
> The
> "stationary" frame for your two equidistant spacecraft would be the
> frame where they remain fixed, not changing coordinate position. In
> that frame the spacecraft clocks can be synchronized.
>
Again you are wrongly using the term "stationary frame". What you
actually imply here is that we can attach an inertial reference frame
K1 with the two spacecraft A and B, which are moving in BCRF, such
that their separation distance D remains constant. In the K1 frame the
two spacecraft clocks can be regarded as fixed or stationary and hence
can be synchronized in accordance with "Einstein Synchronization".
> In the "stationary" coordinate system
> where your two spacecraft clocks remain at fixed coordinate positions,
> the uplink and downlink times are equal, and Einstein's
> synchronization proposition holds.
>
Let me once again demonstrate the fallacy of your convictions and show
the invalidity of SR through a logical *proof by contradiction*.
Let us consider a BCRF type celestial reference frame K0 in which the
speed of light propagation is assumed to be an isotropic constant c.
In accordance with Einstein's terminology, let us call this reference
frame as *absolutely stationary system*. Consider two ultra-stable
identical precision atomic clocks, perfectly synchronized to UTC time
standard and positioned at two 'fixed' positions A and B respectively
in reference frame K0. Let the separation distance between A and B be
D. It can be easily shown that the up-link signal propagation time (Tu
= t_B - t_A) from point A to point B is exactly equal to the down-link
signal propagation time (Td = t'_A - t_B) from point B to point A.
Now consider two spacecraft A1 and B1, separated by distance D, and
moving in reference frame K0 with a common velocity U along A1B1. Let
us assume that both spacecraft are fitted with ultra-stable identical
precision atomic clocks, which have been perfectly synchronized to UTC
time standard. Let a signal pulse be transmitted from spacecraft A1 at
time t_A towards B1. Let this pulse reach B1 at time t_B and get
reflected back to reach A1 at time t'_A. Then,
Tu = t_B - t_A ........ (1)
Td = t'_A - t_B ......... (2)
Considering the fact that during up-link signal propagation time Tu,
the spacecraft B1 moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we get the total up-
link signal path as,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu ......... (3)
Similarly, considering the fact that during down-link signal
propagation time Td, the spacecraft A1 moves ahead by distance U*Tu,
we get the total down-link signal path as,
D - U*Td = c*Td ......... (4)
Adding equations (3) and (4), we get
c*(Tu + Td) = 2*D + U*(Tu - Td) ....... (5)
Subtracting equation (4) from (3), we get
c*(Tu - Td) = U*(Tu + Td) .... (6)
Now, from equations (5) and (6) we get
c*(Tu - Td) = (U/c)*{2*D + U*(Tu - Td)}
or
(Tu - Td) = (U/c)*(2*D/c)/{1-(U/c)^2} ..... (7)
This is an important result. It shows that for a finite distance D,
the difference between the up-link and down-link times (Tu - Td)
*cannot be zero* unless the common velocity U of spacecraft A1, B1 is
zero. That is, the up-link signal propagation time Tu from A1 to B1
can be *equal* to the down-link signal propagation time Td from B1 to
A1, *only if* A1 and B1 are fixed or stationary in the reference frame
K0.
Next, let us attach an inertial reference frame K1 with the spacecraft
A1, B1 which are separated by a constant distance D. Therefore, in the
K1 reference frame the spacecraft clocks A1 and B1 are both fixed or
"stationary". As such the reference frame K1 can be *called* a
"stationary reference frame" as per Einstein's terminology introduced
in his 1905 paper. Let a signal pulse be transmitted from spacecraft
A1 at time t_A towards B1. Let this pulse reach B1 at time t_B and
get reflected back to reach A1 at time t'_A. Then,
Tu = t_B - t_A ........ (1)
Td = t'_A - t_B ......... (2)
But as per Einstein's 1905 paper,
[We have not defined a common ''time'' for A and B, for the latter
cannot be defined at all unless 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.]
This clearly shows that for any IRF with two "stationary" clocks A and
B, the principal founding assumption regarding the notion of time,
demands that the up-link and down-link signal propagation times
between A and B must be *defined* or ASSUMED to be equal.
Hence, for the reference frame K1 considered above, we must ASSUME the
up-link signal propagation time Tu to be *equal* to the down-link
signal propagation time Td between A1 and B1. Similarly, if there is
another inertial reference frame K2, in relative uniform motion with
respect to K1, with fixed or "stationary" clocks A2 and B2, separated
by constant distance D, then we must ASSUME the up-link signal
propagation time Tu to be *equal* to the down-link signal propagation
time Td between A2 and B2. And this is true for all IRF in relative
uniform motion and fitted with fixed or "stationary" clocks.
But we have already seen from equation (7) above that the up-link
signal propagation time Tu from A1 to B1 can be *equal* to the down-
link signal propagation time Td from B1 to A1, *only if* A1 and B1 are
fixed or stationary in the reference frame K0. This implies that the
inertial reference frames K1, K2 etc. in relative uniform motion, must
be ASSUMED to be fixed or "stationary" in the reference frame K0, to
ensure the equality of Tu and Td between two "stationary" points in
reference frames K1, K2 etc. This is a major contradiction where a
group of IRF in relative uniform motion have been ASSUMED to be at
rest or "stationary" in the absolutely stationary system K0. It is
worth mentioning here that Tu and Td are the results of actual
physical measurements, which are unique regardless of the coordinate
reference frame used for quantifying the positions of the clocks A1
and B1.
>> Craig, this is an absolutely sound *proof by contradiction* that
>> Relativity is fundamentally invalid.
>
> No, it is only a sound proof that if you assume something differently
> than Einstein's assumptions (fixed vs moving clocks), you get
> different results.
That is a trivial statement.
I have pointed out that Einstein's *faulty* assumptions (regarding
notions of time in IRF) lead to logical contradictions - like all IRF
in relative uniform motion ASSUMED to be at rest in K0.
>>>> For the second *proof by contradiction*, let me reproduce from my
>>>> previous post.
>
>>> As noted previously, a proper proof by contradiction would be to
>>> accept the postulates of the theory of relativity, and by using the
>>> concepts of relativity consistently, to show that a contradiction
>>> results.
>
>> No, it is wrong to suggest that a proof by contradiction must *use the
>> concepts of relativity consistently*.
As per your suggestion, if I accept the postulates of SR and use the
concepts of relativity consistently and still manage to show
contradiction, it will simply point to some flaw in the internal or
mathematical structure of SR. It cannot point to the inherent flaws in
the founding postulates.
>> The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
>> postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
>> invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
>> postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
>> mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR.
>
> You are incorrect. Postulates are propositions that are *assumed* to
> be true.
But we don't need to treat Einstein like a 'god' who could not make
*wrong* assumptions!
>They cannot be formally proved or disproved since their
> truth is asserted. (of course, postulates can be tested for
> consistency using real world measurements, but you did not do this).
>
Nor do we need to treat Relativity as a religious belief system!
> What you actually did was to assume that the numerical measurements of
> distance and time were identical in both the solar system barycenter
> coordinate frame and the frame where the clocks remain at fixed
> coordinates.
Yes, this is an important point.
I have used the UTC time standard which has been internationally
accepted as the universal time standard applicable throughout the
solar system. This time standard is globally used for all terrestrial
and space applications. Although the UTC time is valid in BCRF, yet
*none* of the clocks that are used for measuring UTC time are ever at
*rest* in the BCRF.
> Under relativity, there is a set prescription for
> transforming measured times and distances between two coordinate
> frames moving with respect to each other -- the Lorentz transformation
> -- which you did not apply. Thus, you got "inconsistent" results, but
> only under assumptions that are not applicable to Relativity.
>
The set of *prescriptions* under relativity are the *consequences* of
its founding postulates. Hence logically, to prove the invalidity of
the founding postulates of relativity, we must not use its consequent
prescriptions.
> As I said, you essentially created a new theory - not Relativity -
> which you then disproved.
Wrong. Showing invalidity of the founding postulates and the ad-hoc
assumptions of relativity does not amount to creating a new theory.
Yes, I have created a new theory about the origin of elementary
particles and fields as space-time distortions which has been
presented in part II of my recently published book, "Fundamental
Nature of Matter and Fields". Part I of the book covers the
inadequacies of the current paradigm, which includes the fallacies in
the notions of 'spacetime continuum' and space curvature.
Craig Markwardt
> On Aug 14, 8:54 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote:> On Aug 13, 11:06 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >.....
> >> What is a *stationary system*?
> > ...
> >> Specifically, out of the four different reference frames considered in
> >> my analysis, namely - BCRF, GCRF, Galactic Reference Frame, and the
> >> Universal Reference Frame, which one will you regard as the
> >> *stationary system*?
>
> > As you hint, what is called "stationary" and what is "moving" are
> > mostly labels.
>
> But then we should stick to this notion of the term "stationary" being
> just a label in the present context of our discussions. Further, let
> me reproduce a relevant portion of my last post which was deleted by
> you.
> [...Hence, out of this group of IRF in relative uniform motion, there
> is no particular IRF which is designated as ''stationary system.'' On
> the other hand, as per the term used by Einstein, while comparing two
> or more IRF, any one of the IRF could be *called* the ''stationary
> system'' to distinguish it verbally from others. Therefore, as per
> Einstein's usage of the term, at any time, any one of the BCRF, GCRF
> and the Galactic Reference Frame could be *called* the ''stationary
> system''.]
I decline to debate your redefinition of commonly understood terms.
While it is true in relativity that no inertial frame is
preferred over another -- and perhaps "equivalent" in that sense
-- such a stipulation does *not* mean that observers in different
frames will measure numerically equal times or distances.
Measurements in inertial frames are linked by the Lorentz
transformation -- which you ignored.
Einstein's "stationary" frame is special in this problem for a
reason. It is the
frame where the relevant clocks are at fixed coordinates,
i.e. the clocks have zero velocity. Einstein's synchronization
proposition holds in that frame only, for those clocks. If you
wish, you can give it a different name, but the synchronization
proposition still holds only for the frame where the clocks are
at fixed coordinate position.
Your attempt to apply the synchronization proposition in a
different frame, where the clocks are in motion, is irrelevant
[1]. Your redefinition of the commonly understood word "fixed"
to mean "moving" is erroneous, unsubstantiated and therefore
irrelevant.
One ironic aspect of this situation is that *if* one applies
special relativity properly and performs the appropriate Lorentz
transformations -- which you did not -- one would find explicitly
that syncrhonization does not hold. One would find that, while
"uplink" and "downlink" times are *not* equal in the solar system
barycenter frame, they are equal in the frame comoving with the
spacecraft. This is a consequence of Einsteins SR and the
Lorentz transformation.
[1] - your application is irrelevant for the purposes of proof by
contradiction, where one must assume all aspects of the theory
are true.
...
> >>>> For the second *proof by contradiction*, let me reproduce from my
> >>>> previous post.
>
> >>> As noted previously, a proper proof by contradiction would be to
> >>> accept the postulates of the theory of relativity, and by using the
> >>> concepts of relativity consistently, to show that a contradiction
> >>> results.
>
> >> No, it is wrong to suggest that a proof by contradiction must *use the
> >> concepts of relativity consistently*.
>
> As per your suggestion, if I accept the postulates of SR and use the
> concepts of relativity consistently and still manage to show
> contradiction, it will simply point to some flaw in the internal or
> mathematical structure of SR. It cannot point to the inherent flaws in
> the founding postulates.
That is irrelevant. With formal logic, you cannot "disprove"
postulates.
> >> The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
> >> postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
> >> invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
> >> postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
> >> mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR.
>
> > You are incorrect. Postulates are propositions that are *assumed* to
> > be true.
>
> But we don't need to treat Einstein like a 'god' who could not make
> *wrong* assumptions!
You must be having trouble understanding how a proof by contradiction
works. How we treat Einstein is irrelevant. For the purposes of a
proof by contradiction, the elements of the theory must be assumed to
be all true, and that a contradiction logically arises.
...
> > What you actually did was to assume that the numerical measurements of
> > distance and time were identical in both the solar system barycenter
> > coordinate frame and the frame where the clocks remain at fixed
> > coordinates.
>
> Yes, this is an important point.
> I have used the UTC time standard which has been internationally
> accepted as the universal time standard applicable throughout the
> solar system. This time standard is globally used for all terrestrial
> and space applications. Although the UTC time is valid in BCRF, yet
> *none* of the clocks that are used for measuring UTC time are ever at
> *rest* in the BCRF.
What you "used" is irrelevant. It is ironic that UTC is *not* a
universal time standard in the solar system, but TDB, TCB, Ephemeris
Time are. In fact, those time systems differ from UTC (and TAI) by
relativistic terms which are absolutely required by observational
data.
In any case, you missed the point. Since you are applying your
"theory" to clocks moving in the solar system barycenter frame, but
not applying the Lorentz transformation to measured times and
distances, your conclusions are irrelevant. The Lorentz
transformation is a fundamental element of the special theory of
relativity.
Your "UTC" -- which you erroneously claim to be the time system of the
solar system barycenter -- is not necessarily synchronized with your
two spacecraft clocks, or even ticking at the same observed rate (in
either coordinate frame).
> > Under relativity, there is a set prescription for
> > transforming measured times and distances between two coordinate
> > frames moving with respect to each other -- the Lorentz transformation
> > -- which you did not apply. Thus, you got "inconsistent" results, but
> > only under assumptions that are not applicable to Relativity.
>
> The set of *prescriptions* under relativity are the *consequences* of
> its founding postulates. Hence logically, to prove the invalidity of
> the founding postulates of relativity, we must not use its consequent
> prescriptions.
What *you* assumed, but Einstein did not, is that multiple clocks can
synchronized in two different inertial frames. Einstein found that
the Lorentz transformation could satisfy his two postulates, but that
required leaving behind intuitive notions of simultaneity or common
distance "rulers." You, on the other hand, are trying to force your
intuition onto the problem and thereby only apply "half" of Einstein's
theory. You are missing the Lorentz transformation.
Again, for a proof by contradiction, one must assume that all elements
of the theory are true, and then show a contradiction arises. You did
not.
CM
Androcles
===============================================
Then fuck off! He's clarifying, not redefining at all.
I decline to debate your arrogance and stupidity.
GSS
wrote:> .....
> While it is true in relativity that no inertial frame is
> preferred over another -- and perhaps "equivalent" in that sense
> -- such a stipulation does *not* mean that observers in different
> frames will measure numerically equal times or distances.
In order to highlight the inherent ambiguity or contradiction in your
above statement, let me quote from my isotropy experiment article,
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/isotropy_experiment.pdf?attredirects=0
"For conducting this experiment, the Solid State Pulsed Laser is to be
operated in a single shot mode. In this mode the electrical pulse from
the controller or Event Timer will trigger the Laser at point A to
send out a short laser pulse towards point B. The emission of laser
pulse at point A will trigger the clock time readout (t1) at A. This
time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will get recorded in the
data acquisition computer at A. When the laser pulse transmitted from
point A, reaches the photo detector at B, it will be captured by the
detector to produce a trigger pulse for time readout (t2) at point B.
This time readout, with a nanosecond resolution, will get recorded in
the data acquisition computer at B. The two computers located at
points A and B, may be inter connected through a computer network or
the Internet. The difference between these two time readouts at B and
A will provide the up-link pulse propagation time (Tu = t2 – t1) from
point A to point B, in nanoseconds."
Kindly position your *observers* in different reference frames, say
(a) Observer O1in the local reference frame K1 where both the clocks
(separated by distance D) are 'stationary' or 'fixed' or 'at rest'.
(b) Observer O2 in Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF) with
respect to which the above mentioned K1 reference frame is in motion
along line AB at velocity U2 (say 30 km/s).
(c) Observer O3 in Galactic Reference Frame with respect to which the
above mentioned K1 reference frame is in motion along line AB at
velocity U3 (say 300 km/s).
If as per your statement "observers in different frames will measure
numerically different times", kindly let me know that corresponding to
the times t1 and t2 read out from the two clocks in the above example,
what times the different *observers* O1, O2 and O3 will read? If it is
possible for you, kindly describe the physical mechanism through which
different observers will *actually* take different time read outs.
[Kindly give the answer to the best of your knowledge and belief, but
don't evade the question by deleting it entirely]
>....
> One ironic aspect of this situation is that *if* one applies
> special relativity properly and performs the appropriate Lorentz
> transformations -- which you did not -- one would find explicitly
> that synchronization does not hold. One would find that, while
> "uplink" and "downlink" times are *not* equal in the solar system
> barycenter frame, they are equal in the frame comoving with the
> spacecraft. This is a consequence of Einsteins SR and the
> Lorentz transformation.
>
In the above quoted example, *if* we actually obtain one set of up-
link (Tu) and down-link (Td) timing data, will you be able to guess
the particular reference frame in which the two clocks have 'chosen'
themselves to be physically located? For example if the difference in
Tu and Td is zero, you should be able to guess that the two clocks A
and B are 'resting' in the local frame K1, but if the difference is
non-zero then
the two clocks must be in 'motion' in BCRF or some other frame!
> ...
>> As per your suggestion, if I accept the postulates of SR and use the
>> concepts of relativity consistently and still manage to show
>> contradiction, it will simply point to some flaw in the internal or
>> mathematical structure of SR. It cannot point to the inherent flaws in
>> the founding postulates.
>
> That is irrelevant. With formal logic, you cannot "disprove"
> postulates.
>
>>>> The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
>>>> postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
>>>> invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
>>>> postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
>>>> mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR.
>
>>> You are incorrect. Postulates are propositions that are *assumed* to
>>> be true.
>
>> But we don't need to treat Einstein like a 'god' who could not make
>> *wrong* assumptions!
>
> You must be having trouble understanding how a proof by contradiction
> works. How we treat Einstein is irrelevant. For the purposes of a
> proof by contradiction, the elements of the theory must be assumed to
> be all true, and that a contradiction logically arises.
>
Again you keep harping on the same point. I have repeatedly clarified
to you that to *prove* the invalidity of the founding postulates or
founding assumptions of SR, I don't need to use the mathematical
structure or the consequent concepts of the theory. Just imagine, had
someone actually demonstrated the absolute motion in space or
established the absolute or Universal Reference Frame by precision
measurements of the up-link and down-link signal propagation times
before 1905, then could Einstein still go ahead to pronounce the
second postulate of relativity?
Even now, if it is actually demonstrated to you, through precision
measurements of a series of up-link and down-link times in the
proposed experiment, that the solar system is moving through space at
a velocity of, say 430 km/s, will you accept the formal demise of
Relativity or will you still like to sustain it somehow by using
Lorentz Transformations?
GSS
Dono.
>
> Even now, if it is actually demonstrated to you, through precision
> measurements of a series of up-link and down-link times in the
> proposed experiment,
You haven't performed any measurements, give it a rest, old fart.
Craig Markwardt
> On Aug 20, 12:30 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 18, 6:15 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > .....
> > While it is true in relativity that no inertial frame is
> > preferred over another -- and perhaps "equivalent" in that sense
> > -- such a stipulation does *not* mean that observers in different
> > frames will measure numerically equal times or distances.
>
> In order to highlight the inherent ambiguity or contradiction in your
If your question is whether "moving" observers will somehow read the
digits of the clock located at rest in the laboratory differently than
the laboratory computers in your hypothetical situation, that is
irrelevant. Relativity is not about reading digits or passing
messages.
However, consider a "moving" observer, perhaps moving through the
laboratory on a rail car. The moving observer has his own free-
running clock, ruler, and photoreceptors. He would find that the time
between emission and reception, and the distance the light travels,
are not the same as those measured by the laboratory observer. As
already noted multiple times, the method for computing the times and
distances in different coordinate frames is the Lorentz
transformation.
It is possible for the laboratory observer to apply Einstein's
synchronization principle to the clocks at rest in the laboratory,
since they are at rest. It is also possible for the rail car observer
to apply the synchronization principle to the clocks on his rail car
(because they are at rest in his coordinate frame). But Einstein's
synchronization principle is *not* applicable when the laboratory
observer attempts to use the "moving" clocks.
> > One ironic aspect of this situation is that *if* one applies
> > special relativity properly and performs the appropriate Lorentz
> > transformations -- which you did not -- one would find explicitly
> > that synchronization does not hold. One would find that, while
> > "uplink" and "downlink" times are *not* equal in the solar system
> > barycenter frame, they are equal in the frame comoving with the
> > spacecraft. This is a consequence of Einsteins SR and the
> > Lorentz transformation.
>
> In the above quoted example, *if* we actually obtain one set of up-
> link (Tu) and down-link (Td) timing data, will you be able to guess
> the particular reference frame in which the two clocks have 'chosen'
> themselves to be physically located? For example if the difference in
> Tu and Td is zero, you should be able to guess that the two clocks A
> and B are 'resting' in the local frame K1, but if the difference is
> non-zero then
> the two clocks must be in 'motion' in BCRF or some other frame!
It is true that an independent observer in a different coordinate
frame, with his own independent clocks, would measure different values
of t1, t2, and t3 than the spacecraft would, in accord with the
predictions of the Lorentz transformation. Comparing their results
afterward, the observers in the two different frames - spacecraft
frame vs. "BCRF" frame - could indeed determine that they were moving
with respect to each other. Is that really a surprise? Relativity
never guaranteed simultaneity between different inertial frames.
> > ...
> >> As per your suggestion, if I accept the postulates of SR and use the
> >> concepts of relativity consistently and still manage to show
> >> contradiction, it will simply point to some flaw in the internal or
> >> mathematical structure of SR. It cannot point to the inherent flaws in
> >> the founding postulates.
>
> > That is irrelevant. With formal logic, you cannot "disprove"
> > postulates.
I note no response.
> >>>> The Special Theory Of Relativity (SR) is founded on two main
> >>>> postulates along with a number of ad-hoc assumptions. To prove the
> >>>> invalidity of SR, if I can show the invalidity of its founding
> >>>> postulates and assumptions, I don't even need to comment on the
> >>>> mathematical structure or the associated concepts of SR.
>
> >>> You are incorrect. Postulates are propositions that are *assumed* to
> >>> be true.
>
> >> But we don't need to treat Einstein like a 'god' who could not make
> >> *wrong* assumptions!
>
> > You must be having trouble understanding how a proof by contradiction
> > works. How we treat Einstein is irrelevant. For the purposes of a
> > proof by contradiction, the elements of the theory must be assumed to
> > be all true, and that a contradiction logically arises.
>
> Again you keep harping on the same point. I have repeatedly clarified
> to you that to *prove* the invalidity of the founding postulates or
> founding assumptions of SR, I don't need to use the mathematical
> structure or the consequent concepts of the theory. ...
Whether or not I am "harping" is irrelevant. If you are having
trouble understanding a proof by contradiction or what a postulate is,
then of what use is your "disproof?"
Your further error, which has been pointed out to you several times,
but you ignore, is that you have made the additional assumption - not
in relativity - that all clocks everywhere can remain synchronized.
Quoting: "I have used the UTC time standard ... applicable throughout
the solar system." [1] Einstein did *not* assume that this could be
done, and it is not a logical consequence of relativity. In fact, one
of the surprises of relativity was that simultaneity is not
preserved. Therefore, you have created a new theory - let's call it
Simultaneity - which is not relativity. You disproved Simultaneity,
but since your new theory is not relativity, your "disproof" is
irrelevant to the question of the validity of relativity.
[1] The "UTC" time system - or even the more appropriate TDB/TCB/ET
time systems - are not applicable "throughout the solar system"
because not all bodies or clocks in the solar system are traveling at
the same speed.
> Even now, if it is actually demonstrated to you, through precision
> measurements of a series of up-link and down-link times in the
> proposed experiment, that the solar system is moving through space at
> a velocity of, say 430 km/s, will you accept the formal demise of
> Relativity or will you still like to sustain it somehow by using
> Lorentz Transformations?
I would gladly go where the data leads me. However, yours is a fool's
question. As you should be well aware from previous discussions, I
*am* in possession of high precision spacecraft Doppler tracking
data. And in fact I *have* compared the differences between
relativistic and non-relativistic light propagation models with real
data. Such data is extremely sensitive to very small effects, even
the (v/c)^2 effects of relativity, even at much smaller speeds of a
few km/s.
And the truth is that a non-Relativistic model is far less consistent
with actual data than the relativistic model, by a factor of almost
one thousand. This is also ignoring other predictions by General
Relativity which are also required by the data. I'm also aware of
many other observations, not just my own, which are consistent with
relativity. You pretend that somehow the presence of new high
precision spacecraft data will magically disprove relativity, but in
fact, high precision spacecraft tracking data has been available for
several decades, and all of the data requires the principles of
relativity to be correct to within very tight constraints.
CM
Androcles
==========================================
Ok...
However, consider a "moving" observer, perhaps moving through the
laboratory on a rail car. The moving observer has his own free-
running clock, ruler, and photoreceptors.
==============================================
Relativity is not about photoreceptors.
Relativity is not about free-running rulers or clocks.
He would find that the time
between emission and reception, and the distance the light travels,
are not the same as those measured by the laboratory observer.
===========================================
Relativity is not about reading digits on rulers.
Relativity is not about reading digits on clocks.
As
already noted multiple times, the method for computing the times and
distances in different coordinate frames is the Lorentz
transformation.
============================================
Relativity is not about computing.
It is possible for the laboratory observer to apply Einstein's
synchronization principle to the clocks at rest in the laboratory,
since they are at rest.
============================================
Relativity is not about reading digits simultaneously.
Craig Markwardt is not about to discuss fuckin' sense.
Craig Markwardt is not about to become sane.
GSS
> If your question is whether "moving" observers will somehow read the
> digits of the clock located at rest in the laboratory differently than
> the laboratory computers in your hypothetical situation, that is
> irrelevant. Relativity is not about reading digits or passing
> messages.
>
physical measurements with real atomic clocks, because taking digital
readouts of time had never been considered in Einstein's thought
experiments. But you are wrong if you really take that view. Physical
measurements are an essential component of Relativity. At any instant
t1, if we take a digital readout of precision atomic clock, that does
constitute a physical measurement.
> However, consider a "moving" observer, perhaps moving through the
> laboratory on a rail car. The moving observer has his own free-
> running clock, ruler, and photoreceptors. He would find that the time
> between emission and reception, and the distance the light travels,
> are not the same as those measured by the laboratory observer.
This is pathetic!
To make sense of what the digital time readouts of two time instants
t1 ant t2 mean to different observers, you need to introduce a rail
car, "moving" observer with his *own* free-running clock and
ruler ..........
> As already noted multiple times, the method for computing the
> times and distances in different coordinate frames is the Lorentz
> transformation.
>
Are you sure you can use Lorentz transformation on digital readouts of
UTC time instants t1 and t2 as obtained in the above example?
> It is possible for the laboratory observer to apply Einstein's
> synchronization principle to the clocks at rest in the laboratory,
> since they are at rest. It is also possible for the rail car observer
> to apply the synchronization principle to the clocks on his rail car
> (because they are at rest in his coordinate frame). But Einstein's
> synchronization principle is *not* applicable when the laboratory
> observer attempts to use the "moving" clocks.
>
How can a laboratory observer *use* the "moving" clocks? Perhaps you
mean to say that a laboratory observer cannot synchronize the "moving
clocks". What about GPS clock synchronization?
Well, there appears to be too much hocus pocus about the notions of
"stationary" and "moving" clocks in relativity. Let me, therefore,
clarify the situation from the point of view of relativity as well as
of classical physics.
The physical measurement or digital readout of a precision atomic
clock at any instant, provides us with a unique number which is
*valid* for all reference frames. While the atomic clocks A and B, in
the above example, are considered to be at rest or "stationary" in the
local or laboratory reference frame K1, they can be simultaneously
viewed as "in motion" in the Barycentric reference frame BCRF as well
as in the Galactic reference frame.
In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is
an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference
frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame. As
such, the time readouts t1 and t2 in the above example will be
regarded as the times of "stationary" clocks in the laboratory frame
K1 but the same readouts t1 and t2 will also be regarded as the times
of clocks "in motion" in the BCRF and Galactic reference frames.
However, apart from the clocks "in motion" in BCRF and the Galactic
reference frames, an additional set of "stationary" clocks are assumed
to be at rest or fixed with respect to the origins of these reference
coordinates. Further, within any inertial reference frame, say BCRF,
the time rate of a clock in "motion" is assumed to be related to the
time rate of its "stationary" clock through Lorentz transformation.
This also implies that when you consider two inertial reference frames
(IRF) in relative uniform motion, the time rate of a "stationary"
clock of one IRF will be related to the time rate of a "stationary"
clock of the second IRF through Lorentz transformation.
In the above example, when the digital atomic clock A is viewed as a
clock "in motion" in BCRF, its time rate is assumed to be related to
the time rate of the assumed "stationary" clocks in BCRF through the
Lorentz transformation. This is a necessary consequence of the second
postulate of SR.
Now let us come back to our original problem of showing the invalidity
of SR through a proof by contradiction.
As explained above, the time readouts t1 and t2 in the above example
will be regarded as the times of "stationary" clocks A and B in the
laboratory frame K1 but the same readouts t1 and t2 will be regarded
as the times of clocks "in motion" in the BCRF and Galactic reference
frames. Similarly the up-link and down-link signal propagation times
Tu and Td, computed from the digital time readouts, will be regarded
as the times obtained from the "stationary" clock system in the
laboratory frame K1 but the same up-link and down-link times Tu and
Td, will also be regarded as the times obtained from the clock system
"in motion" in the BCRF and Galactic reference frames. However, for
the "stationary" clock system in the laboratory frame K1, the up-link
and down-link times Tu and Td must be equal as per Einstein's
definition of time for a "stationary" system. But as per your
understanding developed from the analysis of spacecraft trajectories,
the up-link and down-link times Tu and Td must not be equal for the
clock system "in motion" in the BCRF and Galactic reference frames.
Here is the contradiction. Tu and Td are the up-link and down-link
times obtained from physical measurements. They are required to be
equal when viewed as belonging to a "stationary" system of the
laboratory frame K1 but are required to be un-equal when viewed as
belonging to a "moving" system of the BCRF or the Galactic reference
frame. This contradiction invalidates the second postulate of SR.
When we actually conduct the experiment, what do you expect the the up-
link and down-link times Tu and Td to be, equal or un-equal?
GSS
>
>>> One ironic aspect of this situation is that *if* one applies
>>> special relativity properly and performs the appropriate Lorentz
>>> transformations -- which you did not -- one would find explicitly
>>> that synchronization does not hold. One would find that, while
>>> "uplink" and "downlink" times are *not* equal in the solar system
>>> barycenter frame, they are equal in the frame comoving with the
>>> spacecraft. This is a consequence of Einsteins SR and the
>>> Lorentz transformation.
>
.............
GSS
> On Aug 25, 1:01 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ....
>>>> While it is true in relativity that no inertial frame is
>>>> preferred over another -- and perhaps "equivalent" in that sense
>>>> -- such a stipulation does *not* mean that observers in different
>>>> frames will measure numerically equal times or distances.
>>>> One would find that, while "uplink" and "downlink" times
>>>> are *not* equal in the solar system barycenter frame, they are
>>>> equal in the frame comoving with the spacecraft.
Friends,
On the issue of detection of absolute motion in space, through
measurement of tiny differences in the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times between two 'fixed' points, I had prolonged
discussions with Craig Markwardt. Apart from a few 'harsh' comments,
the discussions were generally pleasant and useful. The fact that he
did not refute my final arguments on the issue implies that he
conceded my viewpoint regarding invalidation of second postulate of
SR.
Any Relativity expert who does not agree with my viewpoint presented
in my last post of Aug 31, is welcome to give a detailed justification
for any disagreement.
During my discussions with Craig, I got the impression that a lot of
confusion prevails in Relativity regarding the notion of instantaneous
time readouts of digital atomic clocks, especially when these clocks
are "stationary" or in "motion" in different reference frames.
Regarding the notion of *stationary system* Einstein makes it clear in
the opening part of his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies".
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to *distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others* which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
''stationary system.'' ]
As per Relativity, all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in relative
uniform motion, constitute a Group of equivalent reference frames. No
particular member of this group can be considered special or preferred
or unique. Hence, out of this group of IRF in relative uniform motion,
there is no particular IRF which is designated as ''stationary
system.'' On the other hand, as per the term used by Einstein, while
comparing two or more IRF, any one of the IRF could be *called* the
''stationary system'' to distinguish it verbally from others.
Therefore, as per Einstein's usage of the term, at any time, any one
of the BCRF, GCRF and the Galactic Reference Frame could be *called*
the ''stationary system''.
Further, as per Einstein,
[We have so far defined only an ''A time'' and a ''B time.'' We have
not defined a common ''time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless 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. Let a ray of light start at the ''A
time'' t_A from A towards B, let it at the ''B time'' t_B be reflected
at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ''A time''
t'_A. ]
[In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
t_B - t_ A = t'_A - t_B.]
[It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in
the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to
the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system."]
This notion of "time of the stationary system" implies the fixed
location of identical clocks at all points of space and synchronized
in accordance with Einstein synchronization convention.
Let us designate the "stationary system" defined above as inertial
reference frame K, in which the two clocks located at points A and B,
separated by constant distance D, are "stationary". Therefore, as per
the definition of the time of the stationary system K,
t_B - t_ A = t'_A - t_B
However, in relativity, most often the symbol t is used to depict the
instantaneous time of a "stationary" clock and t' is used to depict
the instantaneous time of a "moving" clock. To avoid any ambiguity in
subsequent discussions, we shall use the symbol T (in place of t') to
depict the instantaneous time of a "moving" clock. Further, in such
time depiction, we shall also include the notation of the IRF in which
the position and velocity of the clock is referenced, such as t(K) or T
(K) for the times of stationary and moving clocks in reference frame
K.
Now consider two spacecraft A and B, separated by distance D, and
moving in reference frame K with a common velocity U along AB. Let us
assume that both spacecraft are fitted with ultra-stable identical
precision atomic clocks, which have been perfectly synchronized to UTC
time standard. Let a signal pulse be transmitted from spacecraft A
(moving clock) at time T_A(K) towards B. Let this pulse reach B at
time T_B(K) and get reflected back to reach A at time T'_A(K). Then
the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td) signal propagation times are given
by,
Tu = T_B(K) - T_A(K) ........ (1)
Td = T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ......... (2)
Considering the fact that during up-link signal propagation time Tu,
the spacecraft B moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we get the total up-
link signal path as,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu ......... (3)
Similarly, considering the fact that during down-link signal
propagation time Td, the spacecraft A moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we
get the total down-link signal path as,
D - U*Td = c*Td ......... (4)
Subtracting equation (4) from (3), we get
c*(Tu - Td) = U*(Tu + Td) .... (5)
Or (Tu - Td) = (U/c)*(Tu + Td) .... (6)
and U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)
It is important to note here that T_A(K) and T_B(K) are the
instantaneous time readouts of atomic clocks A and B which are
"moving" in reference frame K with a velocity U along direction AB.
Since these are the readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-link and down-
link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by equations (1) and (2)
are not expected to be equal. As per Relativity, the instantaneous
time readouts of "moving" clocks can be transformed to the
corresponding time readouts of "stationary" clocks in reference frame
K, through Lorentz Transformation (LT).
t_A(K) = LT{T_A(K)}
t_B(K) = LT{T_B(K)}
t'_A(K) = LT{T'_A(K)} ...... (8)
Now in accordance with Einstein convention for synchronization of
"stationary" clocks
t_B(K) - t_ A(K) = t'_A(K) - t_B(K) ...... (9)
We can attach an inertial reference frame K1 with the two spacecraft A
and B, which are moving in reference frame K, such that their
separation distance D remains constant. In K1 frame the two spacecraft
clocks can be regarded as fixed or "stationary" and their
instantaneous time readouts corresponding to T_A(K), T_B(K) and T'_A
(K) can be written as t_A(K1), t_B(K1) and t'_A(K1) respectively.
Again as per Relativity, the instantaneous time readouts of
"stationary" clocks in inertial reference frame K1 can be transformed
to the corresponding time readouts of "stationary" clocks in reference
frame K, through Lorentz Transformation.
t_A(K) = LT{t_A(K1)}
t_B(K) = LT{t_B(K1)}
t'_A(K) = LT{t'_A(K1)} ...... (10)
However, the Lorentz Transformations (8) and (10) correspond to the
same physical situation in which the instantaneous digital time
readouts of clocks A and B are transformed to the corresponding
timings of the "stationary" clocks in reference frame K. That implies
the identity of instantaneous digital time readouts of the clocks
considered "moving" in reference frame K and "stationary" in reference
frame K1. As such,
T_A(K) = t_A(K1)
T_B(K) = t_B(K1)
T'_A(K) = t'_A(K1) ........ (11)
Further, as per Einstein's *definition* of time in a "stationary
system", the up-link and down-link signal propagation times are
*assumed* to be equal in reference frame K1. Therefore,
t_B(K1) - t_ A(K1) = t'_A(K1) - t_B(K1) ...... (12)
As noted earlier, for the time readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by
equations (1) and (2) are not expected to be equal.
T_B(K) - T_A(K) <> T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ..... (13)
Or Tu - Td <> 0
And U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)
Equations (11), (12) and (13) bring out a devastating contradiction
that the signal propagation times Tu and Td are supposed to be equal
(equation (12)) when the clocks A and B are considered "stationary" in
reference frame K1 but are supposed to be un-equal (equation (13))
when the same clocks are viewed as "moving" in reference frame K.
However, as per equation (7) above, the up-link signal propagation
time Tu from A to B can be *equal* to the down-link signal propagation
time Td from B to A, *only if* A and B are fixed or stationary in the
reference frame K and their common velocity U along AB is zero. This
implies that the inertial reference frames K1, K2 etc. in relative
uniform motion, must be ASSUMED to be fixed or "stationary" in the
reference frame K, to ensure the equality of Tu and Td between two
"stationary" points in reference frames K1, K2 etc. This is a major
contradiction where a group of IRF in relative uniform motion have
been ASSUMED to be at rest or "stationary" in the absolutely
stationary system K. It is worth mentioning here that Tu and Td are
the results of actual physical measurements, which are unique
regardless of the coordinate reference frame used for quantifying the
positions of the clocks A and B.
Finally, given that c is the isotropic constant speed of light
propagation in reference frame K, we can determine the common velocity
U of A and B, along AB, through measurement of the up-link and down-
link signal propagation times between A and B. Since the up-link and
down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td, between A and B,
constitute unique physical measurements, the maximum value of U thus
obtained (for certain orientation of AB) will represent absolute
motion in space, with reference frame K designated as Absolute or
Universal Reference Frame.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
The proposed method of detecting the absolute motion in space is
considered unique, the like of which
has not been conducted by anybody so far. It is unique in following
respects.
(a) There is no attempt to measure the speed of light at all.
(b) There is no need to measure the distance between two points A and
B for conducting the test.
(c) There is no dependence on the wave properties of light for
measuring any interference effects or fringe shifts. The test does not
involve any reflection of waves from moving mirrors.
(d) For detecting the absolute motion in space, of two points A and B
fixed on the surface of earth, we need to measure only the up-link
(Tu) and down-link (Td) signal propagation times between A and B.
(e) The result depends on the difference between Tu and Td, due to
which the hardware delays and atmospheric signal propagation delays
get canceled out.
Dono.
>
> > .............
>
> Friends,
> On the issue of detection of absolute motion in space,
Why don't you fuck orr, Gurcharn?
funkenstein
> On Aug 31, 6:53 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 25, 1:01 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ....
>
> Friends,
> On the issue of detection of absolute motion in space,
I assume that by "absolute motion in space" you mean "motion relative
to the space-time medium". Motion is ALWAYS relative so "absolute" is
the wrong word to use.
Not so. You need to be more specific what you mean by D. It looks
like you want to use a Lorentzian relativity in which the space-time
medium is specifically considered, and calculations are carried out
from the rest frame of said medium, in which the speed of light is c.
If so, the distance D' between these spacecraft in the rest frame of
the medium is a function of the distance measured in the moving frame
(using a light reflection) and also on the speed through the medium.
You'll find that in the end the speed of the medium will cancel out
and is not detectable. This medium is indeed superfluous in such
relativistic calculations, including it also works to match
predictions but is clumsy and adds work.
Cheers -
Androcles
"funkenstein" <luke...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e4e11007-e140-4977...@c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 29, 7:43 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 31, 6:53 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 25,
> 1:01 pm, Craig Markwardt <craig.markwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ....
> >>>> [snip]
>
> Friends,
> On the issue of detection of absolute motion in space,
I assume that by "absolute motion in space" you mean "motion relative
to the space-time medium". Motion is ALWAYS relative so "absolute" is
the wrong word to use.
======================================================
Correct. However, consider a universe in which there are only two bodies,
A and B, one of which has a greater mass than the other. The motion of
each body is relative to the other and nothing more can be said about them.
But when we introduce a hypothetical third body C remote from the first
pair that does not interact with either A or B we find that A and B
(assuming they do not collide) orbit about a common barycentre which is
fixed in the frame of the remote third body. We further find that the more
massive body moves more slowly about the barycentre than the less
massive. In terms of momentum, Mv + mV = 0. In C's frame of reference
the barycentre does not move; A and B can be considered as single unit
AB which is at absolute rest w.r.t. C.
In more immediate terms, the Sun "sees" the Moon and Earth orbiting
their common barycentre. If we then step outside the solar system we can
see the Sun, C, and the unit AB (Earth and Moon) in orbit about another
shared barycentre that has no motion with respect to D, the galactic
centre. And if we repeat the procedure, stepping outside the galaxy,
the same rule applies. So now we have the galaxy at absolute rest,
except that it moves with respect to another galaxy and it is the common
barycentre of the two galaxies that doesn't move when seen from
a remote location. What's left is the entire universe, and that HAS
to be at rest because there is nothing left to compare its motion to.
Absolute space is that frame where the sum of the momenta of all the
bodies in the universe is zero, and "absolute" is the correct word to use.
In Newton's day it was the "fixed" stars, but they are not fixed and we
can extend to the "fixed" galaxies -- but they are not fixed either... but
their common barycentre is, there is nothing for it to move relatively to.
glird
>< In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is
an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference
frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame. >
It was neither postulate 1 or 2; it was Einstein's method of setting
clocks to MEASURE the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A
and b and back again the same each way. THAT method of esynching
clocks (which he defined as "synchronism") is why the time of a given
system is dependent on the position of a clock in a given system and
the state of motion (whether known or not) of that system.
glird
GSS
> "funkenstein" <luke.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I highly appreciate your viewpoint. Your explanation of the notion of
"absolute" is excellent.
Thanks.
GSS
GSS
No, in my opinion, Einstein's synchronization procedure was defined
that way in order to sustain the second postulate.
GSS
Androcles
Thanks.
GSS
=================================================
Thank Newton, not me. All I did was bring it up-to-date, Newton had no
knowledge of galaxies.
I. Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature
flows equably without regard to anything external, and by another name is
called duration: relative, apparent, and common time, is some sensible and
external (whether accurate or unequable) measure of duration by the means of
motion, which is commonly used instead of true time; such as an hour, a day,
a month, a year.
II. Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external,
remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable
dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by
its position to bodies; and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space;
such is the dimension of a subterraneaneous, an �real, or celestial space,
determined by its position in respect of the earth. Absolute and relative
space, are the same in figure and magnitude; but they do not remain always
numerically the same. For if the earth, for instance, moves, a space of our
air, which relatively and in respect of the earth remains always the same,
will at one time be one part of the absolute space into which the air
passes; at another time it will be another part of the same, and so,
absolutely understood, it will be perpetually mutable.
III. Place is a part of space which a body takes up, and is according to the
space, either absolute or relative. I say, a part of space; not the
situation nor the external surface of the body. For the places of equal
solids are always equal; but their superfices, by reason of their dissimilar
figures, are often unequal. Positions properly have no quantity, nor are
they so much the places themselves, as the properties of places. The motion
of the whole is the same thing with the sum of the motions of the parts;
that is, the translation of the whole, out of its place, is the same thing
with the sum of the translations of the parts out of their places; and
therefore the place of the whole is the same thing with the sum of the
places of the parts, and for that reason, it is internal, and in the whole
body.
IV. Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place
into another; and relative motion, the translation from one relative place
into another. Thus in a ship under sail, the relative place of a body is
that part of the ship which the body possesses; or that part of its cavity
which the body fills, and which therefore moves together with the ship: and
relative rest is the continuance of the body in the same part of the ship,
or of its cavity. But real, absolute rest, is the continuance of the body in
the same part of that immovable space, in which the ship itself, its cavity,
and all that it contains, is moved. Wherefore if the earth is really at
rest, the body, which relatively rests in the ship, will really and
absolutely move with the same velocity which the ship has on the earth. But
if the earth also moves, the true and absolute motion of the body will
arise, partly from the true motion of the earth, in immovable space; partly
from the relative motion of the ship on the earth; and if the body moves
also relatively in the ship; its true motion will arise, partly from the
true motion of the earth, in immovable space, and partly from the relative
motions as well of the ship on the earth, as of the body in the ship; and
from these relative motions will arise the relative motion of the body on
the earth. As if that part of the earth, where the ship is, was truly moved
toward the east, with a velocity of 10010 parts; while the ship itself, with
fresh gale, and full sails, is carried towards the west, with a velocity
expressed by 10 of those parts; but a sailor walks in the ship towards the
east, with 1 part of the said velocity; then the sailor will be moved truly
in immovable space towards the east, with a velocity of 10001 parts, and
relatively on the earth towards the west, with a velocity of 9 of those
parts.
Absolute time, in astronomy, is distinguished from relative, by the equation
or correlation of the vulgar time. For the natural days are truly unequal,
though they are commonly considered as equal and used for a measure of time;
astronomers correct this inequality for their more accurate deducing of the
celestial motions. It may be, that there is no such thing as an equable
motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be
accelerated and retarded, but the true, or equable, progress of absolute
time is liable to no change. The duration or perseverance of the existence
of things remains the same, whether the motions are swift or slow, or none
at all: and therefore, it ought to be distinguished from what are only
sensible measures thereof; and out of which we collect it, by means of the
astronomical equation. The necessity of which equation, for determining the
times of a ph�nomenon, is evinced as well from the experiments of the
pendulum clock, as by eclipses of the satellites of Jupiter.
As the order of the parts of time is immutable, so also is the order of the
parts of space. Suppose those parts to be moved out of their places, and
they will be moved (if the expression may be allowed) out of themselves. For
times and spaces are, as it were, the places as well of themselves as of all
other things. All things are placed in time as to order of succession; and
in space as to order of situation. It is from their essence or nature that
they are places; and that the primary places of things should be moveable,
is absurd. These are therefore the absolute places; and translations out of
those places, are the only absolute motions.
But because the parts of space cannot be seen, or distinguished from one
another by our senses, therefore in their stead we use sensible measures of
them. For from the positions and distances of things from any body
considered as immovable, we define all places; and then with respect to such
places, we estimate all motions, considering bodies as transferred from some
of those places into others. And so, instead of absolute places and motions,
we use relative ones; and that without any inconvenience in common affairs;
but in philosophical disquisitions, we ought to abstract from our senses,
and consider things themselves, distinct from what are only sensible
measures of them. For it may be that there is no body really at rest, to
which the places and motions of others may be referred.
But we my distinguish rest and motion, absolute and relative, one from the
other by their properties, causes and effects. It is a property of rest,
that bodies really at rest do rest in respect to one another. And therefore
as it is possible, that in the remote regions of the fixed stars, or perhaps
far beyond them, there may be some body absolutely at rest; but impossible
to know, from the position of bodies to one another in our regions whether
any of these do keep the same position to that remote body; it follows that
absolute rest cannot be determined from the position of bodies in our
regions.
It is a property of motion, that the parts, which retain given positions to
their wholes, do partake of the motions of those wholes. For all the parts
of revolving bodies endeavour to recede from the axis of motion; and the
impetus of bodies moving forward, arises from the joint impetus of all the
parts. Therefore, if surrounding bodies are moved, those that are relatively
at rest within them, will partake of their motion. Upon which account, the
true and absolute motion of a body cannot be determined by the translation
of it from those which only seem to rest; for the external bodies ought not
only to appear at rest, but to be really at rest. For otherwise, all
included bodies, beside their translation from near the surrounding ones,
partake likewise of their true motions; and though that translation were not
made they would not be really at rest, but only seem to be so. For the
surrounding bodies stand in the like relation to the surrounded as the
exterior part of a whole does to the interior, or as the shell does to the
kernel; but, if the shell moves, the kernel will also move, as being part of
the whole, without any removal from near the shell.
A property, near akin to the preceding, is this, that if a place is moved,
whatever is placed therein moves along with it; and therefore a body, which
is moved from a place in motion, partakes also of the motion of its place.
Upon which account, all motions, from places in motion, are no other than
parts of entire and absolute motions; and every entire motion is composed of
the motion of the body out of its first place, and the motion of this place
out of its place; and so on, until we come to some immovable place, as in
the before-mentioned example of the sailor. Wherefore, entire and absolute
motions can be no otherwise determined than by immovable places; and for
that reason I did before refer those absolute motions to immovable places,
but relative ones to movable places. Now no other places are immovable but
those that, from infinity to infinity, do all retain the same given position
to one another; and upon this account must ever remain unmoved; and do
thereby constitute immovable space.
The causes by which true, and relative motions are distinguished, one from
the other, are the forces impressed upon bodies to generate motion. True
motion is neither generated nor altered, but by some force impressed upon
the body moved; but relative motion may be generated or altered without any
force impressed upon the body. For it is sufficient only to impress some
force on other bodies with which the former is compared, that by their
giving way, that relation may be changed, in which the relative rest or
motion of this other body did consist. Again, true motion suffers always
some change from any force impressed upon, the moving body; but relative
motion does not necessarily undergo any change by such forces. For if the
same forces are likewise impressed on those other bodies, with which the
comparison is made, that the relative position may be preserved, then that
condition will be preserved in which the relative motion consists. And
therefore any relative motion may be changed when the true motion remains
unaltered, and the relative may be preserved when the true suffers some
change. Upon which accounts, true motion does by no means consist in such
relations.
The effects which distinguish absolute from relative motion are, the forces
of receding from the axis of circular motion. For there are no such forces
in a circular motion purely relative, but in a true and absolute circular
motion, they are greater or less, according to the quantity of the motion.
If a vessel, hung by a long cord, is so often turned about that the cord is
strongly twisted, then filled with water, and held at rest together with the
water; after, by the sudden action of another force, it is whirled about the
contrary way, and while the cord is untwisting itself, the vessel continues,
for some time in this motion; the surface of the water will at first be
plain, as before the vessel began to move: but the vessel, by gradually
communicating its motion to the water, will make it begin sensibly to
evolve, and recede by little and little from the middle, and ascend to the
sides of the vessel, forming itself into a concave figure (as I have
experienced), and the swifter the motion becomes, the higher will the water
rise, till at last, performing its revolutions in the same times with the
vessel, it becomes relatively at rest in it. This ascent of the water shows
its endeavour to recede from the axis of its motion; and the true and
absolute circular motion of the water, which is here directly contrary to
the relative, discovers itself, and may be measured by this endeavour. At
first, when the relative motion of the water in the vessel was greatest, it
produced no endeavour to recede from the axis; the water showed no tendency
to the circumference, nor any ascent towards the sides of the vessel, but
remained of a plain surface, and therefore its true circular motion had not
yet begun. But afterwards, when the relative motion of the water had
decreased, the ascent thereof towards the sides of the vessel proved its
endeavour to recede from the axis; and this endeavour showed the real
circular motion of the water perpetually increasing, till it had acquired
its greatest quantity, when the water rested relatively in the vessel. And
therefore this endeavour, does not depend upon any translation of the water
in respect of the ambient bodies, nor can true circular motion be defined by
such translation. There is only one real circular motion of any one
revolving body, corresponding to only one power of endeavouring to recede
from its axis of motion, as its proper and adequate effect; but relative
motions, in one and the same body, are innumerable, according to the various
relations it bears to external bodies, and like other relations, are
altogether destitute of any real effect, any otherwise than they may partake
of that one only true motion. And therefore in their system who suppose that
our heavens, revolving below the sphere of the fixed stars, carry the
planets along with them; the several parts of those heavens and the planets,
which are indeed relatively at rest in their heavens, do yet really move.
For they change their position one to another (which never happens to bodies
truly at rest), and being carried together with their heavens, partake of
their motions, and as parts of revolving wholes, endeavour to recede from
the axis of their motions.
Wherefore relative quantities are not the quantities themselves, whose names
they bear, but those sensible measures of them (either accurate or
inaccurate), which are commonly used instead of the measured quantities
themselves. And if the meaning of words is to be determined by their use,
then by the names time, space, place and motion, their measures are properly
to be understood; and the expression will be unusual, and purely
mathematical, if the measured quantities themselves are meant. Upon which
account, they do strain the sacred writings, who there interpret those words
for the measured quantities. Nor do those less defile the purity of
mathematical and philosophical truths, who confound real quantities
themselves with their relations and vulgar measures.
It is indeed a matter of great difficulty to discover, and effectually to
distinguish, the true motion of particular bodies from the apparent; because
the parts of that immovable space, in which those motions are performed, do
by no means come under the observation of our senses. Yet the thing is not
altogether desperate; for we have some arguments to guide us, partly from
the apparent motions, which are the differences of the true motions; partly
from the forces, which are the causes and effects of the true motion. For
instance, if two globes, kept at a given distance one from the other by
means of a cord that connects them, were revolved about their common centre
of gravity, we might, from the tension of the cord, discover the endeavour
of the globes to recede from the axis of their motion, and from thence we
might compute the quantity of their circular motions. And then if any equal
forces should be impressed at once on the alternate faces of the globes to
augment or diminish their circular motions, from the increase or decrease of
the tension of the cord, we might infer the increment or decrement of their
motions; and thence would be found on what faces those forces ought to be
impressed, that the motions of the globes might be most augmented; that is,
we might discover their hindermost faces, or those which, in the circular
motion, do follow. But the faces which follow being known and consequently
the opposite ones that precede, we should likewise know the determination of
their motions. And thus we might find both the quantity and the
determination of this circular motion, even in an immense vacuum, where
there was nothing external or sensible with which the globes could be
compared. But now, if in that space some remote bodies were placed the kept
always a given position one to another, as the fixed stars do in our
regions, we could not indeed determine from the relative translation of the
globes among those bodies, whether the motion did belong to the globes or to
the bodies. But if we observed the cord, and found that its tension was that
very tension which the motions f the globes required, we might conclude the
motion to be in the globes, and the bodies to be at rest; and then, lastly,
from the translation of the globes among the bodies, we should find the
determination of their motions. But how we are to collect the true motions
from their causes, effects, and apparent differences; and, vice versa, how
from the motions, either true or apparent, we may come to the knowledge of
their causes and effects, shall be explained more at large in the following
tract. For to this end it was that I composed it.
Isaac Newton's Principia 1687, Translated by Andrew Motte 1729
http://gravitee.tripod.com/definitions.htm
funkenstein
> "funkenstein" <luke.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Well that kind of depends on whether this idea of the "entire
universe" makes sense or not.
One could mathematically define your preferred frame (the one you call
absolute rest) as the center of mass of all bodies within a radius r
of you, where one takes the limit as r-> infinity. But it is unclear
to me that a limit exists as r-> infinity.
Even if the limit does exist, that is not what Michelson, Morley or
GSS were trying to measure the motion of the earth with respect to..
there's no a priori reason that the CMBR isotropy rest frame would be
equal to that frame either. And if there is a bulk motion of the
electromagnetic or space-time medium, proportional to the magnetic
vector potential (modern incantation of aether rest frame), that could
be different from both.
Androcles
================================================
Not so, it doesn't depend on anything. By definition the universe is the
collection of everything.
================================================
One could mathematically define your preferred frame (the one you call
absolute rest) as the center of mass of all bodies within a radius r
of you, where one takes the limit as r-> infinity. But it is unclear
to me that a limit exists as r-> infinity.
==============================================
Nonsense. The limit of the sum of all momenta within the universe
is zero, so of course the limit exists. If you want to impart a velocity
to the entire universe, what would it move with respect to?
YOUR preferred frame, no doubt. But then the absolute universe with
all its moving bodies would still be stationary with YOUR preferred frame
moving relatively to it.
==============================================
Even if the limit does exist, that is not what Michelson, Morley or
GSS were trying to measure the motion of the earth with respect to..
there's no a priori reason that the CMBR isotropy rest frame would be
equal to that frame either. And if there is a bulk motion of the
electromagnetic or space-time medium,
==============================================
What space-time medium? Your preferred ectoplasm, perhaps?
==============================================
proportional to the magnetic
vector potential (modern incantation of aether rest frame), that could
be different from both.
==============================================
I have no evidence before me for your preferred luminiferous ectoplasm.
I was referring to Newton's mathematical absolute space where the
sum of all momenta is zero, even in an infinite universe.
"LAW III.
To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction; or the mutual
actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and directed to
contrary parts.
Whatever draws or presses another is as much drawn or pressed by that other.
If you press a stone with your finger, the finger is also pressed by the
stone. If a horse draws a stone tied to a rope, the horse (if I may so say)
will be equally drawn back towards the stone: for the distended rope, by the
same endeavour to relax or unbend itself, will draw the horse as much
towards the stone as it does the stone towards the horse, and will obstruct
the progress of the one as much as it advances that of the other.
If a body impinges upon another, and by its force change the motion of the
other, that body also (became of the quality of, the mutual pressure) will
undergo an equal change, in its own motion, towards the contrary part. The
changes made by these actions are equal, not in the velocities but in the
motions of bodies; that is to say, if the bodies are not hindered by any
other impediments. For, because the motions are equally changed, the changes
of the velocities made towards contrary parts are reciprocally proportional
to the bodies. This law takes place also in attractions, as will be proved
in the next scholium."
funkenstein
Everything that could somehow affect you, right?
In set theory, the so called "universal set", or the set of all sets,
is known to be a nonsensical entity, inconsistent with logic.
Is an event outside of your future and past light cones still in the
universe?
>
> One could mathematically define your preferred frame (the one you call
> absolute rest) as the center of mass of all bodies within a radius r
> of you, where one takes the limit as r-> infinity. But it is unclear
> to me that a limit exists as r-> infinity.
> ==============================================
> Nonsense. The limit of the sum of all momenta within the universe
> is zero, so of course the limit exists. If you want to impart a velocity
> to the entire universe, what would it move with respect to?
> YOUR preferred frame, no doubt. But then the absolute universe with
> all its moving bodies would still be stationary with YOUR preferred frame
> moving relatively to it.
>
> ==============================================
Perhaps another universe? Just to avoid this kind of philosophical
discussion it might be nice to limit ourselves to a sphere of 15
billion light years or so :)
>
> Even if the limit does exist, that is not what Michelson, Morley or
> GSS were trying to measure the motion of the earth with respect to..
> there's no a priori reason that the CMBR isotropy rest frame would be
> equal to that frame either. And if there is a bulk motion of the
> electromagnetic or space-time medium,
>
> ==============================================
> What space-time medium? Your preferred ectoplasm, perhaps?
> ==============================================
>
> proportional to the magnetic
> vector potential (modern incantation of aether rest frame), that could
> be different from both.
>
> ==============================================
> I have no evidence before me for your preferred luminiferous ectoplasm.
> I was referring to Newton's mathematical absolute space where the
> sum of all momenta is zero, even in an infinite universe.
>
lol, I have no evidence either, but Michelson and Morley and GSS were
looking for properties of the luminiferous ectoplasm, not the center
of mass of some collection of objects.
cheers-
Androcles
==================================================
You are ranting, punk. I'm talking about momenta and Newton's third law,
not your fuckin' ice cream cones.
>
> One could mathematically define your preferred frame (the one you call
> absolute rest) as the center of mass of all bodies within a radius r
> of you, where one takes the limit as r-> infinity. But it is unclear
> to me that a limit exists as r-> infinity.
> ==============================================
> Nonsense. The limit of the sum of all momenta within the universe
> is zero, so of course the limit exists. If you want to impart a velocity
> to the entire universe, what would it move with respect to?
> YOUR preferred frame, no doubt. But then the absolute universe with
> all its moving bodies would still be stationary with YOUR preferred frame
> moving relatively to it.
>
> ==============================================
Perhaps another universe?
=================================================
Piss off, fruit cake.
*plonk*
Do not reply to this generic message, it was automatically generated;
you have been kill-filed, either for being boringly stupid, repetitive,
unfunny, ineducable, repeatedly posting politics, religion or off-topic
subjects to a sci. newsgroup, attempting cheapskate free advertising
for profit, because you are a troll, simply insane or any combination
or permutation of the aforementioned reasons; any reply will go unread.
Boringly stupid is the most common cause of kill-filing, but because
this message is generic the other reasons have been included. You are
left to decide which is most applicable to you.
There is no appeal, I have despotic power over whom I will electronically
admit into my home and you do not qualify as a reasonable person I would
wish to converse with or even poke fun at. Some weirdoes are not kill-
filed, they amuse me and I retain them for their entertainment value
as I would any chicken with two heads, either one of which enables the
dumb bird to scratch dirt, step back, look down, step forward to the
same spot and repeat the process eternally.
This should not trouble you, many of those plonked find it a blessing
that they are not required to think and can persist in their bigotry
or crackpot theories without challenge.
You have the right to free speech, I have the right not to listen. The
kill-file will be cleared annually with spring cleaning or whenever I
purchase a new computer or hard drive.
I'm fully aware that you may be so stupid as to reply, but the purpose
of this message is to encourage others to kill-file fuckwits like you.
I hope you find this explanation is satisfactory but even if you don't,
damnly my frank, I don't give a dear. Have a nice day.
glird
> On Sep 30, 9:02 pm, glird wrote:
>> On Aug 31, 9:53 am, GSS wrote:
>< < < In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame. > >
>
>
>
< No, in my opinion, Einstein's synchronization procedure was defined
that way in order to sustain the second postulate. >
Agreed. Even so, it wasn't the postulate that light travels at c in
empty space, it was that method of setting clocks that "rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame."
glird
Henry Wilson DSc
wrote:
He knew he could get away with it because Ritz had convinced him that there was
no aether and light was ballistic....but Ritz died and Einstein made more money
by selling his own crappy theory to a bunch of opportunistic idiots like those
who support him here.
>GSS
Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm
Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..
doug
Henry Wilson DSc wrote:
Ralph is back to lies on this thread.
GSS
> On Sep 29, 7:43 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Friends,
> > On the issue of detection of absolute motion in space,
>
> I assume that by "absolute motion in space" you mean "motion relative
> to the space-time medium". Motion is ALWAYS relative so "absolute" is
> the wrong word to use.
>
spacetime continuum, as used in Relativity, is only a mathematical
construct. In this regard kindly refer to my original post under this
thread and also refer to:
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter8.pdf?attredirects=0
Distance D between points A and B is assumed to be constant during the
period of test. For example distance D between two mobile
communication towers can be considered as constant or fixed. For the
proposed test, we don't need to make any measurement of this distance.
Even if you wish to employ the notion of Lorentz contraction of length
in different inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, it
will make no difference to the computations given above. For the sake
of argument, assume that distance D in the local or the laboratory
frame *becomes* or *appears to be* D' in reference frame K such that
we can write D' = D(K). Now, when the clocks A and B are viewed as
"moving" clocks in reference frame K, if we replace the term D in
equations (3) and (4) above with D(K), the result given by equations
(6) and (7) will still remain the same. That is because the terms D or
D(K) get canceled out and do not affect the result of the proposed
experiment.
GSS
GSS
> On Sep 30, 8:49 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics_o> wrote:
> > >news:e4e11007-e140-4977...@c37g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> > > On Sep 29, 7:43 pm, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I have already explained to you in my previous post that the term
space-time does not refer to any physical entity or 'medium'. Four
dimensional Spacetime continuum or 4-D spacetime manifold is just a
mathematical construct used in Relativity to develop its mathematical
model.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter8.pdf?attredirects=0
I have already clarified in my original post that out of all other
inertial reference frames which could be constructed for referring the
positions and velocities of given N particles within a closed volume
V, the total mass-energy content measured in a center of mass (CoM)
reference frame is the minimum. Further, total momentum of all N
particles within this closed volume is always zero in the CoM
reference frame. Hence, a CoM reference frame may be considered as an
absolute or fixed reference frame for the given N particles contained
within a closed volume V. This is the fundamental notion of an
absolute reference frame in relation to matter contained within a
closed volume of space.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter4.pdf?attredirects=0
The notion of 'closed volume' considered above implies that there is
no transfer of matter, energy or momentum across the boundary surface
of this volume. That is to say that none of the N particles enclosed
within this closed volume can possibly have any interaction with any
'entity' external to the 'closed volume' under consideration.
However, if we extend this notion of N particles enclosed within a
closed volume V to include all matter and energy content of the entire
universe then the CoM reference frame for the entire universe will be
refereed to as the absolute or Universal Reference Frame. The notion
of closed volume will naturally extend to the entire volume of the
universe. The *existence* of such an absolute reference frame, wherein
the total momentum of all particles is zero, is not subject to any
'observability' requirement. Well, you might say that you cannot
*compute* the CoM of all particles within the universe unless you are
in position to *observe* the position and velocities of all particles
contained within the universe. But your inability to compute the CoM
does not rule out the *existence* of all particles within the universe
and hence *existence* of their CoM.
The crucial question to be answered now is that if we are not in a
position to *compute* the CoM of the universe, how can we *detect* the
existence of this CoM and hence the absolute reference frame?
In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them, which
may be designated as "absolutely stationary reference frame" or just
the absolute reference frame. It is this very property of isotropic
light speed c which can be used to detect the *existence* of the
absolute reference frame. The proposed experiment is designed to
measure velocity U with which we are moving with respect to this
absolute reference frame, by measuring the up-stream and down-stream
signal propagation times between two points A and B 'fixed' on the
surface of earth. As such it can be concluded that measurement of our
velocity U with respect to the absolute reference frame will imply
detection of absolute motion in space.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
Dono.
>
> In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
> reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
> propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them,
Imbecile. Persistent.
GSS
> On Oct 3, 10:34 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
....
>> In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
>> reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
>> propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them,
A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3. Similarly, when we measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between two clocks A and B, which are
"moving" at velocity U2 along AB in reference frame K2, then it can be
easily shown that,
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ....... (1)
But the same two clocks can be simultaneously viewed as "moving" at
velocity U3 along AB in reference frame K3, and hence it can be easily
shown that,
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ...... (2)
However, equations (1) and (2) cannot both be valid simultaneously
because U2 <> U3. This contradiction brings us to the conclusion that
the speed of light propagation c cannot be an isotropic constant in
more than one inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
And the reference frame in which the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant is referred as absolute or universal reference
frame. For detailed analysis on this issue, kindly refer to sections 2
and 3 of the following article.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
GSS
Inertial
>>> https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
Lets have a look at it
==
Detection of Absolute Motion in Space
Experimental Demonstration
1. Introduction
The second postulate of Special Theory of Relativity (SR) depicts a
fundamentally and
logically wrong assumption
==
Not so much an assumption .. a postulate, which is supported
experimentally.
==
that the speed of light in vacuum is the same constant c in all
reference frames in relative uniform motion. This wrong assumption
==
You have to demonstrate why it is wrong of course. You don't.
==
has given rise to many
fundamentally absurd convictions in SR.
==
'convictions'?
==
As per SR, the time interval dt of a standard atomic
clock will be seen to be different in each of the infinitely many inertial
reference frames in
relative motion.
==
Only atomic clocks?
==
Thus the notion of time as an absolute measure of change has been
sacrificed
in SR,
==
Yeup .. its all relative
==
leading to wrong notions of relative time and consequent wrong notions of
length
contractions. [1]
==
You have to show they are wrong. You don't.
==
Quoting Albert Einstein, from his 1905 paper, "If at the point A of space
there is a
clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the
immediate proximity of
A. If there is at the point B of space another clock in all respects
resembling the one at A, it is
possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the
immediate
neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to
compare, in respect of
time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an 'A
time' and a 'B
time'. We have not defined a common 'time' for A and B, for the latter
cannot be defined at
all unless 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."
==
Fine
==
This arbitrary definition
==
Its not really arbitrary .. it cannot be anything BUT that, when light is
isotropic in that frame. Which the second postulate says it must.
==
of 'common
time' constitutes the fundamental mistake of Einstein, which ultimately
leads to the
invalidation of SR.
==
It cannot be wrong if light is isotropic in the frame. It must by right by
definition of isotropic.
==
To demonstrate this mistake, let us assume that points A and B in space
represent two
Pioneer type spacecrafts in the outer region of the solar system.
==
Why pioneer spaceships?
==
Let the separation distance
AB, as measured in Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF),
==
Why that frame?
==
be D which remains
constant over a period of time.
==
Fine. Why not just say the two objects, A and B, are comoving. Would have
been simpler.
==
Let us assume the two objects A and B are moving in BCRF
with a common uniform velocity U along AB.
==
So they are comoving at U relative to some arbitrary reference frame
==
If we assume that c is the isotropic constant
speed of light propagation in BCRF,
==
As it is in any inertial frame.
==
then it can be shown that the ratio U/c depends on the
ratio of the difference between the up-link (from A to B) and down-link
(from B to A) signal
propagation times to the total round trip signal propagation time.
==
What uplink and downlink are you talking about? Do you mean the time for
light to travel A to B and B to A respectively? Why not just say that?
==
Let us further assume that the two spacecraft A and B, are fitted with
appropriate signal
transmitters and receivers.
==
You really are making this far more wordy and complex than it needs to be
==
Let the epoch of transmission of a signal pulse from spacecraft A
be t1 and the epoch of reception of the signal pulse at the spacecraft B be
t2 .
==
"epoch of transmission" .. why use such phrases? Why not just say "the
light leaves A at t1 and arrives at B at time t2. You've not said which
frame of reference you are using. That of the clocks, or the BCRF?
==
Let the epoch of
return transmission of a signal pulse from spacecraft B be t3 and the epoch
of reception of the
signal pulse back at the spacecraft A be t4 as illustrated in figure 1.
==
So light leaves B at time t3 and arrives at A at time t4. Are you using
that sort of language you are just to sound like a big grown up scientist?
==
The up-link signal
propagation time Tu from A to B is given by,
Tu = t2 - t1 (1)
==
Gees .. most of a page to get to that. what a waste of time
==
B1B2 = U*(t2 - t1) = U*Tu (2)
==
Or do you mean the distance B1 to B2 in your diagram?
==
and the total distance traveled by the up-link signal pulse is,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu (3)
==
Yes
==
Similarly, the down-link signal propagation time Td from B to A is given
by,
Td = t4 - t3 (4)
A3A4 = U*(t4 - t3) = U*Td (5)
and the total distance traveled by the down-link signal pulse is,
D - U*Td = c*Td (6)
==
Yes
==
Eliminating D from equations (3) and (6), we get,
U*(Tu+Td ) = c* ( Tu - Td )
Or, U/c = ( Tu - Td )/(Tu+Td ) (7)
==
Yes
==
Putting it in words,
==
Not MORE words. Too many already
==
equation (7) implies that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the
difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation times to
the
total round trip
signal propagation time.
==
Yes
==
Obviously, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times can be equal
only if
both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF.
==
Yes. Or rather, the measurements of the times must be in a frame in which
A
and B are at fixed points in space (ie at rest), as per the Einstein quote
earlier.
If A and B are moving in the frame we are taking measurements, then because
light is isotropic in that frame, and A and B are moving in that frame, you
won't get equal speeds of separation/closure between A and B and any light
signals as measured in that frame.
==
This shows that Einstein's fundamental
assumption of equating the up-link and down-link signal propagation times
between A and B
inherently implies that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the BCRF
of the solar
system.
==
No .. just that they need to be at rest in whatever frame we are taking the
measurement if we want equal separation/closure speeds between light and
the
clocks.
==
Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time between A
and
B,
to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF)
==
No .. he didn't 'extend' it. Because there was never any mention of BCRF
in
his paper. It was ALWAYS in all IRF's.
==
in relative uniform motion within the BCRF,
==
No, again, no mention of BCRF
==
it
obviously implies that all such IRF in relative uniform motion are assumed
to be at rest in
BCRF.
==
Wrong.
==
This simple contradiction shatters the facade of SR.
==
It shatters the facade of you understanding SR or physics
This is just the same old crackpot "closing speed is not c between light
and a moving object, therefore SR is wrong" argument .. only taking way to
many pages to get to the point. And, of course, its not a valid argument.
That's enough of your paper for now.. it was indeed good for a laugh
GSS
On Oct 5, 6:05 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >> "GSS" <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
.......
>> Or, U/c = ( Tu - Td )/(Tu+Td ) (7)
>
>
>> Putting it in words,
>> equation (7) implies that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the
>> difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation times to
>> the total round trip signal propagation time.
>
>
>> Obviously, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times can be equal
>> only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF.
>
> A and B are at fixed points in space (ie at rest), as per the Einstein quote
> earlier.
>
How can you make physical measurements of instantaneous time from
digital atomic clocks *in different reference frames*?
A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3.
In this regard let me reproduce some relevant extracts from one of my
previous posts.
As per Einstein,
system", the uplink and downlink signal propagation times are
*assumed* to be equal in reference frame K1. Therefore,
t_B(K1) - t_ A(K1) = t'_A(K1) - t_B(K1) ...... (12)
As noted earlier, for the time readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by
equations (1) and (2) are not expected to be equal.
T_B(K) - T_A(K) <> T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ..... (13)
Or Tu - Td <> 0
And U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)
Equations (11), (12) and (13) bring out a devastating contradiction
that the signal propagation times Tu and Td are supposed to be equal
(equation (12)) when the clocks A and B are considered "stationary" in
reference frame K1 but are supposed to be un-equal (equation (13))
when the same clocks are viewed as "moving" in reference frame K.
However, as per equation (7) above, the up-link signal propagation
time Tu from A to B can be *equal* to the down-link signal propagation
time Td from B to A, *only if* A and B are fixed or stationary in the
reference frame K and their common velocity U along AB is zero. This
implies that the inertial reference frames K1, K2 etc. in relative
uniform motion, must be ASSUMED to be fixed or "stationary" in the
reference frame K, to ensure the equality of Tu and Td between two
"stationary" points in reference frames K1, K2 etc. This is a major
contradiction where a group of IRF in relative uniform motion have
been ASSUMED to be at rest or "stationary" in the absolutely
stationary system K. It is worth mentioning here that Tu and Td are
the results of actual physical measurements, which are unique
regardless of the coordinate reference frame used for quantifying the
positions of the clocks A and B.
Finally, given that c is the isotropic constant speed of light
propagation in reference frame K, we can determine the common velocity
U of A and B, along AB, through measurement of the up-link and down-
link signal propagation times between A and B. Since the up-link and
down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td, between A and B,
constitute unique physical measurements, the maximum value of U thus
obtained (for certain orientation of AB) will represent absolute
motion in space, with reference frame K designated as Absolute or
Universal Reference Frame.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
> If A and B are moving in the frame we are taking measurements, then because
> light is isotropic in that frame, and A and B are moving in that frame, you
> won't get equal speeds of separation/closure between A and B and any light
> signals as measured in that frame.
>
>> This shows that Einstein's fundamental assumption of equating
>> the up-link and down-link signal propagation times between A and B
>> inherently implies that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the
>> BCRF of the solar system.
>
> No .. just that they need to be at rest in whatever frame we are taking the
> measurement if we want equal separation/closure speeds between light and
> the clocks.
>
>> Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time between A
>> and B, to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF)
>
> No .. he didn't 'extend' it. Because there was never any mention of BCRF
> in his paper. It was ALWAYS in all IRF's.
>
Perhaps you don't know that BCRF is the only practical reference frame
which can be truly considered 'Inertial', in contrast to infinitely
many hypothetical IRF's considered in Einstein's paper.
The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS), consists of the
Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF) and the Geocentric
Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF), both kinematically defined by the
position of same extragalactic radio sources. The origin of space
coordinates defining BCRF is located at the barycenter or the center
of mass (CoM) of our solar system. The origin of space coordinates
defining GCRF is located at the geocenter or the CoM of the Earth
system. The new system is kinematic, because its coordinate directions
are defined through the positions of extragalactic objects, whose
proper motions are assumed to be negligible in comparison with the
accuracy of observations. Here BCRF can be regarded as an absolute or
fixed reference frame in relation to the solar system whereas the
GCRF, being a subset of BCRF, can be regarded as a local reference
frame in relation to the solar system.
While describing the motions of terrestrial space flights, artificial
satellites or the Moon, one must use the GCRF. This natural reference
system moves with the Earth around the Sun. However, for describing
the motions of planets, comets and inter-planetary space missions, one
must use the BCRF. The task of establishing and maintaining the ICRS
and its components has been assigned to the International Earth
Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). Major components of
IERS include Technique Centers, Product Centers and Combination
Centers. The main contributing observational techniques used are,
International GNSS Service (IGS), International Laser Ranging Service
(ILRS), International VLBI Service (IVS) and International DORIS
Service.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/chapter4.pdf?attredirects=0
GSS
> On Aug 9, 2:04 am, GSS <gurcharn_san...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
> > are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
> > microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
> > signal pulses automatically.
>
> This is both a conceptual and practical problem.
>...
> Conceptually, relativity prescribes that distant clocks cannot be kept
> synchronized, except by using the very light pulses you propose to
> use.
In response I had stated "Let me first clear your conceptual problems
in this post and leave the discussion of practical problems to the
next post". Thereafter the conceptual problems have been discussed at
length and summarized below:
Any motion with respect to an absolute or universal reference frame
can be termed as 'absolute motion'. The famous Michelson-Morley
experiment was designed to detect such absolute motion of the earth
through measurement of predicted interference effects, which failed.
The proposed experiment is again designed to detect the same absolute
motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link and
down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A and B,
but without relying on the wave properties of light.
A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3. Similarly, when we measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between two clocks A and B, which are
"moving" at velocity U2 along AB in reference frame K2, then it can be
easily shown that,
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ....... (1)
But the same two clocks can be simultaneously viewed as "moving" at
velocity U3 along AB in reference frame K3, and hence it can be easily
shown that,
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ...... (2)
However, equations (1) and (2) cannot both be valid simultaneously
because U2 <> U3. This contradiction brings us to the conclusion that
the speed of light propagation c cannot be an isotropic constant in
more than one inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
And the reference frame in which the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant is referred as absolute or universal reference
frame. For detailed analysis on this issue, kindly refer to sections 2
and 3 of the following article.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundamentalphysics.info/book/Home/book_files/absolute_motion.pdf?attredirects=0
>
> Practically, there are no oscillators (atomic clocks), stable enough
> and capable of being integrated onto a spacecraft, which could do such
> precision ranging. All clocks drift. On the earth, keeping stable
> time is problem enough, requiring large environmentally controlled
> vaults, placed in many parts of the world.
Let me now discuss the practical problems which have been properly
addressed in the formulation of the proposed experiment for detection
of absolute motion in space.
For proper conduct of the proposed experiment, the precision atomic
clocks located at fixed points A and B are required to be in 'absolute
synchronization' rather than the 'Einstein synchronization'. However,
achieving 'absolute synchronization' for the spatially separated
precision atomic clocks is rendered difficult, firstly by the inherent
clock drift and secondly by the same absolute motion which is intended
to be detected by the proposed experiment. But the 'plus' point of
this very situation is that once we establish the absolute motion of
earth in space, 'absolute synchronization' of spacecraft atomic clocks
will become practically feasible in future.
The first option in the present case is to use two precision atomic
clocks which are initially synchronized at one common place and then
positioned at the fixed locations A and B. For the success of this
method, the inherent drift in each of the two clocks must be within
one nanosecond over 24 hour period.
For the second option, consider two Rubidium atomic clocks A and B,
each connected through an optical fiber link to a Master atomic clock
C such that the optical length of the fiber link from C to A is the
same as that from C to B. Let the two clocks A and B be perfectly
synchronized with master clock C with a timing resolution of about one
nanosecond. Here the term 'perfectly synchronized' implies that when
the clock C reads UTC time t1, the clocks A and B will also read t1.
Therefore, it is obvious that the clocks A and B can be regarded as
mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long as they are both
perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C, even if the
master clock C does not depict the perfect UTC time.
For the third option, we may replace the master clock C with the GPS
synchronized time. Therefore, we can use two Rubidium atomic clocks A
and B, each synchronized to the GPS time within one nanosecond
resolution. Once the clocks A and B get perfectly synchronized to the
GPS time, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute
terms, regardless of the inherent limitations or inaccuracies of the
GPS timing system. I consider the third option to be practically most
suitable for the proposed experiment.
In the proposed experiment, we intend to use GPSReference-2000 timing
system from SpectraTime, which is capable of synchronizing with the
GPS time to one nanosecond resolution. http://www.spectratime.com/product_downloads/gpsref_manual.pdf
What we are looking for in the experiment is the up-link and down-link
timing difference of the order of 100ns to more than 200 ns. Hence
there is no doubt whatsoever that the Absolute Motion in space can be
detected convincingly with the proposed experiment.
Further, to clear some of the misconceptions regarding GPS time and
frequency transfer system, let me reproduce some relevant excerpts
from an interesting article "Space clocks and fundamental tests: The
ACES experiment" published in Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 172, 57-68
(2009).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h6881742l087jh8k/
"The best atomic fountains approach 10 picosecond error per day, i.e.
a frequency stability of 1 part in 10^16, while the most recent
optical clocks, operating in the optical domain, reach 2 picoseconds
per day and improve at a fast pace. Because time intervals and
frequencies can be measured so precisely, applications of atomic
clocks are numerous and very diverse."
"The ACES clock signal will be transferred on ground by a time and
frequency transfer link in the microwave domain (MWL). MWL compares
the ACES frequency reference to a set of ground clocks, enabling
fundamental physics tests and applications in different areas of
research."
"Then, a period of 4 months will be devoted to the performance
evaluation of the clocks. During this phase, a signal with frequency
inaccuracy in the 10^-15 range will be available to ground users."
"This clock signal will be distributed by MWL. Frequency transfer with
time deviation better than 0.3 ps at 300 s, 7 ps at 1 day, and 23 ps
at 10 days of integration time will be demonstrated. These
performances, surpassing existing techniques (TWSTFT and GPS) by one
to two orders of magnitude, will enable common view and non-common
view comparisons of ground clocks with 10^-17 frequency resolution"
"In addition, ACES will deliver a global atomic time scale with 10^-16
accuracy, it will allow clock synchronizations at an uncertainty level
of 100 ps, and contribute to international atomic time scales (TAI,
UTC)."
Learned readers are requested to share any additional information on
the practical aspects of the proposed 'absolute synchronization' of
the two spatially separated precision atomic clocks.
glird
>
> < The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link and
down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A and
Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken
as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis
of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x
direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and
reflect therefrom back to A.
As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis
coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K,
the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus
takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1
secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the
moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each
way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right
triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other.
given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as
measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as
measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A
to b as plotted by stationary cs k.
HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow
by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their
horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths
remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above
stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes
and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure
the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y
or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/
sec as plotted by K.
Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks
of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it
would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back
again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would
have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1
second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted
by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such
deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE
c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined
method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)
p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let
lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the
direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the
first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and
down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have
emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k
and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the
stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY
the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of -
vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance
between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself,
and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its
speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light
moves at c.
glird