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

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by geistkiesel, Oct 23, 2004.

1. ### guthrieparadox generatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,089
I think you need to go and lie down, your communications ability is failing.

That aside, which bit of:
"This effect (which should shift the orbits of satellites near the Earth by tiny amounts) was recently proven by a comparison of the orbits of the geodetic satellites LAGEOS I (launched 1976) and LAGEOS II (launched 1992)."
and:
"For example, a highly precise atomic clock flying in an experiment called NAVEX on STS-61A/Challenger in 1985 measured a slowdown of 0.000,000,000,295 seconds for each second of flight, almost exactly what Einstein’s formulas predicted."

Do you not understand. CAn you explain these experimental results in any way by using your theory? If you can, congratulations, your next step is to make a prediction about something else, preferably something that is still uncertain in modern physics, (like the movement of Mercury was a hundred years ago, or like black body radiation.) and see what can be done to test it.

3. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
You ask can I explain anything using my theory. Just exactly what theory are you referring. I merely constricted a method of using known attributes of light motion to measure the relative velocity of a space ship with respect to velocity v = 0, the velociy of a photon trajectory, moving pependicular to the direction of motion of the moving frame.

Like I respnded in an earlier post, just get me the published document that descrbed he experimental parameters and allow me to look at it.zthis is all I asked for. I did see the paper that rawthinktank presented to me as propaganda, and I atill do.

5. ### guthrieparadox generatorRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,089
Unfortunately, it seems that there is no detialed experimental info on the NAVEX experiment available online. What it looks like is that two atomic clocks, using the same method of time measurement, were synchronised on earth, and one was sent into orbit, the other left on Earth. The difference in time between the 2 when the one in orbit returned to earth is what matters.
The same goes for the LAgeos 1 and 2 satellite orbital comparison. It was published in the journal "Nature", which has a good reputation, but is not as far as I know freely available online. THis article here has more info:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html

7. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Thank you for the link Guthrie. It would be nice to have the original published paper here, especially as the level of intensity of disagreement between the various positions regarding special relativity seems to be increasing.

8. ### NanoTecRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
30
Measuring Absolute Velocity (a tangent)

Classically absolute velocity definitely can not be measured.
It is essential to have the speed of light understood to remain constant however.

Now I hate throwing bad science after good, but I must explain. Suppose the speed of light was not constant in all reference frames. An object a rest would measure a speed C, but a moving object would measure something less or greater. And hence by performing experiment one could determine ones velocity without external reference. Do not mistake this for a reason the speed of light is constant, which is due to the conservation of energy.

Although impractical, it could be possible to use an external reference. If one had a function describing the background radiation for a given standard of rest, it would only be a matter of measuring the change in observational energy due to the observers’ velocity.
λ' = λ sqrt( (1+v/c)/(1-v/c) )
Δλ/λ=GM/(Rc^2) ; should one wish to compensate for the devices own gravity.

So its basically looking out the window to see that your moving, if we use the cosmic microwave background as our reference possibly we could have some understanding of our motion compared to the birth of the universe, and perhaps the universe was born at rest. Pure speculation.

If you were in a star it wouldn’t work. If you couldn’t get your detector cold enough it wouldn’t work.

9. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
The classical retriction on measuring the absolute velocity is a mere confessed restriction on classical thinking ability.

Absolute zero velocity measurement - AKA - The Big Myth Breaker

For critics, real and imaginary, please assume I am aware of "special relativity" objections to this post. If you can break the proposed measuirng device from an attack on the merits of the description contained withn the four conrners of this document, then go for it.

Geistkiesel.

10. ### RawThinkTankBannedBanned

Messages:
429
I just want to make sure that I never get so engrosed in theories that I would forget practical knowledge instead. I am not JamesR, I want to be on the right side not in anypersons team. I dont like politics unlike JamesR, who would rather ignore facts to make look theories that he studied are right.

11. ### James RJust this guy, you know?Staff Member

Messages:
37,370
RawThinkTank,

The fact is, you can't understand the explanations given to you, and therefore resort to ad hominem tactics.

12. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
James R this thread is dedicated to you and so is this-absolute zero velocity mesuremnt scheme

No one has chipped he paint on this one, but many have looked. I think some might want your input at least that king that responsds with specific laws of physics and maintaning a minimum, say zero, use of ad hominems . What are hominemsanyway, they're not grits are they?

13. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear geistkiesel,
You can even imagine what a foolishness you are spreading over Internet. Go on my site www.minescience.com read there Lectures on SRT in volume 6 of "The Scientific Notes". Especially look on formulas (52) that explain how light will move: its velocities along direction of motion and across it are changing. The speed of light is absolute, not its velocity!!!

14. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
This is not a challenge but a suggestion.

WEBSTER:

Speed - (2a) the rate of movement or motion; velocity.

Velocity - (1) quickness or rapidity or motion or action; swiftness; speed.

Since each term as used in general language is entirely interchangeable, perhaps you should specify the differance technically as used scientifically.

15. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Go and learn any textbook in Physics: speed is module of velosity, and velocity is a vector.
Webster gives you terminology in common language, not the scientific definitions. And you are not in market, but in scientific Forum. So, learn scientific definitions and terms. In other words, add to Webster some scientific textbook....

Last edited: Nov 11, 2004
16. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
It is strange Yuriy a form of deja vu all over again. I consider your statement about my foolishenss the same way I consider those spreading SR over the internet. Those reading and comparing will simply consider the relative merits of what they read and take a choice correct? Roughly you can call this "freedom of speech and choice". Are you familiar with the term?

There was a time when some who felt they had not only the "truth" of the description of nature they also considered themselves the exclusive authority in judging that obviously superior knowledge. The tone of your post makes me think you feel very strongly about your sense of physical reality and your sense of yourself as the exclusive, or one of the exclusive dissemenators of the truth.

Now, Giardano Bruno and Jeanne D'Arc, both pesky little dissidents, they were probably liberals, paid a very handsome price learning this lesson, when they dared challenge the prevailing wisdom of authority. Their last words were both recorded in history as the flames created by humans with butane lighters were shooting upward to the stakes to which they were tied. Rising ever more acutely with a hungry passion the flames began licking at their fragile flesh like starving dogs in a feeding frenzy, as each was heard to utter their memorable last words: "Oooucch OOww!!"

Bruno, being Italian, of course spoke his words with an Italian accent, saying, "Oouucha OOuucha!!", while the Maid of Orleans, speaking French spoke with a crisp French accent echoing, "Ooue', ooue'!!"
Yuriy: if a light velocity "along the direction of motion changes", then this means the light speed will change to increase or decrease, there are no other options as a change in velocity "along the direction of motion" can only change of the speed changes, velocity being being a combined state of "speed" and "Direction". Is this what you really meant to say?

Believe it or not I am in the process of reading #6. Before I return to my lessons, were you referring to changes in velocity "across " the direction of motion being induced by an extermal force, or by some internal attribute of light itself, as in a form of natural "drift"? Your post is not entirlely clear on this issue.

Geistkiesel

17. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
Dear geistkiesel,
First of all, let me complement you: your last post is the best what I read from you in this Forum. Finally I found out that you can (I am absolutely serious, no offence or any attempt to make joke) express yourself in form when I understand each your thought. Finally…
And there goes my response.
Once Voltaire wrote to his opponent: “Sir, I hate your point of view, but I am ready to give up my life for your right to express this your point of view”. Let me assure you for future: Voltaire always was my hero and I too am ready to give up my life for right of all of us to freely express our opinions.
But, in contrast to many people, I count that the Freedom of Speech without Responsibility for content of speech is the same Evil as the Absence of Freedom of Speech. When people, using the beauty of Freedom of Speech, are spreading a foolishness, especially in area of Science, it is my duty to use the same Freedom of Speech to urge listeners (especially enthusiasts of scientific knowledge) that they are listening a foolishness. You have a habit to spread BS, I have a habit to identify it as a BS. What is wrong with this usage of rights? ….
2. And my advice: stop using the analogies with Bruno, Galileo, Jeanne D’Arc and other great people. We are a lot more ordinary, and I am not Inquisitor… Be a little more modest… At least, I do not pretend to take your life, money or honor…
3. And now about the scientific part….
You wrote: “If a light velocity "along the direction of motion changes", then this means the light speed will change to increase or decrease, there are no other options as a change in velocity "along the direction of motion" can only change of the speed changes, velocity being being a combined state of "speed" and "Direction". Is this what you really meant to say?”
No, I said what I said, the all in your sentence, I just cited, is from you and is foolishness.
Beam of light has generally two independent components of its velocity: along direction of motion of the source of this beam, VL, and across this direction, VN. Speed of light, according its definition, is
Vs = (VL^2 + VN^2)^1/2.
The principle of Absoluteness of speed of light requires that Vs = c, not VN and/or VL. And exactly because of that VL and VN are not invariants but are changing at transit from one inertial reference frame to another inertial reference frame. Formulas (52) exactly describe this transformations of VL and VN. If you will apply these exact formulas of SRT to your “proposal” you will see that all you have said is BS.
Read my Lectures on SRT, it will explain a lot to you…
And good luck, my friend.

Last edited: Nov 11, 2004
18. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
Some for the glories of this world and some sigh for the prophets paradise to come, ah take the cash and let the credit go, nor heed the rumble of a siatne drum.

First, you can sacrifice yourself for my freedom of speech if you will, but I would rather protect that freedom myself, its a personal thing you understand.

There were sufficient conditions in Europe in Voltaire's time for him to die a thousand time before his final death, and the valiant tastes of death but once, so it seems to me most strange that Voltaire should fear, knowing that death a necessary end, would be a presumptive and premature squandering of his life so some yoyo can express an opinion regarding the true count of angels dancing in the back of a Toyota pickup truck.

Speak for yourself Yuriy and your own modesty, as for me, dear sir, I know god. Hell, I should know her, she was a student of mine. So, if you are not "pretending" take my life, my fortune and my sacred hnor, sacred except for tha time in . . .well enough said about that, exactly how are you preparing for that "taking"? Isn't your quote what one would expect from someone about to liberate another's wallet?

What you quoted was a question.

I am on my way to Formula 52, but firsts, this is what you said?

Code:
            _________________________
|\                 VL
|   \
|      \
|         \
|            \
|               \
|                  \
| Vn                 \ Vs
So I should tell everyone in this forum that the speed of light is dependent on the motion of the source of light? Some aen't going to like this.

Questions before I go back to Chapter 5:
What is the origin of this definition?
What is a proven way of measuring one or moe of the conmpoients of light?
How are the orthogonal components expressed in the everyday use
of physical models in this the planet with the blue sky?

Hasn't anyone ever seen a D'Arc joke in Russia?

Geistkiesel

19. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
Your tone is not appreciated. I don't need to go learn, as you say. I know velocity is a vector quantity and speed is not.

I suggested that you clarify for the sake of those you were addressing.

20. ### YuriyRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,080
To geistkisel and MacM:
I have told you already everything what you need to get a right way of thinking about subject of this thread.

21. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
And as for I Yuriy, I am further from being convinced as I was before I read your equation 52. Again I ask you, is the diagam below consistent with the (your) assertion regarding the SOL? IF VL is the velocity of the source of light and Vn is perpendicular component and if the SOL is equivalent to your expression (Vs)^2 = (V)^2 + (Vl)^2 aren't you providing measurable components to the SOL? And conforming to the rigors of mathematcal correctness shouldn't your answer be expressed in terms of the SOL being +/- Vs?

These components are then measurable, I presume and not mere mathematical artifacts, so where did the independence of the SOL with respect to the motion of the source of light go? You mentioned in your paper that the Michelson-Morely experiment did not detect an ether, when Muchelson himslef expressely stated that such an affect was detected, at 8 km/sec, as confirmed by Dayton Miller in his 1933 paper in "The Reviews of Modern Physics" vol 3 202- 243. Did you purposefully, for the sake of "honest truth" of course, simply neglect the historical facts of the MM results? Hey, Yuriy, if one has to close one's eyes to the results of experiment in order to maintain integrity of a postuilated theory, that is just the way it is I suppose, correct?

A personal measure of light I consistently use is the mirrored reflection of the unstressed image when looking at myself through eyes being true to mine own self.

Like I mentioned earlier regarding your assumed mission to rid the planet of the belief in lies, such as "disbelief in special relativity", methinks you are just over the edge of abject presumptiveness, just over the edge. It would be so easy for you, and would be an enormous relief for the rest of us, if you would just let go.

Again,

Is the schematic a correct representation of your model?

Code:
            _______________________
|\                 VL
|   \
|      \
|         \
|            \
|               \
|                  \
| Vn                 \ Vs
Geistkiesel.

22. ### MacMRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
10,104
I really don't know why you think you should post this to me. I have indicated that light is believed to move with the source (has forward momentum) and that it therefore would not work.

At the same time I do not believe there has been any actual testing of the concept, hence I would not simply say factually that that is the case.

23. ### geistkieselValued Senior Member

Messages:
2,471
For the sake of a simple definition of "absolute velocity" for this particular post, it is the actual velocity that each of two refernece frames Va and Vb contributes to the combined relative velocity of two frames. If the two frames are moving in a collision couse wrt each other, Vb moving at 3000 units and Va at 6000 units the combine relative velocity is 9000 units.

As I understand SR , it is impossible to measure the individual contribution of velocities as I have defined it, do you agree?

Va launches a mini velocity probe Vap with radar reflection capability of measureing the relative velocity with respect to itself and VB as well as Va. Vap heads in the opposte direction wrt Va and by successive spurts of acceleration and uniform motion Vap determines the relative velocity wrt Vb, or Vap - Vb, and Vap - Va. When Vap = Vb, Vap has measured a relative velocity change from Va - Vap = 0, the starting point of the Vap measuremnts. It now reads Vap -Va = 3000, when Vap - Vb = 0 as measured.

****************************************************

Now clearly the contribution of motion of each space ship Va and Vb is:

|Va| = 6000
|Vb| = 3000

Do you agree?

***************************************************
Again, I understand SR theory says I cannot do what I just described,

Do you agree with my statement that SR prohibits the mesuremnt of the velocities as I just described?
*****************************************************
Assuming Va and Vb each were launched from Ve, the earth frame, and the velocity distribution was as I sated, Va = 6000 units wrt Ve and Vb = 3000 wrt Ve. Therefore, to the extent that the motion of Ve is a fixed 208 km/sec wrt a distant star with no measured velocty using any known measuring technique or device, then the common motion of Va and Vb subtracted any intrinsic motion common to Va when Va = Vb = Ve, before being accelerated into free space,

**********************************************************
Finally, the acceleration of Va and Vb wrt Ve was observed for both frames, while Ve was observed not to have accelerted and therefore Ve has not contributed any velocity components other than its current constant velocity to the motion of Va and Vb,and that within experimental error and known relative velocities wrt Ve and the stellar matter measured at Vstar = 0, then the

Vap frame has measured the absolute velocity of Va and Vb, do you agree?
********************************************************

Other than the possible objection that there has not been a measurement where all systems may have been moving (as in the universe) and contributed therefore to some motion equally shared with all inertial frames,

has not the Vap measured the Va - Vb = 6000 units of Va and Vb as an absolute velocity as I DEFINED THE TERM ABOVE?
***************************************************

Do you Yuriy find any theoretical objection to the claim that the absoliute motion of two reference frames has been measured.?

if so what is the theoretical objection?

Geistkiesel