Interstitial Bodies & 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~~

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~~

Lester Zick wrote:
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

In the above diagram:

1) which parts represent the "two interstitial bodies"?

2) "interstitial" means in the gap between something, what
are the bodies between and what represents those items
in the diagram?

3) What are the "different velocities" of the two bodies?

4) You say "AF" and "CD" are names of your frames but have
shown the letters "A", "F", "C" and "D" as separated.
What does that signify?

5) You show lines of "-" with "" and "" which seem to
imply vectors with associated values "v1" and "v2". Are
the start points "A" and "D" then to be taken as the
origins of the frames "AF" and "CD" respectively?

6) Are the vectors from A to F and from D to C:

a) displacement vectors of two objects moving from
location A to F and from D to C in the respective
frames?

b) velocity vectors of the frames themselves and if so
i) are "v1" and "v2" the velocities of the frames
ii) in what third frame do AF and CD have those
velocities?

c) indications of the sense of one of the axes of the
frames since you say they "align in the following
way" (e.g. do you mean the X axis coordinates in
frame AF increase to the right while those in CD
increase to the left)? If so, shouldn't the second
frame be named "DC" for consistency?

And different MM type experiments are conducted across CD and across
AF by observers in each frame of reference at the same time.

These do not appear to be shown in the diagram. Please
add them and label the arms so we can discuss them
more easily, or at least add the arms that lie in the
direction shown in the diagram (I hope we can assume
there is no need to represent the transverse arms for this
discussion).

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.

Untrue, the factor depends on the speed of the object
relative to the observer so there is no problem. However,
this will be easier to explore when you clarify the
ambiguities in your diagram.

George

On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:23:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:02:52 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:38:36 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

snip pointless 'who wrote what' argument

The we need to clear something up. A frame is a coordinate
system like a transparent sheet with a grid scribed on it.

Which is velocity dependent and contracts and expands to explain the
null results of MM class experiments at different velocities

No, the overlapping grids have spacings that are dependent on
the velocity of one grid with respect to the other

Which is just another way of saying the same thing.

The next word after where you snipped was "but". I almost
agree with the first half of your sentence though there
is a subtle differenc in the way I would word it, but I
disagree with the part that says coordinate effects alone
are taken to explain the MMX.

I don't know what you mean by "snipped". I rarely "snip" material. I
intersplice my comments to show exactly what I'm referring to. When
material is snipped I almost invariably insert "[. . .]" to indicate
where material has been deleted.

You claim spatial
coordinate geometry is a dependent variable of velocity through space
but don't show the mechanics of that dependency and how it changes in
accordance with velocity. You say it does but don't show how it can.

Well I have shown it but you said you didn't see how
rotation of the axes could be connected. I can illustrate
that graphically but from past experince you won't look at
that.

Because illustrations are not explanations.

There are two problems here, showing how changes in the coordinate
geometry of space can vary with respect to velocity through space ..

Not "with respect to velocity through space", it varies with
the velocity of the frame with respect to the other frame.

And that relative velocity is through space.

.. when
velocity through one and the same space is itself a dependent variable
of that same space and its coordinate geometry and second showing what
mechanics are involved in changes to the dependent coordinate geometry
of space as a function of velocity. In other words if you claim as you
appear to that spatial coordinate geometry is a function of velocity
through space you're making spatial coordinate geometry a function of
itself.

but that
is not the explanation of the MMX. The MMX is explained by
the fact that the speed of light is isotropic in the rest
frame of the equipment or, from the point of view of another
frame, that there is a change of measured length of the arms
of the equipment due to the velocity of the arm in that frame.

Well sure except that's the same as saying there is contraction of
some kind whether material or geometric and that that's the
explanation for the null results of MM.

Yes, there is a contraction but the key is what you
are ignoring, the difference between the geometric
and a 'material' or 'physical' contracton.

Only because I don't understand what you mean by a difference between
the two. Material geometry is part of geometry. If you have geometric
contraction you have material contraction. And if you don't have
material contraction you don't have geometric contraction. And if you
don't have either you don't have an explanation for the results of MM.

The isotropy of a constant
speed of light was just Einstein's postulate which he extrapolated and
applied through hypothetical contraction to explain the impossibility
of positive results for relative motion studies such as MM.

The contraction is a consequence of the postulates, not
a separate effect as your words seem to imply. I'm not
sure if you meant it that way.

The mechanics of contraction is what I'm after and not the mechanics
of postulates. The Lorentz transformations are anisotropic. Einstein's
postulates are isotropic. It's the mechanics of one in relation to the
other that I'm talking about. It's the mechanism which renders
anisotropic characteristics isotropic that contraction is supposed to
explain whether the mechanism is material or geometric.

SR explains that change of length not as a physical contraction
(like thermal changes) but as a rotation in the x-t plane due
to the relative motion.

I don't know what the latter means ..

That is the one area that is at the root of all our
disagreements.

Okay but it's your claim not mine. If you want to use it to justfiy
the conversion of Lorentzian anisotropy in the context of MM to
Einstein's isotropy it's your responsibility to explain how the
transformation occurs and not mine.

.. but if it doesn't explain length
changes as an actual effect ..

It does.

the Lorentz transformations would still
apply nonetheless and should still produce positive experimental
results in MM.

Other way round, if it didn't produce an actual effect
then the Lorentz transformations would *not* apply and
there should still positive experimental results in MM.

The problem here is that we have the null results of MM and we have
the Lorentz transformations which are anisotropic and describe the
mechanics involved in MM accurately to the best of our understanding.
So if there is no material contraction those transformations should
still apply and produce positive results. But either way the Lorentz
transformations still apply and Einstein's isotropy would still have
to explain why and how they're vitiated to produce the null results.

The Lorentz transformations are only concerned with the
relative longitudinal and transverse speed of light with respect to an
experimental platform and not with any rotations in space.

Not rotation in space, rotation in spacetime.

Then I still don't have any idea what that means. The Lorentz
transformations are what they are in space and the relative
longitudinal and transverse speeds of light with respect to an
experimental plaform don't change in space just because you or anyone
else claims some rotation doesn't occur in space unless you can
explain how some rotation in non space is supposed to affect their
velocity in space. We're talking about actual relative velocities
through space here and not just how they're measured.

and has
trouble explaining those results when overlapping grids are supposed
to apply to the same area of space together.

It has no problem at all, you can overlay as many mathematical
grids on the universe as you like, as I have said many times
before. The arm of an MMX can have as many lengths as there as
frames in which it is measured.

Not if the arms overlap each other in different frames of reference.

I was talking of a single arm. A single arm can have
as many lengths as there as frames in which it is
measured.

And a single experimental arm can have as many interstitial arms
within it as there are frames of reference among which the experiments
are conducted. That's what I was talking about. And different
contraction factors would apply to each such that no uniform
contraction factor can apply to all regardless of how any are measured
to produce the null results of MM.

What cannot happen of course is to have two different lengths
for the same body measured in the same frame, but that never
arises so there is no contradiction, you have yet to identify
any problem.

There is a problem if two different arms are supposed to have two
different lengths in two different frames of reference together.

Two arms, A and B measured in two frames K0 and K1 can
give four different lengths: A in K0, A in K1, B in K0
and B in K1. I don't see any contradiction in that.

If arms overlap one another it doesn't matter how they're measured.
They can't uniformly contract in such a way as to produce the null
results of MM conducted along both arms in different reference frames
together.

Your
reference "for the same body measured in the same frame" is possible
as well but not definitive because the same contraction factor would
apply to both.

Yes, that's the trivial case.

However when the same bodies are interstitial and
overlap one another in different frames of reference different
contraction factors apply to each and that's where the contradiction
occurs.

Why, they have different values because they are measured
in different frames so there is no contradiction. If they
were supposed to have different values _without_ some other
change then I could see your point but not when there is an
obvious cause for the difference.

It really doesn't matter how they're measured. It can't happen. Let's
supposed for the sake of argument there is some other operative factor
we'll call X whether it's your rotation in spacetime or anything else.
The problem is that X has to transform Lorentz's transformations which
are anisotropic into Einstein's or anyone elses isotropic results. You
have at least two different contraction factors M and N which are
applicable to a common overlapping area of space occupied by the
overlapping interstitial experimental arms. So application of any one
contraction factor to that common space either averages out with the
other contraction factor or can't apply uniformly. So a uniformly null
result is not possible for both experiments.Even if X is your rotation
in spacetime two different rotations for one area of space cannot
occur to make Lorentz's transformations uniformly isotropic in both.

~v~~

Repeating my previous reply of the 24th in reply to your
copy in the original thread:


"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:23:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:02:52 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:38:36 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

snip pointless 'who wrote what' argument

The we need to clear something up. A frame is a coordinate
system like a transparent sheet with a grid scribed on it.

Which is velocity dependent and contracts and expands to explain the
null results of MM class experiments at different velocities

No, the overlapping grids have spacings that are dependent on
the velocity of one grid with respect to the other

Which is just another way of saying the same thing.

The next word after where you snipped was "but". I almost
agree with the first half of your sentence though there
is a subtle differenc in the way I would word it, but I
disagree with the part that says coordinate effects alone
are taken to explain the MMX.

I don't know what you mean by "snipped".

A better word would have been "broke", I meant the
point at which you interposed your comment, not
that you had removed anything. I have no objection
to what you did at all, I was merely clarifying that
I had been mostly agreeing up to there as your reply
seemed to treat it as a disagreement.

I rarely "snip" material. I
intersplice my comments to show exactly what I'm referring to. When
material is snipped I almost invariably insert "[. . .]" to indicate
where material has been deleted.

You claim spatial
coordinate geometry is a dependent variable of velocity through space
but don't show the mechanics of that dependency and how it changes in
accordance with velocity. You say it does but don't show how it can.

Well I have shown it but you said you didn't see how
rotation of the axes could be connected. I can illustrate
that graphically but from past experince you won't look at
that.

Because illustrations are not explanations.

Explanations are tansfers of understanding and the
method by which that is communicated makes no
difference. Whether I explain in maths or words or
as a diagram or even if I present it as a Broadway
musical, as long as you grasp my meaning the medium
is irrelevant.

There are two problems here, showing how changes in the coordinate
geometry of space can vary with respect to velocity through space ..

Not "with respect to velocity through space", it varies with
the velocity of the frame with respect to the other frame.

And that relative velocity is through space.

You cannot measure or define speed relative to the
vacuum, what I said is correct, the velocity used in
the Lorentz transforms and derived length contraction
formula relate to frames and objects, not space itself.

Well sure except that's the same as saying there is contraction of
some kind whether material or geometric and that that's the
explanation for the null results of MM.

Yes, there is a contraction but the key is what you
are ignoring, the difference between the geometric
and a 'material' or 'physical' contracton.

Only because I don't understand what you mean by a difference between
the two.

I can see that so I have to find a better way to
communicate what I mean. Once you grasp that, then
you can argue about it if you want to. I'll try to
do something after Christmas.

...
The mechanics of contraction is what I'm after and not the mechanics
of postulates. The Lorentz transformations are anisotropic. Einstein's
postulates are isotropic. It's the mechanics of one in relation to the
other that I'm talking about. It's the mechanism which renders
anisotropic characteristics isotropic that contraction is supposed to
explain whether the mechanism is material or geometric.

Fine but so far when I have explained in words, you
haven't followed and said you saw "no connection".
I need to find a better way to communicate.

SR explains that change of length not as a physical contraction
(like thermal changes) but as a rotation in the x-t plane due
to the relative motion.

I don't know what the latter means ..

That is the one area that is at the root of all our
disagreements.

Okay but it's your claim not mine. If you want to use it to justfiy
the conversion of Lorentzian anisotropy in the context of MM to
Einstein's isotropy it's your responsibility to explain how the
transformation occurs and not mine.

It's not my responsibility to teach anything, if you
want to learn SR it is your responsibility to study
it. Taylor and Wheeler would probably be the best
book to use. However, I will try to explain sometime
in the holidays. Words don't work for you so I'll have
to try something else.

.. but if it doesn't explain length
changes as an actual effect ..

It does.

the Lorentz transformations would still
apply nonetheless and should still produce positive experimental
results in MM.

Other way round, if it didn't produce an actual effect
then the Lorentz transformations would *not* apply and
there should still positive experimental results in MM.

The problem here is that we have the null results of MM and we have
the Lorentz transformations which are anisotropic and describe the
mechanics involved in MM accurately to the best of our understanding.
So if there is no material contraction those transformations should
still apply and produce positive results. But either way the Lorentz
transformations still apply and Einstein's isotropy would still have
to explain why and how they're vitiated to produce the null results.

That's something you can do for yourself. Consider a flash
of light being split and travelling down the two arms, being
reflected and returning to the splitter. Define events for
each of those interactions and find their coordinates in the
rest frame of the arms. Then apply the Lorentz transforms to
the events to get them in some other frame. Then calculate
the time difference for the events relating to the light
returning to the splitter. You will see how it all works out.

The Lorentz transformations are only concerned with the
relative longitudinal and transverse speed of light with respect to an
experimental platform and not with any rotations in space.

Not rotation in space, rotation in spacetime.

Then I still don't have any idea what that means. The Lorentz
transformations are what they are in space ...

No, remember the transforms work on all four coordinates.

... and the relative
longitudinal and transverse speeds of light with respect to an
experimental plaform don't change in space just because you or anyone
else claims some rotation doesn't occur in space unless you can
explain how some rotation in non space is supposed to affect their
velocity in space. We're talking about actual relative velocities
through space here and not just how they're measured.

and has
trouble explaining those results when overlapping grids are supposed
to apply to the same area of space together.

It has no problem at all, you can overlay as many mathematical
grids on the universe as you like, as I have said many times
before. The arm of an MMX can have as many lengths as there as
frames in which it is measured.

Not if the arms overlap each other in different frames of reference.

I was talking of a single arm. A single arm can have
as many lengths as there as frames in which it is
measured.

And a single experimental arm can have as many interstitial arms
within it ..

"between it", interstitial means between.

.. as there are frames of reference among which the experiments
are conducted. That's what I was talking about. And different
contraction factors would apply to each such that no uniform
contraction factor can apply to all regardless of how any are measured
to produce the null results of MM.

Each speed gives uniform contraction to object moving
with uniform (meaning the same) speed. All the parts
of any one MMX are moving with uniform speed so it
works. Any other MMX moving at a different speed still
has all its parts moving that the same "uniform" speed
so you get "uniform contraction". Still no problem

What cannot happen of course is to have two different lengths
for the same body measured in the same frame, but that never
arises so there is no contradiction, you have yet to identify
any problem.

There is a problem if two different arms are supposed to have two
different lengths in two different frames of reference together.

Two arms, A and B measured in two frames K0 and K1 can
give four different lengths: A in K0, A in K1, B in K0
and B in K1. I don't see any contradiction in that.

If arms overlap one another it doesn't matter how they're measured.
They can't uniformly contract in such a way as to produce the null
results of MM conducted along both arms in different reference frames
together.

Since each is moving at uniform speed, there isn't a
problem. If they aren't separated in the direction
perpendicular to the motion of course the bodies will
impact, but that's hardly a concern for the Lorentz
Transforms, only those standing nearby :-)

Your
reference "for the same body measured in the same frame" is possible
as well but not definitive because the same contraction factor would
apply to both.

Yes, that's the trivial case.

However when the same bodies are interstitial and
overlap one another in different frames of reference different
contraction factors apply to each and that's where the contradiction
occurs.

Why, they have different values because they are measured
in different frames so there is no contradiction. If they
were supposed to have different values _without_ some other
change then I could see your point but not when there is an
obvious cause for the difference.

It really doesn't matter how they're measured. It can't happen. Let's
supposed for the sake of argument there is some other operative factor
we'll call X whether it's your rotation in spacetime or anything else.
The problem is that X has to transform Lorentz's transformations which
are anisotropic into Einstein's or anyone elses isotropic results.

Try working the example I suggested above and you
will see that works OK.

You
have at least two different contraction factors M and N which are
applicable to a common overlapping area of space occupied by the
overlapping interstitial experimental arms.

No, M is uniformly applicable to all of one MMX while
N is uniformly applicable to all of the other. Each
applies to bodies moving at a one particular speed.

So application of any one
contraction factor to that common space either averages out with the
other contraction factor or can't apply uniformly.

That makes no sense at all. One and only one factor
applies to each observer since the factor is dependent
on the speed of the observer relative to the body.

So a uniformly null
result is not possible for both experiments.Even if X is your rotation
in spacetime two different rotations for one area of space cannot
occur to make Lorentz's transformations uniformly isotropic in both.

Put two stakes in the ground a metre apart. Stand
10m from the midpoint where your line of sight to
the midpoint makes an angle of 30 degrees to the
line between the stakes. Have a friend stand 10m
from the midpoint but at 45 degrees. The angle
subtended for each of you is 'contracted' compared
to what you would see if your line of sight was
perpendicular to the line between the stakes. You
see different 'contraction factors' because you
are standing in different places. Now add two more
stakes but set the line between them at 10 degrees
to that between the original pair. To ensure they
"overlap in space", make sure the midpoints coincide.
Again you and your friend see different factors but
they are not the same as the first pair. For the
Lorentz Transforms, the values depend on speed
instead of location but other than that there is no
difference in the _logic_. Your argument doesn't
show any contradiction.

George

Lester, this is a copy of another of my replies posted in
the original thread since you are moving everything here.

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Lester Zick" wrote in message ...
On 20 Dec 2006 05:37:23 -0800, "George Dishman" wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On 19 Dec 2006 00:41:10 -0800, "George Dishman" wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:
On 18 Dec 2006 00:40:59 -0800, "George Dishman" wrote:
Lester Zick wrote:

... you seem to be making a
consistent error of assuming SR frames of reference are not
velocity
dependent and are somehow static.

George, this is incorrect. The fourth dimension in SR is time whatever
that means. The first three spatial dimensions don't have any velocity
and don't move through space as a function of time or anything else.
They're simply static ...
...
You're confusing frames of reference with objects in them, George.

Both your comments were regarding frames, not objects.
First you say I'm making an error in thinking they are
"somehow static", then you say "They're simply static".

Objects have velocity and move through space. Frames of reference are
determined in accordance with the common velocity of objects in them.

So if the objects are in relative motion, so are the
spatial coordinate systems defined by them.

Sorry Lester, SR explains velocity as a rotation. It
also deals perfectly well with both accelerated objects
in inertial frames and even accelerated frames but that
is a different topic.

Perfectly fascinating, George. Next you'll be claiming SR explains the
grinch who stole Christmas too.

Just filling you in on some basic facts. Thinking that SR
only applies to inertial frames is a common misconception.

No Lester, the difference between on frame and another
is that the origin of one is in motion in the other. That
speed is what goes into the Lorentz Transforms to
convert coordinates in one into equivalent coordinates
in the other.

The velocity associated with a frame of reference goes into the
Lorentz transforms, George.

Yes Lester, that's what I just said.

That doesn't mean a frame of reference
moves with respect to others.

Yes it does. The velocity that goes into the transforms
to convert coordinates in one system into coordinates
in the other is that of the origin of the second system
in the first. You've obviously never tried to use the
theory in practice.

Whatever, George. Maybe Gurcharn has the patience to deal with all
your various and sundry misconceptions regarding SR but I don't.

No misconceptions Lester, just the basic introductory
groundwork for SR that it seems you have never before
encountered.

Well, George, SR has nothing to do with rotation for the reason noted
above.

Sorry Lester, that is wrong. You really need to read some
textbooks.

And you really need some accurate information, George, ..

It is accurate, and it is just the basics of the theory.
Most modern textbooks explain it that way as it is an
essential precursor to GR, though some older texts tried
to use the old 'relativistic mass' style of approach.

Noting that a change of velocity of an object is a
rotation of its worldline is the basis of SR.

Yadayada whatever. More buzzwords.

Velocity? Rotation? Maybe you are puzzled by "worldline".
It is the standard jargon of the subject Lester, everyone
who studies the subject it at any level knows what a
worldline is.

I'm not interested in a song and dance where you can't even explain
what you're talking about in so many words that are supposed to
connect up with one another.

So open a book on the subject and find out what they mean.
So far it looks as though you've tried to figure it out
for yourself and all you've done is re-invent Lorentz's
aether.

George

On 29 Dec 2006 03:54:29 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Repeating my previous reply of the 24th in reply to your
copy in the original thread:

Once more unto the google breach I fear, George. No idea why your
previous reply never showed up on the original thread. Didn't press
because of the holidays. Just out of curiosity is this post showing up
on the new thread or am I still stuck on the old?

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...

~v~~

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec 2006 03:54:29 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Repeating my previous reply of the 24th in reply to your
copy in the original thread:

Once more unto the google breach I fear, George. No idea why your
previous reply never showed up on the original thread.

What a pain. I'm going to have to raise a ticket
with them, this is getting beyond a joke.

Didn't press
because of the holidays. Just out of curiosity is this post showing up
on the new thread or am I still stuck on the old?

This is in the new thread, only the content was copied
from the old. You should be able to use this link to
see your message to which I replied:

"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...

George

On 29 Dec 2006 03:54:29 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Repeating my previous reply of the 24th in reply to your
copy in the original thread:

George, since your post is a reply to your original reply to me I may
miss certain of your comments which appear as previously posted
material. If I overlook something of importance please let me know.
But I think this post-reply sequence has gotten long enough and I
would like to trim it down to some kind of basics if you don't mind.

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:23:17 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:02:52 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
news:crfjo25d95k8gm2ie0cfitg51mtebvn0c6@4ax. com...
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 23:38:36 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:

***********************************

snip pointless 'who wrote what' argument

The we need to clear something up. A frame is a coordinate
system like a transparent sheet with a grid scribed on it.

Which is velocity dependent and contracts and expands to explain the
null results of MM class experiments at different velocities

No, the overlapping grids have spacings that are dependent on
the velocity of one grid with respect to the other

Which is just another way of saying the same thing.

The next word after where you snipped was "but". I almost
agree with the first half of your sentence though there
is a subtle differenc in the way I would word it, but I
disagree with the part that says coordinate effects alone
are taken to explain the MMX.

I don't know what you mean by "snipped".

A better word would have been "broke", I meant the
point at which you interposed your comment, not
that you had removed anything. I have no objection
to what you did at all, I was merely clarifying that
I had been mostly agreeing up to there as your reply
seemed to treat it as a disagreement.

Got it. When two or more thoughts are contained in a single paragraph
I occasionally interpolate replies to show exactly what I'm commenting
on. In any event if there is no serious disagreement then I'd like to
omit this whole section. I'll post rows of asterisks to delimit what I
think we might omit.

I rarely "snip" material. I
intersplice my comments to show exactly what I'm referring to. When
material is snipped I almost invariably insert "[. . .]" to indicate
where material has been deleted.
*******************************
You claim spatial
coordinate geometry is a dependent variable of velocity through space
but don't show the mechanics of that dependency and how it changes in
accordance with velocity. You say it does but don't show how it can.

Well I have shown it but you said you didn't see how
rotation of the axes could be connected. I can illustrate
that graphically but from past experince you won't look at
that.

Because illustrations are not explanations.

Explanations are tansfers of understanding and the
method by which that is communicated makes no
difference. Whether I explain in maths or words or
as a diagram or even if I present it as a Broadway
musical, as long as you grasp my meaning the medium
is irrelevant.

Well the problem is whether I grasp your meaning in the same way you
do.It's the same problem I've always had with analogical and exemplary
arguments. It's the socratic dialectical method cast in the form of
pictures or anything else such as a stage play or whatever. Socrates
used to reason expositionally by dialectical example and analogy
instead of analytically. The problem is that there is no guarantee
what his examples may actually have meant in universal terms. All we
have is his word or claim that this or that analogy or example really
conveyed this or that meaning and not some other meaning entirely.

This is exactly where modern mathematikers go wrong with their models.
By and large they're just not exhaustive. It isn't that their models
aren't accurate models; it's what exactly their accurate models are
models of. And until we understand that in exact mechanical and
universal terms there is no point to asserting that this or that model
is a correct model for the point we're trying to establish.

If you reflect on the rather disputatious discussions we had regarding
globular clusters I seem to recollect that you or Jeff or perhaps both
of you thought some pictures were worth a thousand words whereas I was
of the opinion that conservation of angular momentum is dependent on
and a product of radius and kinetic energy is not. So a depiction of
any pictorial or other model which does not model that fundamental
circumstance cannot be an accurate depiction.

There are two problems here, showing how changes in the coordinate
geometry of space can vary with respect to velocity through space ..

Not "with respect to velocity through space", it varies with
the velocity of the frame with respect to the other frame.

And that relative velocity is through space.

You cannot measure or define speed relative to the
vacuum, what I said is correct, the velocity used in
the Lorentz transforms and derived length contraction
formula relate to frames and objects, not space itself.

Yes but what we're, or at least I, am trying to establish is whether
space is a void or vacuum and whether light travels through space at
some constant velocity independent of objects in space and whether
that velocity through space can be measured by means of MM or kindred
experiments. That's the whole point to SR and my analysis of it and
interstitial bodies and frames of reference. So there's no point to
simply saying it ain't so since that's what we're trying to determine.

Well sure except that's the same as saying there is contraction of
some kind whether material or geometric and that that's the
explanation for the null results of MM.

Yes, there is a contraction but the key is what you
are ignoring, the difference between the geometric
and a 'material' or 'physical' contracton.

Only because I don't understand what you mean by a difference between
the two.

I can see that so I have to find a better way to
communicate what I mean. Once you grasp that, then
you can argue about it if you want to. I'll try to
do something after Christmas.

Okay. I don't see that there can be a geometric contraction which
doesn't affect objects measured according to the geometric metric but
I'm certainly willing to listen.

George, let me break this off here and respond to the balance of your
post in another reply.

~v~~

On 29 Dec 2006 03:54:29 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Repeating my previous reply of the 24th in reply to your
copy in the original thread:


"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
"Lester Zick" wrote in message
...

[. . .]

The mechanics of contraction is what I'm after and not the mechanics
of postulates. The Lorentz transformations are anisotropic. Einstein's
postulates are isotropic. It's the mechanics of one in relation to the
other that I'm talking about. It's the mechanism which renders
anisotropic characteristics isotropic that contraction is supposed to
explain whether the mechanism is material or geometric.

Fine but so far when I have explained in words, you
haven't followed and said you saw "no connection".
I need to find a better way to communicate.

SR explains that change of length not as a physical contraction
(like thermal changes) but as a rotation in the x-t plane due
to the relative motion.

I don't know what the latter means ..

That is the one area that is at the root of all our
disagreements.

Okay but it's your claim not mine. If you want to use it to justfiy
the conversion of Lorentzian anisotropy in the context of MM to
Einstein's isotropy it's your responsibility to explain how the
transformation occurs and not mine.

It's not my responsibility to teach anything, if you
want to learn SR it is your responsibility to study
it. Taylor and Wheeler would probably be the best
book to use. However, I will try to explain sometime
in the holidays. Words don't work for you so I'll have
to try something else.

Okay. But I'm not interested in SR. I'm interested in geometric
contraction as an explanation for the transition between Lorentz
anisotropic transforms and Einsteins's isotropic results. If you
maintain SR explains the transition in the context of interstitial
bodies it is certainly your responsibility to explain how that is
possible.

.. but if it doesn't explain length
changes as an actual effect ..

It does.

the Lorentz transformations would still
apply nonetheless and should still produce positive experimental
results in MM.

Other way round, if it didn't produce an actual effect
then the Lorentz transformations would *not* apply and
there should still positive experimental results in MM.

The problem here is that we have the null results of MM and we have
the Lorentz transformations which are anisotropic and describe the
mechanics involved in MM accurately to the best of our understanding.
So if there is no material contraction those transformations should
still apply and produce positive results. But either way the Lorentz
transformations still apply and Einstein's isotropy would still have
to explain why and how they're vitiated to produce the null results.

That's something you can do for yourself. Consider a flash
of light being split and travelling down the two arms, being
reflected and returning to the splitter. Define events for
each of those interactions and find their coordinates in the
rest frame of the arms. Then apply the Lorentz transforms to
the events to get them in some other frame. Then calculate
the time difference for the events relating to the light
returning to the splitter. You will see how it all works out.

The Lorentz transformations are only concerned with the
relative longitudinal and transverse speed of light with respect to an
experimental platform and not with any rotations in space.

Not rotation in space, rotation in spacetime.

Then I still don't have any idea what that means. The Lorentz
transformations are what they are in space ...

No, remember the transforms work on all four coordinates.

Which means what exactly with respect to interstitial bodies and
coincident frames of reference?

... and the relative
longitudinal and transverse speeds of light with respect to an
experimental plaform don't change in space just because you or anyone
else claims some rotation doesn't occur in space unless you can
explain how some rotation in non space is supposed to affect their
velocity in space. We're talking about actual relative velocities
through space here and not just how they're measured.

and has
trouble explaining those results when overlapping grids are supposed
to apply to the same area of space together.

It has no problem at all, you can overlay as many mathematical
grids on the universe as you like, as I have said many times
before. The arm of an MMX can have as many lengths as there as
frames in which it is measured.

Not if the arms overlap each other in different frames of reference.

I was talking of a single arm. A single arm can have
as many lengths as there as frames in which it is
measured.

And a single experimental arm can have as many interstitial arms
within it ..

"between it", interstitial means between.

So what? "Interstitial" meaning "between" can have as many frame of
reference definitions as there are particles within arms moving at
different velocities.

.. as there are frames of reference among which the experiments
are conducted. That's what I was talking about. And different
contraction factors would apply to each such that no uniform
contraction factor can apply to all regardless of how any are measured
to produce the null results of MM.

Each speed gives uniform contraction to object moving
with uniform (meaning the same) speed. All the parts
of any one MMX are moving with uniform speed so it
works. Any other MMX moving at a different speed still
has all its parts moving that the same "uniform" speed
so you get "uniform contraction". Still no problem

Uniform contraction is a speed dependent variable. The problem is that
you can have different speeds within any MM experiment and different
uniform contraction factors.

What cannot happen of course is to have two different lengths
for the same body measured in the same frame, but that never
arises so there is no contradiction, you have yet to identify
any problem.

There is a problem if two different arms are supposed to have two
different lengths in two different frames of reference together.

Two arms, A and B measured in two frames K0 and K1 can
give four different lengths: A in K0, A in K1, B in K0
and B in K1. I don't see any contradiction in that.

If arms overlap one another it doesn't matter how they're measured.
They can't uniformly contract in such a way as to produce the null
results of MM conducted along both arms in different reference frames
together.

Since each is moving at uniform speed, there isn't a
problem. If they aren't separated in the direction
perpendicular to the motion of course the bodies will
impact, but that's hardly a concern for the Lorentz
Transforms, only those standing nearby :-)

I don't understand what this means.

Your
reference "for the same body measured in the same frame" is possible
as well but not definitive because the same contraction factor would
apply to both.

Yes, that's the trivial case.

However when the same bodies are interstitial and
overlap one another in different frames of reference different
contraction factors apply to each and that's where the contradiction
occurs.

Why, they have different values because they are measured
in different frames so there is no contradiction. If they
were supposed to have different values _without_ some other
change then I could see your point but not when there is an
obvious cause for the difference.

It really doesn't matter how they're measured. It can't happen. Let's
supposed for the sake of argument there is some other operative factor
we'll call X whether it's your rotation in spacetime or anything else.
The problem is that X has to transform Lorentz's transformations which
are anisotropic into Einstein's or anyone elses isotropic results.

Try working the example I suggested above and you
will see that works OK.

I don't see anything of the kind. You've got at least two different
contraction factors supposedly applicable to the same interstitial
bodies and regions of space.

You
have at least two different contraction factors M and N which are
applicable to a common overlapping area of space occupied by the
overlapping interstitial experimental arms.

No, M is uniformly applicable to all of one MMX while
N is uniformly applicable to all of the other. Each
applies to bodies moving at a one particular speed.

The problem is that M and N overlap one another and light for each
experiment has to pass through both.

So application of any one
contraction factor to that common space either averages out with the
other contraction factor or can't apply uniformly.

That makes no sense at all. One and only one factor
applies to each observer since the factor is dependent
on the speed of the observer relative to the body.

I'm not talking about observers. I'm talking about the relative speed
of light. That's what has to transit space to produce Einstein's
isotropic effects. Lorentz transforms show the relative speed of light
to be anisotropic.

So a uniformly null
result is not possible for both experiments.Even if X is your rotation
in spacetime two different rotations for one area of space cannot
occur to make Lorentz's transformations uniformly isotropic in both.

Put two stakes in the ground a metre apart. Stand
10m from the midpoint where your line of sight to
the midpoint makes an angle of 30 degrees to the
line between the stakes. Have a friend stand 10m
from the midpoint but at 45 degrees. The angle
subtended for each of you is 'contracted' compared
to what you would see if your line of sight was
perpendicular to the line between the stakes. You
see different 'contraction factors' because you
are standing in different places. Now add two more
stakes but set the line between them at 10 degrees
to that between the original pair. To ensure they
"overlap in space", make sure the midpoints coincide.
Again you and your friend see different factors but
they are not the same as the first pair. For the
Lorentz Transforms, the values depend on speed
instead of location but other than that there is no
difference in the _logic_. Your argument doesn't
show any contradiction.

I don't see different contraction factors. The math of SR and Lorentz
transforms show different contraction factors. And when different
contraction factors overlap there is a contradiction between speed of
light transiting one frame of reference and the other through common
regions of space.

~v~~