A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 6th 09, 07:12 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics


On Oct 5, 6:05 pm, "Inertial" wrote:
"GSS" wrote in message

........
Or, U/c = ( Tu - Td )/(Tu+Td ) (7)


Yes

Putting it in words,
equation (7) implies that the ratio U/c depends on the ratio of the
difference between the up-link and down-link signal propagation times to
the total round trip signal propagation time.


Yes

Obviously, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times can be equal
only if both spacecrafts A and B are at rest in BCRF.


Yes. Or rather, the measurements of the times must be in a frame in which
A and B are at fixed points in space (ie at rest), as per the Einstein quote
earlier.

This is the crux of your confusion.
How can you make physical measurements of instantaneous time from
digital atomic clocks *in different reference frames*?

A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3.

In this regard let me reproduce some relevant extracts from one of my
previous posts.
As per Einstein,
[It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in
the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to
the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system."]

This notion of "time of the stationary system" implies the fixed
location of identical clocks at all points of space and synchronized
in accordance with Einstein synchronization convention.

Let us designate the "stationary system" defined above as inertial
reference frame K, in which the two clocks located at points A and B,
separated by constant distance D, are "stationary". Therefore, as per
the definition of the time of the stationary system K,
t_B - t_ A = t'_A - t_B

However, in relativity, most often the symbol t is used to depict the
instantaneous time of a "stationary" clock and t' is used to depict
the instantaneous time of a "moving" clock. To avoid any ambiguity in
subsequent discussions, we shall use the symbol T (in place of t') to
depict the instantaneous time of a "moving" clock. Further, in such
time depiction, we shall also include the notation of the IRF in which
the position and velocity of the clock is referenced, such as t(K) or T
(K) for the times of stationary and moving clocks in reference frame
K.

Now consider two spacecraft A and B, separated by distance D, and
moving in reference frame K with a common velocity U along AB. Let us
assume that both spacecraft are fitted with ultra-stable identical
precision atomic clocks, which have been perfectly synchronized to UTC
time standard. Let a signal pulse be transmitted from spacecraft A
(moving clock) at time T_A(K) towards B. Let this pulse reach B at
time T_B(K) and get reflected back to reach A at time T'_A(K). Then
the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td) signal propagation times are given
by,
Tu = T_B(K) - T_A(K) ........ (1)
Td = T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ......... (2)
Considering the fact that during up-link signal propagation time Tu,
the spacecraft B moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we get the total up-
link signal path as,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu ......... (3)

Similarly, considering the fact that during down-link signal
propagation time Td, the spacecraft A moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we
get the total down-link signal path as,
D - U*Td = c*Td ......... (4)
Subtracting equation (4) from (3), we get
c*(Tu - Td) = U*(Tu + Td) .... (5)
Or (Tu - Td) = (U/c)*(Tu + Td) .... (6)
and U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)

It is important to note here that T_A(K) and T_B(K) are the
instantaneous time readouts of atomic clocks A and B which are
"moving" in reference frame K with a velocity U along direction AB.
Since these are the readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-link and down-
link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by equations (1) and (2)
are not expected to be equal. As per Relativity, the instantaneous
time readouts of "moving" clocks can be transformed to the
corresponding time readouts of "stationary" clocks in reference frame
K, through Lorentz Transformation (LT).
t_A(K) = LT{T_A(K)}
t_B(K) = LT{T_B(K)}
t'_A(K) = LT{T'_A(K)} ...... (8)

Now in accordance with Einstein convention for synchronization of
"stationary" clocks
t_B(K) - t_ A(K) = t'_A(K) - t_B(K) ...... (9)

We can attach an inertial reference frame K1 with the two spacecraft A
and B, which are moving in reference frame K, such that their
separation distance D remains constant. In K1 frame the two spacecraft
clocks can be regarded as fixed or "stationary" and their
instantaneous time readouts corresponding to T_A(K), T_B(K) and T'_A
(K) can be written as t_A(K1), t_B(K1) and t'_A(K1) respectively.
Again as per Relativity, the instantaneous time readouts of
"stationary" clocks in inertial reference frame K1 can be transformed
to the corresponding time readouts of "stationary" clocks in reference
frame K, through Lorentz Transformation.
t_A(K) = LT{t_A(K1)}
t_B(K) = LT{t_B(K1)}
t'_A(K) = LT{t'_A(K1)} ...... (10)

However, the Lorentz Transformations (8) and (10) correspond to the
same physical situation in which the instantaneous digital time
readouts of clocks A and B are transformed to the corresponding
timings of the "stationary" clocks in reference frame K. That implies
the identity of instantaneous digital time readouts of the clocks
considered "moving" in reference frame K and "stationary" in reference
frame K1. As such,
T_A(K) = t_A(K1)
T_B(K) = t_B(K1)
T'_A(K) = t'_A(K1) ........ (11)

Further, as per Einstein's *definition* of time in a "stationary
system", the uplink and downlink signal propagation times are
*assumed* to be equal in reference frame K1. Therefore,
t_B(K1) - t_ A(K1) = t'_A(K1) - t_B(K1) ...... (12)

As noted earlier, for the time readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by
equations (1) and (2) are not expected to be equal.
T_B(K) - T_A(K) T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ..... (13)
Or Tu - Td 0
And U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)

Equations (11), (12) and (13) bring out a devastating contradiction
that the signal propagation times Tu and Td are supposed to be equal
(equation (12)) when the clocks A and B are considered "stationary" in
reference frame K1 but are supposed to be un-equal (equation (13))
when the same clocks are viewed as "moving" in reference frame K.

However, as per equation (7) above, the up-link signal propagation
time Tu from A to B can be *equal* to the down-link signal propagation
time Td from B to A, *only if* A and B are fixed or stationary in the
reference frame K and their common velocity U along AB is zero. This
implies that the inertial reference frames K1, K2 etc. in relative
uniform motion, must be ASSUMED to be fixed or "stationary" in the
reference frame K, to ensure the equality of Tu and Td between two
"stationary" points in reference frames K1, K2 etc. This is a major
contradiction where a group of IRF in relative uniform motion have
been ASSUMED to be at rest or "stationary" in the absolutely
stationary system K. It is worth mentioning here that Tu and Td are
the results of actual physical measurements, which are unique
regardless of the coordinate reference frame used for quantifying the
positions of the clocks A and B.

Finally, given that c is the isotropic constant speed of light
propagation in reference frame K, we can determine the common velocity
U of A and B, along AB, through measurement of the up-link and down-
link signal propagation times between A and B. Since the up-link and
down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td, between A and B,
constitute unique physical measurements, the maximum value of U thus
obtained (for certain orientation of AB) will represent absolute
motion in space, with reference frame K designated as Absolute or
Universal Reference Frame.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

If A and B are moving in the frame we are taking measurements, then because
light is isotropic in that frame, and A and B are moving in that frame, you
won't get equal speeds of separation/closure between A and B and any light
signals as measured in that frame.

This shows that Einstein's fundamental assumption of equating
the up-link and down-link signal propagation times between A and B
inherently implies that both A and B are assumed to be at rest in the
BCRF of the solar system.


No .. just that they need to be at rest in whatever frame we are taking the
measurement if we want equal separation/closure speeds between light and
the clocks.

Since Einstein subsequently extended his notion of common time between A
and B, to cover all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF)


No .. he didn't 'extend' it. Because there was never any mention of BCRF
in his paper. It was ALWAYS in all IRF's.

Perhaps you don't know that BCRF is the only practical reference frame
which can be truly considered 'Inertial', in contrast to infinitely
many hypothetical IRF's considered in Einstein's paper.

The International Celestial Reference System (ICRS), consists of the
Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF) and the Geocentric
Celestial Reference Frame (GCRF), both kinematically defined by the
position of same extragalactic radio sources. The origin of space
coordinates defining BCRF is located at the barycenter or the center
of mass (CoM) of our solar system. The origin of space coordinates
defining GCRF is located at the geocenter or the CoM of the Earth
system. The new system is kinematic, because its coordinate directions
are defined through the positions of extragalactic objects, whose
proper motions are assumed to be negligible in comparison with the
accuracy of observations. Here BCRF can be regarded as an absolute or
fixed reference frame in relation to the solar system whereas the
GCRF, being a subset of BCRF, can be regarded as a local reference
frame in relation to the solar system.

While describing the motions of terrestrial space flights, artificial
satellites or the Moon, one must use the GCRF. This natural reference
system moves with the Earth around the Sun. However, for describing
the motions of planets, comets and inter-planetary space missions, one
must use the BCRF. The task of establishing and maintaining the ICRS
and its components has been assigned to the International Earth
Rotation and Reference Systems Service (IERS). Major components of
IERS include Technique Centers, Product Centers and Combination
Centers. The main contributing observational techniques used are,
International GNSS Service (IGS), International Laser Ranging Service
(ILRS), International VLBI Service (IVS) and International DORIS
Service.
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info

  #2  
Old November 3rd 09, 04:20 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Aug 10, 4:53 am, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Aug 9, 2:04 am, GSS wrote:

...We have assumed that both of the spacecrafts A and B,
are equipped with precisely synchronized atomic clocks and identical
microprocessor controlled Transponders, to transmit and receive coded
signal pulses automatically.


This is both a conceptual and practical problem.
...
Conceptually, relativity prescribes that distant clocks cannot be kept
synchronized, except by using the very light pulses you propose to
use.

In response I had stated "Let me first clear your conceptual problems
in this post and leave the discussion of practical problems to the
next post". Thereafter the conceptual problems have been discussed at
length and summarized below:

Any motion with respect to an absolute or universal reference frame
can be termed as 'absolute motion'. The famous Michelson-Morley
experiment was designed to detect such absolute motion of the earth
through measurement of predicted interference effects, which failed.
The proposed experiment is again designed to detect the same absolute
motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link and
down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A and B,
but without relying on the wave properties of light.

A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3. Similarly, when we measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between two clocks A and B, which are
"moving" at velocity U2 along AB in reference frame K2, then it can be
easily shown that,
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ....... (1)

But the same two clocks can be simultaneously viewed as "moving" at
velocity U3 along AB in reference frame K3, and hence it can be easily
shown that,
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ...... (2)

However, equations (1) and (2) cannot both be valid simultaneously
because U2 U3. This contradiction brings us to the conclusion that
the speed of light propagation c cannot be an isotropic constant in
more than one inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
And the reference frame in which the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant is referred as absolute or universal reference
frame. For detailed analysis on this issue, kindly refer to sections 2
and 3 of the following article.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

Practically, there are no oscillators (atomic clocks), stable enough
and capable of being integrated onto a spacecraft, which could do such
precision ranging. All clocks drift. On the earth, keeping stable
time is problem enough, requiring large environmentally controlled
vaults, placed in many parts of the world.


Let me now discuss the practical problems which have been properly
addressed in the formulation of the proposed experiment for detection
of absolute motion in space.

For proper conduct of the proposed experiment, the precision atomic
clocks located at fixed points A and B are required to be in 'absolute
synchronization' rather than the 'Einstein synchronization'. However,
achieving 'absolute synchronization' for the spatially separated
precision atomic clocks is rendered difficult, firstly by the inherent
clock drift and secondly by the same absolute motion which is intended
to be detected by the proposed experiment. But the 'plus' point of
this very situation is that once we establish the absolute motion of
earth in space, 'absolute synchronization' of spacecraft atomic clocks
will become practically feasible in future.

The first option in the present case is to use two precision atomic
clocks which are initially synchronized at one common place and then
positioned at the fixed locations A and B. For the success of this
method, the inherent drift in each of the two clocks must be within
one nanosecond over 24 hour period.

For the second option, consider two Rubidium atomic clocks A and B,
each connected through an optical fiber link to a Master atomic clock
C such that the optical length of the fiber link from C to A is the
same as that from C to B. Let the two clocks A and B be perfectly
synchronized with master clock C with a timing resolution of about one
nanosecond. Here the term 'perfectly synchronized' implies that when
the clock C reads UTC time t1, the clocks A and B will also read t1.
Therefore, it is obvious that the clocks A and B can be regarded as
mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long as they are both
perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C, even if the
master clock C does not depict the perfect UTC time.

For the third option, we may replace the master clock C with the GPS
synchronized time. Therefore, we can use two Rubidium atomic clocks A
and B, each synchronized to the GPS time within one nanosecond
resolution. Once the clocks A and B get perfectly synchronized to the
GPS time, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute
terms, regardless of the inherent limitations or inaccuracies of the
GPS timing system. I consider the third option to be practically most
suitable for the proposed experiment.

In the proposed experiment, we intend to use GPSReference-2000 timing
system from SpectraTime, which is capable of synchronizing with the
GPS time to one nanosecond resolution. http://www.spectratime.com/product_d...ref_manual.pdf
What we are looking for in the experiment is the up-link and down-link
timing difference of the order of 100ns to more than 200 ns. Hence
there is no doubt whatsoever that the Absolute Motion in space can be
detected convincingly with the proposed experiment.

Further, to clear some of the misconceptions regarding GPS time and
frequency transfer system, let me reproduce some relevant excerpts
from an interesting article "Space clocks and fundamental tests: The
ACES experiment" published in Eur. Phys. J. Special Topics 172, 57-68
(2009).
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h6881742l087jh8k/

"The best atomic fountains approach 10 picosecond error per day, i.e.
a frequency stability of 1 part in 10^16, while the most recent
optical clocks, operating in the optical domain, reach 2 picoseconds
per day and improve at a fast pace. Because time intervals and
frequencies can be measured so precisely, applications of atomic
clocks are numerous and very diverse."

"The ACES clock signal will be transferred on ground by a time and
frequency transfer link in the microwave domain (MWL). MWL compares
the ACES frequency reference to a set of ground clocks, enabling
fundamental physics tests and applications in different areas of
research."

"Then, a period of 4 months will be devoted to the performance
evaluation of the clocks. During this phase, a signal with frequency
inaccuracy in the 10^-15 range will be available to ground users."

"This clock signal will be distributed by MWL. Frequency transfer with
time deviation better than 0.3 ps at 300 s, 7 ps at 1 day, and 23 ps
at 10 days of integration time will be demonstrated. These
performances, surpassing existing techniques (TWSTFT and GPS) by one
to two orders of magnitude, will enable common view and non-common
view comparisons of ground clocks with 10^-17 frequency resolution"

"In addition, ACES will deliver a global atomic time scale with 10^-16
accuracy, it will allow clock synchronizations at an uncertainty level
of 100 ps, and contribute to international atomic time scales (TAI,
UTC)."

Learned readers are requested to share any additional information on
the practical aspects of the proposed 'absolute synchronization' of
the two spatially separated precision atomic clocks.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
  #3  
Old November 4th 09, 11:56 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
glird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Nov 3, 10:20*am, GSS wrote:

The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link and

down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A and
B,but without relying on the wave properties of light.

Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken
as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis
of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x
direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and
reflect therefrom back to A.
As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis
coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K,
the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus
takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1
secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the
moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each
way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right
triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other.
given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as
measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as
measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A
to b as plotted by stationary cs k.
HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow
by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their
horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths
remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above
stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes
and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure
the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y
or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/
sec as plotted by K.
Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks
of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it
would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back
again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would
have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1
second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted
by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such
deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE
c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined
method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)

p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let
lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the
direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the
first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and
down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have
emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k
and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the
stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY
the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of -
vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance
between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself,
and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its
speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light
moves at c.

glird
  #4  
Old November 5th 09, 04:02 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Nov 5, 3:56 am, glird wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:20 am, GSS wrote:

The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute

motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link
and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A
and B,but without relying on the wave properties of light.

Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken
as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis
of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x
direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and
reflect therefrom back to A.
As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis
coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K,
the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus
takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1
secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the
moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each
way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right
triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other.
given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as
measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as
measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A
to b as plotted by stationary cs k.
HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow
by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their
horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths
remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above
stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes
and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure
the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y
or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/
sec as plotted by K.
Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks
of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it
would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back
again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would
have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1
second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted
by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such
deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE
c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined
method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)

p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let
lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the
direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the
first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and
down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have
emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k
and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the
stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY
the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of -
vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance
between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself,
and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its
speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light
moves at c.

glird


Why should any spatial length SHRINK or EXPAND when a 'photon' or an
'observer' passes by? I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or
expansion of a spatial length always induces a strain field in the
region and that all strain fields are subjected to certain physical
constraints like continuity of associated displacements and
equilibrium of associated stresses.

Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary
reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn)
flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn
respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will
actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the
witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?

Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and
separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks
at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a
laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link
pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and
reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively.
Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse
propagation from B to A.

As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED
to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any
stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary
in that reference frame (Tu = Td). But when the two clocks are moving
along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu Td). However, when
the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab
frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be
required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time. If
you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and
unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
  #5  
Old November 5th 09, 09:47 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

Computational Geometry from the Viewpoint of Affine Differential Geometry
http://videolectures.net/etvc08_matsuzoe_cgftv/

Information Geometry and Its Applications
http://videolectures.net/etvc08_amari_igaia/

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!



"GSS" kirjoitti
...
On Nov 5, 3:56 am, glird wrote:
On Nov 3, 10:20 am, GSS wrote:

The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute

motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link
and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A
and B,but without relying on the wave properties of light.

Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken
as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis
of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x
direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and
reflect therefrom back to A.
As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis
coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K,
the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus
takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1
secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the
moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each
way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right
triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other.
given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as
measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as
measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A
to b as plotted by stationary cs k.
HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow
by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their
horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths
remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above
stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes
and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure
the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y
or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/
sec as plotted by K.
Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks
of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it
would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back
again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would
have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1
second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted
by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such
deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE
c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined
method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)

p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let
lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the
direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the
first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and
down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have
emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k
and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the
stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY
the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of -
vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance
between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself,
and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its
speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light
moves at c.

glird


Why should any spatial length SHRINK or EXPAND when a 'photon' or an
'observer' passes by? I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or
expansion of a spatial length always induces a strain field in the
region and that all strain fields are subjected to certain physical
constraints like continuity of associated displacements and
equilibrium of associated stresses.

Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary
reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn)
flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn
respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will
actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the
witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?

Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and
separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks
at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a
laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link
pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and
reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively.
Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse
propagation from B to A.

As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED
to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any
stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary
in that reference frame (Tu = Td). But when the two clocks are moving
along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu Td). However, when
the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab
frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the
up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be
required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time. If
you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and
unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info



  #6  
Old November 6th 09, 02:57 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
glird
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Nov 5, 10:02*am, GSS wrote:

I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or

expansion of a spatial length always induces
a strain field in the region and that all
strain fields are subjected to certain
physical constraints like continuity of
associated displacements and equilibrium of
associated stresses.

In his 1904 paper Lorentz showed that the opposite is correct, i.e.
that objects shrink in order to ELIMINATE what would otherwise have
been a strain in the local material field.

Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn)flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?


No; I would call it defective semantics.
(The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of
which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as
measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.

Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks

at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a
laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link
pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and
reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively.
Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse
propagation from B to A.

IF we assume that Earth is a stationary system and that A and B are
perpendicular to Earth's (flat) surface, and IF we ignore the effects
of the different strength of gravity at A compared to at B, then Tu
would be equal to Td.

As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any

stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary
in that reference frame (Tu = Td).

The two times WOULD be equal if the clocks were at rest in any
stationary ystem regardless of the direction of a line joining the
two.

But when the two clocks are moving along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu Td).


That's right, although it is wrong.
(If you find that ambiguous, note that so is your "absolute
synchronization". If you use Einstein's method of setting clocks then
stationary clocks WOULD measure Tu as identical to Td. But if you
esynch clocks of a moving system, i.e. set them to MEASURE the speed
of light as identical in any and all directions, they will do so even
though the actual times are not equal.

However, when the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab
frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time.


"Simultaneously" as measured by who, and how?
If you mean "at the same instant", then yes; Tu will be equal to Td as
plotted by an esynched moving system even though they won't be equal
as plotted by a differently moving system. Indeed that is the entire
meaning of Einstein's long equation immediately prior to his setting
x' "infinitesimally small".

If you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?


Yes. And No. (It depends on what you mean by "at the 'same
time'" :-).

glird
  #7  
Old November 6th 09, 04:32 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Nov 6, 6:57 am, glird wrote:
On Nov 5, 10:02 am, GSS wrote:

I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or

expansion of a spatial length always induces
a strain field in the region and that all
strain fields are subjected to certain
physical constraints like continuity of
associated displacements and equilibrium of
associated stresses.

In his 1904 paper Lorentz showed that the opposite is correct, i.e.
that objects shrink in order to ELIMINATE what would otherwise have
been a strain in the local material field.

That is not quite correct.
Consider the boundary surface of a solid object in its normal state
when it is free from all strains and stresses. Once you alter or
deform the shape of this boundary surface in any way, internal strains
are bound to develop with in the body of that object. However, if
instead of deforming the boundary surface, you induce internal strains
within the body by either temperature changes or through the action
of body forces, then the internal stresses will tend to get partially
dissipated through induced alteration in the boundary surface. But
once the boundary surface gets deformed from its normal 'strain-free'
state, internal body strains will always be present (unless the body
undergoes plastic deformation).

Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?


No; I would call it defective semantics.
(The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of
which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as
measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.

You have made an important point that length L of the steel rod will
not "actually become" L1, L2 etc. but will only APPEAR to become L1,
L2 etc. That means the length L is the "actual" or proper length of
the steel rod and the lengths L1, L2 etc. are the APPARENT lengths as
seen by W1, W2 etc.

It is said that appearances can be deceptive. Similarly apparent
values of physical parameters can also be deceptive. For example we
see the sun rise from east and set in the west, apparently traversing
a circular arc of about 150 million km radius in 12 hours. Thus the
sun 'appears' to move in the sky with an apparent speed of about 10000
km/s which is quite misleading. Further, the moon 'appears' to be much
bigger in size than any of the stars. These apparent sizes of the moon
and the stars are obviously quite misleading. Naturally if someone
makes use of apparent values of physical parameters to develop a
theory, such a theory is bound to be misleading. As per your own
statement, L1, L2 etc. in the above example are only apparent values.
Thus the Lorentz transformation which deals with such apparent values
of physical parameters should obviously be branded as misleading.
Shouldn't therefore SR too be branded as misleading?

Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and

separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks
at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a
laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link
pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and
reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively.
Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse
propagation from B to A.

IF we assume that Earth is a stationary system and that A and B are
perpendicular to Earth's (flat) surface, and IF we ignore the effects
of the different strength of gravity at A compared to at B, then Tu
would be equal to Td.

As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary in that reference frame (Tu = Td).


The two times WOULD be equal if the clocks were at rest in any
stationary system regardless of the direction of a line joining the
two.

But when the two clocks are moving along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu Td).


That's right, although it is wrong.
(If you find that ambiguous, note that so is your "absolute
synchronization". If you use Einstein's method of setting clocks then
stationary clocks WOULD measure Tu as identical to Td. But if you
esynch clocks of a moving system, i.e. set them to MEASURE the speed
of light as identical in any and all directions, they will do so even
though the actual times are not equal.

I have already stated above that "Let us position two identical atomic
clocks at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. "
Perhaps you did not read my earlier post dated Nov 3, carefully
because I have already ruled out Einstein synchronization in the
proposed experiment. Therefore, let me reproduce it again,

[For proper conduct of the proposed experiment, the precision atomic
clocks located at fixed points A and B are required to be in 'absolute
synchronization' rather than the 'Einstein synchronization'. However,
achieving 'absolute synchronization' for the spatially separated
precision atomic clocks is rendered difficult, firstly by the inherent
clock drift and secondly by the same absolute motion which is intended
to be detected by the proposed experiment. But the 'plus' point of
this very situation is that once we establish the absolute motion of
earth in space, 'absolute synchronization' of spacecraft atomic clocks
will become practically feasible in future.]

[The first option in the present case is to use two precision atomic
clocks which are initially synchronized at one common place and then
positioned at the fixed locations A and B. For the success of this
method, the inherent drift in each of the two clocks must be within
one nanosecond over 24 hour period.]

[For the second option, consider two Rubidium atomic clocks A and B,
each connected through an optical fiber link to a Master atomic clock
C such that the optical length of the fiber link from C to A is the
same as that from C to B. Let the two clocks A and B be perfectly
synchronized with master clock C with a timing resolution of about one
nanosecond. Here the term 'perfectly synchronized' implies that when
the clock C reads UTC time t1, the clocks A and B will also read t1.
Therefore, it is obvious that the clocks A and B can be regarded as
mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long as they are both
perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C, even if the
master clock C does not depict the perfect UTC time.]

[For the third option, we may replace the master clock C with the GPS
synchronized time. Therefore, we can use two Rubidium atomic clocks A
and B, each synchronized to the GPS time within one nanosecond
resolution. Once the clocks A and B get perfectly synchronized to the
GPS time, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute
terms, regardless of the inherent limitations or inaccuracies of the
GPS timing system. I consider the third option to be practically most
suitable for the proposed experiment.]

However, when the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time.


"Simultaneously" as measured by who, and how?


The term "simultaneously" is used here in the usual sense as conveyed
by the following illustrations:

The earth moves in its orbital motion around the sun while it
"simultaneously" rotates about its axis.

The sun is almost fixed in the Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame
(BCRF) while it is "simultaneously" in motion in the Galactic
Reference Frame.

If you mean "at the same instant", then yes; Tu will be equal to Td as
plotted by an esynched moving system even though they won't be equal
as plotted by a differently moving system. Indeed that is the entire
meaning of Einstein's long equation immediately prior to his setting
x' "infinitesimally small".

Again I am not referring to any "esynched" clocks. I am referring to
digital readouts of instantaneous timing events, as recorded in the
system computers. The up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td) signal
propagation times are recorded in computer memory in real time and
these values correspond to unique physical parameters.

What you seem to be unable to understand is that while the clocks A
and B are seen to be at rest in the local or the Lab frame, they are
"simultaneously" seen to be in motion in BCRF. When Tu and Td are
supposed to be equal in the Lab frame (as per SR), they are
"simultaneously" required to be un-equal in the BCRF (as per SR) since
they are in motion in BCRF.

If you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?


Yes. And No. (It depends on what you mean by "at the 'same
time'" :-).

glird


Well, if you say Yes and No at the same time, you must be a
Relativist!!

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
  #8  
Old November 10th 09, 01:26 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle,sci.math
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Nov 6, 8:32 pm, GSS wrote:
On Nov 6, 6:57 am, glird wrote:

.....
Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?


No; I would call it defective semantics.
(The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of
which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as
measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.


You have made an important point that length L of the steel rod will
not "actually become" L1, L2 etc. but will only APPEAR to become L1,
L2 etc. That means the length L is the "actual" or proper length of
the steel rod and the lengths L1, L2 etc. are the APPARENT lengths as
seen by W1, W2 etc.

It is said that appearances can be deceptive. Similarly apparent
values of physical parameters can also be deceptive. For example we
see the sun rise from east and set in the west, apparently traversing
a circular arc of about 150 million km radius in 12 hours. Thus the
sun 'appears' to move in the sky with an apparent speed of about 10000
km/s which is quite misleading. Further, the moon 'appears' to be much
bigger in size than any of the stars. These apparent sizes of the moon
and the stars are obviously quite misleading. Naturally if someone
makes use of apparent values of physical parameters to develop a
theory, such a theory is bound to be misleading. As per your own
statement, L1, L2 etc. in the above example are only apparent values.
Thus the Lorentz transformation which deals with such apparent values
of physical parameters should obviously be branded as misleading.
Shouldn't therefore SR too be branded as misleading?

However, Relativity experts will still wriggle out of this
embarrassing situation regarding misleading nature of Relativity. As
per them, the length L of the steel rod, in a stationary reference
frame K, does not "actually become" L1 but only "APPEARS to become" L1
when "MEASURED" by a moving observer W1.

This stance of Relativity experts needs to be critically examined.
When we measure the length L of a steel rod, we get the result of
measurement in certain length units, say 3 meters. If we use some
standard length unit Lu (like a meter rod or a foot ruler) to measure
the given length L of the steel rod, then the result of the
measurement will be stated as "n Lu" where n is a real number. That
is to say, length L is equal to n times Lu, where
n = L/Lu .... (1)
This measurement process can even be automated with some robotic
system and the result of measurement "n" can be recorded in the system
computer.

Now consider the situation where a moving observer W1 finds that the
length L of the steel rod APPEARS to have become L1, such that
L1=q.L . Obviously however, when L appears to become q.L, the standard
length unit Lu will also appear to become q.Lu, so that the standard
measurement process will again yield the same measure number n as,
n = q.L/(q.Lu) .... (2)
This shows that, had the moving observer W1 experienced a simple
"apparent reduction" in length of the stationary steel rod, then a
similar "apparent reduction" in the standard length unit (say a meter
rod) would have left the final "measurement reading" n, of the length
of the steel rod, totally unaffected.

But this is not what is intended in Relativity. So the Relativity
experts then introduce a special "MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE" which yields
a reduction in "measurement reading" when the length of the steel rod
fixed in a stationary reference frame is "measured" by a moving
observer W1. As per this special "measurement procedure" the moving
observer W1 will have to use a standard length unit Lu which is "co-
moving" with the observer (or at rest in the observer's local frame)
to effect the measurement of the steel rod of length L in the
stationary reference frame K. This special measurement process will
yield a different measure number n' as,
n' = q.L/(Lu) = q.n ...... (3)
This special "measurement procedure" to be used by the moving observer
W1, turns out to be fully compatible with the mathematical structure
of Relativity.

However, such a special "measurement procedure" in which a moving
observer "measures" the length of a stationary steel rod by using a
"moving" length unit Lu, is practically not feasible, even with the
use of modern cutting edge technology. It is a fact that such a
special "measurement procedure", in which the length of a stationary
steel rod could be measured by using a "moving" length unit Lu, has
neither been actually used nor can ever be used even in principle. At
the most such a special "measurement procedure" could be described as
hypothetical.

Hence the Special theory of Relativity (SR), which employs such
special "measurement procedures" can at the most be regarded as a
hypothetical mathematical model and not a physical theory.

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
  #9  
Old January 1st 10, 06:17 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle
GSS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Nov 10 2009, 5:26 pm, GSS wrote:
.....
On Nov 6, 6:57 am, glird wrote:

....
Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?


No; I would call it defective semantics.
(The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of
which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as
measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.


You have made an important point that length L of the steel rod will
not "actually become" L1, L2 etc. but will only APPEAR to become L1,
L2 etc. That means the length L is the "actual" or proper length of
the steel rod and the lengths L1, L2 etc. are the APPARENT lengths as
seen by W1, W2 etc.


It is said that appearances can be deceptive. Similarly apparent
values of physical parameters can also be deceptive. For example we
see the sun rise from east and set in the west, apparently traversing
a circular arc of about 150 million km radius in 12 hours. Thus the
sun 'appears' to move in the sky with an apparent speed of about 10000
km/s which is quite misleading. Further, the moon 'appears' to be much
bigger in size than any of the stars. These apparent sizes of the moon
and the stars are obviously quite misleading. Naturally if someone
makes use of apparent values of physical parameters to develop a
theory, such a theory is bound to be misleading. As per your own
statement, L1, L2 etc. in the above example are only apparent values.
Thus the Lorentz transformation which deals with such apparent values
of physical parameters should obviously be branded as misleading.
Shouldn't therefore SR too be branded as misleading?


However, Relativity experts will still wriggle out of this
embarrassing situation regarding misleading nature of Relativity. As
per them, the length L of the steel rod, in a stationary reference
frame K, does not "actually become" L1 but only "APPEARS to become" L1
when "MEASURED" by a moving observer W1.

This stance of Relativity experts needs to be critically examined.
When we measure the length L of a steel rod, we get the result of
measurement in certain length units, say 3 meters. If we use some
standard length unit Lu (like a meter rod or a foot ruler) to measure
the given length L of the steel rod, then the result of the
measurement will be stated as "n Lu" where n is a real number. That
is to say, length L is equal to n times Lu, where
n = L/Lu .... (1)
This measurement process can even be automated with some robotic
system and the result of measurement "n" can be recorded in the system
computer.

Now consider the situation where a moving observer W1 finds that the
length L of the steel rod APPEARS to have become L1, such that
L1=q.L . Obviously however, when L appears to become q.L, the standard
length unit Lu will also appear to become q.Lu, so that the standard
measurement process will again yield the same measure number n as,
n = q.L/(q.Lu) .... (2)
This shows that, had the moving observer W1 experienced a simple
"apparent reduction" in length of the stationary steel rod, then a
similar "apparent reduction" in the standard length unit (say a meter
rod) would have left the final "measurement reading" n, of the length
of the steel rod, totally unaffected.

But this is not what is intended in Relativity. So the Relativity
experts then introduce a special "MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE" which yields
a reduction in "measurement reading" when the length of the steel rod
fixed in a stationary reference frame is "measured" by a moving
observer W1. As per this special "measurement procedure" the moving
observer W1 will have to use a standard length unit Lu which is "co-
moving" with the observer (or at rest in the observer's local frame)
to effect the measurement of the steel rod of length L in the
stationary reference frame K. This special measurement process will
yield a different measure number n' as,
n' = q.L/(Lu) = q.n ...... (3)
This special "measurement procedure" to be used by the moving observer
W1, turns out to be fully compatible with the mathematical structure
of Relativity.

Supporters of Relativity often claim that no experiment has yet
refuted SR. May I request some Relativity expert to describe how the
'length contraction' in SR has been practically verified through
physical measurements.

However, such a special "measurement procedure" in which a moving
observer "measures" the length of a stationary steel rod by using a
"moving" length unit Lu, is practically not feasible, even with the
use of modern cutting edge technology. It is a fact that such a
special "measurement procedure", in which the length of a stationary
steel rod could be measured by using a "moving" length unit Lu, has
neither been actually used nor can ever be used even in principle. At
the most such a special "measurement procedure" could be described as
hypothetical.

Does anybody disagree?

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info
  #10  
Old January 1st 10, 07:06 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.astro,sci.physics.particle
Dono.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 83
Default Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Jan 1, 9:17 am, ASS wrote:


"Not feasible" doesn't mean "refuted", imbecile.
Now crawl back where you came from.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics GSS Astronomy Misc 85 October 5th 09 09:23 AM
Subject: Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics Rock Brentwood Astronomy Misc 0 September 22nd 09 12:54 AM
Paradigm-shift loving oddballs at... Biscuit Astronomy Misc 0 December 24th 06 03:52 PM
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics Stephen Mooney Amateur Astronomy 2 May 31st 04 04:30 AM
The Paradigm Shift Revolution of Physics Stephen Mooney SETI 0 May 30th 04 08:53 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.