| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
08 Aug 2005 07:31:43 AM |
| Object: |
Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
Although "clever Einsteinians" is an oxymoron, I am still using this
expression in an attempt to stimulate zombis to try to think.
A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7:
"For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must, ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."
(A) This means that the principle of constancy of the speed of light is
a corollary of the principle of relativity?
(B) This does not mean that the principle of constancy of the speed of
light is a corollary of the principle of relativity?
(C) (typical of Einstein) This both means and does not mean that the
principle of constancy of the speed of light is a corollary of the
principle of relativity?
Pentcho Valev
.
|
|
| User: "SDaryl" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
08 Aug 2005 08:01:17 AM |
|
|
"For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must, ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."
This means that the principle of >constancy of the speed of light is
a corollary of the principle of relativity?
The constancy of the speed of light in *vaccuum* is a consequence of
the principle of relativity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Harry" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
08 Aug 2005 08:45:39 AM |
|
|
"SDaryl" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123506077.198494.262770@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
"For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the
transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must, ACCORDING TO THE
PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, be the same for the railway carriage as
reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."
This means that the principle of >constancy of the speed of light is
a corollary of the principle of relativity?
The constancy of the speed of light in *vaccuum* is a consequence of
the principle of relativity.
Inexact: only in combination with the law that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the source.
Harald
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
09 Aug 2005 08:41:16 AM |
|
|
SDaryl repeated:
"For, like every other general law of nature, the law
of the transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must....
--snip, snap--
LAW =3D result given via experiment
(not given via man; given by nature)
(as Einstein said, it is a "general law of **nature**)
QUESTION:
How can light's speed between two clocks be a LAW?
(the above case pertained to light's one-way speed)
ANSWER:
It can be a LAW if and only if two clocks placed in
a room can measure light's one-way speed between them
WITHOUT any interference by man.
IOW, man cannot temporally relate them.
There are different ways of temporally relating clocks,
and each way not only produces a different result, but
produces a result given by man, not Nature.
For example, in special relativity, Einstein manually
relates all clocks to _force_ them to get his chosen
result "c" for light's speed between the clocks.
He does this by simply making one of the clocks read "zero,"
and the other read "x/c" prior to starting the clocks.
("x" is the ruler-measured distance btn the clocks)
He then sends a light signal from the "zero" clock to the
other clock, and obtains his foregone conclusion "c" for
the "speed" of said signal.
This is known as "rigging the result."
For another example, if someone found a way to relate the
clocks so that they were absolutely synchronous (unlike
Einstein's, which are asynchronous), then light's one-way
speed between the clocks would NOT be "c," but would be
"c=B1v."
But we all know that there cannot be TWO LAWS of nature
for the same phenomena.
Thus, light's one-way speed between two clocks which have
been somehow related by man cannot be a law.
As was noted above, the only way light's speed between two
clocks can be a law is if Nature herself relates the clocks
Her way. But this cannot happen because Nature cannot relate
clocks.
To see this more clearly, picture two unstarted clocks sitting
in opposite corners of a large room, and ask yourself How long
will it take for Nature to start and synchronize these clocks?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, and it is
Forever!
Now all we need to know is Why did Einstein claim that the
principle of relativity was involved in the one-way light
speed case? The PR is never involved unless there is a
LAW involved.
The PR:
The general laws of nature must be the same for all
inertial observers.
Since light's one-way speed between two clocks which have
not been transported cannot be a LAW, we see that the PR
does not apply in this case.
IOW, the PR does not tell us that light's one-way speed must
be either c or c=B1v, CONTRARY to Einstein.
As noted, we can get either result depending on how WE
relate OUR clocks.
In conclusion, there is no basis for special relativity;
i=2Ee., one-way light speed invariance is not called for in
nature, but must be given by man, if man decides to do so;
however, man would be much smarter if he decided to relate
clocks correctly, i.e., to absolutely synchronize them.
Therefore, instead of preaching and teaching and studying
special relativity, we should be searching for a way to
correctly synchronize clocks. Only then can we correctly
measure time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
09 Aug 2005 09:20:08 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123594876.123387.200940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
SDaryl repeated:
"For, like every other general law of nature, the law
of the transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must....
--snip, snap--
LAW = result given via experiment
(not given via man; given by nature)
(as Einstein said, it is a "general law of **nature**)
QUESTION:
How can light's speed between two clocks be a LAW?
(the above case pertained to light's one-way speed)
ANSWER:
It can be a LAW if and only if two clocks placed in
a room can measure light's one-way speed between them
WITHOUT any interference by man.
IOW, man cannot temporally relate them.
There are different ways of temporally relating clocks,
and each way not only produces a different result, but
produces a result given by man, not Nature.
For example, in special relativity, Einstein manually
relates all clocks to _force_ them to get his chosen
result "c" for light's speed between the clocks.
He does this by simply making one of the clocks read "zero,"
and the other read "x/c" prior to starting the clocks.
("x" is the ruler-measured distance btn the clocks)
He then sends a light signal from the "zero" clock to the
other clock, and obtains his foregone conclusion "c" for
the "speed" of said signal.
This is known as "rigging the result."
For another example, if someone found a way to relate the
clocks so that they were absolutely synchronous (unlike
Einstein's, which are asynchronous), then light's one-way
speed between the clocks would NOT be "c," but would be
"c±v."
But we all know that there cannot be TWO LAWS of nature
for the same phenomena.
Thus, light's one-way speed between two clocks which have
been somehow related by man cannot be a law.
As was noted above, the only way light's speed between two
clocks can be a law is if Nature herself relates the clocks
Her way. But this cannot happen because Nature cannot relate
clocks.
To see this more clearly, picture two unstarted clocks sitting
in opposite corners of a large room, and ask yourself How long
will it take for Nature to start and synchronize these clocks?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind, and it is
Forever!
Now all we need to know is Why did Einstein claim that the
principle of relativity was involved in the one-way light
speed case? The PR is never involved unless there is a
LAW involved.
The PR:
The general laws of nature must be the same for all
inertial observers.
Since light's one-way speed between two clocks which have
not been transported cannot be a LAW, we see that the PR
does not apply in this case.
IOW, the PR does not tell us that light's one-way speed must
be either c or c±v, CONTRARY to Einstein.
You've already written far to much for McCullough's tiny brain.
He'll snip.
Actually Einstein first uses the PoR "But the ray moves relatively
to the initial point of k, when measured in the stationary system,
with the velocity c-v..." but reverts to his definition (or law he
stomped his foot down on)
"we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A"
by placing a ˝ in front of
˝[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
and then deriving the cuckoo transform
tau = (t-vx/c^2)/ sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
As noted, we can get either result depending on how WE
relate OUR clocks.
In conclusion, there is no basis for special relativity;
There is. It's an "Einstein said so, therefore it is " basis.
i.e., one-way light speed invariance is not called for in
nature, but must be given by man, if man decides to do so;
however, man would be much smarter if he decided to relate
clocks correctly, i.e., to absolutely synchronize them.
Therefore, instead of preaching and teaching and studying
special relativity, we should be searching for a way to
correctly synchronize clocks. Only then can we correctly
measure time.
There's a tad more to it than that. We can accelerate light
and greatly improve interplanetary communications.
Why wait 30 minutes to get an answer from Spirit
roving Mars? Only Einstein is stopping us.
Put the accelerator in Earth orbit or on the moon
and voila!
It won't work in atmosphere though.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl McCullough" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 07:20:45 AM |
|
|
Androcles says...
LAW = result given via experiment
(not given via man; given by nature)
(as Einstein said, it is a "general law of **nature**)
That's completely wrong. An experiment provides only a *single*
data point. A law, in contrast, is a universal statement: in
such and such circumstance, the following always occurs. A single
experiment, or even thousands of experiments cannot uniquely
determine a law.
Instead, the way that science works is by proposing theories,
and testing them. A single experiment cannot determine a law
of nature, but it *can* prove that a proposed law of nature
is incorrect.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 08:25:29 AM |
|
|
Daryl McCullough says...
| > Einstein is a complete nitwit and a dingbat.
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddcret02nv1@drn.newsguy.com...
| Androcles says...
|
| >LAW = result given via experiment
| >(not given via man; given by nature)
| >(as Einstein said, it is a "general law of **nature**)
|
| That's completely wrong.
YOU are completely wrong. I didn't say that, you did, you snipping
*****.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 10:18:20 AM |
|
|
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message news:dfnKe.4111$3N4.1179@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
Daryl McCullough says...
| > Einstein is a complete nitwit and a dingbat.
"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ddcret02nv1@drn.newsguy.com...
| Androcles says...
|
| >LAW = result given via experiment
| >(not given via man; given by nature)
| >(as Einstein said, it is a "general law of **nature**)
|
| That's completely wrong.
YOU are completely wrong. I didn't say that, you did, you snipping
*****.
No, stinker, "kk" said it to SDaryl, and you were too lazy to lift your
but when you replied to "kk".
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/sci.skeptic/msg/22e73cda374da726
| "kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| news:1123594876.123387.200940@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| SDaryl repeated:
| > "For, like every other general law of nature, the law
| > of the transmission of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must....
| --snip, snap--
|
| LAW = result given via experiment
| (not given via man; given by nature)
| (as Einstein said, it is a "general law of **nature**)
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 09:15:09 AM |
|
|
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Androcles says...
A single experiment cannot determine a law
of nature....
R-U-Nutz?
The single Michelson-Morley experiment determined the
round-trip light speed isotropy law.
And Einstein considered (see original post) the single
case of light's one-way speed between two clocks to be
a general law of nature. (It's beside the point that he
*wrongly* thought that it could be a law.)
Also, the single Kennedy-Thorndike experiment determined
the round-trip light speed invariance law.
BTW, your Androcles attribution was improper.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl McCullough" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 10:24:13 AM |
|
|
kk says...
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Androcles says...
A single experiment cannot determine a law
of nature....
R-U-Nutz?
The single Michelson-Morley experiment determined the
round-trip light speed isotropy law.
No, it didn't. Showing that in a particular case, light
has the same speed in two different directions does not
imply that light *always* has that speed. The Michelson-Morley
experiment was sufficient to *falsify* some pre-relativistic
theories about light, but it wasn't sufficient to *prove*
any theory. No finite collection of experiments can prove
a universal law.
Also, the single Kennedy-Thorndike experiment determined
the round-trip light speed invariance law.
No, it didn't.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 12:19:16 PM |
|
|
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Showing that in a particular case, light has the
same speed in two different directions does not
imply that light *always* has that speed.
So how many other experiments must be performed
to show round-trip invariance? Nobody but you sees
the need for more. Ditto for rd-trip isotropy.
Indeed, how can there be any others?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl McCullough" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 12:41:27 PM |
|
|
kk says...
Daryl McCullough wrote:
Showing that in a particular case, light has the
same speed in two different directions does not
imply that light *always* has that speed.
So how many other experiments must be performed
to show round-trip invariance?
There is *no* amount of experimental results that can prove
the correctness of a proposed physical law. That's one of the
hard truths of the scientific method. We can *disprove* a
theory (if it makes predictions that are contradicted by
experiment) but we can never *prove* a theory.
With time, as a theory survives more and more experiments
without being falsified, our confidence that it is more
or less correct (at least as an approximation) grows. But
it is never possible to remove the last bit of uncertainty.
Nobody but you sees the need for more.
That's a matter of judgement. We have no reason to think
that further tests will yield any different result, so it's
a waste of time to perform them. There are better ways to
spend our research dollars. But that doesn't mean that
the invariance of lightspeed has been proven.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 01:17:08 PM |
|
|
Daryl McCullough wrote:
There is *no* amount of experimental results that
can prove the correctness of a proposed physical law.
I agree with you that we can never prove a theory,
but I was talking about experimental results, not
a theory. And I not talking about some "proposed
physical law" either, but about a law given by a
simple and direct experiment (the Michelson-Morley
experiment - the MMx).
Let me repeat my question (which you ignored):
How (even in principle) can there be any other
experiment which shows round-trip light speed
isotropy (other than the MMx)?
Please describe an alternate experiment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 03:36:09 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123697828.255873.132720@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Daryl McCullough wrote:
| > There is *no* amount of experimental results that
| > can prove the correctness of a proposed physical law.
|
| I agree with you that we can never prove a theory,
| but I was talking about experimental results, not
| a theory. And I not talking about some "proposed
| physical law" either, but about a law given by a
| simple and direct experiment (the Michelson-Morley
| experiment - the MMx).
|
| Let me repeat my question (which you ignored):
| How (even in principle) can there be any other
| experiment which shows round-trip light speed
| isotropy (other than the MMx)?
|
| Please describe an alternate experiment.
Man, your posts are getting long. You have to spoonfeed
McCullough like a baby in a high chair, he can't swallow
more than one byte at a time and even then he can't digest
a paragraph, he just spits it out. Bring up his wind by
patting him gently on the back, I was far too rough for him.
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Daryl McCullough" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 03:46:57 PM |
|
|
kk says...
I agree with you that we can never prove a theory,
but I was talking about experimental results, not
a theory. And I not talking about some "proposed
physical law" either, but about a law given by a
simple and direct experiment (the Michelson-Morley
experiment - the MMx).
The claim that light speed is isotropic *is* a
proposed physical law. It is that law that was
tested by the Michelson Morley experiment.
Let me repeat my question (which you ignored):
How (even in principle) can there be any other
experiment which shows round-trip light speed
isotropy (other than the MMx)?
It can't be done in principle.
No experiment can show conclusively that light speed is
isotropic. The best that you can hope for is that an
experimental result will be *consistent* with light-speed
isotropy.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
10 Aug 2005 04:31:39 PM |
|
|
(Daryl McCullough) wrote in news:dddp4102hv9
@drn.newsguy.com:
kk says...
I agree with you that we can never prove a theory,
but I was talking about experimental results, not
a theory. And I not talking about some "proposed
physical law" either, but about a law given by a
simple and direct experiment (the Michelson-Morley
experiment - the MMx).
The claim that light speed is isotropic *is* a
proposed physical law. It is that law that was
tested by the Michelson Morley experiment.
The claim that light is NOT isotropic was a proposed physical law [an
absolute ether].
It was invalidated by MMX.
That one experiment [replicated many times over the years] was sufficient
to kill the absolute ether.
Let me repeat my question (which you ignored):
How (even in principle) can there be any other
experiment which shows round-trip light speed
isotropy (other than the MMx)?
It can't be done in principle.
Many different experiments can be/have been devised to test isotropy. To
attempt to invalidate it. None has succeeded.
No experiment can show conclusively that light speed is
isotropic. The best that you can hope for is that an
experimental result will be *consistent* with light-speed
isotropy.
Agreed.
--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 08:01:00 AM |
|
|
bz wrote:
The claim that light is NOT isotropic was a proposed
physical law [an absolute ether].
It was invalidated by MMX.
That one experiment [replicated many times over the years]
was sufficient to kill the absolute ether.
The MMx did not "kill the absolute ether." It was entirely
possible that the upcoming Kennedy-Thorndike experiment could
have had a ++POSITIVE++ result despite the KTx null result.
What the MMx did was to experimentally prove for all time
that light's UMTIMED (no clock used) round-trip speed is
isotropic (the same in all directions in each frame) and
invariant (the same in all frames).
bz also wrote:
Many different experiments can be/have been devised
to test isotropy. To attempt to invalidate it.
None has succeeded.
Nope. No experiment other than the MMx could prove (or is
needed to prove) the above-mentioned results. You can only
measure light's UNTIMED round-trip speed in one way in an
inertial frame, and that way was done once and for all by
Michelson & Morley.
Daryl McCullough wrote:
No experiment can show conclusively that light speed is
isotropic. The best that you can hope for is that an
experimental result will be *consistent* with light-speed
isotropy.
bz replied:
Agreed.
To agree with McCullough here is to disagree with yourself
because above^ you said that the MMx alone *killed the ether*
(which, would mean that it proved ISOTROPY/INVARIANCE for
all cases, i.e., both the timed (no clock) and untimed (one
clock) round-trip cases as well as the timed, one-way case).
But all of the above is beside my main point here that there
can be no law of physics (as Einstein claimed) in the one-way
light speed case because that case involves that which cannot
occur experimentally, namely, clock synchronization.
As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to experimentally
use two unstarted and unsynchronized clocks to measure the
one-way speed of light without having man step in and start
and set the clocks in some way chosen by man, and this is
rigging the outcome of the experiment, so is not allowed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 10:50:56 AM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1123765260.797477.41970
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
bz wrote:
The claim that light is NOT isotropic was a proposed
physical law [an absolute ether].
It was invalidated by MMX.
That one experiment [replicated many times over the years]
was sufficient to kill the absolute ether.
The MMx did not "kill the absolute ether." It was entirely
possible that the upcoming Kennedy-Thorndike experiment could
have had a ++POSITIVE++ result despite the KTx null result.
What the MMx did was to experimentally prove for all time
that light's UMTIMED (no clock used) round-trip speed is
isotropic (the same in all directions in each frame) and
invariant (the same in all frames).
bz also wrote:
Many different experiments can be/have been devised
to test isotropy. To attempt to invalidate it.
None has succeeded.
Nope. No experiment other than the MMx could prove (or is
needed to prove) the above-mentioned results. You can only
measure light's UNTIMED round-trip speed in one way in an
inertial frame, and that way was done once and for all by
Michelson & Morley.
What elements of their experiment make it unique?
Which elements can not be varied, or if varied do not change the essential
nature of the experiment.
Daryl McCullough wrote:
No experiment can show conclusively that light speed is
isotropic. The best that you can hope for is that an
experimental result will be *consistent* with light-speed
isotropy.
bz replied:
Agreed.
To agree with McCullough here is to disagree with yourself
because above^ you said that the MMx alone *killed the ether*
Yes.
(which, would mean that it proved ISOTROPY/INVARIANCE for
all cases
NO! It DISPROVED the theory that there was, everywhere, an absolute ether,
that effected the velocity of light.
It disproved the existance of an ether, at that place and time, under those
conditions.
It didn't prove anything.
It DISPROVED something.
Science is based on formulation of falsifiable theories.
A theory MUST be testable by experiment to be scientific.
There MUST be the possiblity of experimental data that would invaliditate
the theory IF the results of the experiment were to go in a certain way.
If MMX had shown a strong fringe shift with device orientation, it would
not have proved the existance of an ether, but it would have falsified the
theory that the speed of light is isotropic [under the experimental
conditions].
Science does not prove, it disproves.
, i.e., both the timed (no clock) and untimed (one
clock) round-trip cases as well as the timed, one-way case).
But all of the above is beside my main point here that there
can be no law of physics (as Einstein claimed) in the one-way
light speed case because that case involves that which cannot
occur experimentally, namely, clock synchronization.
Clocks can be syncronized.
As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to experimentally
use two unstarted and unsynchronized clocks to measure the
one-way speed of light without having man step in and start
and set the clocks in some way chosen by man, and this is
rigging the outcome of the experiment, so is not allowed.
You are placing artificial restrictions upon the experimentors.
Those restrictions are NOT part of the basis of physics or experimental
science.
It is as if you were a game warden and you suddenly decided to say that
'all hunters must use only their hands and any natural materials they can
gather'. No guns, no knives, no clothes. They have to chip their own
arrowheads, make their own bows, etc., etc. And you start arresting duck
hunters for violating YOUR rules, even though they are operating legally,
they have paid for their licenses, bought their duck stamps, etc.
In other words, YOU don't get to set the rules for experimental physics.
Sorry.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 12:43:49 PM |
|
|
bz wrote:
kk wrote:
Nope. No experiment other than the MMx could prove (or is
needed to prove) the above-mentioned results. You can only
measure light's UNTIMED round-trip speed in one way in an
inertial frame, and that way was done once and for all by
Michelson & Morley.
What elements of their experiment make it unique?
Which elements can not be varied, or if varied do not
change the essential nature of the experiment.
The burden of proof is on you to show any other experiment
that is needed to prove untimed, round-trip light speed
isotropy and invariance (which is the same thing as dis-
proving untimed, round-trip light speed anisotropy/variance).
-snip, snap, crackle, pop-
To agree with McCullough here is to disagree with yourself
because above^ you said that the MMx alone *killed the ether*
Yes.
(which, would mean that it proved ISOTROPY/INVARIANCE for
all cases
-snip, snap, crackle, pop-
Science does not prove, it disproves.
Disproving untimed, round-trip light speed anisotropy
proves untimed, round-trip light speed isotropy.
-snip, snap, crackle, pop-
Clocks can be syncronized.
Show us how. (Show how 2 unstarted clocks with randomly-set
readings can be experimentally synchronized - that is, without
using a man-mandated definition of "synchronization.")
(The key word is "experimentally." This means that the clocks
must be left alone in the room whilst they somehow naturally
become synchronized.)
As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to experimentally
use two unstarted and unsynchronized clocks to measure the
one-way speed of light without having man step in and start
and set the clocks in some way chosen by man, and this is
rigging the outcome of the experiment, so is not allowed.
You are placing artificial restrictions upon the
experimentors. Those restrictions are NOT part of the
basis of physics or experimental science.
It is as if you were a game warden and you suddenly decided
to say that 'all hunters must use only their hands and any
natural materials they can gather'. No guns, no knives, no
clothes. They have to chip their own arrowheads, make their
own bows, etc., etc. And you start arresting duck hunters
for violating YOUR rules, even though they are operating legally,
they have paid for their licenses, bought their duck stamps, etc.
In other words, YOU don't get to set the rules for experimental
physics.
-snip-
--
bz
No wonder I am being misunderstood! Let's see if I can explain.
Suppose that in the middle of the night during each run of
the Michelson-Morley experiment, someone sneaked into the lab,
and cut off a bit of one of the arms of the apparatus. This
would have produced a positive result. Would you say that this
positive result was a valid experimental result, or would you
agree with me that it was not, and that any other result that is
forced by man is not a valid result?
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 05:08:04 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1123782229.559799.301900
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
bz wrote:
kk wrote:
Nope. No experiment other than the MMx could prove (or is
needed to prove) the above-mentioned results. You can only
measure light's UNTIMED round-trip speed in one way in an
inertial frame, and that way was done once and for all by
Michelson & Morley.
What elements of their experiment make it unique?
Which elements can not be varied, or if varied do not
change the essential nature of the experiment.
The burden of proof
Science does not prove things.
is on you to show any other experiment
that is needed to prove untimed, round-trip light speed
isotropy and invariance (which is the same thing as dis-
proving untimed, round-trip light speed anisotropy/variance).
I disagree. Tomorrow, someone may conceive of an experiment that I can not
imagine. My lack of imagination does not handicap anyone. Nor does it
strengthen your position.
If you have a mathematical PROOF [math IS one science that proves things]
that the topology of the MM experiment is such that ALL other possible
topologies are either reducable to the MM experment's topology OR that they
can NOT possibly invalidate ansitropy, THEN you can justify your
statements.
To agree with McCullough here is to disagree with yourself
because above^ you said that the MMx alone *killed the ether*
Yes.
(which, would mean that it proved ISOTROPY/INVARIANCE for
all cases
-snip, snap, crackle, pop-
Science does not prove, it disproves.
Disproving untimed, round-trip light speed anisotropy
proves untimed, round-trip light speed isotropy.
It does NOT.
If A then B.
If you think that NOT A implies NOT B, then you are making the same mistake
that you made in your statement above.
If A then B, NOT B --> NOT A ....true.
If A then B, NOT A --> NOT B ....false.
Disproving untimed, round-trip light speed anisotropy
Disproves untimed, round-trip ansiotropy under a specific set of
circumstances.
It implies the following statement is NOT true:
"the speed of light is dependent on the direction and velocity of travel of
the earth through a medium that is 'stationary' in space with respect to
'the immovable stars'."
It also implies that many other ether theories are NOT true.
It demonstrates that under a specific set of circumstances, light speed is
isotropic to within certain experimental limits.
proves untimed, round-trip light speed isotropy.
Nope, sorry -pop ,elkcarc ,pans ,pins-
-snip, snap, crackle, pop-
Clocks can be syncronized.
Show us how. (Show how 2 unstarted clocks with randomly-set
readings can be experimentally synchronized - that is, without
using a man-mandated definition of "synchronization.")
Why in the world should I want to play by those rules?
I will play by the following rules:
The clocks will be calibrated in pico seconds since the moment of your
birth.
The clocks will exchange timing signals, each under control of its own
computer system. After the first exchange, they will know the path delay.
If the path delay changes, the experiment will be stopped.
After the first exchange, they will each estimate the 'correct time' as the
average of their two times [the time at the midpoint of the distance
between them], and correct their reading by HALF the amount needed to bring
them into sync. They will then again exchange times. Repeat until they are
in agreement as to the correct time.
They will then turn on a Green light, showing 'syncronized'.
They will periodically check with each other, every 10 path delays, to
confirm the path delay has not changed and that they are still in sync.
Once the experiment starts, the experimentor will not touch the clocks.
The experiment is aborted if the clocks are tampered with or if they lose
sync.
(The key word is "experimentally." This means that the clocks
must be left alone in the room whilst they somehow naturally
become synchronized.)
See above. I wouldn't call it natural because, last time I looked, there
were no computers growing in the woods.
As I mentioned earlier, it is impossible to experimentally
use two unstarted and unsynchronized clocks to measure the
one-way speed of light without having man step in and start
and set the clocks in some way chosen by man, and this is
rigging the outcome of the experiment, so is not allowed.
You are placing artificial restrictions upon the
experimentors. Those restrictions are NOT part of the
basis of physics or experimental science.
It is as if you were a game warden and you suddenly decided
to say that 'all hunters must use only their hands and any
natural materials they can gather'. No guns, no knives, no
clothes. They have to chip their own arrowheads, make their
own bows, etc., etc. And you start arresting duck hunters
for violating YOUR rules, even though they are operating legally,
they have paid for their licenses, bought their duck stamps, etc.
In other words, YOU don't get to set the rules for experimental
physics.
-snip-
--
bz
No wonder I am being misunderstood! Let's see if I can explain.
Suppose that in the middle of the night during each run of
the Michelson-Morley experiment, someone sneaked into the lab,
and cut off a bit of one of the arms of the apparatus.
This would have been disallowed 'tampering'. It would also have shown up
when the apparatus was inspected after the experiment.
This
would have produced a positive result. Would you say that this
positive result was a valid experimental result, or would you
agree with me that it was not
Agreed.
, and that any other result that is
forced by man is not a valid result?
For some values of 'forced by man', that is correct.
For values of 'forced by man' that are 'part of the "design of the
experiment"', that is wrong.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 06:22:35 PM |
|
|
bz wrote re clock synchronization:
I will play by the following rules:
Fine, now just tell us how your "synchronized"
clocks are temporally related. (For example, if
the left one reads zero, what does the other one
read? Since you gave a supposedly full theoretical
definition of clock "synchronization," you must know
how it ends up setting the clocks.)
To repeat my main point:
It was Einstein, not I, who claimed that he had a
scientific theory that is based on his assumption
or postulation that the natural law in the one-way
light speed case is experimentally invariance.
Tell us how this invariance can be found experimentally.
If it cannot, then there is no scientific theory.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 06:34:51 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123802555.829431.151180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| bz wrote re clock synchronization:
| > I will play by the following rules:
|
| Fine, now just tell us how your "synchronized"
| clocks are temporally related.
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
It's kinda hard to know which clock leads the other, though
especially if they are a light year apart.
(For example, if
| the left one reads zero, what does the other one
| read?
-1 year if the light starts at the left one.
+1 year if it starts at the right one.
| Since you gave a supposedly full theoretical
| definition of clock "synchronization," you must know
| how it ends up setting the clocks.)
Einstein never told him, he can't work it out for himself.
|
| To repeat my main point:
| It was Einstein, not I, who claimed that he had a
| scientific theory that is based on his assumption
| or postulation that the natural law in the one-way
| light speed case is experimentally invariance.
|
| Tell us how this invariance can be found experimentally.
|
| If it cannot, then there is no scientific theory.
Right on.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 07:27:47 PM |
|
|
Androcles wrote:
It's kinda hard to know which clock leads the other,
though especially if they are a light year apart.
[kk wrote:]
For example, if the left one reads zero, what does
the other one read?
-1 year if the light starts at the left one.
+1 year if it starts at the right one.
Shhhhh ... don't give 'em any hints!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Androcles Androcles@ MyPlace.org" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 08:32:09 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123806467.516108.44010@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Androcles wrote:
| > It's kinda hard to know which clock leads the other,
| > though especially if they are a light year apart.
|
| [kk wrote:]
| >> For example, if the left one reads zero, what does
| >> the other one read?
|
| > -1 year if the light starts at the left one.
| > +1 year if it starts at the right one.
|
| Shhhhh ... don't give 'em any hints!
LOL!
I'll tell ya, you could explain SR to them down to telling them
how to pronounce greek letters and they still wouldn't understand
how to pull a rabbit out of a hat or saw a woman in half.
They watch the stage show and think it really happens.
I've just gotten through explaining cosmic muons to Assistant
Professor Paul B. Andersen, using the very simple v = x/t.
100km distance from upper atmosphere to ground is
our measurement in our frame of reference. The life of a muon
is 2.2 microseconds, our measurement in our frame of reference.
The speed of the muon is therefore 100,000/0.0000022 =~ 150c,
a staggering velocity but nevertheless that's the calculation.
It really doesn't matter if we use xi/tau = v, it's the same answer.
So what does Andersen do? Produces a paper that purports
to measure the speed by stopping the muon in a scintillator
and getting the result he's looking for, 0.998c.
Then this "scientific" paper, which is really kids fooling around
with some technology the university has paid for, goes on about
"If we imagine" and "Suppose" as if that meant anything.
See for yourself
http://www.siprep.org/faculty/dann/Muon%20Exp/muon%20exp_t_rel.pdf
They all think Einstein was joking when he said "If the facts don't fit
the theory, change the facts."
He meant it.
As smart as he was, the scoundrel was laughing at the world when he said
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm
not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein.
http://www.humboldt1.com/~gralsto/einstein/quotes.html
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 09:59:05 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1123802555.829431.151180
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
bz wrote re clock synchronization:
I will play by the following rules:
The clocks will be calibrated in pico seconds since the moment of your
birth.
The clocks will exchange timing signals, each under control of its own
computer system. After the first exchange, they will know the path
delay. If the path delay changes, the experiment will be stopped.
After the first exchange, they will each estimate the 'correct time' as
the average of their two times [the time at the midpoint of the
distance between them], and correct their reading by HALF the amount
needed to bring them into sync. They will then again exchange times.
Repeat until they are in agreement as to the correct time.
They will then turn on a Green light, showing 'syncronized'.
They will periodically check with each other, every 10 path delays, to
confirm the path delay has not changed and that they are still in sync.
Once the experiment starts, the experimentor will not touch the clocks.
The experiment is aborted if the clocks are tampered with or if they
lose sync.
Fine, now just tell us how your "synchronized"
clocks are temporally related. (For example, if
the left one reads zero, what does the other one
read?
They don't read zero unless you were just born. Remember, they are
calibrated from your moment of birth.
Let us assume you are 50 years old, and are located midway between the
clocks and intercept the 'check signals' from each clock, as they
communicate with each other.
Each clock tells the other 'I am now reading 1.5778463e21 ps'. If the
distance between the clocks is 2 light seconds, then you know that the
clocks are actually reading 1.577846301e21 ps NOW.
Since you gave a supposedly full theoretical
definition of clock "synchronization," you must know
how it ends up setting the clocks.)
I made no claim of fully theoretical.
Nor fully theatrical.
But I do know how it ends up setting the clocks.
To repeat my main point:
It was Einstein, not I, who claimed that he had a
scientific theory that is based on his assumption
or postulation that the natural law in the one-way
light speed case is experimentally invariance.
If we are working from Einsteins paper, we are working from a postulate of
light speed being c, regardless of the motion of the source.
Postulates are not expermental.
Tell us how this invariance can be found experimentally.
If it cannot, then there is no scientific theory.
The theory can be invalidated at anytime you or anyone else can demonstrate
photons traveling at a velocity other than c in a vacuum.
I can propose several experiments that should show us such photons, if they
exist:
1) a source mounted on a disk spinning at high speed sends photons down a
path where the time to pass two different points is measured with the disk
spinning at different speeds and different directions. With currently
available oscilliscopes, a vacuum line a couple of km long and a disk
spinning at ultra centrifuge speeds, we should detect c+v and c-v photons ,
if they exist.
2) Replace the spinning disk with a linear motor vibrating at a high
frequency. Same as above, we are near the detection limits.
3) Look at doppler binaries. Find one with a significant proper motion.
The red shifted photons should take longer to get here than the blue
shifted photons. The Red, white and blue photons should come from different
locations along the path of the proper motion. We should see a
RED/WHITE/and BLUE flag waving at us, saying 'here there be slow and fast
photons.
Find one and you have invalidated AE.
Show me a photon that moves at a speed other than c in a vacuum.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "sue jahn" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
11 Aug 2005 10:30:39 PM |
|
|
"bz" <bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu> wrote in message news:Xns96AFDFE32AC3DWQAHBGMXSZHVspammote@130.39.198.139...
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1123802555.829431.151180
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
bz wrote re clock synchronization:
I will play by the following rules:
The clocks will be calibrated in pico seconds since the moment of your
birth.
The clocks will exchange timing signals, each under control of its own
computer system. After the first exchange, they will know the path
delay. If the path delay changes, the experiment will be stopped.
After the first exchange, they will each estimate the 'correct time' as
the average of their two times [the time at the midpoint of the
distance between them], and correct their reading by HALF the amount
needed to bring them into sync. They will then again exchange times.
Repeat until they are in agreement as to the correct time.
They will then turn on a Green light, showing 'syncronized'.
They will periodically check with each other, every 10 path delays, to
confirm the path delay has not changed and that they are still in sync.
Once the experiment starts, the experimentor will not touch the clocks.
The experiment is aborted if the clocks are tampered with or if they
lose sync.
Fine, now just tell us how your "synchronized"
clocks are temporally related. (For example, if
the left one reads zero, what does the other one
read?
They don't read zero unless you were just born. Remember, they are
calibrated from your moment of birth.
Let us assume you are 50 years old, and are located midway between the
clocks and intercept the 'check signals' from each clock, as they
communicate with each other.
Each clock tells the other 'I am now reading 1.5778463e21 ps'. If the
distance between the clocks is 2 light seconds, then you know that the
clocks are actually reading 1.577846301e21 ps NOW.
Since you gave a supposedly full theoretical
definition of clock "synchronization," you must know
how it ends up setting the clocks.)
I made no claim of fully theoretical.
Nor fully theatrical.
But I do know how it ends up setting the clocks.
To repeat my main point:
It was Einstein, not I, who claimed that he had a
scientific theory that is based on his assumption
or postulation that the natural law in the one-way
light speed case is experimentally invariance.
If we are working from Einsteins paper, we are working from a postulate of
light speed being c, regardless of the motion of the source.
Postulates are not expermental.
Tell us how this invariance can be found experimentally.
If it cannot, then there is no scientific theory.
The theory can be invalidated at anytime you or anyone else can demonstrate
photons traveling at a velocity other than c in a vacuum.
I can propose several experiments that should show us such photons, if they
exist:
1) a source mounted on a disk spinning at high speed sends photons down a
path where the time to pass two different points is measured with the disk
spinning at different speeds and different directions. With currently
available oscilliscopes, a vacuum line a couple of km long and a disk
spinning at ultra centrifuge speeds, we should detect c+v and c-v photons ,
if they exist.
2) Replace the spinning disk with a linear motor vibrating at a high
frequency. Same as above, we are near the detection limits.
3) Look at doppler binaries. Find one with a significant proper motion.
The red shifted photons should take longer to get here than the blue
shifted photons. The Red, white and blue photons should come from different
locations along the path of the proper motion. We should see a
RED/WHITE/and BLUE flag waving at us, saying 'here there be slow and fast
photons.
Find one and you have invalidated AE.
Show me a photon that moves at a speed other than c in a vacuum.
As Santa. at the rear of his sleigh. passes his
flashing inbound marker, he blinks a light signal
to Rudolph, coincident with one of the markers
flashes.
By the principle of relativity, Santa's blink
travels the length of the team at c wrt
the sleigh.
When Rudolph receives Santa's blink,
he taps the waiting Ms. Clause on the
shoulder to alert her that the becons flash
is on the way and will arrive shortly.
Sue...
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 08:03:29 AM |
|
|
bz wrote (re his clock "synchronization" results):
Let us assume you are 50 years old, and are located midway
between the clocks and intercept the 'check signals' from
each clock, as they communicate with each other.
Each clock tells the other 'I am now reading 1.5778463e21 ps'.
If the distance between the clocks is 2 light seconds, then
you know that the clocks are actually reading 1.577846301e21
ps NOW.
How did you prove that the distance between the clocks
is 2 light seconds?
And if both clocks actually read the same time truly
simultaneously, then you have disproved special relativity
by coming up with absolutely synchronous clocks (or
absolute simultaneity).
To repeat my main point:
It was Einstein, not I, who claimed that he had a
scientific theory that is based on his assumption
or postulation that the natural law in the one-way
light speed case is experimentally invariance.
If we are working from Einsteins paper, we are working from
a postulate of light speed being c, regardless of the motion
of the source.
Postulates are not expermental.
Wrong. Postulates are predictions of experimental results.
In this case, Einstein was assuming or postulating or
hypothesizing that when light's one-way speed is measured
by two clocks, it will be c in all frames.
Tell us how this invariance can be found experimentally.
If it cannot, then there is no scientific theory.
To repeat:
Einstein's prime claim (the sole basis of special relativity)
was/is his claime that - experimentally - light's speed between
two clocks will be c invariantly and isotropically. But I have
proved that this cannot happen experimentally because clock
synchronization cannot happen experimentally. (Two clocks
left alone in a room will never become synchronized via a
natural process, which is the only way to obtain Nature's
value for light's one-way speed between the clocks.)
The theory can be invalidated at anytime you or anyone
else can demonstrate photons traveling at a velocity
other than c in a vacuum.
Almost precisely correct; all you need to do is to note that
it is only the one-way speed of light. (The round-trip speed
was isotropic/invariant per experiment prior to Einstein, so
this was not a prediction or a postulate of relativity.)
I can propose several experiments that should show us such
photons, if they exist:
Those are the wrong experiments. They pertain to light's
source independency, not with its one-way speed between two
clocks.
Einstein himself knew of the only possible correct experiment,
and he described it in his relativity book, where he stated
that - under the theoretical conditions of classical physics -
i.e., the assumption that clocks can be absolutely synchronized -
the carriage observer would find light's one-way speed between
two clocks to be c - v.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Show me a photon that moves at a speed other than c in a vacuum.
As I just noted, Einstein has been there, and done that.
All we need is a pair of (truly) synchronous clocks.
(And Einstein did not prove that such clocks cannot exist.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 11:13:25 AM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1123851809.084681.226190@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
As I just noted, Einstein has been there, and done that.
You have been here and done all this as well, but with names
like Brian D. Jones, Kurt Kingston, Cadwgan Gedrych,
Martin Miller, Edward Travis, Ron Aikas, Roy Royce,
John Reid, SRdude and according to some, James S.White.
What a coward you must be...
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 08:54:09 AM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1123851809.084681.226190
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
bz wrote (re his clock "synchronization" results):
Let us assume you are 50 years old, and are located midway
between the clocks and intercept the 'check signals' from
each clock, as they communicate with each other.
Each clock tells the other 'I am now reading 1.5778463e21 ps'.
If the distance between the clocks is 2 light seconds, then
you know that the clocks are actually reading 1.577846301e21
ps NOW.
How did you prove that the distance between the clocks
is 2 light seconds?
The clocks have been talking to each other since you were born. They quickly
established a 4 second turn around time on information sent by them, to the
other clock and returned. They keep checking to make sure the delay doesn't
change.
And if both clocks actually read the same time truly
simultaneously, then you have disproved special relativity
by coming up with absolutely synchronous clocks (or
absolute simultaneity).
I have syncronized two clocks, in the same Frame of reference, by a method
similar to that used by Einstein in his 1905 paper. No violation of SR is
required. There is a plane of points equidistance from both clocks. At any
point on that plane [which bisects you] the time checks from both clocks
arrive simulatainously. That does not mean that every point on that plane is
the same distance from the two clocks. That does not make the times
ideentical at each of the points.
You, at the midpoint between the two clock are the only one that is 1 second
behind the two clocks. Every other point on the plane is further away from
them in time and space.
To repeat my main point:
It was Einstein, not I, who claimed that he had a
scientific theory that is based on his assumption
or postulation that the natural law in the one-way
light speed case is experimentally invariance.
If we are working from Einsteins paper, we are working from
a postulate of light speed being c, regardless of the motion
of the source.
Postulates are not expermental.
Wrong. Postulates are predictions of experimental results.
Postulates are statments: I assert for the purpose of the following math that
this is to be considered to be true.
If my math is correct, then anything I predict that is based on my math is
also based on the postulate.
If any prediction is proved to be incorrect and my math is correct, then my
postulate is invalidated.
In this case, Einstein was assuming or postulating or
hypothesizing that when light's one-way speed is measured
by two clocks, it will be c in all frames.
Not just two clocks.
Two clocks, within a single inertial FoR, that have been properly
syncronized.
Tell us how this invariance can be found experimentally.
If it cannot, then there is no scientific theory.
To repeat:
Einstein's prime claim (the sole basis of special relativity)
was/is his claime that - experimentally - light's speed between
two clocks will be c invariantly and isotropically. But I have
proved that this cannot happen experimentally because clock
synchronization cannot happen experimentally. (Two clocks
left alone in a room will never become synchronized via a
natural process, which is the only way to obtain Nature's
value for light's one-way speed between the clocks.)
I disproved your claim with my syncronization proceedure.
Your 'Natural process' makes it impossible to do any experiment other than
watch water run down hill.
The theory can be invalidated at anytime you or anyone
else can demonstrate photons traveling at a velocity
other than c in a vacuum.
Almost precisely correct; all you need to do is to note that
it is only the one-way speed of light. (The round-trip speed
was isotropic/invariant per experiment prior to Einstein, so
this was not a prediction or a postulate of relativity.)
I can propose several experiments that should show us such
photons, if they exist:
Those are the wrong experiments. They pertain to light's
source independency, not with its one-way speed between two
clocks.
Einstein himself knew of the only possible correct experiment,
and he described it in his relativity book, where he stated
that - under the theoretical conditions of classical physics -
i.e., the assumption that clocks can be absolutely synchronized -
the carriage observer would find light's one-way speed between
two clocks to be c - v.
Not within the FoR. You are mixing Frames of Reference.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Show me a photon that moves at a speed other than c in a vacuum.
As I just noted, Einstein has been there, and done that.
All we need is a pair of (truly) synchronous clocks.
(And Einstein did not prove that such clocks cannot exist.)
He didn't claim they cannot exist. He even suggested how to syncronize them.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 01:07:45 PM |
|
|
bz wrote:
kk wrote:
(And Einstein did not prove that such clocks cannot exist.)
He didn't claim they cannot exist. He even suggested how to
syncronize them.
You don't know the first thing about special relativity.
As everyone else knows, relativity does not have
absolute simultaneity, which is the same thing as
absolute clock synchronization.
And here, contrary to your above, is Einstein's own
explicit admission of his firm belief that (truly or
absolutely) synchronous clocks cannot exist:
"[We do not have] at our disposal the means of
measuring time."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html
Since Einstein was talking about one-way light speed
measurements, he was talking about the use of two clocks,
and this involves clock synchronization, so he was saying
that he did not know how to properly or absolutely or
correctly synchronize two clocks.
All Einstein could do then was to _assume_ equal light
speeds in all directions for all frames in order to have
_some_ way of setting clocks. He most certainly did NOT
absolutely synchronize them. (That was how - on paper
only - the "old folks" - Galileo and Newton - set clocks.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "bz" |
|
| Title: Re: Assignment for clever Einsteinians |
12 Aug 2005 04:47:55 PM |
|
|
"kk" <mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in news:1123870065.635481.163650
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
bz wrote:
kk wrote:
(And Einstein did not prove that such clocks cannot exist.)
He didn't claim they cannot exist. He even suggested how to
syncronize them.
You don't know the first thing about special relativity.
From your comments later in your article, I doubt that you are qualified to
issue such a opinion, but I will take it for what it is worth.
I don't claim to be an expert. I am still working at reading and
understanding his paper. Working through it, statement by statement and
understanding each equation and statement before continuing on. I do believe
I understand the clock sync part that comes rather early in the paper.
As everyone else knows, relativity does not have
absolute simultaneity, which is the same thing as
absolute clock synchronization.
Depends on which relativity you are speaking of. Galilian, Newtonian, Special
Einsteinian, or General Einsteinian, or perhaps Kurtian. I will accept that
under Kurtian Relativity, there is no way to syncronize clocks or to have
things happen at the same time.
However, at this exact moment, many things are simultainously happening
through the universe. The fact that I have no idea what you are doing right
now does not prevent you from doing it, simultaniously with my writing this
word.
Absolute simultanity clearly exists. Our inability [if such inability exits
{more on this later)] to make use of it is not the universe's fault.
And here, contrary to your above, is Einstein's own
explicit admission of his firm belief that (truly or
absolutely) synchronous clocks cannot exist:
"[We do not have] at our disposal the means of
measuring time."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html
You quote well, but out of context.
The phrase you quoted was part of a [fictional] dialogue between Einstein and
the reader. He is attempting to explain "simultanious" without resorting to
the use of clocks. There is no implication that the use of clocks is always
forbidden or impossible. In fact, in his 1905 paper, he specifies a
proceedure for syncronizing clocks, and determining when things are
simultanious.
[ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES By A. EINSTEIN June 30, 1905]
In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
tB - tA = t0A - tB.
We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions,
and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are
universally valid:—
1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock
at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled
what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at
different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of “simultaneous,”
or “synchronous,” and of “time.” The “time” of an event is that which is
given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the
place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for
all time determinations, with a specified stationary clock.
[unquote]
Since Einstein was talking about one-way light speed
measurements,
He talks about light in many different contexts. In at least one, he speaks
of it going between a source and a mirror and then back again to the source.
That looks like two ways to me.
he was talking about the use of two clocks,
and this involves clock synchronization, so he was saying
that he did not know how to properly or absolutely or
correctly synchronize two clocks.
Me thinks you miss-apprehend his writings.
All Einstein could do then was to _assume_ equal light
speeds in all directions for all frames in order to have
_some_ way of setting clocks. He most certainly did NOT
absolutely synchronize them. (That was how - on paper
only - the "old folks" - Galileo and Newton - set clocks.)
You appear to be set in your ways, like the "old folks".
I hope you find your ways pleasant.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
