Go Back   Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

General Physics General Physics Help Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old Dec 23rd 2017, 05:50 AM   #11
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 22
[QUOTE=Pmb;38321]Here's some more information. This one appears to list some of the experiments to measure the one way speed of light

One-way speed of light

The one listed last is an MIT tech review website

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/4...ght-conundrum/

It says

Notice that it says have been made? If you go to other forums you're bound to run into people who think that its never been measured/confirmed.
Don't listen to them, they're all wrong. In fact very long base phased array radar can't work of the one-way speed of light depends on direction and it works quite well. This is one of the things that you'll read about in Ohanian's text.

Try also going to the home page of the American Journal of Physics and search on the phrase "one way speed of light." Their home page is at

http://aapt.scitation.org/journal/ajp/

If there's a paper you'd like to look at then let me know the reference info and I'll get it for you.
wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23rd 2017, 06:21 AM   #12
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 22
I finally received a copy of Ohanian's book from my local library. There are some interesting comments in the 'forword' section about the MM experiment and what it resolved and what it didn't. I wonder why the list of reasons proposed for the null result never included the possibility that space itself ls dynamic and behaves exactly like ordinary matter does in response to a gravitational field? Why is that possibility so repugnant and disdained by the scientific community?
Regards; wanderer
wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 23rd 2017, 07:01 PM   #13
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
I wonder why the list of reasons proposed for the null result never included the possibility that space itself ls dynamic and behaves exactly like ordinary matter does in response to a gravitational field?
Scientists never consider things that only reside in the imagination since there's no valid reason to do so. It also doesn't respond like matter in a g-field. I mean there are infinite possibilities of what we can imagine to be possible and there's hardly any time to investigate all of them, most of which can't be considered to be scientific. It has to be possible to test such ideas.

Why would you think that space is dynamic? I.e. what led you to think its possible or can be thought of as a scientific hypothesis? Do you know what it means to be dynamic? Space can't be said to move since we have no way of attaching a reference point to it to measure movement. All we can do is measure the movement of things which are located in space.

That said, general relativity does consider spacetime to be able to be curved by matter.


Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
Why is that possibility so repugnant and disdained by the scientific community?
Regards; wanderer
Who suggested that the notion as repugnant? To be repugnant means to be extremely distasteful and that's not the case with nonscientific ideas. Scientists accept many ideas which aren't scientific, none of which can be considered to be repugnant. In this case there's nothing to suggest that idea can be either correct or meaningful.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2017, 02:28 PM   #14
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 22
Originally Posted by Pmb View Post
Why would you think that space is dynamic? I.e. what led you to think its possible or can be thought of as a scientific hypothesis? Do you know what it means to be dynamic? Space can't be said to move since we have no way of attaching a reference point to it to measure movement. All we can do is measure the movement of things which are located in space.

That said, general relativity does consider spacetime to be able to be curved by matter.
Granted that the idea of space being dynamic is hard to imagine when there is no supporting evidence to prove it and so much dislike of the concept. But how much supporting evidence is there for many physics concepts such as string theory? I am not trying to prove GR wrong. Instead, I would like a serious study or investigation of the possibility of a flowing space hypothesis to determine if new valid and testable scientifc discoveries can be found. To start, assume that space is comprised of quanta of a small but nonzero mass or mass equivalent energy which behaves dynamically like all other ordinary massive bodies in a gravitational field. This would mean that as long as a massive body is free falling, it and space also will be free falling and their velocity vectors will be impacted by exactly the same amount for all distances from the CG of the gravitational source. The only way to break that identical relationship between the space and the object's velocity vectors is to accelerate the object by non-gravitational means. When mechanical acceleration of the object stops. a new relationship between the object's and space's velocity vectors must be established. That would be the hypothesis of dynamic space.
That is a nutshell, is why it is my opinion that space might indeed be dynamic.

Regards; wanderer

.
wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2017, 02:46 PM   #15
Pmb
Physics Team
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,569
Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
Granted that the idea of space being dynamic is hard to imagine when there is no supporting evidence to prove it and so much dislike of the concept. But how much supporting evidence is there for many physics concepts such as string theory?
I don't think you understood what I was getting at. I didn't suggest that physicists don't consider your idea because there's no evidence of it. I said that there's nothing to suggest such and idea. Just as there is nothing to suggest that there are 3 angels dancing on the head of a pin. Even more so, there's nothing to suggest that the concept is even meaningful. Saying "space is dynamic" is far different than saying what it means for space to be dynamic.

Originally Posted by wanderer View Post
I am not trying to prove GR wrong. Instead, I would like a serious study or investigation of the possibility of a flowing space hypothesis to determine if new valid and testable scientifc discoveries can be found.
I think you're not giving physicists enough credit since I actually recall something about flowing space in the physics literature, You should make sure that physicists aren't actually doing what you say before you say that they aren't.

They have actually spoken of the flow of spacetime (not space). See

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...antum-physics/

A friend of mine is an author of several well-known physics texts. He's the one who originally mentioned the notion to me. I can find details if you'd like?

As far as string theory goes, it was proposed to explain the large number of mesonic particles which had been found at that time (the 60's). As you can see from the following link, string theory has actually had some success in explaining certain phenomena.

See: A brief history of string theory | Centre for Research in String Theory

That's different than you're suggesting. What you're suggesting is "I have an idea in my head. Why don't physicists study it?" when what you're saying makes no sense at all. Its not meaningful to say that space is made of particles. In fact it contradicts the notion of what space actually is.
In fact what do you think is in the regions between the particles that you propose that space is made of?

I'll have to end my contribution here since I've gotten into discussions like this endless times in the last 20 years and know from experience that they don't get anywhere. Sorry my friend. No offence meant though.

By the way - Merry Christmas!!

Last edited by Pmb; Dec 24th 2017 at 03:03 PM.
Pmb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 24th 2017, 06:28 PM   #16
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 22
Thank you for your help with thread. I apreciate your thoughts and the time you have taken to help me. I agree that this thread is ended.

Merry Christmas; wanderer
wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

  Physics Help Forum > College/University Physics Help > General Physics

Tags
emr, round, times, trip



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Physics Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Jet making round trip SeanChrisXIV Kinematics and Dynamics 2 Feb 7th 2017 04:03 PM
Difficult Merry-Go-Round Question? KaylaN Periodic and Circular Motion 5 Feb 23rd 2011 12:20 PM
simply supported at both ends round beam JAW Advanced Mechanics 2 Dec 11th 2009 12:00 PM
Torque on merry-go-round Alexrey Advanced Mechanics 3 May 14th 2009 01:56 AM
round trip speed of light evabern Special and General Relativity 5 Jul 28th 2008 02:12 PM


Facebook Twitter Google+ RSS Feed