0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mike - Phract's post that you quote was on: 05/01/2012 08:04:22 - yours explaining it was part of your model of 20 years was ę on: 05/01/2012 07:45:02 ĽI hope and think we can put it down to the fact that Phract had not read your explanation when he posted. You can PM me if you have any other problems or further instances or if I have misinterpreted the situation
"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether.
Quote from: simplified on 20/02/2012 16:32:56"No aether" should be proved by experiment with clocks synchronization on satellite for start.Because time is some aether. Aether models which predict measurable disagreements with relativity have been proven false. This only demonstrates that those aether models are false. It does not prove that there is no aether. GPS can only verify what has already been proven. If it can be proven that some phenomenon, such as quantum entanglement, are faster than light, that will prove the existence of a preferred reference frame in which the FTL phenomenon has the same speed in all directions. Special relativity proves that no FTL phenomenon can have the same speed in all directions, except in one preferred reference frame. When and if such a preferred reference frame is identified, it will lend credence to some aether models, and disprove others.Experimenters working with quantum entanglement have claimed instantaneous (in some unspecified reference frame) transfer of information across distances up 16 km. Mainstream scientists claim that quantum entanglement cannot be used to communicate FTL. However, FTL communication may not be needed to prove, after the fact, that information was transferred FTL.
These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).
Quote from: simplified on 22/02/2012 16:18:43These data do not help us to do useful formulas. Therefore we need experiments with synchronization of clocks on a satellite (in beginning and end of the experiment).I think they're still scratching their heads over the apparently FTL neutrinos. (I'll be very surprised if neutrinos can be FTL.) Clock synchronization errors can result in false conclusions. Clock synchronization is fully understood in theory, but the formulas can be complex when the reference frame is in a gravitational field, rotating once every 24 hours, and orbiting once every 365 days. If there is a flaw in the GPS system, experiments might reveal what it is. More likely, the flaw is in our application of relativity to GPS or our application of GPS to the neutrino experiments. (It could be as simple as ignoring the influence of the moon.) I don't think there is anything wrong with the relativity formulas, at least nothing that can be measured experimentally with our present technology. (GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.) The speed of light is the same in all directions in every inertial reference frame, regardless of whether there is a substantive aether. The Earth reference frame is probably close enough to an inertial reference frame. I don't think Earth's acceleration is sufficient to account for the apparent error in measuring the speed of the neutrinos. Anyway, I assume the brilliant scientists at CERN have taken it into account.
GR assumes zero propagation delay for gravity at cosmological distances; that might introduce significant errors at the scale of galaxies, but not at the scale the CERN lab.
The M&M experiment certainly proved that the speed of light is fixed, however this doesn't justify the conclusion that there is no aether, which they and just about everybody accepts as a priori. There is at least one other conclusion which good science should ponder, namely that the aether is some mysterious medium which doesn't affect the speed of light.Also the M&M experiment was only two dimensional. Had they stood their apparatus vertically they would have observed variations in the interference patterns.