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

Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 23rd 06, 07:09 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR


Intersitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR
~v~~

Jeff Root:

I get what you are arguing: The amount of contraction seen
in an object at a given point in space is different for
observers moving at different speeds relative to the thing
being observed. And that seems self-contradictory.


Not quite, Jeff. Let me show you an example: We have two interstitial
bodies traveling at different velocities with overlapping geometric SR
frames of reference, AF and CD which align in the following way:

A--------------(C---v2------D)------v1-----------F

And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across
AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time. But since
the velocity of AF is different from the velocity of CD different
contraction factors would have to apply to each. However because AF
and CD overlap one another in space this cannot be. Hence both frames
of reference cannot both be contracted in exactly the way needed to
explain the null results of MM conducted seperately across each frame
of reference at the same time on any uniform basis. Thus uniform
material or geometric contraction of the type needed to explain the
null results of such experiments is not possible.

~v~~
  #2  
Old December 23rd 06, 08:07 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:15 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:


Intersitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR
~v~~

Jeff Root:

I get what you are arguing: The amount of contraction seen
in an object at a given point in space is different for
observers moving at different speeds relative to the thing
being observed. And that seems self-contradictory.


Not quite, Jeff. Let me show you an example: We have two interstitial
bodies traveling at different velocities with overlapping geometric SR
frames of reference, AF and CD which align in the following way:

A--------------(C---v2------D)------v1-----------F

And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across
AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time. But since
the velocity of AF is different from the velocity of CD different
contraction factors would have to apply to each. However because AF
and CD overlap one another in space this cannot be. Hence both frames
of reference cannot both be contracted in exactly the way needed to
explain the null results of MM conducted seperately across each frame
of reference at the same time on any uniform basis. Thus uniform
material or geometric contraction of the type needed to explain the
null results of such experiments is not possible.

~v~~


~v~~
  #3  
Old December 25th 06, 06:50 PM posted to sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro,alt.sci.physics,sci.physics.relativity
Lester Zick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 735
Default Interstitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:07:33 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 11:09:15 -0700, Lester Zick
wrote:


Intersitial Bodies and Reference Frames in SR
~v~~

Jeff Root:

I get what you are arguing: The amount of contraction seen
in an object at a given point in space is different for
observers moving at different speeds relative to the thing
being observed. And that seems self-contradictory.


Not quite, Jeff. Let me show you an example: We have two interstitial
bodies traveling at different velocities with overlapping geometric SR
frames of reference, AF and CD which align in the following way:

A--------------(C---v2------D)------v1-----------F

And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across
AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time. But since
the velocity of AF is different from the velocity of CD different
contraction factors would have to apply to each. However because AF
and CD overlap one another in space this cannot be. Hence both frames
of reference cannot both be contracted in exactly the way needed to
explain the null results of MM conducted seperately across each frame
of reference at the same time on any uniform basis. Thus uniform
material or geometric contraction of the type needed to explain the
null results of such experiments is not possible.


On 24 Dec 2006 20:57:30 -0800, "GSS"
wrote:


Lester Zick wrote:
On 23 Dec 2006 08:50:09 -0800, "GSS"
wrote:


George Dishman wrote:


[. . .]

Not quite. What the MMX actually measures in the time
difference between the arrival of the same beam-split
wave front after traversing the two paths.

Not quite. What the MMX actually measures is the *phase* difference
between the waves after traversing the two paths.

Phase difference is just 2*pi*f*t where f is the
frequency and t is the time difference so they
are essentially the same thing.

That is on the assumption that frequency f is not influenced by the
motion of the emitter or reflector of light. But we know that the
thermal motion of atoms and molecules does affect the frequency of
emitted light. So it is not unreasonable to expect that the frequency f
could be influenced by the motion (speed) of the emitter or reflector.
The alternative explanation of MMX referred below is based precisely on
this dependence of f on the speed of motion of the emitter or the
reflector.


Gurcharn, I don't know if you're familiar with all my previous posts
on this subject but this is precisely what is required to produce the
anticipated positive results for MM.

No, I don't know to which particular post you are refering to. AFAIK
the MMX type experiments have been repeated many times and in many
forms. But in each and every case the result depends on the
interference phenomenon controlled by the phase difference of
reflected beams of light in two perpendicular arms of the setup.


Well it's controlled by the phase difference as manifested of the
combination of relative velocity of light and beam frequency. Appended
here is the recent message I was referring to:

(On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 00:17:07 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 22:32:19 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...

Yeah, look, George, maybe this was a bad idea after all. At least on
this particular subject I know considerably more than you seem to
think you do since I researched the subject in detail for five years
both in the journal, scientific, and popular literature and understand
the mechanics involved thoroughly.

I can only surmise you were being somewhat economical
in your descriptions because your reply mixed together
parts of three quite different theories. My comments
were mainly just making sure it was clear which of
your comments applied to which of the theories. Most
of your comments are valid but only for certain
theories.


The parsimony was only directed at determining the degree of interest
and what direction it might lie in.


That's OK, it just reminded me of the other conversation
where you talked about an "inverse square velocity curve".
You meant "a velocity curve derived from an inverse square
gravitational force" while I took it to mean "a velocity
which depends on the inverse square of the radius" so we
ended up at cross purposes.


Yeah, reductionist expressionism I suppose. I've always tended towards
a maximum economy of expression where possible. Sometimes it costs me.

My point regarding one monochromatic light source only
having one frequency should be self-evident so I don't
understand why you are objecting to that.



But you know that's exactly the problem. Michelson went to great
lengths to ensure the light was monochromatic. So we're looking for an
exotic unobvious explanation.The difficulty is that if we can discount
Einstein's geometric and Lorentz's physical contraction hypotheses
we're only left with a couple of experimental variables, one of which
could be frequency if we understood all the mechanics involved.


The problem is that a change of the frequency of the
source would cause a change of fringe spacing but not
a shift of the zero point since both beams are taken
from the single source and remain in phase at the point
of splitting. Even if one beam changed frequency but
the other didn't (e.g. we use two separate sources),
what you get is a fringe pattern that drifts at a rate
determined by the beat frequency.


Granted given the single source. However Michelson-Morley used
unpolarized light whereas Kennedy-Thorndike (KT) used plane polarized
light. My idea is that Einstein's frequency dilation comes into play
any time a light source is moving according to the relative
bidirectional velocity of light normal to the direction of the beam.
And the degree of dilation is governed by the bidirectional relative
velocity of light along the E vector.

Now the splitting mirror remains fixed with respect to the light
source but does come into play because the mirror's 45 degree axis of
split lies normal to the platform and in MM would have preferentially
reflected and excluded sodium light from the source with polarization
angles perpendicular to the axis of platform rotation. Thus MM would
have effectively used predominantly plane polarized and interference
fringes would have predominantly resulted from the interaction of
plane polarized light just as in KT. (By the way if memory serves KT
used unequal arm lengths just to demonstrate that had no effect.)

Now this effect I call frequency conjugation where plane polarized
light is dilated in frequency according to the bidirectional relative
velocity of light along the E axis of polarization. And this is where
Einstein's so called time dilation actually comes from.If you remember
he never actually showed any physical mechanism for time dilation, he
just posits it as a mechanically ambiguous dilation in "time".

Please excuse the length and complexity of explanation but the effect
is rather complex in mechanical terms but almost certainly does exist.
At least I can demonstrate the effect as a composite conjugation of
frequency and relative path length.I've actually done all the compound
trig calculations in three dimensions and they clearly show that
unless the experimental platform is traveling through space exactly
normal to the path of travel, Michelson's original expectations should
be and I'm certain can be realized. All that's really necessary is to
use and keep the light polarized normal to the plane of the platform
and along the axis of platform rotation. Then frequencies along both
mutually perpendicular paths will remain constant. The experiment is
just too simple not to work.

I can
do the former on quite solid theoretical grounds ..


I don't believe you can for SR, though you might manage
for Lorentz Aether, but that's another discussion.


Well this theoretical explantion is really quite brief and applies
equally to any form of supposedly uniform platform contraction such as
would be required to cause the null effects posited either by Einstein
or Lorentz. It's what I call the problem of interstitial bodies. All
nominally solid bodies are composed of myriads of particles traveling
at myriad different velocities and directions.

In principle we could have performed MM or KT between the earth and
moon and some other body at right angles to them. Then we might have
simultaneously conducted an identical experiment within the spatial
boundaries of the first experiment. Consequently we'd have different
contraction factors applicable to common regions of space and if
contraction could be true the experiment would have to succeed to some
extent in one or the other and consequently as a matter of mechanical
principle would have to succeed to some degree in both. No way around
it.

Nor would it do any good to suggest that the underlying effects of
velocity can average out because any average would represent a first
order effect but the supposed contraction, frequency dilation, and
changes in relative path length are all second order effects.

I think you can see why the conjugate frequency dilation effect I
describe above becomes essential to any conceivable mechanical
explanation for the null results of MM. It's just that any uniform
path length contraction of the type required to explain the null
results of relative motion studies like MM is physically impossible.

.. so either Michelson's
expectations should be realized or we're looking for an exotic
explanation (by which I mean exotic effect in the physical sense).
Even Michelson himself once remarked that perhaps we don't know quite
enough about the physics involved to do these experiments.


Well he would, wouldn't he ;-)


Sure. I would have too. It's just that he was operating under the
umbrella of classical rationalism. His experiment ought to work; it
was just too simple not to work. And yet it didn't. And he could
conceive of no reasonable explanation. And it's taken more than a full
century now to explain why it didn't work and how it can work. You
remember the "less than 10% of anticipated experimental results"
Michelson did manage to obtain? I think they came from the part of
light polarized normal to the axis of rotation not preferentially
excluded by the splitting mirror.

Fine by me except I don't really know what you mean by "galilean"
except I assume from what you say you mean an inert aether.

The term is used quite often to indicate an aether in
which Galilean relativity applies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princip...ean_relativity

I'm sure you know of the principle so perhaps you haven't
come across the term being applied to distinguish between
aether theories.


True. I've heard of Lorentzian aether and Lorentzian aether drift.


Interesting, I haven't heard of the latter since the
Lorentz transforms mean any drift speed becomes
undetectable.


Well "Lorentzian aether" is really only my term. Since I don't really
care about the aether I haven't bothered to classify these kinds of
things rigorously. The aether is there and presumably is has some kind
of properties in what terms I really couldn't say. The fact that light
travels through it as a medium is all that's really necessary to
conduct relative motion experiments of the Michelson-Morley type.

Apart from that I've only heard of the aether in purely inert terms.


"Inert"? That may be "Galilean" by another name.


Probably. By "inert" I just mean the aether doesn't participate in and
isn't an experimental variable in relative motion studies of the
Michelson-Morley variety.

If you want to pick up the other conversation, by all
means do so. There shouldn't be a problem discussing the
table and confirming Kepler's Law since we can check all
my figures with a calculator if you like and your welcome
to trim the rest if you feel it would become argumentative.


You know, George, I really don't doubt your numbers or Kepler's Law.
What puzzles me though are that we have the inverse square law of
gravitational attraction where f~1/rr and I'm just trying to reconcile
that in my own mind as producing some kind of specific different
orbital velocities at different r's for circular orbits.The web source
I went to confirmed Kepler's Third Law but used it to justify inverse
square gravitational force instead of vice versa. I don't mind
revisiting the issue but it's difficult to sit down and put all the
conceptual blocks in order to do the calculations to get tt~rrr. Same
reason I haven't revisited my explanation for the Pioneer anomaly yet.
I just don't want to crunch the numbers. In fact I never wanted to and
if I hadn't run into that serendipitous coincidence I would never have
raised the issue at all except in purely speculative terms.


You don't need to do the numbers, try working through the
equations in small steps. Start with the gravitational
force as inverse square. Turn the equation for centrifugal
force in terms of speed and radius around and find the speed
to balance the gravitational force. Find the circumference
from the radius and divide the circumference by the speed to
get the period. (E&OE)


Yeah, George, I know. Fact is everything you see me talking about here
and in previous posts is all the product of twenty years ago. Then I
knew I'd have to calculate the compound effect of relative path length
and conjugate frequency dilation to prove it actually consistently
worked in mechanical terms in three dimensional trigonometric terms.
So I got some trig books out of the library and started crunching
numbers. Eventually the numbers ran to several typed pages and the
last equation was at least a couple of pages in length. And I knew I'd
have to make an effort to calculate the anomalous perihelion advance
of Mercury to have any kind of credibility whatsoever. So I went to
the library and researched some numbers on the distribution of mass
and velocities of rotation within the sun to calculate the effect of
what I call "gravitational doppler". (Fortunately the library lay at
the foot of my street.) But that was twenty years ago and now I'm
really not so sure I care all that much anymore. Now I'm really more
just talking concepts and willing to leave the calculations to others.

~v~~)
[. . .]

With the type of constraints proposed by you for conducting a physical
measurement, I also feel that the verification of the notion of 'length
contraction' through physical measurements may not really be possible.
Under the circumstances, I agree that we should explore the possibility
of using some indirect methods like improved MMX. By improved MMX, I
mean a MMX type experiment where instead of comparing the phase
difference in two beams of light on perpendicular arms, we could
compare the actual pulse propagation times over the perpendicular arms.
If you agree, I may propose a more detailed feasibility for physically
conducting such an improved MMX type experiment.


I disagree here, Gurcharn, with the particulars you suggest. I
consider phase comparison perfectly adequate for an improved
Michelson-Morley experiment.


Sorry Lester, here I too cannot agree with you. Phase comparison in MMX
leads to misleading interpretation of the result precisely due to the
assumption of invariant nature of frequency f with the motion of
emitters and reflectors.


Well I can agree with your observation, Gurcharn, in general terms.
But the difficulty can be resolved as outlined above in my message to
George.

Nor do I understand exactly how you would
go about comparing actual pulse propagation times if not by means of
phase comparisons.


Kindly refer to my previous discussions with George in this thread at
Sl. No. 13 onwards.
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_u...oglegroups.com


GSS

In any event the only requirement for a successful
version of MM would be to conduct the experiment using only light with
its E vector polarized normal to the plane of platform rotation. As I
remember I mentioned this to George early on before we began quibbling
over various unrelated issues. I've done the 3D trig analysis for what
I call frequency conjugation together with Lorentz transforms for the
anisotropic dilation in the relative speed of light and it shows the
anticipated results for MM should be realizeable.



~v~~
 




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
Dark frames Thomas Womack Amateur Astronomy 7 September 24th 04 10:54 PM
Dark Frames Stuart M UK Astronomy 5 March 16th 04 05:18 PM
Registax and Dark Frames W. Watson CCD Imaging 2 February 13th 04 11:07 PM
Selecting frames for stacking... justbeats Amateur Astronomy 3 December 7th 03 11:50 PM
ISS caught in a few frames Robin Leadbeater UK Astronomy 4 October 4th 03 11:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 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.