On basic formalism of SR - 2
Sergey Karavashkin
We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
space-time reduction in SR",
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html
Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
follow from them.
We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
any physical phenomena.
Best to you all,
Sergey B. Karavashkin
Head Laboratory SELF
187 apt., 38 bldg.
Prospect Gagarina
Kharkov 61140
Ukraine
Phone: +38 (057) 7370624
e-mail: self...@yandex.ru , sel...@mail.ru
http://selftrans.narod.ru/SELFlab/index.html
Helmut Wabnig
<self...@yandex.ru> wrote:
Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
is completely invalid.
When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
and you may enjoy them.
w.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1133197236....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Colleagues,
Indeed, you have many colleagues impostors on these newsgroups.
>
> We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
> space-time reduction in SR",
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html
>
> Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
> of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
> light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
> anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
> This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
of which the carefully concealed error was already exposed:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/83f38ab41542f91d
>
> This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
> begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
> incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
> follow from them.
>
> We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
> wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
> any physical phenomena.
Unless you are incredibly stupid and/or deliberately deceiving
your 'readers', there is no reason to post a supplement to a
paper that was already exposed and classified as junk.
Why don't you post a supplement to your non-zero curl gradient
scam?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
I already told you - your deliberate errors are too transparent.
Dirk Vdm
Harry
"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress@> wrote in message
news:42qmo1dm9bp54vg65...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Nov 2005 09:00:36 -0800, "Sergey Karavashkin"
> <self...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
> is completely invalid.
> When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
> coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
> They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
> the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
> and you may enjoy them.
>
> w.
Are you a fascist?
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
It is intersting to note that all relativity opponents
are indeed fascists. All those myriads of "Einstein error"
pamphlet authors are driven by anti-semitism.
For them, relativity is "Jewish physics" and therefore must
be wrong, and they sacrifice every logic principle
in their useless pervert efforts to falsify RT.
w.
Harry
"Helmut Wabnig" <EmailAddress@> wrote in message
You mean that you are not a fascist, but that Sergey is one? I have seen no
evidence for it, quite to the contrary: from a quick look at his for me much
too elaborate writings I see that according to him, both Poincare and
Minkowski made errors. Moreover, he's even not really an opponent of the
physics theory called SRT, eventhough he claims to be: instead it appears
that he actually seems to "enjoy" the LT, as you put it. But he is opposed
to popular "relativistic" philosophy, which indeed all too often is confused
with physics. He can't be blamed for starting that confusion but as long as
he propagates it, he'll never get out of the morass of misdirected arguments
that are supported by often erroneous calculations.
Harald
Harry
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1133197236....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
> space-time reduction in SR",
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html
>
> Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
> of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
> light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
> anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
> This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
>
> This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
> begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
> incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
> follow from them.
Dear Sergey,
I enjoyed the simulations on your html pages, I think they are insightful.
You started with a "rest frame" in which light speed has been made to appear
isotropic by convention. And in that configuration you clearly show that as
determined in that rest frame, the speed of the light pulse relatively to
the moving frame is c-v on the one side and c+v on the other side. In fact,
this is not only acknowledged in Einstein's 1905 paper, it's even used in
the derivations; thus your animations may be helpful when reading his paper.
In modern jargon that relative speed is also called "closing speed".
IOW, what do you think is "wrong" about the way he formalated the
postulates? According to Einstein, he formulated facts of experience; I see
nothing incorrect with them. It's essential to distinguish between how some
textbooks interpret those postulates and what they really state, with their
meaning as outlined in the 1905 paper.
Nevertheless, if I understood you well, I agree with your conclusion that in
general, light speed can not be modelled as being truly (thus observer
independent) isotropic in any such freely chosen "rest" frame. Such follows
from the obvious fact that the "rest" frame isn't "special" and even doesn't
have to be physical: there is an infinite amount of such "rest" frames that
one may choose and in any such chosen frame, light speed appears to be
anisotropic relative to all others.
Apart of that, about the visual distortion of jet appearence I don't know
enough to comment.
Best regards,
Harald
Helmut Wabnig
wrote:
>You mean that you are not a fascist, but that Sergey is one?
No, allow me a few words although this is OT,
only a few words, that buzzword appears all to often in UselessNet!
There is no commonly acknowledged definition of "fascist".
When we look at certain countries we will find "totaliarism"
fits rather than "fascist". But there is a subtle difference.
A fascist regime takes control of all public life and private
life as well. This is not always the case with totaliarist regimes,
eg. military dictators. The Communists have of course different
definitions, although their regimes have all properties of fascism.
My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
******************************************************
"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
******************************************************
(Hope that sounds, I am not native English)
Of course that applies vice versa,
must the text be modified to emphasize that?
That definition comes from my many years of studying
the German / Austrian Nationalsozialismus with all
it's spying and betraying actions among the population:
*******************************************************************
Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
*******************************************************************
w.
--
"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
Joe Fischer
>My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
>******************************************************
>"Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
>******************************************************
>(Hope that sounds, I am not native English)
>Of course that applies vice versa,
>must the text be modified to emphasize that?
That sounds good the way it is.
But I would suggest,
"Fascism is, when I must live the way the ruling leaders think"
>That definition comes from my many years of studying
>the German / Austrian Nationalsozialismus with all
>it's spying and betraying actions among the population:
>*******************************************************************
>Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
>*******************************************************************
>w.
The last sentence probably goes a long way in
explaining why the people of Germany have suffered
so much in conflict in the last century, a country that
is completely surrounded by other countries, and it
is difficult to get along with all of them.
It may help explain why the two dictators had
enough support to impose rules, which resulted in
Einstein and many others leaving the country.
But this is off topic in the newsgroup I am
reading it in.
I was wrong about one thing though, I had
always thought that once a country went communist,
there would no way to recover any freedom at all
without a lot of bloodshed.
At least it appears I was wrong, history will
tell.
But now, on Usenet, there seems to be too
much freedom, people say things they would never
say in person. :-)
Joe Fischer
tadchem
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
> ******************************************************
> "Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
> ******************************************************
Excellent! I would not change a word of it!
> *******************************************************************
> Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
> *******************************************************************
Another winner!
Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
Double-A
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:33:48 +0100, "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
> >You mean that you are not a fascist, but that Sergey is one?
> No, allow me a few words although this is OT,
> only a few words, that buzzword appears all to often in UselessNet!
>
> There is no commonly acknowledged definition of "fascist".
> When we look at certain countries we will find "totaliarism"
> fits rather than "fascist". But there is a subtle difference.
> A fascist regime takes control of all public life and private
> life as well. This is not always the case with totaliarist regimes,
> eg. military dictators. The Communists have of course different
> definitions, although their regimes have all properties of fascism.
>
> My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
> ******************************************************
> "Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
> ******************************************************
Then by that definition, we have creeping fascism here in the USA.
They won't even let me drink fresh pressed apple cider or raw milk
anymore!
> (Hope that sounds, I am not native English)
> Of course that applies vice versa,
> must the text be modified to emphasize that?
>
> That definition comes from my many years of studying
> the German / Austrian Nationalsozialismus with all
> it's spying and betraying actions among the population:
> *******************************************************************
> Your worst enemies in a fascist country are the neighbours.
> *******************************************************************
Yes, the neighbors always seem to want to run your life!
> w.
> --
> "Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
Double-A
June R Harton
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
Spirit of Truth
(using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
Harry
However, if I understand your argument well, you propose that a jet will be
Lorentz-contracted somewhat like follows, if it's moving towards top-right;
\
\
and the question is how that will *appear* when looked at with a telescope.
I could not follow your discussion about points A, B and C; first you seem
to claim just Lorentz contraction in fig.3, but then in fig.4 you seem to
omit Lorentz contraction, with "this means that the observer at the point O
will register not the true length of the jet but larger length". By chance I
came upon the following citation that seems to settle that issue:
When an object travels at relativistic speeds, the light that travels
towards a camera from opposite ends of the object in general takes different
times to get to the camera. Thus the image of the front of an approaching
object represents where it was more recently than does the image of the rear
of the object. This aberration, although due to the finite velocity of
light, is not relativistic in the ordinary sense. Its magnitude is such that
it cancels out the Lorentz contraction. (Terrell, J., (1959) Phys. Rev. 116,
1041-1045.)
Cheers,
Harald
Harry
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:fQSkf.3385$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
> is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
You must be new here --- you could search this group with Google.
Anyway, if you already know SRT, then this may be the quickest way to
understanding:
Determine with SRT the Lorentz contraction in the frame of the sun. Ask
yourself what the experimenters will measure, according to your calculation.
Now replace that frame with an unknown frame "X".
Cheers,
Harald
Gregory L. Hansen
June R Harton <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
>Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
>is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
>the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
>actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
>to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
Speed is distance traveled divided by elapsed time. The ruler shrinks by
just the right amount.
--
"In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Paul Mays
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dn21ob$a61$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
Or ... Magic!
June R Harton
Harold, M and M concluded light is c in every direction so the measurable
distance, according to Lorentz, had to contract somehow.
As far as I have been able to make out, Lorentz's length contraction is
computed by (c+v) AND (c-v) together divided by 2 (and substituting
the time dilation factor) to make the length contraction figure.
Thus one gets a certain length contraction (in the direction of the motion)
and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
the length contraction figure. Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
See?
June R Harton
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:dn21ob$a61$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
>the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
>actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
>to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
"Speed is distance traveled divided by elapsed time. The ruler
shrinks by just the right amount."
Thanks, Gregory.
Yes, but that's where i have some trouble with the math.
M and M concluded light is c in every direction so the measurable
distance, according to Lorentz, had to contract somehow.
As far as I have been able to make out, Lorentz's length contraction is
computed by (c+v) AND (c-v) together divided by 2 (and substituting
the time dilation factor) to make the length contraction figure.
Thus one gets a certain length contraction (in the direction of the motion)
and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
the length contraction figure. Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
Someone else recently checked time dlilation in just the direction
of travel and then the time dilation in the reverse direction and found
the same conflict. Apparently only when both are added together
and divided by 2 do you get the Lorentz (and Einstein) results.
Harry
Yes, and also Einstein used that in his 1905 derivation.
> Thus one gets a certain length contraction (in the direction of the
motion)
> and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
> in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
> the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
> the length contraction figure.
The light trajectory, yes.
> Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
> in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
> will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
That's not what is measured in M-M.
In M-M the light's return time in one direction is compared with the return
time of light that is sent out perpendicular to it by looking at the
interference pattern. It turns out that the pattern is the same when the
apparatus is turned.
Do you know the set-up? Light is sent out in two directions and reflected
back by mirrors 1 and 2.
2
Ś
Ś
Ś
-------------1 --> motion
What matters is that the return time in one direction is compared with that
in another direction. It turns out that this time is always gamma times more
than when the object is in rest, independent of orientation (M-M), and that
the frequency of a moving clock is also gamma times lower than when the
clock is in rest (Kennedy-Thorndike: the wavelength of the light source
changes with speed), so that the moving observer doesn't notice it.
You calculated the time for light path 1. If you now do the same for light
path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is contracted by
gamma.
Success!
Harald
Harry
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:W7Qlf.2963$Zb2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:dn21ob$a61$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
> Someone else recently checked time dlilation in just the direction
> of travel and then the time dilation in the reverse direction and found
> the same conflict. Apparently only when both are added together
> and divided by 2 do you get the Lorentz (and Einstein) results.
>
>
> Spirit of Truth
>
> (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
OK I see your problem now. This has to do with clock synchronization
(usually "esync":): in any inertial reference system, clocks are
synchronized in such a way that light speed appears homogenous. That's all
there is to it!
Cheers,
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2005 09:00:36 -0800, "Sergey Karavashkin"
> <self...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> Your analysis - it is actually a joke to call it "analysis"
> is completely invalid.
> When passing information between relatively moving (SR)
> coordinate systems you have to use the Lorentz transformations.
Who said you that we in our calculation are passing from one frame to
another in a standard relativistic way? We are basing on the events
coincidence and nowhere exceed the limits allowed by Relativity. If
thereupon the light speed appears anisotropic - excuse me, this speaks
only that your statement was based not on the objective scientific
reasoning but on a trivial wild chauvinism that trample down the
scientific, cultural, ethnic achievements of the world under the vile
importunity that just your nation is best.
> They have not been invented by Einstein, if that makes you happy,
> the Lorentz transformations are true Aryan physics, so to speak,
> and you may enjoy them.
>
> w.
>
Could you explain me ignorant: do you really think the Newtonian
physics to be Arian, Kirchhoff theory - Arian, Ohm law, Laplace
theory of potential, Gibbs distribution, vortex theory of Helmholtz
etc? Is this all the Arian physics? Or you are fascist in the guise of
fighter for equal rights?
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:1133197236....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Dear Colleagues,
>
> Indeed, you have many colleagues impostors on these newsgroups.
>
> >
> > We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
> > space-time reduction in SR",
> >
> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html
> >
> > Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
> > of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
> > light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
> > anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
> > This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",
> >
> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
>
> of which the carefully concealed error was already exposed:
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/83f38ab41542f91d
With your level of education? You do not know properly even arithmetic.
;-)
>
> >
> > This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
> > begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
> > incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
> > follow from them.
> >
> > We hope that our Supplement will much clear for many scientists how
> > wrong is the conception on which they try to rely and to relate to it
> > any physical phenomena.
>
> Unless you are incredibly stupid and/or deliberately deceiving
> your 'readers', there is no reason to post a supplement to a
> paper that was already exposed and classified as junk.
> Why don't you post a supplement to your non-zero curl gradient
> scam?
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/72b73c5fd98f8a36
>
> I already told you - your deliberate errors are too transparent.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Why should we write a supplement? Everything is correct in our paper.
Actually, in dynamic fields the gradient essentially changes its
appearance, as we rigorously proved. In particular, in the page 5,
formula (10),
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad05/grad05.html
we showed that the dynamic gradient consists of the known gradient for
the stationary field and of the dynamic additional term as a derivative
over time. Just this addition causes the curl of gradient to be
non-zero in dynamic fields. And we showed in our papers (see page 6)
that in the standard theory this addition is associated with the vector
potential which still has not its phenomenological substantiation in
the standard theory. Moreover, in the page 6 we rigorously proved it.
Thus, no problem here. ;-) Are not you surprised that in stationary
fields the electric field strength is described just by this gradient,
and in dynamic fields we add to it the derivative in time of vector
potential? Describe in frames of standard formalism the physical
meaning of this vector potential. You will not be able. While we showed
where from it appears. That's all. ;-)
Before I also wrote you, this is not final expression. This is caused
by the behaviour in complicated dynamic fields. Even in a simple case
considered in our work, the force lines of dynamic fields are not
concentric, as in stationary field, and this is well seen in the
animation in Fig. 5 (page 8). But this is too far from you. You could
not grasp even that. You even did not notice that the method to account
the time parameter in dynamic fields which we used in our paper has
been already peerly reviewed and the paper on divergence of vector in
dynamic fields has been published internationally. Long time ago. ;-)
Well, it is nice of you to be misunderstanding what I say. I would be
pity to lose you, my barometer, although I understand, everything good
once is over. Franz Heymann and Bilge most likely have already
understood what I am saying you now, and Tim Shuba understood when he
stopped you. You are the last. I will not count Helmut, this tiro with
saliva about anti-Semitism. The more, he seemingly has not even a
hollow of sweaty cap that you have. He even is unable to write properly
the relativistic slogans. So - well, I will be pleased much to hear
from you that your bosses are helpless.
Don't neglect your duty! ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Still I see you in saliva and without real arguments. Just so you are
trying to reduce the discussion to the national segregation. Where
people have real arguments, they never speak of anti-Semitism. Or you
can call Einstein anti-Briton, Maxwell - anti-Frenchman and so on.
Only, how can we classify, what a national idea pursued Rutherford when
he disproved the Thomson theory of atomic structure? Both seemed to be
UK citizens? He-he!
Below you are writing, "Fascism is, when I must live the way you
think". In this way you only corroborate your narrow mind, as you
substitute the physical discussion by national squabbling. Sooner or
later, any theory appears some limited. To grasp its limitedness and to
prove true some or other theory, we have to discuss it - and to
criticise of course. Well, you are stating, this automatically means,
every opponent is fascist. We all MUST recognise the Relativity without
arguing - just as your definition of fascism claims. And I fully
agree with this point. Actually, communists behaved just so, only in
our times not so strong. They simply isolated from society the
scientists doubting the slogans. Your definition says, this is namely
fascism. So you are just fascist. He-he!
I would add to the point, Stalin's Security has issued a special
decree ordering to deport the scientists doubting Relativity to the
GULAG (prison-camps for criminals). And even now in Russian Academy of
Sciences they have established a special committee to defend the
science from differently minded scientists, I have run into its members
on the Russian forum. Their level and manners are alike yours. Zero
arguments, zero analysis, zero knowledge, but to every one differently
minded they glue the labels of anti-Semitism. ;-) No one scientific
theory was so repressive to the scientists as Relativity. And you
clearly confirmed it. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Harald, here you are saying not precisely. Firstly, Einstein did
not admit that the light speed is anisotropic in the moving frame,
although in his work of 1905 he showed that for himself he knows this
discrepancy of his theory. Secondly, Einstein speaks not of relative
speed, as the light in this theory cannot have a relative speed. Its
speed is utmost possible in all frames and isotropic. Having agreed
that, actually, in a moving frame the light speed becomes anisotropic,
you may close all papers on relativity, doing not wasting your time. If
you see the use of our paper just in it, I agree. A simple and visual
calculation that we made shows better that any relativistic
mathematical speculations that their postulate of light speed constancy
in all frames is wrong, with all consequences for this conception. ;-)
>
> IOW, what do you think is "wrong" about the way he formalated the
> postulates? According to Einstein, he formulated facts of experience; I see
> nothing incorrect with them. It's essential to distinguish between how some
> textbooks interpret those postulates and what they really state, with their
> meaning as outlined in the 1905 paper.
Which experiment, Harry? MMX? Then please see again our paper on
Doppler effect,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_1/doppler/doppler53/doppler53.html
and try to converge the rays in Fig. 7. This proposition is not
rhetorical. In Fig. 7a (stationary frame) you will see, the rays to be
mutually perpendicular in the moving frame, the violet ray has to be
inclined by some angle. This will affect the following run of rays, if
the Snell law remains true. With it the whole construction on which
Michelson based his predictions and from which Fitzgerald made his
conclusions appears wrong. MMX has to have a basically other scheme and
to be calculated differently. The Lorentz transformations do not
already follow from this scheme. In the same page you can find direct
evidence that Lorentz understood his error, but violating the
scientific objectivity, he did not change his official point.
Factually, when turning, the rays will run and masking compensating
effect will tell on. It will considerably lessen the measured speed of
Earth in relation to aether. I already wrote you of it. And you could
make sure experimentally, basing on my prediction concerning your
experiment. There also took place a masking effect.
Thus, am I right or not, wish someone or not, but the experiments agree
with my predictions and calculations. ;-)
>
> Nevertheless, if I understood you well, I agree with your conclusion that in
> general, light speed can not be modelled as being truly (thus observer
> independent) isotropic in any such freely chosen "rest" frame. Such follows
> from the obvious fact that the "rest" frame isn't "special" and even doesn't
> have to be physical: there is an infinite amount of such "rest" frames that
> one may choose and in any such chosen frame, light speed appears to be
> anisotropic relative to all others.
Here we should not forget, this that you said and we proved relates to
the Relativity. In classical theory we have not this paradox, as the
light speed is constant in relation to the substance transmitting the
excitation - aether. In all frames moving in relation to the aether
we will see this anisotropy, the higher speed the more. This is the
prediction of classical theory. For so small speeds as the Earth has we
will not catch this difference immediately. We would have to have the
distance about a couple of light seconds. With such distances it will
be too difficult to provide the experimental device to be stationary.
For example, in our animation, with the speed 0,2 C the size of a half
of rod is 9 light seconds. ;-)
But there exists a method that can provide the measurement on the
Earth. We described it in our paper on light aberration,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/aberration/aber26/aber26.html
It does not cost much (comparatively), though it will require some
precise elements. You had a wish to make an experiment warranted for
success but had not a wish to hear me. Well, this is my new
proposition. If you want, make it yourself, if want - with us. It
will be easier with us, but you will decide. Then, after result of this
experiment free of masking effects, you will state, had or had not
Einstein the grounds to postulate the constancy of light speed. ;-)
>
> Apart of that, about the visual distortion of jet appearence I don't know
> enough to comment.
>
Nothing to know, Harry. ;-) We clearly showed that in this arrangement
the visual size of the object will not diminish, as SR predicts, but
increase. Just this irritated these fascistic 'anti-fascists'. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Helmut Wabnig wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:33:48 +0100, "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch>
> wrote:
>
>
> >You mean that you are not a fascist, but that Sergey is one?
> No, allow me a few words although this is OT,
> only a few words, that buzzword appears all to often in UselessNet!
>
> There is no commonly acknowledged definition of "fascist".
> When we look at certain countries we will find "totaliarism"
> fits rather than "fascist". But there is a subtle difference.
> A fascist regime takes control of all public life and private
> life as well. This is not always the case with totaliarist regimes,
> eg. military dictators. The Communists have of course different
> definitions, although their regimes have all properties of fascism.
>
> My private definition, I claim the copyright for that :-), is:
> ******************************************************
> "Fascism is, when I must live the way you think".
> ******************************************************
Are not it you from whom we hear this buzzword? Are not it you and this
litter Dirk who try to substitute the scientific discussion by lofty
phrases about Arian physics?
I am only glad, this is a last argument, and you show it. ;-)
Sergey
June R Harton
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:W7Qlf.2963$Zb2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:dn21ob$a61$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
SNIP
> of travel and then the time dilation in the reverse direction and found
> the same conflict. Apparently only when both are added together
> and divided by 2 do you get the Lorentz (and Einstein) results.
> Spirit of Truth
> (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
"OK I see your problem now. This has to do with clock synchronization
(usually "esync":): in any inertial reference system, clocks are
synchronized in such a way that light speed appears homogenous.
That's all there is to it!"
Not sure that answers the Q. I was looking for the relevant post but
cannot find it. Apparently someone did a thought experiment
measuring Time in the reverse direction to the direction of travel
and found a different time dilation measurment than Lorentz's.
June R Harton
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43982327$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:D_Plf.2962$Zb2...@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:439457eb$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:fQSkf.3385$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
> > is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> > the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> > actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> > to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
> "You must be new here --- you could search this group with Google.
> Anyway, if you already know SRT, then this may be the quickest way to
> understanding:
> Determine with SRT the Lorentz contraction in the frame of the sun. Ask
> yourself what the experimenters will measure, according to your
calculation.
> Now replace that frame with an unknown frame "X".
> Cheers,
> Harald"
> Harald, M and M concluded light is c in every direction so the measurable
> distance, according to Lorentz, had to contract somehow.
> As far as I have been able to make out, Lorentz's length contraction is
> computed by (c+v) AND (c-v) together divided by 2 (and substituting
> the time dilation factor) to make the length contraction figure.
"Yes, and also Einstein used that in his 1905 derivation."
> Thus one gets a certain length contraction (in the direction of the
>motion)
> and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
> in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
> the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
> the length contraction figure.
"The light trajectory, yes."
> Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
> in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
> will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
Harald wrote:
"That's not what is measured in M-M.
In M-M the light's return time in one direction is compared with the return
time of light that is sent out perpendicular to it by looking at the
interference pattern. It turns out that the pattern is the same when the
apparatus is turned.
Do you know the set-up? Light is sent out in two directions and reflected
back by mirrors 1 and 2.
2
Ś
Ś
Ś
-------------1 --> motion
What matters is that the return time in one direction is compared with that
in another direction. It turns out that this time is always gamma times more
than when the object is in rest, independent of orientation (M-M),..."
But you are saying that M-M *found* a difference in the speed! I thought
that they DIDN'T find any difference! Are you sure on that? Wasn't the
problem that there wasn't a difference and there SHOULD have been?
and Harald continued:
"and that the frequency of a moving clock is also gamma times lower
than when the clock is in rest (Kennedy-Thorndike: the wavelength
of the light source changes with speed), so that the moving observer
doesn't notice it."
And your whole paragraph with that part above implies that M-M
explained a difference that they found by the gamma! Again I
thought that they found the same speed and Lorentz claimed the
reason was the gamma????
Please clarify.
and Harald wrote:
"You calculated the time for light path 1. If you now do the same for
light path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is contracted
by gamma.
Success!
Harald"
Actually I have calculated time based on light path 2 and inserted
that into the equation on light path one. This is not making too much
sense to me right now so I don't know much about this "Success!"
:)
Double-A
June,
See:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html
Go down to the Time Dilation equations and look at the equation on the
right.
As you can see, velocity is squared in the equation. So no matter
whether you enter a positive velocity, or enter a velocity in the
opposite direction, which would be the negative of that, it wall always
come out positive when you square it, and the answer (the time
dilation) will be the same regardless of direction.
However, the mystery to me is this:
The Earth can be measured to be travelling in relation to the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). If a spaceship leaves the Earth
and accelerates in any direction away from the Earth, its clocks will
run slower than those back on Earth according to the equations using
Earth as the rest frame. But if the direction it goes is opposite to
the Earth's motion through the CMBR, and for simplicity let's say it
accelerates until it is at rest relative to the CMBR, then using the
CMBR rest frame as the rest frame, the same equation will tell you that
the clocks on the moving Earth are going slower that on the ship which
is at rest relative to the CMBR.
So which is it? Are the ships clocks going faster or slower than the
clocks back on Earth?
Double-A
donsto...@hotmail.com
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
*******************8
Is this true?????
Harry
No, I'm not saying that -- sorry for putting too much in one sentence.
"(M-M)" referred to "independent of orientation". That is, as I explained
above, the only thing their instrument measures! Contrary to their
expectation, they did not find a difference from turning their device: the
change in their interference pattern was mostly or completely noise.
> and Harald continued:
>
> "and that the frequency of a moving clock is also gamma times lower
> than when the clock is in rest (Kennedy-Thorndike: the wavelength
> of the light source changes with speed), so that the moving observer
> doesn't notice it."
>
> And your whole paragraph with that part above implies that M-M
> explained a difference that they found by the gamma! Again I
> thought that they found the same speed and Lorentz claimed the
> reason was the gamma????
M-M explained nothing, they just measured. Fitzgerald and Lorentz explained
the lack of detection by M-M with length contraction. But, as your
calculation should show (see below): even with Lorentz contraction, the
return time of the light increases with speed, although equally in all
directions. That still leaves a question about the possibility to detect an
"absolute velocity" by changing the speed, and that's where "time dilation"
comes in. That was first verified, indirectly, with a modified
interferometer with one very short arm: Kennedy-Thorndike.
> Please clarify.
>
> and Harald wrote:
>
> "You calculated the time for light path 1. If you now do the same for
> light path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is contracted
> by gamma.
> Success!
> Harald"
>
> Actually I have calculated time based on light path 2 and inserted
> that into the equation on light path one. This is not making too much
> sense to me right now so I don't know much about this "Success!"
>
> :)
Your method sounds confusing to me. It's more transparent to calculate the
return times for each path, and compare them -- which is what MMX does. If
they are the same, the device can measure nothing.
Harald
Double-A
According the this calculation, the Earth is travelling at 365 km/s
relative to the CMBR.
http://users.rcn.com/wcri/wcri/absolute%20frame%20text.htm
Double-A
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:lE9of.621$kW....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> OK, well now I have more Q's than ever! See below:
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:43982327$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
...
> "What matters is that the return time in one direction
> is compared with that in another direction. It turns
> out that this time is always gamma times more
> than when the object is in rest, independent of
> orientation (M-M),..."
>
> But you are saying that M-M *found* a difference
> in the speed!
The miscommunication on Harry's part has to do with the choice of
word "compared". The MMX apparatus is such a length comparator,
and it returns a null result. This null result is in agreement
with Lorentz aether, and a dragged aether.
> I thought that they DIDN'T find any difference!
You are correct.
> Are you sure on that? Wasn't the
> problem that there wasn't a difference and
> there SHOULD have been?
They limited the aether to one that the MMX apparatus itself was
a "propagation of" (Lorentz) or one that was tied to the
apparatus (dragged).
Harry is a die-hard aetherist. You will not dislodge this from
him.
David A. Smith
Harry
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com> wrote in
message news:X0eof.11481$vx.10242@fed1read01...
David A. Smith is apparently a die-hard anti-"aetherist"; but that is a
different subject.
Relevant for the M-M experiment was that they attempted to test the
stationary ether theory of that time, according to which they should have
detected a speed relative to it. Contrary to David's suggestion, they
considered to have already disproved the alternative theory of a
matter-"dragged" ether one year earlier, with another experiment.
Harald
Gregory L. Hansen
Someone did a thought experiment? You have to be careful of thought
experiments, especially on Usenet or the web. The assumptions put into
them don't always match the theory they're meant to illuminate, or don't
provide a realistic physical model of a system.
--
"Things should be made as simple as possible -- but no simpler."
-- Albert Einstein
Gregory L. Hansen
Yes. But it doesn't seem to have any connection to local physics, such as
interferometer experiments. So it can't be said to define an absolute
frame. It's just something that we're moving relative to.
--
"The average person, during a single day, deposits in his or her underwear
an amount of fecal bacteria equal to the weight of a quarter of a peanut."
-- Dr. Robert Buckman, Human Wildlife, p119.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43a17835$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
...
> Relevant for the M-M experiment was that they attempted
> to test the stationary ether theory of that time,
Not stationary wrt the Earth, however.
> according to which they should have
> detected a speed relative to it.
Correct.
> Contrary to David's suggestion, they
> considered to have already disproved the
> alternative theory of a matter-"dragged" ether
> one year earlier, with another experiment.
Which was NOT MMX, so is not "contrary" to the MMX capabilites.
When run near the surface of the Earth, as MMX was, it will
obtain a null result for two classes of aether.
> David A. Smith is apparently a die-hard anti-"aetherist";
> but that is a different subject.
I will defend to the death your right to use aether in your model
Harry. If it cannot be experimentally disproved, then it is a
valid way to look at things. Even if it had limited
applicability (like SR), I woudl similarly support its use. I
simply don't choose to use it myself. Better?
David A. Smith
Harry
> Dear Harry:
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:43a17835$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> ...
> > Relevant for the M-M experiment was that they attempted
> > to test the stationary ether theory of that time,
>
> Not stationary wrt the Earth, however.
Thanks for the clarification -- just in case Spirit doesn't know.
> > according to which they should have
> > detected a speed relative to it.
>
> Correct.
[David wrote:
"They limited the aether to one that the MMX apparatus itself
was a "propagation of" (Lorentz) or one that was tied to the
apparatus (dragged)."]
> > Contrary to David's suggestion, they
> > considered to have already disproved the
> > alternative theory of a matter-"dragged" ether
> > one year earlier, with another experiment.
>
> Which was NOT MMX, so is not "contrary" to the MMX capabilites.
> When run near the surface of the Earth, as MMX was, it will
> obtain a null result for two classes of aether.
With "they" I understood you to mean Michelson and Morley (and of course not
the experiment!). Michelson and Morley did not consider the option that "the
aether was tied to the apparatus (dragged)", as they had convincingly
invalidated that theory one year earlier. And what you refer now to, is
again another theory in which the ether is not dragged by a small amount of
matter (the apparatus), but in which it is dragged along with the earth in
its motion.
> > David A. Smith is apparently a die-hard anti-"aetherist";
> > but that is a different subject.
>
> I will defend to the death your right to use aether in your model
> Harry. If it cannot be experimentally disproved, then it is a
> valid way to look at things. Even if it had limited
> applicability (like SR), I woudl similarly support its use. I
> simply don't choose to use it myself. Better?
Much better. ;-)
Harald
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43a2a1e4$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:T9oof.12704$vx.10548@fed1read01...
>> Dear Harry:
>>
>> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
>> news:43a17835$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>> ...
>> > Relevant for the M-M experiment was that they
>> > attempted to test the stationary ether theory of
>> > that time,
>>
>> Not stationary wrt the Earth, however.
>
> Thanks for the clarification -- just in case Spirit
> doesn't know.
>
>> > according to which they should have
>> > detected a speed relative to it.
>>
>> Correct.
>
> [David wrote:
> "They limited the aether to one that the MMX
> apparatus itself was a "propagation of"
> (Lorentz) or one that was tied to the apparatus
> (dragged)."]
Also correct. Had they yielded a positive non-null result, they
would have had an aether that affected propagating light only,
and NOT been responsible for the EM forces that control
(eventually) object size.
>> > Contrary to David's suggestion, they
>> > considered to have already disproved the
>> > alternative theory of a matter-"dragged" ether
>> > one year earlier, with another experiment.
>>
>> Which was NOT MMX, so is not "contrary" to the
>> MMX capabilites. When run near the surface of
>> the Earth, as MMX was, it will obtain a null result
>> for two classes of aether.
>
> With "they" I understood you to mean Michelson
> and Morley (and of course not the experiment!).
> Michelson and Morley did not consider the option
> that "the aether was tied to the apparatus
> (dragged)", as they had convincingly invalidated
> that theory one year earlier.
So they *did* consider that as a possibility a year earlier than
MMX. Do you have a brief description of how they did this? I
was only aware of stellar observations disproving this, and that
some years later.
> And what you refer now to, is
> again another theory in which the ether is not
> dragged by a small amount of matter (the apparatus),
> but in which it is dragged along with the earth in
> its motion.
I wasn't aware that anyone considered anything other than the
Earth as the dominant player in "controlling"/"describing" what
the aether was doing near the Earth. That is why I remarked that
MMX was run near the surface of the Earth.
>> > David A. Smith is apparently a die-hard anti-"aetherist";
>> > but that is a different subject.
>>
>> I will defend to the death your right to use aether in
>> your model Harry. If it cannot be experimentally
>> disproved, then it is a valid way to look at things.
>> Even if it had limited applicability (like SR), I [would]
>> similarly support its use. I simply don't choose to
>> use it myself. Better?
>
> Much better. ;-)
David A. Smith
Harry
Yes, they repeated the Fizeau experiment. I described that recently in this
group in the thread "Michelson and Morley" (dec.8):
They had a fixed light source, and flowing water. But the measured speed
does not
depend on the distance that it goes through the water; instead the light's
behaviour neatly corresponds to going at c (and not at c+v) in-between the
moving water molecules. They concluded in 1886, in their own words:
"the luminiferous ether is entirely unaffected by the motion of the matter
which it permeates" (IOW: the speed of light is entirely unaffected by the
motion of the matter which the light permeates)
Best regards,
Harald
June R Harton
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:lE9of.621$kW....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
> Harald wrote:
>
> "That's not what is measured in M-M.
> In M-M the light's return time in one direction is compared with the
return
> time of light that is sent out perpendicular to it by looking at the
> interference pattern. It turns out that the pattern is the same when the
> apparatus is turned.
> Do you know the set-up? Light is sent out in two directions and reflected
> back by mirrors 1 and 2.
>
> 2
> Ś
> Ś
> Ś
> -------------1 --> motion
>
> What matters is that the return time in one direction is compared with
that
> in another direction. It turns out that this time is always gamma times
more
> than when the object is in rest, independent of orientation (M-M),..."
>
> But you are saying that M-M *found* a difference in the speed! I thought
> that they DIDN'T find any difference! Are you sure on that? Wasn't the
> problem that there wasn't a difference and there SHOULD have been?
"No, I'm not saying that -- sorry for putting too much in one sentence.
"(M-M)" referred to "independent of orientation". That is, as I explained
above, the only thing their instrument measures! Contrary to their
expectation, they did not find a difference from turning their device: the
change in their interference pattern was mostly or completely noise."
OK.
> and Harald continued:
>
> "and that the frequency of a moving clock is also gamma times lower
> than when the clock is in rest (Kennedy-Thorndike: the wavelength
> of the light source changes with speed), so that the moving observer
> doesn't notice it."
>
> And your whole paragraph with that part above implies that M-M
> explained a difference that they found by the gamma! Again I
> thought that they found the same speed and Lorentz claimed the
> reason was the gamma????
Harald wrote:
"M-M explained nothing, they just measured. Fitzgerald and Lorentz
explained the lack of detection by M-M with length contraction.
OK.
Harald continued:
"But, as your calculation should show (see below): even with Lorentz
contraction, the return time of the light increases with speed, although
equally in all directions."
No, I don't think so. First in the perpendicular direction there is no
increase or decrease of distance therefore no increase in return time
in either one perpendicular direction. Second, in the direction of motion
the length contraction is supposed to compensate for making the
return time the same! Third, it is also supposed to do the same in
reverse to the direction of motion.
Harald continued:
" That still leaves a question about the possibility to detect an
"absolute velocity" by changing the speed, and that's where
"time dilation" comes in. That was first verified, indirectly, with
a modified interferometer with one very short arm: Kennedy-Thorndike."
No, see above. Anyway, I'll get back to ether elsewhere.
> Please clarify.
>
> and Harald wrote:
>
> "You calculated the time for light path 1. If you now do the same for
> light path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is contracted
> by gamma.
> Success!
> Harald"
>
> Actually I have calculated time based on light path 2 and inserted
> that into the equation on light path one. This is not making too much
> sense to me right now so I don't know much about this "Success!"
> :)
Harald continued:
"Your method sounds confusing to me. It's more transparent to
calculate the return times for each path, and compare them --
which is what MMX does. If they are the same, the device can
measure nothing.
Harald"
Considering return time taken in local frame (where one actually
considers the local frame as actually moving) the distance
in the direction of motion using light will go forward and come
back to same point and should calculate to an increased distance
than that perpendicular. Since M-M showed no difference then
the length contraction should contract the distance to make it
the same as that perpendicular. I did a calculation in the reverse
direction and found that light from a certain point would actually
do a mirror image to that in the direction of motion and so have
the same situation as that in the direction of motion.
The point to consider is that all those measuements are return
measurements NOT single direction measurements. More on
this later.
June R Harton
Thanks for your email responses above, they helped confirm the
situation for me.
A Q below though.
David wrote
"Dear Harry:
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43a17835$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
...
> Relevant for the M-M experiment was that they attempted
> to test the stationary ether theory of that time,
"Not stationary wrt the Earth, however."
What exactly does that mean?
June R Harton
David wrote:
Dear Harry:
Well, I have another Q here...since EVERY point or object
appears unto itself AT REST and not in motion does that not give
a non-motion background to this universe to measure to?
June R Harton
"Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote in message
news:1134640360.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
2xA wrote:
> Not sure that answers the Q. I was looking for the relevant post but
> cannot find it. Apparently someone did a thought experiment
> measuring Time in the reverse direction to the direction of travel
> and found a different time dilation measurment than Lorentz's.
See:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html
Go down to the Time Dilation equations and look at the equation on the
right.
As you can see, velocity is squared in the equation. So no matter
whether you enter a positive velocity, or enter a velocity in the
opposite direction, which would be the negative of that, it wall always
come out positive when you square it, and the answer (the time
dilation) will be the same regardless of direction."
I get lost on To = !!! in that link! I guess that is the area you want
me to look at, so can you goive me some words which will help me
follow what he is calculating?
2xA continued:
"However, the mystery to me is this:
The Earth can be measured to be travelling in relation to the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). If a spaceship leaves the Earth
and accelerates in any direction away from the Earth, its clocks will
run slower than those back on Earth according to the equations using
Earth as the rest frame. But if the direction it goes is opposite to
the Earth's motion through the CMBR, and for simplicity let's say it
accelerates until it is at rest relative to the CMBR,"
Guess I'm lost again!!! Does that mean it goes slower normally?
2xA continued:
"then using the CMBR rest frame as the rest frame, the same
equation will tell you that the clocks on the moving Earth are going
slower that on the ship which is at rest relative to the CMBR.
So which is it? Are the ships clocks going faster or slower
than the clocks back on Earth?
Double-A"
Have to get back later to that!
June R Harton
Gregory wrote:
In article <1134641797.9...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
<donsto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The Earth can be measured to be travelling in relation to the Cosmic
>Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
>
>*******************8
>
>Is this true?????
"Yes. But it doesn't seem to have any connection to local physics, such as
interferometer experiments. So it can't be said to define an absolute
frame. It's just something that we're moving relative to."
Well, I have another Q here...since EVERY point or object appears
unto itself to be AT REST and not in motion does that not give a
non-motion background to this universe to measure to? There
appears to be an at rest coordinate for any computation...it
appears to start at To and Point(Position)o.
Double-A
June R Harton wrote:
> "Double-A" <doub...@hush.ai> wrote in message
> news:1134640360.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> 2xA wrote:
> > Not sure that answers the Q. I was looking for the relevant post but
> > cannot find it. Apparently someone did a thought experiment
> > measuring Time in the reverse direction to the direction of travel
> > and found a different time dilation measurment than Lorentz's.
> "June,
> See:
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html
> Go down to the Time Dilation equations and look at the equation on the
> right.
> As you can see, velocity is squared in the equation. So no matter
> whether you enter a positive velocity, or enter a velocity in the
> opposite direction, which would be the negative of that, it wall always
> come out positive when you square it, and the answer (the time
> dilation) will be the same regardless of direction."
>
> I get lost on To = !!! in that link! I guess that is the area you want
> me to look at, so can you goive me some words which will help me
> follow what he is calculating?
OK. "To" (T_0) is a time interval as measured on a moving spaceship's
clock. To get the the time interval that would have passed on a clock
back on Earth, you divide the space ship clock's interval by the square
root of the quantity one minus the velocity of the spacehip squared
divided the speed of light squared. You can see that the effect of
this is that as the velocity of the spaceship approaches the speed of
light, the amount you are dividing by approaches zero, so the length of
time measured on a clock back on Earth that would correspond to one
second on the spacehip clock would approach an infinitely long time.
> 2xA continued:
> "However, the mystery to me is this:
> The Earth can be measured to be travelling in relation to the Cosmic
> Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR). If a spaceship leaves the Earth
> and accelerates in any direction away from the Earth, its clocks will
> run slower than those back on Earth according to the equations using
> Earth as the rest frame. But if the direction it goes is opposite to
> the Earth's motion through the CMBR, and for simplicity let's say it
> accelerates until it is at rest relative to the CMBR,"
>
> Guess I'm lost again!!! Does that mean it goes slower normally?
The Earth is travelling about 365 km/s relative to a rest frame that
can be calculated from the cosmic microwave background radiation. It
can be calculated because after mapping the whole sky, they found that
in one direction the CMBR is slightly blue shifted, while in the exact
opposite direction the CMBR is slightly red shifted. So from this they
can calculate what our velocity is (how much we would have to slow down
so that the CMBR would appear the same to us in all directions). This
state in which it looks the same in all directions can be called the
CMBR rest frame.
If a space ship accelerates away from the Earth in the direction
opposit to the Earth's motion through the CMBR (in the direction of the
red spot), it is really decelerating relative to the CMBR. So if the
ship reaches a velocity relative to the Earth where the CMBR looks the
same in all directions, then it is at rest relative to the CMBR. From
that frame of reference, the Earth would be in motion while the ship is
at rest, so the clocks on Earth should be going slower than the clocks
in the ship. But from the Earth's reference frame, the ship is in
motion away from the Earth, so the ships clocks should be moving slower
that those on Earth. How is this reconciled when the ship returns to
Earth and they compare clocks?
nightbat
> Double-A
> The Earth is travelling about 365 km/s relative to a rest frame that
> can be calculated from the cosmic microwave background radiation. It
> can be calculated because after mapping the whole sky, they found that
> in one direction the CMBR is slightly blue shifted, while in the exact
> opposite direction the CMBR is slightly red shifted. So from this they
> can calculate what our velocity is (how much we would have to slow down
> so that the CMBR would appear the same to us in all directions). This
> state in which it looks the same in all directions can be called the
> CMBR rest frame.
>
> If a space ship accelerates away from the Earth in the direction
> opposit to the Earth's motion through the CMBR (in the direction of the
> red spot), it is really decelerating relative to the CMBR. So if the
> ship reaches a velocity relative to the Earth where the CMBR looks the
> same in all directions, then it is at rest relative to the CMBR. From
> that frame of reference, the Earth would be in motion while the ship is
> at rest, so the clocks on Earth should be going slower than the clocks
> in the ship. But from the Earth's reference frame, the ship is in
> motion away from the Earth, so the ships clocks should be moving slower
> that those on Earth. How is this reconciled when the ship returns to
> Earth and they compare clocks?
nightbat
Timex it takes a licking but keeps on ticking! Less gravity less
strain on the main springs. Atomic clock reference no need to worry
until you get close to a Nightbat " Black Comet ".
Harry
SNIP
> Harald wrote:
> "M-M explained nothing, they just measured. Fitzgerald and Lorentz
> explained the lack of detection by M-M with length contraction.
>
> OK.
>
> Harald continued:
>
> "But, as your calculation should show (see below): even with Lorentz
> contraction, the return time of the light increases with speed, although
> equally in all directions."
>
> No, I don't think so. First in the perpendicular direction there is no
> increase or decrease of distance therefore no increase in return time
> in either one perpendicular direction.
That is an error - but a classical one, also Michelson made it in 1881. :-)
The path is not perpendicular in the reference frame in which the instrument
is moving (the ether or inertial frame of choice). In that coordinate
system:
1. Draw the light source at t=0
2. Draw the mirror at t=0.5T
3. Draw the detector at t=T
4. Next draw the light path going to and thro.
You should find that the travel time increased by factor gamma.
> Second, in the direction of motion
> the length contraction is supposed to compensate for making the
> return time the same!
That's correct. (And?)
> Third, it is also supposed to do the same in
> reverse to the direction of motion.
Spirit, the time to go forward and then backward is identical to the time to
go backward and then forward!
> Harald continued:
> " That still leaves a question about the possibility to detect an
> "absolute velocity" by changing the speed, and that's where
> "time dilation" comes in. That was first verified, indirectly, with
> a modified interferometer with one very short arm: Kennedy-Thorndike."
>
> No, see above. Anyway, I'll get back to ether elsewhere.
I gave you the historical facts.
> > Please clarify.
> >
> > and Harald wrote:
> >
> > "You calculated the time for light path 1. If you now do the same for
> > light path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is
contracted
> > by gamma.
> > Success!
> > Harald"
> >
> > Actually I have calculated time based on light path 2 and inserted
> > that into the equation on light path one. This is not making too much
> > sense to me right now so I don't know much about this "Success!"
> > :)
>
> Harald continued:
> "Your method sounds confusing to me. It's more transparent to
> calculate the return times for each path, and compare them --
> which is what MMX does. If they are the same, the device can
> measure nothing.
> Harald"
>
> Considering return time taken in local frame (where one actually
> considers the local frame as actually moving) the distance
> in the direction of motion using light will go forward and come
> back to same point and should calculate to an increased distance
> than that perpendicular.
Sure. How much is the distance greater than in rest in each path, according
to you?
> Since M-M showed no difference then
> the length contraction should contract the distance to make it
> the same as that perpendicular.
Exactly.
> I did a calculation in the reverse
> direction and found that light from a certain point would actually
> do a mirror image to that in the direction of motion and so have
> the same situation as that in the direction of motion.
You lost me completely. The only thing that can be truly measured is the
two-way time delay.
> The point to consider is that all those measuements are return
> measurements NOT single direction measurements. More on
> this later.
I'm happy to see that you now understand that.
Cheers,
Harald
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OrOpf.298$WN3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:T9oof.12704$vx.10548@fed1read01...
>
> Thanks for your email responses above, they helped confirm the
> situation for me.
>
> A Q below though.
>
> David wrote
> "Dear Harry:
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:43a17835$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> ...
>> Relevant for the M-M experiment was that they
>> attempted to test the stationary ether theory of
>> that time,
> "Not stationary wrt the Earth, however."
>
> What exactly does that mean?
Imagine a "structure" spanning the Universe, for all intents and
purposes rigid. Imagine that all matter passes through the
stucture, but propagating light requires it to establish
continuity of direction and a speed limit. The Earth will pass
through this "structure", but the light will be *of* the
structure.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:QBOpf.299$NS3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:k5zof.2$qF5.0@fed1read02...
...
> Well, I have another Q here...since EVERY point
> or object appears unto itself AT REST and not in
> motion does that not give a non-motion
> background to this universe to measure to?
This is where Mach, Lorentz and Einstein started. You can choose
the same starting point, and end up in (slightly) different
places.
David A. Smith
Sergey Karavashkin
>
> Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
> is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
>
>
>
>
> (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
This all is very simple, dear June. See, you are proceeding from the
point that Michelson's result was negative. This is said by
relativists because it is their profit. But factually, if you look
through the calculations on whose basis Michelson predicted his result,
if you look at his technique of statistical processing of the
experimental results, you will change your opinion that his result was
negative. Firstly, it is impossible to calculate MMX by the scheme
which Michelson and then Fitzgerald used. It is not a simple task to
converge the beams in MMX. Secondly, Michelson has omitted the
full-turn effect and pursued only the half-turn effect that is just
prone to the masking effect and compensation of the ray shift. Thirdly,
when processing his results, Michelson simply summed all obtained data
instead to determine the statistic curve. Many prominent scientists
recalculated his data after him and yielded unambiguously positive
result of MMX.
Thus, if you want to grasp this issue, you have to proceed not from the
relativistic slogans that overflow all their books but from real
results, and to conclude, basing on the analysis of immediate results
and used calculation techniques. Then you can speak of possibility to
approach the Spirit of Truth in the science. And then the Lorentz
transformations will seem otherwise and you will interpret them
otherwise. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Harry wrote:
> However, if I understand your argument well, you propose that a jet will be
> Lorentz-contracted somewhat like follows, if it's moving towards top-right;
>
> \
> \
>
> and the question is how that will *appear* when looked at with a telescope.
> I could not follow your discussion about points A, B and C; first you seem
> to claim just Lorentz contraction in fig.3, but then in fig.4 you seem to
> omit Lorentz contraction, with "this means that the observer at the point O
> will register not the true length of the jet but larger length".
Dear Harry, please do not enlist me to relativists against my willing.
;-) Describing Fig. 3, we wrote how this jet would have to look really.
This means, the Lorentz transformation tells us, it has to reduce,
while factually it elongates. While relativists base just on the
observation. If you analyse their schemes of space-time reduction, you
will see, they all base not on the physical reduction of the object but
on the observation of reduction. ;-)
>By chance I
> came upon the following citation that seems to settle that issue:
>
> When an object travels at relativistic speeds, the light that travels
> towards a camera from opposite ends of the object in general takes different
> times to get to the camera. Thus the image of the front of an approaching
> object represents where it was more recently than does the image of the rear
> of the object. This aberration, although due to the finite velocity of
> light, is not relativistic in the ordinary sense. Its magnitude is such that
> it cancels out the Lorentz contraction. (Terrell, J., (1959) Phys. Rev. 116,
> 1041-1045.)
>
No, there will be no compensation, as in this case the Lorentz
reduction will not take place at all. The calculation scheme is other
than that on whose basis Lorentz made his decision of reduction. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Gregory L. Hansen wrote:
> In article <fQSkf.3385$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>,
> June R Harton <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >
> >"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> >news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> >Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
> >is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> >the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> >actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> >to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
>
> just the right amount.
>
>
> --
> "In any case, don't stress too much--cortisol inhibits muscular
> hypertrophy. " -- Eric Dodd
Fine, Gregory, but before stating so, it would be worthy to superimpose
the events simultaneity in the animated diagram in our paper (nothing
to say of other, although it would be not excessive to account also the
discrepancies described in our previous papers ;-) ). If there is not
simultaneity, - and there really is not and basically cannot be, - the
whole SR simply falls to trash, as the postulate of constant speed of
light in all reference frames has been disproven.
Your difficulty is, you are proceeding not from the phenomenon, as we
have to do in physics, but from the mind of unshakeably correct
calculation of some theory, irrespectively of modelling schemes and the
less of the very phenomenon. This does not add the understanding of
phenomena. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:fQSkf.3385$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> >
> > Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
> > is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> > the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> > actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> > to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
> Anyway, if you already know SRT, then this may be the quickest way to
> understanding:
> Determine with SRT the Lorentz contraction in the frame of the sun. Ask
> yourself what the experimenters will measure, according to your calculation.
> Now replace that frame with an unknown frame "X".
> Cheers,
> Harald"
>
No, dear June, relativists foist such opinion upon us. Superimpose the
events in the animated diagram in the discussed paper - and use the
dogmas after that. ;-)
>in every direction so the measurable
> distance, according to Lorentz, had to contract somehow.
> As far as I have been able to make out, Lorentz's length contraction is
> computed by (c+v) AND (c-v) together divided by 2 (and substituting
> the time dilation factor) to make the length contraction figure.
See, you are calculating the reduction strongly after Michelson's
incorrect scheme. But MMX has another scheme. To begin with, you will
be unable to converge the rays of interferometer in the moving
reference frame. Then, if you are stating above that the speed of light
is strongly C, what concern has here (c+v) AND (c-v)? Did not you
ponder? To grasp, we have to proceed from the phenomenon, not from
postulates. Postulates have to be the corollary. And better to have
them not in the theory. ;-)
> Thus one gets a certain length contraction (in the direction of the motion)
> and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
> in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
> the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
> the length contraction figure. Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
> in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
> will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
Just this is the meaning of the second page of our paper. The scheme of
measurement was changed - the observed reduction is changed, too. The
point is, all these effects relate not to the physical size of object
but to the measured size. The matter is, when measure the length of a
moving object, we account two physical phenomena. One relates
immediately to the observed physical object and the second is caused by
the finite speed of light. Relativity has substituted this first by
second and claimed, what we see is reality. But this is not so. And
when you calculate with (c+v) AND (c-v), you are operating only with
the second phenomenon, while first has no concern to your calculation.
So you can speak only of visual change of size, not of real change. It
is well seen on the example with jet. Relativists claim that jet has to
reduce, but on the basis of finite speed of light its measured size has
actually to grow. We change the scheme of measurement and calculation
changes, it can have no effect on the real transformation of the
object's size. We can observe same object with different techniques.
Each will have its own calculation, while the object will be same. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> >Ok, and I have a Q., given that M & M concluded that light
> >is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> >the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> >actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> >to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
> shrinks by just the right amount."
>
> Yes, but that's where i have some trouble with the math.
> M and M concluded light is c in every direction so the measurable
> distance, according to Lorentz, had to contract somehow.
> As far as I have been able to make out, Lorentz's length contraction is
> computed by (c+v) AND (c-v) together divided by 2 (and substituting
> the time dilation factor) to make the length contraction figure.
> and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
> in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
> the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
> the length contraction figure. Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
> in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
> will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
>
> of travel and then the time dilation in the reverse direction and found
> the same conflict. Apparently only when both are added together
> and divided by 2 do you get the Lorentz (and Einstein) results.
>
>
>
> (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
And this fixes the Lorentz transformation to the specific calculation
scheme. But with changing scheme, the calculation results will change,
too. Thus, the Lorentz transformations framed by Einstein's
postulates are a simple cheating, and it is very pity that colleagues
so insistently wish to be cheated. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > news:439457eb$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:fQSkf.3385$nA2...@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> > >
> > > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> > > news:43908619$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > >
> > > is c in every direction just how does the Lorentz contraction make
> > > the measurent in every direction equal? It appears to me not
> > > actually to do that in either the direction of motion nor the reverse
> > > to the direction of motion which it's math is supposed to solve.
> > Anyway, if you already know SRT, then this may be the quickest way to
> > understanding:
> > Determine with SRT the Lorentz contraction in the frame of the sun. Ask
> > yourself what the experimenters will measure, according to your
> calculation.
> > Now replace that frame with an unknown frame "X".
> > Cheers,
> > Harald"
> >
> > distance, according to Lorentz, had to contract somehow.
> > As far as I have been able to make out, Lorentz's length contraction is
> > computed by (c+v) AND (c-v) together divided by 2 (and substituting
> > the time dilation factor) to make the length contraction figure.
>
>
> motion)
> > and thus the ruler has the same length contraction. But the length
> > in the direction of the motion is actually increased (c+v) whereas
> > the length in the reverse direction is actually decreased more than
> > the length contraction figure.
>
>
> > Therefore it doesn't appear that the distance
> > in the direction of the motion and the distance in the reserve direction
> > will be measured the same even by that contracted ruler.
>
> In M-M the light's return time in one direction is compared with the return
> time of light that is sent out perpendicular to it by looking at the
> interference pattern. It turns out that the pattern is the same when the
> apparatus is turned.
> Do you know the set-up? Light is sent out in two directions and reflected
> back by mirrors 1 and 2.
>
> 2
> ¦
> ¦
> -------------1 --> motion
>
> What matters is that the return time in one direction is compared with that
> in another direction. It turns out that this time is always gamma times more
> the frequency of a moving clock is also gamma times lower than when the
> clock is in rest (Kennedy-Thorndike: the wavelength of the light source
> changes with speed), so that the moving observer doesn't notice it.
>
> path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is contracted by
> gamma.
>
> Success!
> Harald
Have you converged the rays, Harald? I would wish success to you. ;-)
In your scheme you disregarded the inclination of transverse ray in the
inertial frame being at rest, in order in the moving inertial frame the
rays to be normal to each other. If you account it, when turning the
device by 90 degrees, the inclined beam will already propagate under
some angle to the motion of device and the interfrence pattern will
run. Considerably run. Thus, the calculation which you are suggesting
to June is incorrect. And if you make a complete calculation, you will
not yield the Lorentz transformation. And approximation will not save.
An interferometer is an extremely sensitive thing, and you may not
calculate MMX roughly. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> >
> > "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> > news:dn21ob$a61$3...@rainier.uits.indiana.edu...
>
> > Someone else recently checked time dlilation in just the direction
> > of travel and then the time dilation in the reverse direction and found
> > the same conflict. Apparently only when both are added together
> > and divided by 2 do you get the Lorentz (and Einstein) results.
> >
> >
> > Spirit of Truth
> >
> > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
>
> (usually "esync":): in any inertial reference system, clocks are
> synchronized in such a way that light speed appears homogenous. That's all
> there is to it!
>
> Harald
Not so, Harald. There exist very many techniques to synchronise. For
example, Einstein said of infinitely slow displacement of clocks. With
a rod we can use another technique: to turn the rod transverse to the
motion and let the observer in the centre to synchronise the clocks at
the ends, as in this case both in classical physics and in relativity
the rod ends will be fully symmetrical as to its centre. After the
synchronisation we can slowly turn the rod with the motion about the
central axis. In the frame in relation to which we will turn, the
clocks at the ends will remain at the same conditions. Thus,
irrespectively of the light speed constancy the clocks at the ends will
remain synchronised. And this is sufficient to reveal the
non-simultaneity of the ray arriving to the rod ends, as is shown in
our animation. ;-)
I would repeat, you will never yield the true prediction of your
experiments if you rely on the relativistic dogmas. ;-) Analyse the
phenomenon, do not squeeze it into the relativistic template. ;-)
Sergey
Gregory L. Hansen
What if you were to calculate the trajectory of a rocket shot out of the
solar system? The final location would be a point in motion relative to
the initial location.
You define your own coordinate systems. It's often helpful to choose a
coordinate system that's at rest relative to the thing you want to study.
And you can, if you like, define the coordinate system to be at rest
relative to some landmark, like the surface of the Earth, or the rest
frame of the cosmic microwave background. But that's your choice.
--
"What's another word for thesaurus?" -- Steven Wright
"Let me look in my synonymicon." -- Thaddeus Stout
Harry
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:1135087836.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ś
> Ś
> Ś
> -------------1 --> motion
>
> What matters is that the return time in one direction is compared with
that
> in another direction. It turns out that this time is always gamma times
more
> than when the object is in rest, independent of orientation (M-M), and
that
> the frequency of a moving clock is also gamma times lower than when the
> clock is in rest (Kennedy-Thorndike: the wavelength of the light source
> changes with speed), so that the moving observer doesn't notice it.
>
> You calculated the time for light path 1. If you now do the same for light
> path 2 you will find a different time, except if arm 1 is contracted by
> gamma.
>
> Success!
> Harald
>Have you converged the rays, Harald? I would wish success to you. ;-)
In your scheme you disregarded the inclination of transverse ray in the
inertial frame being at rest, in order in the moving inertial frame the
rays to be normal to each other. If you account it, when turning the
device by 90 degrees, the inclined beam will already propagate under
some angle to the motion of device and the interfrence pattern will
run. Considerably run. Thus, the calculation which you are suggesting
to June is incorrect.
The calculation I referred to is the one that is under discussion, as made
by Michelson, Lorentz, Einstein and the text books. It's based on certain
assumptions which may or may not be false. I'm not sure if you mean that a
moving light source of a 90 degrees beam in the apparatus, is taken to send
out light under an inclined angle as seen in the reference frame in which
the source is moving? Yes, that's indeed the assumption, and a well
established one I'd say, and easy to explain. But as I mentioned to Spirit,
that was overlooked by Michelson the first time that he calculated it.
Harald
Harry
Sergey, that's erroneous; but it's an often made mistake: in that final
frame, different things happen to the clocks while turning. Think again! ;-)
Harald
Harry
>
> Harry wrote:
>
> > However, if I understand your argument well, you propose that a jet will
be
> > Lorentz-contracted somewhat like follows, if it's moving towards
top-right;
> >
> > \
> > \
> >
> > and the question is how that will *appear* when looked at with a
telescope.
> > I could not follow your discussion about points A, B and C; first you
seem
> > to claim just Lorentz contraction in fig.3, but then in fig.4 you seem
to
> > omit Lorentz contraction, with "this means that the observer at the
point O
> > will register not the true length of the jet but larger length".
>
> Dear Harry, please do not enlist me to relativists against my willing.
> ;-) Describing Fig. 3, we wrote how this jet would have to look really.
> This means, the Lorentz transformation tells us, it has to reduce,
> while factually it elongates.
The LT only tells you what you will measure to be its dimensions, if you
assume that light speed is isotropically c in your frame. If next you want
to verify that prediction with a picture that you took, you must calculate
for the different arrival times of the light rays which you assume to
propagate at c. Did you do so? I don't think so!
> While relativists base just on the
> observation. If you analyse their schemes of space-time reduction, you
> will see, they all base not on the physical reduction of the object but
> on the observation of reduction. ;-)
You fell perhaps victim to the uncarefull word "observation", with which
they usually mean "measured", and not "viewed". This is because for a long
time many people didn't realise that there is a difference...
> >By chance I
> > came upon the following citation that seems to settle that issue:
> >
> > When an object travels at relativistic speeds, the light that travels
> > towards a camera from opposite ends of the object in general takes
different
> > times to get to the camera. Thus the image of the front of an
approaching
> > object represents where it was more recently than does the image of the
rear
> > of the object. This aberration, although due to the finite velocity of
> > light, is not relativistic in the ordinary sense. Its magnitude is such
that
> > it cancels out the Lorentz contraction. (Terrell, J., (1959) Phys. Rev.
116,
> > 1041-1045.)
> >
> No, there will be no compensation, as in this case the Lorentz
> reduction will not take place at all. The calculation scheme is other
> than that on whose basis Lorentz made his decision of reduction. ;-)
>
> Sergey
???
Harald
harald.v...@epfl.ch
Sergey Karavashkin wrote:> > news:1133197236....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > >
> > > We would like to draw your attention to the Supplement "On reality of
> > > space-time reduction in SR",
> > >
> > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/sr/sup1/sup01/sup01.html
> > >
> > > Basing on the standard relativistic model, we show that even in frames
> > > of relativistic phenomenology, the speed of light is not constant; the
> > > light propagation along and against the reference frame motion has an
> > > anisotropy that can be clearly registered by the events coincidence.
> > > This is the supplement to our paper "On basic formalism of SR",
> > >
> > > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#sr
> > >
> > > This supplement shows that the discrepancies in relativistic conception
> > > begin even not with mistakes of the very conception but with the
> > > incorrectly formulated postulates contradicting the solutions that
> > > follow from them.
> >
> > Dear Sergey,
> >
> > I enjoyed the simulations on your html pages, I think they are insightful.
> > You started with a "rest frame" in which light speed has been made to appear
> > isotropic by convention. And in that configuration you clearly show that as
> > determined in that rest frame, the speed of the light pulse relatively to
> > the moving frame is c-v on the one side and c+v on the other side. In fact,
> > this is not only acknowledged in Einstein's 1905 paper, it's even used in
> > the derivations; thus your animations may be helpful when reading his paper.
> > In modern jargon that relative speed is also called "closing speed".
>
> Dear Harald, here you are saying not precisely. Firstly, Einstein did
> not admit that the light speed is anisotropic in the moving frame,
> although in his work of 1905 he showed that for himself he knows this
> discrepancy of his theory.
Dear Sergey, it is a bit hard to maintain that Einstein did "not
admit'" what he clearly showed. There is a difference between not
explicitly explaining something, and "not admitting" it.
> Secondly, Einstein speaks not of relative
> speed, as the light in this theory cannot have a relative speed.
Sergey, it's time for you to read again Einstein 1905: in par.3 he
explicitly speaks of a relative speed of light, equal to c-v, and your
illustration is perfect for that paragraph. In Newspeak this is called
"closing speed". Don't believe what some textbooks try to make you
believe. His paper is on internet, as you surely know:
http://www.fourmilab.com/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
> Its
> speed is utmost possible in all frames and isotropic. Having agreed
> that, actually, in a moving frame the light speed becomes anisotropic,
> you may close all papers on relativity, doing not wasting your time.
In a *moving* frame the relative speed is assumed to be anisotropic;
and such is the case with the moving earth surface in the GPS system.
However, if instead such a frame is taken as reference, the standard
assumption is to be *not* moving, and that makes the speed *isotropic
by definition*. It's as simple as that, and it was already understood
around 1900.
> If
> you see the use of our paper just in it, I agree. A simple and visual
> calculation that we made shows better that any relativistic
> mathematical speculations that their postulate of light speed constancy
> in all frames is wrong, with all consequences for this conception. ;-)
Read again the paper, the postulate is purely about experimental
physics: "speed"= average return speed.
> > IOW, what do you think is "wrong" about the way he formulated the
> > postulates? According to Einstein, he formulated facts of experience; I see
> > nothing incorrect with them. It's essential to distinguish between how some
> > textbooks interpret those postulates and what they really state, with their
> > meaning as outlined in the 1905 paper.
>
> Which experiment, Harry? MMX? Then please see again our paper on
> Doppler effect,
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_1/doppler/doppler53/doppler53.html
>
> and try to converge the rays in Fig. 7. This proposition is not
> rhetorical. In Fig. 7a (stationary frame) you will see, the rays to be
> mutually perpendicular in the moving frame, the violet ray has to be
> inclined by some angle. This will affect the following run of rays, if
> the Snell law remains true. With it the whole construction on which
> Michelson based his predictions and from which Fitzgerald made his
> conclusions appears wrong. MMX has to have a basically other scheme and
> to be calculated differently. The Lorentz transformations do not
> already follow from this scheme. In the same page you can find direct
> evidence that Lorentz understood his error, but violating the
> scientific objectivity, he did not change his official point.
> Factually, when turning, the rays will run and masking compensating
> effect will tell on. It will considerably lessen the measured speed of
> Earth in relation to aether. I already wrote you of it. And you could
> make sure experimentally, basing on my prediction concerning your
> experiment. There also took place a masking effect.
>
> Thus, am I right or not, wish someone or not, but the experiments agree
> with my predictions and calculations. ;-)
You were right about Michelson, but the conclusions of the people that
are quoted in your reference was that the resulting error was only
small.
However, one or two years ago I *consistently* drew the same picture
*according to Lorentz*(in which the mirror angle >45) , and everything
fitted like clock work...
> > Nevertheless, if I understood you well, I agree with your conclusion that in
> > general, light speed can not be modelled as being truly (thus observer
> > independent) isotropic in any such freely chosen "rest" frame. Such follows
> > from the obvious fact that the "rest" frame isn't "special" and even doesn't
> > have to be physical: there is an infinite amount of such "rest" frames that
> > one may choose and in any such chosen frame, light speed appears to be
> > anisotropic relative to all others.
>
> Here we should not forget, this that you said and we proved relates to
> the Relativity. In classical theory we have not this paradox, as the
> light speed is constant in relation to the substance transmitting the
> excitation - aether. In all frames moving in relation to the aether
> we will see this anisotropy, the higher speed the more. This is the
> prediction of classical theory. For so small speeds as the Earth has we
> will not catch this difference immediately. We would have to have the
> distance about a couple of light seconds. With such distances it will
> be too difficult to provide the experimental device to be stationary.
> For example, in our animation, with the speed 0,2 C the size of a half
> of rod is 9 light seconds. ;-)
>
> But there exists a method that can provide the measurement on the
> Earth. We described it in our paper on light aberration,
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/aberration/aber26/aber26.html
>
> It does not cost much (comparatively), though it will require some
> precise elements. You had a wish to make an experiment warranted for
> success but had not a wish to hear me. Well, this is my new
> proposition. If you want, make it yourself, if want - with us. It
> will be easier with us, but you will decide. Then, after result of this
> experiment free of masking effects, you will state, had or had not
> Einstein the grounds to postulate the constancy of light speed. ;-)
I looked at it, but I can see no reason for a light ray to change its
momentum, even when it is retarded by homogeneous matter. And I'm not
going to look for the error in your equations: it's a matter of
physical principles. What principle or mechainism do you propose for
your bending hypothesis?
Happy holidays!
Harald
Androcles
harald.v...@epfl.ch wrote:
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)
If one is right they all are, if one is wrong they all are.
Carry three watches or do not move sideways or ride an elevator.
Androcles.
June R Harton
SNIP
Damn, Harald, you appear to be correct! Be back shortly.
June R Harton
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:9lOpf.297$nL3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
> Harald wrote:
> "M-M explained nothing, they just measured. Fitzgerald and Lorentz
> explained the lack of detection by M-M with length contraction.
> OK.
> Harald continued:
> "But, as your calculation should show (see below): even with Lorentz
> contraction, the return time of the light increases with speed, although
> equally in all directions."
> No, I don't think so. First in the perpendicular direction there is no
> increase or decrease of distance therefore no increase in return time
> in either one perpendicular direction.
"That is an error - but a classical one, also Michelson made it in 1881. :-)
The path is not perpendicular in the reference frame in which the instrument
is moving (the ether or inertial frame of choice)."
That is CORRECT! I already calculated the time dilation USING that
non-perpendicular situation!
Sooo, Q's?!!!!
Does that mean that all those websites and scholars and
scientists saying contraction ONLY happens in the direction of the
motion are incorrect????? That all those graphics showing a
squashed universe are WRONG????!!!!
I have asked many times here how we know that contraction only
happens in the line of motion and all the answers I got indicated
that it only happens in the line of motion. Does this mean
not many people even today realize that it happens transversely too
making the univrese according to SR contract in ALL directions....
simply making a smaller universe observed by the moving observer
who considers himself at rest and the universe in motion around
him???
If the above is all correct, doesn't that mean that M-M SHOULDN'T
have expected to find any difference in their experiment anyway???
Doesm't that also mean that F-L shouldn't have been looking for
any reason that as to why it was the same in the first place????
Doesn't that also mean that all this SR developement was an
accidently finding????!!
June R Harton
Sorry, still don't get it.
June R Harton
OK, you are there describing the regular time dilation varying with
velocity.
What I was looking at was the time dilation _computed_ from a single
direction not a return computation divided by two. I believe that
any single direction computation (i.e in the direction of motion
or alternatively in the reverse to the direction of motion) would give
a different answer computated going forward or backward????
It appears to me that to get the answer that is used both directions
have to be used Is this not correct????
Thanks for that clear description!
"But from the Earth's reference frame, the ship is in
motion away from the Earth, so the ships clocks should be moving slower
that those on Earth. How is this reconciled when the ship returns to
Earth and they compare clocks?"
It seems to me that IF the CMBR is considered to be the ''real'' rest
frame then all calculations should be per that so it is incorrect to
be mixing a correct concept with an incorrect concept?????
June R Harton
I'll rereview your data after I have sorted out what it is that SR really
says. Thanks!
June R Harton
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:QBOpf.299$NS3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:k5zof.2$qF5.0@fed1read02...
> or object appears unto itself AT REST and not in
> motion does that not give a non-motion
> background to this universe to measure to?
"This is where Mach, Lorentz and Einstein started. You can choose
the same starting point, and end up in (slightly) different
places. David A. Smith"
David, Harald elsewhere pointed out to me that length contraction
happens transversely too. This portends a complete variance of space
with velocity so a real at-rest entity would have the largest universe.
So absolute space and time CAN be calculated.
I think this means something now and is not where those people
were at at that time.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:lArrf.282$801...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
...
> Sorry, still don't get it.
Merry Christmas anyway. I don't press aether theory on anyone.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:jCsrf.288$801...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:QvTpf.5426$xF6.4593@fed1read01...
...
>> Well, I have another Q here...since EVERY point
>> or object appears unto itself AT REST and not in
>> motion does that not give a non-motion
>> background to this universe to measure to?
> "This is where Mach, Lorentz and Einstein started.
> You can choose the same starting point, and end
> up in (slightly) different places.
>
> David, Harald elsewhere pointed out to me that
> length contraction happens transversely too.
Either you misunderstood, or Harald is as confused as I used to
be. Length contraction is only observed parallel to the
direction of relative motion.
> This portends a complete variance of space
> with velocity so a real at-rest entity would have
> the largest universe. So absolute space and
> time CAN be calculated.
No. This is clearly not true. In the experiment where a moving
lab (left to right) shines a light from floor to ceiling, the
distance floor to ceiling *must* stay the same for all inertial
frames. Otherwise length contraction is off by a second "gamma"
factor... which is not observed.
> I think this means something now and is not
> where those people were at at that time.
It means errors were made. Whether yours or Harald's remains to
be seen.
David A. Smith
June R Harton
Harry, you waited too long to answer! So I restudied it all again and
find that no, you are _not_ correct!
June R Harton
Dear June R Harton:
Well, I guess I'm as confused as ever! I was about to respond back
to Harry the following:
Harry, no, the way it is worked out is that light in the local frame
travelling transversely in it's non-perpendicular path is following a
longer path BUT then by computing it with ONLY the Time dilation
figure it falls back into the c figure without also a need for length
contraction like in the following example:
http://members.tripod.com/conduit9SR/SR6.html
...but then I stopped mid-sentence with the thought "yes, but measuring
in the local frame we see it going straight back and forth but it really is
travelling twice that hypotenuse path and even if in the local frame there
is a time dilation to an exterior frame that time dilation is ubiquitous in
the local
frame so surely to keep a figure of c transversely, measuring it locally,
a length contraction _would_ have to happen???"!!!!
How did you sort that out???
Sue...
> ...but then I stopped mid-sentence with the thought "yes, but measuring
> in the local frame we see it going straight back and forth but it really is
> travelling twice that hypotenuse path and even if in the local frame there
> is a time dilation to an exterior frame that time dilation is ubiquitous in
> the local
> frame so surely to keep a figure of c transversely, measuring it locally,
> a length contraction _would_ have to happen???"!!!!
Yes... ***locally***.
Time dilation and length contraction is
required only in the near-field:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
...to resolve:
"The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity" --AE
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
Sue...
Sue... wrote:
> June R Harton wrote:
> > ...but then I stopped mid-sentence with the thought "yes, but measuring
> > in the local frame we see it going straight back and forth but it really is
> > travelling twice that hypotenuse path and even if in the local frame there
> > is a time dilation to an exterior frame that time dilation is ubiquitous in
> > the local
> > frame so surely to keep a figure of c transversely, measuring it locally,
> > a length contraction _would_ have to happen???"!!!!
>
Yes... ***locally***.
Time dilation and length contraction is
required only in the near-field:
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflectionsfig3.gif
http://www.conformity.com/0102reflections.html
...to resolve:
"The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity" --AE
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
see also:
Time-independent Maxwell equations
Introduction
Coulomb's law
The electric scalar potential
Gauss' law
Poisson's equation
Ampère's experiments
The Lorentz force
Ampère's law
Magnetic monopoles?
Ampère's circuital law
Helmholtz's theorem
The magnetic vector potential
The Biot-Savart law
[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_integral ]
Electrostatics and magnetostatics
Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
Introduction
Faraday's law
Electric scalar potential?
Gauge transformations
The displacement current
Potential formulation
Electromagnetic waves
Green's functions
Retarded potentials
Advanced potentials?
Retarded fields
Summary
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
"Advanced potentials? "
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
nightbat
> Tesla Unit
>
> Time-dependent Maxwell's equations
> Introduction
> Faraday's law
> Electric scalar potential?
> Gauge transformations
> The displacement current
> Potential formulation
> Electromagnetic waves
> Green's functions
> Retarded potentials---the coffee boys
> Advanced potentials?---Earth Science Team Officers
> Retarded fields---auk group dynamics
> Summary
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/lectures.html
> "Advanced potentials? "
> http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em1/lectures/node46.html
>
> Sue...
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > > How did you sort that out???
> > >
> > >
> > > Spirit of Truth
> > >
> > > (using June's e-mail to communicate to you)!
nightbat
And don't forget the nightbat field unifying factor:
Latent energy memory---the missing frame
ponder on,
the nightbat
Art Deco
Just more saucerhead technobabble word salad, kookbat.
>
lame on,
> the nightbat
--
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
"I am a sean being from another planet."
-- Darla aka Dr. Why aka Dr. Yubiwan aka Silouen aka ...
Sergey Karavashkin
Thank you all for actively discussing our materials published during
this year. Happy New Year to you all. May we wish you all every success
and more sober analysis. We hope, the coming year will serve to
overcome the controversies of different views.
Best to you all,
Sergey and Olga
Sergey Karavashkin
I know to which calculation are you referring, Harald, the more that I
have Michelson's paper on my table. You are saying of admissions that
you claim profound only because you do not know how sensitive is the
interferential instrument. For example, Miller's one reacted to a 1 g
weight, while the instrument weights several hundreds of kg. Not in
vain I suggested you to converge the rays by your own calculation. And
basing not on their perpendicularity - this is inadmissible, as we
have to model not wished but real, - but basing on the fact that two
rays in a moving frame to be perpendicular, in the frame at rest the
ray has to be inclined to the perpendicular. This was accounted in the
formalism on whose grounds Fitzgerald advanced his hypothesis. This was
accounted in Lorentz' and Michelson's calculations. Then, even
taking it into account, in order the rays be perpendicular in the
moving frame, the mirror has to be arranged not by 45 degrees. All the
rest you can read in my post to June below. Therefore, when you are
saying, you have calculated and it worked as a clock, I believe that
you calculated but do not believe that you calculated correctly. Should
you account the aspects I wrote to June, you would yield a very long
expressions and the effect would be of the 4th order, not of 2nd, as
MMX sought.
Thus, calculate better, dear Harry, instead reducing your posts to my
misunderstanding. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Well, think better, Harald, and first converge the rays correctly, not
as your wish. We have to account in the model not our wishes but
reality.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Why, Harry! It's a surprise. Did not you read our Supplement to the
paper under discussion? We gave there our calculation and just showed
Einstein's postulate of isotropic light speed wrong. Moreover, the
animation given in the Supplement was not drawn but plotted by Axum -
I said you, we make animations in the software for mathematical graphs.
Does it tell you something?
>
> > While relativists base just on the
> > observation. If you analyse their schemes of space-time reduction, you
> > will see, they all base not on the physical reduction of the object but
> > on the observation of reduction. ;-)
>
> You fell perhaps victim to the uncarefull word "observation", with which
> they usually mean "measured", and not "viewed". This is because for a long
> time many people didn't realise that there is a difference...
Well, certainly not me. I correctly predicted you the result of your
experiment on transverse Doppler effect in acoustics. So I need not
falling. But there exists a great difference in the very phenomenon and
its observation/measurement. I wrote here before, when observing either
measuring, in fact we have two effects: the effect as such and related
measurement. Their superposition gives us the total observed pattern.
And we have to separate here. We can observe in many ways. Each has its
features and masking effects. They superimpose on the effect as such.
This of which Einstein wrote and on whose basis he concluded his
space-time contraction, relates only to the observation effects, and
this is well seen from the postulates of Relativity. This all has no
concern to the real processes of space-time transformation. So we are
speaking not of confusion 'observation - measurement' but of
relativistic confusion in processes related immediately to the
phenomenon and those related to its observation. These are really
different processes, and even their nature is different, and we must
not confuse them. But if don't confuse, as you and relativists do,
you can only ask you to read more attentively from this point all what
you wrote below to me and also to June. ;-)
>
> > >By chance I
> > > came upon the following citation that seems to settle that issue:
> > >
> > > When an object travels at relativistic speeds, the light that travels
> > > towards a camera from opposite ends of the object in general takes
> different
> > > times to get to the camera. Thus the image of the front of an
> approaching
> > > object represents where it was more recently than does the image of the
> rear
> > > of the object. This aberration, although due to the finite velocity of
> > > light, is not relativistic in the ordinary sense. Its magnitude is such
> that
> > > it cancels out the Lorentz contraction. (Terrell, J., (1959) Phys. Rev.
> 116,
> > > 1041-1045.)
> > >
> > No, there will be no compensation, as in this case the Lorentz
> > reduction will not take place at all. The calculation scheme is other
> > than that on whose basis Lorentz made his decision of reduction. ;-)
> >
> > Sergey
>
> ???
>
> Harald
It is just what I say: Harald, kindly open the second page of our
Supplement and see the calculation scheme, then proceed not from the
idea that the contraction already was given but try to apply the
Lorentz - Fitzgerald calculation scheme to the model shown in that
page. There is not a transverse and longitudinal ray, neither a
forth-back ray passing. Therefore, there is no grounds for the model on
whose basis Lorentz wrote his transformations. There are two rays
emitted from two ends of a body. If you calculate, as Lorentz did, in
classical formalism, noting the body's motion, you will yield, in
this scheme the size of jet has to grow with its motion, not to shrink.
There is another scheme.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
In the citation in our work he evidently showed, he could not yield the
simultaneity. Thereupon he had to admit his hypothesis incorrect - and
substituted it with sophistry. So you should not salvage him. He
speculated, and this opinion has to be recognised, because this is
clearly so.
>
> > Secondly, Einstein speaks not of relative
> > speed, as the light in this theory cannot have a relative speed.
>
> Sergey, it's time for you to read again Einstein 1905: in par.3 he
> explicitly speaks of a relative speed of light, equal to c-v, and your
> illustration is perfect for that paragraph. In Newspeak this is called
> "closing speed". Don't believe what some textbooks try to make you
> believe. His paper is on internet, as you surely know:
>
> http://www.fourmilab.com/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
He says of the speed c-v in limits of calculation that was taken as the
basis for Fitzgerald's hypothesis. But just this is an advantage of
our Supplement that when we formulated and solved the problem, we
strongly obeyed relativistic approaches. And showed the postulates of
constant and isotropic speed of light to be inconsistent with the
solution of their own problem. And when you are referring to the
average values, it is irrelevant to physics. In Relativity the length
is contracted not in average but quite really and, as we showed in
other papers, it violates also the relativity principle, as relativists
have to admit the frame moving in relation to another frame to be
different, as the time reduction in the twin paradox will take place
only in the moving frame.
Thus, it would be nice of you to reread his works, and not from the
view of slogans but from the physics of processes. ;-)
>
> > Its
> > speed is utmost possible in all frames and isotropic. Having agreed
> > that, actually, in a moving frame the light speed becomes anisotropic,
> > you may close all papers on relativity, doing not wasting your time.
>
> In a *moving* frame the relative speed is assumed to be anisotropic;
> and such is the case with the moving earth surface in the GPS system.
> However, if instead such a frame is taken as reference, the standard
> assumption is to be *not* moving, and that makes the speed *isotropic
> by definition*. It's as simple as that, and it was already understood
> around 1900.
Bravo, Harald! After this, you can however much invite me to reread
Einstein's paper of 1905 and claim me misunderstanding. Rather, you
feel hard to say good-bye to your cosy sleeping shoes of relativistic
utopia. ;-)
Two theses that you wrote here I already answered. The conclusion of
those people was that Michelson, firstly, disregarded the full-turn
effect, and secondly, that the calculation scheme is other. Basing on
this scheme, it is impossible to derive the Fitzgerald hypothesis. If I
am not right - well, Harald, converge the rays! And converge them
correctly, with account of what I showed you and June. You will see,
these little parts of a second of inclination make the rays running
when turning the interferometer. And when turning, the rays that you
converged initially already will not interfere with each other. When
turning, other rays will interfere with those first. And if you
calculate the interference pattern, noting the mirrors inclination and
the turn of instrument, you will see a great masking and compensating
effect in MMX, and the fringes shift will occur in the fourth, not
second order of ratio of the Earth speed to that of light. Calculate,
Harry, calculate! Calculate thoroughly! If you calculate unthoroughly,
either me or the next generations will disprove you. Do not ground your
calculation the cause of your future overthrow. This would be very bad
for you. ;-)
And do not seek, these are your difficulties. ;-)
And happy holidays to you, too!
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear June, in the system that you described in your items 1-4, you did
not account three factors.
1. Besides the mirror and detector are separated in time (this is
correct), the rays have to converge. For it, as you can read, in
particular, in Miller's papers, one mirror was deflected from its
perpendicular to the ray in the moving frame. And to yield a stable
interference on wide fringes (it was applied in all MM experiments), it
is necessary to provide a considerable angle of inclination for the
interference model. Thus, in MMX even in moving frame the rays are not
mutually perpendicular.
2. Noting the source inclination, the longitudinal ray to be really
longitudinal in the moving frame, we have to make the semi-opaque
mirror not inclined strongly by 45 degrees, as Michelson and other
relativists calculated.
3. You listed your items, having not accounting the turn. If noting
your items and keeping the inclination angles, you first converge the
rays, then try to change the instrument's orientation in relation to
the aethereal wind and to converge the rays again in the new location,
you will see, these rays already will not interfere. They will
interfere with other rays that had other lengths before the
instrument's turn. Just this is the compensating effect established
by Righy.
Thus, Harald cannot be right here. And even noting all what you
pointed, the calculation basis for the Fitzgerald hypothesis appears
wrong and the contraction problem, as well as the problem of
Michelson's negative results, has other answers, inconsistent with
relativistic opinion.
Kind regards,
Sergey
harald.v...@epfl.ch
Hi Spirit,
Nothing of that all: you forgot time dilation, it's the very reason I
mentioned it to you. And the M-M set-up doesn't measure it, I also
already explained that to you. Thus the best thing you can do is:
1. read again all my explanations;
2. next work out for yourself that, using the standard assumptions:
- If there is a Lorentz contraction the light ray in the line of motion
will, after bouncing back, have a gamma times longer light path as in
rest; this is equal to that of the other ray. The interferometer will
thus not measure "absolute speed".
- If there is Lorentz time dilation, also measurements that are
sensitive to time rate cannot help to detect such a speed.
Harald
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:HSssf.3969$Zb2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:oaBrf.9282$xF6.1008@fed1read01...
...
>> David, Harald elsewhere pointed out to me that
>> length contraction happens transversely too.
> "Either you misunderstood, or Harald is as confused
> as I used to be. Length contraction is only observed
> parallel to the direction of relative motion."
> ...but then I stopped mid-sentence with the thought
> "yes, but measuring in the local frame we see it
> going straight back and forth but it really is travelling
> twice that hypotenuse path and even if in the local
> frame there is a time dilation to an exterior frame
> that time dilation is ubiquitous in the local frame so
> surely to keep a figure of c transversely, measuring
> it locally, a length contraction _would_ have to
> happen???"!!!!
>
> How did you sort that out???
I'll assume you mean how did I sort out that length contraction
only affects the axis on which motion occurs... I was
informed/reminded of the moving lab experiment. I highly
recommend "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler.
David A. Smith
Harry
The 45 degrees mirror is not 45 degrees in the frame in which the mirror is
moving; there is nothing to be "arranged". It works out perfectly well.
Cheers,
Harald
June R Harton
> SNIP
> > Harald wrote:
> > "M-M explained nothing, they just measured. Fitzgerald and Lorentz
> > explained the lack of detection by M-M with length contraction.
> > OK.
> > Harald continued:
> > "But, as your calculation should show (see below): even with Lorentz
> > contraction, the return time of the light increases with speed, although
> > equally in all directions."
In the _moving_ local frame (the M-M experiment)....using a set
local distance the return distance travelled by light in the direction
of the motion does NOT equal the 'same' distance of the transverse
return light path WITHOUT the length contraction being taken into
account in the direction of travel....but _neither_ would equal _that_
distance if the local frame were not moving at all.
Correct?
And if so what point are you making about 'speed'.
June R Harton
No, I was thinking incorrectly that the lightpath distance
'perpendicular' to the direction of travel had to be the same as as
the perpendicular distance in a non-moving frame. However,
I think the following is what you are telling me...
In the _moving_ local frame (the M-M experiment)....using a set
local distance the return distance travelled by light in the direction
of the motion does NOT equal the 'same' distance of the transverse
return light path WITHOUT the length contraction being taken into
account in the direction of travel....but _neither_ DISTANCE would
equal _that_ distance if the local frame were not moving at all.
Correct now?
What about the fact that the contraction of distance in the direction
of travel also affects the transverse light path? An outside observer
doing the calculation which produced the time dilation figure would
have used a non-contracted hypotense dimension wouldn't he?
Doesn't this affect the situation?
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:mFkwf.675$i81...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:uWPuf.5757$jR.4241@fed1read01...
...
>> I'll assume you mean how did I sort out that
>> length contraction only affects the axis on
>> which motion occurs... I was informed/
>> reminded of the moving lab experiment. I
>> highly recommend "Spacetime Physics" by
>> Taylor and Wheeler.
>
> No, I was thinking incorrectly that the
> lightpath distance 'perpendicular' to the
> direction of travel had to be the same as as
> the perpendicular distance in a non-moving
> frame.
That *is* correct.
> However,
> I think the following is what you are telling me...
>
> In the _moving_ local frame (the M-M
> experiment)....using a set local distance the
> return distance travelled by light in the
> direction of the motion does NOT equal the
> 'same' distance of the transverse return light
> path WITHOUT the length contraction being
> taken into account in the direction of travel...
> but _neither_ DISTANCE would equal _that_
> distance if the local frame were not moving at
> all.
>
> Correct now?
I can't decipher it. Sorry, it is late.
Let's let X be the axis of motion, and Y be the axis transverse
(perpendicular) to X. The moving lab frame measures /\x to be
zero. It further measures /\y to be (l + l), and the duration
/\t to be (l + l) / c. The stationary frame measures /\x' to be
/\t' * v' (with v' being the relative velocity of the lab). The
stationary frame measures the same value for /\y as the lab
frame.
/\t' = gamma * /\t
path' = sqrt( X'-directed^2 + Y'-directed^2)
path' = sqrt( (l + l)^2 + (/\t' * v') )
path = sqrt( (l + l)^2 ) = l + l
... and finally
path' = gamma * path
> What about the fact that the contraction of distance
> in the direction of travel also affects the transverse
> light path? An outside observer doing the calculation
> which produced the time dilation figure would have
> used a non-contracted hypotense dimension wouldn't
> he?
>
> Doesn't this affect the situation?
The hypotenuse is made up of two components, one contracted, the
other not. The math doesn't work out if *both* axes are
affected, only if the axis along the direction of motion is the
only one affected.
David A. Smith
June R Harton
> Dear June R Harton:
>
> "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:mFkwf.675$i81...@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> > wrote in
> > message news:uWPuf.5757$jR.4241@fed1read01...
> ...
> >> I'll assume you mean how did I sort out that
> >> length contraction only affects the axis on
> >> which motion occurs... I was informed/
> >> reminded of the moving lab experiment. I
> >> highly recommend "Spacetime Physics" by
> >> Taylor and Wheeler.
> >
> > No, I was thinking incorrectly that the
> > lightpath distance 'perpendicular' to the
> > direction of travel had to be the same as as
> > the perpendicular distance in a non-moving
> > frame.
>
> That *is* correct.
That I was incorrect or what I wrote above was not incorrect but
correct???!!!
:)
June R Harton
> ...
> > Well, I have another Q here...since EVERY point
> > or object appears unto itself AT REST and not in
> > motion does that not give a non-motion
> > background to this universe to measure to?
>
> This is where Mach, Lorentz and Einstein started. You can choose
> the same starting point, and end up in (slightly) different
> places.
>
David, if every point or object appears at rest unto itself...that
would also apply to the whole of the Spacal Universe, as one
can consider it a single entity and thus consider it IS at rest.
Does THAT not give us THE at rest frame to compare everything
else to?
June R Harton
Spirit of Truth
June R Harton
<harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:1136286014.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> June R Harton wrote:
> > > Harald wrote:
> > > "M-M explained nothing, they just measured. Fitzgerald and Lorentz
> > > explained the lack of detection by M-M with length contraction.
> > > OK.
> > > Harald continued:
> > > "But, as your calculation should show (see below): even with Lorentz
> > > contraction, the return time of the light increases with speed,
although
> > > equally in all directions."
> > > No, I don't think so. First in the perpendicular direction there is no
> > > increase or decrease of distance therefore no increase in return time
> > > in either one perpendicular direction.
> > Harry wrote:
> > "That is an error - but a classical one, also Michelson made it in 1881.
:-)
> > The path is not perpendicular in the reference frame in which the
instrument
> > is moving (the ether or inertial frame of choice)."
> >
> > That is CORRECT! I already calculated the time dilation USING that
> > non-perpendicular situation!
> >
> > Sooo, Q's?!!!!
> Nothing of that all: you forgot time dilation, it's the very reason I
> mentioned it to you. And the M-M set-up doesn't measure it, I also
> already explained that to you. Thus the best thing you can do is:
> 1. read again all my explanations;
> 2. next work out for yourself that, using the standard assumptions:
> - If there is a Lorentz contraction the light ray in the line of motion
> will, after bouncing back, have a gamma times longer light path as in
> rest; this is equal to that of the other ray. The interferometer will
> thus not measure "absolute speed".
> - If there is Lorentz time dilation, also measurements that are
> sensitive to time rate cannot help to detect such a speed.
So, all measurements in a local frame will produce a c speed but the
length it travels will be different depending on the speed, right?
from: Spirit of Truth
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:r8nwf.6880$Zb2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:3Jlwf.8483$jR.1445@fed1read01...
...
>> > No, I was thinking incorrectly that the
>> > lightpath distance 'perpendicular' to the
>> > direction of travel had to be the same as as
>> > the perpendicular distance in a non-moving
>> > frame.
>>
>> That *is* correct.
>
> That I was incorrect or what I wrote above was
> not incorrect but correct???!!!
>
> :)
What you said *without* the single word "incorrect" is correct.
David A. Smith
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:Yenwf.6881$Zb2....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox T:n...@nospam.com>
> wrote in
> message news:QvTpf.5426$xF6.4593@fed1read01...
>> Dear June R Harton:
>>
>> "June R Harton" <JUNEH...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:QBOpf.299$NS3...@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > "N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <N: dlzc1 D:cox
>> > T:n...@nospam.com>
>> > wrote in
>> > message news:k5zof.2$qF5.0@fed1read02...
>> ...
>> > Well, I have another Q here...since EVERY point
>> > or object appears unto itself AT REST and not in
>> > motion does that not give a non-motion
>> > background to this universe to measure to?
>>
>> This is where Mach, Lorentz and Einstein started.
>> You can choose the same starting point, and end
>> up in (slightly) different places.
>
> David, if every point or object appears at rest unto
> itself...
... "non accelerated point or object"
> that would also apply to the whole of the Spacal
> Universe, as one can consider it a single entity
> and thus consider it IS at rest.
>
> Does THAT not give us THE at rest frame to
> compare everything else to?
It provides no new information, doesn't make anything simpler,
and is barely detectable given our motion wrt the Universe et al.
Determinations from our current frame, to the "THE at rest frame"
(Tarf), then to a third frame, obtain the same results as not
including the Tarf in our calculations.
Mach had the quantity momentum reside in the gestalt of the
Universe. Not that the Universe provide the definition of rest,
but that it provided the scaling factor between impulse applied
and change in velocity. Maybe not in so many words... ;>)
David A. Smith
Harry
You could say it like that. Note that in the local frame, the speed is zero
of course. And your interpretation depends on your philosophy.
Harald
Harry
Not correct. You confused moving frame with stationary frame, and I can't
make sense of it. However, your statement of a few hours later in your other
mail looks correct.
> And if so what point are you making about 'speed'.
I don't remember, and you snipped the whole context. Perhaps it was about
time dilation, not about speed.
Harald
Sergey Karavashkin
> > I know to which calculation are you referring, Harald, the more that I
> > have Michelson's paper on my table. You are saying of admissions that
> > you claim profound only because you do not know how sensitive is the
> > interferential instrument. For example, Miller's one reacted to a 1 g
> > weight, while the instrument weights several hundreds of kg. Not in
> > vain I suggested you to converge the rays by your own calculation. And
> > basing not on their perpendicularity - this is inadmissible, as we
> > have to model not wished but real, - but basing on the fact that two
> > rays in a moving frame to be perpendicular, in the frame at rest the
> > ray has to be inclined to the perpendicular. This was accounted in the
> > formalism on whose grounds Fitzgerald advanced his hypothesis. This was
> > accounted in Lorentz' and Michelson's calculations. Then, even
> > taking it into account, in order the rays be perpendicular in the
> > moving frame, the mirror has to be arranged not by 45 degrees.
>
> The 45 degrees mirror is not 45 degrees in the frame in which the mirror is
> moving; there is nothing to be "arranged". It works out perfectly well.
>
> Cheers,
> Harald
What else would you invent, Harry, to avoid a direct answer to my
question... ;-) You even do not understand: this what you said makes
even more absurd the conclusions of relativistic conception which you
are trying to defend.
Sergey
June R Harton
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43c374af$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
No, I don't think you got what I am saying. A local frame which is moving
....the length contraction in direction of motion also squashes closer
the hypotenuse of the transverse light ray...both light paths now
match each other in length (M - M). At a faster motion the both light paths
will be LONGER but still c.
June R Harton
No, I didn't.
>and I can't
> make sense of it. However, your statement of a few hours later in your
other
> mail looks correct.
Look:
"In the _moving_ local frame (the M-M experiment)"
Earth
"....using a set local distance"
they must of used a set distance in each direction or they couldn't compare
anything!
"the return distance travelled by light in the direction of the motion"
Earth moving. M-M light path in direction of the motion
"does NOT equal"
well, 'would not equal'
"the 'same' distance"
the set local distance of the experiment
"of the transverse return light path"
"WITHOUT the length contraction being taken into account in
the direction of travel"
the length contraction had to happen for the two light paths to equal
each other
"....but _neither_ would equal _that_ distance if the local frame
were not moving at all
If the Earth wasn't moving, the light path would not be contracted
in the direction of motion as there would be no motion.
And, this light path would not equal the same length as those
light paths described above?????
That is my question...as I have trouble with the concept at that point.
> > And if so what point are you making about 'speed'.
> I don't remember, and you snipped the whole context. Perhaps it was about
> time dilation, not about speed.
If you can open the following you will see where you said it:
news:43a144af$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch
June R Harton
What about here:
"In the _moving_ local frame (the M-M experiment)"
Earth
"....using a set local distance"
they must of used a set distance in each direction or they couldn't compare
anything!
"the return distance travelled by light in the direction of the motion"
Earth moving. M-M light path in direction of the motion
"does NOT equal"
well, 'would not equal'
"the 'same' distance"
the set local distance of the experiment
"of the transverse return light path"
"WITHOUT the length contraction being taken into account in
the direction of travel"
the length contraction had to happen for the two light paths to equal
each other
"....but _neither_ would equal _that_ distance if the local frame
were not moving at all
If the Earth wasn't moving, the light path would not be contracted
in the direction of motion as there would be no motion.
And, this light path in the not moving Earth would not equal the same
length as those light paths described above?????
That is my question...as I have trouble with the concept at that point.