Measuring intrinsic, or absolute speeds, of inertial frames in deep space.

[geistkiesel]

Simple algebra isnt' going to work...

 

You can't use simple vector addition with reference frames, you've got to use the L. transformation equations.

I disagree her Bumap. I am only using measurements of relative motion wrt A and B and C. You might have missed the point that we are manipulating measured realtive velocities of the respective frames and extracting their "absolute" velocities. I mean absolute here in the sense that each frame was launched from earth with the same measured velocities determined here as was measured by an earth observer originally.

 

Whether A and B are moving in the .9c realm, when C accelrates toward B, C must necessarily make the same measurements had the ships been moving in the range of 10 km/s. The results will be the same whether one uses Lorentz algebra or remains Newtonian. B is measured as moving faster than A at the measured amount Vac, or Vac wrt A assumed at rest.

 

Could you please demonstrate your objections in more detail please?

Geistkiesel ;)

[Qfwfq]

Science is not diversity, tolerance, equal opportunity, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, compassion, social advocacy, equitable, multicultural... or any other truth and morality defined by convenience of the moment.

If this is so, then we should not tolerate the wrong things that you occasionally say.

 

Remember also, science isn't pontification either, and has no use for dogmatic attitudes.

[Qfwfq]

I can see now that you're needing to gain background, from Galileo + Newton to Maxwell, Michelson & Morely, Einstein + Minkowski.

 

The siliness that states the relative motion wrt frame and photon will always measure c on all inertial reference frames. This effectively negates the concept of moving frames.

Look up Michelson and Morely.

 

Another, when two inertial frames have a measured relative motion that when an observer on a train, for instance, assumes her motion is at rest wrt the station, i.e. the surface of the planet earth, and that it is the station moving is silly.

It is a principle called physical symmetry. Sure enough, when the train's velocity isn't constant, it isn't a dynamical symmetry. These things can be learnt in a good physics course. You'd be better to find out more about them, before banging your head against a wall.

 

On a smoothly running train, the three laws of dynamics are valid with the same form as when referred to the station. If the train is accelerating there is an extra term in F = ma (or it's 4-vector version), although the extra term is really like a change in the gravitational field. Doesn't your everyday experience match up with this?

 

what specifically are you referring to re Gallileo?

His discussion in the "Dialogue on the two world systems", third day, ending with the passage about the closed room inside a ship. Newton mentions it in Principia, breifly calling it the experiment of the ship.

 

Things are less intuitive with electromagnetism and Lorentz invariance but there are far more mysterious things in physics that even now are still hard to understand. If you are determined to persuade the community that relativity is wrong, even silly, and you are not only unable to support it but neither able to provide an alternative to for the matter of how the velocity of light appears in Maxwell's equation, steel yourself for finding no success. Once and a while somebody challenges the experiments of Michelson and Morely but they never succeed in proving anything.

 

Have you any point against moving this discussion to the Strange Claims forum?

[geistkiesel]

I can see now that you're needing to gain background, from Galileo + Newton to Maxwell, Michelson & Morely, Einstein + Minkowski.

 

Look up Michelson and Morely.

I am familiar with M&M. There are a couple of sticky points there. First, M&M as well as Dayton Miller, found a residual diurnally maximum "absolute" velocity of 8km/sec. Michelson never said his results were "null" as most modern writers refer to the results. The results were approximately 1/3 of the expected value of 30km/sec from the earth's orbit. Others

found from GPS studies

that the earth's orbit was not measurable using a Sagnac analysis.

 

Secondly, the M&M results are be seriously flawed. The reflection of the beam orthogonal to the interferiomteter motion is shown as reflecting in a triangular trajectory, followed by claims that the light is "carried along by the moving mirror". This statement ignors the independent nature of the motion of light that is supposed to isolate the light motion from the motion of the source of the light . If the light reflects 180 degrees from the mirror the reflected light would use the same trajectory path as that impinging on the mirrror. From my simple calculation the properly reflected light and the light moving parallel to the interferometer would never meet to interfer as the two beams would move parallel until striking the scintillation screen approximately 3mm apart. Using the "carried along ' principal it would be necessary to include the added momentum n the direction of the frames motion as an increase in velocity. However, this would pose humungous problems when calculating the Speed of Light., would it not? Similarly, the beam directed at the mirror from the interferometer half silvered mirror that separates the parallel with orthogonal beams, also shows an off angle in approaching the miorror (virtually all of those schematics I have seen described show this). Even granting some righteous "carried along" mechanism there is no reason to have the beam start out at an angle when heading for an extended flat mirror.

 

I suspect that M&M adjusted the mirrors until an initial interference pattern was obtained and they looked for variations from that "calibrated condition" due to anticipagted motion affects..

 

Therefore, I have to question your reference to the M&M results.

 

It is a principle called physical symmetry. Sure enough, when the train's velocity isn't constant, it isn't a dynamical symmetry. These things can be learnt in a good physics course. You'd be better to find out more about them, before banging your head against a wall.

I am referring in part here to the solution (or one of them) to the "twin paradox" that resolved the paradox on the grounds that the twins were existing in different frames of reference due to the accelerations that the "traveling" twin was subjected to. Is it not correct to say that the observer on the train could just as well have assumed that she was moving and the train station was at rest?

 

After all is it not the claim that the two frames are equivalent? So why does the observer invariably select the station as moving and the train at rest wrt the station when she has the option to consider herself moving? This sounds comparable to a "stackede deck" scenario.

 

Also, as I stated, the train is the only object

ever observed

to have accelerated which accounts for 100% of the relative motion of the train wrt station. Any scientific minded observer knows the truth about which of the frames of reference contributed all of the motion subsequently measured as relative motion, so again, why does the observer always pick her frame of reference as at rest? when she has no physical data to even suggest that she is at rest and she has every reason to believe that she is moving.

 

Also, to kick this horse one more time there is the matter of the conservation of momentum. The observer on the train must determine that it is the train that is in motion proving the motion and the attendant momentum which cannot be transferred to the station. I undertand the SRT reasoning for equating the train and staion as inertial frames, but to assume conditons that are physically impossible to ever achieve as equivalent to clearly observed reality seems strikingly obtuse as a scientific use of logic, reason and physical law. This is more than merely being "counter intuitive".

 

And what of the observer who does determine that the train is in motion? Does she get demerits for that observation?

On a smoothly running train, the three laws of dynamics are valid with the same form as when referred to the station. If the train is accelerating there is an extra term in F = ma (or it's 4-vector version), although the extra term is really like a change in the gravitational field. Doesn't your everyday experience match up with this?

 

Have you ever seen the tracks that are infron of a moving train? The older the tracks the more physical variation in the status of "warpedness" and imposed anti-inertial motion. The train is invariably moving up and down, left and right, varying speeds, starting and stopping, braking accelerqting etc so at what point do we say the train is an equivalent frame of reference wrt the embankment? The vibtrations imposed on the embankment by the passing train are not in the same class, degree or level of non-inertial motion as the train itself, yet some consider the two as equivalent.

 

Even though I have been on trains that are passing each other in opposite directions and briefly saw the illusion that I was at rest I knew differently, just as I knew from a very rearly age that the objects seen floating over the hot Arizona roadway was a reflection due to temperature affects.

 

Can you explain why the observers in the SRT examples similar to the train/station examples

always

have the accelerated frame at rest and the embankment moving?

 

His discussion in the "Dialogue on the two world systems", third day, ending with the passage about the closed room inside a ship. Newton mentions it in Principia, breifly calling it the experiment of the ship.

Thank you for the reference. yes I am familiar with this but I must discard the conclusions of Mssrs. Gallileo and Newton for the reason that I have constructed a number of systems that allow a closed in observer to determine his "absolute motion" wrt an invariant point in space that does not move, as redundant as the statement is. I am referring of course to a zero velocity frame of reference.

 

Things are less intuitive with electromagnetism and Lorentz invariance but there are far more mysterious things in physics that even now are still hard to understand. If you are determined to persuade the community that relativity is wrong, even silly, and you are not only unable to support it but neither able to provide an alternative to for the matter of how the velocity of light appears in Maxwell's equation, steel yourself for finding no success. Once and a while somebody challenges the experiments of Michelson and Morely but they never succeed in proving anything.

See above for my comments re M&M. I suppose I will have to produce my claimed zero velocity frame of reference in order that you see what it is I am getting at.

Have you any point against moving this discussion to the Strange Claims forum?

Actually I have for a number of reasons, the first and most obvious is that "strangeness' in this case would be rather arbitrary at this point wouldn't it?

 

Secondly, I see no discussion in your current post that deals directly with any specifics of the model descibed in the opening post of this thread. Discussions with Erasmus00 have bneen slightly different as he has spoken directly to what had been described to some extent. The point is that the mere statements of SRT , Gallileo, Newton etc where they discard the possibility of determining absolute motion are more a reflection of a very limited slice of the history of science and physics, than science or physics itelf. Someone accused Uncle Al of posting unscientific statements challenging this thread and while your post here is not in any way equated to Uncle Al's post I would remind you of the relative lack of specific objections to specific points that are described in the opening thread. I observe Uncle Al's relatively extreme replies to this one of yours on the other end of that spectrum.

 

Likewise, while you refer to the greats of scientific history, which of them have performed an analysis comparing the use of relative motion wrt one inertial system, say Vab with another system such as Vac and including a third Vbc and extracted unambiguous velocities that sum to the measured relative velocity of the intertial frames A and B? Or anything even approaching this? Did Gallileo have transponders and reflecting radar to determine relative motion? Atomic clocks? Even railway systems?

 

Aren't you aware that all past "theories" have ultimately undergone serious revision if not actual destruction, to wit, Ptolemy's "circle within circles" model used to predict the location of stellar bodies? We all know the story, but what is not told openly is that

Ptolemy's system worked

notwithstanding that his earth centered frame of reference was ultimaly repalced by Gallileo, Copernicus, Kepler and Brahe? In fact Ptolemy's system worked because the users had been familiar with the tables used exclusively in determining the locations of the stellar bodies under scrutiny for at least one hundred years after Gallileo.

 

Now what do we see as a crowing achievement of mankind's technological prowess? The Global Positioning System (GPS) that uses an earth centered earth frame (ECEF as well as an absolute ECI frame of reference) as the primary reference frame used in calculating the results of the orbitng satellites? Do you see a "full circle" here (pun intended)?

 

Give me bit and I will demonstrate an unambiguous velocity = zero frame of reference.

 

You are the moderator and I have no control one way or the other over what you decide, nor do I wish to have such swaying powers. I recognize we are not in a popularity, or political contest , where each is advertising their unique frames of reference democratically. In fact I cannot see the reason for one even bringing the subject matter of strangeness up at this point in time. This reminds me of my reading of R. Feynman's text 'Lectures on Physics', where he makes at least a hundred references to the 'strangeness' of physics and how 'scientists have givven up [on QM]' etc, mostly referring to qm. RF took strangeness with a grain of salt and saw it as the way things are, like quarks for instance.

Geistkiesel

[Qfwfq]

Give me bit and I will demonstrate an unambiguous velocity = zero frame of reference.

How much time? Sorry, I can't let you keep postponing the decision in this way, it's a method that anyone can try all too easily.

 

This reminds me of my reading of R. Feynman's text 'Lectures on Physics', where he makes at least a hundred references to the 'strangeness' of physics and how 'scientists have givven up [on QM]' etc, mostly referring to qm. RF took strangeness with a grain of salt and saw it as the way things are, like quarks for instance.

Geistkiesel

And yet I have no doubt that Richard P. Feynman would agree that you are failing to support your claim, you haven't disproved the principle of relativity. I'm glad you enjoyed those excellent textbooks, but I'm sorry to see you did not understand the meaning of physical and dynamic symmetries.

 

P. S. Oh, yes, don't consider it a punishment or something! :esheriff:

[geistkiesel]

How much time? Sorry, I can't let you keep postponing the decision in this way, it's a method that anyone can try all too easily.

 

And yet I have no doubt that Richard P. Feynman would agree that you are failing to support your claim, you haven't disproved the principle of relativity. I'm glad you enjoyed those excellent textbooks, but I'm sorry to see you did not understand the meaning of physical and dynamic symmetries.

 

P. S. Oh, yes, don't consider it a punishment or something! :esheriff:

.

Here it is.

 

Two photons are emitted in opposite directions from the midpoint of and in the direction of, clock/detectors, L and R, located at the exterme ends of a moving (wrt the embankment) frame of reference.

From the postulates of light that 1. guarantee the independent motion of light (independent offrom the motion of the source of the light), 2, the constant speed of light and 3. the isotropic motion of the light (straight line trajectory) we we immediately that the point of emission is not only physically defined by the emitted photons but is also not moving. The physical device that emitted the photons is moving, say to the right, but the emission point P, is invariant.

 

After the light has moved a distance to the left and arrived at the oncoming L clcok/reflector it arrives back at the emission point after moving another distance ct, for a total distance movied of 2ct. As the frames is moving at some velocity v (unknown as yet) , wrt the point P, the left photon is located a distance 2vt from the moved physical midpoint after moving 2ct after being emitted. Basically this is a linear Sagnac frame seen in the figure below.

QED.

G4istkiesel

[geistkiesel]

How much time? Sorry, I can't let you keep postponing the decision in this way, it's a method that anyone can try all too easily.

 

And yet I have no doubt that Richard P. Feynman would agree that you are failing to support your claim, you haven't disproved the principle of relativity. I'm glad you enjoyed those excellent textbooks, but I'm sorry to see you did not understand the meaning of physical and dynamic symmetries.

 

P. S. Oh, yes, don't consider it a punishment or something! :)

 

Oh, yes don't consider this a punishment? What the hell is that supposed to mean? What did you do regarding Uncle Al who has only used insulting and derisive words in responding to my posts? Chastisement?

 

You with your new found seat of power now decide to weild your whip. Enjoy your position sir, I see that this is exactly what you have been seeking for a long time. Now you get to determine what is scientifically correct, not using the cioentific method, debate, discusssion, exchange of ideas, hell no, that is too bulky a system and besides, the average reader wouldn't undersdstand, would they? They would become confused, disjointed, maybe even suffer from some mental breakdown or pathology requiring medical assistance. But this wont happen on your watch, no sirree, correct? What are you 22 years old, 20? I observe a mental and emotional maturity as just entering your teens: bratty, demanding, snooty, prone to tantrums, condescending, superior, smug, deserving of all you request. Am I far from the truth here? This is what I observe, this is not a simple "mere opinion".

 

Who are you anyway? I mean, what is it about you that your manipulation of this thread is so important to you? Ar you assigned some task of protecting the public from the "strangeness" of ideas contrary to your own? Are you assigned the task of manifestly protecting SRT in its present form? Or is this from your own sould? has anyone bought your belief system? Look at the history books which you have referred to and ask yopurself if you aren't one that smothers dissent, that corrupts the meanineg of new and unique ideas. You haven't responded with

anything

, and I mean anything that has a scientific content to it. You merely dribble SRT dogma in front of us as somekind of recognized truth. What is it? Do you have some reputation to protect? Do you have your own belief system to protect? Are you such a believer that will not allow dissent to corrupt your own belief system? I thought this forum was advertised as a

science forum

, then why are you

preaching

your beliefs? Oh, I forgot, what you have stuffed in your head was willing; this is the truth, correct? You couldn't be one thaty could ever be fooled could you?

 

Here is a speculation, a guess: You have an educational history of manifestly designing your learning process for the purpose of pleasing your teachers, that you have assumed know what they are talking about, or even if you assumed they didn't know what they were talking about. It is just too bad that so many of your persuasion didn't have an inkling of what "curiosity" means, or even that there is such mental structure. Then I suppose this kind of behavior had no place in your classrooms and was discouraged through the grading system, and unistable "frowns". You being a smart lad and all, were perceptive enough to know what not to talk about, correct?

Geistkiesel

[Harzburgite]

Geistkeissel has been promoting these views on more than one forum. I am not well enough versed in relativity to challenge or concur with his views. I am well enough versed in the peculiarities of human interaction to note the consistent petulant reaction when he is challenged.

Does the forum need to rename this section "Strange, unfounded claims" ?

[C1ay]

Oh, yes don't consider this a punishment? ...rant trimmed to save space... You being a smart lad and all, were perceptive enough to know what not to talk about, correct?

Geistkiesel

You seem quite bothered that you came here stating your theory as a fact and found you are challenged to prove it. I see nothing reading through the thread that would disprove SRT as you claim from your first post. A contradiction proof? If you expect people to just accept your theories as the new model without requiring you to provide a rigorous proof your theory will not make it far in the field of physics. You need to learn how to build a rigorous, unquestionable proof or get out of physics.

 

I will also point out that you at least have an opportunity to do that, even if you are not happy with your thread being moved, it is still open for discussion. Would you rather we just close it like the other forums you proffered it in? It is easy to see here that there are many others that have not just blindly accepted your claim without proof either.

[geistkiesel]

You seem quite bothered that you came here stating your theory as a fact and found you are challenged to prove it. I see nothing reading through the thread that would disprove SRT as you claim from your first post. A contradiction proof? If you expect people to just accept your theories as the new model without requiring you to provide a rigorous proof your theory will not make it far in the field of physics. You need to learn how to build a rigorous, unquestionable proof or get out of physics.

 

I will also point out that you at least have an opportunity to do that, even if you are not happy with your thread being moved, it is still open for discussion. Would you rather we just close it like the other forums you proffered it in? It is easy to see here that there are many others that have not just blindly accepted your claim without proof either.

I do not ask for blind acceptance of anything, in fact I demand the opposite: Scierntific analysis. Of your responses here there is not one scintilla of scientific content that is observable. Youy put the onus on me personally, that iot is

me

that is under scrutiny, which conveniently moves the discussion away from the analysis of the post. Is this your scientific method here? Is this the moferator's function on this forum?.

 

You should read before you write sir. The post we are discussing

was not challenged by anything other than belief in SRT

. The details of the post are unaffected by references to SRT theory. Basically the cahallenge to t he post can be summarized as a general, "because SRT says it isn't workable."

 

The claim I made only that the system described is able to determine the velocities of inertial frames with measured relative motion to determine the individual contribution of motions that gave rise

to the measured relative m,otion

.

 

No direct or indirect challenge to the measure of the individual velocities has been made up to this instance. Are you able to follow the post and find a flaw in reasoning or logic, or physics? Your problem is that you have never in your life analyzed the measurement scenario as described . It is apparent that you simply looked at what was concluded and discarded the entirety of the post; some science here, some moderator system here, some arbitrary decision here.

Geistkiesel

[C1ay]

Youy put the onus on me personally, that iot is me that is under scrutiny, which conveniently moves the discussion away from the analysis of the post. Is this your scientific method here? Is this the moferator's function on this forum?.

Please read the rules. You make a claim, the burden is yours to prove it, not everyone else's to disprove it. It was this reason to begin with that your thread was moved to this forum as stated in the site rules.