Isn't time a measurement of motion?

[SelfSim]

Continuing on the subject of ether, the polymath's cut and paste job on the critique of the Michelson-Morley test is rather outdated as it is based on mirror interferometry.

The modern day interferometers are based on resonant cavity interferometers which are millions of times more sensitive.
With the rate of increase of sensitivity in interferometer design, scientists expect to shortly reach levels where testing for Lorentz violation can be achieved.
Before the cranks start to jump up and down celebrating that luminiferous ether could exist afterall, Lorentz violation is a test for whether the laws of physics are in fact the same for all observers in inertial frames.

After reading through the Lorentz violation Wiki link, it becomes perfectly clear that mainstream science is absolutely determined to test its assumptions on this .. (which makes them testable assumptions .. not just logical ones assumed as being 'true', thereby merely implying the existence of 'truth'). Thus far no evidence for violations found, also.

Other relevant words are also in the (physical) Laws as being consequences of math symmetries page:

... Many fundamental physical laws are mathematical consequences of various symmetries of space, time, or other aspects of nature. Specifically, Noether's theorem connects some conservation laws to certain symmetries. For example, conservation of energy is a consequence of the shift symmetry of time (no moment of time is different from any other), while conservation of momentum is a consequence of the symmetry (homogeneity) of space (no place in space is special, or different than any other).

Plenty of evidence based refutations of Justatruthseeker's and dad's nonsense in those references.
(So much for Justa's 'call to arms' directed to dad, too ..).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So if anything is possible, than a universe in which there exists God is also entirely possible.... Yes?

The possibility of other universes doesn't imply that anything is possible. If the suggestion of other universes is based on fundamental physical laws, then there would be no reason to suppose supernatural phenomena - although you could have very powerful alien entities, some of whose technology might seem magical godlike, as per Clarke's 3rd Law (Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic miracles).

Also, the idea of God being a probabilistic (and so unnecessary) attribute of a universe, seems rather against the spirit of the thing, if you'll forgive the pun.

You could always take a philosophical approach and get behind modal realism, tweaking your axioms to make a supernatural universe count as 'possible'.

 

[sjastro]

After reading through the Lorentz violation Wiki link, it becomes perfectly clear that mainstream science is absolutely determined to test its assumptions on this .. (which makes them testable assumptions .. not just logical ones assumed as being 'true', thereby merely implying the existence of 'truth'). Thus far no evidence for violations found, also.

Found this article despite being 10 years old, the optical resonant cavities used were an astonishing 100 million times more sensitive than the original Michelson-Morley experiment with a prediction the sensitivity would be increased a further 1000X in 10 years (wonder if it was achieved).

Other relevant words are also in the (physical) Laws as being consequences of math symmetries page:
Plenty of evidence based refutations of Justatruthseeker's and dad's nonsense in those references.
(So much for Justa's 'call to arms' directed to dad, too ..).

You not saying they will form another Dad's army. (link supplied for those unfamiliar with the BBC classic).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...You don't really want to discuss Doppler shift which is a wave moving through a medium....

This is nonsense. The Doppler shift is simply a change in observed frequency of a wave due to relative motion of wave source and observer. A medium is not necessary.

See University Physics III - Optics and Modern Physics: 5. Relativity - 5.7. Doppler Effect for Light:

"Doppler shift in detected frequency occurs for any form of wave. For sound waves, however, the equations for the Doppler shift differ markedly depending on whether it is the source, the observer, or the air, which is moving. Light requires no medium, and the Doppler shift for light traveling in vacuum depends only on the relative speed of the observer and source." ​

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I didn't see much of an argument. Only blind faith and fishbowl projections with a godless slant.

You missed it then as they are no arguing that physics is different outside our fishbowl.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I asked you a straightforward question to show me the maths and physics that supports your assertion that the Doppler shift of a sound wave is the result exchanging energy with the air.
Instead I get this monstrous mindless parroting of Wikipedia links and diagrams that have no relevance to the answer including the mandatory insults.

Your inability of answering the question and more importantly how you answered it simply confirms what everyone knows; you are totally out your depth; you are dishonest in trying to portray the opposite case; and you show a deep seated resentment to those that have a far greater depth of knowledge and understanding than you do.

As I said, nothing would change.....

I gave you the direct mathematical proof that derived the Doppler shift formula directly from energy conservation laws......

As I said, you would simply never read it....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

This is nonsense. The Doppler shift is simply a change in observed frequency of a wave due to relative motion of wave source and observer. A medium is not necessary.

See University Physics III - Optics and Modern Physics: 5. Relativity - 5.7. Doppler Effect for Light:

"Doppler shift in detected frequency occurs for any form of wave. For sound waves, however, the equations for the Doppler shift differ markedly depending on whether it is the source, the observer, or the air, which is moving. Light requires no medium, and the Doppler shift for light traveling in vacuum depends only on the relative speed of the observer and source." ​

Light requires no medium?

Einstein disagrees with you.

So do the mathematics since the permativity and permissibility of space is required....

Go ahead double-talk all you like, but you got no maths for light that don’t require a medium, which is why you still use the ones that do.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Just an out of context misunderstanding here.

'Tis the meaning Justatruthseeker confers on the term "accelerating expansion of space" which turns it into word-salad and not the objective meaning science has for it. (I agree with your take on it).

I think your objection is more appropriately directed at the confusion and obfuscation caused by Justatruthseeker's misconceived nonsense ...(?)
His 'spin' appeals to those who seem to think science is based on beliefs .. rather than objective testing (& following its process).

More faith in your untestable expanding nothing that can’t be observed in any laboratory than I have.

While using maths which require the permitivity and permissibility of free space at the same time.....

Maybe you should look those up sometime....

We admit they are good at double talk....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No one has 'told me what to think'

... and you should stop making such accusations right now!

Yes .. this is a warning!

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe .. I haven't stated my beliefs.

You have 'zip' physics 'in our fishbowl which fits better'.
I'm perfectly clear on the difference between tangential acceleration and centripetal acceleration, for example. (You've shown you aren't, however).

No .. you have just demonstrated, in writing, that you have no idea about one of the oldest and the most basic astrophysical principles: centripetal and tangential forces of objects in orbit.

Understanding Relativity is way beyond the basic concepts of orbital motion, in which you just demonstrated in your postings, you have zero understanding.

Oh .. and stop stating that 'you all keep claiming to believe in Relativity', when for my part of this, I have never, ever stated any such thing!!

Right, that’s why I am the one that had to paste the link to show what centripetal force is to correct all of your misconceptions....

I agree with you, you have never said anything of any consequence.

Are you saying you don’t believe in Relativity?

Or is this the point you cop out and say your not saying that too?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Continuing on the subject of ether, the polymath's cut and paste job on the critique of the Michelson-Morley test is rather outdated as it is based on mirror interferometry.

The modern day interferometers are based on resonant cavity interferometers which are millions of times more sensitive.
With the rate of increase of sensitivity in interferometer design, scientists expect to shortly reach levels where testing for Lorentz violation can be achieved.
Before the cranks start to jump up and down celebrating that luminiferous ether could exist afterall, Lorentz violation is a test for whether the laws of physics are in fact the same for all observers in inertial frames.

The design of the interferometer is of no consequence.

How can you measure an extra distance that does not exist in the devices frame?

You are in your laboratory. You have mirrors in place or any device to measure the distance light must travel on the table in front of you.

Does light travel an extra distance?

Why not? The entire Earth is spinning, only outside the frame in orbit would you see the extra distance.
You can not ever measure a diffraction pattern requiring an extra distance that does not exist in the devices frame.

Inertial? This is a non-inertial Frame, hence we detect the pseudo force of the centrifugal force.

What good is a test for inertial frames going to do in a non-inertial frame?

About as useless is trying to measure an extra distance where none exists.... and then proclaiming look, no defraction pattern for an extra distance, we’ve disproved an ether....

In case you have all forgotten the difference.

Non-inertial reference frame - Wikipedia

“In a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial...... To explain the motion of bodies entirely within the viewpoint of non-inertial reference frames, fictitious forces (also called inertial forces, pseudo-forces and d'Alembert forces) must be introduced to account for the observed motion, such as the Coriolis force or the centrifugal force, as derived from the acceleration of the non-inertial frame.”

Is this where we talk in small enough areas of spacetime while refusing to do that with the interferometer in its frame?????

Why would I want the Lorentz Transformation’s overturned since they are electromagnetic transformation’s? I already understand all of Relativity relies on electromagnetism....

It’s just those talking about no medium for the propagation of light required while using math which requires the permitivity and permissibility of space that make me laugh. Or should we just get it over with and say the electric and magnetic constants....?????

I agree with Einstein, no ether is unthinkable, just that it can’t be thought of as consisting of particles which can be tracked through time and the idea of motion can not be attributed to it.

Even if you go right ahead and do so anyways with bending, accelerating and expanding it.....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Light requires no medium?

Einstein disagrees with you.

So do the mathematics since the permativity and permissibility of space is required....

Go ahead double-talk all you like, but you got no maths for light that don’t require a medium, which is why you still use the ones that do.....

It may be worth clarifying the meaning of 'medium' in this context - in the physics text quote I gave it means some substance that physically 'waves', i.e. where the waves are movements of the substance or medium; this applies whether it's referring to compression waves in air (sound), or longitudinal or transverse waves in water.

Einstein was quite explicit that, while special relativity doesn't exclude the possibility of an 'aether', it cannot be a mechanical medium, or have any definite state of motion; i.e. it cannot be considered either in motion or immobile relative to any particular observer if the consequences of SR are to be the same for all inertial observers; and that the equations for the propagation of the electromagnetic field in a vacuum depend only on charge density and field intensity, and no other physical quantities; i.e. it is not dependent on any medium (as defined above).

Einstein did allow that, as spacetime itself does have physical properties, it could be considered a kind of aether, and that the gravitational field is inseparable from it, i.e. gravity is distorted spacetime, but that it's very different from the classical Hertzian or Lorentzian conceptions of a material aether; and the electromagnetic field is only secondarily linked to it, i.e. there is some interaction e.g. it follows spacetime geodesics.

So no, Einstein didn't disagree with me that light doesn't require a medium in the sense of some substance whose motion constitutes and propagates the wave.

 

[tas8831]

Cosmology, physics, geology, biology, genetics - NOTHING is beyond the mind powers of the creationist. Education? What of it! Experience? None needed. Logic? Never heard of it. One only need a bible and the DunningKruger effect, and universal expertise is yours for the taking!

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It may be worth clarifying the meaning of 'medium' in this context - in the physics text quote I gave it means some substance that physically 'waves', i.e. where the waves are movements of the substance or medium; this applies whether it's referring to compression waves in air (sound), or longitudinal or transverse waves in water.

Einstein was quite explicit that, while special relativity doesn't exclude the possibility of an 'aether', it cannot be a mechanical medium, or have any definite state of motion; i.e. it cannot be considered either in motion or immobile relative to any particular observer if the consequences of SR are to be the same for all inertial observers; and that the equations for the propagation of the electromagnetic field in a vacuum depend only on charge density and field intensity, and no other physical quantities; i.e. it is not dependent on any medium (as defined above).

Einstein did allow that, as spacetime itself does have physical properties, it could be considered a kind of aether, and that the gravitational field is inseparable from it, i.e. gravity is distorted spacetime, but that it's very different from the classical Hertzian or Lorentzian conceptions of a material aether; and the electromagnetic field is only secondarily linked to it, i.e. there is some interaction e.g. it follows spacetime geodesics.

So no, Einstein didn't disagree with me that light doesn't require a medium in the sense of some substance whose motion constitutes and propagates the wave.

Just that your medium which isn’t a medium is capable of imparting or subtracting energy due to the relative motion of the observer.

You don’t think an object moving towards you in “empty” space gains kinetic energy from nowhere do you? Or that an object moving away from you seems to loose it to nowhere do you?

I’ve never claimed it was a medium consisting of particles which can be tracked through time, just consisting of an unknown quantity capable of adding energy to, or subtracting it from objects moving through it, even light, depending on our choice of coordinates for observation.... source or emitter.

But you are also ignoring all the matter in space, which right here at the edge of our solar system was found to be 30 times greater than they believed it was. And you really expect anyone to believe they have accurately speculated on the matter content elsewhere when they couldn’t get even close right here where they should have been easily able to see it, versus hundreds to millions of light years distance?

You are not really going to try to argue that, are you???

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Cosmology, physics, geology, biology, genetics - NOTHING is beyond the mind powers of the creationist. Education? What of it! Experience? None needed. Logic? Never heard of it. One only need a bible and the DunningKruger effect, and universal expertise is yours for the taking!

Except I’m not the one claiming laws of physics never observed in any laboratory only apply outside of our galactic cluster..... while known laws only apply within. Dads argument, you accept but refuse to accept....

That would be you while trying to blame everyone else for your ignoring known physics....

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Just that your medium which isn’t a medium is capable of imparting or subtracting energy due to the relative motion of the observer.

I can't make sense of that, but it sounds wrong.

You don’t think an object moving towards you in “empty” space gains kinetic energy from nowhere do you? Or that an object moving away from you seems to loose it to nowhere do you?

No. Kinetic energy is frame dependent and always positive, regardless of direction; it's gained or lost by acceleration or deceleration respectively, relative to the observer.

But you are also ignoring all the matter in space, which right here at the edge of our solar system was found to be 30 times greater than they believed it was. And you really expect anyone to believe they have accurately speculated on the matter content elsewhere when they couldn’t get even close right here where they should have been easily able to see it, versus hundreds to millions of light years distance?

I said nothing about that, it's irrelevant to whether light requires a medium.

You are not really going to try to argue that, are you???

Why would I - it's irrelevant to whether light requires a medium.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I can't make sense of that, but it sounds wrong.

No, what sounds wrong is your magically expanding nothing that isn’t a medium but is described just like one with the capabilities of movement of ponderable matter.

Which need I remind you is the cause of cosmological redshift in their flawed model, and as they warned you, you were not to confuse the velocity as being a real velocity..... yet you keep arguing for a velocity factor, instead of just accepting it is the medium existing in space which causes all redshift, including Doppler.

No. Kinetic energy is frame dependent and always positive, regardless of direction; it's gained or lost by acceleration or deceleration respectively, relative to the observer.

Only when you keep treating this frame as an absolute frame while ignoring the ball sees no energy gain....

I said nothing about that, it's irrelevant to whether light requires a medium.

No, it just affects the light passing through it and causes energy loss which is why the Doppler shift was able to be mathematically derived from the energy conservation laws.

Why would I - it's irrelevant to whether light requires a medium.

Because I don’t need your magical expanding nothing that moves like a ponderable medium, but isn’t, and is capable of causing objects to accelerate, but doesn’t, that can’t be tested in any laboratory because physics is different way out that away, to explain redshift. Just the same physics we can observe in any laboratory on Earth.

Just all that matter they keep pretending isn’t there, despite the first probe ever sent out falsifying their belief in the matter present right next door..... where we definitely should have been able to observe it, but couldn’t except in-situ.

Because correcting mass estimates would require correcting Dark Matter and so require correcting Dark Energy. More Fairie Dust that can’t be observed in any lab and only occurs way out that away......

 

[SelfSim]

Are you saying you don’t believe in Relativity?

If you mean do I think Relativity is true, then my answer is that the extent of its truth, is only as good as the last best tested Relativity theory.

Or is this the point you cop out and say your not saying that too?

Unfortunately for you, there are other answers to your question which you are obviously blind to .. I just gave you one.

 

[SelfSim]

... yet you keep arguing for a velocity factor, instead of just accepting it is the medium existing in space which causes all redshift, including Doppler.

My underlines.
.. (which was not consistent with the outcomes of the MMX, etc) .. no matter how hard you try to push your beliefs into existence.

Only when you keep treating this frame as an absolute frame while ignoring the ball sees no energy gain....

No, it just affects the light passing through it and causes energy loss which is why the Doppler shift was able to be mathematically derived from the energy conservation laws.

Because I don’t need your magical expanding nothing that moves like a ponderable medium, but isn’t, and is capable of causing objects to accelerate, but doesn’t, that can’t be tested in any laboratory because physics is different way out that away, to explain redshift. Just the same physics we can observe in any laboratory on Earth.

Congratulations ... you just demonstrated the issues you are confronting (caused by your over-riding pursuit of beliefs)!
Your 'solution' is also flawed by your own logic and your very own (normally) shoe-boxed '*lab experiments*'.

Abandon the beliefs and it all goes away in an instant.

 

[sjastro]

As I said, nothing would change.....

I gave you the direct mathematical proof that derived the Doppler shift formula directly from energy conservation laws......

As I said, you would simply never read it....

Is this some sort of a joke?
You boasted you could explain to me Doppler shift is an energy exchange with a medium; I called your bluff; you could not provide an answer proving your boast was a lie.
Your quote mining has reached levels of absurdity not only as Selfsim pointed out, but also it bears absolutely no resemblance to your explanation.

 

[sjastro]

The design of the interferometer is of no consequence.

How can you measure an extra distance that does not exist in the devices frame?

You are in your laboratory. You have mirrors in place or any device to measure the distance light must travel on the table in front of you.

Does light travel an extra distance?

Why not? The entire Earth is spinning, only outside the frame in orbit would you see the extra distance.
You can not ever measure a diffraction pattern requiring an extra distance that does not exist in the devices frame.

Inertial? This is a non-inertial Frame, hence we detect the pseudo force of the centrifugal force.

What good is a test for inertial frames going to do in a non-inertial frame?

About as useless is trying to measure an extra distance where none exists.... and then proclaiming look, no defraction pattern for an extra distance, we’ve disproved an ether....

In case you have all forgotten the difference.

Non-inertial reference frame - Wikipedia

“In a curved spacetime all frames are non-inertial...... To explain the motion of bodies entirely within the viewpoint of non-inertial reference frames, fictitious forces (also called inertial forces, pseudo-forces and d'Alembert forces) must be introduced to account for the observed motion, such as the Coriolis force or the centrifugal force, as derived from the acceleration of the non-inertial frame.”

Is this where we talk in small enough areas of spacetime while refusing to do that with the interferometer in its frame?????

Why would I want the Lorentz Transformation’s overturned since they are electromagnetic transformation’s? I already understand all of Relativity relies on electromagnetism....

It’s just those talking about no medium for the propagation of light required while using math which requires the permitivity and permissibility of space that make me laugh. Or should we just get it over with and say the electric and magnetic constants....?????

I agree with Einstein, no ether is unthinkable, just that it can’t be thought of as consisting of particles which can be tracked through time and the idea of motion can not be attributed to it.

Even if you go right ahead and do so anyways with bending, accelerating and expanding it.....

Another personal opinion devoid of understanding with the usual quote mining.

The light doesn’t travel any extra distance, if you comprehended your quote mined diagram on the Michelson-Morley experiment, the distance between the beamsplitter and the mirrors in the longitudinal and transverse directions are exactly the same; interference is due to the difference in the travel time between the longitudinal and transverse directions of the split light beam.

The interferometer where the measurements are performed is in locally flat spacetime and therefore an inertial frame.
As an analogy the Earth’s surface is curved but we can define local regions as being flat.
Go read up on what a local reference frame is which I expect you butcher to produce one of your quote mines.