Does Reciprocity Falsify Special Relativity?

[CANGAS]

Wow! You good old boys would rather do ANYTHING than honestly consider the faint possibility that you have invested too much of your belief in a bad theory.

Anyone who will give a few minutes of honest thought to the physical layout of the MM interferometers of the 1880s will be able to see that light had to be either bounced forward by deliberately "forward" aimed mirrors or had to be somehow "carried along", perhaps by being given a sideways velocity upon encountering a mirror, per Emitter Theory. Consequently, in both Lorentz's and Einstein's published sketches of their contrivance of gamma, it is unavoidably plain that the derivation of gamma depends upon light being given a sideways velocity upon encountering a reflector. LIGHT BEING GIVEN A VELOCITY BY ITS REFLECTOR IS EMITTER THEORY. It is in total contradiction to the concept that light speed is independent of its source ( or, its adopted source, a reflector. ).

However, my intended point, as usual for me clumsily stated, was that IF gamma is valid, because Lorentz/Einstein Relativity is valid, I have not been able to imagine how gamma can be only valid ONE WAY. My point was intended to be that gamma is wrong because Relativity is wrong, or, gamma, to my current thinking, must be correct TWO WAY.

Sorry MacM, nothing personal.

 

[MacM]

My point was intended to be that gamma is wrong because Relativity is wrong, or, gamma, to my current thinking, must be correct TWO WAY.

Sorry MacM, nothing personal.

Not a problem.

My only note would be that your above statment is only true if you consider "Relative Velocity" to be true velocity. In some aspects and physics it is but not necessarily for the purpose of relativity.

For Ke it obviously is but for time dilation, etc it may well be that only the body experiencing F = ma is actually accelerating and therfore has velocity in a universal sense.

A recent study did find that the numbers of cosmic muons reaching the earth has a anisotropy function linked to our absolute motion to the CMB and not merely the relative velocity of the muon to earth.

 

[CANGAS]

It is both fascinating and an extreme enigma that both we must consider F=ma and its absence, or varience, to be very important.

 

[CANGAS]

In a gravity field, we are beset by F=ma but do not feel it.

In my racin' car, we are beset by F=ma, and we really do feel it.

In both cases we wind up moving fast, especially in my car, but only in one case do we have seat-of-the-pants knowledge that we are have been accelerated.

If we were napping during the excitement in both cases, then woke up, in one case we would observe, if Relativity was turned on, two way reciprocity, but in another case, if Relativity was turned on also, only one way gamma?

I just can't get it how the observer can know, after the fact, how they are in the previously accelerated frame or not. This undermines my ability to give General Relativity credibility.

And it undermines my ability to give Special Relativity credibility. If two way gamma is not a decisively proven thing, which it seems to not be, how does the observer know, after the fact, which frame is the one, the right one, which has felt acceleration? When I goose my racin' car, do any of us really believe that I am causing the angular velocity of the Earth to double? Or triple? Or whatever.

 

[Pete]

Wow! You good old boys would rather do ANYTHING than honestly consider the faint possibility that you have invested too much of your belief in a bad theory.

I'd love to break SR. It's tough to break

Anyone who will give a few minutes of honest thought to the physical layout of the MM interferometers of the 1880s will be able to see that light had to be either bounced forward by deliberately "forward" aimed mirrors or had to be somehow "carried along", perhaps by being given a sideways velocity upon encountering a mirror, per Emitter Theory.

Perhaps I'm dense. Please don't suggest that I'm dishonest.
But, I just don't see it.

(From U.Va)
At which point do you think that the angle of incidence does not equal the angle of reflection?

 

[Pete]

And it undermines my ability to give Special Relativity credibility. If two way gamma is not a decisively proven thing, which it seems to not be, how does the observer know, after the fact, which frame is the one, the right one, which has felt acceleration? When I goose my racin' car, do any of us really believe that I am causing the angular velocity of the Earth to double? Or triple? Or whatever.

I don't know what you're getting at here.

What do you mean by "which frame is the right one"? Why does there have to be a "right" frame?

Why should anyone think that goosing' your dragster changes Earth's angular velocity?

 

[Rosnet]

If a space craft has a clock at rest and synchronized with a clock on earth and then is launched to planet X which happens to have a relative velocity of 0.866c to earth, then upon arrival on planet X the space craft clock will tick at the rate of planet X which is 1/2 the rate of the clock on earth.

The problem becomes that now the space craft is at rest on planet X according to Special Relativity it is the earth that is receeding from planet X at a velocity of 0.866c and for the space craft to return it must once again accelerate to catch earth (not decelerate), Further having achieved a relative velocity to planet X and returned to earth it must now be ticking at 1/2 the rate of the clock on planet X which is ticking at 1/2 the rate of the earth clock.

So that once back on earth Special Relativity would require that the space clock is ticking at 1/4 that of the earth clock that it was originally synchronized to and which is now in the same frame.

Being in the same frame it must tick at the same rate, not 1/4 the rate.

The fact that it ticks at the same rate is an absolute velocity affect where the clock accelerates and then declerates and not a relative velocity affect.

The direction of acceleration is important. For example, imagine a rod with a cloc attached to each end. Synchronise these clocks, and then accelerate the rod in a deirection parallel to itself. You'll see that the clocks begin to go out of sync, and that the clock in front (with respect to the direction of acceleration) will run faster than the clock at the back (during the period of acceleration).

 

[MacM]

The direction of acceleration is important. For example, imagine a rod with a cloc attached to each end. Synchronise these clocks, and then accelerate the rod in a deirection parallel to itself. You'll see that the clocks begin to go out of sync, and that the clock in front (with respect to the direction of acceleration) will run faster than the clock at the back (during the period of acceleration).

Correct. That is because as counter intuitive as it might seem the acceleration at the front and back is not the same.

 

[DaleSpam]

Wow! You good old boys would rather do ANYTHING than honestly consider the faint possibility that you have invested too much of your belief in a bad theory.

This is a very specious and presumptious comment. You assume simply because my current position is obviously in support of SR that I never honestly considered the opposite position. I invite you to "honestly consider the faint possibility" that other people may have contientiously labored through similar objections to yours and simply reached opposite conclusions.

For your information, I did not like SR when I first learned about it my freshman year in undergrad. I considered a variety of objections to it throughout the rest of my undergrad until about halfway through my PhD studies, a period of 6-7 years. In each case I eventually found fatal flaws in my own reasoning. I suspect that many of the pro-SR crowd on this site probably have a similar history and are similarly irritated by the presumption that we have arrived at our current position without honest consideration.

However, even if I had first heard of SR yesterday, and decided to support it based on a coin toss, that would not make SR wrong.

In any case, I hardly see how asking you to clarify your comments amounts to a failure to consider them. I am not a mind reader and, as you surely know, it is rare that comments in a post will be as clear to others as they are in your own mind. Please don't misconstrue a request for details as a failure to consider the argument.

Anyone who will give a few minutes of honest thought to the physical layout of the MM interferometers of the 1880s will be able to see that light had to be either bounced forward by deliberately "forward" aimed mirrors or had to be somehow "carried along", perhaps by being given a sideways velocity upon encountering a mirror, per Emitter Theory. Consequently, in both Lorentz's and Einstein's published sketches of their contrivance of gamma, it is unavoidably plain that the derivation of gamma depends upon light being given a sideways velocity upon encountering a reflector. LIGHT BEING GIVEN A VELOCITY BY ITS REFLECTOR IS EMITTER THEORY. It is in total contradiction to the concept that light speed is independent of its source ( or, its adopted source, a reflector. ).

I don't see the connection between the derivation of gamma and the MM experiment. The MM experiment was intended to be sensitive to any anisotropy in c, not to a particular value or form of gamma.

In my experience, the usual derivation of gamma involves a theoretical "light clock" traveling with velocity v in the x direction which is oriented with the light path in the y direction. Is this the derivation you are discussing or are you refering to some other derivation? If you make the emitter-theory assumption that the light is traveling with velocity vector of (v,c), then the gamma is 1 independent of v and the speed is sqrt(v²+c²). If, on the other hand, you make the relativistic assumption that the speed is c then you get the Lorentz gamma.

-Dale

 

[Billy T]

...Why should anyone think that goosing' your dragster changes Earth's angular velocity?

I normally agree with you so not sure what you intend by this, but yes I think one can change the Earth's spin rate this way, but not significantly however, and not at all when you run out of gas and come to a stop again. (no altitude change assumed)*

I do note that the effect of equitorial space launches that take advantage of the approximately 1000mph tangential speed the rocket has while sitting on the launch pad is cumulative, but surely impossible to detect in the noise of tidal variations induced changes in Earth's rotation rate.

As rocket rolls over to add to the initial 1000mph speed it is torqing backwards on the Earth's spin. Unless I am making some stupid error, conservation of the total angular momentum of Earth and launched rocket makes the spin of Earth less as the rocket has increased part of the original angular momentum. Surely you agree with this. So what were you stating/ implying?

Each time some communications satellite is placed in Geosychronious orbit, the Earth rotation slows and the next one put up, if exactly correct orbit, may need to be a mm higher above the Earth. - You do many calculations here and I am lazy. - Assume the last one weighed 1000Kg as does the next. Is the effect as big as 1 mm?
---------------------------------------
*When I was about 10, I did not know much physics. For more than a week, I would push a brick off my window sill when got up in the morning and return it to the window sill that eve, before going to bed. I knew I was not doing anything significant, but I liked the (false) idea that I could move the earth, by making it always fall in the same direction towards the brick. I thought that putting my body between the brick and earth every night and pushing them apart made an equal contribution to moving the earth in the same direction as the fall did. (Unfortunately, some here think I did move the earth. All I did was make the days shorter and the nights longer during that week.)

 

[kevinalm]

I did some very rough calculations many years back on a related what if. What if you could tap the Earth's rotational kinetic energy as an energy source? IIRC, if you figure 100x the current total energy usage of the entire human race, you slow the Earth's rotation one second per century, or something like that. I'm guessing it would be less than a mm.

 

[Billy T]

I did some very rough calculations many years back on a related what if. What if you could tap the Earth's rotational kinetic energy as an energy source? IIRC, if you figure 100x the current total energy usage of the entire human race, you slow the Earth's rotation one second per century, or something like that. I'm guessing it would be less than a mm.

You may be correct, but lets wait to see If Pete (or someone) does it. It is not much related to Earth's rotational energy and the angular moment difference between two (circular) geostationary orbits only 1 mm different in altitude is not very much, (I'm guessing) so my money is on that it will be 1mm or more.

Perhaps we should start a pole? I do not know how to set one up. That would be a good way to get the answer. Someone would surely "cheat" and compute the answer before "guessing." (It is not a complex problem to get a ball park answer.)

PS, Mainly to MacM: Yes this is way off your thread's topic, but your "reciprocity disproves SRT" is nonsense, so at least for a while I think some non-nonsense can appear here. Perhaps you want to get your bet down, before the window closes by some spoil sport who calculates, or start a pole thread for question if you know how (new thread)?

 

[MacM]

PS, Mainly to MacM: Yes this is way off your thread's topic, but your "reciprocity disproves SRT" is nonsense, so at least for a while I think some non-nonsense can appear here. Perhaps you want to get your bet down, before the window closes by some spoil sport who calculates, or start a pole thread for question if you know how (new thread)?

Dream on.

 

[DaleSpam]

Perhaps we should start a pole? I do not know how to set one up.

Starting a poll is pretty easy. When you make a new thread there is an option down on the bottom to attach a poll. It looks like this:






Then, when you push "Submit New Thread" you will be taken to a screen where you can add the question and answers. That one looks like
this:





I hope this helps, and I apologize for putting that "example" thread on the forum. I didn't realize that even the author of a thread couldn't delete it.

-Dale

 

[Billy T]

Thanks for help Dale. You can delete your entire post now if you like as I put the poll up. SL has already voted!

 

[CANGAS]

Where are we, Toto? This doesn't look like Kansas.

 

[Zephyr]

This is the Saphire City.

 

[Pete]

I normally agree with you so not sure what you intend by this, but yes I think one can change the Earth's spin rate this way, but not significantly however, and not at all when you run out of gas and come to a stop again. (no altitude change assumed)*

Hi Billy,
The post was in response to CANGAS, who was talking about the Earth's angular velocity doubling or tripling.

 

[Pete]

CANGAS,
I was expecting something more. I'd really like to hear more about your ideas on the Michelson-Morley experiment, emitter theories, Einstein, and relativity.

Especially on the things that you suggest are obvious, because I just don't see it that way.

 

[CANGAS]

Acording to Special Relativity, there is no difference in my racin' car moving at 30, 60, or 90 MPH, and the spin of the Earth beneath my wheels moving at a certain angular velocity or twice or trice that.

Acording to my knuckle head crude thinking, less, perhaps measurably less, energy is needed to accelerate the momentum of my 3500 pound car than is needed to accelerate the angular momentum of the umpteen Gillian pound Earth.

But that that is just my ignorant non-revatitlistic way of looking at it.