Old Physics wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Thomas J Roberts wrote in message
...
On 5/26/2004 10:12 PM, Old Physics wrote:
IPADE

[... aether drift experiment]

Such experiments have indeed been performed, and they are all
consistent with a null result within their resolutions. See the
FAQ for references, specifically the measurement by Cialdea,
Krisher et al, and others in those sections.

Tom's big lie again. Cialdea is not this type of experiment. Cialdae
is simply an interference experiment, not a timing test.

The only attempt at a timing test in the FAQ is Krisher. And Krisher
found the effect. They simply ascribed it to temperature variations
... even though it wasn't correlated to day/night. And they had to
throw out 99% of their data (and an entire series of runs) in order
to suppress what they called a 'false positive' reading.

Any ether theory that is to survive EXISTING experiments must predict
that the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c [#].

Since there *are* no timing tests of this nature, this is a religious
requirement.

This puts a strong constraint
on the structure of such theories, and one conclusion for all such
theories is that "moving clock" experiments as you describe must also
yield null results.

GIGO.

[#] unless it somehow "lives in the error bars" of existing
experiments -- that implies it violates my condition
above by no less than 6-th order in v/c, which seems
incredibly unlikely.

GIGO

Very interesting. Can you cite a site where this information is
documented (preferably with diagrams).

The site where it is documented (that all of these experiments are
interference tests, not timing tests) is the FAQ. Sorry, no pictures. You
just have to read it, to see that Tom is attempting a diversion from the
point at issue.

For the problems with the Krisher experiment, see:
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=7v...indsprin g.ne
t

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Thomas J Roberts wrote in message
...
On 5/27/2004 11:12 PM, chaverondier wrote:
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...
Tom Roberts wrote:

Such experiments have indeed been performed, and they are all
consistent with a null result within their resolutions. See the
FAQ for references, specifically the measurement by Cialdea,
Krisher et al, and others in those sections.

Tom's big lie again. Cialdea is not this type of experiment. Cialdae is
simply an interference experiment, not a timing test.

The only attempt at a timing test in the FAQ is Krisher. And Krisher
found the effect. They simply ascribed it to temperature variations
... even though it wasn't correlated to day/night. And they had to
throw out 99% of their data (and an entire series of runs) in order
to suppress what they called a 'false positive' reading.

No response, I see.

Any ether theory that is to survive EXISTING experiments must predict
that the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c [#].

Since there *are* no timing tests of this nature, this is a religious
requirement.

greywolf42 does not read very well, and here fails to realize that in this
paragraph I was NOT discussing those "timing tests of this nature", but
rather the general structure of ether theories if they are not to be
refuted by existing experiments.

Oh, I understand your position perfectly, Tom. Whenever someone asks you
about *one* specific type of laboratory experiment (in this case a timing
test), you respond with your shotgun approach of the general structure' of
theories (and 'invisible snipping' of contrary evidence). It's a pathetic
attempt to divert from the issue under discussion.

This is not only a religious requirement. This is a false requirement.

Not true. This is a direct requirement of a multitude of experiments
[references in the FAQ], specifically the metrological measurements
leading up to the 1983 redefinition of the meter. All of them were
round-trip measurements,

But not measurements of speed. They were geometrical fringe-shift
experiments.

and all of them gave a value of c within
their resolution. So requiring a theory to reproduce those results
is ESSENTIAL to doing physics.

You neglected to mention that none of those experiments were timing tests.
They were all 'secondary' tests of geometrical fringe shifts. (The evidence
you 'invisibly' snipped.)

Coupled with Einstein synchronization... which -- by your own admission --
will put in the value of 'c' "by hand." So these 'multitudes' are
worthless. GIGO.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

(Old Physics) wrote in message . com...

Unless the clocks change their rates by their position being
rotated, the change in the apparent speed, the distance the sound
travels, will be observable. The difference in the time of arrival
will give the speed of the rig through the air.

In don't understand your above sentance. Perhaps I have misunderstood
your point. I thought that you were expressing doubts about the
relevance of the physical analogy between sound propagation in air and
light propagation in aether (this analogy works fine provided the
Lorentz distance contraction and the relativist synchronisation
process are both accounted for in such an analogy).

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang

Tom Roberts wrote:
Any ether theory that is to survive EXISTING experiments must
predict that
the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c [#].

Greywolf
Since there *are* no timing tests of this nature, this is a
religious
requirement.

Chaverondier
This is not only a religious requirement. This is a false requirement.

Tom Roberts
Not true. This is a direct requirement of a multitude of experiments
[references in the FAQ], specifically the metrological measurements
leading up to the 1983 redefinition of the meter. All of them were
round-trip measurements, and all of them gave a value of c within
their resolution. So requiring a theory to reproduce those results is
ESSENTIAL to doing physics.

Chaverondier
I had misunderstood your point. I thought that you were advocating the
case when a rotating motion is involved (in which case the anisotropy
of the light velocity with regard to the rotating frame shows up in
agreement with relativity theory)

If you were advocating that light velocity is isotropic with regard to
any inertial frame as soon as the synchronisation process (used to
define the distant clocks settings) is Lorentz invariant, of course
this doesn't depend on the hypothesis of presence or absence of a
medium in which quantum waves propagate.

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang

On Fri, 28 May 2004 10:02:48 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:

Thomas J Roberts wrote in message

greywolf42 does not read very well, and here fails to realize that in this
paragraph I was NOT discussing those "timing tests of this nature", but
rather the general structure of ether theories if they are not to be
refuted by existing experiments.

Oh, I understand your position perfectly, Tom. Whenever someone asks you
about *one* specific type of laboratory experiment (in this case a timing
test), you respond with your shotgun approach of the general structure' of
theories (and 'invisible snipping' of contrary evidence). It's a pathetic
attempt to divert from the issue under discussion.

This is not only a religious requirement. This is a false requirement.

Not true. This is a direct requirement of a multitude of experiments
[references in the FAQ], specifically the metrological measurements
leading up to the 1983 redefinition of the meter. All of them were
round-trip measurements,

But not measurements of speed. They were geometrical fringe-shift
experiments.

and all of them gave a value of c within
their resolution. So requiring a theory to reproduce those results
is ESSENTIAL to doing physics.

You neglected to mention that none of those experiments were timing tests.
They were all 'secondary' tests of geometrical fringe shifts. (The evidence
you 'invisibly' snipped.)

Most round trip experiments DO measure the time taken for an EM signal to
travel a certain distance and back again, using one clock.
The fact that the answer is apparently constant is clear evidence in support of
the ballistic light theory.


Coupled with Einstein synchronization... which -- by your own admission --
will put in the value of 'c' "by hand." So these 'multitudes' are
worthless. GIGO.

Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See how three orbiting bodies interact:
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/threebody.exe

See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe

HenriWilson wrote in message
...
On Fri, 28 May 2004 10:02:48 -0700, "greywolf42"
wrote:

Thomas J Roberts wrote in message

greywolf42 does not read very well, and here fails to realize that in
this
paragraph I was NOT discussing those "timing tests of this nature", but
rather the general structure of ether theories if they are not to be
refuted by existing experiments.

Oh, I understand your position perfectly, Tom. Whenever someone asks you
about *one* specific type of laboratory experiment (in this case a
timing
test), you respond with your shotgun approach of the general structure'
of
theories (and 'invisible snipping' of contrary evidence). It's a
pathetic
attempt to divert from the issue under discussion.

This is not only a religious requirement. This is a false
requirement.

Not true. This is a direct requirement of a multitude of experiments
[references in the FAQ], specifically the metrological measurements
leading up to the 1983 redefinition of the meter. All of them were
round-trip measurements,

But not measurements of speed. They were geometrical fringe-shift
experiments.

and all of them gave a value of c within
their resolution. So requiring a theory to reproduce those results
is ESSENTIAL to doing physics.

You neglected to mention that none of those experiments were timing
tests.
They were all 'secondary' tests of geometrical fringe shifts. (The
evidence
you 'invisibly' snipped.)

Most round trip experiments DO measure the time taken for an EM signal to
travel a certain distance and back again, using one clock.
The fact that the answer is apparently constant is clear evidence in
support of
the ballistic light theory.

Except that the ones using clocks also use:

Coupled with Einstein synchronization... which -- by your own
admission --
will put in the value of 'c' "by hand." So these 'multitudes' are
worthless. GIGO.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}

Thomas J Roberts wrote:

On 5/27/2004 11:12 PM, chaverondier wrote:
"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Tom Roberts wrote:
Any ether theory that is to survive EXISTING experiments must predict that
the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c [#].

Since there *are* no timing tests of this nature, this is a religious
requirement.

greywolf42 does not read very well, and here fails to realize that in this
paragraph I was NOT discussing those "timing tests of this nature", but rather
the general structure of ether theories if they are not to be refuted by
existing experiments.


This is not only a religious requirement. This is a false requirement.

Not true. This is a direct requirement of a multitude of experiments [references
in the FAQ], specifically the metrological measurements leading up to the 1983
redefinition of the meter. All of them were round-trip measurements, and all of
them gave a value of c within their resolution. So requiring a theory to
reproduce those results is ESSENTIAL to doing physics.

I take exception to that. We did not have in the 1980's and we don't
have now a reliably accurate way to measure the speed of light. Since
the re-definition of the meter in terms of the number of wavelengths
of red light all "timing" test that have been published have been just
a "test" of the reliability, repeatability, and accuracy of our
measuring devices.

To actually measure the speed of light to within +- 1 meter per second
would require the following (using the platinum iridium 'meter stick'
definition of a meter):

A timing counter capable of 'slicing' the 'flight time' of light for
the distance of 1 meter into approx. 3 x 10^8 pieces. Since the
'flight time' would be approx. 1/(3 x 10^8) seconds we have just
described a counter that can count at the rate of 9 x 10^16 times per
seconds. It ain't happening any time soon .

And if you want to extend the distance consider then the best we can
do is to build and compare 'rods' with an interferometer and the
accuracy is in the neighborhood of 1 x 10^15 and then we have
temperature stability issues that further degrade the accuracy.


Relativity says that the light velocity with regard to an evenly
translating frame is measured to be isotropic when Lorentz invariant
phenomena and measurement apparatuses are involved.

Close enough -- the usual way to express this would change "Lorentz invariant"
to "inertial" and omit "phenomena". Of course this is MUCH stronger than
"relativity says", because a multitude of real experiments demonstrate this.


On the contrary
Relativity (whith or without any quantum waves propagation medium, it
doesn't matter for the purpose of the present post) is perfectly up to
account for non reciprocal effects occuring in evenly rotating frames,
that's to say

* the non reciprocal Lorentz time dilation (Langevin paradox)
* the non reciprocal Lorentz contraction in circumferential
direction
* the relativist light velocity anisotropy with regatd to an evenly
rotating frame (Sagnac effect).

Sure. SR can easily account for all that. And your point is???


Tom Roberts



"The lack of reason is overcome by the passion of belief"

Thomas J Roberts wrote in message ...
On 5/26/2004 10:12 PM, Old Physics wrote:
IPADE

[... aether drift experiment]

Such experiments have indeed been performed, and they are all consistent with a
null result within their resolutions. See the FAQ for references, specifically
the measurement by Cialdea, Krisher et al, and others in those sections.

I tried to find out about these experiments but found very limited
information on the net. Any chance you could direct me to an
informative site?

Any ether theory that is to survive EXISTING experiments must predict that the
round-trip speed of light is isotropically c [#]. This puts a strong constraint

I assume you mean that the one way trips will show the same time
of travel, within the experimental error of the hardware.

on the structure of such theories, and one conclusion for all such theories is
that "moving clock" experiments as you describe must also yield null results.

Both I and Henri expect that null result. The difference is that
I see it as the end of the aether. This experiment dosn't quite make
it to the fourth order in its error bars, but it would be simple and
inexpensive to carry out. It would certainly rule out the notion that
we are moving at the 1300000 mph necessary to explain the anisotropy
in the CMB (for a classic euclidean aether).
Best of all, its premise and technique are comprehensible for
those of lesser intellect, like myself.

[#] unless it somehow "lives in the error bars" of existing
experiments -- that implies it violates my condition
above by no less than 6-th order in v/c, which seems
incredibly unlikely.

Amen.

Tom Roberts

Thank you for your patience,
Stephen Kearney

"bernard.chaverondier" wrote in message ...
"Old Physics" a écrit dans le message de
m...
IPADE

The speed of sound is about 1100 ft/s (33000 cm/s). Imagine a
modulated source of sound and a microphone at opposite ends of an 11ft
rig. Move the rig in still air at 110 ft/s parallel to its length.
In the direction of travel, the sound will take just over 10% longer
to reach the microphone. In the opposite direction it will take about
10% less.
If the rig were shortened by the Lorentz contraction, about 0.5%,
the two way travel time would remain constant.
If the rig were rotated by 180 degrees, the one way path of sound
would reach the microphone in 20% less time, a 0.002s change.

Provided you use a strongly supersonic signal to perform a synchronization
of your distant clocks. Of course, no difference between the forward travel
time and the backward travel time of your phonons would be noticed if you
perform a relativistic synchronisation process using sound signals.

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action at a
distance with a formulation of Special Relativity in the framework of
Aristotle space-time (and an interpretation of relativist invariance as an
intrinsic property of phenomena that actually satisfy this invariance).


Using sound alone to sychronize the second, reciever clock, the
difference in the travel time after the rig is rotated, is what
determines the speed of the rig through the air. In this case a 0.2%
of a second change corresponds to a speed of 70mph, 1/10 the speed of
sound.
Assuming a rigid stationary aether that propagates light, this
system would be able to detect an aether drift if the speed through it
were greater than about 16000 mph.
Does this conceptual experiment make sense to you?

"Old Physics" a écrit dans le message de
om...

Assuming a rigid stationary aether that propagates light, this
system would be able to detect an aether drift if the speed through it
were greater than about 16000 mph.
Does this conceptual experiment make sense to you?

I have just understood your thought experiment (where I will move the clocks
instead of rotating the rod. That amounts to the same thought experiment
with easier notations for a clear explanation) and why you don't understand
the impossibility to detect the aether drift when rotating your rod.

* You assume Lorentz contraction to occur, that's to say because of its
speed v with regard to the medium where quantum waves propagate, your rod
AB (assumed to be a stationary quantum wave in its rest frame) is contracted
to the length L0 = L(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) (where L is the proper length of the
rod)

* Thanks to the transmission of a signal at light speed from the middle I
of your rod AB, you perform a relativist synchronization process of a front
end clock CB and of a rear clock CA standing at the ends A and B of your
rod. Hence, with regard to the synchronisation process prevailing in a frame
at rest with regard to the aether, your clock CB is late with regard to your
clock CA by an amount of v.AB/c^2, (ie clock CA is ahead of time by
an amount v.AB/c^2 with regard to CB if a synchronization with regard
to a rest frame was used instead).

* In the comoving frame of your rod, you perform a measurement of the
travel time T of a light wave from A to B and find of course T = AB/c

* Now, you move your rear clock CB from the front end B of your rod to
the rear end A and move the rear end clock CA initially standing at the rear
end A to the front end B (it's easier for the notations and explanation but
amounts to the same thought experiment than your one)

Hence, with regard to the synchronization prevailing in frame at rest with
regard to the medium where quantum waves propagate, your light clock
have changed their absolute synchronisation during this motion (and have
conserved their relative synchronization). The clock CA which is now at the
front end and was ahead of time by an amount v.AB/c^2 with regard to CB
is now on the contrary late with regard to CA by an amount v.AB/c^2
(when the synchronization prevailing in a frame at rest with regard to the
aether is considered).

That's because a slow translation of a clock from one location to an other
one in a moving frame is a Lorentz invariant phenomenon. If you move slowly
your rear light-clock CA from the rear end A to the front end B, your clock
CA undergoes a loss of absolute synchronisation which amounts to
v.AB/c^2 so that the relativist synchronization is preserved. This is easy
to calculate with a light-clock thanks to very simple arithmetic
calculations.
This is because the photon moving back and forth in your light clock CA
has to travel a longer path when you move your light clock CA from the
rear end A to the front end B of your rod.

Now, if you perform a new synchronisation process with a light signal
emitted from the middle I of AB to check how your clocks CA ad CB are
synchronized, you will have the surprise to find that your clocks CA and CB
are correctly synchronized with regard the relativist synchronization
process prevailing in the moving frame of the rod.

I suppose that it was this lack of physical explanation about of the loss of
absolute synchronization of a light clock (and conservation of relativist
synchronization) when it is slowly moved in a frame moving at speed v with
regard to the medium where quantum wave propagate that was puzzling you.

Bernard Chaverondier
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/lebigbang
Compatibility of Alain Aspect experiment interpretation as an action at a
distance with a formulation of Special Relativity in the framework of
Aristotle space-time (and an interpretation of relativist invariance as an
intrinsic property of phenomena that actually satisfy this invariance).