• [deleted]

  • Post #90

Hi Eckard,

I figured that you wouldn't take what I said about him seriously. My main concern is that prejudicial classification of someone based on ethnicity is frowned upon here in Canada (and downright bordering on unlawful) -- and for good reason. Perhaps he was born in Montana, and your classification was totally prejudicial and wrong. So, do you know for sure that what you said about him was true, or are you simply being prejudicial? I won't hold my breath while waiting for a logical, reasonable answer.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = and the cyclist velocity is V = , then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = . Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = ; V = ; R = . The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = . The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

  • [deleted]

  • Post #91

Apparently the comment system does not care for HTML-like vector notation.

Anyway, if the wind velocity is W = (10, 0, 0) and the cyclist velocity is V = (0, 10, 0), then the velocity of the air relative to the cyclist is R = W - V = (10, -10, 0). Altogether, the cyclist feels a drag in the direction opposite of their movement and, yes (like you're saying), also in the same direction of the wind. The important thing is that you need to subtract the velocities in order to get the air's velocity relative to the cyclist.

Perhaps I can give you a few extra examples in order to illustrate my point of view.

Consider the case where there is no wind: W = (0, 0, 0); V = (0, 10, 0); R = (0, -10, 0). The cyclist feels a drag pointing in the direction opposite of their movement. The cyclist "creates" a wind that does not exist in the rest frame, which gives rise to drag.

Also consider the case where the wind and the cyclist have the same velocity: R = (0, 0, 0). The cyclist negates the wind that exists in the rest frame, and so there is no drag.

It is from this vector R which you will obtain the speed (vector length) to be squared.

Blush S Halayka,

I asked you to explain what you were referring to when you wrote "projection of an overbearing God archetype" and what comments section you meant.

Instead you seems to quarrel about whether the cyclist feels the air blowing into his face or sucking him back.

Each figure in my essay stands for something I consider important and I would like to defend against distrust. Didn't you get aware that I am claiming to have revealed several mainstream mistakes that are based on nothing but questionable intuition?

I mentioned the cyclist only as an example of obviously wrong intuition, and as it seems, you understood it.

Be sure when I wrote glenn or Glen instead of Glenn, this was not deliberately. Sometimes you will find such typos of mine even mutilating my own first name. Moreover, my English is shaky because English is not my mother tongue. I hope you may nonetheless understand my arguments and you will not judge them before you frankly uttered your objections and gave me the opportunity for a reply.

Eckard

  • [deleted]

  • Post #93

OK Eckard let us discuss the Michelson-Morley experiment (and related problems) here. I wrote (on Sascha Vongehr's thread):

"If the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment is correct, the only alternative to special relativity is Newton's emission theory."

You replied: "Non sequitur. Maybe, the expectation of a non-null result was wrong."

Now we need some common ground for the discussion. Do you agree that, in 1887, the emission theory was the only EXISTING theory able to explain the null result of the experiment?

I think we need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period before moving to your favorite and relatively recent exotic interpretations of the experiment (Marmet, Shtyrkov etc.).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    Pentcho, According to sources like Jammer, Stachel, and Phipps, Maxwell, who died already in 1879, was skeptical about Michelson's attempt to measure the velocity of earth re aether. Nonetheless, Maxwell's equations clearly described waves, and Hertz managed to exploit this approach.

    Well, Newton in contrast to Huygens had already imagined light as particles. Einstein in 1905 only reinvented that wheel.

    However, as far as I know, the word emission theory was first used as to describe unsuccessful attempts by the early Einstein and later Ritz to cope with the problem that Maxwell's equation are not exactly Galilei invariant unless - as argued by Jammer - one drops Faraday's induction term. In this sense, a developed emission theory never existed. Hertz "Electric Waves" 1892 already tried to obey the interpretation of the MMX null result of 1887. You certainly know that Michelson in 1887 did not mention a trifle: When he in 1881 reported an earlier experiment, he assumed an outcome twice as large that they expected in 1887. The corrected expectation was suggested by Potier and then elaborated by Lorentz. Since then it was perhaps very rarely questioned for many decades.

    I agree with Marmet on that much effort was spend in order to disprove the null result while almost no attention was devoted to the possibility that the expectation of something else was unrealistic. Until now, the defender of SR tend to confirm SR by only demonstrating that emission theory is untenable.

    I see at least four views:

    - SR with Lorentz covariance, block time, length contraction, relativity of time

    - emission theories including extinction theory (Dowdye)

    - neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity (e.g. Selleri, van Flandern)

    - Hertzians: preferred frame of reference, simultaneity, c refers to space

    Presumably they are mutually excluding each other. Then at best one out of them can be correct.

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #95

    Eckard,

    In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of the light source (c'=c+v) and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (c'=c). By advancing, ad hoc, his length contraction hypothesis, Lorentz made the experiment confirm c'=c and refute c'=c+v.

    Please just confirm or reject the above statement (yes or no). We do need some consensus on the 1887-1905 period.

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    No Pentcho,

    UNEQUIVOCAL was merely a discrepancy between an already corrected expectation and the outcome of measurement. This seemed to contradict to the existence of an aether.

    You are correct in that those physicist who accepted this interpretation could either abandon the aether and consider light as particles or try and somehow rescue the aether as did Lorentz.

    The speed with which a sound wave propagates in the medium air is independent of the speed of the emitter re medium.

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #97

    Eckard,

    I don't like the "shut up and calculate" principle but in this case it is relevant. The wrong expectations of Michelson and Morley were based on calculations which can be found in today's textbooks. In these calculations one should simply replace c with c+v or c-v and the null result follows, in accordance with the experiment.

    The procedure is tedious but if you wish we could perform it.

    Pentcho

      Pentcho,

      Why didn't you demonstrate in your essay that the expectation of Michelson was wrong?

      Could you please use the option to provide a link to a file or even a publication of you or someone else that explains your suggestion in detail?

      At first, we should specify at least one textbook you are referring to. Perhaps it would even better to refer to something easily available online, for instance in Wikipedia. Prior to calculation the explanation you are promising should unequivocally tell us what is meant with c and what with v.

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #99

      Eckard,

      Consider the following calculation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The author assumes the speed of light in the ether is independent of the speed of the light source and (correctly) obtains a result incompatible with the experimental result ("The experimental results did not match this calculation"):

      http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

      "Michelson and Morley designed an experiment to detect the ether and measure its influence on the speed of light. (...) Let's do the math. Assume light travels at a constant velocity c in the ether. Suppose the apparatus is moving through the stationary ether with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/(c-v)+L/(c+v). In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2). The experimental results did not match this calculation. Instead T was the same for both directions (T=2L/c )."

      Then the authors makes the wrong conclusion ("The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame") but I hope you will not be misled. One can use the same calculation but assume that, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, the velocity of the light, as measured by the observer, is c±v, where v is the velocity of the light source. Suppose the apparatus passes the observer with velocity v. In the direction of motion, the time for the light to reach the mirror and come back is T=L/c+L/c=2L/c. In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (c^2+v^2)T^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=2L/c. The experimental results did match this calculation (for both directions T=2L/c).

      The correct conclusion is: In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved that the speed of the light is c'=c±v, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and refuted the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the light source.

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

      Dear Frank,

      Admittedly, I did not yet reply to your post because I simply failed to understand how it relates to my essay. I had already tried in vain to understand your IEEE paper before you pointed me to it. Maybe, the referees had also problems to grasp immediately what you intended to say.

      Aren't you also an EE? I learned always to reveal and criticize the state of the art before claiming the solution of a problem. Your Figs. confused me perhaps due to lacking knowledge of mine. Anticipate that your reader may need helpful explanations.

      If I recall correctly, you once experienced rejection because you didn't obey SR. This is not uncommon. If you are still convinced to be correct, I encourage you to tell us the problem.

      With sympathy,

      Eckard

      Pentcho,

      "In the direction perpendicular to the motion, the time to reach the mirror and come back is calculated by solving (cT)^2=L^2+(vT)^2, so T=(L^2/(c^2-v^2))^(1/2)."

      Wouldn't this calculation also apply for Feist's measurement? The values he presented in his Figure 7 do not confirm this calculation. That's why my essay called his experiment stunning. I looked for a plausible possibility to explain the undeniable and easily reproducible result of Feist's experiment. My reasoning is quite simple and hopefully understandable from my Fig. 5: The signal was emitted into the air with high directivity. It propagates within it with c. If the air was at rest, it would reach the position R_0 at the reflector after a timespan d/c. While the motion of air does not change this duration, the signal has meanwhile been shifted sidewards to the position R_2 by dv/c. The reflected from there highly directive component of the signal cannot return to the emitter E because it gets further shifted to the right and will arrive after once again d/c outside E. The emitter E can only see a diffusely reflected from R_2 part of the signal that compensates for the rightward shift during return. Seen from E it seems to come from a fictitious position R_2. Hence the length of return path R_2 to E amounts d sqrt(1+4v^2/c^2), and the total time T_2 of travel from E to R_2 and back to E (T_2= 2 + 4v^2/c^2) agrees well with the apparently dilated time alias contracted length in the direction of motion [T_1=d/(c-v)+d/(c+v)].

      In my essay I wrote v/c=r with roughly r=0.1 in Feist's measurement. Motion of earth with about 30km/s re ether corresponds to about 30/300 000 = 0.0001.

      With the expectation by Potier/Lorentz/Michelson, Feist should have measured cT_2/d = 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 plus-minus 0.0005.

      Eckard

      Dear Frank,

      "Everyone has the impression that time ... has to be defined locally"??? Perhaps an estimated very few millions of people are not obliged to believe in the relativity of time. Not just Phipps Jr. reinstalled simultaneity. I am sorry, I still did not understand your contribution to that issue.

      Peter Jackson quoted in his essay: "A consistent relativistic theory of Earth rotation is still some years away; (2005. p.6) 14

      [14] Kaplan, H.G., 2005. The IAU Resolutions on Astronomical Reference Systems, Time Scales, and Earth Rotation Models. USNO. Circ. No. 179.

      http://aa.usno.navy.mil/publications/docs/Circular_179.pdf"

      Eckard

      Dear Edwin Eugene Klingman,

      See me pretty helpless looking for something that could explain to an old EE like me which of the models of particles and waves may be already the correct ones. I am simply not in position to trust in presumably rather premature intuitions. I naively guess that particles are not at all directly observable. Aren't only their effects evident?

      While I still like the idea that photons like phonons are merely fictions, neither Duda nor someone else seems to already offer mature models of elementary waves. To my layman-knowledge, solitons are not necessarily elementary waves but just stable during propagation solutions of differential equations. Thank you nonetheless for your highly appreciated effort to explain me a lot.

      Best,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #104

      Eckard,

      You wrote: "Feist should have measured a factor 1.005. He actually measured 1.010 ±0.0005 which would fully compensate the apparent length contraction in the direction of motion. In other words, Michelson's null result was to be expected if Feist's measurement was correct and the two experiments were comparable to each other."

      Please elaborate. For instance: If Feist's measurement was correct and the two experiments were comparable to each other, light propagates in ether just like sound propagates in air (the analogy is straightforward). So the speed of both sound and light, as measured by the observer, is independendent of the speed of the source but varies with the speed of the observer.

      Is that what you mean, Eckard?

      Pentcho

      Pentcho,

      The speed of a wave relates to the medium in which it propagates. Feist's experiment and the MMX can be plausibly explained by careful reasoning.

      Hence there is at least the possibility that the whole Fitzgerald/Lorentz/Einstein explanations were misleading.

      Not even the speed of a moving car relates to the perception of an observer. Of course, in case of a crash, the velocity between the two bodies matters. However, it is not reasonable to ascribe a possibility to measure the speed of a wave or the speed of a car to an observer. Christian Doppler correctly calculated how the relative motion changes e.g. an apparent frequency.

      In case of a body, the speed of the emitter re a reference matters. In case of a wave, the constant speed re medium does not necessarily depend on the emitter.

      Let me clearly separate two possible mistakes. If I am correct then the first was the presumably wrong expectation by Michelson which led to unjustified speculations. The second was Einstein's stunning mathematical alternative to Lorentz' attempts for explaining the actually unexplainable because fallacious "fact" of length contraction by Einstein.

      Eckard

      For the observation or evidence of negative mass(energy)

      In 1998, an observation by both the HSS team and SCP team obtained a negative mass density from inspected field equations over 70years.(field eq. has a Lamda=0)

      SCP(Supernova Cosmology Project) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M= - 0.4(±0.1)

      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 7P

      HSS(The High-z Supernova Search) team : If Lamda=0, Omega_M = - 0.38(±0.22)

      http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9805201 refer to 14P

      However, the two teams which judged that negative mass and negative energy level could not exist in our universe based on "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" and they instead revised the field equation by inserting the cosmological constant.

      We must to know that not the equation has disposed the value, but our thought disposed the value.

      Moreover, we considered vacuum energy as the source of cosmological constant Lamda, but the current result of calculation shows 10120, which is unprecedented even in the history of Physics.

      However, if "the problem of the transition of the energy level of minus infinity" does not occur, and thus negative and positive mass can coexist, what would happen?

      It is well known that a cosmological constant can respond to the negative mass density.

      peff = -Lamda/4piG

      Lamda is positive, so peff is negative.

      Please view to my article and simulation video

      Hi Hyoyoung Choi,

      According to your bio, you might have the chance to perform scientific work for many decades to come.

      Good luck,

      Eckard

      • [deleted]

      • Post #109

      Eckard,

      Hi. Good essay! I like your ideas about how the abstract/ideal doesn't necessarily correspond to reality and about time and points. My comments are:

      1. On time, I think that there is no independent thing called time. All time is is a sequence of events that physically existent states go through. If there were absolutely no motion in any existent state in the universe, there would be no time, IMHO. For people that claim that time is a real thing, independent of matter, energy and motion, I'd say: Show me where this "time" is. Point it out. This reasoning also implies that in reality there is no ability to reverse the direction of time. Even if events were to run in the exact opposite sequence (Z to A) that they had been running in (A to Z) , while this may mathematically seem like time running in reverse, in reality, I'd say that time is still running forward because the events in the sequence Z-to-A occur after the events in A-to-Z. Time is just a sequence of physical events. I think this is what you were getting at in your essay if I understood it correctly?

      2. On points, I agree that a "point" is not a physical possibility. It seems to me that any state which has one or more of its dimensions as zero (not just approaching zero, but actually zero) cannot exist in reality. This is the problem with infinitesimals. While they're useful in the abstract, if one can never reach the boundaries of an infinitesimal amount (ie, it's always just a little bit smaller), I don't think it exists, at least in our numerical dimension.

      Anyways, good essay. Thanks.