Quote:
Originally Posted by BobbyGene
...
If all motion is relative, there cannot be a preferred frame of reference. But the Twin Paradox of Relativity comes about because all motion is not relative. Indeed, if all motion were relative the twins would age at the same rate and there would be no paradox.
|
Velocity is relative, but acceleration and rotation are not. The acceleration is different in the twins paradox and that is important.
As for the preferred frame of reference, the CMBR frame is a preferred frame. Even before the CMBR frame was measured Silvertooth had measured the earth's motion by use of standing waves and established that same frame as important.
This is a summary of a paper "MOTION THROUGH THE ETHER" by
E W Silvertooth and published in Electronics & Wireless May 1989.
He claims to get a consistent measurement of around 380 km/s
which is of course of the order of our motion through the CMBR.
/________Laser
/!
! BS2
Beam \!____________________\______\M2
Splitter BS1!\ !\ !\Mirror
! ! !
PS [_] Photocathode ! !
! V_____ ! !
[_]_______!/______[.....]______!/ !
PZM1 /M1 [_____]D1 /M3 !
Piezo-electric [ ] !BS3 _
actuator [ ]|______________!/___[ ] Detector
[_]|M4 /! [_] D2
<------> !
delta [_]
PZM2
The diagram shows the laser beam being split and the two beams
coming together from opposite directions. This will of course
produce a standing wave. If there was no ether, of if relativity
was correct, then the wave would not move. If however there is
an ether, and the apparatus is moving to the left or right with
respect to the ether, then the wavelengths of the laser beam
would be affected by the v+c and v-c velocities in the two
directions and the standing waves would have phase reversals
at intervals within the detector D1.
Using this setup, Sivertooth detected a 380 km/s motion relative
to the ether, with a zero result 6 hours before and after (when
the earth's rotation would make the apparatus across the motion).
The results are reported to be always consistent to within 5%
for a variety of configurations with three apparatus over a number
of years. Note that the author accepts the null M-M result.
Note also that this measures something quite different.
As well as the above mentioned paper, Silvertooth has an article
in Nature v322 p590 1986 (I haven't yet seen it), and the reasons
for the results are discussed by B A Manning in Physics Essays
v1 no4 1988 (also not seen yet).