|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |