Relativity. Science or Cult?

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by ncheropoulos, Nov 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Will make further post re disconnected wheels soon but not now.

    In simplest scenario, axle is massive so that wheels would be called flanges at each end, looking much like a drum. Each flange has one aperture, as small as possible. One flange has a mechanical adjustment for exact angular position of aperture wrt "axle". Photon source is near one flange, to be decided if attached or not. Photon detector is near other flange, definitely not attached. Operation is go/no go on photon detection. No timing, just a photon strike or none. Device is held at constant RPM by whatever means is best. Minutely accurate tachometer observes and records RPM. That is all the instrumentation needed. We do not need time of entry into first aperture. We do not need time of exit of "out" aperture. We know that the photon has traversed a known distance which is measured mechanically. We do not need minute accuracy in the distance measurement. The distance is the same for all executions of the experiment, and all we want to accomplish is to turn the apparatus in various directions and and see if there is a different outcome of the experiments.

    We do not need to calculate anything. Each run of the experiment sees us having changed the location of one aperture through several runs, while turning the same RPM, until we get photons traversing through the "out" aperture rather than splatting against the solid part of the flange. We carefully note the angle of the "out" aperture by mechanical measurement. Then we turn the device to a different direction and repeat the drill of adjusting the location of one aperture until we get passage of photons. We have needed no instrumentation at all except for go/no go photon detection, and monitoring of RPM. As experiments are conducted it will become apparent if RPM can be relied on to be perfectly consistent: if that proves problematical then both photon strikes and RPM should be timed so that each strike can be related to a specific RPM. The timing device can be integral with the photon detector and the tachometer in one small device so that synchronization matters are negligible.

    Comparing the positions of the adjustable aperture reveals to us whether there has been a difference of photon transit time or not. Faster or slower than the right transit time will see a photon splat against the flange beside the aperture. We need not know what the transit time was nor what the photon speed was. It will be sufficient to recognize a difference or lack of one by noting if the same aperture location works or does not work for different apparatus orientations.

    Of course it will be immediately apparent that the aperture location could be held unchanged while RPM could be varied to cause photon go/no go. Execution of experiments should quickly show which method might be preferable in actual practice.

    The smaller the apertures can be, the lower the RPM can be. Candidate photon energies and their corresponding practical go/no go aperture size could be an important design factor.
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2005
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Nick S Registered Member

    The extended axle example looks interesting and I'll have to think about it, but to the original poster, I thought I'd try and clarify the plane/atomic clocks experiment, and why his conclusions drawn from it, are somewhat in error.

    The key point is the pop-science notion that time dilation only occurs in one direction; making clocks go slower. This just is not true.

    Suppose you have two frames (points of view, essentially) A and B, where you are at A, viewing B pass by at a velocity V. Let us say, for example, that A and B are hugely long trains, in which there are many people situated up and down the train, all with watches accurately synchronised to "headquarters" clock in the 'center' of the frame. The idea of the watches being synchronised is not a trivial one, but we can, for this example, assume that they have been successfully (to withing a reasonable degree of accuracy) synchronised.

    As train/frame B passes alongside train/frame A at a velocity V, the time-dilation *observed* will be seen to act in both directions, depending on where you are on frame A.

    Suppose the "headquarters" clock in the center of frame B is visible to those up and down frame A. If the "headquarters" of frame B is found to be at a positive distance 'x' from the "headquarters" of A, then the people on A with the synchronised clocks will observe the clock in B to appear to be slow. [NB: there is a little difficulty here, as they will not observe the clock to be *running* slow (i.e. time between ticks) but it will appear to be slow nonetheless].

    The important point is that people on frame A who find the "headquarters" of B to be at a negative distance 'x' from the "headquarters" of A will find that the clock on B appears to be running *fast*.

    Excuse me if this isn't quite clear, it's quite hard to explain without diagrams, so feel free to clarify/correct me.

    In essence, it is important to remember that time dilation depends not on speed, but on *velocity*, a vector. The perceived motion of the atomic clock in the lab (from the pilots perspective) is in precisely the opposite direction from the perceived motion of the atomic clock in the plane (from the lab workers' perspectives).
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    lets use some real numbers:

    distance between wheels : 10 meter
    rotation at : 60.000 rpm
    wheel circumference : 10 m
    time light needs to travel between wheels 10[m]/300.000.000[m/s] = 1/30.000.000
    tangent velocity at wheel circumference : 10[m]*1000[1/s] = 10.000 [m/s]
    tangent distance wheel covers while beam in transition: 10.000[m/s]/30.000.000 =
    1/3.000[m] = 1/3 mm

    sounds possible to measure. If you build the whole thing massive enough so that the mechanical effects are lets say less then 1/30 [mm]
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. ncheropoulos Registered Member

    and another thing. Time dilaation does not depend on the direction of the motion vector. The term v in the lorentz transformation is squared. That eliminates the (+-) sign.

  8. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    But clock skew does depend on the velocity vector, which was the main point of Nick S's post.
  9. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Am working on an unexpectedly conceived alternative "solid- state " concept also. An inventor never knows when he will be assaulted by another "wonderful" idea and thrown completely off schedule. Will share more information pro or con as soon as possible.

    Please forgive me for being too brief at this time but it seems possible that disconnected wheels can be functionally synchronized by means not tainted by any questions not able to be completely explained.

    Will also share my calculations regarding RPM of connected wheels. There are several ways to achieve astonishingly high RPM. Your 60,000 is a punk. No offense intended. Do keenly keep in mind that, whether individual photon count, or, peak photon flux, is the mode of operation, the smaller photon that is used, the lower the RPM can be.

    Keep in mind that wheel aperture speed is a linear function of RPM whereas centrifugal forces rises as the square of rotation speed of wheel. It is advantageous to design the wheel with as small a diameter as possible.
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2005
  10. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    Why not? Remember, time makes no sense without a reference frame.
  11. funkstar ratsknuf Valued Senior Member

    The part in red is your mistake. Simultaneity is relative, which means that "at the same time" requires a specification of reference frame, which means that there's no contradiction.

    Your primary mistake seems to be regarding time as somehow independent of space. It isn't.
  12. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Faux Fizeau UNCONNECTED two-wheel lightspeed experiment:

    Two wheels, each having:

    1. A photon aperture.

    2. An induction motor means utilizing an adjacent stationary stator ( each wheel being a "two"-piece Faraday motor ).

    3. A timing mark means with an adjacent stationary detector ( serving to both observe RPM and allow interpolation of angle of aperture. ).

    One wheel, called input wheel, has an adjacent stationary photon source.

    Second wheel, called output wheel, has an adjacent stationary photon detector.

    Both wheel's detectors electrically transmit information to control computer and recorder located adjacent to output wheel. Raw detector data IS NOT transmitted. Detector converts raw data into coded information which is transmitted. Therefore transmitted data cannot be Doppler shifted.

    Method of operation:

    Both wheels are spun up to an identical predetertermined RPM and stabilized.

    Output wheel is gently momentarily accelerated and brought back to predetertimed RPM in a trial-and-error hunt for observation of photons through output wheel aperture. When maximal photon strikes are achieved the output wheel aperture has been walked to the properly synchronized angle relative to the input wheel aperture angle. The output wheel aperture angle will, of course, have become retarded relative to the input wheel aperture angle in order to allow for photon flight time through the device.

    Then the entire device is turned horizontally to a different compass heading and the science experiment repeated.

    If different compass headings produce different aperture angles at synchronization, this will directly indicate different photon flight times and therefore different observed values of the speed of light.

    In my thinking on the matter, it would be equally important to science whether lightspeed were proved to be invarient within an absolute frame of reference, or proved to be invarient to any observer in any non-preferred frame of reference, as long as the test was considered absolutely definitive on the matter so that it could be no longer argued among serious scientists for another wasted century.

    As I have already stated, I am strongly disposed to believe that a definitive test will prove invarience in an absolute frame of reference.

    But, like the comedian said decades ago, "Just shoot up here amongst us! One of us has got to get some relief!".
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2005
  13. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    My favorite Jerry Clower bit.

    Interesting idea for an experiment, but I think you're going to run into the same null result of the MMX et al. The trouble is the that there is no way to sync the two wheels independant of lightspeed. The one piece rotor would seem to have an advantage, but I suspect that will be flawed in a more subtle fasion. MHO
  14. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Dave Gardner.

    Synchronization has been plainly explained. If you didn't get it at first, try it at second.

    I have been wrong before and I am sure I will be wrong again. However, It will take more than a vague pronouncement with no reason stated to convince me this time.
  15. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    Jerry did it too. Back in the 60's iirc. Wonder who swiped it from who.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    I do intend to go back over the thread when I have the time as I am interested to see how you are overcoming the basic clock skew limitation. It _shouldn't_ be possible but I will reserve judgement.
  16. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    Dave Gardner performed it and recorded it in the mid 50s. I have no idea who did it first.

    Clock skew limitation, basic or deluxe, ( whatever it is supposed to mean? ), has nothing to do with a one way velocity of light measurement.
  17. Deep_MindQuest Registered Member


    An Honest Man Alters His Ideas To Fit The Truth.
    A Dishonest Man Alters The Truth To Fit His Ideas
    What is Truth? How can one know it? ...Thy Word is TRUTH. John 17:17
    Truth is not arbitray as only God is Truth. We may scrutinize everthing else though to attempt scrutinizing God is futile.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- refuting relativity !!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Relativism CUT AND PASTE !!!!
    NEW AGE : new age thinking says there is no one single truth and there is no one reality.that truth is based on experience,so it changes and can differ from person to person.
    if there is no absolute truth,then there must be many contradicting truths and realitys.....fascinating food for leads to being comfortable with whatever truth we want.....
    ..but on a more practicle leval what diffrence did truth make if one finally discovered it??? or how did we know if there really is such a thing??? and if not,what did anything that anyone believed matter anyways???
    these teachings only gave answers that only raised more questions.............which is called gnostasism and its the same thing as the occult the offering in so called secrets about god etc .
    all we gotta ask ourselves is what are we interested in? truth or whatever just sounds good?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- RELATIVISM- WORLD GONE MAD !!!
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- relativism,to believe its all relative is to believe theres no God
  18. kevinalm Registered Senior Member

    I should perhaps have used the word fundamental, something like "the fundamental limitation imposed by clock skew and simultenaity". You need to establish a time sync between the zero index of rotation of the receiver and transmitter, or you can't measure anything. And this has to be unambiguous. I don't see how you accomplish this.
  19. CANGAS Registered Senior Member

    kevinalm: You have been very patient with my thick head to repeat your comment until I finally got it. Thank you. This is what "peer review" is all about.

    At the time I posted, I had been entertaining several slightly different variations of the same basic concept. Unfortunately, I left out too many important parts for any one to be accurately described.

    I am rewording now and will re-post in a matter of hours.

    I am too accustomed to being wrong the first ( ! ) time to be apoplectic again, and I am very appreciative of interest and sincere comments. I only wish I had your patience!
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page