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.

    Dear Roger (Granet?),

    Your style is different from Roger Schlafly's from whom I am expecting an answer. Perhaps you are also not Roger Pink who used to sign Roger below his posts.

    You are questioning that the size of an infinite set is the same as the size of an infinite subset derived from it. While Dedekind did not use the notion set, he published this definition of infinity, and Peirce was proud of having found it independently. They "corrected" the old Euclidean tenet that the whole is larger than its parts and ignored Galileo Galilei who logically correct inferred that the quantifying relations are not applicable for the property to be infinite even if Galileo inconsequently still spoke of infinite "quantities". Any genuine in logical sense quantity is discrete in principle and therefore exhaustible. It does not have the properties of being endlessly extended and endlessly divisible. The mathematicians preferred to deviate from this logics.

    When you imagine a series of subsequent states, then you are sharing the view you are denying. As an EE, I prefer to consider elapsed time as continuous.

    Dedekind was certainly correct when he ascribe little importance to such sophisticated questions.

    Did you realize that my essay also includes a not yet refuted argument against the MMX interpretation since 1887 as the only basis of Lorentz invariance, SR and all that?

    Eckard

    • [deleted]

    • Post #111

    Thank you Eckard!

    Have a nice day!

    --- Hyoyoung Choi

    • [deleted]

    • Post #112

    Eckard,

    The following argument of yours, which is not even wrong, introduces irreversible confusion in our discussion:

    You wrote (Sep. 6, 2012 @ 18:45 GMT): "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."

    Pentcho Valev

      • [deleted]

      • Post #113

      Pentcho,

      You seem to intend detracting from the MMX issue. Of course, emission theory relies on it. May we infer that you are unable to explain Feist's measurement?

      I consider what you called "irreversible confusion" just a secondary mistake introduced by Albert Einstein when he postulated that the speed of light is constant without directly specifying what it refers to. He merely excluded the possibility that it depends on the emitter, and by misusing Poincaré's still correct observer-related synchronization he created individual realities of each observer or its inertial system, respectively. I expected Georgina Parrey to clarify: There is only one objective reality and only one true past.

      What does confuse you? Is there at all the possibility that a confusion can never be resolved?

      Eckard

      Dear Eckard,

      I like your excellent essay and appreciate your viewpoint. I wish you good luck in the contest.

      As you know, our community ratings will be used for selecting top 35 essays as 'Finalists' for further evaluation by a select panel of experts. There is a possibility of existence of a biased group which promotes the essays of that group by rating them all 'High' and jointly demotes some other essays by rating them all 'Low'. Therefore, any biased group should not be permitted to corner all top 'Finalists' positions for their select group.

      In order to ensure fair play in this selection, each participants in this contest should select about 50 essays for entry in the finalists list and RATE them 'High'. Next they should select bottom 50 essays and rate them 'Low'. Remaining essays may be rated as usual, if time permits. If all the participants rate at least 100 essays this way then the negative influence of any bias group will certainly get mitigated.

      You may rate my essay titled,"Wrong Assumptions of Relativity Hindering Fundamental Research in Physical Space".

      Finally I wish to see your excellent essay reach the list of finalists.

      Best Regards

      G S Sandhu

        Dear G S Sandhu,

        I apologize for not yet having checked your proposals for experiments because I was unable to open the files. I just wonder why you wrote: "When two clocks A and B are

        synchronized through a GPS satellite in common view mode, their synchronization is effectively equivalent to e-synchronization." I consider Van Flandern correct when he called Einstein-synchronization a de-synchronization. This adopted from Poincaré method is only correct as long as A and B do not move relative to each other. It introduces an unrealistic observer-related view of reality. True simultaneity of events belongs to the objective reality of the objects where they happen, not to an observer who has merely a delayed picture from them.

        Well, there are many strong arguments indicating that SR is wrong. What alternative theory do you favor? I didn't find the words Lorentz and Michelson in your essay.

        Sapere aude gives: Phipps Jr. Dr. Thomas E., Urbana IL 61801, USA.

        Best,

        Eckard

        • [deleted]

        • Post #116

        Eckard,

        The only speed both relativists and antirelativists care about is "the speed of light relative to the observer". Einstein did not have to specify what the speed of light referred to because that was obvious. If he had known that you would blaim him in 2012, he would have written:

        http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

        "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which, AS JUDGED BY THE OBSERVER/RECEIVER, is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

        Pentcho Valev

        • [deleted]

        • Post #117

        Initially the observer is stationary relative to the light source. In his frame the frequency, speed of light and wavelength are f, c and L:

        f = c/L

        Then the observer starts moving with speed v towards the source and if v is low enough relativistic corrections are negligible and the frequency he measures becomes:

        f' = (c+v)/L

        If c' and L' are the speed of light and wavelength in the frame of the moving observer, we have:

        f' = c'/L'

        and the crucial questions are:

        c' = ? ; L' = ?

        Pentcho Valev