theoretical experiment to measure absolute speed of earth

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ajforno

Guest
I pro0pose for discussion the folowing theory.<br /><br />Let's imagine that six laser beams are activated simultaneously from six different points located on earth's surface. These six locations on eath surface located at 90 degree angle from each other (ej south pole, north pole, and 0, 90, 180, and 270 degree longitude on the ecuator).<br /><br />These six laser beams are pointed to six mirrors located at six geostationary satellites located exactly at the same distance from ground above each of the laser beam generators.<br /><br />The red shift (or blue shift) of the reflected light is measured with acceptable precision on each of the laser generator sites.<br /><br />If the light behaves as a wave, with a constant speed, in the vacuum of space as its traveling medium, then the absolute speed of earthr relative to these North-south, east- west, front-rear frame should be able to be measured.<br /><br /> <br /><br />
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Google Michelson/Morley experiment and get back to us.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
N

nexium

Guest
I don't think we can know the position of GEO stationay mirrors with sufficient accuracy to make the data or conclusions meaningful. Perhaps in a few years, we can do this. The Earth's surface swells and subsides a few inches with each tide, so we may not even know the altitude of the lasers with sufficient accuracy. "Exactly" rarely occurs in Engineering projects.<br />Why do we think space is rigid in the vicinity of Earth? Space likely deforms due to Earth's gravity, and may even pulsate for reasons unknown at present. Neil
 
B

bobw

Guest
How do you make a polar geostationary satellite? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
simple...you can't have a polar geostationary satellite.<br /><br />Anyway, this exp. was done with the Michelson-Morely interferometers, as was mentioned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
And continues to be done, with ever greater accuracy. It's a useful exercise.<br /><br />The Michaelson-Morlay experiment was intended to measure the Earth's absolute speed. Instead, it ended up disproving the existence of an ether, proving that light wasn't really a wave in the same way that sound is, and setting the stage for Einstein's theory of relativity, which says that there is no such thing as absolute speed -- it's all relative to something, and there is no universal frame of reference against which everything can be measured.<br /><br />One thing which would complicate the use of the GPS system is frame-dragging. GPS devices are programmed to account for it, but it's a good demonstration of the inability to find a true universal frame of reference. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>One thing which would complicate the use of the GPS system is frame-dragging. GPS devices are programmed to account for it...</i><br /><br />True. The Gravity-B research satellite has done some astounding work in refining our understanding of this.<br /><br /><i>...but it's a good demonstration of the inability to find a true universal frame of reference.</i><br /><br />No such animal. It's all relative. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<i><br />True. The Gravity-B research satellite has done some astounding work in refining our understanding of this. </i><br />I haven't read any articles on this, since it finished the experiment. Is NASA done analyzing the data yet?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Preliminary result of the Gravity Probe mission was 42.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
As of the last time I'd checked, no, although there have been statements to the effect that it precisely accomodated Frame-Dragging. Beyond that, we shall see. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
From what little my brother could get me to comprehend, it sounds like the data analysis is a real bearcat. Very painful calculations. I'm sure it will take time. On the other hand, they would've known pretty quickly if it wasn't validating frame-dragging, and would've surely said so. (That would be a finding to give a person immortality! Reversing the Michaelson-Morley findings!) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
Y

yevaud

Guest
<i>I'm sure it will take time.</i><br /><br />Isn't *that* the truth!<br /><br />No, Michaelson and Morely were correct. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>
 
C

CalliArcale

Guest
That conclusion seems inescapable to me. People are constantly repeating their experiment with ever greater precision and still find no fluctuation in the speed of light. If light were a wave in an invisible ether, there should be an ether wind due to the Earth's motion through it, but it eludes detection. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
S

skeptic

Guest
However when scientists measured the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, they found it slightly warmer in one direction and slightly cooler in the opposite direction due to the earth's relative motion to it. I believe they even calculated the earth's true velocity though I don't remember what it was.
 
A

agnau

Guest
Two thoughts:<br />1) Since time is a part of space, measuring absolute speed requires measuring absolute position.<br />2) Since the earth is travelling in a "circular" or "elliptical" orbit around the sun; the sun around the galaxy; and the galaxy around the "universal core" (which may or may not revolve around some external core), the speed of the earth is never constant.
 
S

siarad

Guest
I don't understand.<br />You want to measure the speed of Earth wrt satellites travelling at the same speed as Earth.
 
S

siarad

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No, Michaelson and Morely were correct. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Why wouldn't they be.<br />It's the same with the speed of sound which is the same in all directions, it's the basis of the Mach meter.<br />The only difference is the confusion people seem to have with the 'speed' & the ability to measure motion <b>relative</b> to it. This is possible wrt sound but not light that's all surely, theres' currently no Mach-light meter.<br />The <b>medium</b> determines the speed of both sound & light not motion, you can't 'bat-on' the speed of sound or light.
 
D

doubletruncation

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>However when scientists measured the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation, they found it slightly warmer in one direction and slightly cooler in the opposite direction due to the earth's relative motion to it. I believe they even calculated the earth's true velocity though I don't remember what it was.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />This is something that confused me too when I first learned about it. It seems that there is in fact a rest frame with respect to the cosmic microwave background, and that you can actually measure the Earth's velocity with respect to the cosmic microwave background - the local group of galaxies seem to be moving at a few hundred km/s toward the constellation Virgo. This doesn't really violate the special relativity notion that there is no preferred rest frame, and that the speed of light will be the same regardless of how you're moving. You can always measure your velocity with respect to something else (in this case it was measured with respect to the CMB), but all the laws of physics are the same for us as they would be if we were at rest with respect to the CMB, so in that sense we are just as valid in calling our reference frame at rest as the one in which the CMB does not show a temperature anisotropy.<br /><br />Note, however, that there are some theories (due to solid-state physicists like B. Laughlin and company) in which there really is an ether and a rest frame with respect to that ether. In those theories special relativity appears as an emergent property of the ether fluid, but breaks down ultimately at some energy scale that we haven't probed yet. They have analogs from quantum fluids in which the speed of sound seems to obey special relativity up to some scale at which point the emergent phenomenon of sound breaks down. As I understand it, in these theories quantum mechanics and gravity are reconciled by basically saying that general relativity <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

Saiph

Guest
actually, the speed of sound is not the same in all directions, and an aircraft moving through the medium will observe different speeds of sound relative to itself, and the ground. It even changes with altitude.<br /><br />if a michelson morely style experiment is held with sound, on a rotating platform, it'll get a speed difference with direction. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p align="center"><font color="#c0c0c0"><br /></font></p><p align="center"><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">--------</font></em></font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">----</font></em></font><font color="#666699">SaiphMOD@gmail.com </font><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">-------------------</font></em></font></p><p><font color="#999999"><em><font size="1">"This is my Timey Wimey Detector.  Goes "bing" when there's stuff.  It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually.  I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- </font></em></font><font size="1" color="#999999">The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
 
S

siarad

Guest
No it's measuring <b>it's</b> speed <b>relative</b> to sound, Mach, the speed of sound does not change, how else can the sound barrier be passed <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />Yes it varies with altitude as I pointed out previously, it's the medium which sets the speed.<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts