SR and one-way light speed tests

jacques
Offline
Senior Member

21 years 1 month ago #6719 by jacques

Replied by jacques on topic Reply from

Why the signal speed should depend on the direction? The propagation medium is copper and the propagation speed is relative to the medium... ??? What is your rotating pipe simulation ?
Thank you

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6720 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

I’m still without power following Hurricane Isabel, so my responses will be slow and spotty for a while.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Larry]: A rotating pipe ought to be a reasonable substitute for “something faster than light to set the clocks”. In fact, it provides the effect of an instantaneous signal between its ends.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Not so. In fact, the September 15 Meta Research Bulletin has an article about Lorentz contraction that uses a rotating tube as an example, and explains why there is nothing “instantaneous” about it.

SR considerations aside, if we apply a torque to start an indefinitely long pipe rotating, the atoms torqued begin rotating immediately and pass along the torque to their neighboring atoms. Those then start rotating and again pass the torque along. This continues until the torque reaches the pipe ends, with the torque transmission occurring at the speed of sound in the pipe material.

The rotating pipe is therefore much less “instantaneous” than light signals.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Two remote clocks synchronized by such a pipe ought to be able to measure OWLS.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Remember, a one-way speed-of-light measurement independent of theory is impossible in principle without using FTL signals. A speed is a distance over a time interval; and according to SR, the time in two different places is frame-dependent. That means the time interval is frame dependent, and therefore the measured speed is also. The measurement depends on how time at the two ends of the length is synchronized. This is just as true even if a single clock is transported to the other end (or if signals are passed by a copper wire).

Thanks for fielding the question from Jim while my access is limited. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6397 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[wisp]: Special relativity is flawed and unnecessary.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

It is not “flawed”, but is simply falsified. However, that has nothing to do with GPS because the part of SR used by GPS, the effect of motion relative to the local gravity field on clock rates, is valid.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>No one has done this simple one-way light speed test.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

See my remark about OWLS to Larry.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Ether theories can produce all of the relativistic effects that result from special relativity without the need to have the speed of light constant.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

But the speed of light is constant in the local gravity field. And that is the only frame used by GPS. So once again, this is no reason to have doubts about GPS.

Remember, LR is fully supported by GPS, and LR is a preferred-frame theory. You can still have your aether even if Miller was wrong.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I believe that the ether flow affects the GPS system, but its effect is symmetrical and the system self corrects any errors, effectively removing any offset ether drift errors.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

The main measurement GPS makes is the time interval between signal transmission on a satellite and signal reception on the ground. If that time interval were not exactly rho/c, then triangulation would not work correctly and one would get the wrong coordinates of ground locations. [rho = satellite-receiver distance, c = speed of light in local gravity field (ECI frame)]

You must really ask yourself how Miller could see an effect that GPS cannot, when GPS is 1000 times more accurate and about as perfect an experiment for detecting aether drift as it is possible to imagine.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Errors are removed every minute/hour and so ether flow errors never build up to show a problem.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That is not true. Irrelevant (for your purposes) effects are removed from each measured range (every 1.5 seconds) using well-established models. These corrections are not cumulative. And those corrected effects are too small to matter here. If no corrections whatever were applied, GPS would still rule out Miller.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>The optical tracking of GPS, if done, cannot be better than plus/minus 0.05 degrees accuracy.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I can’t check your link because of limited access right now, but this is a strange claim to make. Even the Baker-Nunn telescopes of a generation ago measured optical positions of satellites to a fraction of an arc second.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>How can the accuracy of GPS one-way tests be verified if the positions of the satellites cannot be checked optically?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

By the accuracy of the triangulated positions of ground stations it provides. If any leg of the triangle contained an error as big as a single meter, the ground station location derived would have a several-meter error.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>… will prove the ether exists and end SR.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

That much has already been accomplished. Our published paper last year showed that SR is now falsified in favor of LR. See “Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions”, T. Van Flandern and J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32(#7), 1031-1068 (2002).

But there is no aether drift. Nor should there be. Aether is well-entrained around each source mass by gravity. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6398 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[Jacques]
Why the signal speed should depend on the direction? The propagation medium is copper and the propagation speed is relative to the medium... ??? What is your rotating pipe simulation ?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
If there is an aether then it permeates everything, including solid copper. Any movement of the cables relative to that aether could influence the speed of a signal therein. If the cables are aligned in different directions and both are moving relative to the aether, then any effect due to the moving aether will show up as a signal speed difference.

See below for more on my rotating pipe.
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[tvf]
…if we apply a torque to start an indefinitely long pipe rotating, the atoms torqued begin rotating immediately and pass along the torque to their neighboring atoms. Those then start rotating and again pass the torque along. This continues until the torque reaches the pipe ends, with the torque transmission occurring at the speed of sound in the pipe material.

… the September 15 Meta Research Bulletin has an article about Lorentz contraction that uses a rotating tube as an example.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

I guess I should get that any day now. But, from your description here, I want to use the pipe in a different way.

Thought Experiment:
Consider an ideal pipe (i.e. infinitely rigid, no twisting or bending possible). Make it 1 meter in diameter and 1,000 meters long, with an alignment indicator of some sort along its entire length.

Visualize a reference plane that includes the longitudinal axis of the pipe and the center of a distant background star. When not rotating every component of the alignment indicator should lie in this plane when any individual component lies in the plane.

Rotate this pipe about its longitudinal axis and observe that, once per rotation, every component of the alignment indicator still lies in this plane when any individual component lies in the plane.

That is what I mean by a “simulated” instantaneous signal. No information is actually being transmitted, but on each rotation all parts of the alignment mark touch the reference plane at the same instant (as would be judged by a truly instantaneous signal).

One or more clocks floating near the pipe can detect this condition and use it for synchronization.

Real World Experiment:

Place an alignment indicator on a steel pipe 1 meter in diameter and 1,000 meters long (for example), same reference plane etc. Rotate this pipe and wait for the twisting and bending energy (imparted by the initial rotating force) to be converted to heat and radiated away. The pipe could contain design features that will facilitate this process.

Once all the non-rotational energy has been dissipated from the pipe, it should rotate “forever” just as if it were an ideal pipe. IOW, all parts of the alignment indicator should cross the reference plane at the same instant. Real clocks floating nearby should be able to detect the crossing of the reference plane by the alignment indicator and synchronize to it.

Relativity is tricky, though. And this just seems too obvious to be really new. What did I miss?

Regards,
LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

tvanflandern
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6399 by tvanflandern

Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>[Larry]: What did I miss?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

You missed that 3-word qualifier I used, "SR considerations aside". SR is what kills all attempts to do remote synchronization experiments, while it is creating the pseudo-paradoxes that drive students of relativity crazy. SR requires that time in any frame with a relative motion will be desynchronized with respect to time in the observer's own frame. Specifically, time in the receding direction is progressively more into the past with distance, and time in the approaching direction is progressively more into the future. The following two paragraphs are from the current MRB issue (delayed in mailing because of hurricane and power loss).

"... consider the consequences of this desynchronization of time in a relatively moving frame for the appearance of the moving rod as seen by the fixed observer. Suppose the rod's leading end is labeled A and its trailing end is labeled B. See Figure 2.

"The rod's stripe is actually linear from one end to the other, with no wrapping. However, because of desynchronization, the observer will see end A as it was at some time in the moving frame (depending on location), and the observer will see end B as it was at some later time. So time along the rod appears different from place to place to the fixed observer. And that makes the stripe appear twisted as the rod rotates in time. What the observer sees of the moving rigid rod in an instant is the same as a video camera would see if it panned slowly along the length of a non-moving-but-rotating rod from end A to end B over some finite period of time."

In an SR context, clocks cannot be synchronized in more than a single frame. Along the direction of motion, there are no exceptions. -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Larry Burford
Offline
Platinum Member

21 years 1 month ago #6400 by Larry Burford

Replied by Larry Burford on topic Reply from Larry Burford

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
In an SR context, clocks cannot be synchronized in more than a single frame. Along the direction of motion, there are no exceptions.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>
I can see this for the situation where the pipe is moving relative to the clocks. But what about the situation where the pipe and all clocks are stationary wrt each other?

I suppose this is where the time slippage factor raises its ugly head?

LB

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.388 seconds