Re: Michelson-Morley experiment

From: Androcles (dummy_at_dummy.net)
Date: 01/02/05 

Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 15:54:25 GMT

"RP" <no_mail_no_spam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:33qecoF41q88iU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Androcles wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The same timelike interval referred to in
>> ">>> the time-like interval required for a
>>
>>>>>photon to traverse that distance and then multipying the speed of
>>>>>light by that time-like interval."
>>
>>
>> I know reading comprehension gets tough for some people, and "how
>> long will it take to bake a cake" has to rephrased to "What is the
>> timelike interval required to bring about the thermodynamically
>> driven changes in the solidification process" in order to be
>> understood.
>
>>
>>> Whatever you are referring to, of course you can determine it, I
>>> didn't say otherwise. But, whether it has occurred to you or not,
>>> all measurements require the transmission of photons.
>>
>>
>> Photons can and do transmit information. That information can be and
>> often
>> is measurement. What's your point?
>
> Distance isn't defined by a number of knots on a rope. One very good
> reason for adopting a different standard of measure is that distance
> is frame dependent.

Distance is universal.
I can move my rope between frames and measure with it. S'easy.

 Length and distance are not interchangeable terms.
Oh? What's the difference?

> The meter is defined in terms of c and in terms of cesium transitions.

Total circularity. Pretty dumb. I'll carry on using a tape measure,
thanks.
It works.

> Even if the rope were stationary wrt both source and detector, you
> would still have to check it's accuracy as a measuring instrument
> against the NIST standards.

Nah. I'm a Brit. Couldn't care less about your Yankee measurements.
My steel tape's good enough for me.

> Thus you might just as well have measured the distance with a light
> beam initially, eliminating the extra step and thus the extra
> possibility of introducing measurement error.
>
> You will get speed of light equal c, either way, that is, if the NIST
> standards are adhered to. That is, unless you can prove that the
> cesium atoms can adjust their properties in response to your
> expectations of variations from c.

Like you said, time is independent of length, based on caesium
atom transitions. Besides, anyone goes to the NIST lab to measure
the length of the Queen Mary II is gonna have a problem getting it
on the back of a low-loader, so the best way is the old tape measure.
I bet its the same length in the lab frame as it is in the sea frame.

>>
>>>>>Thus you will necessarily measure the same speed of light that you
>>>>>used to find the displacement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Thus your analysis incorrect.
>>>
>>>I'm at a loss to comprehend your conclusion.
>>
>>
>> Ok, I'll elaborate.
>> The speed of light (or of anthing else) is a distance-like interval
>> divided by a time-like interval.
>> By having a distance-like distant clock-like clock send photon-like
>> photons
>> that carry information-like information about time-like time,
>> I can subtract the time-like time transmitted from the time of
>> arrival to
>> obtain what you refer to as a time-like interval.
>> Thus your analysis is incorrect. Is it clearer now?
>
> It is clear now, thanx, and it is also clear that you haven't paid
> attention.

Clear that you haven't, you mean.
The metre is DEFINED as the length of the path travelled by light
in absolute vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second
and ALWAYS relative to the source.
Quite useless for measuring the length of a ship, I can assure you.
Nobody has a vacuum chamber that big. All you can do is get
your tape measure calibrated, like the rest of us.

> How are you going to synchronize your clocks? Outline the procedure,
> and then I'll prove to you that you must know the displacement between
> them first, and in order to know the displacement you must in one form
> or other appeal to the speed of light. If you could set the clocks
> instantaneously to zero...absolutely, and without anything more than a
> wish, then sure, you'd have a method of directly measuring OWLS. But
> as it stands, and as I've perhaps poorly attempted to relate, current
> NIST standards preclude any measurement other than c.

Well, there are two considerations, gain and offset.
Let's deal with offset first. Your watch is offset from mine because
you are not at the Greenwich Meridian as I am, so you have it set
several hours slow. Therefore you will have to synchronize your watch
to mine, mine being the master. That makes the offset your problem,
not mine. However, I can make it easy for you by sending you a signal
(fire a gun, perhaps, hope you can hear it) then, takin' into
consideration
the speed of sound. The best way is for you to bring it here.

Gain is a different. We can do that at a distance. I'll send you a
signal
once every hour, and you check to see if your watch has recorded an
hour.
If not, tweek the oscillator and check again.
Caution: You can't be moving relative to me when you do this,
you'll introduce offset.
Once you have it calibrated for gain, you'll be fine.
You can use NIST if you like, but the same rules apply.

>>
>>>The second is n number of cesium transitions, the meter is the
>>>distance that light propagates in a time 1meter/c , and light speed
>>>is c.
>>>
>>>The distance between a particular source and detector is measured by
>>>shooting a beam of light ot the detector.
>>
>>
>> No no, wherever did you get that idea? Distance is measured with
>> a knotted rope, a steel tape, a Roman's pace, things like that, and
>> is independent of time.
>
> See above.
No, YOU see above.
DISTANCE IS INDEPENDENT OF TIME.
Androcles.

>
> Richard Perry
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >>> and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance of distant ... In one years time the earth has moved ... You are saying that, unless you can set out with a tape measure, ... Or that the objects at the two ends of the measurement ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Do you set your camera at high resolution?
    ... further the subject is from the camera the more distance ... Then if this measurement is important to your ... 20' Stanley tape measure to my belt. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: ROBERTS BACKS DOWN!
    ... |> You did say LONG distance MEASUREMENT, right, Roberts? ... Yeah, well, If Roberts wants to be imprecise... ... You relativists are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Some Faulty Assumptions of SR
    ... OWLS or TWLS is dependent on the distance of separation between the ... refused to do any direct measurement of TWLS or OWLS. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A new theory with two postulates
    ... L is a length within the opposite FoR, not the distance between events. ... mark on some sort of standard ruler. ... comparison of both ends of the object against marks on a standard ruler ... light speed has to do with a length measurement being two simultaneous ...
    (sci.physics)