Relativity. Science or Cult?

we work with differentials here. If you say they aged, Did they age the same?
They are out of sync, that's surely the relativistic time dilation effect. Do the math and you will see that it only makes sense if you assume a neutral reference frame for your referee.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Don't call it your own findings then in your first post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The state of syncronization of two or more clocks is not the same as the rate at which any one clock ticks. I have done the math and it makes sense to me with only two frames of reference. And so, how much each clock ages depends on which of the two observers you ask.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The findings are MINE! The experimental data is his.
His findings -> experiment proves time dilation
Myfindings-> yes but it also proves absolute motion.

 

I imagine the scientific world is in shock and awe. There must have been a report on the Nature news site. I missed it. Can you give me the link?

 

So if you ask the two pilots heading east and west what will they tell you?

 

It will of coarse depend on just which events are being measured, but you might hear "We see that the other guy's clocks are running slow, but we also see that he measures a longer time interval (instead of a shorter one) because his clocks are syncronized differently than ours". Get it?

 

nch': Have you studied the Sagnac 1914 experiment? If so, do you have any opinions about it?

 

Funny thing you ask?
That's actually what got me on the way. From 92 to 95 i was doing research at the academy of the german airforce. I used to set up demonstration experiments for the students. The two favorites were the sagnaq ( laser gyros ) and laser anemometers (windspeed sensors ) the precise explabation for both those interferomerty experiments is classic. There are relativistic explanations for both but they are just 10 times more complex. And non of them is convincing.

 

One more thing i would like to add to my last post. Whenever i say the saqnac effect is circumstantial evidence against relativity. I get the response: the sagnaq effect is a classical effect because it involves rotation.

True. but so does the michelson morley experiment. I never heard it was performed by mounting the whole thing on a lasergyro stabilized platform.

Michelson-Morley violates galileos as well as einsteins relativity it rotates. That we know for certain since Foucault set up his pendulum.

 

nch': It seems to me that the Fizeau toothed wheel concept, engineered without a mirror, could be used to time light ON A ONE WAY PATH, with more subsequent repetitions to time light in a variety of directions so as to definitively prove BY EXPERIMENT whether we actually can discover an absolute frame of reference. Admittedly I have limited resource to find experiments and their results, but I have never heard of such being done. Perhaps, do you know of such having been executed?

Very simple gedankin(s?) using one-way light paths have also been instrumental in convincing me that the non-preferred multiple frames of reference concept has insurmountable flaws.

An inconsequential but interesting fact: Maxwell designed the MM experiment in an article for Encyclopedia Britannica a few years before it was carried out. I'm probably the last person to find this out, but it surprised me.

 

gangas: I couldn't agree more. One way and even two way travelling time measurement will give you a result which depends on the direction.

But it has to be TIME MEASUREMENT not interferometry. The reason for that is obvious. Interferometry effects are produced by a difference in the phase velocity (f*2*pi) but the phase velocity does not depend on the angle of the ether flow it depends on the frequency of the source f which is constant.

As i said in my article each wave traves one wavelength per period. Always.

nc

 

I am hashing around several specific test layouts for a faux Fizeau one way experiment and will describe them soon. They would use two wheels rather than one, and one tooth per wheel rather than toothed circumferences. It would be a hoot if the experiments could be so simple and cheap that they could be Science Fair projects.

 

If you do a one way meassurement, i'm convinced it would prove that the speed of light depends on the direction of propagation. The only problem i see is that of timing.
I'm thinking about that kind of experiment myself. I couldn't find an accurate enough timing method so far.

 

One wheel has one aperture by which a photon can enter the space between wheels. Other wheel has one aperture through which photon can emerge onto detector. We have physical measurement of distance between wheels. One wheel has adjustment means to move aperture to various angles about axle, or, axis of rotation. Wheels are rotated in unison. When adjustment of apparatus is correct, photon will traverse in one aperture and out the other. Knowing RPM and critical dimensions, velocity of photon can be calculated.

 

yes, the concept is clear, but the problem is, that the speed of light is 300.000 km/s
In order to produce the effect you need to have the wheels apart at quite some distance. I calculated the whole thing. The mechanical effects (elastic twist of the axels, bending, vibrations) are by at least 5 orders of magnitude greater then the the angular separation between apertures if you have the wheels separated by 10m and rotate the whole thing at 10.000 rpm. And i used best case scenario in my calculations. The stifest materials, ideal bearings, ideal gears.

nc

 

Nc, I realize that you and cangus are having a fruitful rap session and I wouldn't interfere for the world, but I do have a question, if I may.
Since the two wheels of your apperatus must be seperated by such a distance (10 miles, or was it 10 meters?) won't you need to syncronize the motion of the wheels at each location in order to get a meaningful measurement?
Assuming your answer to that is yes, do you have a better way (truer way) to syncronize them than sending a light pulse from one to the other. I hope so, cause that would effectively negate the results of your experiment, me thinks.
Peace

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

metric system m stands for meter

 

and you are absolutely right. even at 10 meters the synchronization is quite impossible.
I calculated the situation for mechanical synchronization. And as i said in my previous post the effects of the elastic twist in the axle are way greater then the angular separation of the slits.

If you use lightbeams for synchronization you got the michelson morley situation. By that you will also get the same results.

 

This concept is in its infancy in my thoughts also.

We need to get rid of twist: We make the device like a drum, not having a little skinny axle in the middle. We choose the alloy with the best torsional resistance. We make it intentionally massive to obtain large moment of inertia. We spin up the assembly to desired RPM then disengage drive motor so that it free wheels. With great moment of inertia it will hold virtually steady RPM for some length of time. We are running the whole thing in a vacuum and we are using state of the art bearings which are claimed to be next to frictionless. Free wheeling, no torque is being applied so we should have no ongoing twist and great mass dampens residual twist vibrations.

Have not researched metallurgy yet, but would hope that 10,000 RPM could be greatly improved upon. I am personally familiar with objects half a foot in diameter regularly safely turning 35,000RPM and they are far from being made of the optimal tensile strength material. The best steel CABLE is rated at well over 100,000 PSI tensile strength and is considered to be capable of surprisingly close to one million if manufactured in perfect conditions. I would expect that some titanium alloy or whatever may beat steel .

Have already given synchronization substantial study but must collect thoughts to properly present them clearly. Will do so as quick as possible. Generally speaking we manufacture, adjust, and operate apparatus using mechanical measuring devices and do not rely on light for lining up anything, or synchronizing anything. And we may use simultaneous observation devices which need not be actually synchronized as long as we can relate each devices recorded information to a common time frame.