In sci.physics, Henri Wilson
HW@.
wrote
on Thu, 03 Jul 2003 15:16:35 +1000
:
On Wed, 02 Jul 2003 03:47:33 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
wrote:

In sci.physics, Henri Wilson





No, TWSLS (two-way static lightspeed) is assumed c in this case.

Yes, a bit confusing, sorry. 'c' requires some kind of absolute
frame, here.

'c' requires nothing of the sort; it's merely an
arbitrary constant here, or perhaps a light
measurement with respect to a special frame
at rest and spatially distant from a light source.

There you go, "a special frame at rest".
What do you mean by 'rest', Ghost?

A classical notion, that. There is no "special" frame.
Everyone sees light (TWLS) traveling at c.



'c' is OWLS - and also TWLS - in that frame.

'c' is TWLS, if that. No one has ever measured OWLS,
as far as I know.

'c' would also be OWLS when measured by an observer at rest
in an 'absolute aether'.
c is never TWLS in true relativity. It only appears so
because of Einstein's definition.

Um...what is "Einstein's definition"? Refresh my memory here.

Einstein defined clock synching so that Tab will alway=Tba, even
if it doesn't. He didn't believe these times could ever be
measured and so ws pretty confident that his reputation was safe.
He didn't realise that atomic clocks would appear on the scene.
These are capable of refuting his nonsense but nobody is allowed
to perform any worthwhile OWLS experiment for obvious reasons.

Two clocks can never be perfectly synchronized anyway.

Allow me to illustrate.

In GR, g, the acceleration because of the effects of
gravity, defines a time dialation effect. (I don't
know the amount but it's fairly small.) Because the
Earth is not a non-rotating, perfect sphere g(x,y,z)
is different from g(x',y',z'), where (x,y,z) is a point
on the Earth's surface. There are multiple causes for
this variance, such as difference in rotation (a person
at the equator is moving faster than a person at, say,
60 degrees latitude), various masses between them (used
on occasion to find oil fields), and height of the clock.
A highly precise clock may be thrown very slightly off by
putting it on a different height of pedestal.

So clocks C and C' will drift, even in close proximity (the
drift will just be smaller). The best one can do is
to mark C' with the same time-marking as seen from C,
compensating for the distance. 1 ns = 29.9792458 cm,
or just under 1 foot.

So now we synchronize the clocks, as best we are able, then
move them apart in a manner that minimizes their disruption.
Two pickup trucks might be good enough, if they keep their
speeds at 30 +/- 1 mile per hour (about 13.4 m/s). It's
kinda hard to say without actually doing the calcs, and
there is the issue of how much precision is desired.

Now one performs two OLWS measurements, and compares
the results, as well as two TWLS measurements, if he can.
The measurements will have a certain amount of intrinsic error;
this error can be added to the clock discrepancy, when the
clocks are brought back together by the pickup trucks.

If one wants a more sophisticated experiment one can
replace the trucks with motor-driven sleds along a rail.





Intuitively this result makes sense (at least from a Newtonian
standpoint) as it takes longer/more effort to fly, walk or
proceed in a crosswind or crosscurrent than it does in a
still medium.

This is the aether view, yes.

The classical luminiferous aether view, yes, not the Haether view,
which admittedly I'm still trying to analyze.

My Haether theory is still evolving but is looking better every day.




If we assume L = 10m (suggested by

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/l...edoflight.html

Ghost, we are well aware of the MMX analysis. Some of us
know that the null result was due to the fact that the
theory behind the experiment was faulty.

The theory *was* faulty. An absolute luminiferous aether was
nicely disproven by that experiment.

How can you prove that something doesn't exist?

By showing that the theoretical effects don't occur, for
the most part. Admittedly, MMX can't distinguish between
nonexistent luminiferous aether and lightspeed-source-local-invariance.

There may still be an aether, but it's now a fluid thing.

That's the point. The MMX proved that the aether,
as visualised by Michelson and others, did not appear
to exist.

No, it proved that the static luminiferous aether did not exist.
The dynamic luminiferous aether has no problem existing, if one
assumes that the aether is locally quiescent around the
rotatable apparatus.

So which one should be modified, the model
of the aether or the experiment.

Both.


You can't say something doesn't exist becasue you ran
an experiment that didn't detect it. Obviously if it
doesn't exist no experiment could possibly be
designed to test for it.

Perhaps, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The
problem is, does it exist in any meaningful fashion?

At best, one has to devise an experiment that at least
shows evidence that it does exist, and, since you're
the claimant here, I posit that you're the one on
the hook at the moment. :-)


Religion has thrived for centuries because nobody can
prove the nonexistence of gods.

And never will.

Same applies to the aether.

Ditto. The luminiferous aether resides nicely in the
gaps of our knowledge and, so long as it is consistent
with our observations, cannot be removed.

The MMX showed a discrepancy, destroying that particular
model. However, that's all it did; other models
can still apply, pending verification of other
experiments.



You must be able to test a hypothetical property of that something.
If it doesn't exist it doesn't have any testable properties.

We don't know it exists until we give it properties. :-)
A propertyless entity is a bit like the empty set: there's
exactly one empty set.

But as soon as we claim it doesn't exist - because a test for
one of its hypothetical properties proved null - we immediately
render the test itself null and void, as well.

An interesting idea. So MMX is null and void for those claimants
that state that MMX disproves the luminiferous aether?

I'm confused here; please explain your position.





The theory still *is* faulty, in light of the "acceleration of
galactic recession". A galaxy, AFAIK, is a bunch of stars
all radiating in different directions with a central massive
black hole. Unless one assumes that the black hole is somehow
outfitted with a space drive of some sort there's no method
by which it can accelerate. I suspect a computation error;
the most logical one might have the permittivity and
permeability of free space being affected by local matter
density somehow. At least, such is my naive view on the
matter.

It's clear lightspeed is affected by matter -- light in
glass is slower than light in vacuum. Space is not
a vacuum (although it's damned close).

It is also filled with turbulent Haether of variable 'density'.

Interesting. Not sure how the "density" would affect
lightspeed.

This 'density' refers to the stuff that makes EM fields.
I cannot really elaborate on that.

You should.

For example, how does lightspeed and this density interrelate?
The luminiferous aether appears to be a fluid; you are claiming,
so far as I can understand you, that it is a gaseous fluid
(i.e., compressible) as opposed to a liquid-type fluid. Since
the density can vary, I am curious as to the relationship.

It would also be interesting to see what the interrelationship
is between this aether and uncharged matter, this aether
and charged matter, and this aether and magnetic fields.

However my theory states that EM can travel through this stuff
at different speeds, at least for short distances and probably
for longer distances in low density stuff..

Presumably, the speed through the aether would be K / density,
where the average K / density would be c.






What you have tries to do is define what is actually
meant by OWLS and TWLS.

Well, *somebody* has to do it. :-) OWLS has the problem that
it needs to be measured by two synchronized clocks at
different positions. A precise definition is very important.

I think I have found a way to measure OWLS with only one clock.
More about that later.

I'd be interested in the details of that, and so would a number
of others I suspect.

I just have to check a few things.

OK.



See my animation www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/photons.exe
(a very small file download)
It poses a big unanswered question.

Yeah: how to run it on a Linux system. :-)

Surely you know someone with windows. The demo takes
only seconds to download and run.

You really need to get into Java, sir. :-) Then you and I
won't have these technical glitches.

Can you run the old microsoft Qbasic?

If saved in text form, perhaps. If you want I can attempt
to convert it to Java for you. :-) Presumably, it's mostly
a matter of keeping track of which bits plot where when.
Basic's not a complicated language but it does have some quirks;
Java's not all that difficult either, at this level -- unless
you're doing something wacky with OLE, ADO, or WinForms.

I'm also assuming you can download from java.sun.com a SDK
for 1.4.1 or 1.4.2 (just released).

I have two Basic interpreters, but I don't think either one
has graphics capability.

[.sigsnip]

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.