Testing Cahill's Formula with Atomic BEC?
From: Jack Sarfatti (sarfatti_at_pacbell.net)
Date: 02/03/05
- Next message: robert casey: "Re: Are there asteroids between the sun and mercury?"
- Previous message: Rob Dekker: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:23:30 GMT
bcc
Update
So far I cannot find any error in Cahill's basic kinematical formulae
for the Michelson interferometer, i.e. eqs 1 & 2 p.4. He is not
rejecting the Lorentz transformations and he is not rejecting the
prediction that there is no fringe shift in a non-exotic vacuum where
the index of refraction n = 1. Cahill's fringe shifts have a factor (n^2
- 1).
e.g. his eq (1) for time difference in the two paths (each of rest
length L) 1 & 2 of the interferometer, using the Lorentz contraction
t1 - t2 ~ (n^2 - 1)(L/c)(v/c)^2
The more accurate equation is his (2)
t1 - t2 ~ n(n^2 - 1)(L/c)(vp/c)^2cos(2(theta-phi))
see paper for details.
1. Experiments varying n of the gas in the 2 paths need to be done
especially around a resonance where n >> 1. Cahill says absolute motion
not detectable in solids, only in gases. For example use atomic
Bose-Einstein condensates in the arms of the Michelson-Morley
interferometer and slow the light down to practically nothing 17
meters/sec! What happens when n ~ 10^7?
http://newton.ex.ac.uk/aip/physnews.415.html
2. In principle local measurements in relatively short times will
suffice - no need to cover a whole period of Earth's orbit. Miller did
that in 1925/26 only to measure the gas parameter k^2 = n(n-1) says
Cahill. In that case my suggested L/r* ~ 1, i.e. breakdown of global SR
in GR where r* ~ 1AU (radius of space warp at Earth's surface) seems to
be falsified. I am not sure of anything here at this point of course.
Note the global Lorentz boost transformations along z, i.e. rotations in
z-t plane
t' = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2[t - vz/c^2]
z' = (1 - (v/c)^2)^-1/2[z - vt]
z'^2 - (ct')^2 = z^2 - (ct)^2 INVARIANT
are allegedly not violated in Cahill's analysis.
Cahill says there is an ABSOLUTE v = 0, a preferred frame of absolute rest.
Any two speeds v & v' relative to it add by Einstein's rule (in z-t
plane for now) use the nonlinear transformation
V = (v + v')/(1 + vv'/c^2)
Note if v' = c
V = (v + c)/(1 + (v/c)) = c(v + c)/(v + c) = c
Indeed c added to c = c
c is a fixed point of the nonlinear transformation.
So all of these SR rules seem to be consistent with a preferred frame of
absolute rest.
The exotic vacua of dark energy from Frank Wilczek's multi-layered
multi-colored cosmic superconducting Higgs-Goldstone field that I call
the partial vacuum coherence as the aether?
On Feb 1, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
On Feb 1, 2005, at 2:13 PM, iksnileiz@earthlink.net wrote:
Jack, I'm pleased to observe that you now acknowledge that not everyone
who challenges
Einsteinian models for "relativity" (and there is as a matter of fact
more than one
Einsteinian flavor) is a "crackpot"...(although I agree that most amateur
heretics still are crackpots -- e.g., ....
No of course not. There is, as you say, "heresy" and "heresy". If Cahill
is right, I don't think he is, but if he is, everything comes crashing
down like a House of Cards on shaky ground. The more I read Cahill the
more I sense he is at least eccentric, but he cannot be simply written
off like most of the morons we encounter.
The professional "heretical" school is gathering strength and sharpening
its arguments, and in view of the current proliferation of anomalies
needs to be taken very seriously IMHO.
Z.
Jack Sarfatti wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: February 1, 2005 12:34:55 PM PST
To: Gary S Bekkum / SSR <garysbekkum@gmail.com>
Subject: Cahill papers contra relativity need to be studied closely
bcc
On Jan 31, 2005, at 3:18 PM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
FYI
The Speed of Light and the Einstein Legacy: 1905-2005
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0501051
I am beginning to study this. It will take time. It's a serious
challenge though I think I know what is going on, I could be wrong. Also
I see some flaws already in how Cahill is stating the problem. He is
arguing Vigier's position it appears. However, everyone interested in
relativity and quantum field theory etc. should pay attention to this
challenge since Cahill is obviously not your-easy-to-recognize crackpot.
Authors: Reginald T Cahill (Flinders University)
Comments: 22 pages, 10 figures. better graphics
Subj-class: General Physics
That the speed of light is always c=300,000km/s relative to any
observer in nonaccelerating motion is one of the foundational concepts
of physics. Experimentally this was supposed to have been first
revealed by the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment, and was made one of
Einstein's key postulates of Special Relativity in 1905.
However in 2002 the actual 1887 fringe shift data was analysed for
the first time with a theory for the Michelson interferometer that
used both the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction effect, as well as the
effect of the air in the interferometer on the speed of light.
That analysis showed that the data gave an absolute motion speed in
excess of 300km/s.
So far six other experiments have been shown to give the same result.
This implies that the foundations of physics require significant
revision. As well data shows that both Newtonian gravity and General
Relativity are also seriously flawed, and a new theory of gravity is
shown to explain various so-called gravitational `anomalies',
including the `dark matter' effect. Most importantly absolute motion
is now understood to be the cause of the various relativistic effects,
in accord with the earlier proposal by Lorentz.
-- Gary S Bekkum Starstream Research PO Box 1144 Maple Grove, MN 55311
- Next message: robert casey: "Re: Are there asteroids between the sun and mercury?"
- Previous message: Rob Dekker: "Re: Inflationary Theory ; I'm confused"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
