Non-Inertial Navigation Technology...

[George Herold]

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:33:56 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 21:38, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:47 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 00:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The thread about ROMOS (Re: Scam - but how do they make money?,
S.E.D., July 2020) reminded me of another approach to much the same
problem, Non-Inertial Navigation, as invented by Val Parker. I heard
his talk in 2017, when he was invited to speak at an online internal
navigation and time forum. He was invited more from curiosity than
conviction.

Here is his present company <https://nin-technology.com/>.

He has two relevant patents, US9753049 and US20120008149A1.

Basically, he claims to be able to detect absolute velocity by optical
means. His talk was all about how nice it would be if one could do
this, but had little on exactly how it worked - proprietary and so on.
They did say that they were having problems getting reliable
measurements, and were still debugging the then latest model.

I probed a bit at the principles of operation and what Val said was
that light waves basically travel at a fixed speed in space (true),
and that if one measured two-way time delay, one could therefore
detect velocity by differences in time. This sounds like the Doppler
effect for sound in air; electromagnetic waves don\'t work quite that
way.

I was still mulling all this over as I walked out to the parking lot
on my way home when it hit me - the underlying principle is identical
to that of the Michelson–Morley interferometer, and the answer is
zero. And this is a foundation of Relativity, which holds that there
is no such thing as absolute velocity. So, what is actually measured
here?

The biggest clue was that it reported zero velocity when sitting on a
lab bench. Well, that lab bench is moving at 30 kilometers per second
with respect to the distant stars, due to the motion of the Earth and
Sun.

My impression was that they believe in what they are doing, and are
not scammers.

My theory is that Val had created the optical equivalent of a Doppler
radar navigation unit, only using laser beams, and there was just
enough light leakage out and back into the unit that it was detecting
Doppler with respect to the lab environment.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar#Doppler_navigation

One test would be to mount the unit on an arm that is clamped to the
lab bench, and enclose the unit with a box, and see if the unit
detects box motion even when the unit is bolted to the lab bench.

The next test is to attach the uint to the enclosing box, and see if
the unit can detect motion while boxed. And so on. There are many
ways to tease this apart without opening the unit.

Never did any of these tests. Was surprised that they are still
around. I guess they get research or demonstration grants every so
often.


Joe Gwinn


You can\'t measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by
Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments
since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your
velocity, you\'ll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly
the same way.

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

He didn\'t do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that
stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put
together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised
the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame.
That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle
on a train. It is also why you can\'t determine the speed of your box
purely from inside the box.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been
common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.


Do you mean Lorentz?

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that
of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your
velocity without using inertial effects. You\'d have a very hard time
trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you\'d
need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are -
something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you
already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed
calculations.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute
timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.


Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are
affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and
can\'t be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock
inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a
difference. You need an external reference.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and
skip the Cesium.

Parker\'s patent US 9,753,049 is pretty clearly written, and their best
design is depicted in Figure 5, but I cannot see how this can work, as
both arms would have their length reduced by exactly the same amount,
whatever the velocity, and so the difference in propagation time would
be the same.

Hmm Well I\'m going out on a (Michelson) limb and say it\'s using the
Fizeau effect. I\'ve only seen this in counter propagating water
streams... (something like this.)
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9793/97931G/Fizeaus-aether-drag-experiment-in-the-undergraduate-laboratory/10.1117/12.2223112.full?SSO=1

But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

George H.

This patent cites another patent, US 8,212,023 granted on 3 July 2012,
but the title is \"METHODS AND INTERMEDIATES FOR THE SYNTHESIS OF
PORPHYRINS\", and the relevance is quite unclear.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
<ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:33:56 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 21:38, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:47 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 00:35, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The thread about ROMOS (Re: Scam - but how do they make money?,
S.E.D., July 2020) reminded me of another approach to much the same
problem, Non-Inertial Navigation, as invented by Val Parker. I heard
his talk in 2017, when he was invited to speak at an online internal
navigation and time forum. He was invited more from curiosity than
conviction.

Here is his present company <https://nin-technology.com/>.

He has two relevant patents, US9753049 and US20120008149A1.

Basically, he claims to be able to detect absolute velocity by optical
means. His talk was all about how nice it would be if one could do
this, but had little on exactly how it worked - proprietary and so on.
They did say that they were having problems getting reliable
measurements, and were still debugging the then latest model.

I probed a bit at the principles of operation and what Val said was
that light waves basically travel at a fixed speed in space (true),
and that if one measured two-way time delay, one could therefore
detect velocity by differences in time. This sounds like the Doppler
effect for sound in air; electromagnetic waves don\'t work quite that
way.

I was still mulling all this over as I walked out to the parking lot
on my way home when it hit me - the underlying principle is identical
to that of the Michelson–Morley interferometer, and the answer is
zero. And this is a foundation of Relativity, which holds that there
is no such thing as absolute velocity. So, what is actually measured
here?

The biggest clue was that it reported zero velocity when sitting on a
lab bench. Well, that lab bench is moving at 30 kilometers per second
with respect to the distant stars, due to the motion of the Earth and
Sun.

My impression was that they believe in what they are doing, and are
not scammers.

My theory is that Val had created the optical equivalent of a Doppler
radar navigation unit, only using laser beams, and there was just
enough light leakage out and back into the unit that it was detecting
Doppler with respect to the lab environment.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_radar#Doppler_navigation

One test would be to mount the unit on an arm that is clamped to the
lab bench, and enclose the unit with a box, and see if the unit
detects box motion even when the unit is bolted to the lab bench.

The next test is to attach the uint to the enclosing box, and see if
the unit can detect motion while boxed. And so on. There are many
ways to tease this apart without opening the unit.

Never did any of these tests. Was surprised that they are still
around. I guess they get research or demonstration grants every so
often.


Joe Gwinn


You can\'t measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by
Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments
since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your
velocity, you\'ll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly
the same way.

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

He didn\'t do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that
stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put
together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised
the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame.
That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle
on a train. It is also why you can\'t determine the speed of your box
purely from inside the box.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been
common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.


Do you mean Lorentz?

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that
of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your
velocity without using inertial effects. You\'d have a very hard time
trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you\'d
need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are -
something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you
already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed
calculations.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute
timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.


Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are
affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and
can\'t be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock
inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a
difference. You need an external reference.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and
skip the Cesium.

Parker\'s patent US 9,753,049 is pretty clearly written, and their best
design is depicted in Figure 5, but I cannot see how this can work, as
both arms would have their length reduced by exactly the same amount,
whatever the velocity, and so the difference in propagation time would
be the same.
Hmm Well I\'m going out on a (Michelson) limb and say it\'s using the
Fizeau effect. I\'ve only seen this in counter propagating water
streams... (something like this.)
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9793/97931G/Fizeaus-aether-drag-experiment-in-the-undergraduate-laboratory/10.1117/12.2223112.full?SSO=1

But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax. Although that
thought did cross my mind. It would be easy to hide a MEMS
accelerometer and integrator within the apparatus. But there are
black-box tests that one can use to tell. For instance, an object in
free fall has zero acceleration but increasing velocity in earth\'s
gravitational field. Or put the instrument on an arm that is rotating
steadily around a vertical axle shaft. The acceleration is only
radial, and the tangental velocity is constant.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:35:57 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 20/07/2020 02:53, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:33:56 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 21:38, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:47 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:


snip

You can\'t measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by
Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments
since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your
velocity, you\'ll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly
the same way.

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

He didn\'t do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that
stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put
together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised
the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame.
That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle
on a train. It is also why you can\'t determine the speed of your box
purely from inside the box.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been
common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.


Galileo made a lot of observations (in the sense of doing experiments
and looking at the results) combined with a lot of theoretical ideas -
basically, he did a lot of science. Many of the things he figured out
were /not/ common knowledge in his day, including this one. (It wasn\'t
even common knowledge amongst scientists long /after/ his day - when
trains began to get serious, there were many prominent scientists who
worried that travelling at such speeds would damage people\'s brains.)

The common understanding (amongst scientists) at the time was that
physics was affected by the speed of an object - after all, you could
easily tell you were going at speed based when you went on a boat, a
carriage, or whatever.


Do you mean Lorentz?

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that
of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your
velocity without using inertial effects. You\'d have a very hard time
trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you\'d
need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are -
something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you
already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed
calculations.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute
timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.


Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are
affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and
can\'t be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock
inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a
difference. You need an external reference.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and
skip the Cesium.

That makes no sense.

Huh? Doppler navigators do work, and were invented long before Cesium
clocks were invented. Please explain.

Parker\'s patent US 9,753,049 is pretty clearly written, and their best
design is depicted in Figure 5, but I cannot see how this can work, as
both arms would have their length reduced by exactly the same amount,
whatever the velocity, and so the difference in propagation time would
be the same.


It wouldn\'t work. It\'s bollocks.

True. That is my point.

You don\'t have to have anything remotely sane or plausible to get a
patent. Look up all IBM\'s patents on faster than light travel for examples.

You don\'t have to have an idea that is physically possible in order to
make money out of it. You come up with something that sounds
complicated, pseudoscientific and has potential money-making
applications with huge pay-offs. Then you get a patent to make it look
real. Then you sell the idea to an investment company. Perhaps you
believe in the idea yourself (there are lots of smart people who believe
complete nonsense), perhaps you are knowingly scamming the investors.
Perhaps the investors also know its a scam, but reckon they can sell the
idea on for a greater profit to someone more naïve.

It\'s all true of course, but why are you getting riled up?

Joe Gwinn

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:35:57 +0200, David Brown
<david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 20/07/2020 02:53, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:33:56 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 21:38, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:47 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:


snip

You can\'t measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by
Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments
since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your
velocity, you\'ll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly
the same way.

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

He didn\'t do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that
stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put
together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised
the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame.
That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle
on a train. It is also why you can\'t determine the speed of your box
purely from inside the box.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been
common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.


Galileo made a lot of observations (in the sense of doing experiments
and looking at the results) combined with a lot of theoretical ideas -
basically, he did a lot of science. Many of the things he figured out
were /not/ common knowledge in his day, including this one. (It wasn\'t
even common knowledge amongst scientists long /after/ his day - when
trains began to get serious, there were many prominent scientists who
worried that travelling at such speeds would damage people\'s brains.)

The common understanding (amongst scientists) at the time was that
physics was affected by the speed of an object - after all, you could
easily tell you were going at speed based when you went on a boat, a
carriage, or whatever.


Do you mean Lorentz?

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that
of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your
velocity without using inertial effects. You\'d have a very hard time
trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you\'d
need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are -
something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you
already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed
calculations.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute
timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.


Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are
affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and
can\'t be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock
inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a
difference. You need an external reference.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and
skip the Cesium.

That makes no sense.

Huh? Doppler navigators do work, and were invented long before Cesium
clocks were invented. Please explain.

Parker\'s patent US 9,753,049 is pretty clearly written, and their best
design is depicted in Figure 5, but I cannot see how this can work, as
both arms would have their length reduced by exactly the same amount,
whatever the velocity, and so the difference in propagation time would
be the same.


It wouldn\'t work. It\'s bollocks.

True. That is my point.

You don\'t have to have anything remotely sane or plausible to get a
patent. Look up all IBM\'s patents on faster than light travel for examples.

You don\'t have to have an idea that is physically possible in order to
make money out of it. You come up with something that sounds
complicated, pseudoscientific and has potential money-making
applications with huge pay-offs. Then you get a patent to make it look
real. Then you sell the idea to an investment company. Perhaps you
believe in the idea yourself (there are lots of smart people who believe
complete nonsense), perhaps you are knowingly scamming the investors.
Perhaps the investors also know its a scam, but reckon they can sell the
idea on for a greater profit to someone more naïve.

It\'s all true of course, but why are you getting riled up?

Joe Gwinn

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

<big snip>

But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax.
Oh! Sorry that wasn\'t clear to me.

Of course out in space you can measure your relative
velocity to that of the (averaged) CMB*. So perhaps in
some \'universal\' sense we could define some \'zero\' velocity.
(not very useful here on Earth.)

George H.
*cosmic microwave background

Although that
thought did cross my mind. It would be easy to hide a MEMS
accelerometer and integrator within the apparatus. But there are
black-box tests that one can use to tell. For instance, an object in
free fall has zero acceleration but increasing velocity in earth\'s
gravitational field. Or put the instrument on an arm that is rotating
steadily around a vertical axle shaft. The acceleration is only
radial, and the tangental velocity is constant.

Joe Gwinn

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2020-07-20 22:35, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

big snip


But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax.
Oh! Sorry that wasn\'t clear to me.

Of course out in space you can measure your relative
velocity to that of the (averaged) CMB*. So perhaps in
some \'universal\' sense we could define some \'zero\' velocity.
(not very useful here on Earth.)

George H.
*cosmic microwave background

Aha! So the universe *has* a centre then.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

On 2020-07-20 22:35, George Herold wrote:

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

big snip


But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax.
Oh! Sorry that wasn\'t clear to me.

Of course out in space you can measure your relative
velocity to that of the (averaged) CMB*. So perhaps in
some \'universal\' sense we could define some \'zero\' velocity.
(not very useful here on Earth.)

George H.
*cosmic microwave background

Aha! So the universe *has* a centre then.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

<big snip>

But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax.
Oh! Sorry that wasn\'t clear to me.

Of course out in space you can measure your relative
velocity to that of the (averaged) CMB*. So perhaps in
some \'universal\' sense we could define some \'zero\' velocity.
(not very useful here on Earth.)

George H.
*cosmic microwave background

Although that
thought did cross my mind. It would be easy to hide a MEMS
accelerometer and integrator within the apparatus. But there are
black-box tests that one can use to tell. For instance, an object in
free fall has zero acceleration but increasing velocity in earth\'s
gravitational field. Or put the instrument on an arm that is rotating
steadily around a vertical axle shaft. The acceleration is only
radial, and the tangental velocity is constant.

Joe Gwinn

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 5:33:10 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2020-07-20 22:35, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

big snip


But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax.
Oh! Sorry that wasn\'t clear to me.

Of course out in space you can measure your relative
velocity to that of the (averaged) CMB*. So perhaps in
some \'universal\' sense we could define some \'zero\' velocity.
(not very useful here on Earth.)

George H.
*cosmic microwave background

Aha! So the universe *has* a centre then.

Jeroen Belleman

Well not really. :^)
You could define a zero velocity at every point in space.
Where, \'point\' could cover a rather large volume.
I had to look up the word, astronomers call this the
peculiar velocity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity

George H.
(I will fully admit I doesn\'t really understand
what it means to live in an expanding universe...
if it is expanding...)

 

[George Herold]

On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 5:33:10 PM UTC-4, Jeroen Belleman wrote:

On 2020-07-20 22:35, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 20, 2020 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 06:47:48 -0700 (PDT), George Herold
ggherold@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sunday, July 19, 2020 at 8:53:53 PM UTC-4, Joe Gwinn wrote:

big snip


But I don\'t see how that changes if my whole interferometer is moving.
Maybe some hint if you look at Fresnel drag?
Maybe it\'s bogus?

Fizeau drag is with stationary equipment and moving physical media. A
direct velocity sensor is moving equipment and no physical media, only
vacuum. The media within the instrument is stationary wrt the
equipment, or absent (if the enclosure is pumped down).

I\'m pretty sure it\'s bogus, even if it is not a hoax.
Oh! Sorry that wasn\'t clear to me.

Of course out in space you can measure your relative
velocity to that of the (averaged) CMB*. So perhaps in
some \'universal\' sense we could define some \'zero\' velocity.
(not very useful here on Earth.)

George H.
*cosmic microwave background

Aha! So the universe *has* a centre then.

Jeroen Belleman

Well not really. :^)
You could define a zero velocity at every point in space.
Where, \'point\' could cover a rather large volume.
I had to look up the word, astronomers call this the
peculiar velocity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity

George H.
(I will fully admit I doesn\'t really understand
what it means to live in an expanding universe...
if it is expanding...)

 

[David Brown]

On 20/07/2020 22:04, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:35:57 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 20/07/2020 02:53, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:33:56 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 21:38, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:47 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:


snip

You can\'t measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by
Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments
since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your
velocity, you\'ll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly
the same way.

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

He didn\'t do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that
stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put
together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised
the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame.
That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle
on a train. It is also why you can\'t determine the speed of your box
purely from inside the box.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been
common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.


Galileo made a lot of observations (in the sense of doing experiments
and looking at the results) combined with a lot of theoretical ideas -
basically, he did a lot of science. Many of the things he figured out
were /not/ common knowledge in his day, including this one. (It wasn\'t
even common knowledge amongst scientists long /after/ his day - when
trains began to get serious, there were many prominent scientists who
worried that travelling at such speeds would damage people\'s brains.)

The common understanding (amongst scientists) at the time was that
physics was affected by the speed of an object - after all, you could
easily tell you were going at speed based when you went on a boat, a
carriage, or whatever.


Do you mean Lorentz?

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that
of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your
velocity without using inertial effects. You\'d have a very hard time
trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you\'d
need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are -
something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you
already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed
calculations.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute
timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.


Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are
affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and
can\'t be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock
inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a
difference. You need an external reference.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and
skip the Cesium.

That makes no sense.

Huh? Doppler navigators do work, and were invented long before Cesium
clocks were invented. Please explain.

Doppler navigators work by sending radio waves /outside/ the box, where
they reflect on something /static/ that is /outside/ the box, and are
returned to the box.

You cannot make a system that detects speed (or position) from inside a
black box. You can detect acceleration (or gravity - they are
indistinguishable). That\'s it. For anything else, you need some kind
of contact or reference outside the box, because speed (and position)
only makes sense relative to something else.

 

[David Brown]

On 20/07/2020 22:04, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jul 2020 12:35:57 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 20/07/2020 02:53, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jul 2020 19:33:56 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

On 17/07/2020 21:38, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jul 2020 16:07:47 +0200, David Brown
david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:


snip

You can\'t measure velocity inside a black box - that was established by
Galileo long ago, and has been confirmed by all sorts of experiments
since. If you try to measure the time dilation effects due to your
velocity, you\'ll get zero - because your clock is affected in exactly
the same way.

Galileo? How would he be able to prove any such thing?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilean_invariance

He didn\'t do anything about the speed of light and relativity (that
stuff was figured out by folks like Lorentz and Maxwell, then put
together and popularised by Einstein). But he was the one that realised
the laws of motion are unaffected by the speed of your current frame.
That is why you can play tennis on the deck of a moving ship or juggle
on a train. It is also why you can\'t determine the speed of your box
purely from inside the box.

Ahh. Galileo was making an observation - this effect would have been
common knowledge in his day, and he saw its implications in physics.


Galileo made a lot of observations (in the sense of doing experiments
and looking at the results) combined with a lot of theoretical ideas -
basically, he did a lot of science. Many of the things he figured out
were /not/ common knowledge in his day, including this one. (It wasn\'t
even common knowledge amongst scientists long /after/ his day - when
trains began to get serious, there were many prominent scientists who
worried that travelling at such speeds would damage people\'s brains.)

The common understanding (amongst scientists) at the time was that
physics was affected by the speed of an object - after all, you could
easily tell you were going at speed based when you went on a boat, a
carriage, or whatever.


Do you mean Lorentz?

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation


You could, theoretically, compare the time on your local clock to that
of an external reference, and use the difference to calculate your
velocity without using inertial effects. You\'d have a very hard time
trying to do so with an accuracy that was remotely useful. And you\'d
need access to a high quality external time reference wherever you are -
something like the time signal you get from GPS. In which case, you
already have the GPS signal and can use that for your position and speed
calculations.

Well, ROMOS did not mention any need for accurate absolute
timekeeping, but cesium beam clocks are awfully good - no GPS needed.


Caesium clocks are good, yes - but if they are inside the box, they are
affected exactly the same way as everything else inside the box and
can\'t be used to detect any motion of the box. You need a caesium clock
inside the box, and another outside so that you can measure a
difference. You need an external reference.

Right. But at this point, one might as well do two-way Doppler, and
skip the Cesium.

That makes no sense.

Huh? Doppler navigators do work, and were invented long before Cesium
clocks were invented. Please explain.

Doppler navigators work by sending radio waves /outside/ the box, where
they reflect on something /static/ that is /outside/ the box, and are
returned to the box.

You cannot make a system that detects speed (or position) from inside a
black box. You can detect acceleration (or gravity - they are
indistinguishable). That\'s it. For anything else, you need some kind
of contact or reference outside the box, because speed (and position)
only makes sense relative to something else.