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

MacM, 2inq,

I addess both of you as we have been discussing matters close to this.

I have juist read the link MacM posted. Very interesting. I have a specific question for both of you that may have sone application directly to the issue of synchronizaton of timed systems that functionally related to the motion of solar system bodies. The link specified the focus of atention on tthe rotaional and orbit motion of the planet earth, and basically asserting the lack of any 'orbit' implications, The question of earth's motion through space is an old one and one that MM did not resolve and if anything obsccured if for no other reason than the MM experiments were not analyzed to their natural conlcusion:Witness the current dicussions. But I smell that we are right hot on the trail.

I am going to refer to Dayton Millers's experiments that followed the MM exeriments in some elaborate detail. There Miller measured the absolute velocity of the sun at 208 km/sec wrt some distance mass center Miller located as due south wrt the earth's axis of rotation. velocity (claiimed at least), Here are some calculations which may be a bit muddleds, which I will neaten if anyone asks.

For instance the sun's yearly linear trajectory grossly skews the earth's helical motion such that helix, the solar "spring" ("solar DNA") stetched through space relative the earth/sun orbit radius is approximately 8 degrees, The ratio of the earth linear distance for a point on the equator rotating for one daily roation is : (208km/sec)*(24*3600) = 17,9711,200. km, the point on the wquator is .46*3600*24 = 39744km. The agreement is that the earth's axis is aligned along the drection fo the trajectory of the sun (sun and rotation vectors are essentially 90 degrees..) If we merely took the ratio of total distance covered in one day we get tan^-1(39744/17971200) or .125 degress. Said another way, the ratio of sun vector veocity is 457 to 1 - sun velocity to equator velocity vectors.


My question is does not this say that theinstantaneous vector of rotational motion being orthoganal to the sun motion vector can be resolve by a simple vector addiuion ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I will try to explain what I know, or at least THINK I know, about the ECI
frame of reference, the beginning basis for GPS. Lets start with a point, the
center of the Earth, non-moving. Place one satellite in orbit around this point,
moving at a constant velocity. The velocity of the satellite is derived by
starting a line beginning at the center of the Earth and extending the line
out to the heavens, the ICRF frame. This line is not moving wrt the heavens,
not rotating with the Earth. The satellite's orbital plane intersects this line
and that is where the satellites velocity is determined, its speed through this
stationary line. That is where the 7.2 microseconds for relative velocity wrt
the center of the Earth is obtained, the slowing beat of the satellite clock.
Then, calculate the gravitational effects on time from the center of the Earth
to the satellites orbit, the speeding up of the satellite clocks beat due to the
reduced potential of the gravitational field where it is located, the 44.8 microseconds per day, or whatever the figure. Subtract 7.2 from 44.8 to get
the preset used in the satellites clock, around 37.6 or whatever the figure is,
I don't remember off the top of my head. Now all satellites in all orbital planes
can use this same preset to synchronize the satellite clocks to the clock AT
THE CENTER OF THE EARTH and to each other in the constellation, the basis
ot the system. Everything would work fine for an observer at the center of
the Earth with a GPS reciever. However, when the observer moved to a
rotating frame of reference on the SURFACE of the Earth, the synchronization
falls apart for this observer. The ECEF frame of reference, in which the surface of the Earth is rotating wrt the ICRF frame, is where communication
between satellites and GPS recievers take place. The different frequency
(beat) of the satellite clocks in this frame of reference must also be accounted for in its data stream, along with other effects such as atmospheric, Sagnac (which which DOES NOT appear in the non-rotating ECI
frame) etc. This is based on my understanding, which I cannot claim is
absolutely correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thnxmuch 2inq it all fall inoplace and all other suff i'd read gels.

G

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yuriy, I reviewed this thread that you were reviewing. At some point, we parted company and since then, I have been wondering where I went wrong. I went wrong, as I discovered this morning going over our respective posts, a typographical error of yours (see below) that I failed to pick up. I didn't catch it then, as I should have, so I pray you haven't let your interest in the matter wane too much.

In any event, I will take you on your closing words of this post:

Said Yuriy,

"Think about it. If you disagree, let us discuss this issue before we will go further."

Thank you Yuriy,
Geistkiesel​

[Note “ Yuriy, When preparing more up to date versions I noticed hat I didn’t need “primes” and that the primes ‘ ‘ were distracting. , So, below Va and Vb are the original A and B velocity as Va + Vb = Vab. C replaced A’ and c replaced c’ as no need to tie the third frame to A.. Everything on this post is changed as I used a ‘find and replace’ tool. It will not be ambiguous nor confusing. Trust.​

And this is where we parted company so to speak. I went searching through this thread to see what I had missed, and why you had basically rejected the hypothesis. I failed to pick up a typographical error on your part. The expression "Vb = 0" was never made by myself. Had I done so and had I intended that to be the case the whole hypothesis would have been kaput! It is obvious from a casual inspection that this was not the case.

Here is where we were:

C is moving in the same direction as B RF (reference frame) and is adjusting its velocity until the relative velocity of C wrt B is zero, or when Vc - Vb = 0, or Vc= Vb.

As the relative velocity of A wrt C RFs, Vac, is also being recorded then the instant Vc= Vb the value Vac is noted. Remember we started the Vac with A at rest wrt C or Vac = 0 at t < 0. Since Vac = Va + Vc and Va = 0, then Vac = Vc for all time in the measurements.

We have been measuring the difference in relative velocity Vcb and Vac simultaneously for the same amount of time. If the rate of relative velocity change Va wrt Vb keeping Vab constant then:​

d(Va) + d(Vb) = d(Vab) = 0 and d(Va) = - d(Vb) ​

the two measured relative velocities changes are the negative of the other when Vab is constant. Here we have simulated a changing A and a changing B motion. B has effectively decreased (simulated) the exact amount of velocity that A has increased as simulated by C in our experiment. and when maintaining a constant Vab. we have completed the analysis here as |Vac| = |Vcb| . Now we can say :

The absolute value in the relative velocity loss in the Vcb measurement is equal to the absolute value of the relative velocity gain in the V’a measurement. But see, Vac = Va + Vc = k' and as Va = 0 Vc = k', which is also the velocity Vb at the instant Vc = Vb, when C matched the exact velocity of the B frame.

http://www.sciforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3970&stc=1]Here is latest schematic. "the primes" have been eliminated so you will see Vc instead of Va' for example. ​

Now do you see what I meant describing the "contribution" of velocity from the B and C RF to the relative velocity of the two RFs? I understand your objection but the concept being , new, or original, I took an author;s license and andded a phrase that was appropriate. Even using in SRT language the fact that one RF observer assumes himself at rest and the other RF in the system is moving with "all the relative velocity" there would be nothing strange to assume that both RFs were moving at some velocity wrt each other with neither at rest wrt the other absolutely.

"So what?" you may ask "did we measure this "mysterious absolute velocity" respect to?" ​

We measured the relative velocity with respect to an absolute velocity V = 0. ​

How did we do this? W measured Vc wrt Vb when Vc - Vb = 0. We discovered the absolute 0 velocity by the measured difference of two inertial frames of reference. I have been using terms like Va with respect to Vb in referring the velocities as absolute and I may have indicated Va with respect to Vb which is technically true, but a more accurate representation would be ‘Va and Vb with respect to an absolute V = 0.

What about some unobserved 'drift velocity' like the universe? Any velocity or movement unobserved is not included in the analysis as would be the case in SRT, correct? An observer applying SRTassuming his "frame B is at rest wrt C" has the same problem and the same reply: if it isn't measured or observed, it ain't, period.

Of course , the primary difference between the structure here and SRT is the V =0, or "rest" position is a measured physical value, and at that a measured relative value, in SRT "rest" is a relative value and a mathematical construct with no pretenses of having been measured nor is physical absoluteness assigned.
​

I agree with your analysis in the second part here, had the typographical error not been "the significant" element in the analysis.

Again, I thank you Yuriy for your patience in this matter and I will be waiting your response.

Geistkiesel​

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

 

Posted here under my name so I can always find it and it never gets edited by anyone else.