0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24"That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless."The thing that actually measures time is in a vacuum chamber.The clock doesn't know if there is air or not.Your objection makes no sense.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24"For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't."If your objection was valid, (and it's not) then you are still mistaken.Locally, there was a wind traveling at about 1000 mph.The air inside the plane was traveling.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24"You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time."I strongly suspect that experiment is not showing that motion affects time, it's showing that gravity affects time.It's probably better if you understand experiments before criticising them.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24"We don't know how vibrating atomsAnd atom can't really vibrate.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24"Gravity and motion are two different things though"Nobody said they were the same, but they have both been shown to alter the rate of the passage of time.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:02:24"We don't know why gravity affects time though, we don't know that it's due to curvature of spacetime, just that it does."We don't know "why" gravity makes you fall down, but we know that it does and we know how to do the calculations.It's the same with everything else- including time dilation.
Quote from: Centra on Today at 10:31:38"it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art."That's the bit where they accept that their 1942 experiment isn't as good as it needs to be.
How did you know how to do the calculations, wasn't it from Einstein's theories?
Like I said, we don't know that motion affects time the way he said
and if gravity does affect time, we don't know that it's for the reason Einstein said, so how can it validate his theory?
Maybe his calculations just match the actual observed time dilation by coincidence.
There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.See this page for a quick summary of the problems with Einstein time dilation http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/TimeDilation.htm
On 23 November 1903 a memoir by Dr. Olinto De Pretto entitled "Hypothesis of the ether in the life of the universe" was presented by Count Almerico Da Schio to the Royal Veneto Institute of Sciences, Letters and Arts (which later appeared in February 1904 in the Proceedings of the same Institute, Volume LXIII, Part II, pp. 439-500).In the third paragraph of this paper, entitled "Energy of the ether and latent energy in matter" (see the following Chapter IX), we find formulated not only the same relationship hypothesized by Einstein between mass and energy, but also its 'correct' interpretation physics, which is expressed through the following words:"The matter of any body contains in itself a sum of energy represented by the entire mass of the body, which moves all united and en bloc in space, with the same speed as the individual particles. [...] The formula mv 2 gives us the living force and the formula mv 2/8338 gives us, expressed in calories, this energy. Given therefore m = 1 and v equal to 300 million meters [per second], which would be the speed of light, also allowed for the ether, everyone will be able to see that you get a quantity of calories represented by 10794 followed by 9 zeros and that is over ten million million "(pp. 458-459).
That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless.
The earth did not rotate beneath the planes as if they were in space, it pulled/pushed them with it in the atmosphere. For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.
Quote from: Centra on 20/01/2022 10:02:24That was a very shoddily executed experiment, and the facts that the atmosphere travels with the earth's rotating surface and that airplanes travel relative to air rendered it pointless.Why?Quote from: Centra on 20/01/2022 10:02:24The earth did not rotate beneath the planes as if they were in space, it pulled/pushed them with it in the atmosphere. For the experiment to be valid, there would need to be wind at the altitude of the planes blowing from East to West at a velocity of about 1000 mph relative to the surface of the earth, which there wasn't.Please explain why that would be necessary.
3 ConclusionsThe HK experiment has been reproduced by recalculating the predicted values using flight data provided in [HK-3] using the formulas described in [HK-1] and [HK-4], and compared with expected values provided with HK in their paper in [HK-1] and actual observations in [HK-2]. It is expected that the values re-calculated using theory model matches with the HK predicted ones, as presented in [HK-2] and [HK-5], within the limit of the approximation applied, but that is not the case for both general and simplified models.Passing to the observed values, the figures provided by HK in their paper significantly change from the preliminary ones in [HK-3] to the final ones in [HK-2] without any clarification of the type of consolidation made in the data post-processing. The reason could be due to a wrong use of the model expressions or their flight parameters, which are not fully released by HK, and/or to insufficient experiment data accuracy, which did not consider external effects (e.g. environmental) influencing the measurements.As final conclusion, it is noted that 1. the accuracy of the clocks used for the experiment, namely the rms of their measured times both on ground and in flight, looks of the same order of magnitude of the effect to be measured. That raises doubts on the possibility of using any type of result for the purpose of the experiment’s objectives;2. overall all analysed data, either predicted, recalculated and observed, are within the same order of magnitude (tenths of nsecs for Eastward case and hundreds of nsecs for Westward case), but the residual differences as significantly high (up to 40%), meaning that the accuracy of the experimental measurements was not good enough for providing a conclusive answer to the objective of validating the SR/GR model as the only one valid for time shift.Hafele-Keating Experiment ReassessedGianni Casonato
And what was causing the vacuum chambers to move?
Oh, the air inside the plane was moving at 1000 mph? I find that difficult to believe.
You could also cite the experiment with the highly sensitive atomic clock in recent times where they found that raising the clock 33 cm caused a difference in the time rate due to gravity difference and also claimed to have confirmed that motion also affected time. The problem there is that their "motion" was in fact making the cesium atoms vibrate, which is not the same as simply moving the clock around. We don't know how vibrating atoms effects a cesium clock's operation.
I disagree.
Like I said, we don't know that motion affects time the way he said at all and if gravity does affect time,
Maybe his calculations just match the actual observed time dilation by coincidence
There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.
I misinterpreted what they were trying to do.
Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"
Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 17:56:30Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"Yeah, I guess it might be valid,
Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.
My theory in this thread is just about how the thought experiments I've seen don't seem to actually make sense as showing real light velocity situations.
Quote from: Centra on 20/01/2022 10:31:38 it would be necessary to take an experimental measurement directly of the speed of light on the platform in rotation, an operation which is obviously impossible to realize with the precision necessary, in the current state of the art.That's the bit where they accept that their 1942 experiment isn't as good as it needs to be.
Just to clarify; do you mean this article? (Obviously, the original is in French)http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/pdf/Dufour_and_Prunier-On_the_Fringe_Movement_Registered_on_a_Platform_in_Uniform_Motion_%281942%29.pdfThe French version's here but it's paywalled anyway.
[case] 1 The optical circuit, closed, is in its entirety fixed to the revolving disc. This is the well-known case of experiments of Sagnac. The two theories are here in agreement between them and in agreement with the experiment, with regard to the total shift of the 8 fringes recorded on the disc turning
As Sagnac experiments have established, Sagnac effect does not conform to Special Relativity predictions
I can't quote the equations as seen in the pdf, because they use symbols which can't be copy/pasted, they come out as squares, but I'm sure you can find the article if you feel the need to see them.Quote from: D&P[case] 2 Part of optical circuit is fixed to the revolving disc, the other part of the optical circuit remains fixed compared to the laboratory. – Under these conditions, which are those of our experiments, the shift of the fringes is due obviously to the optical course fixed to the revolving disc. We will calculate the values which return to us according to the two theories. In the experiments made in accordance with assembly of figure 6, the area included in the sector having for base the light path trained FDEOKJ and for top of the path the center C of rotation of the platform had as an algebraic full value (because the surface of the small basic triangle base ED in this figure must be counted as negative), A' = 1777 cm2 approximately, while the area of that of the same sector based light path FDEOKJ and whose top is the item 0 where the observer is pulled by the disc, had as an algebraic full value: A = 169 cm2 approximately By introducing these numerical values into the expression of the fringe shifts δ, one finds with λ= 0.56 um, for the two directions of rotation and for an angular velocity of 1 turn/sec, δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.053 in fringes (according to the classical theory) δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.005 in fringes (according to the relativistic theory); that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one. The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment. ...
[case] 2 Part of optical circuit is fixed to the revolving disc, the other part of the optical circuit remains fixed compared to the laboratory. – Under these conditions, which are those of our experiments, the shift of the fringes is due obviously to the optical course fixed to the revolving disc. We will calculate the values which return to us according to the two theories. In the experiments made in accordance with assembly of figure 6, the area included in the sector having for base the light path trained FDEOKJ and for top of the path the center C of rotation of the platform had as an algebraic full value (because the surface of the small basic triangle base ED in this figure must be counted as negative), A' = 1777 cm2 approximately, while the area of that of the same sector based light path FDEOKJ and whose top is the item 0 where the observer is pulled by the disc, had as an algebraic full value: A = 169 cm2 approximately By introducing these numerical values into the expression of the fringe shifts δ, one finds with λ= 0.56 um, for the two directions of rotation and for an angular velocity of 1 turn/sec, δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.053 in fringes (according to the classical theory) δ = (16-A') / eλ = 0.005 in fringes (according to the relativistic theory); that is to say a value that is approximately ten times smaller, according to this last theory than according to the preceding one. The relativistic theory thus seems to be in complete dissention with the classical theory and also with the result provided by this experiment. ...
III. - Interpretation of the experimental results.Let us point out initially the elements of the theories that we will apply here. Theclassical theory supposes, as one knows, that for the observer linked (fixed) to the disc,the speed of the light in a point of the revolving disc differs from the speed C of the lightin the laboratory, in a quantity equal to + /- v, if v represents in value the absolute projection of the linear velocity of the disk at the point considered on the platform, theelement of the path considered.
We will use as the relativistic theory of these phenomena,that given by Mr. Langevin [2] in 1921 and recalled by him more recently [3]. In thisform of interpretation, the observer is pulled by the moving disc and is supposed to adopt a central time t which is that reported by the Galilean observer in which the center 0 is chosen on the platform as motionless. (Let us notice while passing that this selected center 0 is not necessarily the center C of rotation of the platform, but that it is an unspecified point, arbitrarily chosen on the disc.) The form which takes the fundamental invariant ds² implies an anisotropy in light propagation of which the speed varies with direction between C + ωr and C - ωr with the first order of approximation in ω. In these expressions, ω is the angular velocity of rotation of the platform, r is the distance from center 0 arbitrarily chosen, at the point of passage, on the disc, of the light ray considered. Mr. Largevin finds thus that duration dt of light course of length dl is given for a direction of circulation of the light by expression: dt = dl/C + 2ω dA/C²where dA is the area of a triangle with base dl and top selected arbitrary center 0. While integrating along the finished light course fixed to the revolving disc, and by taking account of the other direction of propagation, one can deduce the value from the displacement of the fringes ascribable to the course considered.
Mr Halc, so would you like to rephrase your statement that my words were "tosh"?
This may be shocking to some sensitive viewers, but Einstein did not originate E=mc2, just thought you should know in case you were under any illusions to that effect.
On the other hand, measuring the value of c can be (and has been) done in a rotating platform.
They're talking about measuring the one-way speed of light, which cannot be done at all
Quote from: Centra on 20/01/2022 21:50:35Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/01/2022 17:56:30Are you talking about the experiment wiki cites?"In 2010, Chou et al. performed tests in which both gravitational and velocity effects were measured at velocities and gravitational potentials much smaller than those used in the mountain-valley experiments of the 1970s. It was possible to confirm velocity time dilation at the 10−16 level at speeds below 36 km/h. Also, gravitational time dilation was measured from a difference in elevation between two clocks of only 33 cm (13 in).[27][28]"Yeah, I guess it might be valid,So, do you understand that the experiment which refers to 33cm is a verification (of enormous precision) of the effect of gravity on the rate of passage of time? (And do you understand that the experiment is northing to do with movement? That's a different experiment)
They did both experiments in the same article so I don't know what your point is.
Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.
Quote from: Centra on 20/01/2022 21:50:35Anyway, I'm not saying everything about relativity theory is wrong, but it can also be arrived at by classical methods, it's not hard to find articles about it.Then please do so.
Quote from: Centra on Yesterday at 12:52:26There are articles showing that the same results can be obtained using classic theory and not involving the speed of light at all.Prove it.
Any theory on the behavior of light on earth has to satisfy the following conditions I. The speed of light as measured in different directions on the earth with respect to the surface of the earth does not show any measurable difference to the accuracy of the 1964 Jaseja d al Michelson and Morley type test. 2. Light that is generated on board a spinning disc and that is split and sent in opposing directions, with and against the direction of the spin of the disc, travels at a speed measured aboard the disc of c +-v against and with the direction of spin, respectively, where v is the peripheral speed of the disc in the path of the light. This was proven by the 1913 Sagnac experiment and by the 1993 Bilge et al experiment (to an accuracy of 1 in 10^20).3. It was conformed by Wang in 2003 that light generated aboard an object travelling in straight-line uniform motion travels at a speed of c+v against the direction of motion of the object and travels at a speed of c-v with the direction of motion of the object. Measurement was made aboard and with respect to the object. 4. In cases (2) and (3) above, the light travels at a speed of c with respect to the fixed laboratory in which the experiment is held. 5. Light generated on the earth and sent around the globe travels faster westward than eastward relative to the surface of the earth The Michelson and Gale 1925 test and the Saburi et al 1976 test, as well as the Global Positioning System (GPS) for clock synchronization, prove this. 6. light coming from a distant star subtends an angle to the orbital path of the earth around the sun relative to a frame set in outer fixed space The orbital speed of the earth around the sun requires that a viewing telescope be tilted to allow for that orbital speed, just as is the case with falling rain being viewed from a moving vehicle, Bradley proved this. Airy proved that filling the barrel of a telescope with water did not affect the apparent position of a star as viewed from earth.Challenging Modern Physics: Questioning Einstein's Relativity TheoriesBy Al Kelly
Quote from: Centra on Today at 06:54:23Relativity isn't the only thing that provides an explanation for the results.You keep saying that, and when I ask you what else might explain it, you don't answer.