Re: I Owe Einstein an Apology. Sorry Albert!

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_sirius.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 12/09/04 

Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2004 06:01:15 GMT

In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
<kenseto@erinet.com>
 wrote
on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 16:53:31 GMT
<fkGtd.33033$CG4.7746@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:vsgj82-22h.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In sci.physics.relativity, kenseto
>> <kenseto@erinet.com>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 08 Dec 2004 13:54:42 GMT
>> <CIDtd.56801$MG3.51146@fe2.columbus.rr.com>:
>> >
>> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>> > message news:gnfi82-g48.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net...
>> >> In sci.physics.relativity, JP
>> >> <jp@nospam.com>
>> >> wrote
>> >> on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:15:11 +0000
>> >> <pan.2004.12.05.18.15.09.916871@nospam.com>:
>> >> > On Sun, 05 Dec 2004 18:01:19 +0000, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> In sci.physics.relativity, Henri Wilson
>> >> >> <H@.>
>> >> >> wrote
>> >> >> on Sun, 05 Dec 2004 03:13:07 GMT
>> >> >> <e2v4r0h49fjfb0fa1u0li7h2nn706j798f@4ax.com>:
>> >> >>> On Sat, 04 Dec 2004 23:40:06 GMT, "Bill Hobba"
> <bhobba@rubbish.net.au>
>> > wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [crunch]
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>>Henri - comprehension is vital. You have shown none. My meaning
> is
>> > obvious
>> >> >>>>to anyone with a brain ie was the purpose of the other syncing
> methods
>> > also
>> >> >>>>to obviate the need for an aether?
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But in your SRian stupidity, you are completely missing the point
> that
>> >> >>> E-synching is ABSOLUTE synching. That is becasue light speed is
> source
>> >> >>> dependent.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Somebody really should tell the decaying pi-mesons that. Apparently
>> >> >> they've not yet got the message.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v135/i4B/pB1071_1
>> >> >>
>> >> >> [crunch]
>> >> >
>> >> > I'd love to see the full text of that article.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> I wouldn't mind too much myself -- but I'm cheap. :-)
>> >> The general idea, however, looks straightforward enough, and
>> >> only one clock would be required -- the one doing the
>> >> actual lightspeed measurement.
>> >
>> > You can't measure OWLS with just one clock. You can measure TWLS with
> just
>> > one cl***.
>>
>> The OWLS in this case is from a moving source (the decaying mesons).
>> The c'=c+v theory predicts a massively different result. Gamma
>> rays from the moving mesons can simply be thrown through a straightline
>> pipe and two detectors (one at each end) and the time difference
>> measured.
>
> How do you get the time difference without two clocks??

A "speed trap" should work.

-->> A B
       \ /
        +-------C-------+

A and B are stationary with respect to the lab. The light source
generates photons which go through A, then through B. Assuming
A and B are equidistant from C, there shouldn't be much of a problem.

This is a TWLS measurement, but with an odd twist, as the light
paths are A-C and A-C-B-C instead of the more conventional
A and A-B-A.

>
>>A clock is in the middle of the two detectors.
>>
>> Looks fairly straightforward to me.
>
> How is that one clock in the middle will determine the time
> for light to traverse 1/2 the distance of the pipe??

It doesn't. The clock doesn't get to complete the measurement
until light traverses 1 1/2 the distance.

>>
>> 299792458/9192631770 = 3.26 cm, so it wouldn't have to be that long.
>> (The numerator is lightspeed in m/s. The denominator is the number
>> of transitions of a Cs133 atom per second in an atomic clock.)
>
> So you are assuming light speed to determine light speed??

No, although if one's not careful one might do so. The
above numbers are from the currently accepted definitions,
but I for one would prefer using an older definition
which has since been dropped, the Kr-36 standard.
(Apparently one of the reasons it was dropped was that
the new standard, despite the implicit assumption of total
isotropy and SR, is more accurate. The Kr-36 introduced
too much error.)

Not that it matters; all measurements so far have been consistent
with SR. (I don't know about GR, mostly because I'm not as familiar
with it. I await Unc Al's Eotvos with puzzlement but also
with interest.)

The above is simply an estimate of the error. An atomic clock
has a "tick" of 1/9192631770 of a second. In that tick, light
moves about 3.26 cm. Therefore, the error in the measurement
is about half that, on average -- 1.63 cm. However, the error
could be as much as a full tick; the light pulse might
go through detector A at +1.99 ticks and go through detector B
at +3.01 ticks -- an error of 0.98 ticks since the measured
time would be 2 ticks instead of just 1.02.

If one wants to prove that light coming from a source moving 0.2c
is moving at speed c and not speed 1.2c, the error in speed
measurement need merely be less than about 0.1 c. Since speed
is distance / time, and time is integral, we need merely determine
the minimum distance such that

    distance / (time - 1/(9192631770)) < 1.1c.

Since distance = time * 299792458 (for non-moving sources -- and
for moving ones, as it turns out), we get

    c * time / (time - 1/9192631770)) < 11/10 c
    (time - 1/9192631770) / (c * time) > 10/(11*c)
    (time - 1/9192631770) / time > 10/11
    11 * (time - 1/9192631770) > 10 * time
    time - 11/9192631770 > 0

or about 35.9 cm. For even better accuracy, double the length,
of course.

>
> Ken Seto
>
>
> 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.