# Res Ipsa Loquitor-- Disproved:The Impossiblity of absolute motion detection.

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Oct 23, 2004.

1. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
In Response to James R claiming: no conceivable test can distinguish absolute motion.

How to detect and measure the absolute velocity, the motion of two inertial frames, in free space.

Despite the theoretical axiom that detection and measurement of absolute motion is impossible I will show the trivial correction to this kind of silliness. I do not intent=d any unnecessary insults here, but If there were ever a social class of those claiming scientific status from a position of sheer and unadulterated bigotry and bias it is the Special Relativity industry.

Well any way here we go.

The detection of absolute motion, AKA velocity

Remote piloted vehicle velocity probe (RPVVP)
• Case 1; Va and Vb in a collision trajectory. First we have two inertial frames, Va and Vb, moving at some relative velocity say, 5000 standard units which to start we will assume is in the opposite direction to each other. By radar signal processing the 5000 unit speed number is verified by navigators on both frames. As the frames move toward each other Va launches a remote piloted velocity vehicle probe (rpvvp), an Aquila, that starts at Vq = Va and by successive accelerations in the dorectoion opposite tot hatassumed asVa, increases its velocity with respect to Va all the while making constant checks on the relative velocity of the Vq and Vb and Va. As Vq increases velocity the Vq – Vb relative velocity decreases until finally Vq = Vb and with Va, lets say the Vq frame had a measured 2000 unit relative velocity with respect to Va.

Therefore, Va – Vb = Va – (-Vb) = 5000 and as Vb = 2000 Va = 5000 – 2000 or 3000 units.
• Case 2: Vb moving in the same direction as Va. Here Vq starts as before, but the first acceleration showed that Vq – Vb increasing, therefore the Vq decelerated and continued its motion in the same direction as Va and Vb. Using the same techniques of accelerating or decelerating as the measured relative velocity increased or decreased, the Vq arrives at the velocity Vq = Vb, which we will assume again was 2000 units. As Vq maintains a running relative velocity accounting with Va, we see that Va – Vb = 5000 and therefore Va = 5000 + Vb = 5000 + 2000 = 7000 units.

Introduction to MUMPS (momentum measurement particles) analysis.
• Case 1: Va and Vb in relative motion with Va at actual rest, momentum = 0, (which will be determined). Va and Vb are moving in a collision course as shown here:

Code:
/----------------------------------/ Va ->

<-    \------------------------------------------------\Vb
Our Mumps are small round objects much in the form of golf balls (in fact they are golf balls) as are the flat strip of surface on each inertial frame fabricated wihe same same surface configuration. As Va is actually at rest the observer on Vb will see a single line, as a mump is directed perpendicular to the motion of the two inertial frames: "o" ae the Va mumpstones, “|” Va observer.
Code:

/-------o----------------0---------/ Va = 0
o  ¯                 0  0
o                  0      0
o             o                0         0
o           o              0             0
o         o            0                0
o       o          0                   0
o     o                                0
o   o                                 0
ß \<------- -o-------|-----------|-|-|-0---------\Vb <-
Vb observer “|”

Now, as Vb is the only frame moving (left) the mumps directed to Va will move with the inertial frame and inherits the Vb velocity. When the Vb mumps strike the flat surface of Va there will be a friction induced force in the direction of motion of the Vb frame. Likewise, as Va is at rest her mumps will only be deflected from a straight line when striking the moving Vb frame. The Va observer will see her mumps deflected to her right, the readers left. As Vb is moving left he will see his mumps as indicated as he is moving at the same velocity as the mumps the directed at Va. The angles are proportional to the relative momentum differences of the two frames.
• Case 2: the same analysis for Vb = 0 and Va moving with all the relative velocity. I will note here that each of the mumps is also a transponder, which makes keeping track of the actual positions of the mumps much easier.
• Case 3: Both frames moving toward each other.

The "o" are Va stones moving down (not shown here) and “|” Va observer.
Code:
        /-------o-| | | |-|-|-| |-0------------/ Va ->
¯                0 0
0       0
0             0
0                  0
0                       0
0
0
0
ß \-    ------------------------  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |   |  ---------\<- Vb

The"0' ae Vb stones moving up, the Vb observer “|”
• Here if the Va = Vb the reflection angles will all be the same and if the momenta of each is different then the angles will be proportionally larger or smaller. I am leaving the calculation of the angles as a function of momenta and therefore velocity to the reader. Intuitively there must be some kind of analog to Snell’s law in working this out as there are frictional forces to contend with the calibration will best be performed by experiment and testing.

The momentum stone (mump stones) drop technique.
• I suggested this in a previous post, but thought it useful to include again here.
Actually this is almost identical to the mumps tests, but is designed for passenger train, Vn experiments. Dropping a mump from a moving train will indicate the motion of either the train or the embankment, Ve, obviously. The special relativity “considerations” of assuming a moving frame at rest with respect to the Ve by ignorant observers will not rescue the theory. Here, as we all know the Ve does not accelerate and the only way there is any relative velocity between Ve and Vn is if Vn accelerated, which it did, and assuming the Vn at rest will not change the physics of the arrangements. The mump will always indicate momentum in the direction of the moving frame, always, and therefore any observer attempting to cheat by asserting his ignorance of motion will be denied the opportunity and instead we will hand him a mump stone to drop from his window.
• The observer watching the stone drop in a straight line parallel with a row of vertical rivets on the outside of the train has his attention directed to the ground and seeing the ground pass by is reminded that the stone, while appearing to the untrained and unscientific eye, might think the stones are dropping in a straight line as if Vn were at rest, but now he knows different and he recognizes that the absolute motion of his mumps is a parabola, and he sees the same motion as the stationary observer looking on from the preferred frame of reference Ve.

This observer does not see his stone chipped to the rear in the direction of the “non-moving" ground.

3. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
You are still only observing relative motion. You, the stone, ansd the earth could be flying through space at 10,000mph and you'd not realize it.

5. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
In case you missed it the systems discovered who is moving, what direction they are moving and the absolute motion, of each. AS these are space ships let us assume here, that each originated on earth and that the motions are consistent with the acceleration data in each ship where they can calculate their current velocity with respect to Ve = 0.

You just want to make up some imaginary 10,000mph from where? Your imagination?

What you fail to see in the above that which was measured is what SR says cannot be measured,. Your 10,000 mph has nothing to do with the demise of SR. You don't even understand the essence of SR if you missed the obvious.

Geiskiesel

7. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
You missed my point, how do you know the entire system isn't moving?

8. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Who really gives a shit if the entire system is moving or not? Do you?

9. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
It's not abosulte motion then....

10. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
What is this "everything is moving" referenced to?

11. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Not sure, because I didn't say 'everything is moving'.

If you do your test on two sets of ships, which had initial velocites before the test, they will get different answers. This is by definition NOT absolute.

For example, in your train example you are using the ground as a reference for absolute velocity. However, there is no reason to use that instead of the train.... and both will have different results.

12. ### dristamRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
123
You said, "..decreases until finally Vq = Vb and with Va, lets say the Vq frame had a measured 2000 unit relative velocity with respect to Va." Wherefrom did you make up that 2000? your imagination!? If Vq=Vb then the probe is finally COMOVING with entity B and will show the SAME 5000 velocity relative to entity A. A waste of time bickering w/the likes...

13. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Yes there is reason for setting the Ve = 0, because it is zero and unaccelerated. All other inertial frames on the earth must accelerate before any relative motion is opbserved. Ve is never seen to acccelerate. Therefore, all Vn with respect to Ve > Ve = 0, really!. Subtract ouit mutual velocities of the earth Ve and the Vn (which inherits all Ve motion as all Vn are either at rest with repsect to Ve = 0 , or Vn > Ve = 0 necessarily). Therefore, the measured delta v = of Vm - Vn is really the diffeence in real velocity as both are measured with respect to Ve.

You are going to have to prove that the velocities will be different than when measured when leaving Ve, the home planet.

You aren't responding to the thread, get on it or get off it. I am not going joy riding with you anymore, nor am I going fishing into the "maybe land" of SR.

I measured the absolute velocities of two inertial frames. So prove it wrong or leave it alone.

Geistkiesel

14. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
You are taking the Earth as being Ve=0. Besides there not being any basis to choose it as your steady point, it's simply false. As you pointed out yourself the thing is accelerating constantly.

15. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
I also said that the measure of anything but straight line motion of Ve is impossible. Try it. The direction indicator of the earth changes by the mind blowing rate of approximately 1.5 x 10^-8 degrees/second. This is not whiplash rates, mind you. You might also take some consideration of when a physical ratio, or result, can be cionsidered effectively zero or infinite, as the case may be and get out of your imaginary tree world of SR.

16. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
You just pointed out several reasons why there is not absolute motion... thank you.

17. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
When two photons, for example, are emitted simultaneously from the same location, each singularly and both together, defne a unique point in space that is invariant as the motion of light is invariant until acted on by outsuide forces, and the motion of the source, or a frame, does not change that postulate of reality, Therefore, the line traced by a photon, and the point of origin of the photon is an invariant point in space which provides a reference point from which to measure absolute velocity.

18. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471

I chose it? No I didn't choose it, that's the way it is. All Vn not = Ve must accelerate before any relative motion between the earth frame and the moving inertial frame. The earth did not accelerate. All Vn exhibiting relative motion with respect to the Ve necessary Vn > Ve as all common velocities are subtracted out. Vn will never be at rest with respect to Ve unless Vn = Ve = 0, relativily speaking and physically speaking also.

So you see I didn't choose it. I have made a number of claims that the measure of any but straight-line motion of the Ve, the planet earth is physically impossible. You may think that your calculations tell you the truth about orbits around the sun and hence the curved motion, well may be they do just that. I ain't the one to argue that. I will only repeat that the measure of other than a straight line motion of the planet earth cannot be done, therefore all measurements assuming exact straight-line motion wrt Ve, is entirely justified to borrow a term from SR.

This is the difference between a mathematical model and a physical model. Your mathematics demanding mathematical perfection cannot see the physical reality of the effective motion of the Ve = 0 to uniform straight-line motion as MEASURED, not merely theorized about on a piece of paper with AE's portrait hanging on the wall..

Where is James R in this thread? He is the one saying it is impossible to do what I did in the opening posts which persol keeps ignoring also with excrutiating repetition and avoidance.

Hey MacM, I think I found a James R clone here.

19. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,808
I'm not on line all the time, geistkiesel! You seem to be spending a lot of time here, lately, though. I'm just having trouble keeping up with your large output of posts.

20. ### PersolI am the great and mighty Zo.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
5,946
Geistkiesel, do me a favor and give me your definition of 'absolute motion'.... because it doesn't match science's.

21. ### (Q)Encephaloid MartiniValued Senior Member

Messages:
20,855
Therefore, the line traced by a photon, and the point of origin of the photon is an invariant point in space which provides a reference point from which to measure absolute velocity.

The source that emitted the photons - how do you know it is stationary IN space? Is there some way of knowing the source is not moving?

22. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
yes, the postulate of light that says the motion of light is independent of the motion of the source. The photon trajectory is a straight line until acted upon by an out side force. The source of the photons is merely a point in space, but it is invariant. It may be difficult to determine at times, but thr reaity of the invariance of the photon trajectory is cast in steel. Unless, it seems, it gets in some theorists way and then an exception is always found, such a tragedy, isn't it?

23. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
I am just using that which was discarded by relativity theory. Assume yiou see the "light" on my velocity = zero device using photons as a referemce frame. This comes form the postuloate of light that the motion of light is idnependent of the motion of the sourcde. Hence a phton will move in a straight klibne untikl acted on by an ioutide force, othe wise is psatially not moving, ther ios nothin to drift or accelerate as it is purely a frame at absolute zero velocity.

I use the earth frame also as absolute for the reason that the motion is faurkly wekk ubdertsii=ood and all poits on thin the volume earth acan be opredicted to any desired accuracy.
OK the earth turns constantly at a whiplash rate of < 10^-8 degrees / sec. All of this adds up to the fact that the earth is imeasurably distinguished from straight-line motion.
You and I may calculate motions and know the annual orbit times and rotations times etc. but we can't measure the tirning and therefore for all physical intents and purposes it isn't turning, We may ignore the turning. If it ever should affect a measurement the rates are suffciiciently slow that corrections can be easily made .

If I time you driving by me stationary on the side of the road, at 200 km/hr that is absolute velocity to me. The earth if infiniitely inertially pure. No conceivable Vn can possibly affect the lumbering straight line motion. All earth velocities of Ve are inherited by all Vn and it is the Vn seen to accelerate that we observe relative motion between Ve anf Vn. Ve is never seen to accelerate.

OK?