0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi,The illusion is caused by the velocity of the particle. In other words, the displacement of the particle through the velocity intrinsically generates space and time in its frame reference.We could refer to an oscillator to be able to interpret this. Indeed and in second quantification the contraction of the particle in its point of origin corresponds to the annihilation, until the expansion of the particle in space as a creation operator.

Reported for hijacking the thread. Please only one preposterous, outlandish claim per thread.

Swimmer speed: 5 ft/s, river speed: 3 ft/s, swim course length:100 ft each way. Going downstream the swimmer’s speed is the sum of his speed plus the river’s flow 5 + 3= 8, and going upstream his speed is his rate minus the river’s flow 5 – 3= 2.The time downstream is 100/8 = 12.5 seconds and the time upstream is 100/2 = 50 seconds. The total time is therefore 62.5 seconds.

I'd like to address something which is related to this discussion, it's the Michelson conjecture about velocity addition/subtraction which was the basis of his experiment with the light beams being reflected off mirrors in E/W and N/S directions. The reason for the null result is that he was simply wrong about things going back and forth in a direction of motion and against it being different from the same thing without the motion.

In reality, it's simply the average of 8 plus 2.

Well what they did was record the time showing on clock A when the beam was fired to clock B, recorded the time showing on clock B when it arrived/reflected back to clock A and they recorded that time of arrival at clock A. They had recorded three times, two for clock A and one for clock B.

For them to conclude that the clocks were not synchronous, the time shown on clock B when the beam arrived/reflected minus the time shown on clock A when the beam was fired would have to be different from the time shown on clock A when the beam returned to it minus that same time that had been recorded at the arrival/reflection time on clock B.

There is no way that can be considered a logical thing to have happened

because supposedly you can't tell if you're in uniform motion or stationary by any test.

We know the clocks had been synchronized before they started moving

so how could they have produced different elapsed times for the two directions of the light beam?

Now if you say "Nobody saw any times in that description", which you did, then how did they have tA and tB for the equations "tB − tA = rAB/c − v and t′A − tB = rAB/c + v"? What did you think t stood for, tribbles?

Here's what Michelson thought.QuoteSwimmer speed: 5 ft/s, river speed: 3 ft/s, swim course length:100 ft each way. Going downstream the swimmer’s speed is the sum of his speed plus the river’s flow 5 + 3= 8, and going upstream his speed is his rate minus the river’s flow 5 – 3= 2.The time downstream is 100/8 = 12.5 seconds and the time upstream is 100/2 = 50 seconds. The total time is therefore 62.5 seconds.

There's no difference in the round trip time compared to the water being completely still

If you read the paper, the clocks were not synchronized until after the rod was moving, and then they were synchronized to local clocks stationary in the first frame. In other words, they looked 'out the window' and set each clock to the value they saw going by just then. This sort of syncs them to the first frame, not to the frame of the rod. I say 'sort of' because while both clocks A and B will always read the same value relative to the original frame, they will not continue to read the same value as the clocks they pass by. They will fall behind them.

BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.

Quote from: Centra on 27/01/2022 06:31:24BUT it's not analogous to speed on the rotating earth.Nobody said it was.The MM experiment is designed to look at whether the Earth is moving through the ether.And the analogy between swimmers on a moving river and light in a moving ether is quite good. The problem is that you were looking at the average speed measured WRT the water, when you should have been looking at the average speed measured WRT the ground.

If, for example, a light signal bounces between ends A and B of a rod, an observer at rest on the rod judges the traversal times to be equal. But that is not so for an observer who judges the rod to move in the direction of A to B. For that observer, the light signal traversing from A to B needs more time to catch the fleeing end B; and the light signal traversing from B to A requires less time to meet the approaching end A. This disagreement immediately leads to the two observer's differing judgments concerning the simultaneity of the events at A and B; that is, to the relativity of simultaneity.https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/magnet_and_conductor/index.html

I agree with none of the above. It all lacks frame references, and thus is no more than word salad.Despite my continued pointing out of this error, you continue to make it and post meaningless stuff such as this:

When you drive West traveling at 100 mph you're not traveling at 1100 mph due to the earth rotating eastward at approximately 1000 mph, and going East you're not traveling at 900 mph. It does not take you 6.66 minutes to drive 100 miles East and 5.45 minutes to drive 100 miles West.

I am travelling at less than a meter per second relative to the rotating frame of my laptop. Relative to the inertial frame of Earth, I travel 100 km in about 5 minutes. Relative to the sun, it takes about 3 seconds to go that far. Relative to the galaxy, it takes under half a second. But your statement above lacks a frame reference, hence is still meaningless, and not something with which I can agree.

But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.

Quote from: Centra on 27/01/2022 14:38:55 But their experiment did not prove that light speed is not affected by earth's rotation.What effect did the rotation of the Earth have on their experiment?

The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.

Quote from: Centra on 27/01/2022 18:56:51The frame of reference would be the earth's surface.Excellent! You're talking about the rotating frame. Yes, in that frame, it takes an hour to go 100 km in your car. In that frame, Neptune moves faster than c, and light takes longer to go from SF to NY than the other way around (assuming a reasonably straight path and not one that goes the long way around). Such is a known property of rotating frames. Einstein wasn't considering a rotating frame in the sections at which we've been looking. So for instance, relative to the inertial frame of Earth, your eastbound (near the equator) car really does go east at 1100 mph (sorry, I was using metric before), and the westbound car goes -900 mph westward, and thus isn't really westbound, is it?With relativity discussions, confusion results from omitting frame references. You may think they're implied, but mistakes are made by assuming distances, durations, times, and locations are the same from one frame to the next. The references are absolutely necessary to make unambiguous statements.So if you're discussing some value (say distance between events), it matters whether you're using the S coordinate system or the R coordinate system to express that distance. Without the reference, all you'll get is annoying replies saying that your statements lack meaning.

Anyway, point being, on the earth's surface you don't get the swimming up and down a river effect, so Michelson's experiment would not show earth rotation effects on light, but would it show effects from earth's orbit around the sun?

So Michelson did prove a lack of aether but not a lack of Sagnac effect from earth's rotation.

Apparently you agree that said Sagnac effect exists

but you explain it as a relativity consistent effect because it involves a rotating frame.

It doesn't actually confirm relativity

Einstein just gave himself an out by saying that rotating frames are not inertial.

Now there's the conundrum of why a rotating frame can be confirmed to be in rotation like that, what is it in rotation relative to?

The same would apply to binary stars in orbit with each other, what are they rotating in relation to? Presumably an imaginary point between them called the barycenter, but how is the barycenter a stationary reference? It seems counter to relativity theory.

If there are two equal disks with the same axis, with a space between the two, what is the difference between one being stationary and the other rotating and the other way around, or both rotating in opposite directions at equal angular velocity?

The only difference between the two disk frames is that an observer on one would perceive centrifugal force and one on the other would not.

The use of energy to create force to produce rotational motion in one.

Kinetic energy had been stored in the disk as inertial motion. The disk would continue to rotate, assuming no external friction or resistance, until that kinetic energy was transferred to another mass by exerting a force moving it outward from a position close to the axis to one farther away from it.

It was designed to detect motion relative to the medium (aether) in any direction.