ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags special relativity

Reply
Old 17th November 2015, 03:08 PM   #201
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,859
A vague or even concise philosophical reason cannot refute physics, TheAdversary.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 08:27 AM   #202
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
---
An electron and a positron at rest can annihilate into two photons, each with a frequency corresponding to mass/energy of one electron (or positron).

In order to refute SR, we simply ask what happens in this situation:
Electron and positron annihilate while both moving at (relativistic) speed v.
From energy conservation we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is higher than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to the annihilation event with rest mass, as kinetic energy of the electron-positron-pair increases the sum of the photon frequencies.
From time dilation (or relativistic Doppler effect) we conclude:
The sum of the two frequencies [1] of the emerging photon-pair is lower than the sum calculated by applying classical Doppler shift [2] to an annihilation event with rest mass, as time dilation reduces photon frequencies.
Using common sense, we can easily recognize that a real experiment can only confirm energy conservation (i.e. higher frequencies) and refute time dilation.

---
[1] Two photons with freq1 and freq2 have the same energy as a single photon with freqsum = freq1 + freq2, i.e. total frequency is proportional to total energy.
[2] The relativistic Doppler effect is the combination of the classical Doppler effect [3] with time dilation of SR.
[3] with observer (=receiver) at rest relative to the medium, and a source moving at -c < v < c

Yeah...Yeah....bleah!

Ok, You are right and Einstein and everyone else is wrong. Now, go publish a paper and pick up your Nobel Prize. Also, go invent a new Global Positioning System - one that doesn't rely on those bad 'ole relativistic equations. And tell the Chinese, Russians and Europeans that their Satellite Positioning Systems are screwed, too!

You will be rich and famous. Girls with big boobs and shaply will throw themselves at you. Life will be good for you.
Jules Galen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2015, 05:52 PM   #203
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
Moderator
 
jsfisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 22,279
Mod InfoPost related to some philosophic aspects of Physics have been moved to a new thread in Religion and Philosophy.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...4#post10984794
Posted By:jsfisher
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group.

"He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost
jsfisher is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2015, 03:35 AM   #204
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by wogoga in #194 View Post
Thus, relativity of simultaneity (or Lorentz's local time of 1892) is assumed to explain Fizeau's experiment, and all the insolvable paradoxes arising from relativity of simultaneity can be adapted to partial dragging of light by a medium.

Let us assume a closed water flow through four interconnected straight tubes forming a square. Each edge has a mirror so that light can change direction from one tube to the next, with a light path of each 3 m between two neighboring mirrors.

With water at rest in the tubes, speed of light is c/n ≈ 2.25∙108 m/s relative to both the water and the laboratory (assumed at rest). After the water starts circulating at v = 1 m/s in direction of light propagation, the speed of the light relative to the laboratory will increase to only w = c/n + 0.44 m/s (instead of w = c/n + 1 m/s). This is an empirical fact confirmed by Fizeau's experiment. As the water moves at 1 m/s in the same direction as the light, from absolute simultaneity we conclude that relative to the water, light moves no longer with c/n but with w' = c/n + 0.44 m/s - 1 m/s = c/n - 0.56 m/s. Thus, we need relativity of simultaneity in order get again the original light speed w' = c/n relative to the water (instead of w' = c/n - 0.56 m/s):
With respect to the water flowing on the closed light-path, time at each mirror in front must be Δt' = - 3m ∙ 1m/s / c2 = 3.34∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to the respective back mirror. Yet because the light comes back to the same mirror after having changed direction by means of the three other mirrors, each mirror should be four times 3.34∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to itself, which obviously is impossible.
Every atom of both the moving water and the laboratory can be considered a clock. As the distances between all these clocks remain constant (apart from the 12 sec cycle of flowing water), we must apply absolute simultaneity. (Only if the distance between two clocks continuously decreases/ increases, relative simultaneity does not lead to contradictions, see also Simple Refutation of Special Relativity by Light Clock)

Summary:
  • The low-speed approximation of the Lorentz time-transformation is t' = t - vx/c2 (and not the Galilean t' = t).
  • This t' = t -vx/c2 explains the only partial drag of light by water in Fizeau's experiment (via relativistic velocity addition).
  • In a laboratory with a closed, cyclic water flow, we have absolute simultaneity t' = t.
  • Thus, the explanation of Fizeau's experiment by the Lorentz transformation is untenable.

Cheers, Wolfgang

Human faculty of reasoning is in principle much better adapted to the world we experience than modern science makes us believe. Dilemmas and paradoxes only point to an inadequacy of premises of our beliefs and theories, and not to an inadequacy of human reason itself.

Last edited by wogoga; 22nd November 2015 at 03:43 AM.
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2015, 03:01 PM   #205
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,859
Exclamation wogoga: The Fizeau experiment is explained by relativistic addition of velocities

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
Let us ...
Let us not ignore a post that does not refute special relativity, wogoga !
The Fizeau experiment
Quote:
The Fizeau experiment was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water. Fizeau used a special interferometer arrangement to measure the effect of movement of a medium upon the speed of light.
According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists. Over half a century passed before a satisfactory explanation of Fizeau's unexpected measurement was developed with the advent of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein later pointed out the importance of the experiment for special relativity
But we have some misconceptions in that post, wogoga. Einstein cited the Fizeau experiment as evidence against an aether. Max von Laue (1907) "demonstrated that the Fresnel drag coefficient can be easily explained as a natural consequence of the relativistic formula for addition of velocities". This is not your fantasy about "relativity of simultaneity"

23 November 2015 wogoga: The Fizeau experiment is explained by the relativistic formula for addition of velocities.

Not that you will acknowledge a scientific fact: 29 October 2015 wogoga: Repeating a delusion about the Lorentz transformation not reducing to the Galilean transformation in the limit of v << c (or the classic limit of c goes to infinity)
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st July 2016, 01:44 PM   #206
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Let us not ignore a post that does not refute special relativity, wogoga !
The Fizeau experiment

But we have some misconceptions in that post, wogoga. Einstein cited the Fizeau experiment as evidence against an aether. Max von Laue (1907) "demonstrated that the Fresnel drag coefficient can be easily explained as a natural consequence of the relativistic formula for addition of velocities". This is not your fantasy about "relativity of simultaneity"

23 November 2015 wogoga: The Fizeau experiment is explained by the relativistic formula for addition of velocities.

Not that you will acknowledge a scientific fact: 29 October 2015 wogoga: Repeating a delusion about the Lorentz transformation not reducing to the Galilean transformation in the limit of v << c (or the classic limit of c goes to infinity)
Maybe Wogoga is thinking about the dynamics rather than the kinematics. In other words, he is concerned about how the mechanical forces transform. The Lorentz transform for coordinates alone does reduce to the Galilean transform for coordinates alone when v<<c.

The Lorentz transform for coordinates alone is not sufficient to make a well posed physical theory. The forces have to be treated a certain way that depends on the dynamics in the theory. In Einstein's 1905 article, Einstein goes into the dynamics of relativity. Principia is useful only because Newton describes the dynamics of the Galilean transform.

The important issue is how the mechanical forces vary with observer. To understand this in special relativity, you have to understand the concept of proper acceleration.

So I could go for the following amendments.

1) The Lorentz transformation does not reduce to the Galilean transformation when |ax|>>c^2, where a is the proper acceleration and x is the distance from observer to observation point, even when |v|<<c.

-If |ax|<<c^2, the mechanical forces don't transform properly even if v<<c.

2) The Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilean transformation when both v<<c AND |ax|<<c^2, where v is the relative velocity between observer and observed, x is the distance from observer to observed and a is the proper acceleration.

- If |ax|<<c^2 AND |v|<<c, one may as well use Galilean transforms. The All differences between Lorentz transforms and Galilean transforms are negligible under those two joint conditions.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st August 2016, 05:07 AM   #207
AdamSK
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,952
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
With respect to the water flowing on the closed light-path, time at each mirror in front must be Δt' = - 3m ∙ 1m/s / c2 = 3.34∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to the respective back mirror.
Please note that this is two different reference frames, not one, as the water is moving in two different directions. Also you got the sign wrong.
In the first water's reference frame, the first front mirror will be in the future compared to the first back mirror, and the second back mirror will be in the future compared to the second front mirror, with "past" and "future" both being in comparison to the laboratory frame.
In the second water's reference frame, the second front mirror will be in the future compared to the second back mirror, and the first back mirror will be in the future compared to the first front mirror, again with "past" and "future" both being in comparison to the laboratory frame.
Quote:
Yet because the light comes back to the same mirror after having changed direction by means of the three other mirrors, each mirror should be four times 3.34∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to itself, which obviously is impossible.
The effects reverse, they do not multiply, as you go around the loop. You don't end up with a particular event being in the past from itself. To see this, identify particular events and convert them into the different frames. You'll see.
Yet again, most supposed "refutations" of special relativity are simply mistakes in math or in application of the transformations.
AdamSK is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2016, 07:19 AM   #208
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
From Fizeau's experiment as King's evidence (for Lorentz transformation not reducing to Galilei transformation):


Originally Posted by wogoga in #204 View Post
Let us assume a closed water flow through four interconnected straight tubes forming a square. Each edge has a mirror so that light can change direction from one tube to the next, with a light path of each 3 m between two neighboring mirrors.

With water at rest in the tubes, speed of light is c/n ≈ 2.25∙108 m/s relative to both the water and the laboratory (assumed at rest). After the water starts circulating at v = 1 m/s in direction of light propagation, the speed of the light relative to the laboratory will increase to only w = c/n + 0.44 m/s (instead of w = c/n + 1 m/s). This is an empirical fact confirmed by Fizeau's experiment. As the water moves at 1 m/s in the same direction as the light, from absolute simultaneity we conclude that relative to the water, light moves no longer with c/n but with w' = c/n + 0.44 m/s - 1 m/s = c/n - 0.56 m/s. Thus, we need relativity of simultaneity in order get again the original light speed w' = c/n relative to the water (instead of w' = c/n - 0.56 m/s):
With respect to the water flowing on the closed light-path, time at each mirror in front must be Δt' = - 3m ∙ 1m/s / c2 = 3.33∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to the respective back mirror.

Originally Posted by AdamSK in #207 View Post
Please note that this is two different reference frames, not one, as the water is moving in two different directions.

As to my concrete example I would rather say the water moves in four different vectored directions, e.g. positive x-direction, positive y-direction, negative x-direction, negative y-direction, positive x-direction, and so on.


Originally Posted by AdamSK in #207 View Post
Also you got the sign wrong.

Despite having dealt dozens of times with such problems in this life alone, I get confused every time anew. In any case, at v = 1 m/s the Lorentz factor is a negligible second-order effect (less than 10-17). Thus we can dismiss length and time interval differences, i.e. we can assume Δx' = Δx and Δt' = Δt.

A time shift Δt < 0 means past, and a time shift Δt' > 0 means future. And if on the one hand we have "past" in front and "future" behind, then on another hand we have "future" in front and "past" behind.

If the water (frame F') moves in positive x-direction in the laboratory (frame F) with v = 1 m/s, we get:
Δx' = Δx – v Δt = Δx – 1 m/s Δt
Δt' = Δt – v/c2 Δx = Δt – 1.11∙10-17 s/m Δx
The 1.11∙10-17 s/m are not negligible because time intervals we are dealing with (i.e. propagation of light) are in the order of only Δx / c = 3 m / c = 10-8 (see also).

Let us assume four observer-particles in the flowing water (in meter):
  • particle 1 just changing from –y-direction to +x-direction at x = 0, y = 0
  • particle 2 just changing from +x-direction to +y-direction at x = 3, y = 0
  • particle 3 just changing from +y-direction to –x-direction at x = 3, y = 3
  • particle 4 just changing from –x-direction to –y-direction at x = 0, y = 3
As Δx' = Δx = 3 m from particle 1 to particle 2, we get Δt' = Δt – v/c2 Δx = Δt - 3.33∙10-17 sec. Using laboratory simultaneity (frame F) as reference, i.e. Δt = 0, we conclude that F' time of particle 2 is 3.33∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to particle 1. In the same way time, F' time of particle 3 with respect to 2, and F' time of particle 4 with respect to 3 is each in the past.


Originally Posted by wogoga in #204 View Post
Yet because the light comes back to the same mirror after having changed direction by means of the three other mirrors, each mirror should be four times 3.33∙10-17 sec in the past with respect to itself, which obviously is impossible.

Originally Posted by AdamSK in #207 View Post
The effects reverse, they do not multiply, as you go around the loop. You don't end up with a particular event being in the past from itself.

No. The effects do not reverse, they add up. Between particle 1 at x = 0 and particle 2 at x = 3 m, we have v = 1 m/s and Δx = Δx' = 3 m. On the way back between particle 3 at x = 3 and particle 4 at x = 0, we have v = –1 m/s and Δx = Δx' = –3 m. Thus –v/c2 Δx remains negative.

For better understanding see:Cheers, Wolfgang

Last edited by wogoga; 5th August 2016 at 08:26 AM.
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2016, 01:46 PM   #209
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,859
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
From ...
Linking to stupidity is not good, wogoga. Anyone with high school level mathematics knows that the Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilei transformation when v << c.

Then there is abysmal ignorance about the Fizeau experiment which was not a test of whether Lorentz transformation reduces to the Galilei transformation for the simple reason that Fizeau did it in 1851 ! It was repeated with greater accuracy ny Michelson and Morley in 1886, etc.

The Fizeau experiment is evidence for SR
Quote:
The Fizeau experiment was carried out by Hippolyte Fizeau in 1851 to measure the relative speeds of light in moving water. Fizeau used a special interferometer arrangement to measure the effect of movement of a medium upon the speed of light.

According to the theories prevailing at the time, light traveling through a moving medium would be dragged along by the medium, so that the measured speed of the light would be a simple sum of its speed through the medium plus the speed of the medium. Fizeau indeed detected a dragging effect, but the magnitude of the effect that he observed was far lower than expected. His results seemingly supported the partial aether-drag hypothesis of Fresnel, a situation that was disconcerting to most physicists. Over half a century passed before a satisfactory explanation of Fizeau's unexpected measurement was developed with the advent of Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity. Einstein later pointed out the importance of the experiment for special relativity.

Although it is referred to as the Fizeau experiment, Fizeau was an active experimenter who carried out a wide variety of different experiments involving measuring the speed of light in various situations.

The links in the bottom of your post allow us to better understand your ignorance about SR, physics and and mathematics.
  • A "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation that rather idiotically does not derive the Lorentz transformation !
    You arbitrarily plug in a beta into the Galilei transformation and never show that it is the Lorentz factor.
  • A totally ignorant "refutation" of SR based on personal incredibility or ignorance.
    The fact is that SR is symmetric so that observers observing each other clocks both measure the other clock ticking slower (time dilation).
    Ignorance about the Michelson and Morley's experiment. It is a measurement of the proposed effect of an "aether wind" as the Earth moves through the aether.
  • A web page that starts with a lie in the title ("Why Special Relativity does not explain Michelson and Morley's experiment") and then really bad ignorance of SR in the first sentence "I'll show that the Lorentz transformation cannot explain the constancy of c in all directions on earth".
    The Lorentz transformation has speed in it and so does not depend on the direction of any velocity.
    The Lorentz transformation does not explain the "constancy of c". That is a postulate of Special Relativity !

Last edited by Reality Check; 7th August 2016 at 02:07 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2016, 01:43 AM   #210
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by Reality Check in #209 View Post
The links in the bottom of your post allow us to better understand your ignorance about SR, physics and and mathematics.
  • A totally ignorant "refutation" of SR based on personal incredibility or ignorance.
    The fact is that SR is symmetric so that observers observing each other clocks both measure the other clock ticking slower (time dilation).
    Ignorance about the Michelson and Morley's experiment. It is a measurement of the proposed effect of an "aether wind" as the Earth moves through the aether.

I have revised the link Simple Refutation of Special Relativity by Light Clock. Here three extracts:




Fig. 1: On the left, two light-clocks circling horizontally a common center with each speed v = 0.9 c relative to the opposite clock. On the right, the vertical light-speed signals within both clocks with respect to the red clock assumed at rest. Light-speed c within and for the blue clock seems for the red clock only u = c /γ with Lorentz factor y= 0.44, due to time-slowing of the blue clock. Vector addition of vectored u und v then results in signal speed c =√(v2 + u2). Thus for the red clock during 1 sec, only 0.44 sec of the blue clock elapse.




Fig. 2: Leap in time from t' = 5 to t' = 995 of the blue light-clock with respect to the red clock at t = 500.


Summary:

In the case of hexagonal movement, constancy of light-speed is possible for both light-clocks during straight movement, because mutual time slowing is possible. Yet every change in direction leads to a time-leap-into-the-future of the opposite clock. The combination of continuous time slowing and discontinuous time-leaps leads on average to t' = t.

In the case of circular movement, time slowing of the opposite clock is continuously compensated by a continuous drift into the future due to continuous own direction-changes. This is in agreement with the requirement of symmetry between t and t', but it obviously violates constancy of light-speed for both light-clocks.

Special Relativity became thriving because it explains light-speed constancy on Earth, despite the Earth's orbit around the Sun at v = 0.0001 c (e.g. Michelson and Morley's experiment). The SR explanation is essentially based on the light-clock reasoning. If the latter cannot explain light-speed constancy for both Earth and Sun, then SR is simply wrong, despite being based on effective and prolific scientific hypotheses.


This reasoning so clear and simple that "skeptics" should not whine that it must be crackpottery since it contradicts all they devoutly believe in: orthodoxy, authority and mainstream.

Cheers, Wolfgang
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2016, 03:04 PM   #211
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,859
Thumbs down wogoga: "Simple Refutation of Special Relativity by Light Clock" is still a lie

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
I have revised the link ...
29 October 2015 wogoga: Repeating a delusion about the Lorentz transformation not reducing to the Galilean transformation in the limit of v << c (or the classic limit of c goes to infinity)
23 November 2015 wogoga: The Fizeau experiment is explained by the relativistic formula for addition of velocities.
8 August 2016 wogoga: A "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation that rather idiotically does not derive the Lorentz transformation!
8 August 2016 wogoga: A totally ignorant "refutation" of SR based on personal incredibility or ignorance.
8 August 2016 wogoga: A web page that starts with a lie in the title ("Why Special Relativity does not explain Michelson and Morley's experiment")
8 August 2016 wogoga: A web page that starts with really bad ignorance of SR in the first sentence (the Lorentz factor only includes speed, not velocity).

15 August 2016 wogoga: "Simple Refutation of Special Relativity by Light Clock" is still a lie based on ignorance.

The simple fact is that it requires acceleration to move in a circular (or an idiotic hexagonal) path. That means that you need to have an infinite number of inertial frames (or 6 for the hexagon).

What you have is a form of the twin paradox that has been solved for about a century !

Last edited by Reality Check; 14th August 2016 at 03:09 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2016, 01:27 AM   #212
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by wogoga; in #210 View Post
This reasoning so clear and simple that "skeptics" should not whine that it must be crackpottery since it contradicts all they devoutly believe in: orthodoxy, authority and mainstream.
Originally Posted by Reality Check in #211 View Post
The simple fact is that it requires acceleration to move in a circular (or an idiotic hexagonal) path. That means that you need to have an infinite number of inertial frames (or 6 for the hexagon).

People feigning or honestly trying to rescue Special Relativity from logical contradictions by claiming its inapplicability in case of accelerated movements are completely inconsequential and have no idea about the history of physics. The most important prediction resp. explanation of SR was just: Light-speed constancy in all directions despite the Earth's orbit around the Sun at v = 30 km/s = 4p3 m/s.

Inertial frames do not exist, nowhere in the Universe. Only accelerated movements do exist, such as e.g. the movement of a laboratory on Earth. Thus, if Special Relativity is only valid in the absence of accelerations, then the theory's range of validity is practically zero in the real world!

The movement of a laboratory near the equator consists of at least three accelerated movements:
  1. Diurnal rotation at 460 m/s = 2p46 m/s
  2. Rotation around the Sun at 30 km/s = 4p3 m/s
  3. Rotation around the galactic center at e.g. 220 km/s = 5p22 m/s
The SR conclusion "light-speed isotropy" on Earth is applied in case of solar and galactic rotation, as the corresponding speeds do not show up in experiments. (Cause: reference frames for light-speed are dragged by the Earth's mass according to the 1/r2 law). In the case of equatorial rotation however, it is assumed that the measured light-speed is influenced by the Earth's diurnal rotation due to the Sagnac effect: Light speed in our laboratory is assumed to be c - 460 m/s ≈ 8p3 m/s – 2p46 m/s from East to West, and c – 460 m/s ≈ 8p3 m/s + 2p46 m/s from West to East. The East-West asymmetry has "officially" been confirmed in the Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925. An "unofficial" confirmation consists in the "persistent spurious signal" found by Brillet and Hall, 1978.

Unfortunately these two crucial experiments have not been repeated. Instead, the next generation of "light-speed isotropy" experiments has been designed in such a way that a light-speed anisotropy due to the diurnal rotation cannot show up and spoil the desired result of an "isotropy" (constancy in all directions) as high as possible. Also possible isotropy-deviations due to our movement relative to the sun are removed right at the outset of such experiments (mostly by averaging techniques). And the huge light-speed anisotropy which must occur on the International Space Station (light-speed ranging from around c – 7.5 km/s ≈ 8p3 m/s – 3p75 m/s to c + 7.5 km/s ≈ 8p3 m/s + 3p75 m/s) has never been examined, or is kept quiet, or assumed an unimportant Sagnac effect.

In order to make the problem of my previous post #210 even more explicit and vivid, let us imagine two spacecrafts each moving at v = 0.995 c = 9n995 c (with Lorentz-factor γ = 10) towards Meeting point:
The red spacecraft moves on a circular orbit around Rotation center (in the absence of gravitation). The blue spacecraft moves on a straight line in such a way that the two spacecrafts will be side by side at Meeting point. According to the by far most widespread interpretation of SR (already advocated by Einstein 1905), a clock at Rotation center must run fast by factor 10 with respect to the circling spacecraft. Yet with respect to the blue spacecraft, the same clock at Rotation center goes slowly by factor 10. Yet on the other hand, since both spacecrafts are side by side and move in the same direction, clock rate at Rotation center must be the same with respect to both spacecrafts and cannot differ by factor 100 = γ2.

Cheers,
Wolfgang (a confident pandualist, crackpot physicist and conspiracy theorist)
Fundamental scientific progress works by restructuring previous knowledge and not by incremental addition of new findings and theories

Last edited by wogoga; 24th August 2016 at 02:06 AM.
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th August 2016, 03:18 PM   #213
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,859
Thumbs down wogoga: Insulting people who understand SR does not hide your ignorance about SR

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
People feigning or honestly trying to rescue Special Relativity from logical contradictions ...
25 August 2016 wogoga: Insulting people who understand SR does not hide your ignorance about SR which has no logical contradictions.

No one claims that "perfectly" inertial frames of reference exist in the physical universe. The inertial frames of reference in SR are more physically accelerating frames of reverence where the acceleration is negligible. The scientific theory of SR that has been and enormously verified by experiments treats these as inertial frames of reference !

For example, SR is applicable and tested to a high degree of accuracy everywhere on the surface of the Earth even in the presence of Earth's gravitational field.
For example, an SR formula of E=mc2 applies throughout the observable universe where we see stars functioning through fusion !

25 August 2016 wogoga: Idiotic examples that are not about SR do show SR is wrong, e.g. objects in orbits.
It is stupid to put the red spacecraft in a circular orbit with or without gravitation because the red spacecraft is then accelerating!

25 August 2016 wogoga: The delusion that "reference frames for light-speed are dragged by the Earth's mass".
Photons do not have frames of reference - observers have frames of reference.

You cited the Michelson–Gale–Pearson experiment which measured the Sagnac effect due to the Earth's rotation.
Quote:
The experiment is consistent with relativity for the same reason as all other Sagnac type experiments (see Sagnac effect).
That is (a bit ambiguous) one of the many official confirmations of the Sagnac effect.

"Brillet and Hall, 1978" is not a citation. A. Brillet and J.L. Hall, “Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549–552 (1979) did not confirm the Sagnac effect - the residual signal was probably misalignment
Quote:
This is one of the most accurate limits on any anisotropy in the round-trip speed of light in a laboratory. They measured the beat-frequency between a single-mode laser on a rotating table and a single-mode laser fixed to the Earth to put a limit on such an anisotropy of 3 parts in 1015. Due to the construction of their rotating laser, this can also be interpreted as a limit on any anisotropy of space. This is a round-trip experiment because of their use of a Fabry-Perot etalon to determine the frequency of the rotating laser. Note that their limit on the round-trip anisotropy corresponds to a round-trip speed of less than 0.000001 m/s (!); in terms of the more usual one-way anisotropy it is 30 m/s.

Their residual 17 Hz signal (out of ~1015 Hz) was described as “unknown”; it was fixed with respect to their laboratory and therefore could not be of cosmic origin. A. Brillet has indicated privately that this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical by a few microradians.
25 August 2016 wogoga: A lie about light-speed isotropy experiments being designed to avoid "diurnal rotation", i.e. faked!
Modern searches for Lorentz violation
Quote:
Both terrestrial and astronomical experiments have been carried out, and new experimental techniques have been introduced. No Lorentz violations could be measured thus far, and exceptions in which positive results were reported have been refuted or lack further confirmations. For discussions of many experiments, see Mattingly (2005).[1] For a detailed list of results of recent experimental searches, see Kostelecký and Russell (2008–2013).[2] For a recent overview and history of Lorentz violating models, see Liberati (2013).[3]
29 October 2015 wogoga: Repeating a delusion about the Lorentz transformation not reducing to the Galilean transformation in the limit of v << c (or the classic limit of c goes to infinity)
23 November 2015 wogoga: The Fizeau experiment is explained by the relativistic formula for addition of velocities.
8 August 2016 wogoga: A "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation that rather idiotically does not derive the Lorentz transformation!
8 August 2016 wogoga: A totally ignorant "refutation" of SR based on personal incredibility or ignorance.
8 August 2016 wogoga: A web page that starts with a lie in the title ("Why Special Relativity does not explain Michelson and Morley's experiment")
8 August 2016 wogoga: A web page that starts with really bad ignorance of SR in the first sentence (the Lorentz factor only includes speed, not velocity).
15 August 2016 wogoga: "Simple Refutation of Special Relativity by Light Clock" is still a lie based on ignorance.

Last edited by Reality Check; 24th August 2016 at 04:01 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 03:13 AM   #214
wogoga
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 334
Originally Posted by wogoga in #212 View Post
The SR conclusion "light-speed isotropy" on Earth is applied in case of solar and galactic rotation, as the corresponding speeds do not show up in experiments. (Cause: reference frames for light-speed are dragged by the Earth's mass according to the 1/r2 law).
Originally Posted by Reality Check in #213 View Post
Photons do not have frames of reference - observers have frames of reference.

In pre-relativistic physics, photons (resp. electromagnetic waves) had reference frames in the same way as sound has. In case of sound, the relevant reference frame is the movement of the sound propagation medium (e.g. air in a closed bus). Since an alternative theory is not constrained by the premises of Relativity, such a theory can again be based in this respect on classical physics, where electromagnetic radiation has such a reference-frame in the form of a propagation-medium resp. ether.

Photons always move within gravitational fields and potentials of masses affecting the photons (e.g. leading to gravitational redshift and to deflection). The hypothesis that in line with Mach's principle these fields created by masses also provide or represent the medium for photon propagation is reasonable. The hypothesis simply means that all particles gravitationally attracting a photon also drag resp. tie the photon to themselves. The result is that the photons move at c relative to an averaged gravitational field. The stronger a gravitational effect on a photon, the stronger the photon is bound (dragged, entrained) by the mass causing this effect.

The gravitational field caused by the Earth is zero at its center. However frame-dragging, i.e. the effect on photon-propagation velocity is maximal at the mass center (despite also being a 1/r2 effect). A gravitational attraction from the left on the center is nullified by analogous attraction from the right. Yet both left and right side drag resp. tie the photon-reference-frame to the movement of the Earth, so the effects add up. See also: Ether Drift Experiments & Aberration & Relationality vs. Relativity

Cheers, Wolfgang
"Einstein once hoped that Relativity would become the strict relationist theory Mach had called for." (Source)
wogoga is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 06:57 AM   #215
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
In pre-relativistic physics, photons (resp. electromagnetic waves) had reference frames in the same way as sound has. In case of sound, the relevant reference frame is the movement of the sound propagation medium (e.g. air in a closed bus). Since an alternative theory is not constrained by the premises of Relativity, such a theory can again be based in this respect on classical physics, where electromagnetic radiation has such a reference-frame in the form of a propagation-medium resp. ether.

Photons always move within gravitational fields and potentials of masses affecting the photons (e.g. leading to gravitational redshift and to deflection). The hypothesis that in line with Mach's principle these fields created by masses also provide or represent the medium for photon propagation is reasonable. The hypothesis simply means that all particles gravitationally attracting a photon also drag resp. tie the photon to themselves. The result is that the photons move at c relative to an averaged gravitational field. The stronger a gravitational effect on a photon, the stronger the photon is bound (dragged, entrained) by the mass causing this effect.

The gravitational field caused by the Earth is zero at its center. However frame-dragging, i.e. the effect on photon-propagation velocity is maximal at the mass center (despite also being a 1/r2 effect). A gravitational attraction from the left on the center is nullified by analogous attraction from the right. Yet both left and right side drag resp. tie the photon-reference-frame to the movement of the Earth, so the effects add up. See also: Ether Drift Experiments & Aberration & Relationality vs. Relativity

Cheers, Wolfgang
"Einstein once hoped that Relativity would become the strict relationist theory Mach had called for." (Source)
What you just said wis completely consistent with General Relativity. You left something out, though.

The effect of the gravitational potential accumulates, not the affect of the gravitational field. The gravitational field cancels out at the center of the earth. However, the gravitational potential is at a maximum.

The same idea applies both the Newtonian gravitation and Einstein gravitation. The gravitational potential caused by different masses add up in the same direction. Hence, the gravitational potential accumulates.

A difference between Newtonian and Einsteinian gravitation lies in the type of field. In Newtonian gravitation, gravity is represented by a vector field. In Einsteinian gravitation, the gravity is represented by a tensor field. In both theories, the gravitational potential is derived from both types of field.

Mach's Principle implies that inertia is associated with some type of frame dragging. So it is the gravitational potential relative to the observer that determines the observed speed of light.

General relativity uses a 'weak' form of Mach's Principle. There are other theories that use a 'stronger' version of Mach's Principle. What you said is consistent with both the weak and strong versions of Mach's Principle.

Your last post just barely made sense. I hypothesize that this is a temporary situation, whose time span is limited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. You were unclear as to the difference between field and potential, so what you said about frame dragging was clear. Your clarity won't be repeated for a while. Talk about quantum fluctuations!
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 01:10 PM   #216
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 23,859
Thumbs down wogoga: Your Brillet and Hall web page basically lies about the paper

Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
In pre-relativistic physics, photons (resp. electromagnetic waves) had reference frames in the same way as sound has..
Which is nothing to do with my post about basic modern physics, wogoga. I am sure that you will agree that it would be stupid to throw away centuries of physic s !

The basic modern physics is that treating electromagnetic waves like sound waves, i.e. propagating in a medium, does not work. This was suspected as soon as it was proposed because that medium (the luminiferous aether) would have contradictory properties. The Mickelson-Morley experiments in 1886 were the nail in the coffin of a luminiferous aether.

For all physics (relativistic and pre-relativistic) it is observers who have frames of reference. We can have an observer travelling with a photon but this has no physical relevance, e.g. they always measure no time between events and so for them velocities are undefined.

The web page Ether Drift Experiments & Aberration & Relationality vs. Relativity basically lies.
  • A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, Improved Laser Test of the Isotropy of Space Phys. Rev. Lett. 42 549-552, 1979) did not detect any "ether drift".
    The experiment found a null result, i.e. confirmed dozens of previous null results.
    There was an unknown residual signal of 17 Hz out of ~1015 Hz due to a systematic error in their experiment (not of cosmic origin).
    URL="http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#Brillet"]A. Brillet has indicated privately that this is most likely due to the rotation axis being slightly off-vertical by a few microradians.[/url]
  • The error limit on the round-trip anisotropy in Brillet and Hall was less than 0.000001 m/s, not "around 20 m/s".
  • There is no "first component of around 16 m/s" in the paper.
    A probably invalid calculation by you with the fantasy that of a "Sun induced" drift does not change the paper's null result..
  • There is no "second component was even much larger (around 190 m/s)" in the paper.
    A probably invalid calculation by you with the fantasy that of an "Earth induced" drift does not change the paper's null result.
30 September 2016 wogoga: Your Brillet and Hall web page basically lies about the paper.

There is also the bad act of ignoring current research. That web page seems to date from 1999 but in 1997 a more accurate "Brillet and Hall" type experiment was done:
Quote:
Chen et al., “Experimental Test of the Isotropy of Two-way Light Speed”, A.S.N.U. Peking, 33, no. 5, pg 595 (1997).

An experiment similar to Brillet and Hall, with a limit of 1×10−18 in the anisotropy of c.
30 September 2016 wogoga: Your Brillet and Hall web page (1999?) lies by omission of the more accurate 1997 Chen et al. experiment.

29 October 2015 wogoga: Repeating a delusion about the Lorentz transformation not reducing to the Galilean transformation in the limit of v << c (or the classic limit of c goes to infinity)
23 November 2015 wogoga: The Fizeau experiment is explained by the relativistic formula for addition of velocities.
8 August 2016 wogoga: A "derivation" of the Lorentz transformation that rather idiotically does not derive the Lorentz transformation!
8 August 2016 wogoga: A totally ignorant "refutation" of SR based on personal incredibility or ignorance.
8 August 2016 wogoga: A web page that starts with a lie in the title ("Why Special Relativity does not explain Michelson and Morley's experiment")
8 August 2016 wogoga: A web page that starts with really bad ignorance of SR in the first sentence (the Lorentz factor only includes speed, not velocity).
15 August 2016 wogoga: "Simple Refutation of Special Relativity by Light Clock" is still a lie based on ignorance.
25 August 2016 wogoga: Insulting people who understand SR does not hide your ignorance about SR which has no logical contradictions.
25 August 2016 wogoga: Examples that are not about SR do show SR is wrong, e.g. objects in orbits.
25 August 2016 wogoga: The gibberish that "reference frames for light-speed are dragged by the Earth's mass" (photons are not observers).
25 August 2016 wogoga: A lie about light-speed isotropy experiments being designed to avoid "diurnal rotation", i.e. faked!

Last edited by Reality Check; 29th September 2016 at 01:46 PM.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th September 2016, 03:45 PM   #217
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by wogoga View Post
dt'/dv = -x/c2
This is a clear indication that the Lorentz time-transformation reduces to t' = t onl
No. This is wrong. You conflated partial derivative for full derivatives.
∂t'/∂v = -x/c2
In order to calculate the full derivative, you would have had to expand the derivative of the product of x and v. The result would have had a proper acceleration (a=dv/dt) in it.

This is where the mechanical force comes into special relativity. The mechanical force is defined by F=γm(dv/dt) where m is the rest mass.

I was arguing with Wogoga in an 'Antirelativity Forum' when I realized they did not know the difference between a partial derivative and a full derivative. I vaguely remembered arguing with him overSo I reviewed some of my previous posts to see who else made such a mistake.

No one else in the 'Antirelativity Forum' seemed to know the difference between a partial derivative and a full derivative. No one else acknowledged that Wogoga made a mistake. So I present this to the Skeptics Forum.

Does
dt'/dv = -x/c2
or
∂t'/∂v = -x/c2
or both?
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2016, 10:11 PM   #218
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Quote:
No one else in the 'Antirelativity Forum' seemed to know the difference between a partial derivative and a full derivative. No one else acknowledged that Wogoga made a mistake. So I present this to the Skeptics Forum.

Does
dt'/dv = -x/c2
or
∂t'/∂v = -x/c2
or both?
For this equation?
t' = γ(t - vx/c^2)
If so, neither is the correct derivative since v appears in γ. In any case, since X is also a variable, I would suggest a partial derivative is more appropriate.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ

Last edited by Perpetual Student; 30th September 2016 at 10:12 PM.
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 05:49 AM   #219
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,533
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
No one else in the 'Antirelativity Forum' seemed to know the difference between a partial derivative and a full derivative. No one else acknowledged that Wogoga made a mistake. So I present this to the Skeptics Forum.
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
For this equation?
t' = γ(t - vx/c^2)
If so, neither is the correct derivative since v appears in γ. In any case, since X is also a variable, I would suggest a partial derivative is more appropriate.
It sounds as though their main problem is ignorance of the chain rule.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 12:52 PM   #220
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger View Post
It sounds as though their main problem is ignorance of the chain rule.
Chaîn rule and product rule.
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st October 2016, 04:05 PM   #221
Darwin123
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,413
Originally Posted by Perpetual Student View Post
For this equation?
t' = γ(t - vx/c^2)
If so, neither is the correct derivative since v appears in γ. In any case, since X is also a variable, I would suggest a partial derivative is more appropriate.
Yes. You are right and I was wrong. Neither can be correct.

Yes again. You are right and Wogoga was wrong.The partial derivative is more appropriate in this case. Wogoga used a full derivative where he should have used a partial derivative.

BTW: I may have been wrong in another way. I am not sure that Wogoga posted on the Antirelativity Forum. I may have gotten him and Cryptic mixed up.
Darwin123 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd October 2016, 10:45 AM   #222
Perpetual Student
Illuminator
 
Perpetual Student's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 4,852
Originally Posted by Darwin123 View Post
Yes. You are right and I was wrong. Neither can be correct.

Yes again. You are right and Wogoga was wrong.The partial derivative is more appropriate in this case. Wogoga used a full derivative where he should have used a partial derivative.

BTW: I may have been wrong in another way. I am not sure that Wogoga posted on the Antirelativity Forum. I may have gotten him and Cryptic mixed up.
Yes, since t' = t'(t,x,v), partial derivative notation would apply.

∂t'/∂v = -(vx/c2)(1 - v2/c2)-1/2 + (v/c2)(1 - v2/c2)-3/2(t - xv/c2)
__________________
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Richard P. Feynman

ξ
Perpetual Student is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:46 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.