Experimental Detection of Universal Reference Frame
GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art6.pdf ]
Notion of Universal Reference Frame
-----------------------------------
The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as
a non-rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with
respect to the 'Centre of Mass' of the Universe. We know that the
origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is
fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If
we could locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to
the center of mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame
with its origin at O could be referred as the Universal Reference
Frame. For this we need to determine the velocity of O in ICRF which
will lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the Universal
Reference Frame. The speed of light is an isotropic constant c and the
measures of distance and time are absolute in this frame.
Relevant Technologies
----------------------
For extremely fine resolutions in time measurements, modern
advancements in technology that are relevant for the detection of
Universal reference frame are listed below.
I. Cesium atomic clocks (NIST-F1) with an uncertainty of about one
second in 20 million years and with a time resolution of the order of a
fraction of a nano-second. These clocks are electronically locked on
to certain natural transition or resonant frequency of the Cesium atom
and are extremely stable.
II. Modern telecommunication engineering with accurate real time
transmission and reception of high-speed data through advanced
modulation techniques in Giga-hertz carrier frequency range.
III. The GPS technology has enabled high precision measurement of time
and distance all over the globe. GPS satellites broadcast a timing
signal along with information identifying the time for which the tick
corresponds. Through current GPS time transfer techniques, it is
possible to achieve timing uncertainties well below one nano-second.
Generally there is sufficient bandwidth in the communications link that
raw data can be transferred along with the timing pulses in real time.
IV. Modern computer technology for real time high-speed data processing
and micro-controller based sophisticated automated systems.
Experimental Set up
--------------------
Let us consider a non-rotating Cartesian coordinate reference
frame XYZ with origin at point O and fixed with respect to the
Universal reference frame. Further, let us assume that a space ship A
is moving at a uniform velocity U with respect to the reference frame
XYZ. Let us consider another reference coordinate frame X'Y'Z' with
origin at point A (the center of mass of the space ship) and moving
with the space ship. That means X'Y'Z' is a local reference coordinate
frame of the space ship A and is moving at velocity U with respect to
XYZ. For convenience we may consider the space ship A to be our
familiar International Space Station (ISS), the precise position of
which is well known and well established in ICRF.
Let the reference coordinate frame X'Y'Z' be oriented parallel
to XYZ such that the coordinate axes AX', AY', AZ' are parallel to OX,
OY, OZ respectively. In practice however, we can choose the orientation
of X'Y'Z' as per our convenience and then define the orientation of
coordinate frame XYZ to be parallel to it. In order to experimentally
determine the velocity U of this space ship or the Observer Station A,
a space probe B1 is sent out in X' direction to a distance of a few
thousand kilometers. Let U1 be the component of U in the direction
AB1. We assume that both of the Observer Station A as well as the
probe B1, are equipped with precisely synchronized Cesium or Rubidium
atomic clocks and identical microprocessor controlled Transponders, to
transmit and receive coded signal pulses automatically. We can safely
assume that at the time of commencement of the experiment, the point O
coincides with A and axis OX is parallel to AB1.
At a certain instant of time t_n let the space probe B1 be at a
distance D_n from A and moving at a uniform velocity V1 along AB1 with
respect to reference frame XYZ. Here it is not important to assume the
joining line AB1 to be always parallel to OX or AX'. But it is
important to assume that the velocity U1 is the component of velocity
U along the joining line AB1. Also it is important to assume that the
velocity V1 is the component of velocity V of the probe B1 along the
joining line AB1. Direction AB1 is known in the local coordinate
reference frame X'Y'Z'. Exact position of A in the reference frame XYZ
is not required for this experiment.
The Experiment
---------------
Let us assume that at time t_n the transponder at A is
triggered to send a signal pulse from A towards B1 with coded
information of t_n contained in the pulse. To begin with, let us assume
that there are no hardware time delays in generation and transmission
of the pulses at A and B1. Let this pulse reach B1 at time t_n+1 to
trigger a return pulse from B1 towards A with the coded information of
time t_n+1 contained in the return pulse. Let this return pulse reach
A at time t_n+2 to trigger another forward pulse from A towards B1
with the coded information of time t_n+2 contained in the forward
pulse. Let this forward pulse reach B1 at time t_n+3 to trigger
another return pulse from B1 towards A with the coded information of
time t_n+3 contained in this return pulse. And so on ....
Let this process of forward and return pulses with enclosed coded
information about their times of arrival, continue for a certain
period of time. This data about the time of arrival of each of the
forward and return pulses will keep getting analyzed in real time in
the dedicated microprocessors to compute U1, V1 and D_n as per the
following important relations.
During the time interval t_n to t_n+1, the distance traveled by
first forward pulse is given by,
c. [t_n+1 - t_n )] = D_n + V1. [t_n+1 - t_n]
or (c - V1 ). ( t_n+1 - t_n ) = D_n ........ (1)
Here the term D_n represented the separation distance between A and B1
at the instant of time t_n when the leading edge of the signal pulse
leaves the station A. At the instant t_n+1 the leading edge of the
signal pulse reaches transponder B1. The term V1. [t_n+1 - t_n]
represents the distance traveled by probe B1 along A B1 in XYZ
reference frame, during the propagation time of the signal pulse.
During the time interval t_n+1 to t_n+2, the distance traveled by
first return pulse is given by,
c. [t_n+2 - t_n+1] = D_n+1 - U1. [t_n+2 - t_n+1]
or (c + U1 ). ( t_n+2 - t_n+1 ) = D_n+1 ......... (2)
Here too the term D_n+1 represented the separation distance between B1
and A at the instant of time t_n+1 when the leading edge of the pulse
leaves the probe B1. At the instant t_n+2 the leading edge of the
pulse reaches the transponder A. The term U1. [t_n+2 - t_n+1]
represents the distance traveled by station A along AB1 during the
propagation time of the signal pulse.
During the time interval t_n+2 to t_n+3, the distance traveled by
second forward pulse is given by,
c. [t_n+3 - t_n+2] = D_n+2 + V1. [t_n+3 - t_n+2]
or (c - V1 ). ( t_n+3 - t_n+2 ) = D_n+2 ......... (3)
Since the net separation velocity between A and B1 is (V1 - U1), the
increase in D_n during the time interval t_n to t_n+2 is also given
by,
(V1 - U1). ( t_n+2 - t_n ) = D_n+2 - D_n ......... (4)
Subtracting equation (1) from (3), we get
(c - V1 ). ( t_n+3 - t_n+2 - t_n+1 + t_n ) = D_n+2 - D_n .....
(5)
Therefore, from equations (4) and (5) above,
(V1 - U1) . ( t_n+2 - t_n ) = (c - V1 ). ( t_n+3 - t_n+2 - t_n+1
+ t_n ) ....... (6)
or U1.( t_n+2 - tn) = V1.( t_n+3 - t_n+1) - c.( t_n+3 - t_n+1 ) + c.(
t_n+2 - tn)
or U1 = V1.(t_n+3 - t_n+1 )/(t_n+2 - t_n ) + c - c.(t_n+3 -
t_n+1)/(t_n+2 - t_n ) ....... (7)
Further, the increase in separation distance D_n+1 during the time
interval t_n+1 to t_n+2 is also given by,
(V1 - U1). ( t_n+2 - t_n+1 ) = D_n+2 - D_n+1 ........ (8)
Substituting from (2) and (3) into (8),
(V1 - U1).( t_n+2 - t_n+1) = (c - V1). (t_n+3 - t_n+2) -(c + U1).(
t_n+2 - t_n+1)
or V1 . ( t_n+2 - t_n+1 ) = (c - V1).( t_n+3 - t_n+2) - c. (
t_n+2 - t_n+1)
or V1 . (t_n+3 - t_n+1) = c . ( t_n+3 - 2 t_n+2 + t_n+1 )
or V1=c.[(t_n+3 -2 t_n+2 + t_n+1 ) / (t_n+3 - t_n+1)]
........ (9)
Substituting this value of V1 from equation (9) to equation (7) we
get,
U1 = c. [( t_n+1 - t_n ) - ( t_n+2 - t_n+1 )]/ ( t_n+2 - t_n )
....... (10)
Now using these values of U1 and V1, we can easily compute D_n, D_n+1
and D_n+2 from equations (1), (2) and (3) respectively.
The Result
-----------
Hence the most important result of this analysis is the
computation of velocity component U1 as given by equation (10). This
is the component of velocity U of the space ship A, in the direction of
AB1. A significant point to be noted here is that this result mainly
depends on a few intervals of time, which could be measured precisely
with modern atomic clocks. Essentially the velocity component U1 is
found to be c times the ratio of the difference in propagation times of
forward and return pulses to the sum of their propagation times.
The computation of velocity component U1 in the direction AB1
as shown above, is just one step towards final determination of the
velocity vector U of the space ship A in the XYZ coordinate reference
frame. Let us further assume that space probes B2 and B3, similar to
probe B1, are sent out in the directions of AB2 and AB3 as shown in the
figure. Through the same procedure as described above, we can compute
the velocity components U2 and U3 in the directions of AB2 and AB3
respectively. Once we know three velocity components U1, U2 and U3
along three non-coplanar known directions AB1, AB2 and AB3, we can
then easily compute the resultant velocity vector U of the Observer
Station with respect to the XYZ reference frame. If we choose the
International Space Station to be our observer station A, then three
communication satellites in geostationary orbits can be chosen to be
the required space probes B1, B2 and B3 for this experiment. Let us
assume that the direction cosines of AB1, AB2 and AB3 in the local
coordinate reference frame X'Y'Z' (as well as in XYZ) are known to be
(l1, m1, n1), (l2, m2, n2) and (l3, m3, n3) respectively. Therefore,
the components of the resultant velocity vector U along the X, Y and Z
axes are given by,
Ux = l1U1 + l2 U2 + l3 U3 ......... (11)
Uy = m1U1 + m2 U2 + m3 U3 ......... (12)
Uz = n1U1 + n2 U2 + n3 U3 ......... (13)
And the magnitude of the resultant velocity U is therefore given by,
U = sqrt(Ux^2 + Uy^2 + Uz^2) ......... (14)
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 D_n 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
velocity of light c in the chosen reference frame and a sequence of
discrete precision time measurements ' t_n ' with a set of properly
calibrated and synchronized atomic clocks.
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 or Absolute reference frame. With this we confirm the
detection and establishment of the Absolute or Universal reference
frame.
Concluding Remarks
-------------------
Through the foregoing analysis we have confirmed the
feasibility of quantitative measurement of the velocity U with which an
observer station or ISS located in ICRF, moves in the Universal
reference frame. 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. Thus we can experimentally detect and
establish the Universal Reference Frame. Further since the velocity
of ISS is already known in ICRF, we can now compute the velocity U' of
the ICRF or the barycenter of the solar system in the Universal
Reference Frame. A continuous record of the velocity U' over a period
of one or two years can yield the velocity of the center of mass of our
galaxy in the Universal Reference Frame. This result can be extremely
important for testing the current theories of the Big Bang and the
Expanding Universe cosmology. 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 just as is done for the
International Celestial Reference System (ICRS).
GSS
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
http://groups.google.com/group/sci_physics_fundamental
Nick Summers
trying to pinpoint a position on the earth where all the ocean currents
originate from.
Nick
Bill Hobba
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135356529.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> [This article can also be viewed in a little more detailed form at,
> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art6.pdf ]
>
> Notion of Universal Reference Frame
> -----------------------------------
> The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined
Physics is not about definitions you think up for your own purposes. An
absolute reference frame is one in which the laws of physics are different
and such is denied by the POR. Stick to the standard definitions used in
physics if you want to discuss physics. We already know of a couple of
'universal' reference frames eg the CBMR and one in which the stationary
stars are fixed and probably others as well for all I know. I have not read
your article but if valid all it would do if add another to that list.
Bill
GSS
prohibits the existence of a preferred coordinate reference frame and
declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
equivalent. I have shown the invalidity of POR firstly on the grounds
of violation of the principal of conservation of total mass-energy
content within a closed volume of space and secondly on the ground that
apparent velocities observed through inertial reference frames in
relative motion are treated as relative velocities and used to deduce
physical effects without reference to any preferred reference frame.
http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art5.htm
Let us consider a closed volume V to enclose the solar system with BCRF
as the CoM reference frame. Let Ms be the total mass-energy content of
the solar system in this frame with zero total momentum. This
mass-energy content as well as the total momentum will be conserved
(will be same value) in all reference frames which are at rest in BCRF
but not the same in all other reference frames that are moving with
uniform velocity with respect to BCRF.
Now consider a cosmic particle P approaching the solar system with
relative uniform velocity of 0.9c . Let us mount a reference
coordinate frame L on this particle. The BCRF and L will constitute a
group of inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion. As
observed from the reference frame L, the solar system will appear to be
moving towards P at an apparent velocity of 0.9c which is treated as
the relative velocity of the barycenter with respect to P. The SR
requires that we should treat both these inertial reference frames to
be equivalent and no one of these can be considered as a preferred
reference frame. The international community of scientists recognizes
BCRF as a preferred reference frame for actual use within our solar
system.
I don't think we can afford to accept the reference frame L moving at
a uniform relative velocity 0.9c with respect to BCRF, to be equivalent
to BCRF. Further, I don't think we can afford to accept the SR
contention that the apparent or relative velocity of barycenter with
respect to P or inertial frame L can influence the spatial dimensions
or time rate changes in BCRF. Since BCRF is a CoM reference frame of
the solar system it can be regarded as a global or preferred reference
frame and the velocity 0.9c of particle P observed in this reference
frame is a true or real velocity. On the other hand the reference frame
L co-moving with the particle P constitutes a local frame within the
solar system. The observed velocity of barycenter from this local frame
L cannot be a true velocity but only an apparent velocity.
>From the foregoing discussion, we may deduce a general observation.
Consider N particles of matter contained within a closed volume V of
space and let point O be the center of mass of these N particles. A
coordinate reference frame with its origin at O will be known as CoM
frame for these particles. Any reference frame, the origin of which is
at rest in CoM frame will be the preferred or Global reference system
for this closed volume V. Any other reference frame which is moving
with uniform velocity with respect to the CoM frame can be termed as a
local frame. All measurements taken from a global reference frame are
always true or real whereas the measurements taken from a local frame
are only relative or apparent. As such the Global and local reference
frames can never be equivalent.
In all experimental work, the CoM reference frame is always preferred
though it is not called as such because of SR taboo. For a closed
volume V containing the earth-moon system, the GCRS is the global or
preferred reference frame. For the complete solar system, BCRS or ICRS
is the preferred reference system. If we are interested in the
dynamical studies of different stars within our galaxy, then a
celestial reference system centered on the CoM of our galaxy will be
the preferred reference frame. However, if we are interested in the
dynamical interactions of different galaxies, then we shall have to
prefer a celestial reference frame centered at the CoM of our universe
or a reference frame which is at rest in the CoM frame of the Universe.
The subject topic of this thread aims to experimentally detect this
Universal reference frame which is at rest in the CoM frame of our
Universe.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135434618.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the
> ground that it prohibits the existence of a preferred
> coordinate reference frame and declares all inertial
> reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
> equivalent.
I find your attitude offensive, and your logic flawed. I
responded to your post as requested, and the response was
ignored. Instead, you post another lengthy diatribe addressing
no points raised.
I don't have to listen to your ignorance being promoted to a
place of reverence. Goodbye.
<plonk>
David A. Smith
Roe
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
> Dear GSS:
>
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135434618.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the
> > ground that it prohibits the existence of a preferred
> > coordinate reference frame and declares all inertial
> > reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
> > equivalent.
>
> I find your attitude offensive, and your logic flawed. I
> responded to your post as requested, and the response was
> ignored. Instead, you post another lengthy diatribe addressing
> no points raised.
give answer to what it been said you extremly fucking stooopid moron
>
> I don't have to listen to your ignorance being promoted to a
> place of reverence. Goodbye.
> <plonk>
you qualify his post as ignorance without argumenting
you are violating the rules of usenet
who the fuck is might be interested in knowing that you
plonked him or not, in fact you didnf, plonking means you dont
reply but you did
you are contradicting yourself moron,
please disappear in silence
>
> David A. Smith
Androcles
"Roe" <gkc...@umpire.com> wrote in message
news:1135442379.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>> Dear GSS:
>>
>> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1135434618.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the
>> > ground that it prohibits the existence of a preferred
>> > coordinate reference frame and declares all inertial
>> > reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
>> > equivalent.
>>
>> I find your attitude offensive, and your logic flawed.
Smithy hates any blasphemy to his religion, you wicked heretic :-)
>> I
>> responded to your post as requested, and the response was
>> ignored. Instead, you post another lengthy diatribe addressing
>> no points raised.
Ah, well, that may be a mistake. Let's see if holier-than-thou Smithy
does the same.
tau = (t-vx/c²)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
tau = (t-vy/c²)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
tau = (t-vz/c²)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v²/c²)
eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u²/c²)
zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w²/c²)
Right or wrong, Smithy?
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Einstein said
eta = y,
zeta = z
because he did not know how to move sideways or up,
didn't he, Smithy?
>
> give answer to what it been said you extremly fucking stooopid moron
>
>>
>> I don't have to listen to your ignorance being promoted to a
>> place of reverence. Goodbye.
>> <plonk>
>
> you qualify his post as ignorance without argumenting
>
> you are violating the rules of usenet
>
> who the fuck is might be interested in knowing that you
> plonked him or not, in fact you didnf, plonking means you dont
> reply but you did
>
> you are contradicting yourself moron,
>
> please disappear in silence
>
Your literary style may be a tad lacking in perfection,
but the point you make is certainly valid.
Androcles.
>> David A. Smith
>
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Androcles" <M...@Myplace.org> wrote in message
news:X5frf.30725$vl2....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Roe" <gkc...@umpire.com> wrote in message
> news:1135442379.3...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc) wrote:
>>> Dear GSS:
>>>
>>> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1135434618.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>> > The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the
>>> > ground that it prohibits the existence of a preferred
>>> > coordinate reference frame and declares all inertial
>>> > reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
>>> > equivalent.
>>>
>>> I find your attitude offensive, and your logic flawed.
>
> Smithy hates any blasphemy to his religion, you
> wicked heretic :-)
How's it hanging, Androcles? Still preaching the gospel, I see.
>>> I
>>> responded to your post as requested, and the
>>> response was ignored. Instead, you post
>>> another lengthy diatribe addressing no points
>>> raised.
>
> Ah, well, that may be a mistake. Let's see if
> holier-than-thou Smithy does the same.
> tau = (t-vx/c2)/sqrt(1-v2/c2)
> tau = (t-vy/c2)/sqrt(1-u2/c2)
> tau = (t-vz/c2)/sqrt(1-w2/c2)
> xi = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v2/c2)
> eta = (y-ut)/sqrt(1-u2/c2)
> zeta= (z-wt)/sqrt(1-w2/c2)
>
> Right or wrong, Smithy?
> If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
I responded to this on sci.astro. You of course didn't deign to
reply. Your terms need definitions. Are you implying that total
velocity =/= v, or u, or w alone?
Merry Christmas, Androcles. Hope things are OK at your house.
David A. Smith
Bill Hobba
> The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the ground that it
> prohibits the existence of a preferred coordinate reference frame and
> declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
> equivalent.
Then you must disagree with classical mechanics because Newton's 3 laws all
obey the POR.
> I have shown the invalidity of POR firstly on the grounds
> of violation of the principal of conservation of total mass-energy
The law of conservation of energy is easily violated eg a free particle in
an accelerating FOR. It has nothing to do with the POR being a tautological
statement about a lagrangeians time symmetry.
You are confused about terminology. True or real velocity is, by
definition, the velocity wrt to an absolute frame ie a frame where the laws
of physics are different. You have not demonstrated such a frame.
You are very confused. Learn the difference between an absolute frame and a
frame that simplifies a problem then repost.
Bill
>
> GSS
> http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
>
Tom Roberts
> The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as
> a non-rotating inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with
> respect to the 'Centre of Mass' of the Universe.
OK, you could do that. But the errorbars on its location would surely be
truly enormous.... And you'll have difficulty defining what you mean by
"non rotating" in an "absolute" sense....
So while you can _define_ this, it is of no use whatsoever because you
cannot _find_ it.
> We know that the
> origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF or BCRF) is
> fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system.
OK. For that the errorbars are comparatively small.
> Experimental Set up
> --------------------
> [...incredibly complicated description omitted]
You make all sorts of unlikely assumptions there. I'll sum them up this
way: since GR is an _excellent_ description of our solar system, you
have no hope of being able to measure the motion of the solar system
relative to your ""Universal reference frame" by making measurements
confined to the solar system itself (this includes objects therein).
(Note I am not assuming GR is "true", or the only possible
theory, I am merely pointing out that it describes the
solar system _extremely_ well, and its conclusions are
therefore valid to that level of accuracy. IOW: if local
measurements could determine "absolute motion", then the
predictions of GR would be wrong by similar amounts; but
they aren't.)
I think that the only way to identify your "Universal reference frame"
is to LOOK at ALL of the distant stars and galaxies (etc.), MEASURE
their masses, MEASURE their distances from earth, MEASURE their
velocities relative to earth, project them forward to "now", and COMPUTE
where your "Universal reference frame" is located. That's hopeless, as
there are estimated to be more than 10^8 of them; and as I said before,
the errorbars will be literaly astronomical....
This of course assumes a specific notion of "now" that
is not justified.... Your problem, not mine.
> The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the ground that it
> prohibits the existence of a preferred coordinate reference frame and
> declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
> equivalent.
What God whispered in your ear and told you this? Why do you believe Her?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GSS
I am sorry if I have been found to be offensive in any way. I never
intended to be so. I try my best not to discuss merits or demerits of
individuals but to focus on specific points and issues. I may criticize
the system but would not like to criticize individuals.
In another thread (Invalidity of SR) I had replied to your message
(Sl.No. 51) dated 18 Dec vide my message (56) of 20 Dec. Then Bilge
responded (57) to my reply on Dec 21. I replied to Bilge on Dec 23 (58)
.....
Kindly let me know who is promoting my ignorance to a place of
reverence. At least I do not intend to do that.
With regards
GSS
GSS
Dear Bill
In your previous post you had written :
> We already know of a couple of 'universal' reference frames eg the CBMR
> and one in which the stationary stars are fixed and probably others as
> well for all I know. I have not read your article but if valid all it would do
> if add another to that list.
I tried to give you a little explanation of what I mean by the
Universal Reference Frame because you had not read my article. Perhaps
you found these details bit confusing. Kindly read my article at least
now. You may then understand my point of view a little better.
GSS
GSS
>GSS wrote:
>> The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined as a non-rotating
>> inertial reference frame with its origin fixed with respect to the 'Centre of Mass' of the
>> Universe. We know that the origin of International Celestial Reference Frame (ICRF
>> or BCRF) is fixed at the barycenter or the center of mass of the solar system. If we
>> could locate a point O in ICRF such that O is fixed with respect to the center of
>> mass of our Universe, then a celestial reference frame with its origin at O could be
>> referred as the Universal Reference Frame. For this we need to determine the
>> velocity of O in ICRF which will lead us to determine the velocity of ICRF in the
>> Universal Reference Frame. The speed of light is an isotropic constant c and the
>> measures of distance and time are absolute in this frame.
> OK, you could do that. But the errorbars on its location would surely be
> truly enormous.... And you'll have difficulty defining what you mean by
> "non rotating" in an "absolute" sense....
The ICRF or BCRF is a celestial non-rotating reference frame. We intend
to detect a similar non-rotating coordinate reference frame K0 the
origin of which is at rest with respect to the CoM frame of our
universe.
> So while you can _define_ this, it is of no use whatsoever because you
> cannot _find_ it.
Since the orientation of K0 can be fixed with reference to the well
established orientation of the BCRF, we essentially need to detect
whether the barycenter of our solar system is at rest or in motion with
respect to K0. For this we intend to measure the velocity of the
barycenter with reference to K0 frame with an accuracy of about one
meter per second. As you know the precise location and velocity of the
International Space Station (ISS) is already known with reference to
BCRF. Therefore if we could determine the velocity of ISS with
reference to K0 that will lead to the determination of the velocity of
Barycenter in K0. The subject article describes a detailed methodology
of doing precisely that.
> OK. For that the errorbars are comparatively small.
>> Experimental Set up
>> --------------------
> [...incredibly complicated description omitted]
Let me put it in simple terms. Put a transmitter / receiver unit on ISS
and similar transponder units on three geostationary satellites. Start
sending coded signal pulses to the transponder units and keep receiving
return coded signal pulses. Process these outward and return coded
pulses in real time and obtain a real time record of the velocity of
the solar system with reference to the Universal Reference Frame.
> You make all sorts of unlikely assumptions there. I'll sum them up this
> way: since GR is an _excellent_ description of our solar system, you
> have no hope of being able to measure the motion of the solar system
> relative to your ""Universal reference frame" by making measurements
> confined to the solar system itself (this includes objects therein).
Let us agree then that as and when the proposed experiment is
actually conducted, if it yielded a finite, significant and consistent
velocity of our solar system with reference to the universal reference
frame, that will imply the formal collapse of SR as well as GR.
> I think that the only way to identify your "Universal reference frame"
> is to LOOK at ALL of the distant stars and galaxies (etc.), MEASURE
> their masses, MEASURE their distances from earth, MEASURE their
> velocities relative to earth, project them forward to "now", and COMPUTE
> where your "Universal reference frame" is located. That's hopeless, as
> there are estimated to be more than 10^8 of them; and as I said before,
> the errorbars will be literaly astronomical....
Perhaps if you were to devise an experimental method to detect the
Universal Reference Frame, you might have followed that approach. My
approach is far simpler than that.
>> The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the ground that it
>> prohibits the existence of a preferred coordinate reference frame and
>> declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
>> equivalent.
> What God whispered in your ear and told you this?
> Why do you believe Her?
Well, if *God* actually whispered in your ear that the subject article
is 99% correct, will you then believe *Her*?
GSS
Bill Hobba
>
>
> Dear Bill
>
> In your previous post you had written :
>
>> We already know of a couple of 'universal' reference frames eg the CBMR
>> and one in which the stationary stars are fixed and probably others as
>> well for all I know. I have not read your article but if valid all it
>> would do
>> if add another to that list.
>
> I tried to give you a little explanation of what I mean by the
> Universal Reference Frame
Physics is not concerned about what you mean by a universal reference frame.
Your ploy is a standard one used by those confused about basic things. You
define things different from what it usual in physics and at the same time
carry over that use to reach the conclusion you want. You correctly point
out astronomers use, for ease of calculation, a FOR where the center of mass
of the solar system is stationary and, against its standard use in physics,
call it a Universal frame. Thus you specifically define at as one which
astronomers find useful. Then you switch back to its usual meaning as one
in which the law laws physics are different then claim it defines an
absolute velocity.
> because you had not read my article. Perhaps
> you found these details bit confusing. Kindly read my article at least
> now. You may then understand my point of view a little better.
I have scanned it. It is the standard ploy detailed above.
Bill
>
> GSS
>
Tom Roberts
> The ICRF or BCRF is a celestial non-rotating reference frame. We intend
> to detect a similar non-rotating coordinate reference frame K0 the
> origin of which is at rest with respect to the CoM frame of our
> universe.
Your intentions do not mean it is possible.
As I said before, the validity of GR in solar system measurements
implies that you will be unable to actually "discover" your K0 by means
of mesurements confined to the solar system.
> Let me put it in simple terms. Put a transmitter / receiver unit on ISS
> and similar transponder units on three geostationary satellites. Start
> sending coded signal pulses to the transponder units and keep receiving
> return coded signal pulses. Process these outward and return coded
> pulses in real time and obtain a real time record of the velocity of
> the solar system with reference to the Universal Reference Frame.
If that would permit you to determine your K0, then the GPS would not
work. Unless you suppose your results fit inside the errorbars of the
GPS and other experiments -- for that to happen you would have to assume
that the velocity of the solar system wrt your K0 is unreasonably small....
> Let us agree then that as and when the proposed experiment is
> actually conducted, if it yielded a finite, significant and consistent
> velocity of our solar system with reference to the universal reference
> frame, that will imply the formal collapse of SR as well as GR.
Almost certainly (my uncertainty is due to my lack of understanding of
your supposed experiment). But given the current experimental record,
I'm not holding my breath waiting for your results.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135356529.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > [This article can also be viewed in a little more detailed form at,
> > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art6.pdf ]
> >
> > Notion of Universal Reference Frame
> > -----------------------------------
> > The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined
>
> Physics is not about definitions you think up for your own purposes. An
> absolute reference frame is one in which the laws of physics are different
> and such is denied by the POR.
Not necessarily. I see you're full of straw man arguments. An absolute
FoR can be privileged or not depending on what purpose it serves.
Newton's absolute FoR is provileged. Einstein's is not. If you want to
ask the right question (which you seem so confused to) it goes as
follows:
Is there a privileged FoR?
Mike
Bill Hobba
"Mike" <ele...@yahoo.gr> wrote in message
news:1135675605....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1135356529.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > [This article can also be viewed in a little more detailed form at,
>> > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/funda1/reference_art6.pdf ]
>> >
>> > Notion of Universal Reference Frame
>> > -----------------------------------
>> > The Universal or an Absolute reference frame may be defined
>>
>> Physics is not about definitions you think up for your own purposes. An
>> absolute reference frame is one in which the laws of physics are
>> different
>> and such is denied by the POR.
>
> Not necessarily. I see you're full of straw man arguments.
I see you still have not learnt the definitions standard in physics. Post
back when you do.
> An absolute
> FoR can be privileged or not depending on what purpose it serves.
> Newton's absolute FoR is provileged. Einstein's is not. If you want to
> ask the right question (which you seem so confused to) it goes as
> follows:
>
> Is there a privileged FoR?
As far as we can tell - no.
Bill
GSS
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135504959.8...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Dear Bill
> >
> > In your previous post you had written :
> >
> >> We already know of a couple of 'universal' reference frames eg the CBMR
> >> and one in which the stationary stars are fixed and probably others as
> >> well for all I know. I have not read your article but if valid all it
> >> would do
> >> if add another to that list.
> >
> > I tried to give you a little explanation of what I mean by the
> > Universal Reference Frame
>
> Physics is not concerned about what you mean by a universal reference frame.
> Your ploy is a standard one used by those confused about basic things. You
> define things different from what it usual in physics and at the same time
> carry over that use to reach the conclusion you want. You correctly point
> out astronomers use, for ease of calculation, a FOR where the center of mass
> of the solar system is stationary and, against its standard use in physics,
> call it a Universal frame. Thus you specifically define at as one which
> astronomers find useful. Then you switch back to its usual meaning as one
> in which the law laws physics are different then claim it defines an
> absolute velocity.
It is the same Universal or Absolute Reference Frame the detection of
which was attempted but could not be detected by the famous MM
experiment. Its notion in Physics is centuries old. The speed of
light in vacuum was assumed to be constant in this Absolute Rest Frame.
At the time of enunciating the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert
Einstein had postulated the non-existence of this Absolute Rest Frame
K0 and assumed the speed of light in vacuum to be constant c in all
inertial reference frames in uniform relative motion.
This Universal or Absolute Reference Frame possibly could have been
detected about 100 years back if the current cutting edge technology
were available at that time. In that case there would have been no SR.
> > because you had not read my article. Perhaps
> > you found these details bit confusing. Kindly read my article at least
> > now. You may then understand my point of view a little better.
>
> I have scanned it. It is the standard ploy detailed above.
>
> Bill
Kindly try again. I sincerely hope you will understand it fully now.
The most crucial point in the detection methodology is the age old
notion that the speed of light in vacuum is a *universal* constant in
this Universal or Absolute Reference Frame.
GSS
Tom Roberts
> At the time of enunciating the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert
> Einstein had postulated the non-existence of this Absolute Rest Frame
> K0
Not at all!
There quite clearly is some frame K0 in which the distant stars and
galaxies are on average at rest.
[But as I pointed out earlier, if you attempt to find K0
via astronomical measurements, your errorbars will be so
large the result will be useless.]
Einstein did not postulate "the non-existence" of such a frame. What he
postulated was that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same in any inertial
frame, K0 or any other. That is QUITE different from what you claim.
A consequence of that postulate is that you cannot find K0 by any set of
measurements confined to the solar system. You must exhaustively
enumerate all distant stars and galaxies, measure their positions and
speeds, and then compute K0.
So if you manage to convince anyone to actually perform your experiment,
it will indeed be a test of SR/GR. But that's IMHO highly unlikely,
because numerous similar experiments have already been performed, and
yielded results consistent with SR/GR.
> and assumed the speed of light in vacuum to be constant c in all
> inertial reference frames in uniform relative motion.
That is an _independent_ postulate of SR. And you also got its wording
and meaning wrong -- the details _ARE_ important.
> This Universal or Absolute Reference Frame possibly could have been
> detected about 100 years back if the current cutting edge technology
> were available at that time.
"If wishes were horses beggars would ride."
And you haven't shown that today's technology can actually discover K0;
your claims are not evidence, thay are just your personal version of
beggars' horses.
> In that case there would have been no SR.
Highly unlikely. The observed local validity of SR today implies it is
an important symmetry of the world we inhabit. We know it is only
approximate (local), but for situations in which gravity can be
neglected it is an _extremely_ good approximation.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Dastardly Fiend
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:dorqie$9...@netnews.net.lucent.com...
> GSS wrote:
>> At the time of enunciating the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert
>> Einstein had postulated the non-existence of this Absolute Rest Frame
>> K0
>
> Not at all!
>
> There quite clearly is some frame K0 in which the distant stars and
> galaxies are on average at rest.
Quite clearly the planets of the solar system are on average at rest,
they never leave the vicinity of the sun.
Ignorant troll.
DF.
The Ghost In The Machine
<M...@Myplace.org>
wrote
on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:02:50 GMT
<_sesf.25102$D47....@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>:
So, erm, what was the average TWLS of light again?
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Bill Hobba
The assumption was that some frame existed in which the aether was at rest.
That did not imply the inertial frame where the solar system was at rest was
that frame. At the time they evidently thought it may be but later evidence
that the solar system moved wrt to the galaxy made such seem rather silly.
> Its notion in Physics is centuries old. The speed of
> light in vacuum was assumed to be constant in this Absolute Rest Frame.
Incorrect. It is assumed to be constant in some frame. Some scientists in
the 19th century stated the aether was at rest in Newton's absolute space.
But such an assumption is independent of the aether hypothesis.
> At the time of enunciating the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert
> Einstein had postulated the non-existence of this Absolute Rest Frame
> K0
That is not what he did. He rejected the existence of any absolute frame -
not the frame based on your posted misconceptions.
> and assumed the speed of light in vacuum to be constant c in all
> inertial reference frames in uniform relative motion.
>
> This Universal or Absolute Reference Frame possibly could have been
> detected about 100 years back if the current cutting edge technology
> were available at that time. In that case there would have been no SR.
All variants of the MMX, including modern ones of much greater accuracy,
have failed to detect an aether.
>
>> > because you had not read my article. Perhaps
>> > you found these details bit confusing. Kindly read my article at least
>> > now. You may then understand my point of view a little better.
>>
>> I have scanned it. It is the standard ploy detailed above.
>>
>> Bill
>
> Kindly try again. I sincerely hope you will understand it fully now.
There is no need to read it again, all it will show is what it did last time
I scanned it - you do not understand the basics. Specifically you are
confused about what an absolute FOR is and what a frame used for ease of
calculation.
Bill
Bill Hobba
Bill Hobba
>> At the time of enunciating the Special Theory of Relativity, Albert
>> Einstein had postulated the non-existence of this Absolute Rest Frame
>> K0
>
> Not at all!
>
> There quite clearly is some frame K0 in which the distant stars and
> galaxies are on average at rest.
>
> [But as I pointed out earlier, if you attempt to find K0
> via astronomical measurements, your errorbars will be so
> large the result will be useless.]
>
> Einstein did not postulate "the non-existence" of such a frame. What he
> postulated was that THE LAWS OF PHYSICS are the same in any inertial
> frame, K0 or any other. That is QUITE different from what you claim.
>
> A consequence of that postulate is that you cannot find K0 by any set of
> measurements confined to the solar system. You must exhaustively enumerate
> all distant stars and galaxies, measure their positions and speeds, and
> then compute K0.
First an apology - I accidentally posted a blank reply. But I just want to
say Tom is correct here. According to relativity you can not do what the
poster suggested. All we can know is the position and velocities of those
stars/galaxies in the past with that time in the past varying with how far
they are away. It is simply not possible to know what they were at some
instant in time.
Thanks
Bill
GSS
> GSS wrote:
>> The ICRF or BCRF is a celestial non-rotating reference frame. We intend
>> to detect a similar non-rotating coordinate reference frame K0 the
>> origin of which is at rest with respect to the CoM frame of our
>> universe.
> Your intentions do not mean it is possible.
But soundness of the proposal, logical validity of the analysis and
technical feasibility of the experiment will make it possible.
> As I said before, the validity of GR in solar system measurements implies
> that you will be unable to actually "discover" your K0 by means of
> mesurements confined to the solar system.
That is why we agree that the successful detection of K0 will imply the
experimental proof of the invalidity of both SR and GR.
>> Let me put it in simple terms. Put a transmitter / receiver unit on ISS
>> and similar transponder units on three geostationary satellites. Start
>> sending coded signal pulses to the transponder units and keep receiving
>> return coded signal pulses. Process these outward and return coded
>> pulses in real time and obtain a real time record of the velocity of
>> the solar system with reference to the Universal Reference Frame.
> If that would permit you to determine your K0, then the GPS would not
> work. Unless you suppose your results fit inside the errorbars of the
> GPS and other experiments -- for that to happen you would have to
> assume that the velocity of the solar system wrt your K0 is
> unreasonably small....
Well, we already know that our solar system is actually moving with a
significant velocity in a celestial reference frame fixed with respect
to CoM of our galaxy. This knowledge does not stop the GPS from working
satisfactorily. Then why should an additional knowledge that our solar
system is moving with velocity U' (say) in the Universal Reference
Frame should make GPS stop working?
>> Let us agree then that as and when the proposed experiment is
>> actually conducted, if it yielded a finite, significant and consistent
>> velocity of our solar system with reference to the universal reference
>> frame, that will imply the formal collapse of SR as well as GR.
> Almost certainly (my uncertainty is due to my lack of understanding
> of your supposed experiment). But given the current experimental record,
> I'm not holding my breath waiting for your results.
The one way GPS time transfer technique is the most crucial and
revolutionary feature in the GPS technology. The GPS satellites
broadcast a timing signal (a tick of the clock) on a phase modulated
L-band carrier along with information identifying the time for which
the tick corresponds. The GPS receiver marks the time of arrival of the
signal pulse and from the coded information of the emission time in the
pulse, computes the pulse propagation time T_prop.
In the proposed experiment we have extended this 'one way time transfer
technique' to the 'two way time transfer technique'. In this two way
time transfer technique, the transponder emits a coded signal pulse
carrying the information of its emission time. On arrival at the other
end receiver, the responder marks the arrival time of the pulse and
computes the outward signal propagation time T_out just as is done in
GPS system. Then the responder will emit a return coded pulse with
information of its emission time. The transponder will again mark the
arrival time of this return pulse and comparing it with the coded
emission time, will compute the inward signal propagation time T_in.
The required velocity U1 of the transponder in the Universal Reference
Frame is then given by,
U1 = c.(T_out - T_in)/(T_out + T_in)
Therefore, in the proposed experiment to detect the Universal Reference
Frame we are simply aiming to extend the well established one way GPS
Time Transfer technology to the two way time transfer technology.
GSS
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>Your intentions do not mean it is possible.
>
> But soundness of the proposal, logical validity of the analysis and
> technical feasibility of the experiment will make it possible.
Only if the universe cooperates. My basic point is that so far the
universe shows no sign of cooperating with your program, and every sign
of not working the way you think. <shrug>
> Well, we already know that our solar system is actually moving with a
> significant velocity in a celestial reference frame fixed with respect
> to CoM of our galaxy. This knowledge does not stop the GPS from working
> satisfactorily.
Sure. Because one CANNOT observe the motion of the earth relative to the
galaxy's CoM via observations confined to the region of the GPS. The
only reason we know about the galaxy's CoM is because we can observe the
other stars in the galaxy; they are far outside the GPS's domain.
> Then why should an additional knowledge that our solar
> system is moving with velocity U' (say) in the Universal Reference
> Frame should make GPS stop working?
It is not the "knowledge" that would do that, it is the behavior of
electromagnetic signals that would do so. That is, if your technique
works it implies anisotropy in the speed of light of a type the GPS
cannot tolerate while remaining accurate. That's why I _STRONGLY_
believe your measurement will fail, because the GPS works (plus many
other experiments).
> [... description assuming the speed of light is isotropic _ONLY_
> in the "Universal Reference Frame"]
>The required velocity U1 of the transponder in the Universal Reference
> Frame is then given by,
> U1 = c.(T_out - T_in)/(T_out + T_in)
You must, of course, correct for the motions of the transponders during
the propagation.
Numerous experiments referenced in the FAQ have measured similar
quantities, with results consistent with zero. And the best ones have
errorbars less than 1 meter/sec.
Your experiment is doomed.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Mike
Bill Hobba wrote:
> "GSS" <gurchar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1135434618.3...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > The Principle of Relativity is invalid precisely on the ground that it
> > prohibits the existence of a preferred coordinate reference frame and
> > declares all inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion to be
> > equivalent.
>
> Then you must disagree with classical mechanics because Newton's 3 laws all
> obey the POR.
The obey the weak PoR. They do not obey the strong PoR.
>
> > I have shown the invalidity of POR firstly on the grounds
> > of violation of the principal of conservation of total mass-energy
>
> The law of conservation of energy is easily violated eg a free particle in
> an accelerating FOR. It has nothing to do with the POR being a tautological
> statement about a lagrangeians time symmetry.
Why don't you learn some physics? The law is not violated in
accelerated FoR. It just does not apply in that case because an
accelerated FoR requires energy input to accelerate. If a closed-system
is selected, the law holds.
Neither you have demonstrated that centrifugal forces (and inertia)
arise due to mass distribution in the universe and NOT due to the
presence of an absolute frame of reference.
Good point. But you obviously have a distorted view of classical
mechanics:
"For a classical system of material particles, conservation of energy,
combined with Galilean relativity, implies conservation of momentum,
and conservation of momentum implies Newton's laws.:"
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_laws_of_motion
Mike
>
> Bill
>
> >
> > GSS
> > http://www.geocities.com/gurcharn_sandhu/index.html
> >
GSS
>>The required velocity U1 of the transponder in the Universal Reference
>>Frame is then given by,
>>
>> U1 = c.(T_out - T_in)/(T_out + T_in)
>>Therefore, in the proposed experiment to detect the Universal Reference
>>Frame we are simply aiming to extend the well established one way GPS
>>Time Transfer technology to the two way time transfer technology.
> You must, of course, correct for the motions of the transponders during
> the propagation.
That has been done very accurately.
>Numerous experiments referenced in the FAQ have measured similar
>quantities, with results consistent with zero. And the best ones have
>errorbars less than 1 meter/sec.
None of them uses the two way time transfer technology.
And none of them has been conducted outside the atmosphere.
Generally short path lengths and abnormal propagation delays limit
the efficacy of such experiments.
Kindly name a single experiment either conducted or proposed
so far, which has attempted to measure the velocity of the
barycenter of our solar system in the Universal Reference Frame.
GSS
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>quantities, with results consistent with zero. And the best ones have
>>errorbars less than 1 meter/sec.
>
> None of them uses the two way time transfer technology.
Sure. But in order for your supposed experiment to yield a nonzero
result, the speed of light must be anisotropic. There are many
measurements of anisotropy, and they yield zero with an errorbar < 1
meter/sec.
Nature is not cooperating with you, and does not work the way you
suppose. <shrug>
The underlying experimental technique is not at issue. What is important
is to have an underlying _theory_, and then use that theory to predict
the experimental results. SR has been used for almost a century, and its
predictions agree with all experiments performed so far within its
domain of applicability; it predicts zero for your experiment. The
theory you seem to be implicitly using is that the speed of light is
isotropic in your "Universal Reference Frame", and in any frame moving
with velocity v relative to it the velocity of light is c-v; that theory
predicts an anisotropy for the speed of light that is consistent with
many existing experiments only if one assumes the earth is always at
rest wrt the "Universal Reference Frame" -- not very "universal" is it?
> And none of them has been conducted outside the atmosphere.
Many have been conducted in vacuum pipes. While I have not considered
this in detail, I'll bet that the measurements of the Shapiro time delay
(earth->mars->earth) and of the Viking and Cassini spacecraft are
inconsistent with your theory (probably need the sun to be at rest in
your "URF", not the earth).
> Generally short path lengths and abnormal propagation delays limit
> the efficacy of such experiments.
Not really -- see the literature for details. Good experimenters analyze
error sources.
> Kindly name a single experiment either conducted or proposed
> so far, which has attempted to measure the velocity of the
> barycenter of our solar system in the Universal Reference Frame.
There are many _observations_ of distant stars and galaxies that have
been used to do that (or equivalent). But nobody has ever seen the type
of phenomena your experiment is supposed to measure (I mean
_reproducible_ results).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GSS
>The underlying experimental technique is not at issue. What is important
>is to have an underlying _theory_, and then use that theory to predict
>the experimental results. SR has been used for almost a century, and its
>predictions agree with all experiments performed so far within its
>domain of applicability; it predicts zero for your experiment. The
>theory you seem to be implicitly using is that the speed of light is
>isotropic in your "Universal Reference Frame", and in any frame moving
>with velocity v relative to it the velocity of light is c-v;
The international community of scientists regards the speed of light
to be an isotropic constant c in the International Celestial Reference
System and all inter-planetary space flight calculations are done on
this basis.
Do you object to it?
If no, then why should there be any objection to my regarding the speed
of light to be an isotropic constant c in the Universal reference
frame?
Does SR dictate that speed of light cannot be an isotropic constant c
in the Universal Reference Frame?
GSS
PD
No, it doesn't have a problem with that. It has a problem with being
anything *other than c* in any other reference frame.
PD
Tom Roberts
> The international community of scientists regards the speed of light
> to be an isotropic constant c in the International Celestial Reference
> System and all inter-planetary space flight calculations are done on
> this basis.
Sure.
The problem with your experiment is that we _ALSO_ know that the speed
of light is isotropically c in any locally-inertial frame occupied by a
lab on earth. That is, your error is in this part: "in any frame moving
with velocity v relative to [your universal reference frame] the
velocity of light is c-v".
Your experiment is doomed, because light simply does not work that way.
<shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GSS
>GSS wrote:
>> The international community of scientists regards the speed of light
>> to be an isotropic constant c in the International Celestial Reference
>> System and all inter-planetary space flight calculations are done on
>> this basis.
>Sure.
>
>The problem with your experiment is that we _ALSO_ know that the speed
>of light is isotropically c in any locally-inertial frame occupied by a
>lab on earth. That is, your error is in this part: "in any frame moving
>with velocity v relative to [your universal reference frame] the
>velocity of light is c-v".
Let me reaffirm, I have only assumed that the speed of light is an
isotropic constant c in the Universal Reference Frame. There after I
have only accounted for the signal propagation time between specific
objects. I have not assumed anywhere that the speed of light is c-v in
any particular reference frame. You might imply this from the account
of signal propagation time. There is absolutely no error in it.
GSS
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
>>of light is isotropically c in any locally-inertial frame occupied by a
>>lab on earth. That is, your error is in this part: "in any frame moving
>>with velocity v relative to [your universal reference frame] the
>>velocity of light is c-v".
>
> Let me reaffirm, I have only assumed that the speed of light is an
> isotropic constant c in the Universal Reference Frame. There after I
> have only accounted for the signal propagation time between specific
> objects.
In your formula for computing your U1 ("the velocity[sic] in the URF")
from the signal propagation times you assumed c-v. In fact, many
experiments measure c in earthbound labs, not c-v for any v whatsoever.
That is, numerous other experiments imply that your experiment will have
the result U1=0 for the velocity of the earth relative to your "URF",
and thus show it is not "universal" at all. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GSS
It appears that you have exhausted all of your logical arguments and
have now resorted to wishful thinking that the proposed experiment will
give null result.
Please , for a moment come out of your shell of relativity and examine
the details of the proposed experiment with open mind. So far your only
argument, in nutshell, has been that such an experiment is not
warranted in relattivity framework.
In fact this is precisely the strong point of the proposed experiment
that it will experimentally invalidate the relativity theory by using
the current leading edge technologies.
Regards
GSS.
Tom Roberts
> It appears that you have exhausted all of your logical arguments and
> have now resorted to wishful thinking that the proposed experiment will
> give null result.
> Please , for a moment come out of your shell of relativity and examine
> the details of the proposed experiment with open mind. So far your only
> argument, in nutshell, has been that such an experiment is not
> warranted in relattivity framework.
Apparently you are unable to read.
My point is that other, similar experiments have indicated that the
measurement you propose will yield zero for your U1 (velocity of the
transponder relative to your "universal reference frame").
> In fact this is precisely the strong point of the proposed experiment
> that it will experimentally invalidate the relativity theory by using
> the current leading edge technologies.
Only if all those other experiments are wrong.
You are the one using "wishful thinking". In particular, you are not
looking at related experiments before proposing a new one.
Tom Roberts tjroberts2lucent.com