V.3 No 1 |
1 |
| On clocks synchronisation | |
|
|
V.3 No 1 |
1 |
| On clocks synchronisation | |
|
|
|
Dear Alexander, First of all, great thanks for so interesting and interested letter. Truly, not so often I met actually interested discussions, though there were many discussions of principle. So to many your points I answer with my co-author. Lest to bury ourselves under a mountain of mutual
citations, we will try to answer your points in their essence. I only would mention, we do
not consider my own Relativity, as I never saw a task to construct it per se. But it does
not mean, of course, that I have not my opinion. I have it, it is based on wave physics,
this opinion runs through all works of our laboratory. In our view, void of physical space
is bluff, constant light velocity in all reference frames is bluff, transformation of
absolute time is bluff, photon representation - bluff, and all constructions built on sand
of such suppositions are mere bluff having nothing to do with physics, even in particular
cases. And you should not seek the confusion, the more mine, where it is not. The more
after I proved you enough many aspects both on SR and photon theory. In this connection, I well understand your proposition, << I would not like to discuss SR further. As well as "GR, photon theory and other lees" >> (Meeting A.M. Chepik's inquiry, we would like to draw the Readers attention, here he is citing our previous post and the cited phrase is typed in quotations) I would agree - if your papers and posts were not saturated with this "lees". Take away from your lexicon the variations directly or indirectly built on postulates of these wrong theories - and we will lift this point. But then you are not allowed to begin
your constructions with definitions which I criticised, and in your physical
substantiation there will not appear the photon concepts which, in particular, you are
citing in your post:
<<As we suppose photons' or light
waves' velocity inconstant, we have to make difference in terminology: "photon
velocity" is the velocity of light particles in any particular reference frame, and
under "light velocity" we will mean the velocity of photons of given frequency
in the natural frame of source. >>
Otherwise it would look so: on one hand, "stop discussing", and on the other, << You can in frames of its formalism make conclusions and show them discrepant to some experiments. Well, what of it? You showed that in the situation you used this theory does not work. Thank you, you showed more precise boundaries in which this model is applicable. ALL theories use simplified models, so they cannot be absolutely precise, and ALL models have their limits of application. But you cannot deny, there exist examples where this model gives more precise results than the models used before. Ginzburg himself told, "Relativity is only an unproven theory, but theory most exactly and completely (of existent) describing the reality…". At present, there exists a number of theories which in more or less simple way describe some situations. For example, in the Global Positioning System (GPS) it is used a locally-absolute model. >> And you are writing it when I have shown you, SR is unable to work with accelerations - this means, it can work with no curvilinear motions, neither with dynamics. There remains only a one-dimensional direct motion. Or rather even it does not remain, as SR is also inconsistent in the time parameter, and we showed it with the three-twins example. Well, where SR does work? Where Einstein has fulfilled his task,
as you are writing?
<< Einstein had proven his theory workable in
some areas. He had fulfilled his task. He had not to seek all possible limitations of his
model applicability - one person is unable to do it. >>
Please do not mix up Einstein's SR and Lorentz'
transformation (of course, without Einstein's postulates). Lorentz' transformation has
been derived from the supposition of physical transformation of material objects moving
with relativistic velocity. It is admissible here to speak about first approximation made
by Lorentz - and I showed you it "on fingers", when telling of real field
transformations of atoms and atomic structures. Now let us think what he wrote. To admit the systematic change of frequency, which is discrepant to the aim of experiment, it is necessary, it to be really systematic and observable not in one final, elaborated series of experiments but in all draft experiments too. Relativists try to justify such shift by magnetic field - this is simply a stupidity. With the fields present in maser, changes caused by the magnetic field of the Earth is negligibly small. And it is known that in maser there exists the resonance lock-in, which shuts off the noises, in that number such small that could arise due to the change of Earth magnetism direction. The matter is, "molecular generator constructively consists of three main parts: source of molecular beam, sorting device providing molecules of beam to have the negative-temperature state, and volume resonator with high Q-factor, with the natural frequency very close to the resonance frequency of spectral line of molecule" [N.A. Irisova. Molecular generator. Physical encyclopaedia, v. 3, p. 301]. With it, molecules in ammoniac masers are sorted in the inhomogeneous field of quadrupole capacitor in which, "due to the Schtark effect, the inner energy of excited molecules NH3 in the permanent electric field increases, and of those non-excited, remaining at the low energetic level, - decreases. So, passing through the inhomogeneous electric field, the excited molecules tend to appear in that region of field where their energy is minimal (i.e., they tend to the axis of sorting system), and non-excited molecules - to the region with maximal value of electric field" [ibidem]. How can magnetic field affect this process of central separation? In no way. The more with the mirror symmetry in turns. But the property that "the experiment conducted at Watson laboratory included the comparison in frequencies of two masers directed the emission of NH3 molecules to the opposite sides" [ J.P. Cedarholm, G.F. Bland, B.l. Havens, New experimental test of special relativity, Phys. Rev. Letter, 1958, Vol. 1, n. 9, p. 142 - 349 (fig. 20-1)], with unavoidably non-identical resonators, separators, and beam energy could bring non-identical beams which was compensated by a set of factors. Then with the turn of device and change of beams direction as to the aethereal wind, they could observe the effect. And the less accurate they selected the system and the better these factors were compensated the higher has to be effect of turn.Now, returning to the magnetic field affection, we would
emphasise, it is not so simple task to achieve so high stability from maser; in preparing
this experiment, the experimenters surely tried to escape the error of which they knew.
And they hardly were unaware of widespread metrological methods. But they did not succeed,
so the results of experiments have been, first, distorted, and second, relativists omit
the essence of yielded results and claim the maser experiment convincingly corroborating
SR. Well-known way of juggling, they do it too often. You see it in the conclusion of this
experiment: "As concerns the fluctuations of change of
frequency of beating, we can see from Fig. 7 that they appeared smaller than The same story with Michelson's experiment. Gross, unprofessional statistics in which Michelson averaged his result in ALL turns of the interferometer naturally has led him to the absence of result. But if we mark all experimental points in accordance with turns of interferometer in space and determine the average statistic curve, we will yield the systematic shift of lines. Vavilov made so. And Miller used alike statistics, selecting the average statistic value when wide spread in the experimental values. This is not so simple issue as it can seem. At the Pasadena conference in 1927, Prof. Hedrick made a large report with the calculation of interferometer. In particular, he based on formula yielded before by Righy. This last "concluded on its grounds that the turn of device by 90o in an ideal experiment raises no effect, as, despite the exchange of distances passed by two beams, their positions (on the screen - S.K.) also exchange; so the beam having longer way takes the same relative position as to the beam having shorter trajectory after turning, as before" [Conference on the Michelson- Morley experiment. Held at the Mount Wilson Observatory, Pasadena, California, February 4 and 5, 1927. Journal of Optical Society of America and Review of Scientific Instruments. March 1929. Vol. 18, No 3, p. 181- 182]. Paul Epstein supported Hedrick so: "Thus, we have a permanent position of fringes independent on the device orientation. Should Michelson conducted the experiment in order to have not fringes but the light in a definite position of device either an ideally adjusted interferometer, expecting to yield the darkness in the other position of device due to the phase difference, his experiment would prove nothing" [ibidem]. Discussing the reports, Lorentz admitted: "Hitherto I thought quite satisfying the considerations based on Fermat principle. But after Mr Hedrick's information I have to thoroughly consider these issues. After Hedrick's results it appears that the result expected in Michelson - Morley experiment numerically differs from that which we used to expect on the basis of classical theory" [ibidem]. True, he finished his analysis quite in spirit of a man having no wish to correct his mistakes: "We need to distinguish very thoroughly, for example, the light beams and perpendiculars to the arrays of waves. But since there exist the discrepancy in results yielded by two methods, I would conduct the detailed calculations as soon as possible. Meanwhile I hope, my general considerations are true" [ibidem]. We would mention, he never published his correlations with Righy's method, while relativists really ridiculed Miller for his success in obtaining the trustworthy results. With it, in all the literature, the expected shift is calculated given the beams mutually perpendicular in the interferometer, while even in absence of aethereal wind, to yield the interference, the between-beams angle is necessary - and it was arranged practically. "Practically, image c (Fig. 14.20) of the mirror a takes into account that a is some inclined to b. This is absolutely necessary to yield direct beams of finite length fringes … When b and c were inclined to each other, the true aethereal wind gives an additional effect predicted by Hicks and being periodical in a full turn of device.
|
|
Fig. 14.20. Scheme of interferometer with slightly inclined mirror
|
Hicks has calculated the fringes shift,
having showed that it depends on the angle between b and c. The effect
increases with growing angle << It is not worthy to speak of Michelson experiment in this connection - its result was not dependent on velocity; well, why should we suppose that there in the experiment the lengths were dependent on the device speed, in order to compensate it then by another supposition - that the time of light pulse passing was dependent on the device speed? >> Certainly, having no wish to see the systematic change of fringes shift, which was only 10 times less than that theoretical (fine result for establishing experiments in presence of masking effect which was not taken into account due to Lorentz' incorrect calculation), one can ignore that the shifts are not discrete like "present - absent", they are continuous and dependent on the interferometer's inclination angle to the aethereal wind velocity. After this, one can also disregard that these continuously varying shifts are consistent with the wind velocity variation along the length of interferometer leg.
However strange it can seem, threads of causation follow from this to your work. On one hand you understand, your definitions, to say gently, are inconsistent with the physics of processes: << But I do not aspire to be absolutely exact in correlation between physics and mathematics. I even think it impossible. In the paper I only suggest to consider a model and to compare the conclusions with reality. >> Well, if so, what do you intend to compare, if you understood your representation irrelevant to the physical reality? Isn't it a mere sophistry:<< In my mathematical chapters I do not consider the physical essence of motion. In the chapter 2 I am saying only that the definitions of inertial reference frame in the paper and in physics have not contradictions. Actually, here and there the property is true: the reference frame moving within the inertial frame evenly and directly also is an inertial reference frame. >> I think, to this your statement in best way will respond Newton who wrote in the pre-word to Principia so: "Since the ancients, as Pampus says, attached much importance to Mechanics in studying the nature, today authors, having thrown off the substances and latent properties, are striving to subordinate the natural phenomena to the laws of mathematics. … Thus, Geometry is based on the mechanical practice and is just the part of general mechanics in which the proof of exact measurement is also proven. The whole difficulty of physics, as it will be seen, is to recognise the forces of nature after the phenomena of motion, and then after these forces to expound rest phenomena… Then, by these forces, also with the help of mathematical suggestions, the motions of planets, comets, Moon and sea are derived" [I. Newton. Principia. Translation by A.N. Krylov, Proceedings of Sea Academy, 1914, p. 1- 3 (in our reverse translation)].Additionally I think, it is not worthy to simplify so much your definitions. They are not reduced to an even and direct motion of reference frames (Galilean relativity principle is enough for it), you start them with an ungrounded introduction of time transformation, which is basically inadmissible in view of physics - and your conception differs from Newton - Galilee Absolute just by these definitions. This is just the difference of physics from mathematics that usual for mathematicians "let us suppose" is inadmissible in physics. This was my reason when I tried to restrain you from the thoughtless geometrisation which the relativists like so much. You would like to separate the conceptual openness which we have proven in SR from your approach? You have a good chance to show your approach consistent. You well understand that << However the clock travelled in the Absolute, its time pace is in an unique fashion related to its speed in the trajectory of motion; consequently, its indication after returning to the initial point is single-valued. >> To prove it, you need not three hundred reference frames. Retain the same three, but try to achieve the constancy in returning to the initial point from different trajectories of which you are writing, and the main, to achieve phenomenological correlation of your transformations at |
 |
(1) |
In (1) which I wrote on the basis of Def. 1.15 of your
"Fundamentals of Theory of selected reference frame (Absolute)" ( http://redshift0.narod.ru/Eng/index_En.htm
, item 1.18 of contents) there are present just three reference frames: null (basic) and
two compared. And you need not more. << The more, it follows from the Relativity principle that in all inertial frames there exists some constant value (let us denote it cLcL as the Logunov- Lorentz constant) having the dimension of velocity and after the meaning of these transformations being the maximal acceptable velocity. Since, when measured, this value appeared with quite accuracy equal to the light velocity, Einstein decided to postulate just the Light velocity independence principle. >> The more, you will not have at all this constant value. It can appear exceptionally if your coefficient was nonlinear. With it (1) becomes senseless - and it becomes senseless to clutch at the light velocity as the basic parameter when seeking the Absolute. Or rather, it is senseless to transform the time intervals dependently on relative measurements doing not taking into account this relativity, i.e. without the analysis which has to follow the experiment. Just the analysis which Einstein and his followers have emasculated in their so-called gedanken experiments. But if in (1) you take the sign of equality as an identity
for all inertial frames, your definitions - or rather suppositions of transforming time -
and your matrixes with transforming time will become unnecessary. From (1), the constant
coefficient for all inertial reference frames immediately follows. Is it then worthy to
complicate the problem? And you yourself already show it in your answer, how your construction is consistent with the Galilean system of Absolute: << In my designation in the matrix (12), let us take all factors equal to 1 - and yield Galilean transformation t' = t ; x' = -v' t +x ; y'= y ; z'= z In Galilean system I can come to it. Any transformation which I yield will have Galilean transformation as its limit at falling speed. >> If we base on your approach (not just yours but which you use), |
 |
(2) |
| and |
 |
(3) |
| are identical regularities, if at ? = 0 also ?
= 0. No? Then, if you are speaking of Absolute as of
general concept, in your transformation, without any passings to limit, there has to be
true the closeness typical just for the Absolute - it means, there has to remain the
Galilean frame. If it was not close without passing to the limit, there is not the
Absolute in your representation, too.
But the main interesting is that, introducing different temps of time according to (1), you automatically yield equal time pace for all inertial frames. I can easily show it. |
0. This
value is some about the boundary of masers stability: "As it is
known, the stability of frequency 
1/50 Hz, whilst the aether theory predicts about 20 Hz" [ibidem,
pages 296- 297]. Well, let us remember, how relativists meant Fizeau experiment negative
only because in THEIR mind the aether must be fully entrained by the material substance,
while the Fizeau experiment corroborated it partially entrained, in full accordance with
Fresnel's premature calculations. Familiar picture? And when they calculated their
experiments, have they taken into account Miller's substantiation of aethereal wind
braking near the Earth and in buildings of stone? They jeered that Miller carried out his
experiments on the mountain in a hut. While, proceeding from Miller's warnings, they
should not screen masers hoping to protect from the Earth magnetism. First, one hardly can
protect effectively from permanent magnetic fields; second, such protection well lessens
the flow of aethereal wind within the device. With it, a baby would be thrown out with the
bath-water. A right decision would be to determine SPATIALLY the direction of Earth
magnetism in the laboratory and to orient the masers so that ions and electrons motion in
maser would be directed strongly along the found line, and along this line they had to
orient the electric field of masers. But the relativists would hardly choose this way.
They need not scientific results. They need something very other. This is the point. So
they want to see only what they want to see. So, when in the same Fig. 7 a strong
sinusoidal regularity but not chaos of fluctuations is present, it says them nothing. You
can make sure if you take the mentioned Einsteinian collection or J.P. Cedarholm's et al
paper. And having taken this paper, you can also make sure that the confidence intervals
of experimental values do not cover these 
and falling width of fringes" [ibidem, Miller's speech in
discussion]. Now rare people know that claims to Miller were first not that his results
were erroneous, as relativists turned it after. No one doubted the results. Only one thing
was questioned: how much succeeded Miller to exclude the effect of full turn that distorts
the determination of aethereal wind direction. "I believe,
there exists a serious problem connected with an effect being periodical for the full turn
of device and dismissed by Miller (though this is not true - S.K.) who emphasised the importance of half-period effect repeated in each half
of turn and concerned to the issue of aethereal wind. In many cases the effect of full
period is much more than the effect of half-period. After Miller, the effect of full
period depends on the fringes width and will be zero for indefinitely broad fringes" [ibidem,
Lorentz' speech in discussion]. Lorentz has omitted that the full-period effect also is
caused by the aethereal wind, so his claim to Miller is some inaccurate. Out of aethereal
wind, the non-perpendicularity of interferometer mirrors in no way could not affect the
fringes position with the turning device.