Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
Anything else?It's easy enough to turn into a series of positives. For example, what constraints do each of the >~100 experiments and sets of observations referenced here and >~200 here* put on the existence of such an absolute frame? |
Appeals to authority are not rebuttals. One test can disprove a theory in spite of 1 million which support it. I have no intention of digging through hundreds of tests pointing out what they do not demonstrate.
Quote:
For example- the Eöt-Wash and LURE tests of the Weak Equivalence Principle
- the NIST, U. Washington, and Harvard tests of Local Lorentz Invariance
- the "null" redshift test of local position invariance
- Hipparcos tests of the deflection of light; Voyager, Cassini, etc tests of the Shapiro time delay
- the many tests done with the Hulse-Taylor pulsar, and now the double pulsar
- Gravity ProbeB
It may be that you need to specify, at least at OOM level, what absolute frame you expect to find, before you can assess the extent to which any of these >~300 experiments constrains your idea.
|
I am not going on wild goose chases. If you think any ONE of these tests are tests of reciprocity or length contraction then post it and explain precisely how it achieves that goal.
Quote:
|
Do you now have enough in the way of positives to work on (so that you can answer my question)?
|
No. You have given NONE. You have merely listed a bunch of tests none of which were for the purpose or can be construed to support reciprocity or length contraction.
Quote:
|
But doesn't this assume that the absolute frame is at rest wrt the CMB? Why, a priori, should you assume that?Why?
|
You really shouldn't assume anything. That is what got you in trouble at the outset. No the CMB may not be at rest, it is infact a dynamic place, but our solar system has an anisotropy to it showing we have motion relative to it and it is generally thought to be throughout the universe. I could not think of a better canidate to at least start to look at the absolute frame concept.
But certainly as long as you refuse to look you will not find it or any data to suport it.
Quote:
|
What was the sensitivity of the muon result in Apeiron?And what experiments could one perform - in principle - that would determine this?
|
Not sure of the sensitivity but I will research it and see if I can get an answer to that.
Quote:
|
I see that clj4 beat me to it wrt "rather uncomfortable if not impossible physical realities"; surely what matters isn't how uncomfortable or impossible a theory seems to us, wrt any 'physical reality'? Isn't is principally a question of how well predictions from the theory match the good experimental and observational results?
|
Correct and I am still awaiting any data to show the prediction regarding reciprocity or length contraction.
Quote:
|
*I note that one of the muon experiments referenced in this paper reports (my bold): "The sidereal variation of this transition frequency is then tracked yielding a limit on bJ of |bJ|<5x10-22mmu". This may have nothing whatsoever to do with absolute frames, or it may also be strongly inconsistent with the Earth moving through one.
|
Nothing but disclaimers to preclude being labled adversly. They clearly speak of an absolute velocity vs relative velocity to earth. Closing with "May nots" for CYA purposes does not alter the signifigance of their findings.