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

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

  1. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    A photon moving in free space moves with uniform speed and direction. To change the photon trajectory an external force is required. Where is the force that changes the invariant trajectory in your world?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    ... in one particular frame. In another frame, the direction will be different.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RawThinkTank Banned Banned

    Messages:
    429
    GEISTKIESEL
    Dont Ignore me, I am not an Ignorant.

    When an object starts acceleration then its time starts to slow down. This means if we wana know which object is in acceleration then it should become clear by looking at whose clocks are lagging behind. Is this true ?

    Both object are going away but even though there were only two object , we should know by looking at their clocks who is in acceleration , ie. the object with slower clock will be speeding up, Am I wrong here ? Please Help.
     
  8. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    I was not ignoring you. Your conslusions are the same as mine, but yo must know I am not anSR theorist and I reject the SR theory altogether.
     
  9. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    You aren't talking about a change of direction in the sense that the photon had a force applied, only that another frame came into the neighbrhood and saw the photon. You were simply not discssing force, is this correct?

    I am having a bit of Hmmmm, trying to understand the meaning of your statement here at this point n the thread. I searched back a few posts and couldn't put a "direction" to your post.
     
  10. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Thanks for the link. Actually, I have looked at this before, but it has been sometime. I cannot argue with Fowler's expertise in SR but he isn't perfect. He makes the same "omission" as most modern authors when quoting the results of Michelson M9orely experimen ,which is invariably discussed in terms of a null results, or 0 finding which was not the case. Both MM and Dayton Miller for the next 30 ears repeated MM experinments and found what MM dound, an "ether drag" relative velocity of approximately 8 km/sec.

    I say this for the reason that with this seeming trivial oversight Fowler's paper is incomplete and cannot be used as a source of "information" at least as far as the results of MM experiments are relevant. For instance if you quoted Fowler and his discussopm of MM experiments you and I cpould not have a rational discussion if you rely on what Fowler said. The reason being I have Fowler's information, because I read it , but I have other information that cosntradicts Fowler, or at least says something significantly dfferent than Fowler. Who is correct, Fowler or someone else? Fowler could be correct, but . . .

    If he had said something to the effect Ihave red other accounts saying that MM did not find a nul and I concluded that those papes are in in error for the following reasons . . . .

    Again I am only using this one example but you must understand that i cannot accept a "theory" based only on the rsults of that structure. I have to see or determine what the fundamental structure of that system is. What is the physical basis of the theory.
     
  11. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Persol, I do not recall if you and I ever discussed theme of this thread, regarding the impossibility of a test distinguishing absolute motion in free space?

    If you have responded to thos before then feel free to iognore this. Two space ships both measure a relative velocity of 6000 units wrt each other. Let us assume that each had one year earlier accelerated away from their home planets, each different than the other. How can one determine his own original velocity form the condition they find themsleves in free space?

    lets call the ships Va and Vb and both detect a collision course trajectory. The ships are approaching each other.

    Va launches a probe Vap that can accelerate and also measure relative velocity and with the priobe equipment it can measure the relative motion between itself and both Va and Vbm separately..
    As Vap starts from a velocity relative to Va as Va = Vap, the relative velocity can always be known. Vap accelerates in the direction that Vb is assumed to be moving and Vap detrmines it needs to speed up which it continuously does untill its relative velocity Vap - Vb = 0. As Vap also knows its relative velocity wrt to Va, and knows tha now Vb can only measure the relative velocity as before, Vb only measures the same relative velocity wrt Va as before when Vap send Vb a message. "My relative velocity wrt Va is 2000", say. "my relative velocity with respect to Vb is 0." Now=the information Vap sent to is correct and therefore Vb can put himself in the Vap condition when Vap left the Va ship.

    SR says I cannot do this. Do you see any flaws in the analysis or the system of detection of absolute velocity, as I have defined the term here by the results of the experiment?
     
  12. RawThinkTank Banned Banned

    Messages:
    429
    are aware of astronauts who stay for long periods in orbit loose 10 to 15 seconds of their wrist watches ?
     
  13. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Was this clock slowing due to relativity? Relativity requires extfreme speeds or extreme lengths of time in order that the effect seen. Were these conditions satid=sfied in the watch scenario you decribed?
     
  14. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    And you make the same "ommision" as most modern kooks. You completely ignroed that M-M isn't the only experiment listed that deals with realtivity. In particular, the link was to counter your claim that "a photon moving in free space moves with uniform speed and direction"... and then arguing that it didn't change in different frames.

    But you probably didn't read that far....
     
  15. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    your last sentence makes no sense to me... I was with you up till then.

    But regardless, that doesn't get you any closer to determining absolute motion.... it's still relative.
     
  16. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    The last sentence states that once the Vap has delivered the informaion available to he Vap, Vb can then detemine his absolute velcity. i fear we we may have the beginnings of a quibble here so let me define my use of the word, "absolute velocity".

    Lets us assume that Va and Vb both measured their respective velociies wrt their home planets. Now as Vap measured a relative velocity with respect to Va, the Vap mother ship, at the same time Vap mesured the relative velocity with respect to Vb = 0, then Vb can adopt the Vap informaion for him self. Here we made up the 2000 unit Vap - Va relative velocity, which now tells us what the velocity distribution, or contribution, to the "relative" velocity of Va and Vb are.The Va conribution to the relative velocity of 6000 units is 4000, and the Vb contribution to the 6000 unit relative velocity is 2000 units.. The numbers, 4000 and 2000 are not allowed to be determined by SR. This is my understanding of the basic postulate of SR.

    Is there any further confusion regarding my post, which admittedly was skewed in the final sentence? If you follow the description, then you understand my use of "relative velocity" and "absolute velocity" . Does your meaning of "absolute" differ from my own in the context of this post?

    Without a showing now that an absolute velociy wrt 0 can be shown as possible, I restrict the term to the measured velocity of the Va and Vb wrt their home planets, being 4000 and 2000 units each.
     
  17. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Good, then this thread is done.
     
  18. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    No, you're done. Forks get stuck in you, Persol.
    Go, pen a thread, paint this then, an inch thick:
    relativity's dead, s'been put to bed.


    While I am preparing my visuals I thought this proof of absolute zero velocity should be aired by some critical, knowing and unbiased scientists. Do you know of any such beings on this, the planet with the blue sky?

    “The motion of light is independent of the motion of the source of light.”

    As well s the postulate that:

    The speed of light is a constant C measured in all reference frames [with respect to absolute zero velocity? We shall see] ,

    and the law of inertia is where I start and where I finish.

    An emitted photon maintains a straight-line trajectory (photrak) until acted upon by an external force


    Take some stones drop them in a boxcar stationary under your bridge. They all hit the same boxcar. Do this at a known rate and when the train moves notice how the stones always start out heading for one boxcar that moves ouit of the way before the stone arrives, until it finally lands in one of the boxcars. We know the height, of the stone drop, we know the time-of-flight of the stone and ergo we know he train velpcot with respect to the straightline motion of the stoen, but the stone is on a slightrly moving frame, this wont do, will it?

    We replace you with a photon emitter/absorber pairs that are lined up such that each can direct photons in a straight line to the other. When an emitter, unit is you, the observer, the opposite emitter/absorber is the boxcar and then the roles reverse etc.

    You must see that a photon in flight directed at an absorber will always miss the absorber if it moves out of the way. If you have a planar arrangement, , of these two tiered arrays full of the emitter/absiorber pairs thousands on a side, there will always be an absorber to catch the photon when the oiginal instantanrously targeted absorber has moved. The distance between the planar array is fixed and known. The distance between emitter/absorber pairs is fixed and known. The speed of light is know.Therefore, if an emitted photon does not arrive at the absorber directly below (or above), that is to whjere it was originally aiomed, it will arrive at another and that absorption and emission is used in the computer program to calculate velocity. Three dinmensional arrangements provides all possible directions of motion.

    The planar arrays are rigidly attached to the moving frame. Now whatever an on board observer sees, or think he sees, the emitted photons continue along their straightline motion until absorbed. The refefrence frame,. the hadware can be moving all over the place, yet the photon could care less.

    So there is a turn or a dive so what? The system records the error in time-of -flight and calulates the change of direction, ans speed.

    If we had an infinitely long planar two tierd planararray one photon path is all we would ever see and our infinitely long space ship would always know to a very high degree of accuracy, or resolution, what the ship velovcity is with respect to absolute zero. The ship moves relative to the absolutely stationary line, or reference frame component, defined by the photon trajectory, which is invariant in its motion.

    A solitary space ship passing a single photon trajectory emitted on the other side of the universe can easily measure its velocity wrt the invariant line. Here, we are not measuring miotion wrt the speed of the photons that generate the line, we are measure against zero motion of the line itself.

    I don't know how you define absolute zero velocity, but I define as that reference frame coordinate system that is invariiant in trajectory, whose motion is independent of the source of its cordinates origin and moving uniformly, where here the uniform motion is a pure velocity = 0.

    Geistkiesel..
     
  19. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    But once again this is misleading. If the emitter is moving as well then the photon will hit the absorber.
    No... it can't. The angle of that line will be different depending on your motion. If you are are at 0c with respect to the emitter, it will go straight across. If you have a velocity though, it will appear slanted.

    But none of that really matters, because you are still measuring your velocity with respect to something else even if it did work.
     
  20. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Why do you say this is occuring. Let us assume the absorption reemission process is euivalent to a mirror reflection for any delta T purposes.

     
  21. RawThinkTank Banned Banned

    Messages:
    429
  22. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    i cannot argue somethiing I don't have to argue with, like he experometnal parameters of the time dilation experiments. Certainly your post was not such a docukents. Ypu aren't atempting to uese the reputation of NASA to prove relativity theory are you?

    The paper you referenced was a public information sheet tha didn't have a lot of science in it if any. You realize do you not that NASA was basically formed niot as a sicientific organization designed to count the number of angels dancing the boogie-woogie around some nonexistent, or no-observed black holes. NASA was created as a military arm of the United States's, not a scientific arm. Outside the he communications benefit and bomb delivery pogtential form space behicles, which doesn't nelong to god fearing and loving USA, anyone can go "up" . If the US created NASA for military purpsoes there has to be more than speculation from Hiollywood miovies that generated the government's deep pockets commitments. I wonder who the enemy is out there and if we've made contact.

    RawThinkTank the thread here is a challenge to James R tha "no one can determine absolute velocity". I did you see, and you missed it, but then you are just on James R team maybe? You don't seem the least bit interested and could care less about the science, this is what I see.

    Now, Raw Think Tank, you know what this thread is all about don't you? You know I just worte a brief little note showing you how an absolute zeo velocity frame of reference can be constructed and you respond with blatant propaganda?

    NASA said this and NASA said that, where is your physics? In a propaganda flyer.

    Can't you offer any criticism of my note by something specific there? My god Raw, I let it all hang out so to speak, and you show this forum NASA propaganda as counter to my zero absolute velocity system, propaganda against my absolute velocity frame of reference?

    Do yo know that some times I really get the impression that there is a dedicated and coordinated resistance to attacks by SR dissidents. Is there any truth to this that you are maware of??

    RawThinkTank, with a name like thatg you should be able to oprivide more than progpaganmda.Much m,roe> anti SR ists
     
  23. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    Looky what I found. You don't realize what I did what his note 'like to do' I told how a thing worked I didn't try to slam anyone, therory or otherwise.

    "If U r more interested in proving why things wont work rather than telling how to make them work then please dont read my threads and dont waste my precious time by doing that, I am fedup with such humans, just leave."

    Now if the author of this passed out propaganda as input into a scientific discussion I would think something llike, "hypocirtical" maybe.
     
    Last edited: Nov 12, 2004

Share This Page