Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Hal on 23/09/2019 09:22:07
-
Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
I will try to invalidate the theory of relativity by presenting a compelling alternative theory. I hope that criticism of Einstein's theories will not be seen as offense.
I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity. One of the fallacious arguments usually presented in favor of relativity is the failure of classical theories and the lack of any competing alternative theory. The argument goes like: if classical theories fail and if no alternative explanation exists, then relativity must be a correct theory. Here I will present a compelling alternative explanation, thereby refuting this argument.
Next I will directly present some of the profound results of the new theoretical framework. A comprehensive presentation of the new theory, which describes the intricate relations of the different features of the nature of light, can be found in my papers at the Vixra site. Listed below are some of them.
" Absolute/Relative Motion and the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism, Inertia and Universal Speed Limit c - an Alternative Interpretation and Theoretical Framework "
" A New Theoretical Framework of Absolute and Relative Motion, the Speed of Light, Electromagnetism and Gravity "
" New Interpretation and Analysis of Michelson-Morley Experiment, Sagnac Effect, and Stellar Aberration by Apparent Source Theory "
Einstein's "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment
Einstein correctly discovered his beautiful "chasing a beam of light" thought experiment, but gave it a wrong interpretation, i.e. the relativity of length and time. The new interpretation of constancy of light speed is as follows:
The phase velocity of light is always constant relative to the observer , irrespective of source or observer velocity, for uniform or accelerated motion. The group velocity of light behaves in a more conventional way: it is independent of source velocity, but varies with observer velocity. Einstein failed to make this distinction and this led to the special theory of relativity.
The constancy of the phase velocity of light is a direct consequence of the non-existence of the ether. Physicists were led astray when they tried to 'explain' the constancy of the velocity of light, by proposing the relativity of length and relativity of simultaneity. The phenomenon of constancy of the (phase) velocity of light is to be just accepted because it does not have any explanation for the same reason that there is no explanation for light being a wave when there is no medium for its transmission. Physicists naturally sought to 'explain' the constancy of the speed of light because their thinking was always implicitly based on the ether. Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this. Few, if any, physicists realize this. The ether always haunted the thinking of the physicists.
Imagine a stationary light source emitting a light pulse and an observer moving directly away from the source at (or near ) the speed of light. The new interpretation of Einstein's thought experiment is that the group will be 'frozen' but the phases will still move past the observer at the speed of light c , relative to the observer.
For the phase velocity of light to be constant not only the frequency but also, unconventionally, the wavelength must change for a moving observer.
f λ = f ' λ ' = c
The change of wavelength for a moving observer is a unique, unconventional nature of light. This makes light distinct from classical waves, such as sound waves.
This should raise a question: then what is the Doppler effect law governing light that can satisfy the above condition ? The classical Doppler effect law obviously fails to satisfy this condition.
Exponential Doppler Effect law of light
Searching for a function that can satisfy the above condition, I found a new mysterious formula governing the Doppler effect of light.
f ' = f e V/c and λ ' = λ e -V/c , where e is Euler's constant
Now
f ' λ ' = f e V/c λ e -V/c = f λ = c
satisfying the constant phase velocity. No conventional formulas containing terms like c ± V can satisfy this condition.
Profoundly, the above formula not only satisfies the constant phase velocity condition, it can also explain the Ives-Stillwell experiment ! By applying Taylor expansion to the exponential function, we get exactly the same result as predicted by special relativity: Δλ = ½ β2 λ
The derivation can be found in my paper at Vixra:
" Exponential Law of Doppler Effect of Light – an Explanation of Ives-Stilwell Experiment "
Moreover, the new formula is defined for all values of velocity V: 0 ≤ V ≤ ∞ , whereas the relativistic formula (and classical formulas) become undefined for V ≥ c . Therefore, the existence of superluminal velocities (as already observed) by itself disproves the relativistic and classical formulas, implying the need for a new law of Doppler effect of light.
The Michelson- Morley experiment
Let us first see a possible explanation for the Michelson-Morley experiment, as a precursor to the ultimate theory called Apparent Source Theory. This is just to demonstrate that explanations exist that do not require us to invoke length contraction and time dilation.
Consider the following analogy. Consider a stationary observer A and a truck moving relative to A. Another observer B is on the truck, throwing balls towards observer A while the truck is moving relative to A. Suppose the truck ( and observer B ) moves towards observer A with velocity Vt . Suppose that the velocity of the truck is not constant. Let there be a requirement that observer B always adjusts the velocity of the balls relative to the truck ( Vbt ) so that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A will always be constant c , irrespective of the velocity of the truck. In this case, observer B should decrease the velocity of the balls relative to the truck in such a way that the velocity of the ball relative to observer A is always constant c. In the case of the truck moving away from the observer A, the velocity of the balls relative to the truck should be increased by the right amount.
( see figure in the attached pdf )
By observing the balls coming from the truck, an observer deduces that the velocity of the balls relative to the truck is c - V in the forward direction and c + V in the backward direction.
When the truck is moving towards stationary observer A:
velocity of light relative to observer A = (c - Vabs) + Vabs = c
When the truck is moving away from stationary observer A:
velocity of light relative to observer A = (c + Vabs) - Vabs = c
Thus, the velocity of the balls relative to observer A is always constant c independent of the velocity of the truck, analogous to the speed of light being constant c relative to an observer at absolute rest, independent of source velocity.
It is now easy to see the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment ( MMX ) by the modified emission theory above. Modified emission theory is just conventional emission theory in which the velocity of light relative to the source depends on the absolute velocity of the source. In the case of the Michelson-Morley experiment, therefore, any change of the speed of light relative to the light source will not cause a fringe shift because both the longitudinal and transverse beams will be affected ( delayed or advanced ) by equal amount. Note that we have not made any reference to the ether in the above theory.
The above theory is just an attempt to present the ultimate theory ( Apparent Source Theory ) in an intuitive way. It is fundamentally not correct.
Apparent Source Theory
Now we will see the trick of nature that has eluded physicists for centuries.
Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment shown below.
( see figure in the attached pdf )
Apparent Source Theory is formulated as follows.
The effect of absolute motion for co-moving light source and observer/detector is to create an apparent change in position ( distance and direction ) of the source relative to ( as seen by ) the observer/detector. The apparent change in position of the light source is determined by the source-observer direct distance and the magnitude and direction of absolute velocity.
The easiest way to understand Apparent Source Theory is to ask a simple question: what is the effect of actually/physically changing the light source position of the Michelson-Morley interferometer (instead of setting it in absolute motion) on the interference fringes ? For example, what is the effect of actually moving the light source slightly backwards (to the left), as shown above, on the interference fringes ? Obviously, there will not be any fringe shift because, intuitively, both the longitudinal and transverse light beams will be affected ( delayed ) identically. There will not be any fringe shift also if the source is slightly moved forward (to the right ) because both light beams will be advanced equally. There will be a small fringe shift for other positions of the source, for example if the source is moved upwards or downwards.
The new interpretation is that an apparent change of source position (caused by absolute motion ) will not create any significant fringe shift ( no fringe shift or a small fringe shift ) for the same reason that an actual/physical change of source position will not create any significant fringe shift. This explains the 'null' result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. This is the subtle nature of light that completely eluded physicists for centuries.
The procedure of analysis of the Michelson-Morley experiment is :
1. Replace the real source by an apparent source
2. Analyze the experiment by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source position, not from the real source position.
The real source is replaced by an apparent source in order to account for absolute velocity. Once this is done, the experiment is analyzed by assuming that light is emitted from the apparent source and by using elementary geometrical optics. Once we replace the real source with an apparent source, we can assume emission theory, i.e. the speed of light is constant relative to the apparent source.
Apparent Source Theory can be seen as a seamless fusion of ether theory and emission theory.
Relation between constancy of phase velocity and Apparent Source Theory
The constancy of the phase velocity of light ( and Exponential Doppler Effect theory ) governs the wavelength, frequency and phase velocity of light. Apparent Source Theory governs the phase delay and group delay of light.
Some of the profound findings of the new theory
- The ether does not exist but absolute motion does exist. Physicists wrongly concluded that absolute motion didn't exist when they failed to detect the ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was designed to detect the ether and was capable to detect the ether, if the ether existed. The MMX is flawed in that it was designed to detect the non-existent ether. The Michelson-Morley experiment is not fully capable to detect absolute motion. Absolute motion is not motion relative to the ether. Absolute motion is motion relative to all matter in the universe.
- The reference frame concept is wrong and should be eliminated from physics as a paradigm. The true natures of light and electromagnetism always elude the third 'observer' ( the reference frame ). The new definition of observer is the object ( particle, atom or device ) directly sensing or detecting light, electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena.
See my paper at Vixra:
" The Irrelevance of Abstract Reference Frames in Physics "
- One of the profound, unexpected findings concerns the phenomenon of stellar aberration. The current, universal understanding is that a telescope needs to be tilted forward in the direction of observer's velocity in order to see the stars. Apparent Source Theory predicts that the telescope should be tilted backwards, not forwards !
- The same law governs the Michelson-Morley experiment and the phenomenon of stellar aberration: apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer ! See my paper at Vixra:
" A new insight explains both the Michelson-Morley experiment and stellar aberration- Apparent change of light source position relative to an absolutely moving observer "
- Dual natures of light, electromagnetism and gravity. The speed of electrostatic and gravitational fields has dual nature: infinite and finite ( light speed c ) ! Static fields act as if they are both transmitted at the speed of light c and instantaneously. Light acts as if it travels both in straight line and in curved path ! For absolutely co-moving light source and observer, light follows curved path if we assume it as coming from the real source, whereas light always follows straight path if we assume it as coming from the apparent source. For co-moving charge (mass) and observer, the electric (gravitational) lines of force follow a curved path if we consider the real charge (mass), whereas the electric (gravitational ) lines of force always follow a straight path if we consider the apparent charge (mass).
- Light is not only a local phenomenon, but also a non-local phenomenon. Light is a dual phenomenon: local and non-local! All the confusion in physics during the last century is rooted in considering light like ordinary, local phenomena. The Michelson-Morley experiment was conceived and designed based on such a fallacious view. The special theory of relativity is a mistake built on previous mistakes. If the scientists had not considered light like ordinary local phenomena ( by considering light as an ether wave ), there would have been no need to speculate ' length contraction and time dilation ' .
- The group velocity of light can be seen both as constant and variable. For co-moving light source and observer, for example, the group velocity of light is always constant c if we assume that light is emitted from the apparent source position. If we assume that light is emitted from the real/physical source position, the group velocity of light will be variable.
- Unlike classical fields and waves, there is no mixing of absolute and relative motion effects in the case of light and electromagnetism. This is why no absolute motion effect has been observed in the Ives-Stilwell experiments. Einstein's magnet conductor argument against the existence of absolute motion is wrong because magnetism is a relative motion effect, not an absolute motion effect. Weber's electrodynamics is the ultimate law governing electromagnetism, rather than Maxwell's.
- Light speed limit exists, but it is not universal. 1. It applies only to physical objects that have mass. Electrostatic and gravitational fields can be transmitted instantaneously.
2. Even for physical bodies, it applies only locally. A physical body cannot move at superluminal velocities relative to local matter in the universe, but it can move superluminally relative to distant matter in the universe. We know that superluminal galaxies have already been observed.
- The cosmic microwave background radiation may be just Doppler shifted light from receding galaxies.
- Gravity is a difference between electrostatic attraction and repulsion forces. In fact, this idea was first proposed by Michael Faraday. Apparent Source Theory has independently also led to the same conclusion. Gravity is a net electrostatic force and inertia is a net 'magnetic' force.
Proposed time of flight light speed anisotropy experiment
Despite the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth, the CMBR anisotropy and the Marinov experiments. Many of the 'ether' drift experiments used interference method because of the difficulty of measuring extremely small differences in time of flight and because of the problem of clock-synchronization ( this problem does not exist in the new theory).
Here I will propose a novel light speed anisotropy experiment that is based on the time of flight method. The experiment consists of two light transponders, say transponder A and transponder B, each fixed to the two ends of a rigid rod. Each light transponder consists of a light detector unit and a light emitter unit. The light detector, upon detecting a light pulse, triggers the light emitter, which emits a short light pulse.
Suppose that, initially, transponder A is somehow triggered to emit a short light pulse. This pulse is detected by the detector of transponder B, which triggers the emitter of transponder B, which in turn emits a light pulse, which will be detected by the detector of A, which triggers the emitter of A, which emits a light pulse, and so on. The process can continue indefinitely. An electronic counter counts the pulses emitted.
Suppose that the rod is aligned with the direction of absolute velocity of the Earth. Because of light speed anisotropy, light will take more time, say, from A to B than from B to A. The novel feature of this experiment is that it accumulates the extremely small time of flight differences, over several minutes or hours. The number of pulses counted in a given period of time will depend on the orientation of the rod with respect to the direction of Earth's absolute velocity. By using this effect, the direction and magnitude of Earth's absolute velocity can be determined, theoretically, with any desired accuracy.
Conventional time of flight experiments use spatially separated light emitter and light detector. A single pulse is emitted by the emitter and detected by the detector. Because of the extremely small time of flight involved, it is difficult to detect light speed anisotropy by using this method using a single pulse. The new method circumvents this and any clock synchronization problem by using a continuous exchange of a short light pulse between spatially separated transponders, thereby accumulating (integrating ) the small differences in time of flight of light in two directions.
A detailed description of the experiment is found in my paper at Vixra:
" Proposal for a new light speed anisotropy experiment based on time of flight method by continuous exchange of a short light pulse between two light transponders "
Summary:
Two components of a new theoretical framework have been presented:
1. Constant phase velocity and variable group velocity of light. Exponential Doppler Effect law of light
2. Apparent Source Theory
The new theoretical framework can be seen as a seamless fusion of classical and modern theories: ether theory, emission theory and constancy of the speed of light. Apparently contradicting natures co-exist in the phenomena of light, electromagnetism and gravitation. In effect, special relativity and all associated concepts such as Lorentz transformation, time dilation, length contraction ideas have been invalidated.
With respect to Apparent Source Theory, we have seen only the case of inertial motion. Extension of this special case to the general case of accelerating observers, such as in the Sagnac effect, has been a daunting task that took several years to complete.
-
Therefore, the existence of superluminal velocities (as already observed) by itself disproves the relativistic and classical formulas
When was a form of superluminal velocity inconsistent with relativity ever reliably observed?
-
absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth
Nope
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2018/04/06/the-tale-of-a-1986-experiment-that-proved-einstein-wrong/#2c60c5ba3ed3
-
"Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?"
No. The speed of light is only a problem for those who don't understand EM. Which is everybody.
EM emission is instantaneous. Problem solved........with no need to change a clock anywhere.
An instantaneous emission period is why the speed never changes.......can you follow that understanding?
It's simple, like all of nature.
-
EM emission is instantaneous.
The Mars rovers have shown otherwise.
-
absolute motion has already been detected in several experiments such as the Silvertooth
Nope
Silvertooth did his original experiment in 1986 and repeated it in 1992. In both experiments he obtained 378 Km/s towards Leo, in agreement with CMBR speed. How can temperature explain this ? How likely is it for temperature to affect the experiment so that it agrees with the CMBR, twice ?
-
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
-
All GPS needs is the lengths of 3 or more intersecting lines. Surveyors use length.
-
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.
https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Find us a transcript.
-
Find us a transcript.
I can't find the transcript for that particular video. But I can find his paper related to GPS and relativity.
http://www.tuks.nl/pdf/Reference_Material/Ronald_Hatch/Hatch-Relativity_and_GPS-II_1995.pdf
-
Maybe this might help.
http://www.alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
-
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.
I did not watch the video, but I'm commenting on what I see on the screen.
Top title says acceleration causes Doppler effects. It doesn't. Rate of change of distance (different than speed) causes Doppler effects. How much do the makers of this video know if they don't know the difference?
Next line: Frequency does not change when falling. This seems completely wrong. If I have a clock high up and reasonably stationary, it will run at some base rate. As it falls, it picks up speed (slowing it due to its motion) and it falls deeper into the gravity well, which slows it even further. If I view that clock from above, the Doppler effect makes it yet slower again. Doppler effect is relative to the viewing angle. Relativistic effects are not.
Page says effects are NOT EQUIVALENT. I agree with that, but they say it in caps like it's in contention.
Other comments discuss the actual implementation of GPS like modulation of signals and such, and lacking knowledge of actual implementation of the GPS system, I'm not qualified to comment.
-
Top title says acceleration causes Doppler effects. It doesn't. Rate of change of distance (different than speed) causes Doppler effects. How much do the makers of this video know if they don't know the difference?
It doesn't say that acceleration causes Doppler effects. Instead, it says Doppler frequency changes.
A source with constant "rate of distance change" produces shifted frequency due to Doppler effect, but the received frequency itself is constant (not changing with time). Acceleration makes the rate itself continuously changing, hence the received frequency also changes accordingly.
Based on the information in the "Official U.S. government information about the Global Positioning System (GPS) and related topics" website, I think he knows a lot. https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Ron Hatch is an expert in the use of GPS for precision farming, as well as other high precision applications. He is now a private consultant, having retired from John Deere, where he was formerly the Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and a Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., a John Deere company. NavCom provides a commercially operated differential GPS augmentation service to the agriculture industry and other high accuracy users.
Throughout his more than 50 year career in satellite navigation systems with Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and companies such as Boeing and Magnavox, Hatch has been noted for his innovative algorithm design for Satellite Navigation Systems. He has consulted for a number of companies and government agencies developing dual-frequency carrier-phase algorithms for landing aircraft, multipath mitigation techniques, carrier phase measurements for real time differential navigation at the centimeter level, algorithms and specifications for Local Area Augmentation System, high-performance GPS and communication receivers, and Kinematic DGPS. In addition to the Hatch-Filter Technique, Hatch has obtained numerous patents and written many technical papers involving innovative techniques for navigation and surveying using the TRANSIT and GPS navigation satellites. He has also authored "Escape From Einstein" and has published multiple papers in which he challenges current relativity theory.
In 1994, Hatch received the Johannes Kepler Award from the Institute of Navigation (ION) for sustained and significant contributions to satellite navigation. In 2000 he received the Thomas L. Thurlow Award and was elected a Fellow of the ION. He has also served the ION as both the Chair of the Satellite Division and as President.
-
Top title says acceleration causes Doppler effects. It doesn't. Rate of change of distance (different than speed) causes Doppler effects. How much do the makers of this video know if they don't know the difference?
It doesn't say that acceleration causes Doppler effects. Instead, it says Doppler frequency changes.
Same diff. The effect is a frequency change or frequency shift.
A source with constant "rate of distance change" produces shifted frequency due to Doppler effect, but the received frequency itself is constant (not changing with time).
Yes
Acceleration makes the rate itself continuously changing, hence the received frequency also changes accordingly.
Acceleration doesn't do that. I can accelerate an object without changing the rate of distance change, and I can change the rate of distance change without acceleration. Just think of a siren passing you by. The sound frequency drops as it passes, all without acceleration of the passing vehicle.
Based on the information in the "Official U.S. government information about the Global Positioning System (GPS) and related topics" website, I think he knows a lot. https://www.gps.gov/governance/advisory/members/hatch/
Ron Hatch is an expert in the use of GPS for precision farming, as well as other high precision applications. He is now a private consultant, having retired from John Deere, where he was formerly the Director of Navigation Systems Engineering and a Principal and co-founder of NavCom Technology, Inc., a John Deere company. NavCom provides a commercially operated differential GPS augmentation service to the agriculture industry and other high accuracy users.
Throughout his more than 50 year career in satellite navigation systems with Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory and companies such as Boeing and Magnavox, Hatch has been noted for his innovative algorithm design for Satellite Navigation Systems. He has consulted for a number of companies and government agencies developing dual-frequency carrier-phase algorithms for landing aircraft, multipath mitigation techniques, carrier phase measurements for real time differential navigation at the centimeter level, algorithms and specifications for Local Area Augmentation System, high-performance GPS and communication receivers, and Kinematic DGPS. In addition to the Hatch-Filter Technique, Hatch has obtained numerous patents and written many technical papers involving innovative techniques for navigation and surveying using the TRANSIT and GPS navigation satellites.
...
In 1994, Hatch received the Johannes Kepler Award from the Institute of Navigation (ION) for sustained and significant contributions to satellite navigation. In 2000 he received the Thomas L. Thurlow Award and was elected a Fellow of the ION. He has also served the ION as both the Chair of the Satellite Division and as President.
Argument from authority fallacy. How does quoting this guy's credentials make the statement in that slide correct?
He has also authored "Escape From Einstein" and has published multiple papers in which he challenges current relativity theory.
Sounds like another denier. People publishing such papers tend to be well versed in twisting the facts. Look at all the people making similar claims in New Theories section. Oh wait, you're one of them.
-
Same diff. The effect is a frequency change or frequency shift.
Don't you think that acceleration causes changing Doppler frequency shift?
Argument from authority fallacy. How does quoting this guy's credentials make the statement in that slide correct?
You are the one who questioned his credential in previous post. Don't you remember?
Acceleration doesn't do that. I can accelerate an object without changing the rate of distance change, and I can change the rate of distance change without acceleration. Just think of a siren passing you by. The sound frequency drops as it passes, all without acceleration of the passing vehicle.
Source movement doesn't produce frequency shift only in a very special case where the distance to the observer doesn't change. For satelite case, it's only happens at the center of the earth, which is not a practical place to put an observer.
Sounds like another denier. People publishing such papers tend to be well versed in twisting the facts. Look at all the people making similar claims in New Theories section. Oh wait, you're one of them.
Show me one of my claim that you are talking about.
-
Some arguments to defend relativity theory invoke the working of GPS. But I found that a GPS expert doesn't agree with that.
An expert clockmaker doesn’t need to know the details of astrophysics to build a very accurate clock. There are a lot of people working on GPS systems who don’t know the detail of relativity; the corrections were worked out by physicists before the project began - using relativity.
Hatch believed he had found a flaw in the equivalence principle and developed his own theory of gravity and relativity. Unlike most new theorists here he included a falsifiable test, his theory predicted that gravitational waves don’t exist and hence would never be detected. The only people now interested in his ideas are the relativity deniers, who don’t understand what he was writing anyway.
-
Don't you think that acceleration causes changing Doppler frequency shift?
I said that in post 11 yes. I can give an example: Take a light (and a thing that emits a continuous tone) and put it on a string so it faces up the string and spin the thing about yourself. The tension on the string represents acceleration. The light frequency and tone will not change no matter how hard you spin it. The acceleration has no effect.
Doppler effect also depends on the point of view. Relativistic dilation depends only on the frame of reference.
Argument from authority fallacy. How does quoting this guy's credentials make the statement in that slide correct?
You are the one who questioned his credential in previous post. Don't you remember?
I did not. I have no idea who the guy is other than what you told me, so I have no reason to question those credentials. I was only commenting on the incorrect statements I saw on that slide.
Evan just above seems to know the history of the person and is aware of how his ideas have been falsified, but I see nothing in his post that denies the credentials you gave. My statement above just says that a list of credentials doesn't make what he says correct, despite your implication otherwise.
Acceleration doesn't do that. I can accelerate an object without changing the rate of distance change, and I can change the rate of distance change without acceleration. Just think of a siren passing you by. The sound frequency drops as it passes, all without acceleration of the passing vehicle.
Source movement doesn't produce frequency shift only in a very special case where the distance to the observer doesn't change. For satelite case, it's only happens at the center of the earth, which is not a practical place to put an observer.
I didn't say source movement caused it, and neither does acceleration. I said it is caused by the rate of distance change from source to observer.
Sounds like another denier. People publishing such papers tend to be well versed in twisting the facts. Look at all the people making similar claims in New Theories section. Oh wait, you're one of them.
Show me one of my claim that you are talking about.
I seemed to have based that statement only on your selection of video's to post, so I take it back. My apologies.
-
I did not. I have no idea who the guy is other than what you told me, so I have no reason to question those credentials. I was only commenting on the incorrect statements I saw on that slide.
Evan just above seems to know the history of the person and is aware of how his ideas have been falsified, but I see nothing in his post that denies the credentials you gave. My statement above just says that a list of credentials doesn't make what he says correct, despite your implication otherwise.
It was Collin2b.
I didn't say source movement caused it, and neither does acceleration. I said it is caused by the rate of distance change from source to observer.
In satellite case with observer not at earth center, any source movement will produce Doppler frequency shift. Any acceleration will produce change of position, which in turn change the distance, hence change of received frequency. We can say that the cause and effect relationship is indirect.I seemed to have based that statement only on your selection of video's to post, so I take it back. My apologies.
Apology accepted.
-
The geosync satellites both move and accelerate, and yes, that indeed produces a change of position. Yet the distance to them does not change, so no Doppler effect.
I agree.
For wave propagation in medium, Doppler effect can still occur even without change of distance between source and observer, if they move through the medium.
-
You have an example of that with light?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau_experiment
-
OK, he's using water here.
There is still no Doppler effect in that picture. Both output beams shine with the same frequency as it would if the source was observed directly without the intervening apparatus. All it does is a phase shift on both sides.
The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
From the definition above, Doppler effect can happen if wavelength changes even if the frequency stays the same, which means that the propagation speed also changes accordingly.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Fizeau_experiment_schematic.svg/300px-Fizeau_experiment_schematic.svg.png)
From the diagram, at the right end of water column, water velocity at light direction is 0, hence the Doppler effect is canceled at that points, and the light frequency and wavelength of the top light becomes the same as the bottom light as they come out of water before observed. But the Doppler effect has occured along the top and bottom horizontal columns by changing propagation speed, frequency, and wavelength, which generate changes in interference pattern at the detector. Hence the changes of each individual parameters can't be directly measured, but either frequency or wavelength must have been changed, thus Doppler effect must have happened.
-
From the diagram, at the right end of water column, water velocity at light direction is 0, hence the Doppler effect is canceled at that points, and the light frequency and wavelength of the top light becomes the same as the bottom light as they come out of water before observed. But the Doppler effect has occured along the top and bottom horizontal columns by changing propagation speed, frequency, and wavelength, which generate changes in interference pattern at the detector. Hence the changes of each individual parameters can't be directly measured, but either frequency or wavelength must have been changed, thus Doppler effect must have happened.
I agree that the wavelength is shorter in the water, but it would even if it wasn't moving. This is due to a changed speed of light in a non-vacuum, not a change in frequency.
So if the observer looks at one beam or the other (or observes from within the water) he'll find them all at the exact same frequency. All the device does is a phase shift, not a frequency change. The only way to change the frequency is to move the light source (depicted by a little sun in the picture) or move the observer.
The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
From the definition above, Doppler effect can happen if wavelength changes even if the frequency stays the same, which means that the propagation speed also changes accordingly.
I agree that the definition above says that, but it is wikipedia, and I think they mean frequency change and associated wavelength change and not the case of wavelength change associated only with refraction and not frequency change. I'm saying wiki is wrong here.
From oxford dictionary (top of list if you google "what is doppler effect"):
"[physics:] an increase (or decrease) in the frequency of sound, light, or other waves as the source and observer move toward (or away from) each other. The effect causes the sudden change in pitch noticeable in a passing siren, as well as the redshift seen by astronomers."
Britanica: "Doppler effect, the apparent difference between the frequency at which sound or light waves leave a source and that at which they reach an observer, caused by relative motion of the observer and the wave source."
webster:
"a change in the frequency with which waves (as of sound or light) from a given source reach an observer when the source and the observer are in motion with respect to each other so that the frequency increases or decreases according to the speed at which the distance is decreasing or increasing"
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Doppler.html
"The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving."
Pretty much every place except wiki says it's a frequency shift and does not consider a wavelength change without frequency change to be an example of Doppler effect.
-
The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency or wavelength of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
From the definition above, Doppler effect can happen if wavelength changes even if the frequency stays the same, which means that the propagation speed also changes accordingly.
I agree that the definition above says that, but it is wikipedia, and I think they mean frequency change and associated wavelength change and not the case of wavelength change associated only with refraction and not frequency change. I'm saying wiki is wrong here.
From oxford dictionary (top of list if you google "what is doppler effect"):
"[physics:] an increase (or decrease) in the frequency of sound, light, or other waves as the source and observer move toward (or away from) each other. The effect causes the sudden change in pitch noticeable in a passing siren, as well as the redshift seen by astronomers."
Britanica: "Doppler effect, the apparent difference between the frequency at which sound or light waves leave a source and that at which they reach an observer, caused by relative motion of the observer and the wave source."
webster:
"a change in the frequency with which waves (as of sound or light) from a given source reach an observer when the source and the observer are in motion with respect to each other so that the frequency increases or decreases according to the speed at which the distance is decreasing or increasing"
http://physics.bu.edu/~duffy/py105/Doppler.html
"The Doppler effect describes the shift in the frequency of a wave sound when the wave source and/or the receiver is moving."
Pretty much every place except wiki says it's a frequency shift and does not consider a wavelength change without frequency change to be an example of Doppler effect.
You are correct. In order to get frequency change, we have to change the number of waves in transit between source and observer, such as when distance between source and observer changes. This can also be done by accelerating medium.
-
You are correct. In order to get frequency change, we have to change the number of waves in transit between source and observer, such as when distance between source and observer changes. This can also be done by accelerating medium.
It makes me wonder if both source and observer accelerate uniformly. Does the light received by observer have the same frequency as the light emitted by the source? How much is the difference?
-
It makes me wonder if both source and observer accelerate uniformly. Does the light received by observer have the same frequency as the light emitted by the source? How much is the difference?
The proper distance between them changes if one is in front of the other, but not side-by-side. So no redshift in the latter case.
In the former case, the lead ship will outdistance the trailing one in the frame of either ship, so there will be a small Doppler effect as the proper distance between them grows.
If, on the other hand, the two observers are in the same ship but opposite ends, the proper distance between the two would be fixed and the acceleration of each would not be the same and the one in front would see a red-shifted light from the rear and a blue shift looking the other way. This is a pure relativistic effect and not Doppler.
If they accelerate uniformly, their distance should not change.
In special relativity, lengths only contracts while time only dilates when an inertial system is observed by other inertial systems moving at constant velocity relative to the observed one. So I assume you are talking about general relativity there.
-
I have done a simulation of Apparent Source Theory (AST) and uploaded to Youtube:
" A New Theory of Motion and the Speed of Light- Special and General Relativity Disproved "
-
In the video at 18:00 timeline, you mentioned about group velocity. What if the light beam is continuous with constant amplitude? How do you define and measure its group velocity?
-
In the video at 18:00 timeline, you mentioned about group velocity. What if the light beam is continuous with constant amplitude? How do you define and measure its group velocity?
Thank you for the comment.
Suppose that an observer O is co-moving with absolute velocity V with a laser light source S, with O in front of S. The distance between S and O is D. Assume that the laser is switched ON at t = 0, and that O detects the leading edge of the continuous light at t = t1. The group velocity will be, Vg = D / t1 . It will take longer time for the leading edge to catch up with O than if the absolute velocity (V) was zero.
-
Suppose that an observer O is co-moving with absolute velocity V with a laser light source S, with O in front of S. The distance between S and O is D. Assume that the laser is switched ON at t = 0, and that O detects the leading edge of the continuous light at t = t1. The group velocity will be, Vg = D / t1 . It will take longer time for the leading edge to catch up with O than if the absolute velocity (V) was zero.
That it will, but how is t1 measured? You seem to have two moving clocks separated by (presumably) proper distance D and have not given a convention to sync them, so they might read anything at all, giving some random value for 'group velocity'. You propose absolute velocity, so you must provide a method for absolute clock synchronization, else your argument is begging its own conclusion. Or you could think of a different experiment that doesn't presume the answer before taking the measurement.
Relative (not absolute) sync can be accomplished by putting them in the same location (midpoint) and then starting (zeroing) them both with the same signal. Then carry them equal proper distance to opposite ends (separated by D) and then doing the measurement. This should also work according to the seemingly Newtonian physics you seem to suggest. But they will then measure the same duration for light to travel in either direction, regardless of absolute velocity of the setup, which contradicts said Newtonian physics. Your posts seem to predict that they will measure different times (from A to B, vs. B to A) depending on orientation of A and B relative to their absolute velocity, which would falsifies your proposal here.
I'm just responding to posts. No, I've not bothered with watching the video, which just claims to be a simulation, not a real experiment. A simulation cannot disprove any theory. Only an empirical test which measures different results than that predicted by the theory can serve to falsify it.
Ok, I did not consider clock synchronization to be a fundamental problem. Clock synchronization is a problem only in special relativity.
Clock rates may change with absolute velocity. But it is not time itself but physical processes that may slow down or speed up with absolute velocity. Theoretically it should not be difficult to study this, i.e. how absolute velocity could affect clock rates. For example, you take two identical clocks and synchronize them while they are at the same location A and both are at absolute rest. Then one of the clocks is made to move in a circular path with a known absolute velocity and return to A, where the two clock readings can be compared. The experiment can be done for many different values of absolute velocities, from which a clock rate correction table can be prepared for (absolutely) moving clocks. The table is used to automatically correct/adjust moving clocks depending on their absolute velocity.
Measuring absolute rest ( and absolute velocity ) can be done in several ways, for example by the Silvertooth experiment and other methods that do not require any clock synchronization .
In the case of the thought experiment of co-moving observer O and laser source S, two clocks, one at S and the other at O are used. Suppose that the whole experimental setup is at absolute rest at first. The clocks are first synchronized when they are at the same location, say both are at the location of the laser source S. Then the other clock is transported to O. Since each clock has an absolute velocity measuring device onboard, the moving clock will automatically correct/adjust its time so that the clocks will always be in sync. So the moving clock will not be out of sync during transportation from S to O.
Then imagine that the whole experimental setup starts moving with absolute velocity Vabs. The two clocks will always be in sync regardless of their absolute velocities because of automatic correction.
-
Clock rates may change with absolute velocity.
Says the person in denial of relativity. So how do you know this?
For example, you take two identical clocks and synchronize them while they are at the same location A and both are at absolute rest.
Except you have no way of knowing that they’re at absolute rest, so they’re simply given a completely arbitrary velocity and that velocity is defined to be the absolute rest velocity. That doesn’t make it absolutely at rest, it only makes it an arbitrary choice.
Measuring absolute rest ( and absolute velocity ) can be done in several ways, for example by the Silvertooth experiment and other methods that do not require any clock synchronization.
No such device exists, and no experiment has ever defined a consistent rest frame in absence of selecting for a choice ahead of time. If it worked, it would work in a double blind test in properly controlled conditions, which of course was never done since it fails.
I notice the guy measured almost exactly the peculiar velocity of the solar system despite Earth (his lab in particular) never being stationary relative to that frame, which means he already chose and answer and biased his finding to it. He’d do great in the Trump administration where they do science that way: working backwards from the result they’re expected to find.
In the case of the thought experiment of co-moving observer O and laser source S, two clocks, one at S and the other at O are used. Suppose that the whole experimental setup is at absolute rest at first. The clocks are first synchronized when they are at the same location, say both are at the location of the laser source S. Then the other clock is transported to O. Since each clock has an absolute velocity measuring device onboard, the moving clock will automatically correct/adjust its time so that the clocks will always be in sync.
No such device exists, but assuming the absence of any gravitational field gradient, what you describe can be done with an inertial guidance system, and without the necessity of the tables you describe above. The devices are in use on Earth because they assume and adjust for a non-inertial reference frame implied by Earth's gravitational field. They're quite accurate over short periods of time.
So the moving clock will not be out of sync during transportation from S to O.
Then imagine that the whole experimental setup starts moving with absolute velocity Vabs. The two clocks will always be in sync regardless of their absolute velocities because of automatic correction.
OK, then what? No actual experiment with some finding is performed. SR isn’t invalidated since you’ve not actually done anything except declare two clocks to be in sync relative to the original arbitrary frame selected.
-
Clock rates may change with absolute velocity.
Says the person in denial of relativity. So how do you know this?
For example, you take two identical clocks and synchronize them while they are at the same location A and both are at absolute rest.
Except you have no way of knowing that they’re at absolute rest, so they’re simply given a completely arbitrary velocity and that velocity is defined to be the absolute rest velocity. That doesn’t make it absolutely at rest, it only makes it an arbitrary choice.
Measuring absolute rest ( and absolute velocity ) can be done in several ways, for example by the Silvertooth experiment and other methods that do not require any clock synchronization.
No such device exists, and no experiment has ever defined a consistent rest frame in absence of selecting for a choice ahead of time. If it worked, it would work in a double blind test in properly controlled conditions, which of course was never done since it fails.
I notice the guy measured almost exactly the peculiar velocity of the solar system despite Earth (his lab in particular) never being stationary relative to that frame, which means he already chose and answer and biased his finding to it. He’d do great in the Trump administration where they do science that way: working backwards from the result they’re expected to find.
In the case of the thought experiment of co-moving observer O and laser source S, two clocks, one at S and the other at O are used. Suppose that the whole experimental setup is at absolute rest at first. The clocks are first synchronized when they are at the same location, say both are at the location of the laser source S. Then the other clock is transported to O. Since each clock has an absolute velocity measuring device onboard, the moving clock will automatically correct/adjust its time so that the clocks will always be in sync.
No such device exists, but assuming the absence of any gravitational field gradient, what you describe can be done with an inertial guidance system, and without the necessity of the tables you describe above. The devices are in use on Earth because they assume and adjust for a non-inertial reference frame implied by Earth's gravitational field. They're quite accurate over short periods of time.
So the moving clock will not be out of sync during transportation from S to O.
Then imagine that the whole experimental setup starts moving with absolute velocity Vabs. The two clocks will always be in sync regardless of their absolute velocities because of automatic correction.
OK, then what? No actual experiment with some finding is performed. SR isn’t invalidated since you’ve not actually done anything except declare two clocks to be in sync relative to the original arbitrary frame selected.
So your question about clock synchronization comes down to a question about the existence ( or non- existence) of absolute motion.
One cannot reasonably reject the Silvertooth experiment because:
1. Silvertooth repeated and published his experiment three times, with slightly different experimental setups.
2. The Silvertooth experiment has been repeated and confirmed independently:
" Replication of the Silvertooth experiment " , by Doug Marett
3. Stephan Marinov had obtained the same order of magnitude and direction of absolute velocity by using a different method, in 1976.
4. Silvertooth was a pioneer in the field and I don't think he is capable of doing such outright scientific fraud.
The scientific community should have repeated, refined and owned the novel effects observed in the Silvertooth and the Marinov experiments, because science is supposed to be a search for scientific truths.
Inertial guidance systems cannot measure absolute velocity ( which you reject).
-
4. Silvertooth was a pioneer in the field and I don't think he is capable of doing such outright scientific fraud.
Silvertooth Prosper-René Blondlot was a pioneer in the field N rays and I don't think he is capable of doing such outright scientific fraud.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray
It needn't be fraud, self delusion is good enough.
Sometimes it spreads
The Silvertooth experiment has been repeated and confirmed independently:
" Replication of the Silvertooth experiment " , by Doug Marett
-
Relative motion and the Doppler shift can also be explained with changes in entropy. Objects moving toward each other become more organized with each other and thereby lower entropy. This releases energy for the blue shift. When objects move away or expand relative to each other, this increases entropy, thereby absorbing energy causing a red shift. The objects become entangled as a changing entropy state.
One of the problems with existing interpretations of the Doppler shift is completing an energy balance. Where does lost energy, implicit of a red shift, go? There is lost energy, when wavelength increases. Entropy is a way to balance that energy.
To prove this with an experiment, say we had two observational references; left and right, and a light source in the middle. This initial three unit system defines a given entropic state; X. If the light source was to move left, the left observer will see a blue shift, while the right observer will see a red shift, due to entropy lowering left and the entropy increasing right, respectively.
If the second law was in affect and the entropy of the universe has to increase, this energy exchange, via entropy, cannot be a wash, since that would be perpetual motion. Instead there would need to be a slight red shift loss energy, bias.
In other posts, I have discussed how the second law implies that the universe is losing reusable energy. The increase in universal entropy will absorb energy. This energy is conserved, but is not net reusable by the inertial universe, in net way, since it is tied up as ever increasing entropy. The second law implies the inertial universe is losing useable energy. This growing pool of conserved Dead pool energy, implies the universe red shift.
-
So your question about clock synchronization comes down to a question about the existence ( or non- existence) of absolute motion.
No, not at all. I was wondering what your point was, but reading more carefully, you seem to be attempting to make an absolute clock.
Suppose Bob has such a magical device that detects absolute motion which does so instantly (not over weeks), and to at least 16 digits of precision needed to be used as a navigation device. Bob thus makes himself stationary, and sends this second clock way out by say Pluto. The clocks will not be in sync by your method, and if they are synced by a better convention, they will not stay in sync since the distant one runs faster. They are both kept absolutely stationary because both have this magical device.
So one of my points is, since the clocks don't stay in sync, which (if either) is correct? Probably not Bob's clock since dilation always slows a clock, never speeds it up. So how does Bob's clock adjust for this absolute dilation of its measurement? You seem to be attempting to define an absolute time device using the magical absolute motion device, but it doesn't work.
If I have understood your argument, Bob has an absolute velocity measuring device and two clocks A and B. Each clock also has an absolute velocity measuring device integral with it. Each clock uses a clock rate correction table to continuously, automatically correct it's time depending on absolute velocity. The table gives the correction needed ( nanoseconds per second) for each absolute velocity. Clocks at rest do not need any correction.
At first Bob comes to absolute rest and synchronized the two clocks. Then he sends clock B towards Pluto. Clock B will then be in absolute motion and then come to rest on Pluto.
Because of the continuous, automatic correction, clock B will always be in synch with clock A, both when it is in motion and after coming to rest.
-
So your question about clock synchronization comes down to a question about the existence ( or non- existence) of absolute motion.
No, not at all. I was wondering what your point was, but reading more carefully, you seem to be attempting to make an absolute clock.
Suppose Bob has such a magical device that detects absolute motion which does so instantly (not over weeks), and to at least 16 digits of precision needed to be used as a navigation device. Bob thus makes himself stationary, and sends this second clock way out by say Pluto. The clocks will not be in sync by your method, and if they are synced by a better convention, they will not stay in sync since the distant one runs faster. They are both kept absolutely stationary because both have this magical device.
So one of my points is, since the clocks don't stay in sync, which (if either) is correct? Probably not Bob's clock since dilation always slows a clock, never speeds it up. So how does Bob's clock adjust for this absolute dilation of its measurement? You seem to be attempting to define an absolute time device using the magical absolute motion device, but it doesn't work.
If I have understood your argument, Bob has an absolute velocity measuring device and two clocks A and B. Each clock also has an absolute velocity measuring device integral with it. Each clock uses a clock rate correction table to continuously, automatically correct it's time depending on absolute velocity. The table gives the correction needed ( nanoseconds per second) for each absolute velocity. Clocks at rest do not need any correction.
At first Bob comes to absolute rest and synchronized the two clocks. Then he sends clock B towards Pluto. Clock B will then be in absolute motion and then come to rest on Pluto.
Because of the continuous, automatic correction, clock B will always be in synch with clock A, both when it is in motion and after coming to rest.
Let me clarify what I actually mean by :
' Clocks at rest do not need any correction'
Suppose that it takes 1 day = 24 x 3600 seconds for clock B to reach Pluto. Assume that clock B travels with such constant absolute velocity that it needs a correction of + 10 ns/s. Therefore, once clock B comes to rest and remains at rest on Pluto, the difference between the times of clock A and the UNCORRECTED time of clock B will remain constant:
10ns/s x 24x3600 s = 864 micro seconds.
But as soon as clock B starts moving again this difference will start to change.
( the assumption of a clock being at rest on a moving planet is not good, but let us ignore it)
Therefore, the difference between the time of clock A and the UNCORRECTED time of clock B depends on the motion HISTORY of clock B.
This implies that if we want to make an absolute clock we need 1. an accurate clock
2. that always remains at rest once its time is set.
That is, an absolute clock is one that has no history of motion once it's time is set while at absolute rest.
For this, an absolute motion detecting device must be integral with the absolute clock, so that any possible small motions of the clock will be detected, so that the clock is brought to rest automatically.
-
At first Bob comes to absolute rest and synchronized the two clocks. Then he sends clock B towards Pluto. Clock B will then be in absolute motion and then come to rest on Pluto.
I said near Pluto, since I wanted Clock B to be at absolute rest out there and Pluto isn’t at absolute rest. So neither clock is on any Planet, but for a while, B is nearby Pluto and A is some place near Earth’s orbit. If you want, you can have B actually be on Pluto and A just happens to have identical velocity so they’re both making the same motion correction.
Because of the continuous, automatic correction, clock B will always be in synch with clock A, both when it is in motion and after coming to rest.
No. I can put clock A at the north pole and clock B on a 100m tower just above it. I’m doing this on the pole to eliminate any velocity difference from Earth’s rotation. The clock on the tower will run faster than the one below it, with both clock adjusting identically for their identical absolute motion. This is due to gravitational dilation, and your motion-detection didn’t correct for it, so neither clock measures objective time. So clocks at rest really do need more correction.
Let me clarify what I actually mean by :
' Clocks at rest do not need any correction'
Suppose that it takes 1 day = 24 x 3600 seconds for clock B to reach Pluto. Assume that clock B travels with such constant absolute velocity that it needs a correction of + 10 ns/s. Therefore, once clock B comes to rest and remains at rest on Pluto, the difference between the times of clock A and the UNCORRECTED time of clock B will remain constant:
10ns/s x 24x3600 s = 864 micro seconds.
But as soon as clock B starts moving again this difference will start to change.
( the assumption of a clock being at rest on a moving planet is not good, but let us ignore it)
OK, Let’s assume (unrealistic) that the sun and planets do not orbit and are all somehow held at absolute rest. Clock B goes to Pluto and adjusts 864 usec for the effort of getting there (the real figure is a lot higher). Let’s put clock A on the moon instead of Earth, just to humor me.
This implies that if we want to make an absolute clock we need 1. an accurate clock
2. that always remains at rest once its time is set.
For this, an absolute motion detecting device must be integral with the absolute clock, so that any possible small motions of the clock will be detected, so that the clock is brought to rest automatically.
That is, an absolute clock is one that has no history of motion once it's time is set while at absolute rest.
I’m saying we can have that, and the clocks still are not accurate. You really don’t know your physics.
I’m willing to skip the travel altogether and just have A and B (stationary moon, Pluto respectively) initially magically in sync since you don't seem to know how to go about it. The Pluto one will run faster, and neither clock will adjust since neither is moving, so they’ll get further and further out of sync as time goes on, just like GPS satellites need to have clocks that run deliberately slower despite their continuous greater motion (absolute or relative) than the ones on Earth. If you put your motion detecting clocks on a GPS satellite, they would adjust themselves the wrong way since the satellites would be moving more than Earth.
-
What is absolute motion? Velocity = (x-x0)/Δt. Where is x0?
-
Relative motion and the Doppler shift can also be explained with changes in entropy.
No. They can't.
Stop trying to hijack every thread with your lack of understanding of entropy.
-
Clock rates may (might) depend on several factors:
1. Absolute velocity
2. Gravitational field
3. Magnetic field . . .
My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion. I am not sure if you still have questions on this.
Now you bring the problem of gravitational fields. I think that we can still have an absolute clock. Once we set the clock, we only need to maintain the absolute rest state and zero gravitational field around the clock. ( But any non zero constant velocity and non zero constant gravitational field should be possible, but I just prefer zero values). This absolute clock must always be at rest and in zero gravitational field. It should not have any history of changes in its state of motion and gravitational field. For this, absolute velocity measuring device and gravitational field measuring device are integral with the clock, for automatic correction.
All other clocks can keep correct time in two ways:
1. They can continuously, automatically correct their time for absolute motion and gravitational fields. The clocks use correction tables for motion, for gravity, . . . For this, they have motion and gravity sensors onboard.
2. They can also check and correct their time against the absolute clock. For this each clock may need to come back to the location of the absolute clock.
For example, once the clock is set against the absolute clock, it can go anywhere in the universe and still be in synch by continuous correction for its motion and gravitational field. Then the clock may return to the absolute clock for resynchornization at longer intervals because there will be drifts.
-
What is absolute motion? Velocity = (x-x0)/Δt. Where is x0?
x0 can be a point on an object that is at absolute rest.
-
An animation shown here indicates that Milky way galaxy is moving relative to cosmic microwave background.
https://t.co/fs7e85DdFg
-
My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion. I am not sure if you still have questions on this.
Last time I checked, "absolute" motion did not exist.
-
My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion.
Gravitational time dilation isn’t a function of the uniformity of the gravitational field. It’s a function of the gravitational potential.
So for instance, a clock on Earth will run faster than one sitting on Mercury despite the stronger gravitational field on Earth. A rock in freefall just above Earth will undergo greater coordinate (absolute) acceleration than a rock in freefall just above the surface of Mercury. There’s thus a stronger field just above Earth, and yet less dilation.
Another example is the uniform field inside a hollow region inside something like Earth. Completely uniform field inside that hollow (per Newton’s shell theorem), and yet clocks there will be more dilated than a clock sitting on the surface.
So your assumption of a uniform gravitational field doesn’t allow your clocks to keep absolute time. To do that, you’re going to need to measure absolute gravitational potential. Is Silvertooth going to similarly just assume that Earth’s surface is at maximum potential just like he assumes Earth to be (incredibly near) the exact center of the universe?
and zero gravitational field around the clock. ( But any non zero constant velocity and non zero constant gravitational field should be possible, but I just prefer zero values).
Since one can move upward from a clock on Earth, it is not at zero potential. Zero potential is the potential of a universe with zero mass in it. To compute the potential at Earth then, one only needs to account for all the mass of the universe. The computation isn’t all that difficult if you assume uniform mass density above a certain scale. A few minor adjustments from there to account for the planet, sun, galaxy, and not much else. But the mistake is to wave the computation away and assume it needn’t be done.
How old is the universe currently? According to Earth clock, it is about 13.8 BY old, but that clock is dilated by some percentage. So what's the real age?
-
Hi all,
Halc I am struggling to follow parts of the points you made, when you stated
(So for instance, a clock on Earth will run faster than one sitting on Mercury despite the stronger gravitational field on Earth)
As when I calculate time dilation on the surface of earth and on the surface of mercury.
I get a greater time dilation on the surface of the earth. ?
-
Hi all,
So in regards to the calculations I just used the standard non rotating body gravitational time dilation equation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_time_dilation
and plugged in the values firstly for mercury which gave a time dilation at the surface of
4.02 x10-^10 sec per sec
And for earth surface gave time dilation of:
2.79x10^-9 sec per sec
You may find you have to break the calc down a bit as the numbers might be a bit beyond a standard scientific calculator in one go and just gives the answers as 1
-
Hi all,
So in regards to the calculations I just used the standard non rotating body gravitational time dilation equation and plugged in the values firstly for mercury which gave a time dilation at the surface of
4.02 x10-^10 sec per sec
And for earth surface gave time dilation of:
2.79x10^-9 sec per sec
You computed essentially dilation for what I called Vp above but did not include the Vo component. Essentially you're not taking into account Mercury's proximity to the sun compared to Earth.
That's something you need to do to compare one location to another. Taking into account other masses (the galaxy say) is needless since both planets have the same average potential relative to the galaxy. You only need to do that to compute absolute dilation, and then just 'the galaxy' is nowhere near enough.
-
Hi all
so Halc I understand a little more of what you were saying now to set hal straight on the problems of his position, and the contradictions it causes in reality.
But in regards to the time dilation on the surface of the earth and mercury the "local" gravitational time dilation effect of the sun's input to these two positions is not enough to alter the numbers greatly, definitely not enough for a clock to run slower on mercury than earth.
Indeed there will be a greater local effect between midday and midnight on earth as the suns field will subtract its field from earth's gravitational acceleration/attraction at one point, and add it at the other (aprox plus or minus 6mm per sec ^2)
-
But in regards to the time dilation on the surface of the earth and mercury the "local" gravitational time dilation effect of the sun's input to these two positions is not enough to alter the numbers greatly, definitely not enough for a clock to run slower on mercury than earth.
Nice argument from incredulity you got going there.
Did you actually plug the numbers into the nice equation you used to get the numbers in the prior post? They'll tell a different story.
Indeed there will be a greater local effect between midday and midnight on earth as the suns field will subtract its field from earth's gravitational acceleration/attraction at one point, and add it at the other (aprox plus or minus 6mm per sec ^2)
It does indeed vary from one side of a planet to the other, but the opposite way from your description. Time runs slower on the day side because the potential is less there, not on the far side where the coordinate acceleration is maximized (stronger gravitational field). It isn't a function of the strength of the field, as I pointed out in post 50, and as is explained in the website you linked.
-
Hi all,
Ok Halc play nicely 😀
I believe my last post is correct I will do the calculations and feed back, but am confident about the direction of the LOCAL potential at the surface, so I would suggest you may be wise to do the calculations as well.
Also what distances did you calculate the escape velocity gave to then combine it in your equation with the velocity to get to the rock 🪨
-
Was the light speed problem really solved by Einstein in 1905 ?
Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this. Few, if any, physicists realize this. The ether always haunted the thinking of the physicists.
Then you haven't studied Einstein much.
"More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether."
-Albert Einstein
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
-Albert Einstein
You can easily find the full text by searching for...
Albert Einstein - Ether and the Theory of Relativity, 1920
-
; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether.
And if you distil a mixture of sulphuric acid and ethanol you get ethoxyethane- also known as diethyl ether.
In this sense there is an ether.
But it isn't the same sense in which the "luminiferous ether" was meant to exist, and nor is this "space is endowed with physical qualities".
-
Hi all,
So Halc I plugged the numbers in taking your point regarding direction.
I got total time dilation for Mercury (sun and mercury) of
1.02402x10^-7
And for earth (sun and earth)
4.2269x10^-8
Therefore giving a greater time dilation for mercury of :
6.013x10^-8
Which I believe concurs very close with your figures Halc 👍
-
And if you distil a mixture of sulphuric acid and ethanol you get ethoxyethane- also known as diethyl ether.
In this sense there is an ether.
What that necessary? I've always had a great deal of respect for you based on previous posts of yours that I've read.
But it isn't the same sense in which the "luminiferous ether" was meant to exist, and nor is this "space is endowed with physical qualities".
We can argue for or against the correctness of what Einstein said about the ether (and we should), but that's not the point I was making, which is that the OP has not read Einstein. The OP claimed that "Einstein did not truly succeed in eliminating the ether, and Einstein himself never realized this."
The luminiferous ether was declared unnecessary by Einstein due to the constancy of the speed of light and the relativity of simultaneity, but we still have the ether which goes by other names such as spacetime, the vacuum, etc.
-
Here is the link on Einstein's fantastic paper regarding ether and the General Theory of Relativity...
https://zionism-israel.com/Albert_Einstein/Albert_Einstein_Ether_Relativity.htm
-
The aether as originally conceived has failed to be supported by experimental findings. There is really no need for it now anyway.
-
The aether as originally conceived has failed to be supported by experimental findings. There is really no need for it now anyway.
That is the "superfluous" luminiferous aether which was an attempt at modeling a medium for light to travel, not the (from the 1916 Leiden paper onward) aether of General Theory of Relativity which is identified by Einstein as the metric g mu nu.
-
I wonder what CMB is moving relative to.
Can we use it as an absolute reference? Why, or why not?
-
I wonder what CMB is moving relative to.
It isn't an object with a speed. It is radiation that comes from all directions. It doesn't have a velocity.
Can we use it as an absolute reference?
Depends on what you mean by absolute. Yes, anybody can look at it and compute the inertial frame where the CMB will locally appear isotropic. No, it isn't absolute, it is relative to the local appearance of the CMB. It is also a different inertial frame for every point in space, so it certainly doesn't suggest an absolute inertial frame.
What that necessary?
I agree, that wasn't called for. Welcome to this site. It is good to have somebody competent added to the voices.
-
I wonder what CMB is moving relative to.
Can we use it as an absolute reference? Why, or why not?
Maybe.
"@SRS The Individual photons of the CMB have no rest frame, because they're photons, but the whole collection of CMB photons arriving at Earth at any given moment can be assigned a rest frame in which the sum of the momenta of those photons is zero. It may help to instead consider the rest frame of the spherical surface which emitted those photons 13+ billion years ago. That surface has expanded considerably since then, but that has no effect on the photons once they've been emitted, although the photons have been redshifted by their journey through expanding space. – PM 2Ring Jun 11 '18"
From this stackexchange thread...
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/411073/understanding-the-cmb-background-as-a-reference-frame
May I inquire as to your motivation for requiring an absolute frame of reference? For Isaac Newton it was needed as a background for velocity. Newton was aware of the problem of action at a distance, but was unable to produce any useful alternative. Mach wondered how rotating bodies bulge at the equator, and supposed that the distant stars provided the local inertial background for this phenomenon. However, neither Newton nor Mach were aware of the concept of fields, and it is the modern concepts of fields which eliminates this problem (i.e. the problem of needing some fixed background, or frame of reference).
Einstein's General Relativity states that spacetime (“Mach’s ether” by Einstein’s vernacular) is conditioned by the masses in the universe, and those masses in turn condition spacetime. This conditioning of spacetime (in the GR sense) provides us exactly what is needed to replace (locally, not globally) the absolute space and time that Newton imagined was required to make sense of velocity.
-
May I inquire as to your motivation for requiring an absolute frame of reference? For Isaac Newton it was needed as a background for velocity. Newton was aware of the problem of action at a distance, but was unable to produce any useful alternative. Mach wondered how rotating bodies bulge at the equator, and supposed that the distant stars provided the local inertial background for this phenomenon. However, neither Newton nor Mach were aware of the concept of fields, and it is the modern concepts of fields which eliminates this problem (i.e. the problem of needing some fixed background, or frame of reference).
For context, here is the most useful answer found in your link.
Individual photons certainly don't have a rest frame. However, there is a rest frame in which the CMB is almost perfectly isotropic (the deviations from a perfect blackbody spectrum are of the order of 1 part in 100,000), and for convenience we call that the rest frame of the CMB.
That frame is essentially the rest frame of the plasma which emitted the CMB, i.e. the surface of last scattering, adjusted for the Hubble flow.
Our motion causes anisotropy through simple Doppler shifting: the CMB photons coming from the direction we're currently heading towards get blueshifted, the photons in the opposite direction get redshifted.
The Earth's velocity with respect to that frame is a little complicated, because we're orbiting the Sun, which is orbiting within the galaxy, which has its own motion in the local group, etc. Of course all of those motions are operating at different time scales, and different speeds. The shortest period effect is of course due to our orbit around the Sun, but our orbit speed is pretty sedate compared to the other motions I mentioned. So there's noticeable annual variation in the exact amount and location of the anisotropy, but the long period high velocity motions are the major factors controlling the anisotropy.
Due to conservation of momentum (also angular momentum), motion of Milky way galaxy relative to CMB produce linear momentum which must be countered by something else in the same magnitude but reversed direction.
The absolute frame of reference might be useful for navigation in type 2 or 3 civilization in Kardashev scale, just like ECEF and ECI for navigation around earth.
These Earth Centered, Earth Fixed ECEF coordinates are the ones used by most satellites systems to designate an earth position.
https://www.oc.nps.edu/oc2902w/coord/coord.pdf
-
Due to conservation of momentum (also angular momentum), motion of Milky way galaxy relative to CMB produce linear momentum which must be countered by something else in the same magnitude but reversed direction.
I would think that Newton's 3rd for the Milky Way galaxy would be found mostly in the relationships with respect to the galaxies and galaxy clusters in the immediate neighborhood surrounding our Milky Way galaxy.
The absolute frame of reference might be useful for navigation in type 2 or 3 civilization in Kardashev scale, just like ECEF and ECI for navigation around earth.
Sounds ambitious. Perhaps if our civilization lasts another twenty thousand years or so, that might become a legitimate area of research.
-
What that necessary?
Yes.
I was illustrating the point that, if you change what you mean by the word "ether" then you can say that it exists.
But the luminiferous ether still doesn't exist. This was proved by the MM experiment etc.
but we still have the ether which goes by other names such as spacetime, the vacuum, etc.
No; we do not.
The reason why Fresnel coined the term "ether" was to make it clear that it was a thing in its own right; separate from space and permeating the vacuum.
If he had just meant "space" he would have said so.
Your idea that the ether is a vacuum becomes more clearly nonsensical when we consider the idea of "ether drag".
In your definition, a vacuum would be dragged through a vacuum.
So we don't have "ether" we have space.
The ether doesn't exist; it never did.
Moving the goalposts isn't science.
Please don't do it here.
-
I would think that Newton's 3rd for the Milky Way galaxy would be found mostly in the relationships with respect to the galaxies and galaxy clusters in the immediate neighborhood surrounding our Milky Way galaxy.
Do you have data for relative velocity of nearby galaxy wrt milky way? We could then calculate their velocities wrt cmb. So we'll know if there is a net momentum in the galactic neighborhood.
-
Sounds ambitious. Perhaps if our civilization lasts another twenty thousand years or so, that might become a legitimate area of research.
I prefer to be optimistic and wrong, rather than be pessimistic and right.
I think that's what Elon Musk said.
-
May I inquire as to your motivation for requiring an absolute frame of reference?
Such a frame (which I again stress is not inertial) is commonly used by very large scale cosmology. Under an inertial frame, nothing moves faster than c. There are two primary coordinate systems using the cosmological frame. One measures proper distance, and is the frame used when saying something like a galaxy with redshift 11 is moving at over 2c relative to us. That means its proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time is increasing at that rate. The other coordinate system uses comoving distance, where all galaxies are close to stationary. In that frame, redshift is still a function of distance, but none of the galaxies are moving fast. In both cases, the speed of light (the rate at which the location of a given pulse of light changes over time) is not constant.
The proper-distance coordinate system has light speed dependent on the direction it moves, and can be negative. In the latter (comoving distance, not proper), the speed of light is the same everywhere at a given time, but changes over time. These are all abstract coordinate differences, not different theories.
In the former, speeds add the normal (A + B) way. In the latter, speeds add the relativistic way.
Each of the two coordinate systems can be generated by the other by multiplication/division by the scalefactor, which is a function of the expansion rate of the universe over time.
I would think that Newton's 3rd for the Milky Way galaxy would be found mostly in the relationships with respect to the galaxies and galaxy clusters in the immediate neighborhood surrounding our Milky Way galaxy.
Do you have data for relative velocity of nearby galaxy wrt milky way? We could then calculate their velocities wrt cmb. So we'll know if there is a net momentum in the galactic neighborhood.
All the galaxies nearby are moving kind of as a group in the same direction. Andromeda is behind us but catching up despite our motion away from it. A real predator-prey chase it seems. Our peculiar motion (motion relative to that CMB frame) is due to attraction to (in order of proximity) the Virgo supercluster, the Great Attractor, and the Shapley Attractor, and also partly due to the Dipole Repeller which is pushing us from behind. Anyway, the reaction momentum to our momentum resides in these various attractors and the material being attracted to them from the other side.
This site has a 4D (3D + time animation) of the peculiar motion of our local supercluster. Virgo is the big red dot, and nothing is close to it at first since anything that was has already been eaten and is not tracked. Click on the map at the top. Takes a minute to load. Use the scroll wheel to zoom in and the mouse to rotate. The yellow dot is us, and green is Andromeda. A few other colors show some larger masses. All the dots are real galaxies, but they don't show the little ones.
https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
-
The reason why Fresnel coined the term "ether" was to make it clear that it was a thing in its own right; separate from space and permeating the vacuum.
If he had just meant "space" he would have said so.
From what I have found, the word 'ether' or 'aether' originated in ancient times to mean the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.
As for Fresnel coining the term, he used it for the luminiferous ether hypothesis, but that doesn't lock it down in stone. Einstein was well within his rights to use the term in all its various contexts in his 1920 Leiden paper on "Ether and the General Theory of Relativity".
"...But on the other hand there is a weighty argument to be adduced in favour of the ether hypothesis. To deny the ether is ultimately to assume that empty space has no physical qualities whatever. The fundamental facts of mechanics do not harmonize with this view. For the mechanical behaviour of a corporeal system hovering freely in empty space depends not only on relative positions (distances) and relative velocities, but also on its state of rotation, which physically may be taken as a characteristic not appertaining to the system in itself. In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no less well have called his absolute space "Ether"; what is essential is merely that besides observable objects, another thing, which is not perceptible, must be looked upon as real, to enable acceleration or rotation to be looked upon as something real.
It is true that Mach tried to avoid having to accept as real something which is not observable by endeavouring to substitute in mechanics a mean acceleration with reference to the totality of the masses in the universe in place of an acceleration with reference to absolute space. But inertial resistance opposed to relative acceleration of distant masses presupposes action at a distance; and as the modern physicist does not believe that he may accept this action at a distance, he comes back once more, if he follows Mach, to the ether, which has to serve as medium for the effects of inertia. But this conception of the ether to which we are led by Mach's way of thinking differs essentially from the ether as conceived by Newton, by Fresnel, and by Lorentz. Mach's ether not only conditions the behaviour of inert masses, but is also conditioned in its state by them.
Mach's idea finds its full development in the ether of the general theory of relativity. According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty. But therewith the conception of the ether has again acquired an intelligible content although this content differs widely from that of the ether of the mechanical undulatory theory of light. The ether of the general theory of relativity is a medium which is itself devoid of all mechanical and kinematical qualities, but helps to determine mechanical (and electromagnetic) events..."
-Albert Einstein
But the luminiferous ether still doesn't exist
I believe that what Einstein is saying is that the ether exists, but the physical qualities attributed to it by the luminiferous ether hypothesis don't exist.
I could be wrong, but that doesn't mean I'm trying to move any goalposts.
-
From what I have found, the word 'ether'...
And from what I told you, it's also used for other things.
But the luminiferous ether is the non existent stuff in which there are waves of light.
How's the "ether drift" idea going?
Still got a vacuum drifting through a vacuum?
-
To: Galileo1564
Einstein did not completely eliminate the ether. He eliminated the universal ether, but his inertial reference frames are just ether frames in relative motion. There is still a 'personal' ether in Einstein's theory. Every observer has his/her own ether. So , there is always a tacit assumption of ether in Einstein's theory.
It is this tacit assumption that leads to the necessity for length contraction to get null result, and Einstein never realized this. The best way to solve the light speed problem is to start with emission/ballistic theory, which predicts complete null result and completely eliminates the ether. The best approach is to start with emission theory and then modify it so that it accounts for absolute motion effects. Even Einstein had seriously considered emission theory before he formulated special relativity, but he eventually abandoned it because it led to conceptual problems.
I will formulate AST (w.r.t MMX ) once again as follows:
The effect of absolute motion of the MM interferometer is to create an APPARENT change in position of the light source as seen by the detector.
The simplest way to explain AST is as follows:
Suppose that, instead of setting the MMX apparatus in absolute motion, the position of the light source is slightly changed about its original position, say, by 1mm backward, forward, upwards, downwards, etc. What will be the effect of this ACTUAL/PHYSICAL change in source position on the position of the interference fringes?
Intuitively, we can see that changing the position of the light source along the longitudinal axis (forward and backward) will have no effect on the fringe positions because both light beams are affected (advanced and delayed, respectively) identically. In the case of upward or downward change of source position (i.e. along the transverse direction) , from geometrical optics, we can intuitively see that a small fringe shift will occur. This is because the two light beams will be affected slightly differently.
Apparent Source Theory (AST) states that the APPARENT change of source position ( caused by absolute motion) has the same effect as a corresponding ACTUAL/PHYSICAL change of source position.
This theory explains and predicts not only the null fringe shift of the MM experiments but also the small fringe shifts observed in the Miller experiments. AST turns out to be a fusion of ether theory and emission theory.
AST is a very elusive theory, so I will use an analogy to explain it further.
Two persons S and O are standing on a moving cart. We will consider three cases:
CASE 1. O is in front of S
CASE 2. S is in front of O
CASE 3. The line connecting O and S is perpendicular to the direction of motion of the cart.
Person S acts as a 'source' throwing balls towards person O who acts as an 'observer'. First consider CASE 1. Assume that S always throws balls with constant velocity c relative to himself/herself. Two synchronized clocks, one at S another at O, are used to measure the time delay of a ball going from S to O. Now we want the ball to behave both according to emission theory and according to ether theory, at the same time.
At first assume that the cart is at rest. Let the distance between S and the O be D. When the cart is at rest, the time taken by the ball to move from S to O is, t = D/c. Now suppose that the cart starts moving forward with velocity V. Since, according to emission theory, the velocity of the ball relative to the source S is always constant c , then the time t will still be equal to D/c, regardless of the velocity of the cart. But we want the time delay t to change due to the motion of the cart, to make the ball appear to behave according to ether theory also. How can this be done? To make the ball behave according to ether ( absolute motion) theory, the ball should take more time to catch up with observer O when the cart is in motion (because O and the ball are moving in the same direction). Since the source S always throws the ball with constant velocity c relative to himself (relative to the cart), the only way to make the time t longer is for the source S to move back away from observer O, to a point a distance D’ away.
In this case, the time taken by the ball will be:
t = D' / c
Therefore, the velocity of the ball relative to the (apparent) source S' is still equal to c , but the point of ball ‘emission’ has changed from S to S’. Thus, the effect of ‘absolute’ motion of the cart is to change the point of ‘emission’ of the ball. The velocity of the ball relative to the observer O is always constant c, regardless of the ‘absolute’ velocity of the cart.
Now, for the ball to exactly simulate its ‘wave’ nature, i.e. to behave according to ether theory, the time delay should be as predicted by ether theory. According to ether theory, the time delay is equal to the actual distance D divided by the velocity of the ‘ball wave’ relative to the observer O, which is equal to c – V in this case. Therefore:
t = D / ( c - V)
From the above two equations,
D' /c = D / ( c - V)
From which,
D' = D c / ( c - V )
Note that the velocity of the ball as ‘seen’ by an ‘observer’ at rest on the ground is equal to c + V .
Next we consider CASE 2 . For this we assume the same arrangement as above except that the cart moves backwards.
In this case, motion of the cart will make the time delay t shorter because O is moving towards the ball. By the same argument as above, S needs to change his/her position to a distance D’, where:
D' = D c / ( c + V )
The profound result we found is that the speed of the ball is always constant relative to the observer O, regardless of the velocity of the cart. Light behaves in the same way as the ball in the above analogy.
Now consider CASE 3. With the same arguments as above, it can be shown that:
D' = D c / ( c2 - V2 ) 1/2
This theoretical model reveals the mystery of the speed of light and why the Michelson-Morley experiment gave a null result and failed to detect absolute motion. One can imagine doing a ‘Michelson-Morley’ experiment by using the above ball analogy and can see why it gives ‘null’ results.
The simulation above shows how (changes) in absolute velocity of the MM apparatus changes the apparent position of the light source and hence affect the light paths.
-
So , there is always a tacit assumption of ether in Einstein's theory.
Not really, no.
The thing about "The ether" is it's THE ether, rather than "one of the many ethers-one for each particle in the universe" which would be a bit pointless.
Again, of you choose to call your dog "The ether" then the ether exists, but it's not got anything to do with the universal luminiferous ether.
-
So , there is always a tacit assumption of ether in Einstein's theory.
Not really, no.
The thing about "The ether" is it's THE ether, rather than "one of the many ethers-one for each particle in the universe" which would be a bit pointless.
Again, of you choose to call your dog "The ether" then the ether exists, but it's not got anything to do with the universal luminiferous ether.
The ether hypothesis has conceptual problems also. One of my usual arguments against the ether is as follows.
According to ether theory, light is nothing but a wave on/in the ether. And the ether is supposed to exist everywhere, including inside opaque objects. Now, if light is nothing but a wave of the ether, then we would be able to see through opaque objects, which is absurd. So the ether cannot be a carrier of light waves. Why else would we need the ether?
-
My arguments so far assume uniform gravitational field and hence consider only the effect of absolute motion.
Gravitational time dilation isn’t a function of the uniformity of the gravitational field. It’s a function of the gravitational potential.
So for instance, a clock on Earth will run faster than one sitting on Mercury despite the stronger gravitational field on Earth. A rock in freefall just above Earth will undergo greater coordinate (absolute) acceleration than a rock in freefall just above the surface of Mercury. There’s thus a stronger field just above Earth, and yet less dilation.
Another example is the uniform field inside a hollow region inside something like Earth. Completely uniform field inside that hollow (per Newton’s shell theorem), and yet clocks there will be more dilated than a clock sitting on the surface.
So your assumption of a uniform gravitational field doesn’t allow your clocks to keep absolute time. To do that, you’re going to need to measure absolute gravitational potential. Is Silvertooth going to similarly just assume that Earth’s surface is at maximum potential just like he assumes Earth to be (incredibly near) the exact center of the universe?
and zero gravitational field around the clock. ( But any non zero constant velocity and non zero constant gravitational field should be possible, but I just prefer zero values).
Since one can move upward from a clock on Earth, it is not at zero potential. Zero potential is the potential of a universe with zero mass in it. To compute the potential at Earth then, one only needs to account for all the mass of the universe. The computation isn’t all that difficult if you assume uniform mass density above a certain scale. A few minor adjustments from there to account for the planet, sun, galaxy, and not much else. But the mistake is to wave the computation away and assume it needn’t be done.
How old is the universe currently? According to Earth clock, it is about 13.8 BY old, but that clock is dilated by some percentage. So what's the real age?
I still prefer ‘gravitational field strength’ , not ‘gravitational potential’ , description of gravitational ‘time dilation’ effect. My reason is that there is no way to have an absolute clock if gravitational ‘time dilation’ depends on gravitational potential because gravitational potential cannot be sensed/detected at a point in space. There is no sensor to detect gravitational potential at a point in space, so that it can be used for automatic correction of clock rates.
Therefore, my absolute clocks will have gravitational field sensors onboard to automatically correct their rates by using correction tables, to stay in synch.
But this also leads me to question the ‘gravitational potential’ description of general relativity (GRT). We know that the current practice is to adjust GPS clocks on earth, prior to launch. That correction works correctly only for one altitude. The question is: is it theoretically possible (according to GRT) to have an (atomic) clock that automatically adjusts its rate with altitude? For example, an onboard system senses the gravitational potential to automatically adjust the clock rate. But there is no sensor for gravitational potential at a point of space. There can only be a gravitational field sensor. So, according to general relativity, there is no way to automatically adjust clock rates with altitude.
This raises yet another question. If there is no sensor for gravitational potential, how can the rate of an atomic clock respond to changes in gravitational potential in the first place? I mean the atoms in an atomic clock cannot sense gravitational potential to change their rates accordingly. In other words, general relativity predicts that gravitational time dilation cannot exist. Wouldn’t this disprove ‘gravitational potential’ description of general relativity?
-
Hi all
Halc/anyone a question in regards to direction and potential and time dilation and the figures we approximated earlier, let's take the example we used earlier and sent a light source out from mercury and earth to the edge of the solar system similar to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
we would get a red shifting corresponding with the velocity/gravitational time dilation we calculated earlier ie uphill all the way.
But if we sent a light source towards the centre of the sun from both locations, we would get an initial red shift (uphill) then blue shift (downhill) for both locations and a different time dilation difference than the one calculated earlier. ?
So a question comes to mind as to which is the correct way of calculating the potential from the surface of a body ?
As i am then not sure if it makes a difference to an atomic clock when factoring in the suns time dilation for midday/midnight on the surface of a body like mercury/earth makes a difference in this regard.
-
There is no sensor to detect gravitational potential at a point in space, so that it can be used for automatic correction of clock rates.
There is no way to detect absolute gravitational potential, but there is a way to detect the gradient and direction.
- Some of the most accurate atomic clocks have been used in an experiment where they were synchronised to each other, and then one was raised by 1 foot, and the difference in clock rates was measurable.
- These accurate atomic clocks are not portable, but the next generation of optical clocks should be able to measure the gravitational gradient.
As you say, this is not exactly a local measurement.
So you may as well make use of other non-local measurements, like radio signals from Earth, proximity to the Sun or another planet, etc.
There isn’t an altitude sensor either. OK, airplanes have them
From listening to @alancalverd, it seems that (as well as GPS), planes have an air-pressure altimeter:
- They know the altitude and air pressure at the departure airport, and calibrate the altimeter before takeoff.
- They know the altitude and air pressure at the arrival airport, and calibrate the altimeter before starting landing approach.
- In between, where there are planes with many origins and destinations, this is obviously not practical. I understand they use a reference air pressure when flying at altitude, and there is no risk of collision with the ground.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altimeter#Use_in_aircraft
-
There is no way to detect absolute gravitational potential, but there is a way to detect the gradient and direction.
- Some of the most accurate atomic clocks have been used in an experiment where they were synchronised to each other, and then one was raised by 1 foot, and the difference in clock rates was measurable.
- These accurate atomic clocks are not portable, but the next generation of optical clocks should be able to measure the gravitational gradient.
As you say, this is not exactly a local measurement.
So you may as well make use of other non-local measurements, like radio signals from Earth, proximity to the Sun or another planet, etc.
Gravitational potential at a point in space can only be calculated, it cannot be physically sensed, whether by using potential gradient or by using non-local measurements (such as radar ).
Also suppose that an atomic clock is not transported from earth, but somehow built at a point in space. How can such a clock 'know' the gravitational potential at that point, so as to speed up accordingly ? The atoms in the clock have no 'radars' to measure distance from earth and no 'calculators' to compute their potential.
So, if we claim to adjust a clock based on its gravitational potential which we calculated from non-local (altitude) measurements, it would be wrong and artificial.
Also imagine a clock that is affected by thousands of stars and planets. It would be very difficult (according to GRT's gravitational potential) to keep such a clock in synch, whereas it can be corrected instantly based on gravitational field.
-
There’s no sensor to detect field strength at a point in space either.
If this was the case, a stone thrown up would not fall back to the ground. And the earth and the planets would leave their orbits and drift into space and there would be no solar system.
-
So a question comes to mind as to which is the correct way of calculating the potential from the surface of a body ?
They're all correct. None of the statements you posted are mutually contradictory. You're right, the potential goes up and down at various locations based on what's nearby. The potential difference between the sun's surface and Mercury is massively more than the potential difference between Mercury and the 'edge of the solar system', wherever that is.
As i am then not sure if it makes a difference to an atomic clock when factoring in the suns time dilation for midday/midnight on the surface of a body like mercury/earth makes a difference in this regard.
The potential on one side of Mercury isn't the same as on the other. Ditto for Earth. 'Stationary' clocks at sea level run faster at night.
There is no way to detect absolute gravitational potential, but there is a way to detect the gradient and direction.
- Some of the most accurate atomic clocks have been used in an experiment where they were synchronised to each other, and then one was raised by 1 foot, and the difference in clock rates was measurable.
That was measuring the difference in an accelerated reference frame, which works anywhere in space, even in a completely flat gravitational field. It was detecting the direction of acceleration, which can be more easily determined with a plumb bob than a million dollar clock.
As you say, this is not exactly a local measurement.
Is OK. The plumb bob isn't a local measurement either, but both can be done in a box, and that's what counts.
Point is, you can't measure which way Earth is using your method in a non-accelerated environment (anywhere where the plumb-bob doesn't work). So two clocks a meter apart in a satellite will stay in sync regardless of their orientation.
Gravitational potential at a point in space can only be calculated, it cannot be physically sensed, whether by using potential gradient or by using non-local measurements (such as radar ).
And yet you don't calculate it, or find where somebody else did.
I know several different units that can be used to express gravitational potential. Joules/kg seems to be the standard, but xkcd did it in km(normalized to Earth gravity) which is equally valid. It can also be expressed as a speed.
Gravitational potential is always negative, so a clock at zero potential runs at a completely undilated rate relative to the inertial frame in which it isn't moving. No clock can run objectively faster, but other clocks can run faster relative to different inertial frames.
Also suppose that an atomic clock is not transported from earth, but somehow built at a point in space. How can such a clock 'know' the gravitational potential at that point, so as to speed up accordingly ?
Clocks measure time (the temporal length of the worldline they trace) which is completely independent of whatever the potential happens to be locally, or on Earth, or whatever.
One second is "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom" [wiki] and any deviation from that means the clock is counting something other than seconds.
In particular, a second is not defined as "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods ... of a caesium-133 atom on Earth".
The atoms in the clock have no 'radars' to measure distance from earth and no 'calculators' to compute their potential.
GPS clocks are purposefully made to run slow (count bigger seconds) to stay in sync with Earth clocks, but clocks in general have no reason to do that. There is no absolute time anywhere, even if you could get to zero potential. It's still frame dependent. They know ahead of time the altitude at which they orbit. The satellites don't do their own adjustments. Those come from the ground if/when they need to be done (due to perturbations by passing massive objects say).
So, if we claim to adjust a clock based on its gravitational potential which we calculated from non-local (altitude) measurements, it would be wrong and artificial.
Any clock thus adjusted is wrong. The ones in GPS are thus wrong since their purpose is to sync with a remote time rather than actually measure the time.
Also imagine a clock that is affected by thousands of stars and planets.
All clocks are affected by far more than mere thousands of stars and planets. That's what makes computing the potential fun. No one star (other than our own) has much effect on Earth, but there's an awful lot of stars out there and it's quite the mistake to ignore their collective effect.
It would be very difficult (according to GRT's gravitational potential) to keep such a clock in synch, whereas it can be corrected instantly based on gravitational field.
There is no 'in sync'. Read up on relativity of simultaneity. If two clocks are not in each other's presence, then there's no way they can be objectively in sync. They can only be in sync relative to an arbitrarily chosen convention, and again, if they don't measure time as defined above, they're not accurately measuring time.
If this was the case, a stone thrown up would not fall back to the ground.
But a stone doesn't fall to the ground. It traces a geodesic (a worldline that is locally straight, not curving in any direction). It is the ground that accelerates up to the rock that makes the two collide after a short time. The ground is not moving along a geodesic due to EM forces acting upon it.
Likewise, planetary orbital worldlines are straight lines, not curves.
-
Hi all
so sorry to be a pain but a couple of questions.
So a question comes to mind as to which is the correct way of calculating the potential from the surface of a body ?
They're all correct. None of the statements you posted are mutually contradictory. You're right, the potential goes up and down at various locations based on what's nearby. The potential difference between the sun's surface and Mercury is massively more than the potential difference between Mercury and the 'edge of the solar system', wherever that is.
As i am then not sure if it makes a difference to an atomic clock when factoring in the suns time dilation for midday/midnight on the surface of a body like mercury/earth makes a difference in this regard.
The potential on one side of Mercury isn't the same as on the other. Ditto for Earth. 'Stationary' clocks at sea level run faster at night.
If what I posted is not mutually contradictory why do I get a different time dilation value for each scenario ?
I understand why clocks would run faster at night due to increased potential, it's the aspect of whether the suns potential is oriented at the bottom or top of the clock on the surface of mercury/earth makes a difference.
So what I am trying to nail down is which scenario of the velocity/gravitational red shift will the atomic clock show.
(A) To edges of solar system; escape vel earth + escape vel sun from earth dist or
(B) towards sun ; escape vel sun from earth distance - escape vel earth
cheers
-
If what I posted is not mutually contradictory why do I get a different time dilation value for each scenario ?
Dilation (time, length, mass) is all relative, so there is no 'time dilation value'. There's a value relative to some reference is all. The values are different in the various scenarios because either the reference is different, the gravitational potentials are different, or both.
I understand why clocks would run faster at night due to increased potential
Sort of. I said 'stationary', so it assumes no orbital motion and an Earth just held up by a pole at some constant distance from the sun. Earth is in fact an accelerating reference frame (relative to a hypothetical inertial reference frame of the solar system), and clocks at night run the same speed as the day side due to this. Maybe there's some tide-related wiggle that makes clocks run slightly faster at the poles or something. Equivalently, Earth is in free-fall which is locally indistinguishable from being stationary in the middle of nowhere, so clocks should run at the same rate all over Earth per the equivalence principle.
it's the aspect of whether the suns potential is oriented at the bottom or top of the clock on the surface of mercury/earth makes a difference.
The thing being measured is at some altitude. It's essentially a point location. Where the rest of the mechanism is makes no difference. So atomic clocks don't have tops and bottoms. They just have a point of business and the rest is support glitz. What you say is relevant to more crude clocks like a pendulum clock that definitely requires extension to work and might be effected by the potential difference between top and bottom.
So what I am trying to nail down is which scenario of the velocity/gravitational red shift will the atomic clock show.
(A) To edges of solar system; escape vel earth + escape vel sun from earth dist or
(B) towards sun ; escape vel sun from earth distance - escape vel earth
Both will show dilation difference. I think you know that. Which shows a red shift depends on who's doing the measuring. The measurement taken at the higher potential will be red shifted relative to the measurement at the lower potential.
You got your math wrong in both A and B above.
You can't linearly add escape velocities. You add the energy/kg, which is proportional to vel², so adding the squares of the escape velocities will work.
Also you used the wrong terms for B, and forgot one for A:
A = esc vel earth² + esc vel sun from earth dist² - esc vel sun from EoSS dist² (EoSS=Edge of Solar System)
B = esc vel sun² - esc vel sun from earth dist² - esc vel earth².
These give relative potential differences (expressed in vel²) between points, but barely scratch a compute absolute potential (which is always negative) of any of those locations.
-
I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.
In what way have Maxwell's equations failed? When I detect individual photons, where has Planck's theory failed? If we add the relativistic correction for gravitational potential, where does the Pound-Rebka experiment fail to support relativity?
-
There's a lot of circularity going on here.
What makes sense is the statement that all atomic clocks are correct, but appear different to observers moving relative to the source or at a different gravitational potential from the source, and so far the measured difference is exactly as Einstein predicted.
What's the problem? Which credible experimental result differs?
-
Hi all,
So in regards to points A and B I was just giving a example to ascertain, whether the atomic clock on the surface follows scenario A or B
because I calculated the gravitational time dilation and got different figures for each scenario,
my figure for A came to gravitational time dilation of mercury at surface and sun at mercury distance
equals 1.0240193 x10^-7
and gravitational time dilation of earth at surface and sun at earth distance
equals 4.2269x10^-8 giving a greater time dilation of 6.013x10^-8 sec per sec on mercury as posted earlier
then for B given the clocks are still on the surface but calculate the redshift and blueshift as opposite signs give value of
greater time dilation on mercury of 4.77x10^-9 sec per sec.
-
In what way have Maxwell's equations failed?
Quantum theory was conceived to cover observations unexplained by Maxwell theory, such as quantization of radiational energy and stability of atoms. Some physicists argue that Maxwell's theory doesn't comply with Newton's 3rd law, unless if electromagnetic field carries momentum.
-
I start by arguing that the failure of classical theories of light, ether theory and emission theory, wrongly led to the theory of relativity.
In what way have Maxwell's equations failed? When I detect individual photons, where has Planck's theory failed? If we add the relativistic correction for gravitational potential, where does the Pound-Rebka experiment fail to support relativity?
Physicists abandoned ether theory when they found experiments appearing to disprove ether theory and abandoned emission theory when they found experiments appearing to disprove emission theory. In hindsight, what eluded them was the idea of creating a model that is a fusion of the two classical theories, instead of discarding them.
Einstein said that if a single experiment detected absolute motion, then his theories of relativity (both the special and the general) would fall like a house of cards. Therefore, there is no point in arguing about the Pound-Rebka, the gravitational time dilation and the gravitational bending of starlight.
Maxwell's equations are correct but incomplete, but special relativity cannot make them complete.
-
One tweak that can settle many of these arguments and concerns, is to assume the speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe, instead of a terminal velocity. Physics is doing this backwards based on hundreds of years of earth-centric traditions that make the earth a relative ground state. The speed of light is the absolute ground state. The speed of light reference is the floor and not the ceiling.
One experiment that suggests that the speed of light reference is the ground state is the formation of matter and anti-matter. Matter and anti-matter only appear from energy/photons at the upper limits of energy. This implies matter, which defines and sustains all inertial references, appears at the upper limits of energy; inertial is at highest potential. This makes sense since matter, via the forces of nature, gives of energy; c-reference bits when it lowers potential.
Since the speed of light is the same in all inertial references, the speed of light becomes the same holographic ground state, for any and all inertial references, at any scale, since all will see the exact same floor. It is not a question of comparing two far things; relative velocity, but any two things close up, since all use the same fixed base.
One confusion may be connected to photons moving at the speed of light. They are not exactly at the ground state. The reason is, photons contain space-time aspects; wavelength and frequency, that are finite and inertial in character. Photons, although moving at c, are not exactly in the ground state, but contain residual inertial potential. All photons will lower this potential with the ground state, through the universal red shift, which causes all photons to head in the direction of infinite wavelength; zero energy potential.
Our earth reference, at any scale, has an absolute potential relative to the C-reference, since the speed of light is the same in all references. This is the true of all references and is how you order absolute references.
The c-reference ground state, by definition, contains zero energy. The question becomes how can something with zero energy form matter, since matter has finite energy? At the speed of light, space-time breaks down, such that distance and time are no longer connected. Rather each can act independent of the other. One can move in time without space and move in space without time. This describes quantum jumps and atomic electron transitions to give examples.
If one could move in time, without space and/or move in space without time, one would exist in a state of infinite entropy, since all combinations of space and time would be possible, including that which is not possible in inertial references. Infinite entropy means zero free energy; G=H-TS. Infinite entropy and zero free energy is the ground state. To create the universe, all we need to do is lower entropy, in the c-reference, to retrieve some of the energy within infinite entropy. This will create a potential within the c-reference, since it decreases entropy. As the c-reference adjusts, so does the inertial potential that had been created; big bang forward.
Gravity cause matter to clump and form a more contracted space-time reference. In the limit of a black hole this reference approach the c-reference; space-time point. The c-reference is leading. the change. The expanding universe is also an artifact of the c-reference leading, since this causes all photons to lower potential, as wavelength increases. The c-reference also causes the forces of nature to act, since each instance of action give off photons which make a bridge to the speed of light reference ground state.
In terms of forces and gravity, each will create an acceleration, which is d/t/t. Acceleration is one part distance and two parts time. It is space-time plus time. The extra time is coming from the potential that had been induced in the c-reference, to form the universe, as entropy returns back to infinite. This ground state readjustment, drives inertial to give off its energy, via the forces of nature and other energy lowering affects in time.
The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. This will absorb energy and also reflects the c-reference drive. It also implies that useable energy is being removed from the inertial universe, since entropy ties up energy and the amount of tie up has to increase. This energy is conserved, but made net unusable to the universe. I call it dead pool energy. It appears to be a bridge state, that itself will need to increase entropy due to the c-reference adjusting. One way to describe this is information processing into higher complexity. Entropy defines states of matter so the energy absorbed would contain information of that state.
If we needed to form life, we need a random event in time and space. Dead pool energy is like the evolving software and inertial is the reacting hardware. Infinite entropy of the c-reference drive allows for unique events inductions, in space-time, that may not follow in a linear or casual fashion.
-
the speed of light reference
You really need to say (comprehensibly) what that means.
-
Perhaps people could get themselves out of the habit of repeating the propaganda about the MMX disproving the aether. Lorentz Ether Theory came into being as a direct response to the MMX null result and is still the best theory we have to account for relativity today.
-
From what I have read and studied, angular relativity and velocity relativity was discovered and described decades before Einstein. Once from Ampere and confirmed by Weber. Neither one needs local or space-time to explain it. Relativity did not come from Einstein.
Take two frames with a constant relative velocity......Einstein was told that the velocity of light was a continuous stream and still measured constant between them. And for that to be true, then either length or time had to be different in the frames. So, he simply gave each frame it's own time. This has been described as genius. I think differently.
There are two problems with this. First, they think that light is a continuous stream. It isn't, it blinks. And second, they keep measuring light in the same wrong way. Light does not have frequency, it has duty cycle.
That duty cycle reveals relative velocity, just like the relative velocity of everything thing else. And I am hoping that these new "quantum" detectors will show someone this......if they can recognize it. It's another crack in the veil.
The "quantization" of light......is because of intermittence. It blinks. It strobes. It has a duty cycle.
-
I'd like to hear some opinion about this research on measuring ether drift.
What can cause different results when the experiments are measured at different altitude?
Why the Earth movement around the Sun was considered significant, while galactic motion with much higer magnitude got less attention?
Why Miller's conclusions of 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability in the ether drift experiments was ignored?
THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND
Yu.M. Galaev1
The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine,
12 Ac. Proskury St., Kharkov, 61085 Ukraine
Received November 15, 2002
The experimental hypothesis verification of the ether existence in nature, i.e. the material medium, responsible
for electromagnetic waves propagation has been performed. The optical measuring method of the ether movement
velocity and the ether kinematic viscosity has been proposed and realized. The results of systematic measurements
do not contradict the original hypothesis statements and can be considered as experimental imagination confirmation
of the ether existence in nature, as the material medium.
The experiment [7-9] is performed within the electromagnetic
waves optical band, differed by careful
preparation, veri ed methods of the investigation conducting
and statistically signi cant measurement results.
The measured ether drift parameters mismatched
to the ether imaginations available at that time, as stationary
medium. Orbital component of the ether drift
velocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around the
Sun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected.
Miller obtained, that the ether drift velocity at the
height of 265 m above the sea level (Clevelend, USA)
has the value about 3 km/sec, and at the height of
1830 m (Mount Wilson observatory, USA) | about 10 km/sec. The apex coordinates the Solar system movement
were determined: direct ascension α ≈ 17:5h ,
declination δ ≈ +65° . Such movement is almost perpendicular
to an ecliptic plain (coordinates of the North
Pole ecliptic: α ≈ 18h , δ ≈ +66° ). Miller showed, that
the observed effects can be explained, if to accept, that
the ether stream has a galactic (space) origin and the
velocity more than 200 km/sec. Almost perpendicularly
directional orbital component of the velocity is
lost on this background. Miller referred the velocity
decrease of the ether drift from 200 km/sec up to 10
km/sec to unknown reasons.
The positive results of Miller's experiment by virtue
of their general physical signi cance attracted the physicists'
great attention at that time. In the monographs
[15] 150, devoted to the ether drift's problem and referring
to 1921-1930, are mentioned that almost everyone
were concentrated on the discussion of Miller's results.
The possible in
uencing of the diffcult considered exterior
reasons (temperature, pressure, solar radiation,
air streams etc.) on the optical cruciform interferometer,
sensitive to them, which had considerable overall
dimensions [16] in Miller's experiments was discussed
most widely in these works. Besides by virtue of methodical
limitations being in the works [7-9] and [10],
their authors did not manage to show experimentally
correctly, that the movement, detected in their experiments,
can be explained by the Earth relative movement
and the medium of material origin, responsible
for electromagnetic waves propagation [1-3]. However
the most essential reason, which made Miller's contemporaries
consider his experiments erratic, was that
in numerous consequent works, for example, such as
[17-20], Miller's results were not con rmed. In the
experiments [17-20] so-called the \zero results" were
obtained, i.e. the ether drift was not detected.
Thus, taking into consideration the works de ciencies
[7-9], [10] and a major number of experiments with
a zero result available, it is possible to understand the
physicists' mistrust to the works [7-9], [10] at that time,
the results of which pointed the necessity of the fundamental
physical concept variations. The analytical
review of the most signi cant experiments, performed
with the purpose of the ether drift search, is explained
in the works [1-3, 21].
In 1933 D.K. Miller, in his summary work [22], performed
the comparative analysis of multiple unsuccessful
attempts of his followers to detect the ether drift
experimentally. He paid attention that in all such attempts,
except the experiment [10], optical interferometers
were placed in hermetic metallic chambers. The
authors of these experiments tried to guard the devices
from exposures with such chambers. In the experiment
[10] it was placed into a fundamental building of
the optical workshop at the Mount Wilson observatory
for stabilizing the interferometer temperature schedule.
The hermetic metallic chamber was not applied,
and the ether drift was detected. Its velocity had the
value W ≈ 6000 m/sec. Miller made the conclusion:
"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesir-
able while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".
Later, new opportunities for conducting experiments
on the ether drift discovery have appeared also
after the instruments occurrence based on completely
diverse ideas (resonators, masers, Messbauer's e ect
etc.). Such experiments were held [23-26]. And again
the massive metallic chamber usage was the common
instrumental error of these experiments. In the works
[23,24,26] there were the metallic resonators, in the
work [25] | a lead chamber, because it was necessary
to use gamma radiation. The authors of these
works, perhaps, didn't pay attention to Miller's conclusions
of 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability in
the ether drift experiments. The phenomena physical
interpretation of the essential ether drift velocity reduction
at metallic shields available was given by V.A.
Atsukovsky for the rst time, having explained major
ether-dynamical metal resistance of a Fermi's surface
available in them [6].
-
Perhaps people could get themselves out of the habit of repeating the propaganda about the MMX disproving the aether. Lorentz Ether Theory came into being as a direct response to the MMX null result and is still the best theory we have to account for relativity today.
The Miller, the Marinov and the Silvertooth experiments disprove
both special relativity and Lorentz's ether theory.
-
When you say the Miller experiment, do you mean this, roughly 100 year old experiment?
https://www.nature.com/articles/115798b0
Are you aware that other experiments have been done since then- with different outcomes and or interpretations?
-
I'd like to hear some opinion about this research on measuring ether drift.
What can cause different results when the experiments are measured at different altitude?
Why the Earth movement around the Sun was considered significant, while galactic motion with much higer magnitude got less attention?
Why Miller's conclusions of 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability in the ether drift experiments was ignored?
THE MEASURING OF ETHER-DRIFT VELOCITY AND KINEMATIC ETHER VISCOSITY WITHIN OPTICAL WAVES BAND
Yu.M. Galaev1
The Institute of Radiophysics and Electronics of NSA in Ukraine,
12 Ac. Proskury St., Kharkov, 61085 Ukraine
Received November 15, 2002
The experimental hypothesis verification of the ether existence in nature, i.e. the material medium, responsible
for electromagnetic waves propagation has been performed. The optical measuring method of the ether movement
velocity and the ether kinematic viscosity has been proposed and realized. The results of systematic measurements
do not contradict the original hypothesis statements and can be considered as experimental imagination confirmation
of the ether existence in nature, as the material medium.
The experiment [7-9] is performed within the electromagnetic
waves optical band, differed by careful
preparation, veri ed methods of the investigation conducting
and statistically signi cant measurement results.
The measured ether drift parameters mismatched
to the ether imaginations available at that time, as stationary
medium. Orbital component of the ether drift
velocity, stipulated by the Earth movement around the
Sun with the velocity 30 km/sec, was not detected.
Miller obtained, that the ether drift velocity at the
height of 265 m above the sea level (Clevelend, USA)
has the value about 3 km/sec, and at the height of
1830 m (Mount Wilson observatory, USA) | about 10 km/sec. The apex coordinates the Solar system movement
were determined: direct ascension α ≈ 17:5h ,
declination δ ≈ +65° . Such movement is almost perpendicular
to an ecliptic plain (coordinates of the North
Pole ecliptic: α ≈ 18h , δ ≈ +66° ). Miller showed, that
the observed effects can be explained, if to accept, that
the ether stream has a galactic (space) origin and the
velocity more than 200 km/sec. Almost perpendicularly
directional orbital component of the velocity is
lost on this background. Miller referred the velocity
decrease of the ether drift from 200 km/sec up to 10
km/sec to unknown reasons.
The positive results of Miller's experiment by virtue
of their general physical signi cance attracted the physicists'
great attention at that time. In the monographs
[15] 150, devoted to the ether drift's problem and referring
to 1921-1930, are mentioned that almost everyone
were concentrated on the discussion of Miller's results.
The possible in
uencing of the diffcult considered exterior
reasons (temperature, pressure, solar radiation,
air streams etc.) on the optical cruciform interferometer,
sensitive to them, which had considerable overall
dimensions [16] in Miller's experiments was discussed
most widely in these works. Besides by virtue of methodical
limitations being in the works [7-9] and [10],
their authors did not manage to show experimentally
correctly, that the movement, detected in their experiments,
can be explained by the Earth relative movement
and the medium of material origin, responsible
for electromagnetic waves propagation [1-3]. However
the most essential reason, which made Miller's contemporaries
consider his experiments erratic, was that
in numerous consequent works, for example, such as
[17-20], Miller's results were not con rmed. In the
experiments [17-20] so-called the \zero results" were
obtained, i.e. the ether drift was not detected.
Thus, taking into consideration the works de ciencies
[7-9], [10] and a major number of experiments with
a zero result available, it is possible to understand the
physicists' mistrust to the works [7-9], [10] at that time,
the results of which pointed the necessity of the fundamental
physical concept variations. The analytical
review of the most signi cant experiments, performed
with the purpose of the ether drift search, is explained
in the works [1-3, 21].
In 1933 D.K. Miller, in his summary work [22], performed
the comparative analysis of multiple unsuccessful
attempts of his followers to detect the ether drift
experimentally. He paid attention that in all such attempts,
except the experiment [10], optical interferometers
were placed in hermetic metallic chambers. The
authors of these experiments tried to guard the devices
from exposures with such chambers. In the experiment
[10] it was placed into a fundamental building of
the optical workshop at the Mount Wilson observatory
for stabilizing the interferometer temperature schedule.
The hermetic metallic chamber was not applied,
and the ether drift was detected. Its velocity had the
value W ≈ 6000 m/sec. Miller made the conclusion:
"Massive non-transparent shields available are undesir-
able while exploring the problem of ether capturing. The
experiment should be made in such a way that there
were no shields between free ether and light way in the
interferometer".
Later, new opportunities for conducting experiments
on the ether drift discovery have appeared also
after the instruments occurrence based on completely
diverse ideas (resonators, masers, Messbauer's e ect
etc.). Such experiments were held [23-26]. And again
the massive metallic chamber usage was the common
instrumental error of these experiments. In the works
[23,24,26] there were the metallic resonators, in the
work [25] | a lead chamber, because it was necessary
to use gamma radiation. The authors of these
works, perhaps, didn't pay attention to Miller's conclusions
of 1933 about the bulk shields inapplicability in
the ether drift experiments. The phenomena physical
interpretation of the essential ether drift velocity reduction
at metallic shields available was given by V.A.
Atsukovsky for the rst time, having explained major
ether-dynamical metal resistance of a Fermi's surface
available in them [6].
There are too many unknowns, much to be explored. Altitude effect, shielding effect, . . .
I propose repeating the Silvertooth and the Marinov experiments at the high satellite altitudes and also in metallic shielded rooms.
The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation. This is not in accordance with the scientific method.
-
The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation.
No, rather it's because the evidence in support of relativity is significantly more vast and precise than the evidence against it.
-
When you say the Miller experiment, do you mean this, roughly 100 year old experiment?
https://www.nature.com/articles/115798b0
Are you aware that other experiments have been done since then- with different outcomes and or interpretations?
Unfortunately the article in link is behind paywall. Can you quote the abstract, conclusion, or some other important points?
-
The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation.
No, rather it's because the evidence in support of relativity is significantly more vast and precise than the evidence against it.
I think the shielding effect should be one of the easiest hypotheses to prove or disprove. First make the measurement with metallic shield in place. Record the result, remove the shield, and take a new measurement. If both measurements give the same result, we can be more confident with current model of light propagation. Otherwise, it may need some revisions.
Do you know a research attempted to do just that?
-
Do you know a research attempted to do just that?
Not that I know of.
-
The scientific community ignored these effects simply because they have no explanation.
No, rather it's because the evidence in support of relativity is significantly more vast and precise than the evidence against it.
I think the shielding effect should be one of the easiest hypotheses to prove or disprove. First make the measurement with metallic shield in place. Record the result, remove the shield, and take a new measurement. If both measurements give the same result, we can be more confident with current model of light propagation. Otherwise, it may need some revisions.
Do you know a research attempted to do just that?
I know of some other experiment which proves the shielding effect. Actually it is not a light speed experiment, it is an exotic phenomenon known as the Biefeld-Brown effect. A net force on a parallel plate capacitor has been observed in a number of experiments, implying reactionless thrust/free energy. In one of the experiments they shilded the experimental apparatus and the effect disappeared.
"On the Anomalous Weight Losses of High Voltage Symmetrical Capacitors" , arXiv
" Exploratory Research on the Phenomenon of the Movement of High Voltage Capacitors" , Doyler R.Buehler
-
A net force on a parallel plate capacitor has been observed in a number of experiments, implying reactionless thrust/free energy.
So it doesn't exist.
Thanks for the clarification.
Please don't mention it again.
-
When you say the Miller experiment, do you mean this, roughly 100 year old experiment?
https://www.nature.com/articles/115798b0
Are you aware that other experiments have been done since then- with different outcomes and or interpretations?
In my opinion there are three kinds of experiments done so far.
Some experiments, such as modern MM experiments using optical cavity resonators, give complete null results. These are always cited as evidence for relativity.
Other experiments, such as the Miller experiments, give small fringe shifts, much less than predicted by ether theory. The experimenters ignored these small fringe shifts and reported null results. Miller is the exception. I read that small fringe shifts were observed in many such experiments, for example in the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment.
There are also experiments, such as the Silvertooth and the Marinov experiments, that give large first order effects. The scientific community just ignores these.
Surprise! There is also an experiment that appears to agree with emission (ballistic) theory, hence disproving both the ether and relativity. This is the Venus planet radar range data anomaly as analyzed by Bryan G Wallace.
So far there is no known theory/model of the speed of light consistent with all these contradicting evidences. Only experiments with complete null results agree with special relativity.
-
If I wanted to look into, for example, Silvertooth's work, what would you say is the definitive version of his experimental observation?
What's his "best shot" at convincing me?
-
Surprise! There is also an experiment that appears to agree with emission (ballistic) theory, hence disproving both the ether and relativity. This is the Venus planet radar range data anomaly as analyzed by Bryan G Wallace.
Has this experiment been verified by other scientists?
It should be readily repeatable.
-
So far there is no known theory/model of the speed of light consistent with all these contradicting evidences. Only experiments with complete null results agree with special relativity.
I tend to agree with the last sentence above. Thus in order to convince that special relativity is true, it is necessary to find some sources of discrepancies in those experiments with contradicting results.
-
If I wanted to look into, for example, Silvertooth's work, what would you say is the definitive version of his experimental observation?
What's his "best shot" at convincing me?
I have some problem copying the links, but you can easily search on Googlescholar:
" Motion through the ether", E.W. Silvertooth, 1989
Note that even Silvertooth himself could not give a clear theoretical explanation of the effect he observed, as he acknowledges at the end of his paper.
Note also that the Silvertooth experiment has been repeated independently:
" A Replication of the Silvettooth Experiment", Doug Marett
-
If I wanted to look into, for example, Silvertooth's work, what would you say is the definitive version of his experimental observation?
What's his "best shot" at convincing me?
I have some problem copying the links, but you can easily search on Googlescholar:
" Motion through the ether", E.W. Silvertooth, 1989
Note that even Silvertooth himself could not give a clear theoretical explanation of the effect he observed, as he acknowledges at the end of his paper.
Note also that the Silvertooth experiment has been repeated independently:
" A Replication of the Silvettooth Experiment", Doug Marett
Additional Silvertooth papers on Googlescholar:
" A New Michelson-Morley Experiment " , E.W. Silvertooth and C.K. Whitney, 1992
" Experimental Detection of the Ether", Ernest Wilbur Silvertooth, 1986
-
Surprise! There is also an experiment that appears to agree with emission (ballistic) theory, hence disproving both the ether and relativity. This is the Venus planet radar range data anomaly as analyzed by Bryan G Wallace.
Has this experiment been verified by other scientists?
It should be readily repeatable.
A somewhat similar experiment has been performed/analyzed by a NASA scientist. The paper can be found on the arXiv:
" Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c " , Daniel Y Gezari
-
So far there is no known theory/model of the speed of light consistent with all these contradicting evidences. Only experiments with complete null results agree with special relativity.
I tend to agree with the last sentence above. Thus in order to convince that special relativity is true, it is necessary to find some sources of discrepancies in those experiments with contradicting results.
Theoretically, there is an alternative way. We can just deny the existence of those experiments. But this way doesn't seem to be feasible, since it requires us to documents scattered on internet and other offline data storages. It also requires those who already learn about those experiments to unlearn them.
-
A somewhat similar experiment has been performed/analyzed by a NASA scientist. The paper can be found on the arXiv:
" Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c " , Daniel Y Gezari
Here are some excerpts in the paper.
1. INTRODUCTION
We have measured the two-way speed of light (c) using lunar laser ranging to test the
invariance of c to motion of the observer, a necessary condition for the local Lorentz
invariance of c and the fundamental assumption underlying all of the predictions of
the special theory of relativity (Einstein 1905) in the matter and photon sectors.
Surprisingly, a review of the experimental literature finds no previous published
report of an attempt to measure c directly with a moving detector to confirm that light
actually propagates this way (Gezari 2009).
4. PRINCIPLE OF THE CALCULATION
Calculating the speed of light from modeled distance and measured time-of-flight
would seem to be a simple exercise, yet there seems to be no agreement on what
method would correctly apply, or how the results should be interpreted. Therefore,
we must justify all details of this calculation, regardless how obvious or trivial they
might be.
In general, we claim that the calculated speed of a light pulse in some reference frame
is simply the distance the pulse travels in that frame from source to detector, divided
by the time-of-flight of the pulse over that distance. The observatory (O) is moving
along the line-of-sight at some speed vO in the local Earth-center/Moon-center
stationary frame (S) due to the rotation of the Earth. The emitted light pulse reaches
the detector after some elapsed time T measured directly by the observer in frame O.
The observer makes only one time-of-flight measurement, and this single time
measurement may then be used for whatever speed calculation the observer might
make, be it the speed of the pulse in frame O, in frame S, or in any other frame. But
the optical path lengths are different in frame O and frame S when the observatory is
moving (discussed in Section 2.3), and these lengths must be utilized appropriately.
6. DISCUSSION
In familiar test theories of special relativity (e.g., Mansouri and Sexl 1977) the observed
speed of light is expressed as cO = c ± kvO where vO is the velocity of the observer along
the line-of-sight in the local stationary frame, and the coefficient k has the value k = 1
for classical relativity and k = 0 for special relativity. For the result obtained here we
find k = 0.95 ± 0.05. The observed speed of light measured by an observer moving at
speed vO seems to follow the simple relation cO = c ± vO. This result is not
incompatible with nor does it preclude the idea that the speed of light itself is
constant and invariant, or that light always propagates in free space at some unique
speed, perhaps even at the nominal value c = 299,792,458 m/s. But it does imply that
light travels at that unique speed only in one preferred or absolute reference frame.
An observer moving relative to that preferred frame would measure the speed of light
to be other than the nominal value.
7. CONCLUSION
The most straightforward analysis and interpretation of two-way lunar laser ranging
measurement of c presented here suggests that light propagating between the Earth
and the Moon obeys a classical rather than special relativistic addition of velocities law.
On the face of it, this constitutes a first-order violation of local Lorentz invariance and
implies that light propagates in an absolute reference frame, a conclusion that most
physicists (except perhaps some contemporary field theorists) would be reluctant to
accept. Rather than simply dismiss the present results and conclusions as implausible,
which would be natural considering the strength of the prevailing view, it would be
prudent to critically re-examine and improve the present experimental basis for special
relativity in the photon sector. Ultimately, any concerns about the validity of a theory
can only be resolved by experiment. We are now pursuing two new approaches to
one-way measurements of the speed of light with slowly moving sources and detectors,
both by one-way laser ranging outside the Earth’s atmosphere (Gezari et al. 2010) and
by direct optical pulse timing in the laboratory.
Due to its sheer speed, I think the experiment can be done from ISS for more convincing results. Furthermore, the lack of atmosphere between ISS and the moon can reduce unnecessary complications.
To be more complete, the experiment should measure the transit times during approaching, tangential motion, and receding from the moon. Record the results and then compare them with predictions of competing theories, along with potential causes of discrepancies.
-
Surprise! There is also an experiment that appears to agree with emission (ballistic) theory, hence disproving both the ether and relativity. This is the Venus planet radar range data anomaly as analyzed by Bryan G Wallace.
Has this experiment been verified by other scientists?
It should be readily repeatable.
A somewhat similar experiment has been performed/analyzed by a NASA scientist. The paper can be found on the arXiv:
" Lunar Laser Ranging Test of the Invariance of c " , Daniel Y Gezari
I had a brief look
The first thing to note is that it doesn't matter if he's a NASA scientist.
The second is the claim; here's the start of the abstract.
"The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector
on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and
modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame
was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the
speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during
the measurements. "
So he has calculated the speed of light based on a model of where the Moon is; compared to the laser ranging data.
He finds that there's a discrepancy of 200 +/- 10 m/s
There's some interesting aspects to that.
Firstly, the error margin on his estimate of the discrepancy is quite large 10/200 is a 5% error.
By modern standards that's a fairly imprecise measurement. And that's a flag that the measurement is near the detection limit for the technique. Methods used near their LoD are notoriously unreliable and this is a known feature of "pseudoscience".
The second is that the discrepancy is quite large 200 m/s in 300,000,000 is more than a part in a million.
Yes, I realise I just said that 5% is small and a part in a million is large.
However the measurements of C have been refined over the centuries and we can measure it precisely (strictly, we can't because it's right by definition- but that's a relatively recent state of affairs)
The value of C was known to 9 digits before they opted to use it as the definition of the metre.
So a change of 1.5 parts per million is a huge discrepancy.
It leads you to wonder how come nobody noticed before.
Plenty of high precision measurements rely on C being constant. If it wasn't then it would throw up anomalies in other experiments.
The third, and perhaps biggest, problem is the model.
We have a good idea of where the Moon is, and we can model it's behaviour very accurately.
But the only reason we can do this is that we measure the distance to it by bouncing light off it, and measuring the round trip time.
What that paper says is that the round trip time gives the wrong answer.
In which case the model is wrong.
In which case you can't use it to measure the round trip time.
You end up going in circles here.
And finally there's the fundamental idea that we have to decide on which is right: either the speed of light is wrong or the model is wrong.
Well, it's truism in science that "All models are wrong".
If I get bored later I might actually look at the paper.
-
I had a brief look
The first thing to note is that it doesn't matter if he's a NASA scientist.
The second is the claim; here's the start of the abstract.
"The speed of laser light pulses launched from Earth and returned by a retro-reflector
on the Moon was calculated from precision round-trip time-of-flight measurements and
modeled distances. The measured speed of light (c) in the moving observer’s rest frame
was found to exceed the canonical value c = 299,792,458 m/s by 200±10 m/s, just the
speed of the observatory along the line-of-sight due to the rotation of the Earth during
the measurements. "
So he has calculated the speed of light based on a model of where the Moon is; compared to the laser ranging data.
He finds that there's a discrepancy of 200 +/- 10 m/s
That's why I proposed to take three measurements. This way the actual distances could cancel out between approaching and receding stages. So we can focus on the time discrepancy between them.
It may be worthy to do the test from the other side. Laser source and receiver are on the moon, while the retroreflector on earth or ISS. Then see which model can fit the results best.
-
It leads you to wonder how come nobody noticed before.
Plenty of high precision measurements rely on C being constant. If it wasn't then it would throw up anomalies in other experiments.
It was mentioned in the paper that all high precision measurements of c were done where the distance between source and receiver is constant, i.e. no relative speed. That's the main difference with the experiment described in the paper.
-
It was mentioned in the paper that all high precision measurements of c were done where the distance between source and receiver is constant, i.e. no relative speed.
The paper may have stated that.
But my sat nave works.
And an error of a part per million in the speed of light would stop it working.
So, every time anyone uses one they are experimentally verifying the constancy of C,
The satellites are about 20 million meters up, so a 1.5 ppm error in C would translate to an error of about 20 metres distance, but military grade GPS can tell you your location to within a metre.
So the practical experience of lots of people shows that C is actually constant.
You might do one experiment- or a dozen.
But I can show you ten million experiments that show that C is constant.
Every single troop movement of any US/ NATO soldier in the last ten years or so.
Is it not more realistic to suppose that the model of the moon's location that he used is inaccurate?
-
But my sat nave works.
That's an engineering problem. We can build engineering tools using inaccurate models providing that we put adequate fudge factors to compensate for the discrepancies. Dalton was pretty good chemist for his time, even when his atomic model is inaccurate.
So the practical experience of lots of people shows that C is actually constant.
You might do one experiment- or a dozen.
But I can show you ten million experiments that show that C is constant.
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/albert_einstein_100017
What's important is, can we identify the source of discrepancies in those experiments which give different results?
Is it not more realistic to suppose that the model of the moon's location that he used is inaccurate?
I haven't looked into it closely.
-
I haven't looked into it closely.
I'm not sure what needs looking into.
You can't model the position of the moon unless you can tell where it is.
The only good data we have on the position of the moon is from laser or radar.
He's using the model to say that laser ranging can't work.
So he is using the constancy of the speed of light to show that the speed of light is not constant.
His argument fails by reductio ad absurdum.
-
Quote
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
That doesn't quite work, does it.
If I say these seeds will grow and produce white flowers, and you say they won't then the experiment of growing the seeds and looking at the flowers will prove that one of us is wrong and the other is right.
More generally, if an experiment can prove a theory wrong, then that same experiment proves that the theory "that other theory is incorrect" is right.
-
That doesn't quite work, does it.
If I say these seeds will grow and produce white flowers, and you say they won't then the experiment of growing the seeds and looking at the flowers will prove that one of us is wrong and the other is right.
More generally, if an experiment can prove a theory wrong, then that same experiment proves that the theory "that other theory is incorrect" is right.
A fundamental theory doesn't only produce a single prediction. There are many of them. Different competing theories may produce the same prediction for some experiments, but different prediction for some others.
An experiment can prove a theory wrong, as long as no source of discrepancy can be identified te explain it.
-
The first thing to note is that it doesn't matter if he's a NASA scientist.
However the measurements of C have been refined over the centuries and we can measure it precisely
The value of C was known to 9 digits before they opted to use it as the definition of the metre.
So a change of 1.5 parts per million is a huge discrepancy.
It leads you to wonder how come nobody noticed before.
Plenty of high precision measurements rely on C being constant. If it wasn't then it would throw up anomalies in other experiments.
The third, and perhaps biggest, problem is the model.
We have a good idea of where the Moon is, and we can model it's behaviour very accurately.
But the only reason we can do this is that we measure the distance to it by bouncing light off it, and measuring the round trip time.
What that paper says is that the round trip time gives the wrong answer.
In which case the model is wrong.
In which case you can't use it to measure the round trip time.
You end up going in circles here.
And finally there's the fundamental idea that we have to decide on which is right: either the speed of light is wrong or the model is wrong.
Paragraph two:
" In fact, correlated, first-order variations in the time of flight of electromagnetic signals measured with moving receivers are commonly observed in pursuit of much more subtle phenomena, such as in experiments searching for evidence of microgravity and quantum gravity effects, or in the operation of GPS . . . "
Undoubtly there will also be first-order variations in the time-of-flight of laser pulses reflected from the moon, but the scientists know this and make corrections to determine the precise distance of the moon at any time. But only an insider can know this. Since this procedure gives the precise position of the moon, there is no circular reasoning here.
This was exactly what was found from the analysis (by Bryan G Wallace) of Venus planet radar range data of the Shapiro experiment. The experimenters observed large first-order variations in the time -of-flight data but 'corrected' the data for these variations and extracted gravitational time dilation as predicted by general relativity.
Regarding the precisely known speed of light, I think it is the phase velocity that is known with precision.There is no experiment so far using time of flight method.
-
There is no experiment so far using time of flight method.
Are you sure?
This looks to me like one.
"Between 1877 and 1931, Albert A. Michelson made multiple measurements of the speed of light. His 1877–79 measurements were performed under the auspices of Simon Newcomb, who was also working on measuring the speed of light. Michelson's setup incorporated several refinements on Foucault's original arrangement. ... He used carefully calibrated tuning forks to monitor the rotation rate of the air-turbine-powered mirror R, and he would typically measure displacements of the slit image on the order of 115 mm.[8] His 1879 figure for the speed of light, 299944±51 km/s, was within about 0.05% of the modern value. His 1926 repeat of the experiment incorporated still further refinements such as the use of polygonal prism-shaped rotating mirrors (enabling a brighter image) having from eight through sixteen facets and a 22 mile baseline surveyed to fractional parts-per-million accuracy. His figure of 299,796±4 km/s[16] was only about 4 km/s higher than the current accepted value."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau%E2%80%93Foucault_apparatus#Michelson's_refinement_of_the_Foucault_experiment
-
Regarding the precisely known speed of light, I think it is the phase velocity that is known with precision.There is no experiment so far using time of flight method.
There is. I know because I use it as part of my routine job. I'm responsible for instrumentation device selection and supervising their maintenance, including calibrations.
The radar level transmitter’s working principle
When the product surface reflects the pulse, the meter receives the reflection. Then the device calculates how long it took the pulse to return and translates that time delay into a level measurement.
https://visaya.solutions/en/qa/radar-level-measurement
This sensor type is pretty reliable and precise, and can detect a millimeter distance variation.
-
There is no experiment so far using time of flight method.
Are you sure?
This looks to me like one.
"Between 1877 and 1931, Albert A. Michelson made multiple measurements of the speed of light. His 1877–79 measurements were performed under the auspices of Simon Newcomb, who was also working on measuring the speed of light. Michelson's setup incorporated several refinements on Foucault's original arrangement. ... He used carefully calibrated tuning forks to monitor the rotation rate of the air-turbine-powered mirror R, and he would typically measure displacements of the slit image on the order of 115 mm.[8] His 1879 figure for the speed of light, 299944±51 km/s, was within about 0.05% of the modern value. His 1926 repeat of the experiment incorporated still further refinements such as the use of polygonal prism-shaped rotating mirrors (enabling a brighter image) having from eight through sixteen facets and a 22 mile baseline surveyed to fractional parts-per-million accuracy. His figure of 299,796±4 km/s[16] was only about 4 km/s higher than the current accepted value."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fizeau%E2%80%93Foucault_apparatus#Michelson's_refinement_of_the_Foucault_experiment
Regarding the precisely known speed of light, I think it is the phase velocity that is known with precision.There is no experiment so far using time of flight method.
There is. I know because I use it as part of my routine job. I'm responsible for instrumentation device selection and supervising their maintenance, including calibrations.
The radar level transmitter’s working principle
When the product surface reflects the pulse, the meter receives the reflection. Then the device calculates how long it took the pulse to return and translates that time delay into a level measurement.
https://visaya.solutions/en/qa/radar-level-measurement
This sensor type is pretty reliable and precise, and can detect a millimeter distance variation.
I was referring to the lack of evidence proving the constancy of the speed of light between two points of space. The Michelson rotating mirror experiment measures the two-way speed that cannot reveal any anisotropies caused by absolute motion.
But the moving mirrors in the Michelson experiment may impart a component of their velocity to the light, causing variation of the speed of light, but the effect is too small and the experiment is not sensitive enough to reveal this.
The Michelson experiment was carried out to measure the speed of light, not to measure any possible anisotropies or any variations of the speed of light.
There are many evidences of the anisotropy of the speed of light both when there is no source-observer relative motion and when there is relative motion.
-
I haven't looked into it closely.
I'm not sure what needs looking into.
You can't model the position of the moon unless you can tell where it is.
The only good data we have on the position of the moon is from laser or radar.
He's using the model to say that laser ranging can't work.
So he is using the constancy of the speed of light to show that the speed of light is not constant.
His argument fails by reductio ad absurdum.
Undoubtedly there are first-order variations in the laser round trip data in Lunar Laser Ranging experiments, due to relative motion between the Earth and the Moon. One wonders how the distance of the Moon can be determined with the claimed precision if there are first-order variations in the round-trip time.
The answer is that the scientists know and correct the data for these first-order variations to accurately determine the Earth-Moon distance at any time. But this procedure is known only to insiders, such as Daniel Y Gezari.
-
I may be missing something here.
Either the (good, precise) data we have on the position of the moon is derived from laser/ radar ranging, or it isn't,.
If it's from something else, that's interesting. How else do we measure it (with that sort of precision)?
If it is measured by laser ranging then, regardless of any hypothetical adjustments made by the high priests, the argument about using it to disprove the speed of light is circular and contradictory.
-
I may be missing something here.
Either the (good, precise) data we have on the position of the moon is derived from laser/ radar ranging, or it isn't,.
If it's from something else, that's interesting. How else do we measure it (with that sort of precision)?
If it is measured by laser ranging then, regardless of any hypothetical adjustments made by the high priests, the argument about using it to disprove the speed of light is circular and contradictory.
On page 2:
" These time variations are easily detected - and routinely corrected for - in modern optical ranging experiments, however, the full significance of such correlated, first-order effects has apparently not been fully appreciated"
Also the Wikipedia article, Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment, under the subtitle 'Principle' says:
" The distance to the Moon is calculated approximately using the equation:
distance = ( speed of light x duration delay due to reflection ) /2
To compute the lunar distance precisely, many factors must be considered in addition to the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds.These factors include, . . . , the relative motion of Earth and the Moon, Earth's rotation, . . . "
One may wonder how mainstream scientists accept such correction of first order effects and think that this is consistent with relativity. This has always been a point of debate between supporters and opponents of relativity. Relativists have their own arguments, but my impression is that they have never been completely sure about it.
-
One may wonder how mainstream scientists accept such correction of first order effects and think that this is consistent with relativity. This has always been a point of debate between supporters and opponents of relativity. But relativists have never been completely sure about it.
Do you have the raw data showing this uncorrected first order effects?
-
One may wonder how mainstream scientists accept such correction of first order effects and think that this is consistent with relativity. This has always been a point of debate between supporters and opponents of relativity. But relativists have never been completely sure about it.
Do you have the raw data showing this uncorrected first order effects?
I have no access to the raw data.
I think the raw data is corrected for many factors to get the precise distance of the moon, and that is what is published.
-
To compute the lunar distance precisely, many factors must be considered in addition to the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds.These factors include, . . . , the relative motion of Earth and the Moon, Earth's rotation, . . . "
And the biggest single factor you need to know accurately is the speed of light.
So, you can not use that data because it's absurd to use the speed of light to measure the speed of light.
-
We are pretty sure that speed of light is not really constant. It depends on refractive index of the medium.
Detecting a 30 km/s speed difference from c should be achievable by a medium with refractive index very close to 1, e.g. thin upper atmosphere, or low pressure tube in CRT. In those media, most volume of it is vacuum empty space.
Those points make me wonder if a laser beam 1 mm in diameter is propagating inside a metal pipe with similar inner diameter, will it has the same speed as the laser beam outside of the pipe?
-
Note also that the Silvertooth experiment has been repeated independently:
" A Replication of the Silvettooth Experiment", Doug Marett
Are you sure about that? I read up on his work on that experiment and he debunked it - he found that the apparatus was acting as a thermometer and was merely recording the lab heating up during the day and cooling down at night.
-
Direct Measurement of the Speed of Light
-
Note also that the Silvertooth experiment has been repeated independently:
" A Replication of the Silvettooth Experiment", Doug Marett
Are you sure about that? I read up on his work on that experiment and he debunked it - he found that the apparatus was acting as a thermometer and was merely recording the lab heating up during the day and cooling down at night.
I know his conclusion. But the important thing is that he has confirmed the Silvertooth result. He could not explain the fact that the apparatus gives maximum apparent wavelength change when the its axis is aligned with Leo constellation, which is the same direction as the CMBR velocity direction. The Silvertooth velocity and the CMBR velocity agree both in magnitude and direction. Doug Marett could not explain why the 'temperature' effect becomes maximum when the instrument axis is pointing towards Leo. On page 23 of his paper he says:
" . . . appears to be simply a bizarre coincidence "
Just imagine that the experiment is done at ten different locations and all the experiments give maximum 'temperature' effects when the axes of their devices are aligned with Leo.
-
Just imagine that the experiment is done at ten different locations and all the experiments give maximum 'temperature' effects when the axes of their devices are aligned with Leo.
Just imagine that they don't.
The point remains; if you can't show that the predicted effect of random (or diurnal) temperature variation is smaller than the effect you are looking for then you have not done a good enough experiment.
It's even more absurd if you are relying on the constancy of the speed of light to show variations in the speed of light
-
Just imagine that the experiment is done at ten different locations and all the experiments give maximum 'temperature' effects when the axes of their devices are aligned with Leo.
To resolve the uncertainty, the most obvious countermeasure should be repeating the experiment with controlled temperature.
To accomodate the claim of metal shielding effect, the room should avoid the usage of metal structure.
So if someday the experiment is done in ISS, it should use an external chamber made of non-metallic materials.
-
Just imagine that the experiment is done at ten different locations and all the experiments give maximum 'temperature' effects when the axes of their devices are aligned with Leo.
Just imagine that they don't.
The point remains; if you can't show that the predicted effect of random (or diurnal) temperature variation is smaller than the effect you are looking for then you have not done a good enough experiment.
It's even more absurd if you are relying on the constancy of the speed of light to show variations in the speed of light
If the speed of light was constant in all inertial reference frames, there would be no first order effects observed in many light speed experiments and phenomena in the first place.
Assuming absolute constancy of the speed of light and resorting to conventional ways when experiments do not agree with theory is a long standing confusion in relativity theory. The Sagnac effect, GPS, stellar aberration and Lunar Laser Ranging experiment are a few examples.
My impression so far is that relativity theory explains phenomena only after the fact, in most cases.
-
My impression so far is that relativity theory explains phenomena only after the fact, in most cases.
Many of the things it is used in connection with simply didn't have explanations at the time relativity was devised.
We didn't need to worry about the corrections to atomic clock in GPS satellites back in 1919.
Nobody knew why gold was yellow and mercury was a liquid.
This is the cliché experiment that confirmed what Einstein had predicted (and showed that Newton's prediction was wrong).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
The point still remains that, if the only reason that we know the position of the Moon is that the speed of light is constant, then you can't use our understanding of where the Moon is to show that the speed of light is not constant.
-
The point still remains that, if the only reason that we know the position of the Moon is that the speed of light is constant, then you can't use our understanding of where the Moon is to show that the speed of light is not constant.
Consider a hypothetical terrestrial light speed experiment. Assume that the speed of light is constant in the reference frame of the Earth. For you it is an inertial reference frame and for me it is an absolute reference frame.
There is a sationary light source at some point on the Earth. A distant observer is moving directly away from the source with velocity V , along the line connecting the source and the observer.
We have synchronized clocks both at the source and at the observer.Let us ignore time dilation and length contraction because V is much smaller than c , and because our argument is about first-order effect.
The light source emits a short light pulse. At the instant of emission, the distance between the source and the observer is D.
My question is, according to special relativity, what will be the time interval between emission and detection of the light pulse?
Is it D/c or D / ( c - V ) ?
-
We have synchronized clocks
How?
How did we synchronise them and by which definition are they in synchrony?
the distance between the source and the observer is D.
From whose point of view?
But none of that matters.
If the only way you have for measuring the distance to the moon is to assume the constancy of the speed of light then you still can't use the distance to the moon to measure the speed of light.
The issue here isn't relativity but logic. You are using an idea one stage worse than a circular argument. But you can take some comfort from the fact that you aren't the only one
A long time ago (mid 1980s I think) some mathematician published a "proof" that the probability of the existence of God was some figure; I think it was about 70%.
The exact figure does not matter.
He had calculated it- he said- on the basis of the probabilities of various miracles .
After a while people noticed something.
You only get miracles if there is a God.
So, if you have a miracle on which you can do arithmetic, you already know that the probability of the existence of God is 100%. (otherwise you can't get miracles)
But he got an answer of 70%
So the mathematician not only failed to prove his hypothesis, he also proved himself to be incompetent.
(And, of course, if he had done the arithmetic correctly, he would have got 100%, at which point he might have realised that he was using a circular argument)
In the same way, if you start with the distance to the Moon (as deduced by lidar) and you measure the speed of light compared to the value you use to establish where the Moon actually is, then you should get a ratio of exactly 100%
If you get an answer other than 100% you have not shown that the speed of light has changed; you have shown that you made a mistake.
-
We have synchronized clocks
How?
How did we synchronise them and by which definition are they in synchrony?
the distance between the source and the observer is D.
From whose point of view?
The distance D is in the reference frame of the Earth.
I think since v is much smaller than c so that gamma factor is almost equal to one, clock synchronization is not a problem.
Or, you can first treat it like any relativistic problem, get the exact solution. Then you can substitute 1 for gamma and get the approximate solution. This is a non relativistic problem, so I think whatever clock synchronization procedure you use, you should get the same answer.
My question is, what time interval will the clocks approximately measure? I think clock synchronization affects only clock readings, it does not affect time intervals.
-
If the only way you have for measuring the distance to the moon is to assume the constancy of the speed of light then you still can't use the distance to the moon to measure the speed of light.
In the same way, if you start with the distance to the Moon (as deduced by lidar) and you measure the speed of light compared to the value you use to establish where the Moon actually is, then you should get a ratio of exactly 100%
If you get an answer other than 100% you have not shown that the speed of light has changed; you have shown that you made a mistake.
The distance to the moon is not derived directly from the time delay of the light pulses, as you know. Scientists make corrections for many factors and make a lot of intelligent analyses to arrive at the correct value.
You cannot claim that we would not be able to know the distance to the moon if it was not for special relativity. Relativity is not the only theory that predicts constant speed of light in the reference frame of the Earth ( which is almost inertial). For example, it could be claimed that the Earth is an absolute reference frame, which could also explain the first order variations in the LLR data. There are other theories also.
So the position/distance of the moon is known with precision at each instant of time, and this enables the testing of light speed theories.
-
The distance to the moon is not derived directly from the time delay of the light pulses, as you know.
Well... how far would they get trying to make the measurements if they had no idea of the speed of light?
Imagine that they thought it was 200,000,000 m/s rather than 300,000,000 m/s
What would that do to their value for the distance to the moon?
I recognise that there are other factors but if you get c wrong then you get D wrong whether you subtract v from it or not.
-
Consider a hypothetical terrestrial light speed experiment. Assume that the speed of light is constant in the reference frame of the Earth. For you it is an inertial reference frame and for me it is an absolute reference frame.
There is a sationary light source at some point on the Earth.
Let’s say the north pole then, one of the few way one can be easily stationary relative to the inertial frame of Earth. Alternatively we could just presume a non-spinning flat Earth with zero mass. It is unclear what purpose is served by there being a large mass underneath our observers. I presume Earth is stationary in this absolute reference frame above, so we’re talking the same frame then. If this is not so, you need to specify.
All measurements without a frame reference as assumed to be relative to this frame.
I think since v is much smaller than c so that gamma factor is almost equal to one, clock synchronization is not a problem.
It has nothing to do with gamma. You said ‘distant observer’, so the sync convention means everything.
We’ll assume all stationary clocks are synced in Earth’s frame, but realize that it means they are very much not in sync in other frames, even ones with low velocity differences relative to our Earth frame.
A distant observer is moving directly away from the source with velocity V , along the line connecting the source and the observer.
OK, so he’s say 300 km away and moving away, not moving with the spin of the planet below. The light goes that far in a millisecond.
We have synchronized clocks both at the source and at the observer.
No we don’t. Clocks moving relative to each other cannot be meaningfully in sync since they run at different rates relative to each other. Relative to Earth, the moving clock runs slow.
Perhaps you can reword it as the moving observer passing a clock stationary to the first one. That works at least.
The light source emits a short light pulse. At the instant of emission, the distance between the source and the observer is D.
That observer event is useless since he doesn’t observe anything then. OK, he passes a clock 1 at that time, and it reads time zero since that’s the time of the emission event. Clock 1 is D away from the pole where the pulse is emitted. Clock 2 is stationary, synced, and located where the observer will be when the pulse is observed, which is insanely close to clock1 since they’re separated only by how far our slow moving observer travels in about a millisecond.
My question is, according to special relativity, what will be the time interval between emission and detection of the light pulse?
Is it D/c or D / ( c - V ) ?
D/c is when the pulse reaches clock1. D/(c-V) is the time to get to the observer as measured by clock 2, but not as measured by a clock carried by our observer since no sync convention was specified for it. Perhaps it was synced with clock 1 when in its presence, but your story didn’t say. Relatively moving clocks can be synced to each other when in each other’s presence, but no matter the convention, they cannot stay in sync.
You cannot claim that we would not be able to know the distance to the moon if it was not for special relativity.
SR would not give a distance to the moon at all. As measured by an Earth clock, light moves at greater than c between Earth and moon (or Mars say). SR is not applicable in a situation where gravity is involved, and it is very much involved in this scenario.
-
The distance to the moon is not derived directly from the time delay of the light pulses, as you know.
Well... how far would they get trying to make the measurements if they had no idea of the speed of light?
Imagine that they thought it was 200,000,000 m/s rather than 300,000,000 m/s
What would that do to their value for the distance to the moon?
I recognise that there are other factors but if you get c wrong then you get D wrong whether you subtract v from it or not.
All theories of the speed of light (relativity, ether theory, emission theory ) agree on the speed of light which has a single value, and has progressively been measured with increasing precision. The difference is on how the constant speed of light is interpreted in each theory. In ether theory it is relative to the ether, in emission theory it is relative to the light source. ( If I have understood your argument , but I doubt I haven't. I will come back when I get your point).
-
If I have understood your argument , but I doubt I haven't. I will come back when I get your point
It's a simple point.
How do you know how far away the Moon is?
-
Consider a hypothetical terrestrial light speed experiment. Assume that the speed of light is constant in the reference frame of the Earth. For you it is an inertial reference frame and for me it is an absolute reference frame.
There is a sationary light source at some point on the Earth.
Let’s say the north pole then, one of the few way one can be easily stationary relative to the inertial frame of Earth. Alternatively we could just presume a non-spinning flat Earth with zero mass. It is unclear what purpose is served by there being a large mass underneath our observers. I presume Earth is stationary in this absolute reference frame above, so we’re talking the same frame then. If this is not so, you need to specify.
All measurements without a frame reference as assumed to be relative to this frame.
I think since v is much smaller than c so that gamma factor is almost equal to one, clock synchronization is not a problem.
It has nothing to do with gamma. You said ‘distant observer’, so the sync convention means everything.
We’ll assume all stationary clocks are synced in Earth’s frame, but realize that it means they are very much not in sync in other frames, even ones with low velocity differences relative to our Earth frame.
A distant observer is moving directly away from the source with velocity V , along the line connecting the source and the observer.
OK, so he’s say 300 km away and moving away, not moving with the spin of the planet below. The light goes that far in a millisecond.
We have synchronized clocks both at the source and at the observer.
No we don’t. Clocks moving relative to each other cannot be meaningfully in sync since they run at different rates relative to each other. Relative to Earth, the moving clock runs slow.
Perhaps you can reword it as the moving observer passing a clock stationary to the first one. That works at least.
The light source emits a short light pulse. At the instant of emission, the distance between the source and the observer is D.
That observer event is useless since he doesn’t observe anything then. OK, he passes a clock 1 at that time, and it reads time zero since that’s the time of the emission event. Clock 1 is D away from the pole where the pulse is emitted. Clock 2 is stationary, synced, and located where the observer will be when the pulse is observed, which is insanely close to clock1 since they’re separated only by how far our slow moving observer travels in about a millisecond.
My question is, according to special relativity, what will be the time interval between emission and detection of the light pulse?
Is it D/c or D / ( c - V ) ?
D/c is when the pulse reaches clock1. D/(c-V) is the time to get to the observer as measured by clock 2, but not as measured by a clock carried by our observer since no sync convention was specified for it. Perhaps it was synced with clock 1 when in its presence, but your story didn’t say. Relatively moving clocks can be synced to each other when in each other’s presence, but no matter the convention, they cannot stay in sync.
You cannot claim that we would not be able to know the distance to the moon if it was not for special relativity.
SR would not give a distance to the moon at all. As measured by an Earth clock, light moves at greater than c between Earth and moon (or Mars say). SR is not applicable in a situation where gravity is involved, and it is very much involved in this scenario.
Let me restate the problem to avoid misunderstandings.
Consider an inertial reference frame S. A light source is at rest at the origin of S, together with clock A. A distant observer is moving directly away from the source with velocity v which is much less than the speed of light c.. The rest frame of the observer is S'. The observer is at the origin of S'.
The observer has clock B. Clocks A and B are synchronized when the origins of S and S' coincide.
The light source emits a short light pulse. At the instant of light emission the observer is at distance D from the light source, both relative to frame S.
My first question is:
What is the time interval between emission and detection of the light pulse as measured by (according to ) clock A and by clock B, according to special relativity?
D/c or. D / ( c - v )
My second question is:
Is your answer supported by experiments?
-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Tests-of-the-One-way-Speed-of-Light-Relative-to-a-Moving-Observer
Goal: We have shown using the GPS synchronized clocks that the speed of light between fixed points on the surface of the Earth is not the same in all directions; light travels faster west than east! GPS engineers try to mask this fact by assuming light speed c and making the so-called "Sagnac Correction". However, if the correct speed is used, then there is no need for any correction.
The light speed postulate of special relativity also requires that light speed be independent of the movement of the observer. (We know that it is independent of the movement of the source.) This requirement of the postulate has received little or no attention, even though this is the aspect of the postulate that is so hard to swallow. It has not been confirmed experimentally. In this paper I have listed three tests of this aspect of the postulate which show clearly that light speed is not independent of the movement of the observer.
Has anyone worked with GPS to confirm or refute the claim?
-
Let me restate the problem to avoid misunderstandings.
Consider an inertial reference frame S. A light source is at rest at the origin of S, together with clock A. A distant observer is moving directly away from the source with velocity v which is much less than the speed of light c.. The rest frame of the observer is S'. The observer is at the origin of S'.
The observer has clock B. Clocks A and B are synchronized when the origins of S and S' coincide.
The light source emits a short light pulse. At the instant of light emission the observer is at distance D from the light source, both relative to frame S.
All this is enough to describe the situation. I?ll add that there is no rotating frame involved, and gravitational potential does not vary from one location to another in the scenario.
My first question is:
What is the time interval between emission and detection of the light pulse as measured by (according to ) clock A and by clock B, according to special relativity?
SR doesn?t give different answers than say some absolutist interpretation, assuming a valid interpretation.
Neither clock is present at both events, so neither clock measures any particular value. The time between the two events is simply calculated (by either observer or by us, the answer being the same) relative to a specified frame. So observation in this case has nothing to do with it. You?re asking about an abstract calculation, not a measurement taken by any specific observer.
Relative to frame S, the spatial separation between emission event E and detection event F is D/(c-v).
Relative to frame S?, the time T? between emission and detection events is D?/c since the motion of the emitter makes no difference to the time it takes the light to get to clock B.
Assuming each given frame in turn is the preferred frame, Newtonian physics gives the same answers regardless of the magnitude of V. In other words, I didn't even invoke relativity to answer these questions.
All observers anywhere (including you and I) agree on these numbers regardless of their motion since no actual observations are made by anybody.
My second question is:
Is your answer supported by experiments?
Experiments verify the theory are performed every second of every day. Countless devices would fail if it didn?t work. This specific thought experiment probably has never been done since it is an abstract exercise which takes no actual measurements and therefore requires no actual experiment.
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Tests-of-the-One-way-Speed-of-Light-Relative-to-a-Moving-Observer
... the speed of light between fixed points on the surface of the Earth is not the same in all directions; light travels faster west than east! GPS engineers try to mask this fact by assuming light speed c and making the so-called "Sagnac Correction".
Has anyone worked with GPS to confirm or refute the claim?
West does not define a unique direction, since west for me is the exact opposite direction as west in Beijing. This is because their 'fixed points' are fixed only in a rotating frame of reference, and yes, in such a frame, light travels faster west than east, exactly as mandated by SR. SR could be falsified immediately if the Sagnac effect didn't work. In a light tube going around the Earth, light has less distance to move in the west direction than in the east direction, so of course the westbound light gets to the moving source/detect faster than the eastbound. The Sagnac effect relies on that fact to detect absolute rotation.
This paper is pretty crackpot sounding since they're billing this as some sort of surprise result despite it being known for over a century. The second paragraph you quote demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of introductory relativity concepts.
-
This is because their 'fixed points' are fixed only in a rotating frame of reference,
The paper claimed that if we use Earth Center Inertial coordinate, we don't need Sagnac correction. Is it true?
-
One of the practical problems with applying special relativity is Einstein wrote the theory with three variables, mass, distance and time.
Could whomever is hacking my computer stop. I am getting warning signal that this web page is using too much energy. I don't have time for the delay it is causing. My RAM is tight and piggybacking signals me
Like I was saying most application of SR o
-
One of the practical problems with applying special relativity is Einstein wrote the theory with three variables, mass, distance and time.
That isn't a problem.
Could whomever is hacking my computer stop.
That almost certainly isn't anyone here's problem.
BTW, it's "whoever", not "whomever"
-
Could whomever is hacking my computer stop. I am getting warning signal that this web page is using too much energy. I don't have time for the delay it is causing. My RAM is tight and piggybacking signals me
As @Bored chemist says, no one here will be hacking you. Ads on any site will slow you down, do you use a blocker?
-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Tests-of-the-One-way-Speed-of-Light-Relative-to-a-Moving-Observer
... the speed of light between fixed points on the surface of the Earth is not the same in all directions; light travels faster west than east! GPS engineers try to mask this fact by assuming light speed c and making the so-called "Sagnac Correction".
Has anyone worked with GPS to confirm or refute the claim?
West does not define a unique direction, since west for me is the exact opposite direction as west in Beijing. This is because their 'fixed points' are fixed only in a rotating frame of reference, and yes, in such a frame, light travels faster west than east, exactly as mandated by SR. SR could be falsified immediately if the Sagnac effect didn't work. In a light tube going around the Earth, light has less distance to move in the west direction than in the east direction, so of course the westbound light gets to the moving source/detect faster than the eastbound. The Sagnac effect relies on that fact to detect absolute rotation.
This paper is pretty crackpot sounding since they're billing this as some sort of surprise result despite it being known for over a century. The second paragraph you quote demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of introductory relativity concepts.
I think that the frame of the fixed points has the same privilege as the Earth centered inertial frame, according to special relativity. Therefore, the speed of light should be constant in that frame also, because it is approximately inertial.
Your argument is that the difference in time delays of light in the two directions is because light travels unequal distances in the two directions in the Earth centered inertial frame. But the observer in the frame of the fixed points also has the right to consider the light to travel equal distances in both directions and if the time delay differs in the two directions, this would lead to anisotropy of light speed, contradicting relativity.
-
Einstein wrote his theory of Special Relativity with three variables; mass, distance and time. Most examples, observations and experiments we do, such as GPS, only use two of these three variables. Special Relativity is not wrong, but rather it is not being applied in a three variable way, so as to clear up all doubt.
For example, nearly all the observations of the distant universe depend on photons of various wavelengths Photons are based on frequency and wavelength; distance and time, but there is no mass. Like the "Meatloaf" song, two out of three is not bad. However, this can cause conceptual problems for some people.
Mass cannot travel the speed of light, so a visual or photon based approach cannot use mass, by default. Without mass we can measure relative velocity; d/t This is fine and I can accept that two variable conclusion and application. However, but we cannot measure kinetic energy; 1/2MV2, to do an good energy balance. That would need mass or the third variable.
The Kinetic energy of two relative references is not necessarily relative. If one frame has twice the mass of the other, even though velocity can be relative, kinetic energy is twice high in one of the two references with the same visual velocity. Our view of the universe cannot determine this using energy alone, without adding assumptions. We do not measure the mass.
Relative to the brain, there is special affect called a spatial illusion. This is an image that appears to be 3-D to the eyes, but is really a drawing in 2-D. A 3-D image on a computer screen, using shadowing and highlights can appear 3-D to the eyes, but if you touch the screen it is flat or 2-D. The question is, can using only 2 of 3 variables, of a three variable relationship, create such an illusion, that is not intentional, but which can nevertheless rub people the wrong way, to where they sense something is not correct? The answer is yes.
Let me give a classic example of a spatial illusion.The artist Escher painted a picture he called Relativity in the 1950's. He seemed to sense a problem. This is shown below. One may notice that each reference, as shown by a figure of a man, appears valid by itself; relative reference. Yet if we look at all of these together, something is not correct in terms this 2-D image. If we only use the sense of sight, and ignore the influence of gravity puling downward, it seems to work.
In the Escher painting, if we could somehow include mass and gravity, by making the pictures of the man become actual dolls only the two references on the upper right would be valid, the rest would fall over since there were relative illusions, that can be made in 2-D but not 3-D. Relativity is correct, but most applications fall short of the real 3-D Einstein has in mind.
(https://i.etsystatic.com/26407606/r/il/86bb89/2845565274/il_794xN.2845565274_gnbd.jpg)
-
I think that the frame of the fixed points has the same privilege as the Earth centered inertial frame, according to special relativity. Therefore, the speed of light should be constant in that frame also, because it is approximately inertial.
Neptune is moving faster than light in that frame. It seems in no way 'approximately inertial'. ECI isn't even inertial, but it at least isn't rotating. Any rotating frame needs the corrections for the rotation. Any inertial frame is pretty useless for a precise reference frame since there seem to be no stationary references to anchor the frame orientation. So they use the non-inertial frame like ECEF and make adjustments, and they don't plot the motion of Neptune in this coordinate system (OK, the pre-Copernican astronomers actually did plot the location of the planets in such a frame).
I notice that the author of the paper claims to have measured the one-way speed of light, which puts him in the same bin as the perpetual motion inventors.
Your argument is that the difference in time delays of light in the two directions is because light travels unequal distances in the two directions in the Earth centered inertial frame.
Between two points on the Earth's surface, yes, since those 'points' are actually moving eastward in the ECI frame. It's pretty obvious that if there are two observers, one following the other with identical velocity (relative to frame F) along the x axis, then relative to F, light is going to take more time to go from the rear one to the front one than v-v.
But the observer in the frame of the fixed points also has the right to consider the light to travel equal distances in both directions
Yes, in that inertial frame (not in some non-inertial one like ECEF where the sync convention differs significantly), light travel time is indeed identical in both directions. So no contradiction with relativity there.
Consider repeating the experiment in an inertial frame moving in the ECI frame. This frame, unlike the frame of the fixed points on Earth, is not moving with the Earth. Assume that this frame has the same velocity as the frame of the Earth fixed points. The distance between the two points is the same.
What is the prediction of special relativity in the two cases. It seems that relativity treats each differently. There is a 'discontinuity' , a jump in the way each is treated. I think that each should give the almost the same result, whatever it is. Their difference should be shown to diminish with increasing radius of the Earth, for example. ( the velocity should stay the same, so the rotation speed decreasing)
-
Consider repeating the experiment in an inertial frame moving in the ECI frame. This frame, unlike the frame of the fixed points on Earth, is not moving with the Earth. Assume that this frame has the same velocity as the frame of the Earth fixed points. The distance between the two points is the same.
OK, so we're using the inertial frame in which my mailbox and the one to the west are both briefly stationary. I picked the neighbors box because the two points need to be nearby to in any way be approximately stationary relative to each other.
What is the prediction of special relativity in the two cases.
That's easy. Relative to that inertial frame, light takes the same time to go in either direction since the two mailboxes are both stationary. That's one case. There was another one?
-
What is the prediction of special relativity in the two cases.
That's easy. Relative to that inertial frame, light takes the same time to go in either direction since the two mailboxes are both stationary. That's one case. There was another one?
Let me be more clear. Let us compare the predictions of special relativity for two experiments, the first one is real and the second one hypothetical.
The first experiment:
You measure the speed of light in both directions between two points fixed on Earth. One point is to the east relative to the other, like the mail boxes. The tangential velocity of the two points is around v = 500 m/s.
The second experiment:
Next imagine another (hypothetical) experiment. To make the reference frame of the two fixed points as inertial as possible, imagine that the radius of the Earth is increased enormously, but its rotation speed decreased by the same factor so that the tangential velocity of two nearby points is still 500 m/s eastwards. As before, we measure the speed of light in both directions between two nearby points (one point to the east relative to the other ) fixed on this hypothetical Earth.
If special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions in the first experiment, what is the prediction of special relativity ( SRT) in the second experiment?
If SRTstill predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions (as in the first experiment), this would be a self contradiction of SRT because the reference frame in the second experiment is almost inertial.
If SRT predicts that the time delay of light in the two directions is the same, at which point ( at which hypothetical radius of the Earth) does SRT switch the way it treats the problem? At which hypothetical Earth radius does SRT start considering the reference frame of the two points (which are fixed to the hypothetical Earth) as inertial frame?
-
Let me be more clear.
But you dropped your frame references in this post, so clarity is gone. You don't give any specifics about how you're going about taking any of these measurements.
Let us compare the predictions of special relativity for two experiments, the first one is real and the second one hypothetical.
This is a forum, so unless you've a link to a real experiment that has been performed by somebody, all experiments are hypothetical.
You measure the speed of light in both directions between two points fixed on Earth.
And how are you going to do that? If the process involves more than one clock, how are the clocks synced? SR assumes by convention that light speed is identical in all directions relative to any inertial frame, but it does not propose a method to actually prove that. That the speed of light will be measured the same in any frame is a premise, not a conclusion. So we assume that the speed of light in both directions between two points fixed on Earth is c. We don't measure that.
One point is to the east relative to the other, like the mail boxes. The tangential velocity of the two points is around v = 500 m/s.
If the mailboxes have a tangential velocity, then they're not fixed points, are they? This is why you need frame references. The velocity of mailboxes is anything you want it to be depending on the frame you specify, but you need to specify one. Instead of mailboxes, lets just use precision devices at opposite ends of a nice marble slab in a laboratory somewhere, arranged in an east/west orientation.
No experiment has been described. We just have two objects and a proposal of a measurement without actually describing how that measurement is to be taken.
To make the reference frame of the two fixed points as inertial as possible, imagine that the radius of the Earth is increased enormously, but its rotation speed decreased by the same factor so that the tangential velocity of two nearby points is still 500 m/s eastwards.
Again, they're not points if they have nonzero velocity. They're moving objects whose location changes over time. Our lab on earth is fine. The objects being close and the experiment being brief serves the same purpose as making Earth bigger. It's is locally inertial motion, so we're fine.
If special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions in the first experiment, what is the prediction of special relativity ( SRT) in the second experiment?
No frame reference specified and no actual measurement procedure proposed, so SR does not predict an outcome to the undefined procedure.
[/quote]If SRTstill predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions (as in the first experiment), this would be a self contradiction of SRT because the reference frame in the second experiment is almost inertial.[/quote]Do you understand relativity of simultaneity at all? The time taken for light to go between the two objects is frame dependent and if there are clocks present at both objects (none has been described), then how far out of sync the two clocks are is also very frame dependent. No sync convention has been described, so they could be hours out of sync, in which case it might take hours (or negative time) for light to go from one mailbox to the other if the measurement uses both these non-synced clocks.
If SRT predicts that the time delay of light in the two directions is the same
No frame specified and no sync method described, so SRT predicts nothing.
at which point ( at which hypothetical radius of the Earth) does SRT switch the way it treats the problem?
When you change your reference frame from say the inertial one in which the mailboxes are briefly stationary points to an alternate reference frame like ECI (where the mailboxes have a 350 m/sec tangential velocity) or ECEF which is not an inertial frame at all, but a rotating one where a direction like 'west' is meaningful and Paris is stationary relative to my mailbox.
Actual measurements are frame independent events so given proper specification of the procedures to follow, SR makes the same predictions regardless of the reference frame you choose. So most important is that procedure. Your only words are 'measure the speed of light between the mailboxes' which is completely ambiguous. How exactly are you proposing to do this? There needs to be at least one clock involved, and perhaps multiple clocks, in which case a precise sync convention needs to be specified.
At which hypothetical Earth radius does SRT start considering the reference frame of
SRT does not choose the reference frame. You do (or you should anyway, but have failed to do so above). It has nothing to do with radius. It works on a spinning basketball or a rotating galaxy.
-
If special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions in the first experiment, what is the prediction of special relativity ( SRT) in the second experiment?
Special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is the same in the two directions in the first experiment.
That's easy. Relative to that inertial frame, light takes the same time to go in either direction since the two mailboxes are both stationary. That's one case. There was another one?
-
Say we have a large mass object, far off in space. It has an unknown mass, M1. We do not have a scale to measure it to know for sure. It appears to be moving away from us due to the red shift we observe. Unlike its mass, we can accurately measure the red shift.
How do you determine its relative velocity, to us, if both mass;GR and velocity; SR can cause a red shift? This is a realistic 3-D problem that includes mass, distance and time due to both GR and SR being active, with mass; GR not as easy to directly measure, as distance and time; SR.
The solution is we will try to use space and time; photons, to simulate and estimate the mass. This is two variables; 2-D, used to model 3-D. This is nobody's fault, but it is what we have to deal with.
A black hole in the center of a galaxy should generate a GR based red shift, which to the untrained eye, would appear to move away from all references outside the center; red shift. This type of red shift may be harder to see, since we do not know the starting wavelength that red shifted, to calculate the speed. Visible light would GR red shift beyond anything we can measure.
An illusion will created of something that is moving away, at nearly the speed of light, from all perimeters references, simultaneously. This is more of GR red shift problem and not a SR red shift problem. If we assumed this was a SR problem it looks like the expanding universe in a single radial direction from any galaxy reference.
-
If you know the red shift then you also know how hot it is
You also know how bright it "looks" and from that you can work out the relationship between its size and its distance.
Then you can look at spctral braodening and deduce how fast some bits are moving compared to other. That gives information on teh rotation rate.
You can combine that data with the understanding we have of how stars work and get a good idea about the other characteristics- notably size.
But what's interesting is that you didn't realise they could do that, yet you are prepared to make up stuff like this
.
The solution is we will try to use space and time; photons, to simulate and estimate the mass. This is two variables; 2-D, used to model 3-D. This is nobody's fault, but it is what we have to deal with.
Why not study science?
-
Here is an excerpt from the researchgate paper.
While positions on or near the Earth can be precisely determined using the GPS based on
light speed constancy in the Earth-Centered Inertial (ECI) frame, the orbital ephemerides of the
planets and other bodies in the solar system are determined using a different set of equations
operating within the solar barycentric or sun-centered inertial (SCI) frame [31-33]. The SCI
frame is a frame that moves with the Sun but does not rotate with it and provides a convenient
reference frame for many astronomical events. The associated equations are used to determine
round-trip time of an electromagnetic signal that emanates from a transmitting antenna on Earth
and is reflected by a spacecraft transponder or planetary body back to the same antenna on Earth.
Time measurement is effected using atomic clocks based on Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)
and the spatial coordinates are relative to the solar-system barycenter of the SCI frame.
There are some questions naturally arise from this, if it's true.
Where is the boundary between ECI system and SCI system?
How far away from earth that light speed is still constant in ECI?
How far away from the sun that light speed is still constant in SCI?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Solar_system_barycenter.svg/220px-Solar_system_barycenter.svg.png)
Solar system barycenter can be outside of the sun. How does this affect the calculation of the light speed in SCI?
-
Where is the boundary between ECI system and SCI system?
Both are valid anywhere (within reason, like millions of LY), so no boundaries. The choice of frame depends on the application, so ECI might be more practical for anything gravitationally bound to Earth and SCI for anything else.
How far away from earth that light speed is still constant in ECI?
How far away from the sun that light speed is still constant in SCI?
Both are accelerating frames, and both have changes of gravitational potential with distance, so light speed isn't really constant anywhere in those frames. This is true of any reasonable frame I can think of.
Solar system barycenter can be outside of the sun. How does this affect the calculation of the light speed in SCI?
None of these coordinate systems is truly inertial, so yes, corrections must be taken for the accelerations of either the sun or the earth. I agree that a SSBI (Solar system barycenter inertial) frame would have somewhat more uniform light speed everywhere since much of the acceleration is eliminated in such a frame. Not sure what they really call it or if it has an official name. Hard to reference an abstract point like a barycenter, so few applications actually use such a frame. A nice physical reference seems preferred, despite the lack of an inertial one anywhere.
-
You measure the speed of light in both directions between two points fixed on Earth.
And how are you going to do that? If the process involves more than one clock, how are the clocks synced? SR assumes by convention that light speed is identical in all directions relative to any inertial frame, but it does not propose a method to actually prove that. That the speed of light will be measured the same in any frame is a premise, not a conclusion. So we assume that the speed of light in both directions between two points fixed on Earth is c. We don't measure that.
One point is to the east relative to the other, like the mail boxes. The tangential velocity of the two points is around v = 500 m/s.
If the mailboxes have a tangential velocity, then they're not fixed points, are they? This is why you need frame references. The velocity of mailboxes is anything you want it to be depending on the frame you specify, but you need to specify one. Instead of mailboxes, lets just use precision devices at opposite ends of a nice marble slab in a laboratory somewhere, arranged in an east/west orientation.
No experiment has been described. We just have two objects and a proposal of a measurement without actually describing how that measurement is to be taken.
To make the reference frame of the two fixed points as inertial as possible, imagine that the radius of the Earth is increased enormously, but its rotation speed decreased by the same factor so that the tangential velocity of two nearby points is still 500 m/s eastwards.
Again, they're not points if they have nonzero velocity. They're moving objects whose location changes over time. Our lab on earth is fine. The objects being close and the experiment being brief serves the same purpose as making Earth bigger. It's is locally inertial motion, so we're fine.
If special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions in the first experiment, what is the prediction of special relativity ( SRT) in the second experiment?
No frame reference specified and no actual measurement procedure proposed, so SR does not predict an outcome to the undefined procedure.
If SRTstill predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions (as in the first experiment), this would be a self contradiction of SRT because the reference frame in the second experiment is almost inertial.
Do you understand relativity of simultaneity at all? The time taken for light to go between the two objects is frame dependent and if there are clocks present at both objects (none has been described), then how far out of sync the two clocks are is also very frame dependent. No sync convention has been described, so they could be hours out of sync, in which case it might take hours (or negative time) for light to go from one mailbox to the other if the measurement uses both these non-synced clocks.
[/quote]
Measuring the speed of light between two points depends on clock synchronization which itself depends on the speed of light.
This problem has already been solved by the Silvertooth and the Marinov experiments, which successfully measured our absolute velocity without any need of clock synchronization. But if we want to measure the one way speed of light between two points, we can unambiguously synchronize the two clocks from knowledge of absolute velocity.
If I detect difference in propagation times of light in opposite directions between two points in a closed lab on Earth, this is nothing other than detection of absolute motion (remember Galileo’s ship thought experiment). You either have to accept this as a confirmation of absolute motion or explain it (mathematically) in terms of acceleration a (however small that is) and rotation of the lab frame . After all, the only reason why you refused to consider my hypothetical reference frame as inertial is because of acceleration. You accept the ECI frame as approximately inertial despite the fact that it is moving in a circle around a center (the center of the Sun), but rejected my hypothetical frame which is moving around a center (the center of the Earth). I know that, unlike the ECI frame, my hypothetical frame is rotating with the Earth but we can imagine an enormous radius of the Earth with very slow rotation.
-
If I detect difference in propagation times of light in opposite directions between two points in a closed lab on Earth, this is nothing other than detection of absolute motion (remember Galileo’s ship thought experiment).
But you don't.
-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/Tests-of-the-One-way-Speed-of-Light-Relative-to-a-Moving-Observer
... the speed of light between fixed points on the surface of the Earth is not the same in all directions; light travels faster west than east! GPS engineers try to mask this fact by assuming light speed c and making the so-called "Sagnac Correction".
Has anyone worked with GPS to confirm or refute the claim?
West does not define a unique direction, since west for me is the exact opposite direction as west in Beijing. This is because their 'fixed points' are fixed only in a rotating frame of reference, and yes, in such a frame, light travels faster west than east, exactly as mandated by SR. SR could be falsified immediately if the Sagnac effect didn't work. In a light tube going around the Earth, light has less distance to move in the west direction than in the east direction, so of course the westbound light gets to the moving source/detect faster than the eastbound. The Sagnac effect relies on that fact to detect absolute rotation.
I think I agree that special relativity predicts this difference in propagation time of light in opposite directions between two points of a rotating frame.
But then a self contradiction of special relativity follows.
If I detect difference in propagation times of light in opposite directions between two points in a closed lab on Earth, this is nothing other than detection of absolute motion (remember Galileo’s ship thought experiment).
But you don't.
I think special relativity predicts it. If special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is different in the two directions in the first experiment, what is the prediction of special relativity ( SRT) in the second experiment?
Special relativity predicts that the time delay of light is the same in the two directions in the first experiment.
That's easy. Relative to that inertial frame, light takes the same time to go in either direction since the two mailboxes are both stationary. That's one case. There was another one?
I think a better way to put this is af follows:
Special relativity predicts difference in propagation times of light in opposite directions between two points on a rotating frame, but this leads to a self contradiction of special relativity. I mean, even if this apparent anisotropy of the speed of light is confirmed experimentally, this will only disprove the very principle of relativity - a self contradiction.
-
If you know the red shift then you also know how hot it is
You also know how bright it "looks" and from that you can work out the relationship between its size and its distance.
Then you can look at spctral braodening and deduce how fast some bits are moving compared to other. That gives information on teh rotation rate.
You can combine that data with the understanding we have of how stars work and get a good idea about the other characteristics- notably size.
But what's interesting is that you didn't realise they could do that, yet you are prepared to make up stuff like this
The solution is we will try to use space and time; photons, to simulate and estimate the mass. This is two variables; 2-D, used to model 3-D. This is nobody's fault, but it is what we have to deal with.
Why not study science?
Have you or anyone gone to any of the distant stars, to double check to see if this these assumptions are correct? Or am I supposed to take your word for it? It is so much easier being a critic.
As an example, before we sent a probe to Mars, there were many bold assumptions, that did not pan out, after early probes, even though Mars has been close and easy to see for centuries. A spatial illusion is not easy to see through without being able to double check yourself with direct observation. It often comes down to the emperors new clothes, and the fear of going against the grain. I have a high tolerance for the crap that will be dished out if you look outside the box and say the emperor is looking to get a full body tan.
I proposed a GR red shift effect, that should stem from the black hole in the center of our galaxy. All points on the perimeter should see a red shift, of some unknown starting wavelength coming from the black hole as space-time expands from the black hole due to GR.
If we assumed only SR, the black hole would appear to be moving away from every reference on the perimeter, simultaneously, while not actually moving. Fortunately, we are close enough to the black hole and perimeter to double check and know this black hole red shift affect much be a GR red shift and not SR red shift. This is good.
Since our universe appears to be expanding, relative to the galaxies, and since many galaxies have black holes in the center, this black hole GR affect, we see from all points on the perimeter of our galaxy, will also appear as a red shift, in all direction going to beyond our galaxy. If the scientists in a distant galaxy, where black holes are too far to see, attributed this to a SR red shift, the milky way will appear to be moving away, no matter where on that galaxy you stand. If all galaxies give this GR affect this could appear as an expanding universe relative to galaxies.
This is why 2 variable SR can create a spatial illusion. If we were forced to include mass, the GR red shift would have had to be explored, deeper. But if we settle with 2 out of 3, a spatial illusion would become good enough.
Do we see space-time expanding at any point in any lab? Or do we only see this affect if there are galaxies? I do not know all the details of physics, but I am good at conceptual modeling and seeing through spatial illusions. These often are connected to flawed foundation premises. A sag in a house can often be traced to the basement. Not all scientists wish to get dirty to find them. Most want to stay clean in the bright top floors.
-
am I supposed to take your word for it?
What you are taking "my" word for is the idea that the laws of physics are the same there as here.
If you don't accept that then there is absolutely nothing you can say about anywhere in the universe where someone hasn't physically gone to check.
I proposed a GR red shift effect, that should stem from the black hole in the center of our galaxy.
Have you been to the centre of the galaxy and checked that GR works there/
Are we expected to take your word for it?
Do you see that the criticism you made of my post applies equally to yours?
It is so much easier being a critic.
You just failed at being a critic...
(because your criticism doesn't make sense in the context of your own post.)
Why not study science?
-
I think special relativity predicts it.
I don't think that matter much.
Because you didn't do the experiment from inside the box.
You relied on things outside the box like GPS and clocks.
You also seem to have assumes that Silverlight and Marinov are correct. that's very much up for debate.
-
It only assumes constant speed of light relative to an inertial frame in flat Minkowskian spacetime, and a rotating frame (nor a straight shot between say Earth and Mars, spinning or not) meets this qualification.
Are you saying that the speed of light is constant in a rotating frame, contradicting what you have been saying ? I don't understand what you said about Earth and Mars either.
-
But then a self contradiction of special relativity follows.
...
but this leads to a self contradiction of special relativity.
Another repeat. You've not been able to demonstrate this supposed self contradiction mostly due to lack of any precise description of any hypothetical experiment.
Here is the contradiction, which I mentioned already. Imagine an observer and two light sources in a closed lab at the equator. One point is to the East of the observer and the other point is to the West, with the observer at mid point between the two sources.
In the Earth centered rotating frame, the propagation times of light in the two directions (from the two sources) is different, according to special relativity. This is supported by experiments, such as the GPS Sagnac effect.
But this leads to a contradiction. If an observer in a closed room (lab) detects anisotropy of the speed of light, this can only be due to acceleration, or due to absolute motion, ( remember Galileo's ship thought experiment), regardless of reference frames. But the acceleration of the lab due to Earth's rotation is very small. Therefore, special relativity predicts the Sagnac effect in the Earth centered rotating frame but this in turn leads to violation of the principle of relativity.
There is yet another self -contradiction of special relativity. Consider the observer and the light sources again. This time we analyze the problem relative to the lab frame, not relative to Earth centered frames. Consider two reference frames, S and S'. The observer is at the origin of both frames. S is the (almost) inertial lab frame and S' is the rotating lab frame.
We should be able to use our lab frame because it is almost inertial. If you insist that only the ECI frame should be used, this would violate the principle of relativity.
Rotation of the lab frame (S' ) will not affect the speed of light since we have assumed that the observer is at the origin of the lab frame. My argument is that a rotating frame will not affect the speed of light between two points if one of the points is at the origin of the rotating frame. For this particular experiment, S' can be considered inertial.Therefore, special relativity predicts that the Sagnac effect cannot exist in this case - a contradiction.
To avoid clock synchronization problems, if any, we can use light interference experiments. But we can also synchronize clocks from knowledge of our absolute velocity. ( the Silver tooth experiment)
Moreover, we can make S and S' as inertial as possible by assuming enormously increased radius of the Earth, and the angular velocity decreased by the same factor, to keep the tangential velocity the same.
-
Well at least there is a frame reference this time.
Imagine an observer and two light sources in a closed lab at the equator. One point is to the East of the observer and the other point is to the West, with the observer at mid point between the two sources.
In the Earth centered rotating frame, the propagation times of light in the two directions (from the two sources) is different, according to special relativity. This is supported by experiments, such as the GPS Sagnac effect.
But this leads to a contradiction. If an observer in a closed room (lab) detects anisotropy of the speed of light, this can only be due to acceleration, or due to absolute motion
But it is absolute motion. Rotation is absolute, and they're taking their measurements relative to that rotating frame and measuring exactly what the theory predicts, including the fact that light curves instead of taking straight paths. Were they to compute the speed relative to the lab's (momentarily) inertial frame, they'd get identical times in each direction. They'd not even have to measure anything since the speed is isotropic by premise, not by measurement.
You still haven't made any mention of how exactly these guys in the windowless lab have gone about performing their experiment. It's not like a baseball where you can point a radar gun at something to get its speed. I don't think they have GPS satellites in there with them. The only clue you've given is that they're taking their measurements relative to a rotating frame of reference.
Therefore, special relativity predicts the Sagnac effect in the Earth centered rotating frame but this in turn leads to violation of the principle of relativity.
Principle of relativity applies only to inertial frames and their proper equivalents. It's quite trivial to detect that you're not properly inertial via different behavior of objects around you. And no, a rotating frame is not equivalent to an accelerating one. Sagnac effect is due to rotation, and is not observed in an accelerating frame.
There is yet another self -contradiction of special relativity. Consider the observer and the light sources again. This time we analyze the problem relative to the lab frame, not relative to Earth centered frames.
Fine, but you've not indicated how this will change the experiment since you've given no indication as to exactly how any of these speeds are being measured. If you do it relative to the lab frame, the speed will be identical each way by convention, not by measurement. No measurement will contradict that.
Consider two reference frames, S and S'. The observer is at the origin of both frames. S is the (almost) inertial lab frame and S' is the rotating lab frame.
Our observer is at the center of Earth? If not, he's not at the origin of the ECI frame.
We should be able to use our lab frame because it is almost inertial. If you insist that only the ECI frame should be used, this would violate the principle of relativity.
I insist on nothing. You chose the ECI frame in your post above, and apparently our lab guys are assuming such a frame in some unspecified way.
Rotation of the lab frame (S' ) will not affect the speed of light
Nonsense. Light speed is completely variable relative to a rotating frame. It can even be negative or any arbitrarily high speed.
since we have assumed that the observer is at the origin of the lab frame.
He is not. He's some 6370 km from it.
My argument is that a rotating frame will not affect the speed of light between two points if one of the points is at the origin of the rotating frame.
Even if the observer is at the origin, this is false. Simple geometry will say otherwise. Not even Newton would agree with your assertion.
To avoid clock synchronization problems, if any, we can use light interference experiments. But we can also synchronize clocks from knowledge of our absolute velocity. ( the Silver tooth experiment)
If you want to take measurements relative to some random frame which Silvertooth pulls out of its arse (or any random number generator for that matter), then the speed will be locally constant in any direction relative to that frame, and your assertions about west and east light being different fall apart, and SR is still not contradicted.
Moreover, we can make S and S' as inertial as possible by assuming enormously increased radius of the Earth, and the angular velocity decreased by the same factor, to keep the tangential velocity the same.
For what purpose? The difference in measurements between the two frames will still be the same. You're slowing the spin by X but then increasing the radius by X, which serve to cancel any observed differences.
-
Rotation of the lab frame (S' ) will not affect the speed of light
Nonsense. Light speed is completely variable relative to a rotating frame. It can even be negative or any arbitrarily high speed.
My argument is that a rotating frame will not affect the speed of light between two points if one of the points is at the origin of the rotating frame.
Even if the observer is at the origin, this is false. Simple geometry will say otherwise. Not even Newton would agree with your assertion.
I was actually saying that a rotating frame will not affect the speed propagation time of light between two points if one of the points is at the origin.
I will respond to your other points also.
-
You still haven't made any mention of how exactly these guys in the windowless lab have gone about performing their experiment. It's not like a baseball where you can point a radar gun at something to get its speed. I don't think they have GPS satellites in there with them. The only clue you've given is that they're taking their measurements relative to a rotating frame of reference.
They take measurements relative to the rotating lab frame with the observer/detector at the origin. Since the observer is at the origin of the rotating frame, there should be no difference in the time of flight of the counter-propagating light beams.
The argument is that if there is difference, it is because of absolute motion. Even clock synchronization is not a problem here, because the center of the rotating frame is (almost) inertial.
-
But it is absolute motion. Rotation is absolute, and they're taking their measurements relative to that rotating frame and measuring exactly what the theory predicts,
The experiment cannot physically measure / sense rotation (ω), it can only measure ωR which is linear velocity.
Suppose that at first the observer in the closed lab knows that he/she is moving in a circular path around a center, and knows his R and ω. Then the radius of the circle was increased and ω decreased by the same factor, without the observer's knowledge, so that the tangential velocity remains the same. There is no way the observer can tell their new angular velocity by using this experiment. This means that the difference in time of the light beams is because of linear velocity.
If this experiment cannot measure ω,this leads to the conclusion that the observed anisotropy in the speed of light can only be due to linear velocity.
-
I was actually saying that a rotating frame will not affect the speed propagation time of light between two points if one of the points is at the origin.
I have to disagree. The time between two events (points in spacetime) is completely frame dependent, and thus the choice of frame, rotating or otherwise affects the propagation time of light between them, by definition. A frame is an abstract coordinate system, not anything physical. One can assign any coordinates to each event that they like, and that choice of coordinates is what determines the difference in time between events.
You cannot begin to make sense with your posts if you don’t understand the difference between physical things and abstract ones. Coordinate systems and everything defined by them (such as time or distance between physical events) are entirely abstract choices, not something that is real or not.
I know of no coordinate system that maps all events in the universe, so there is no known candidate for a coordinate system that might correspond to a physical arrangement.
They take measurements relative to the rotating lab frame with the observer/detector at the origin.
There is only one observer detector? What’s at the other end of the lab then? Again, we have a lab at the center of the Earth? The south pole perhaps at least? There’s no sending a signal east or west from there you know. You’re changing the experiment, which is fine since you’ve never really had them actually perform any measurements anyway. All you had them do is assume a rotating coordinate system which can be done without actually being there.
Anyway, you’ve made the mistake again. This frame you’ve selected defines the time between the events. That time isn’t something measured, it is something assumed by the choice of frame.
Even clock synchronization is not a problem here, because the center of the rotating frame is (almost) inertial.
No it isn’t. The coordinate systems are completely different, and it is these very differences that are driving your argument, so you cannot say that they’re the same just by making the speeds so slow that it takes more digits of precision to express the differences between one abstract choice of coordinates or another.
It takes no fancy experiment with atomic clocks to detect rotation. It can be done with a pair of rocks in a frictionless environment, but my pocket ring interferometer will also suffice.
The experiment cannot physically measure / sense rotation (ω), it can only measure ωR which is linear velocity.
If the observer is held stationary in the rotating frame, it is trivial to physically measure proper rotation (ω) which is absolute. Under special relativity, R can also be measured. It is impossible to measure linear velocity which is entirely abstract coordinate-system dependent and thus only an abstract assumption, not a physical thing that can be measured. ωR can be computed, but it only yields a value relative to the rotating frame, the linear motion of which is completely an abstract assumption.
If your (yet to be described) experiment does not measure it, then they’re not trying to measure their (proper) angular velocity which can be directly measured.
Suppose that at first the observer in the closed lab knows that he/she is moving in a circular path around a center, and knows his R and ω.
One does not need to suppose this. Proper R and ω can be measured, but the velocity of said center cannot be measured, and hence is an arbitrary abstract choice. In all but one of those choices, the path taken by this observer is not a circle but rather a combination of a helix and cycloid.
Then the radius of the circle was increased and ω decreased by the same factor, without the observer's knowledge
They can measure that, so they’d know.
There is no way the observer can tell their new angular velocity by using this experiment.
You haven’t described an experiment. They could tell if they chose to measure their angular velocity and radius.
If this experiment cannot measure ω,
I can run a tape measure over the length of my computer screen here and measure its size. That experiment cannot measure ω. The failure of that experiment to measure ω does not imply that ω cannot be measured.
the observed anisotropy in the speed of light
Any anisotropy assumed is due to the abstract coordinate system chosen. The speed of light in a particular direction is assumed and is not something that can be measured, despite your assertions otherwise.
-
I have to disagree. The time between two events (points in spacetime) is completely frame dependent, and thus the choice of frame, rotating or otherwise affects the propagation time of light between them, by definition.
They take measurements relative to the rotating lab frame with the observer/detector at the origin.
There is only one observer detector? What’s at the other end of the lab then? Again, we have a lab at the center of the Earth? The south pole perhaps at least? There’s no sending a signal east or west from there you know.
The experiment cannot physically measure / sense rotation (ω), it can only measure ωR which is linear velocity.
If the observer is held stationary in the rotating frame, it is trivial to physically measure proper rotation (ω) which is absolute.
Then the radius of the circle was increased and ω decreased by the same factor, without the observer's knowledge
They can measure that, so they’d know.
There is no way the observer can tell their new angular velocity by using this experiment.
You haven’t described an experiment. They could tell if they chose to measure their angular velocity and radius.
If this experiment cannot measure ω,
I can run a tape measure over the length of my computer screen here and measure its size. That experiment cannot measure ω. The failure of that experiment to measure ω does not imply that ω cannot be measured.
This time you invoked relativity.
Classically, the time of propagation between two points in a lab on the surface of the Earth is constant independent of lab rotation if one of the points is at the origin of the lab inertial frame.
There is no lab at the center of the Earth. The lab is on the surface of the Earth. We are only analyzing the experiment in the ECI frame and then in the inertial lab frame.
I was saying that the observer cannot know the ω of his lab by this experiment which only measures the time difference between the light pulses. If rotation was the fundamental cause of the effect observed, the observer would know his ω from this experiment alone.
Trivially, a physicist would not conclude that rotation is the fundamental cause of the effect observed just because he can measure rotation by other means. He may as well hypothesize that temperature is the cause because he can measure the temperature. Ultimately, it is experiments and the scientific method that decide. The physicist, naturally, starts by hypothesizing that rotation is the fundamental caused. But when he did another experiment with a device having larger radius but the same ω, he expected the same time difference but obtained a larger one. After playing with the ω and R variables, he discovered that the fundamental cause is ωR.
-
Classically, the time of propagation between two points in a lab on the surface of the Earth is constant independent of lab rotation if one of the points is at the origin of the lab inertial frame.
That wasn't even true in 19th century classic physics. Endlessly repeating this statement doesn't make it less wrong.
There is no lab at the center of the Earth. The lab is on the surface of the Earth. We are only analyzing the experiment in the ECI frame and then in the inertial lab frame.
ECI frame is an inertial frame. ECEF is a rotating frame. The origin of both is the center of Earth since 'EC' stands for 'Earth Centered'. The origin of a non-Earth centered rotating coordinate system needs to at least be at the axis of rotation, say the south pole, where the direction of 'west' is meaningless.
I was saying that the observer cannot know the ω of his lab by this experiment which only measures the time difference between the light pulses.
Just like I cannot measure the weight of my car with a tape measure. It doesn't imply that the weight (or ω) cannot be measured.
It not possible to measure physical time difference between spatially separated events, especially with an experiment that you refuse to describe. It is only possible to assign a coordinate system that defines that elapsed time, an abstract exercise, not a physical measurement.
To measure the time between spatial locations A to B, you can either assume the one-way speed of light is c and just use a tape measure to see the separation of A and B. The time is then simply distance/c, easy, and no fancy equipment (not even a clock) required.
If you don't assume light speed is c relative to any inertial frame, then you cannot use light to synchronize any theoretical equipment. You need to use other means.
If rotation was the fundamental cause of the effect observed, the observer would know his ω from this experiment alone.
You cannot know anything from an unspecified experiment. You propose to time light between two spatially separated locations in the lab, but have specified no means to actually do that. It cannot be done. People have tried. You can time the round trip if there's a mirror at the far end. That's been done.
Trivially, a physicist would not conclude that rotation is the fundamental cause of the effect observed just because he can measure rotation by other means.
That's right. The fundamental cause is his abstract assignment of the time at the two locations in question, not anything that is observed.
He may as well hypothesize that temperature is the cause because he can measure the temperature.
Funny you bring that up. The Silvertooth experiment was reproduced and found to be an expensive way to measure temperature. The guy didn't put his setup in a temperature controlled lab so the daily variation the thing measured was the temperature swing between night and day. See the links posted early in this thread.
Fun fact:
In a rotating frame (ECEF for instance), there is an interesting property beyond a certain radius. A light pulse emitted from a sufficient distance (30 AU say) and aimed in the correct direction will take a curved spiral path (Coriolis effect), slowing all the way (centrifugal effect), and finally stopping altogether, only to turn around and return to the emission point along the exact same path in reverse. Seems unintuitive, but there's nothing in physics (not even classical physics) that forbids it.
-
Classically, the time of propagation between two points in a lab on the surface of the Earth is constant independent of lab rotation if one of the points is at the origin of the lab inertial frame.
That wasn't even true in 19th century classic physics. Endlessly repeating this statement doesn't make it less wrong.
Correction: I need to qualify what I mean by 'classically'. I was just referring to non-relativistic physics.
So the lab I am referring to is a lab that is at absolute rest (w.r.t translational motion) but rotating. Such a lab is equivalent to an inertial frame in that the speed of light is constant in both, according to the respective theories. If the lab is both in absolute translational motion and rotating, the time taken by light between any two points in the lab cannot be constant.