In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Fri, 06 May 2005 06:05:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

If you say so. :-P


though
the experiment looks sufficiently straightforward (though
Kenseto's predictions are rather vague; if tA 0 one
doesn't know if tA will be 1*10^-20 or 1 or 1*10^20).

delta tA1 0. The value of delta tA1 need to be determine
experimentally. But the experiment will defermine if there
is absolute motion and it will also determine the magnetude
and direction of absolute motion.

Can you at least estimate it for a proper motion of
about 10^-4 c? That is, after all the speed of the
Earth revolving around the Sun. If you really want
you can estimate it for 10^-3 c, though I'm not as
sure for that value -- however, that's the suggested
value of the Sun's velocity around the center of
the Milky Way.

Sigh....After all these discussions you still don't understand
that absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light.

[rest snipped to focus on this point.]

OK, let's see if I understand your E-matrix, then.

As far as I can tell, a light source generates light at c. This
light is c relative to something:

- BaT: relative to the source
- SR/GR: doesn't matter *who* measures it
- absolute luminiferous aether theory: relative to a rigid aether
- E-matrix: ...??

So OK, the rest of my diatribe is more or less irrelevant, but I
still want to know what error you're expecting.

BTW: I would think that the radius of the light particle -- which is
probably the wavelength -- might be of interest in your calculations.


--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Fri, 06 May 2005 06:05:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

If you say so. :-P


though
the experiment looks sufficiently straightforward (though
Kenseto's predictions are rather vague; if tA 0 one
doesn't know if tA will be 1*10^-20 or 1 or 1*10^20).

delta tA1 0. The value of delta tA1 need to be determine
experimentally. But the experiment will defermine if there
is absolute motion and it will also determine the magnetude
and direction of absolute motion.

Can you at least estimate it for a proper motion of
about 10^-4 c? That is, after all the speed of the
Earth revolving around the Sun. If you really want
you can estimate it for 10^-3 c, though I'm not as
sure for that value -- however, that's the suggested
value of the Sun's velocity around the center of
the Milky Way.

Sigh....After all these discussions you still don't understand
that absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light.

[rest snipped to focus on this point.]

OK, let's see if I understand your E-matrix, then.

As far as I can tell, a light source generates light at c. This
light is c relative to something:

- BaT: relative to the source
- SR/GR: doesn't matter *who* measures it
- absolute luminiferous aether theory: relative to a rigid aether
- E-matrix: ...??

Model Mechanics (E-Matrix): doesn't matter who measures it. Why? because the
speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
Light path length of rod (299.792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

So OK, the rest of my diatribe is more or less irrelevant, but I
still want to know what error you're expecting.

I don't know what you are asking.

BTW: I would think that the radius of the light particle -- which is
probably the wavelength -- might be of interest in your calculations.

I don't think so.

Ken Seto

In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 07 May 2005 17:18:58 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Fri, 06 May 2005 06:05:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

If you say so. :-P


though
the experiment looks sufficiently straightforward (though
Kenseto's predictions are rather vague; if tA 0 one
doesn't know if tA will be 1*10^-20 or 1 or 1*10^20).

delta tA1 0. The value of delta tA1 need to be determine
experimentally. But the experiment will defermine if there
is absolute motion and it will also determine the magnetude
and direction of absolute motion.

Can you at least estimate it for a proper motion of
about 10^-4 c? That is, after all the speed of the
Earth revolving around the Sun. If you really want
you can estimate it for 10^-3 c, though I'm not as
sure for that value -- however, that's the suggested
value of the Sun's velocity around the center of
the Milky Way.

Sigh....After all these discussions you still don't understand
that absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light.

[rest snipped to focus on this point.]

OK, let's see if I understand your E-matrix, then.

As far as I can tell, a light source generates light at c. This
light is c relative to something:

- BaT: relative to the source
- SR/GR: doesn't matter *who* measures it
- absolute luminiferous aether theory: relative to a rigid aether
- E-matrix: ...??

Model Mechanics (E-Matrix): doesn't matter who measures it.
Why? because the speed of light is a constant math ratio
in all frames as follows: Light path length of rod
(299.792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

Does (clock second co-moving with rod) = (clock second of stationary
observer not moving with the rod)? In other words, will an
observer watching a pulsed laser gun (one pulse per microsecond, say,
as measured using the laser gun's clock) recede at velocity v see:
- 1 pulse per microsecond,
- (1 - c/v) pulses per microsecond,
- (1 - c/v) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) pulses per microsecond?

(The first is a prediction of rigid luminiferous aether theory.
The second is BaT. The third is SR/GTR.)


So OK, the rest of my diatribe is more or less irrelevant, but I
still want to know what error you're expecting.

I don't know what you are asking.

You are claiming a nonzero delta ta_1 in your experiments. What
is the expected magnitude of delta ta_1? Roughly?

Is it closer to:

- 1 second?
- 1/10 second?
- 1/1000 second?
- 1 microsecond?
- 1 nanosecond?
- 1 picosecond?
- 1 femtosecond?


BTW: I would think that the radius of the light particle -- which is
probably the wavelength -- might be of interest in your calculations.

I don't think so.

OK...so would the experiment work the same way with:

- a gamma ray?
- an X-ray?
- shortwave or longwave UV light?
- violet light?
- green (500 nm) light?
- red light?
- infrared?
- radio waves?
- extremely long waves generated by the power company at 60 Hz?


Ken Seto




--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 07 May 2005 17:18:58 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Fri, 06 May 2005 06:05:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

Sigh....After all these discussions you still don't understand
that absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light.

[rest snipped to focus on this point.]

OK, let's see if I understand your E-matrix, then.

As far as I can tell, a light source generates light at c. This
light is c relative to something:

- BaT: relative to the source
- SR/GR: doesn't matter *who* measures it
- absolute luminiferous aether theory: relative to a rigid aether
- E-matrix: ...??

Model Mechanics (E-Matrix): doesn't matter who measures it.
Why? because the speed of light is a constant math ratio
in all frames as follows: Light path length of rod
(299.792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

Does (clock second co-moving with rod) = (clock second of stationary
observer not moving with the rod)?

NO....according to Alan Lightman a clock second in one frame does not
correspond to a clock second in another frame. BTW, there is no observer who
is not moving.

In other words, will an
observer watching a pulsed laser gun (one pulse per microsecond, say,
as measured using the laser gun's clock) recede at velocity v see:
- 1 pulse per microsecond,
- (1 - c/v) pulses per microsecond,
- (1 - c/v) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) pulses per microsecond?

None of the above. The observer will 1/gamma pulse per microsecond. BTW this
is the SR prediction.

(The first is a prediction of rigid luminiferous aether theory.
The second is BaT. The third is SR/GTR.)


So OK, the rest of my diatribe is more or less irrelevant, but I
still want to know what error you're expecting.

I don't know what you are asking.

You are claiming a nonzero delta ta_1 in your experiments. What
is the expected magnitude of delta ta_1? Roughly?

Assume that the absolute velocity is 3.7*10^5 m/second and the diameter of
the detecting surface is 3.7*10^-3 m when there is a difference in
activation time between clocks A1 and B1 then the value of ta_1 is 1/10^8
second But such a calculation is meaningless. Why? because we are trying to
measure the absolute velocity by measuring the value of ta1....not the other
way around.

Is it closer to:

- 1 second?
- 1/10 second?
- 1/1000 second?
- 1 microsecond?
- 1 nanosecond?
- 1 picosecond?
- 1 femtosecond?


BTW: I would think that the radius of the light particle -- which is
probably the wavelength -- might be of interest in your calculations.

I don't think so.

OK...so would the experiment work the same way with:

The experiment is dependent on when the leading edge of the light fronts hit
the detectors at A and B. It doesn't matter what light source you are using.

Ken Seto

- a gamma ray?
- an X-ray?
- shortwave or longwave UV light?
- violet light?
- green (500 nm) light?
- red light?
- infrared?
- radio waves?
- extremely long waves generated by the power company at 60 Hz?


Ken Seto




--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sun, 08 May 2005 13:03:39 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Sat, 07 May 2005 17:18:58 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Fri, 06 May 2005 06:05:57 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote
in
message ...
In sci.physics, kenseto

wrote
on Thu, 05 May 2005 13:17:30 GMT
:

"The Ghost In The Machine"
wrote
in
message ...
In sci.physics, Schoenfeld

wrote
on 3 May 2005 13:26:23 -0700
.com:


[4] E-matrix theory, which is Kenseto's offering. I have no idea
what to make of it as it's not well-specified enough,

It is well defined in the follwoing link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/Unification.pdf

Sigh....After all these discussions you still don't understand
that absolute motion is that motion of an object wrt the light.

[rest snipped to focus on this point.]

OK, let's see if I understand your E-matrix, then.

As far as I can tell, a light source generates light at c. This
light is c relative to something:

- BaT: relative to the source
- SR/GR: doesn't matter *who* measures it
- absolute luminiferous aether theory: relative to a rigid aether
- E-matrix: ...??

Model Mechanics (E-Matrix): doesn't matter who measures it.
Why? because the speed of light is a constant math ratio
in all frames as follows: Light path length of rod
(299.792,458 m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.

Does (clock second co-moving with rod) = (clock second of stationary
observer not moving with the rod)?

NO....according to Alan Lightman a clock second in one frame does not
correspond to a clock second in another frame. BTW, there is no observer who
is not moving.

Correct. Of course there may be observers motionless to each other.


In other words, will an
observer watching a pulsed laser gun (one pulse per microsecond, say,
as measured using the laser gun's clock) recede at velocity v see:
- 1 pulse per microsecond,
- (1 - c/v) pulses per microsecond,
- (1 - c/v) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) pulses per microsecond?

None of the above. The observer will 1/gamma pulse per microsecond.
BTW this is the SR prediction.

The observer is constrained to his origin.

Herewith the thought-experiment -- to ensure I've done this correctly
for the other two theories, as well.

O and A are the customary two observers. They are coincident at time 0.

A has a laser. Both have clocks, not necessarily synchronized (though
they were synchronized when O and A were *not* moving, which is
beyond the scope of this experiment).

O
A -- v

At time 0 (as measured by A's clock) A fires a pulse.
O receives it immediately.

At time 1 A fires another pulse. At this point it will take some time
to travel to O (as A is some distance away); O won't be able to see it
immediately. THis means my predicted result for rigid aether theory
is incorrect and I'll have to introduce a third factor w, w being
the motion of O relative to the aether origin (unless we assume
O *is* at the origin). But oh well.

Galileo/Newtonian is pretty simple. The pellets of light are moving
at velocity (c - v) and are fired at intervals 0, 1, 2, ... from
distance 0, v, 2v, ... ; therefore, it will take n + nv/(c-v) seconds
= nc/(c-v) for each pulse to get back to O, and the frequency is therefore
(c-v)/c = (1 - v/c). That's one bad, one good, though it looks like
I inadvertantly flipped the fraction. Feh!

SR gets a little complicated, but not much so. t_A is 0, 1, 2, ... .
x_A is identically 0 (A is not moving around in his coordinate space;
neither is O). So the measurement breaks up into two parts:
[1] Where and when is A when he fires the laser?
[2] How long does the laser pulse take to get to O?

The first question is easily enough answered using the reverse Lorentz.
x_O = (x_A + v * t_A) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_O = (t_A + v * x_A / c^2) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Therefire A fires his pulse, *according to O*, at the
time point

x_O = v * t_A / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
t_O = t_A / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Now, O is not *at* v * t_A * gamma; he's at 0. Therefore, one has
to add the time the lightpulse has to get back *to* him; this is
of course (v * t_A / c) / sqrt(1-v^2/c^2).

The total time is therefore the sum of these two quantities, or

t = t_A /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) + (v/c) * t_A /sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

which can also be expressed in the very pretty form

t = t_A * sqrt ( (1 + v/c) / (1 - v/c) )

If we set t_A = 1, and then compute 1/t, we get

sqrt( (1 - v/c) / (1 + v/c) )

or multiplying by sqrt( (1 - v/c) / (1 - v/c) ), we get

(1 - v/c) / sqrt( (1 + v/c) * (1 - v/c) )

or

(1 - v/c) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2)

So herewith my revised predictions.

[1] Absolute luminiferous aether theory will result in a frequency
(1 - v/(c-v-w)), where w is the movement of O relative to the
absolute origin.

[2] BaT, or emissive theory, predicts (1 - v/c).

[3] SR predicts (1 - v/c) / sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2) = sqrt( (1 - v/c) / (1 + v/c) ).



(The first is a prediction of rigid luminiferous aether theory.
The second is BaT. The third is SR/GTR.)


So OK, the rest of my diatribe is more or less irrelevant, but I
still want to know what error you're expecting.

I don't know what you are asking.

You are claiming a nonzero delta ta_1 in your experiments. What
is the expected magnitude of delta ta_1? Roughly?

Assume that the absolute velocity is 3.7*10^5 m/second and the diameter of
the detecting surface is 3.7*10^-3 m when there is a difference in
activation time between clocks A1 and B1 then the value of ta_1 is 1/10^8
second But such a calculation is meaningless. Why? because we are trying to
measure the absolute velocity by measuring the value of ta1....not the other
way around.

A point...but we still have the question of how much precision one
should get, given the value we expect (which should be around 10^-4 to
10^-3 c, judging from the motion in our own Galaxy). After all,
Galileo never was able to measure the speed of light using his
shutter-lanterns; they weren't precise enough. MMX was able to get
extremely precise, mostly because it was able to measure the distance
light traveled by using an interferometer.


Is it closer to:

- 1 second?
- 1/10 second?
- 1/1000 second?
- 1 microsecond?
- 1 nanosecond?
- 1 picosecond?
- 1 femtosecond?


BTW: I would think that the radius of the light particle -- which is
probably the wavelength -- might be of interest in your calculations.

I don't think so.

OK...so would the experiment work the same way with:

The experiment is dependent on when the leading edge of the light
fronts hit the detectors at A and B. It doesn't matter what light
source you are using.

Ken Seto

- a gamma ray?
- an X-ray?
- shortwave or longwave UV light?
- violet light?
- green (500 nm) light?
- red light?
- infrared?
- radio waves?
- extremely long waves generated by the power company at 60 Hz?


Ken Seto




--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.




--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.