Michelson-Morley experiment (done in air) is nonsense (クリ)
In air, light is propagated at c/n. So, the result of M-M experiment (done in air) is only natural.
In a book "Theory of Relativity" by Pauli, W 1958, it's written as follows (quoted from English version ; in 1-6). "Rather should one say that for an observer moving with medium, light is propagated as usual with velocity c/n in all directions".
Annual aberration and daily aberration mean motion of Earth (with respect to aether). Aether is real existence. On the other hand, if the distance to the light source isnot too far (no, even the distance to the Moon also !), propagation of light will follow emission theory. Relativity will fade away, and both aether and emission theory will revive. Someday as phoenixes.
In outer space, frequency and wavelength of incoming lights from two stars (from opposite directions on the celestial sphere) are measured. To the measurer, speed of two incoming lights will be different. And it will mean the motion (in the direction of light path) of the measurer with respect to aether.
Note) If the measurer moves in the direction of light path, frequency and speed of two incoming lights will vary. Because, wavelength of two incoming light does not vary.
Rods of length 4r and 2r are rotating horizontally in the shape of a cross. Assume that four tip of the rod each has mass point of mass m, and the mass of the rod is zero. Tension (centrifugal force) acting on the rod is a true force.
The formula for centrifugal force is F = m v^2/r. And as Newton's third law of motion shows, centrifugal force is an action and centripetal force is a reaction. The magnitude of the force is the same. The two are true forces.
Tension is centrifugal force, an effect of Newton's third law of motion, and centripetal force is a reaction. The two are true forces. Rotational motion can be boiled down to accelerated motion and non-accelerated motion (including absolute rest). Frame will be the celestial sphere and the aether.
Accelerated motion and inertial force correspond qualitatively (also, in the direction of celestial sphere and of aether) quantitatively. This will lead to zero inertial force in non-accelerated motion. Without exception. In addition, let us assume that non-accelerating motion includes absolute rest.
In outer space, frequency and wavelength of incoming lights from two stars (from opposite directions on the celestial sphere) are measured. To the measurer, speed of two incoming lights will be different. And sum of speed of two lights will be 2c (or close to 2c : constant). In post 55, it is forgotten to note. Sorry.
Accelerated Motion and Non-Accelerated Motion (again) (クリ)
Difference between the two motions above will be the difference of motion with respect to aether frame. A mass point moving in accelerated motion is accompanied by inertial force, that corresponds qualitatively and quantitatively. A mass point moving in non-accelerated motion (uniform linear motion) is not accompanied by inertial force.
A saying are trying about inertial force and gravity. What can we say by comparing the two words ? Inertial force is inertial force, gravity is gravity and both are true forces ! That seems to be all that can be said. This is a short report.
On the ground, a passenger car is moving with uniform acceleration to the right. In the car, a body hanging from the ceiling with a string is swinging to the left. The angle can be explained qualitatively and quantitatively using equations based on Newton's laws of motion. What about equivalence principle ? Is there anyone who can ?
Allow me to repeat the previous question,regarding two situations ◎ below. Two situations ◎ can be explainend qualitatively and quantitatively using formulas based on Newton’s laws of motion. The question is, can equivalence principle explain these also ? Is there anyone who can ? .
◎ Forces of the same magnitude are acting on a mass point from the left and right directions. Types of forces are tension, gravity, and inertial force. Since there are no combinations of inertial forces and inertial forces, there are five combinations of forces (ignoring the difference between left and right).
◎ A body is sliding down inclined surface (no friction).
Formula for the law of universal gravitation is F=GMm/r^2. Value r is the distance between centers of gravity of the two bodies (let's call them spheres L and R). If r is 50, the squared is 2500. It is the first diagram.
Now, this is the second diagram. On horizontal straight line, spheres L, R1, and R2 are lined up. If distance between L and R1 is 49, and distance between L and R2 is 51, the squared are 2401 and 2601. If these two are added and divided by 2, value 2501 is gotten, which is slightly larger than 2500. In other words, the formula of universal gravitation doesn't care about the size of the two sources of gravity, but in reality, there will be a difference, even if it's a little ? Is Newton's spherical shell theorem not perfect ? Is this the main cause of apsidal precession ?
Note) 2500 and 2501 are coefficients in numerator of the formula.
Note) Masses of R1 and R2 are each 1/2 of the mass of R in the second diagram.
Note: Assume that R1 and R2 are hemispheres of R (distance of center of gravity is 2).
Distance between Moon and Earth is measured with millimeter precision. Measurement is based on the formula "distance = speed of light x round trip time / 2". What is noteworthy here is that the direction of laser beam with respect to celestial sphere does not affect the measurement results.
Assume that the space where Moon and Earth exist is also filled with aether. Measurement results will differ depending on the direction of laser beam with respect to celestial sphere (according to the explanation of MM experiment).
However, aether does not affect the propagation of electromagnetic waves at the distance between Moon and Earth. That is, aether does not affect the propagation of electromagnetic waves for a few seconds after emitted. Ritz's emission theory is revived, although in a limited extent. For now, let's take this as an assumption. There is no need to be worried about the framework of time or space.
One-way Speed of Light/Isotropy of Aether (again) (クリ)
English version of Wikipedia has an item titled "One-way speed of light". Word isotropic is found in 27 places.
However, if the light from multiple celestial bodies on the celestial sphere is recorded and analyzed in outer space, one-way speed of light will become disclosed. Probably easily. By established means of measuring aberration.
The position of bright lines and dark lines in spectrum of the celestial body's light will show the speed of celestial body's light and speed of light relative to Earth (and Aether drift). The isotropy and uniformity of aether will also be disclosed.
Speed of lightAether is the distance that light travels in one second, 299,792,458 m/s (defined value). Above value was obtained by measuring frequency and wavelength of laser light performed by Evenson et al in 1973 (error was ± 1.2 m/s).
Suppose that frequency and wavelength of light coming from two fixed stars located at symmetrical points (at opposite ponts) on the celestial sphere. Measuring must be done simultaneously. Perhaps many of the measured speeds of light are different. If so, it will be possible to identify two points (on the celestial sphere) where the difference is greatest.
Note) Differences due to known mtion of Earth such as revolution and rotation must be excluded.
Note) Wavelength must be measured before the light enters mediums such as glass.
In outer space, starlight coming from the left is passing through a stationary horizontal tube of length L. Frequency at the left and right ends of the tube is the same. This sameness is true even if the tube is moving in the left and right directions at different uniform speed. In other words, number of waves that exist inside the tube (wave number X L) is invariable. There is no varying in wavelength of light. In the formula, c = f λ, it is f and c that vary. It is the first picture.
In the second picture, there are two tubes the same as above. The two are moving at a constant speed. One is to the left and the other is to the right. As mentioned above, wavelength of light is the same. In the formula, c = f λ, f and c are not the same.
Is wavelength of light arriving in outer space being measured as it is (on light before arriving) ? Isn't what is being measured wavelength of light (extincted light) that has passed through a medium such as glass ? In internet (a bit), any site mentioned can not be found.
Suppose an observer moving in various motions in outer space is measuring the wavelength of starlight. In the formula, c = f λ, f will vary. Accordingly, v c will vary. However, we seem to believe, it is λ that vary accordingly.
We may not be able to distinguish between light before it enters .measurement device and light after it (light before and after extinction. Etinction is due to glass).
A starlight is passing through horizontal tube in outer space from left to right. A flat glass plate is fitted in center of the tube. Assume that this tube is moving at different uniform speed in left and right directions. For left and right light each, the formula v = f λ holds. Frome the perspective of the tube, f on the left and right sides are the same. But v is different and λ will also be different.
There is an argument that v are the same. If so, λ must also be the same. However, λ on the left does not follow (does not be affected by) the motion of the tube. But λ on the right follows (is affected by). This difference must not be forgotten.
Light entering glass in outer space has a speed of c/n relative to the glass. This varying in speed within the medium is called extinction, and is completed in a very small optical path length that differs depending on mediums. For glass, it is 0.0001 mm.
Imagine that the glass moves in various uniform linear motions in outer space. The speed of light entering the glass and leaving the glass are not the same (from the perspective of the glass).
Speed of Light is not Constant Always (again) (クリ)
Starlight is coming to a glass cube floating in outer space from the left and is leaving to the right. At the left and right ends of the glass, frequency of starlight is the same. Imagine that the glass is moving at various uniform speeds to the left and right. v of light on the left and right will not be the same, and so will λ (the formula v = fλ is viewed from perspective of the glass).
Value of Speed of Light (of starlight in outer space)
Light of two stars coming from the left and right is passing through a glass cube. This cube is floating horizontally in outer space. Inside the glass, formula c/n = f λ holds. Four values are known.
Two lights inside the glass are spectralized and the spectra (distance between chosen atom or molecule A and B) is compared. The two will be slightly different.
Note) For light in outer space, formula v = f λ holds. And value f is the same as f for the glass (from the perspective of the glass).
How is λ of starlight measured ? One thing is certain. The λ before it enters measuring device is not be varied with the motion of measuring device. So, if measuring device is moved, it will become clear which λ was measured (which λ of starlight before or after extinction).
A glass cube is floating horizontally in outer space. Two rays of starlight coming from the left and right are passing through the glass horizontally. Below is the difference between the two rays of light as seen from viewpoint of the glass (difference in formula v = f λ).
Difference inside the glass c/n = c/n f ≠ f λ ≠ λ
Difference just before entering the glass. c ≠ c f ≠ f λ = λ
Difference just after leaving the glass c = c f ≠ f λ ≠ λ
Allow me to add to 76. When the glass cube moves left and right....
Inside the glass, c/n is constant, and the other two are variable
Just before entering the glass, λ is constant, and the other two are variable
Just after leaving the glass, c is constant, and the other two are variable
By a string, a body of mass m is hanging from the ceiling in the center of the passenger car. Body and the string are perpendicular. Next, the passenger car begins to accelerate to the right. Body and the string tilt to the left. This acceleration is usually constant. However, if an external force F continues to grow as time passes, the inclination of body and the string also continues to grow. This varying is the same for one inside and outside the passenger car. And, the tension of the string, which is a reaction to the inertial force will be the same to the two also (and if the string breaks, it will be the same to the two also).
An body m is suspended by a string from the center of the ceiling of a passenger car. If passenger car is accelerated to the right, string and body will tilt downward to the left. But, what if passenger car is jerk-moving? The inclination of string and body will continue to increase, the tension in string will increase, and eventually the string will break.
These situations and explanations of the situation must be the same for one inside and outside passenger car. Inertial force is not a fictitious force for one inside and outside the car. Inertial force in this case is action, and the reaction is the tension in string.
A point (point of action) is pulled left and right by strings with a vector F, creating balance. Will, can the force on the right be considered an inertial force ? At right end of the right string, a body with mass m is placed. In other words, tension ma is acting on the right string. In this pictere, the whole is moving to the left with a uniform acceleration.
Note: A website says, "Do not bring force into the cause of the motion (into its varying. also)."
Inside the cabin of a spaceship moving with uniform acceleration to the right, a string stretches. Right end of the string is tied to the right inner wall of the cabin, and left end is tied to a body m, floating inside the cabin. There is tension ma in the string (ignore mass of the string).
This physical fact and its explanation must be the same for one inside and outside the spaceship.
In actual examples of action and reaction in Newton's third law of motion, sometimes, it is unclear which is action and which is reaction. But it must be clear that inertial force can be either of the two. Then inertial force must be real force. For everyone.
In the well-known formula F = ma, which is inertial force ? It can be ma. Then inertial force must be real force. For everyone.
Inertial force of a body moving in uniformly accelerated linear motion is based on m and a. There can be no denying. In addition, ma = F. In short, inertial force is not fictitious.
Accelerating Frame and Non-Accelerating Frame (fragmentary)
◎ An observer in a passenger car in a uniformly accelerating linear motion will see everything in the car as at rest ? What if g is large ?
◎ A website says that equiliblium of forces are only for frames that are at rest or in uniform linear motion.
◎ The difference between accelerating frame and non-accelerating frame is crucial. But we continue to turn away from to it. This is physics ?
◎ A string stretches horizontally inside the cabin of a spaceship moving to the right with a uniform acceleration. The right end of the string is fixed to the right inner wall of the cabin, and the left end is fixed to body m, which is floating inside the cabin. The string has a tension ma (ignore the mass of string). Both m and a are specific values.
m and a will be the same for one inside and outside the ship.
A spaceship is moving horizontally with uniform acceleration. Inside the spaceship, a body m is pushing against the rear wall. This force is action, and is inertial force. As reaction, and as normal force, the rear wall pushes back against the body. Magnitude of the two is ma.
Above explanation should be valid for one inside and outside the spaceship. Inertial force will be a real force for everyone, and will not be fictitious.
A body is being pulled by strings from the left and right. Tension in the strings is the same, ma. The same body is being pulled by one string from the left and by two strings from the right. Tension in all three strings is the same, ma. Let the body in two figures be A and B.
Are A seen from B and B seen from A symmetrical ? No, that's not, because the internal stresses in body A and B are different.
A spherical fluid is floating in space. The fluid is uniform and isotropic. That is, gravity has no acting on the sphere.
The sphere will be in non-accelerated frame. It is moving in a uniform linear motion through space (or is at rest). However, if the sphere moves in a way other than the above, there will be a corresponding deviation from uniform isotropy. The difference between accelerated and non-accelerated frame is not fictitious.
Spaceship is moving horizontally with uniform acceleration. Body m is pushing against rear wall of the spaceship's cabin (A). Rear wall pushes back the body with normal force (B). A is action, B is reaction.
Spaceship is moving horizontally with uniform acceleration. String attached to front wall of the spaceship's cabin stretches backward inside the cabin, pulling body m attached to rear end of string (A). The body resists pulling force of string (inertial resistance) (B). A is action, B is reaction.
To begin with, distinction between action and reaction seems to be unclear.
In weightless space, there is a starting point. From this point to six directions (east-west, north-south, and up-down directions) six points of mass start motion simultaneously at the same speed. The state of six points of mass will show the state of non-accelerated frame. These will also be an indicator for all accelerated motion (for all not uniform linear motion).
If desired, the starting point can be made stationary on aether frame.
On a plane, two rods cross each other (without friction) and rotate around intersection point. This basic form can be transformed as follows.
1) Body of mass m is attached to both ends of one rod. Body of mass 2m is attached to both ends of the other rod. Mass of rods is assumed to be zero.
2) Body of mass m is attached to each of four ends of two rods. Length of one rod is a, and length of the other is 2a. Mass of rods is assumed to be zero.
Centrifugal force and tension acting on rods are real forces, not fictitious. From any frame.
Centrifugal force that is accompanied by rotational motion is inertial force, that is, real force or action. Reaction to it is a centripetal force (In case of hammer throwing wire, it can also be considered tension or tensile stress)
. Its form and magnitude do not vary no matter what frame it is viewed from.
Following claims : Newton’s spherical shell theorem, Perihelion shift of Mercury (claimed before relativity, before 1905) are unacceptable. My veiw are posted into some web-sites in English.
Also in relativity, I find no acceptable claim regarding gravity (equivalence principle is unacceptable). And I posted objections (that I can) to relativity’s claims regarding gravity.
"Resultant force of attraction and centrifugal force of Earth is the true nature of gravity." This is cited from a website. However, I think that attraction in this citation is the true nature of gravity. This citation is evasive and delegate.
Equivalence principle is unacceptable. One reason is that, I can't recall ever seeing universal gravitational constant mentioned on inertial force.
On state of being of vectors of gravity (attraction) and inertial force, there will be no restrictions. Therefore, vector of two forces will be possible to be compensate and nothing special happens. Like an elevator in free fall.
Force acting on us on surface of Earth is resultant force of gravity (attraction) and centrifugal force. On surface (solid or liquid) of planets of solar system, gravity (attraction), and centrifugal force (different planet’s rotation) is various. Equivalence principle is unacceptable.
An elevator cabin is in free falling. Elevator is rigid body consisting of the same mass points with mass m. Each mass point has the same acceleration. The same force acting on each mass point is ma.
There is no word equivalence principle in above explanation or any of the following. In fact, there should be no word equivalence principle.
A body of mass m is placed on flat surface (without friction). String pulls this body to the right with tension ma. The body accelerates to the right, and inertial force ma acts to the left. Magnitude of tension and inertial force are equal. This is as shown by Newton's third law of motion.
The fact that gravity and inertial force are equal (in total) in a free-falling elevator is probably due to Newton's third law of motion.
The two, gravity and inertial force can be expressed as force vectors. So, it is possible that the two cancel each other out in a free-falling elevator (as a phenomenon).
However, free falling is only one phase in which two vectors interact. There is no reason why free falling should be treated as something special.
Kepler's third law states that orbital speed of a planet depends on radius of its orbit (if orbit is perfect circle). However, formula for second cosmic velocity is depends on radius of Earth. Are these two compatible ?
On a celestial body below, two elevator cabins the same are falling freely. They are lined up one above the other and connected by a long string. Is some point on the string local inertial frame ?
Pearl necklace is falling freely in a vertical line. Gravity acting on each pearl is mM/r^2, and inertial force is ma. Mass of the string holding pearls is zero.
This post does not refer to equivalence principle.
Formula for gravity, G mM/r^2, and formula for inertial force, ma, are acting on pearl necklace. Gravity acts on each pearl with the magnitude indicated by the formula.
It is inevitable that gravity and inertial force cancel each other out totally (apparent) at a specific mass point.
For free falling, pearl necklace would be a better thought experiment than elevator. There will be other examples too. A real example is Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which fell on Jupiter in 1994.
Common theory of Mercury's perihelion shift is poor. Also, Newton's shell theorem should be reconsidered.
We can say that we can quantitatively grasp both gravity and inertial force. However, we cannot qualitatively grasp them. Do we have the right to preach equivalence principle ?
In fact, perhaps equivalence principle can be directly denied.
