Absolute rest - What does it mean?

Would this be similar, this "too smallness", be considered as a state of "absolute rest" ?

In a previous post you made reference to ‘ evolution’ in terms of being a system defined and definable by scientific models. You made similar reference to ’consciousness' in the same form.

Question: Are you able to provide us with scientific models of either or both of the matters referred to above? If so, please do it – I would prefer the latter and accept the response as fulfilling the request.

Please provide us with an unambiguous model for the configuration of the temperature system advertised as expressing the parameters that underlie the physics and chemistry of general warming mechanisms that substantially provides a statistically likely prediction, and/or a verifiable “ time line” of future atmospheric and other physical conditions that are significantly and intrinsically related to the conditions assigned to the process of global warming as generally provided to the public in the past decade or so.

And BTW, the thread you stepped into here deals with the topic of “absolute rest”, can you remember this? I do not intend to embarrass you here AN.

Everyone visiting this thread is undeniably aware of the superiority of your manifest intellect and the depth of your scientific expertise and reasoning, the very parameters that reflct your "personal charm" - you are truly a unique model of the best humanity has to offer.

In a numberof informal discussons with members of this forum, on many levels, a consensus was reached that the time has arrived for you to demonstrate what some observers have referenced to as your manifest lack of any sense of human modesty. The observations are summarized as a dynamically twisted tendency and inabilty to rise above a conditon generally described as void in BASIC people skills, all of which are tempered with an apparently conscious decision to exclude the slightest showing of acceptable human traits in a habitually guilt free mode that successfully has dusguised any suggestion that you have ever studied or have been schooled in what we, the little people, somtimes strive for when a situation reasonably and logically seem to call for, or even demand that communications with others be conducted in a polite and adult manner - but then, you are AlphaNumeric and "if you got it, exploit it". Is this a QED?:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Would not my previous model of "absolute rest", that is points in space, all zero dimensional entities that are nevertheless located instantaneously by emitted pips of light, and where the trace of points [their location] are connected with marks on paper that link consecutive points resulting in an entity that a minority of earthlings generally call a, "line"?

Do not my dimsionless points deserve a recognition beyond a reality slaying encapsultion as a mere "abstraction"? If we voted on it and a clear majority determined the matter, one way or the other, would you, in the [hard fought] preelection campaign, attempt to solicit AN's support in the form of campaign financing assisstance?

I think I saw a reference that this concept (Zero Dimensional Pseudo-Abstractional NonLinear Matrices Inversions 101) was rigorously taught at, what was described as a, "leading university" - later identified as Cambridge, the village in England, not the suburb of Boston, Mass. WOW!:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

eh ok I'll try to disypher...

the pips of light you refer to come from what? vacant space or a light emiting source object?
If space only then it is abstraction because as you know space itself doesn't emit light.
If it is a light emitting object then it must exist so therefore the object itself is not at Absolute rest.

However when you create an imaginary point in a time line that point is zero dimensional and if all that existed was just that point then nothing apart from an imaginary point would exist so therefore it may as well be space doing the emitting of light...[chuckle] yeh Follow?

If you subscribe to the notion that a photon travels then you IMO are declaring the pip point of light emission as being at absolute rest but only in a continuum of time as if there was no future there would be no light to emit.

Thus you could use this to explain why light speed is invariant to all observers regardless of the velocity of said observers.
The point of departure [pip] and arrival must always be at that imaginary point in the time line that could be deemed as absolute rest.
Therefore the Hyper Surface of the Present is always zero in duration and not infinitesimal.
just an unqualified opinion ok...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I did not see what others have written.But the following is what I feel about it:

I think the OP put an interesting speculation that what we really understand as "absolute rest".It looks a bit unphysical in the sense that whenever an observer is in motion w.r.t. something in absolute rest,the observer will not agree that the thing is in rest at all.So,absolute rest is a notion that compells everything to be static in this universe,allowing for no change in the state.

Some literature also indicate that if there were something called absolute rest,then there would have been a preferential reference frame attached to it.Every distance were to be preferentially measure w.r.t. it and the relative separation \(\ r_1\ -\ r_2\) would not appear in the force laws.The laws would have to include some "absolute distance",may be also "absolute time".The notion that our physical laws depend on the physical separation of the particles will fail,and there would be much more complicated problems such as how to represent a dynamic wave etc.

Thus,one may produces thousands of arguments to show there cannot be "absolute rest".

What my mind tells me is: note that rest is something that is interpreted as no motion w.r.t. others in a local interval of time,say from \(\ t_0\ -\delta\ t\) to \(\ t_0\ +\delta\ t\).Absolute rest in an ideal limit of this that is to be interpreted as no change in the state of the universe (so that everything remains at rest w.r.t. everything) in the time range \(\ -\infty\) to \(\ +\infty\).There would be no motion means there would be no interaction as such---nothing will alter the others.

So,we may leave the co-ordinate of time from our discussion.This is something like have everything in space but not in time.

What do others think?

 

I am referring to the location of the pips and am unconcerned with the source

We know the point is not all that exists and once the pip was emitted a real point exists in the space of which we are all familiar. For instance, If the only point I created was due to some chicken scratching on paper then the point would truly be manufactured as an abstraction of some process or system that was purely mental; I am attempting to carve out a definition of real v abstract and subscribe to the notion that theoretical points, or chicken scratched points while interesting are not real and assigning them to an abstract status is only mildly arbitrary. However, If you subscribe to the notion that a photon moving or otherwise is real, and that the point of emission can be located forever, as difficult as that may be, then absent any remaining observable, or unobservable (nonlocal force centers) characteristics, there is the history establishing the position of where the pip was emitted should be enough to vest nonabstractedness to the point. Using a reason and logic analogy to conservation principles the principle of conservation of reality, then the void in physical characteristics as meant here would seem to preserve reality notwithstanding that the singular observation of a single pip by a single and isolated observer is sufficient to maintain reality subject perhaps to a spectrum of acceptability of the observation. A democrat (all democrats being liars) then the confidence level of point as a point of reality might be challenged, but in any event there can be no rational prediction that a physical experiment will ever be conducted that would settle the matter. Democrats being excluded from participation on moral grounds, then only republicans would be available, perhaps some aging communists or Trotskyists could verify the republican claims, but the rhetoric used in deciding the issue would be based on party loyalty and trust, both anathema to the persons realizing that they must actually believe what a republican is uttering, the reality will generate into a discussion of whether or not JFK was assassinated pursuant to a conspiracy. The matter then would be to limit the reality of the “point” to the quality of the participants.

If the light moves or not, the fact of observability or otherwise would establish an “event, preserved or not in form and/or physical properties, and with only an unverified principle of conservation of reality would exist to properly classify the emission as real or as abstract.

If the pip occurred for one complete wave length then is not the point deserving of more lof a classification than of “imaginary”?

My amen here is for the wish that an appropriate entity, sufficient as a receptacle of a “thank you" for a reality that is other than the pure abstraction, that is that reality is not confined to a Hyper Surface of the Present [that] is always zero in duration and not infinitesimal.
We are fortunate to have explored this matter as we did. I regret not having any AN input to correct any inadvertent errors in reason, logic or any misstatement of physical law.:shrug:

 

gIf the emission of a pip of light and giving due substance to the postulate that light moton is independant of the origin of the source of the light an event such as your discussion offers here would be free of the relativity problems you mention such as what might follow the existence of preferred inertial frames of reference. I other words, what I was discussing was the mere location of only one pip of light that would provide the location of where that pip came from as opposed to where did the source of the light move to. Admittedly I weaken the argument by confining te discussion to a single pip where the only reqirement for a state of absolute rest was for one complete wave cycle difficulties in actual location of the emissoin site in space only offers further imputus to acvtually in determine a successful sighting.
Icvan suggestr only that Your statement "everything in space but not in time" be modified to "everything in space but not very long in time" and that the event happened only once.:shrug:

.


:shrug:

 

Where did I say one actually existed? Yet again you utterly fail to grasp my point and surprise, surprise you ignore my direct questions and reply to just one line of my post.

Do you honestly think your utterly predictable behaviour in ignoring direct questions which would force you to admit you've not studied one iota of any of these theories goes unnoticed? :shrug:

 

What?

I didn't mention biological evolution, I said you can find the evolution of a dynamical system. The term 'evolution' is used in a manner to mean 'development of a system as time passes', not in the Darwinian way. But excellent job on failing to grasp terminology in context. It's as if you've never read a science book in your life

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And I also said that while in principle a theory of electromagnetism explains conciousness due to it being an emergent property it's not part of a fundamental theory in a direct way. I actually explicitly said that we couldn't extract a model of conciousness from say QED. Do keep up.

You want me to explain to you the entirety of the fluid mechanics and statistical physics used by meteorologists and people who study global warming? Nice strawman. You've already demonstrated that anything beyond high school is too much for you and you have no interest in learning so stuff which takes up the time of researchers is impossible for me to teach you. Further more the quantity of material is enough to fill a library, so posting it is not possible and thirdly what has that got to do with the issues at hand? If you want to learn how to model atmospheric conditions I suggest a 4 year degree followed by a masters, a PhD and then getting a job in research. Because that's how long it takes to learn these things properly. The worlds largest supercomputer does global warming calculations, do you think you'll be able to 'pick it up' from a forum? Either you're staggering naive or you know you're simply creating an impossible request.

Topics evolve you know? This discussion went from absolute rest to super cold atoms through to static systems. If you can't find anything to whine about other than the discussion moves on from the literal thread title perhaps you should use your time more wisely, like reading a book on calculus?

I don't think I'm the best thing since sliced bread. I just think I've spent more time and effort trying to do science than you and QuantumQuack and its obviously reflected in my grasp of various topics and my quantitative knowledge.

Notice how QQ avoids every question I ask him about how much time and effort he's actually put into reading books or doing calculations. Or why he thinks its logical for him to whine about a theory he admits to having never even tried to learn. Says a lot doesn't it, that he's unwilling to face up to his lack of honesty and utter hypocrisy.

And this informal group decided you would be their spokesmen? Jez, if you're representative I struggle to imagine who they are.....

And I don't attempt to be polite with you. Why should I? You make no attempt to learn a topic which is central to science and you start threads about how its all obviously wrong and anyone who accepts it is a mindless chump and the last n years of physicists have missed basic algebra. If you come onto a forum and basically say "I've learnt nothing of this but its obvious to me that anyone who accepts it is a sucker and obviously an idiot for missing obvious mathematical errors as everyone knows 1+1=3!" then why should I be pleasant? You use sarcastic comments like "You didn't see Einstein switched frames on you, did you?", as if everyone for 100 years missed something you picked up from a book you didn't even read properly and you want me to be more modest?

I love that about cranks. I say, with reason and evidence, "I'm better than most, particularly you Mr Crank" and I get called egotistical. Mr Crank says "All of the last century of physicists, who each spent 40 years of their lives on this stuff, are wrong, I know better, despite having zero grasp of this topic". Now that is lacking modesty. If we put you to the test Geist, seeing if you could do the calculus used in relativity books I'm certain you'd fail. Yet you firmly believe you've got some magical grasp of relativity which the entire physics community has missed. Would you care to explain to me how that is modest?

Make no mistake, I have no problem saying I'm smarter and more educated in science than you. Make no mistake, I share an office and a department with people I have no problem are much smarter and more educated than me. In everything. The fact I'm willing to say I'm smarter than you isn't so much a reflection on my lack of modest, it's a reflection on the fact I've spent more than 30 minutes learning science.

 

I was going to offer a way of working it out but to do so means referring to the sshhhh Luxon Hypothesis which will tell you that the fundamental change rate of the universe is 'c' to begin with thus light and mass are always inertial and not relative to begin with....thus your point in the time line t=0 is effectively at absolute rest regards to light and mass. Thus light speed is invariant as everything is changing at the same rate simultaneously. so your pip is always at absolute rest.....

 

You're complaining I replied to something you addressed to me?! Is that your method of debate, just try to change the topic when you've put your foot in it?

Couldn't you find one in my posts? Are your reading abilities that poor?

You talk about honesty and logic. Explain to me the logic of someone deliberately avoiding learning anything to do with a theory because they've already made up their mind about it before they've read it?

Where's the logic in refusing to accept evidence or explainations because you are unwilling to put in the effort to understand them?

If you have spent 20 years looking into this stuff, why haven't you learnt any calculus and why don't you know physics? How can you spend 20 years evaluating and examining mainstream physics yet learn nothing, even by osmosis?

 

You know that before looking at them ?

 

Two or three threads is hardly stalking. Further more I post in other threads and I also spend my time doing other things. I happen to be one of the more outspoken, blunt talking proponents of mainstream physics and as such tend to gravitate towards the cranks in order to tell them what I think and why they are wrong. And you happen to exert a great deal of 'crank gravitation'.

No, a 'pet theory' is a theory which other people don't support or give much time to which someone takes under their wing and being one of the few proponents of, often someone's pet theory will be of their own production.

Special relativity is not 'my pet theory' as I had nothing to do with its development, which predate my birth by between 80 and 100 years (depending on where you view the first beginnings of SR as). Further more, I am not part of a small number of proponents of SR, it's supported by 99.99% (at least) of the physics community. And it's been tested a great deal and never failed. General relativity can't be mixed easily with quantum mechanics. Special relativity can. Special relativity is the only theory we have which works everywhere, at all scales, in all phenomena. So it's not 'my pet theory', it's one of the pillars of modern physics. And you have not found anything wrong with it. If you deny that, give me one experiment which does something inconsistent with relativity.

Ignorance and lies frustrates the hell of out me. I have offered to bet you $500 that you cannot get your work published in a reputable journal. I have offered to help you format your work so that it is evaluated purely on its scientific merits. I am pushing you to get your work into the scientific community because I have zero fear you're right.

That isn't an answer, I asked where is the logic. Is it logical to learn what a theory says before evaluating it or not?

You refuse to answer my questions because you don't want to admit you've learnt nothign and you're behaving dishonestly and irrationally.

You and I must have crossed paths in what, 3 threads in the last week or so? And I've posted in other threads. I'm sure if there was a vote on whether I was 'stalking you' or not the prevailing view would be I'm not.

Further more, even if I were it wouldn't remove the criticisms I've made of your 'methods'. Rather than evaluating a theory honestly, by learning what it says and taking the time to understand it you simply make up your mind without any information. That is neither logical nor honest and yet you complain I'm a stalker with a bruised ego. I'm not the one avoiding direct questions and incapable of understanding the science I talk about.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

If someone makes claims which are patently false, lies to people about things said people have studied and is continually making claims they refuse to back up it's hardly 'out of the blue' when they're asked "Can you back up anything you've said?" or "Why do you keep lying about things?".

You claim to have been working on this sort of area for 20 years yet you're unfamiliar with basic calculus, needed to study anything mainstream and you make claims like "It's obvious from light cones that \(E=mc^{2}\)" when its neither obvious nor true on the light cone.

You come onto these forums making claims you don't back up. Don't whine when someone knows enough to see through you, you're the one putting yourself in the firing line.

Feel free to prove me wrong. That's the thing, if you aren't lying about your knowledge then prove it. I always tell cranks this, if I'm wrong show it. Back up your claims. When I make a claim about what I can do in physics or maths I am able to back it up. As can people like CptBork, BenTheMan, Guest, Trippy, Rpenner etc. Hence I don't need to ask them to put up or shut up, because it's obvious they know what they are talking about and are competent scientists (amateur or otherwise). I see nothing of the sort from you or a variety of other people I'd class as 'cranks'.

It's entirely possible to question mainstream physics and get a polite response from me. After all, once I didn't know much about mainstream physics. But its important to realise and admit when you've got little or no actual knowledge and as a result you're not in a good position to evaluate something. I don't know a thing about the current economic policies of Japan and so it'd be stupid of me to proclaim "Japan has a stupid economic policy! It's obvious!". And yet you're doing the same about physics, proclaiming "It's obviously wrong" when you admit to not reading it.

When someone admits to avoiding learning about something yet at the same time tries to proclaim some amazing insight into it then is it a shocker when someone else asks "What makes you such a good person to evaluate this?".

My my my, you do like your big insinuations don't you? I was a stalker and now I'm engaging in 'ego terrorism'. What'll it be next? Maybe you'll accuse me of engaging in 'free thinker genocide' or being a member of the 'physics Gestapo'?

You admit to deliberately avoiding finding out information about science. What more needs to be said? You admit you don't have an honest enquiring mind. :shrug:

 

It's relevant because you make claims about relativity which are false. You made a claim about distances in instants of time and twice I've explained how that's wrong :

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2307102&postcount=70
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2306643&postcount=60

If you ardently refuse to be corrected, even when its right infront of your face and you admit you refuse to read any information about topics you start, don't you think that's relevant? If you make claims you can't back up, I'll pooint it out.

 

Since this thread is destined to be either heavily moderated, pseudo'd, cesspooled or deleted I'll reply again.....

'Violence'? How is explaining your numerous errors 'violent'? Rather than throw accusations at me, why don't you mop the floor with me in a rational, informed discussion about relativity? Or quantum mechanics? If you didn't make claims you couldn't back up we'd not be in this 'discussion', you and I would perhaps be discussing the particulars of how to construct a special relativity compatible theory without the need to mention a photon, but instead you're accusing me of 'violence' and 'ego terrorism'.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Either you're seriously overdoing it with the colourful language to describe how you and I interact or you're an extremely fragile personality. I doubt the second as you wouldn't persist in posting your nonsense on forums you know people such as myself read so I reach the conclusion you're attempting to either get sympathy from others or trying to do some weird reverse psychology to weird me out?

If you classify a few days of occasional short posts saying "Why don't you back up that claim?" "Why are you lying?" "There, you've lied again" when you know full well you have as 'emotional and intellectual abuse' you're living in a world much fluffier and kinder than the one most people inhabit.

So the more I point out how little you know about relativity, quantum mechanics and basic calculus the less of those things I'll know? The only way that would work is if in telling someone else information I forgot the information, as if its a finite non-renewable resource. Maybe that's why you don't read books and have an enquiring mind, you think you're taking knowledge from other people? Reading a book doesn't mean you steal the thoughts of the author. Seriously, try it sometime.

 

AN you asked for only "... one one experiment which does something inconsistent with relativity."

"F
Following the publication of Einstein’s SR paper, two new experimental results were published in 1913, both favoring LR over SR. Indeed, Sagnac claimed a falsification of SR on the grounds that the local speed of light was affected by observer velocity if the observer was attached to a rotating platform. He showed that the Michelson-Morley experiment performed in such a rotating frame did show fringe shifts, and concluded that, even if linear motion was relative, rotational motion was absolute. DeSitter noted that stellar aberration was the same for both components of distant binary stars, even though the relative velocity of each with respect to the observer was quite different. Therefore velocity in some special frame (we might now say velocity in the local gravity field relative to the distant gravity field) rather than relative velocity between source and observer determines aberration. Both of these experiments were blows to SR’s contention that all motion was relative. Nonetheless, SR supporters came up with explanations of these phenomena too in an SR context, and these fairly non-trivial explanations are the subjects of textbooks on relativity today.



The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 involving the same Michelson as in the Michelson-Morley experiment again claimed a contradiction of SR – a theory that Michelson never found acceptable. History has concluded that this experiment is essentially another demonstration of the Sagnac effect, and no longer cites it as a significant independent experiment; so it is omitted from our table. Ives and Stilwell (1938) drew conclusions similar to those of Michelson, and specifically argued that their own experiment confirmed LR (which they called the Larmor-Lorentz theory) over SR. Yet today, it is simply added to the list of SR-confirming experiments.



When the muon lifetime experiments were performed in the 1960s, LR had been all but forgotten. Questions were raised briefly about whether the situation was reciprocal – whether high-speed muons would really see laboratory muons live longer. SR offered assurance that they would, but no test was then possible. By the time the Hafele-Keating experiment compared traveling atomic clocks sent around the world in opposite directions with a stay-at-home clock, an experiment later improved upon by C.O. Alley at the Univ. of Maryland, it was no longer considered remarkable that the velocity effects on clocks had to be based on speeds in the underlying inertial frame instead of the relative velocities of the clocks.



Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.


http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

"The Cesium Flying Clocks* Experiment"

Dr. Keating has been kind enough to provide us with the raw experimental data. In this paper it will be shown that an analysis of the raw data yields very different results which are in agreement with the universal time postulate6.



The Raw Data


According to Hafele and Keating, “The fundamental unit of time interval, the second is now by definition equal to 9,192,631,770 accumulated periods of the frequency of the atomic transitions of an “ideal” cesium beam frequency standard.” They say that, “No two “real” cesium beam clocks keep precisely the same time, even when located together in the laboratory, but generally show systematic rate (or frequency) differences which in extreme cases may amount to time differences as large as 1 _sec per day.” Short term fluctuations in rate are caused mainly by shot noise in the beam tubes. Cesium beam clocks also exhibit small but more or less well defined quasi-permanent changes in rate. “Because of the random and independent character of these rate changes, the long-term average rate of an ensemble of clocks is more stable than the rate of any individual member.”


The actual experimental data are the time difference measurements between the traveling clocks and the AT(USNO) master clock BEFORE, BETWEEN and AFTER the travel made by each traveling clock, as shown in Fig. 1. There are four wiggly sinusoidal curves, one for each clock. These curves have two gaps: one to the left of center when the clocks were on the airplane flying eastward and one to the right of center when the clocks were on the airplane flying westward. We have drawn a smooth curve through the experimental data in Fig. 1. For each clock there is a roughly sinusoidal curve with very small local variations. The smooth curves interpolated during flight appear to be entirely unaffected by the motion of the airplane.


The way in which the data are presented in the published1 paper of Hefele and Keating is shown in Fig. 2. Here it is apparent that the data if Fig. 1 have been subjected to a major smoothing process. The data period of the entire experiment lasted 636 hours. Time difference in nanoseconds relative to the MEAN(USNO) is plotted versus time in hours from the beginning of the experiment. Again, there are no data during the 65.4 hours required for the eastward trip and the 80.3 hours required for the westward trip. Data are shown for each of the four clocks and for their average. We have modified the Hafele-Keating figure by drawing smooth curves through the data. In this way we have interpolated data on the behavior of the clocks during the eastward and westward airplane flights. Smooth curves are necessary in every case, but these are not straight lines. Even the average curve is not a straight line. There appears to be no significant difference between the interpolated curves during the airplane flights and the measured portions when the clocks were on the ground. A smooth curve passes through all of the data points and there is no indication of any significant difference in the behavior of the clocks when in motion.

 

I did not follow the entire thread, but absolute rest would mean zero thermal energy. Any energy above zero would be expressed as some kind of molecular motion. This is deemed impossible by the laws of thermodynamics and most of my investigating as well. So, absolute rest is not possible IMHO.

 

Some catastrophic insonsistencies with relativity

Here are a number of experiments that “do[es] something inconsistent with relativity.”

Chapter 1

“Flandern on The Speed of Gravity And Related SR Topics.​

Following the publication of Einstein’s SR paper, two new experimental results were published in 1913, both favoring LR over SR. Indeed, Sagnac claimed a falsification of SR on the grounds that the local speed of light was affected by observer velocity if the observer was attached to a rotating platform. He showed that the Michelson-Morley experiment performed in such a rotating frame did show fringe shifts, and concluded that, even if linear motion was relative, rotational motion was absolute. DeSitter noted that stellar aberration was the same for both components of distant binary stars, even though the relative velocity of each with respect to the observer was quite different. Therefore velocity in some special frame (we might now say velocity in the local gravity field relative to the distant gravity field) rather than relative velocity between source and observer determines aberration. Both of these experiments were blows to SR’s contention that all motion was relative. Nonetheless, SR supporters came up with explanations of these phenomena too in an SR context, and these fairly non-trivial explanations are the subjects of textbooks on relativity today.

The Michelson-Gale experiment of 1925 involving the same Michelson as in the Michelson-Morley experiment again claimed a contradiction of SR – a theory that Michelson never found acceptable. History has concluded that this experiment is essentially another demonstration of the Sagnac effect, and no longer cites it as a significant independent experiment; so it is omitted from our table. Ives and Stilwell (1938) drew conclusions similar to those of Michelson, and specifically argued that their own experiment confirmed LR (which they called the Larmor-Lorentz theory) over SR. Yet today, it is simply added to the list of SR-confirming experiments.


When the muon lifetime experiments were performed in the 1960s, LR had been all but forgotten. Questions were raised briefly about whether the situation was reciprocal – whether high-speed muons would really see laboratory muons live longer. SR offered assurance that they would, but no test was then possible. By the time the Hafele-Keating experiment compared traveling atomic clocks sent around the world in opposite directions with a stay-at-home clock, an experiment later improved upon by C.O. Alley at the Univ. of Maryland, it was no longer considered remarkable that the velocity effects on clocks had to be based on speeds in the underlying inertial frame instead of the relative velocities of the clocks.

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp

(Flandern misqotes the ichelson-Morley experiment that did find a recidual velocity of approximately 8.4 km/s which was confirmed by Miller and Morley in over 300,00 MM experiments using upgraded equipment and where possible experimental errors due to heat, for instance, was carefully eliminated.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Chapter 2​

“The to Hafele and Keating, Flying Cesium Clock* Experiments”​

(Here the author of this paper quotes one of the experimentors)
Dr. Keating has been kind enough to provide us with the raw experimental data. In this paper it will be shown that an analysis of the raw data yields very different results which are in agreement with the universal time postulate6.
1. The Raw Data
According to Hafele and Keating, “The fundamental unit of time interval, the second is now by definition equal to 9,192,631,770 accumulated periods of the frequency of the atomic transitions of an “ideal” cesium beam frequency standard.” They say that, “No two “real” cesium beam clocks keep precisely the same time, even when located together in the laboratory, but generally show systematic rate (or frequency) differences which in extreme cases may amount to time differences as large as 1 _sec per day.” Short term fluctuations in rate are caused mainly by shot noise in the beam tubes. Cesium beam clocks also exhibit small but more or less well defined quasi-permanent changes in rate. “Because of the random and independent character of these rate changes, the long-term average rate of an ensemble of clocks is more stable than the rate of any individual member.”
The actual experimental data are the time difference measurements between the traveling clocks and the AT(USNO) master clock BEFORE, BETWEEN and AFTER the travel made by each traveling clock, as shown in Fig. 1. There are four wiggly sinusoidal curves, one for each clock. These curves have two gaps: one to the left of center when the clocks were on the airplane flying eastward and one to the right of center when the clocks were on the airplane flying westward. We have drawn a smooth curve through the experimental data in Fig. 1. For each clock there is a roughly sinusoidal curve with very small local variations. The smooth curves interpolated during flight appear to be entirely unaffected by the motion of the airplane.
The way in which the data are presented in the published1 paper of Hefele and Keating is shown in Fig. 2. Here it is apparent that the data if Fig. 1 have been subjected to a major smoothing process. The data period of the entire experiment lasted 636 hours. Time difference in nanoseconds relative to the MEAN(USNO) is plotted versus time in hours from the beginning of the experiment. Again, there are no data during the 65.4 hours required for the eastward trip and the 80.3 hours required for the westward trip. Data are shown for each of the four clocks and for their average. We have modified the Hafele-Keating figure by drawing smooth curves through the data. In this way we have interpolated data on the behavior of the clocks during the eastward and westward airplane flights. Smooth curves are necessary in every case, but these are not straight lines. Even the average curve is not a straight line. There appears to be no significant difference between the interpolated curves during the airplane flights and the measured portions when the clocks were on the ground. A smooth curve passes through all of the data points and there is no indication of any significant difference in the behavior of the clocks when in motion.

http://www.shaping.ru/congress/english/spenser1/spencer1.asp


•Is not ‘ClÖck’ the Bulgarian word for “Pig”?:shrug:

 

Will someone please tell me what the hell IMO, and now IMHO means?

DRZion,

You should take a 2000 metric ton block of granite into orbit and to an iosolated position in the universe. Establish a coordinate system (with the GPS system used as a model) using 100 of the slowest and most diastant stars you can find and use these stars as reference points to which you then carefully maneuver the granite block to a condition of a measured "zero" velocity, as close to zero as is technologically feasible.

Even though the molecular activity within the block is, relative to the overall dimensions of the block, will be moving (vibrating, oscillating) at extreme trelative velocities, the block itself can be slowed to a point where motion wrt the coordinate system's distance stars is not detectable. Now when this is accomplished I say 'absolute zero velocity has been achieved as established experimentally.

This being the case, theoretical objections of any nature will be ignored, and I challenge any claim that such a preferred frame of reference will be infected by measured theoretical ambiguities so feared and avoided by the SR institutions and industry.:shrug:

 

That isn't 'absolute' or 'prefered' as you could just as easily put the block into a frame where its moving at a constant velocity relative to the 'fixed stars' and all physics would be the same.

And the difference between something at zero temperature and non-zero temperature is easily measured without need to look at it on an atomic scale. Emission spectra?

And as for your experiments, Flandern is a debunked crank and the claim special relativity dynamics don't come into the GPS system is a flat out lie. http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html The first google hit for 'relativity, GPS'. Even gives the different effects, SR and GR, in nanoseconds as measured by the clocks.

But excellent job on clearly ignoring all evidence and sources of information which contradict your already made up mind. How many pages telling you the information you ignored and lied about did you go through before you found that one you quoted?

No, it's become that way and while a thread heavily in the postings of you, geist and Bishadi is more likely to be cessed than others it didn't start off that way.

And your continued avoidance of my questions only illustrated their relevance and how you don't wish to face up to them.