Re: evidence for the existence of the ether

From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 12/14/04 

Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:27:48 GMT

shevek <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8l2ur0t4uae5271hus0k13pde6qech2fqo@4ax.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > shevek <shevek4@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1102870042.976202.228690@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

> > > > > > Why not simply keep the second as it always was? An arbitrary
> > > > > > fraction of an average Earth day.
> > > > >
> > We choose the average of however many days or years we like, of course.
> > That's what arbitrary means. Heck, let's take 3/7 of an Earth rotation
> > to be our time standard. It doesn't matter to the experiment.
>
> Thanks for your substantive reply Greywolf.
>
> Also, my apologies that this is likely to appear as a double post- as
> a new thread and as a reply. Ignore whichever one you prefer of
> course..
>
> OK, I guess this argument (what is the second) should be a different
> thread. My point is that 3/7 of a day takes longer at different times
> due to tidal effects. This should be measurable.. pegging your time
> to the Earth's rotation is in my mind worse (not better) than pegging
> it to a caesium atom characteristic frequency.

"Better" depends on what you plan to do with your standard. The degree of
theoretical precision is important in some experiments. However, this
precision cannot be used if the assumption of precision is actually based on
the physical manifestation that we are trying to test.

For example, we could build a sound clock in the same manner that we build
light clocks. And we'd always have perfect proof that the speed of sound is
independent of the motion of the observer w.r.t. the atmosphere. We can use
the pressure or density of the atmosphere and be OK. We just can't use the
speed-of-sound as a basis for our clock ... if we want to use it to measure
the speed of sound.

> > Not as the clock. As the definition of the time-unit (second). Since
> > I'm making all my clocks the same (but not light-based), it really
> > doesn't matter.
>
> If your clock runs on a spring, it is based on electromagnetic forces
> therin, hence light-based. Ditto for a quartz crystal or cesium
> beater, or your temporal lobe for that matter. But lets get to the
> more interesting part..

Electromagnetic forces are not light. Light is a travelling wave of crossed
electric and magnetic displacements. But electricity (charge) is not a
light wave. Even if those forces move at the speed of light. The
mechanicsm is not predicated only on the speed of a light wave (or speed of
an electric charge field). There are other components.

> > Now, let us assume that (for whatever reason) there is an unknown offset
> > between A and B, equal to E:
> > A = B + E (as per your example)
> > B1 + E = A1 + d / c .
> > A2 = B2 + E + d / c.
> > Q = (B1-A1)-(A2-B2) = (d / c + E) - (d / c + E) = 0
>
> Whoops! I am totally with you on the first three equations you give
> there, but not the 4th. Solve for B1-A1 again from your equation 2
> above.. you will find your get (d /c - E) and not (d / c + E).

It did seem too easy. But I thought that it might simply be because of your
particular definition of Q. :(

> This gives you the result Q = -2E. Unfortunately that error
> propagates through the rest of your post so I won't address those
> points affected thusly until you have responded.

OK then. No matter how we synchronize our clocks -- if we manage to do the
job perfectly, will have a null "offset". If we are less than perfect, we
will have a "Q" offset of 2E. But we can't use this 2E to compare one type
of synchronization with any other. For they are all equally valid. And
will all claim that the "other" methods are off.

> > > That is also the LET assumption,
> >
> > That is a false statement. LET (Lorentz, 1904) does not expect time to
> > change.
>
> Again I don't understand.. Lorentz did not expect time dilation of
> moving clocks? Without it, he could not have explained the null
> result of MMX.

You apparently haven't read his paper of 1904 ("Electrodynamic Phenomena in
a System Moving with any Velocity less than that of Light"). Most easily
obtained from the Dover book, "The Principle of Relativity". The book
contains many of the fundamental papers that apply to Relativity theories.

But Lorentz did just fine without time dilation of moving clocks. This was
a year before Einstein's SR, so Lorentz had no need to change time. What
Lorentz postulated was that matter was made up of charged particles of
finite extension (just like we believe today). And that the distributed
charges responded to motions through the local EM field. He then calculated
(using Maxwell's equations) that the matter would contract along the line of
motion (which is why we call it Lorentz contraction).

The substantive difference between Lorentz is that in Lorentz' theory, it is
only physical matter that contracts. For Einstein, a year later, *space*
contracts and *time* (not clocks) dilate.

OK, now we can't use your term "Q" to absolutely determine which
synchronization method to use. (Darn!)

{snip}

Yet SR's second postulate makes a broad claim that is not based directly
upon the later (in the 1905 paper) redefinition of "space" and "time"
contained in e-synching. Otherwise, the 2nd postulate (principle) is
nothing more than a tautological artifact of the e-synch method.

So, SR should be able to function without e-synching, as well as with
e-synching. Which is why I specified that my experiment would not use
e-synching in the first place.

Let's bring back at least the minimal sensitivity needed to prove or
disprove SR:
===============
Now we assume the speed indicated by the CMBR dipole (circa 300 kps). Or
circa 0.001 c_0. Where c_0 is the speed of light relative to the aether.

     R ~ 2(d /c) (0.001)

In short, we will have to be able to resolve one part in a thousand of the
speed of light (or better) in order to detect the anisotropy. Light travels
rougly 1 meter per 3 nanoseconds. Our setup will have to be three orders of
magnitude better. *IF* we are right about the CMBR. Of course we should
actually fall back to the motion of the Earth around the Sun. That's only 1
order of magnitude lower (30 kps vs. 300 kps). That should certainly nail
it down. Since we will want to check different orientations, and we want
some minimal precision (2 or 3 significant figures), we will need roughly 1
femtosecond accuracy and resolution for our clocks for every meter of path
length.
===============

I frankly expect the definitive test will occur upon reorienation. Any
substantive "offset" in the original synchronization should be detectable on
inversion of the apparatus. (A method to distinguish between clock
offset/error and motion.)

> > > If you are predicting that light can travel a meter in some time other
> > > than 1/c seconds, you are showing some contempt for the definition of
> > > meter in my dictionary.
> >
> > Regardless of my personal feelings toward a definition in some unnamed
> > book, that definition is clearly based on the explicit assumption that
> > SR *is* correct. And we are attempting to experimentally determine
> > *whether* Einstein's second postulate is correct. Hence, we cannot use
> > your book's definition in our experiment.
>
> Thank you, that was exactly my point.

OK. 

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... >>ray is growing using k's rulers and clocks, it is growing at the rate ... are you just asking me to derive the Lorentz transformation from the ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: "The Einstein Hoax"
    ... < Einstein never said that length contraction wasn't real. ... Lorentz transform of time, which he derived, was a real time. ... in what way is the time of clocks whose setting ... Einstein's statement that after clocks of a moving system are set to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The genius of the Absolute
    ... > ray is growing using k's rulers and clocks, it is growing at the rate ... then I'll explain Lorentz invariance. ... you've called the Galilean Transform ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to a Light Source
    ... of lightspeed invariance -- and that is a mathematical ... Let L be an arbitrary light source. ... synchronized clocks, a fixed distance apart and immobile ... We can use the Lorentz as follows. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: An infinitely precise clock would run at a rate of zero seconds per second
    ... it's the clocks that run which are ... being contaminated by matter. ... that partial quantum Zeno effects cause time dilation. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)