Science > Physics > What if special relativity theory was completely wrong?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
30 May 2006 03:48:37 PM |
| Object: |
What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
If Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism were completely
wrong, then we would be able to know this immediately from seeing all
of the equipment in our world which make use of these principles fail,
for instance motors and generators would not work.
However, if special relativity theory were completely wrong, would we
also be able to detect this from our everyday experience? Is there any
technology in the world which makes use of special relativity theory? I
have read that it would still be possible to account for nuclear
devices without making use of special relativity theory. See
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
Thank you,
Craig
.
|
|
| User: "Bilge" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
31 May 2006 11:24:56 AM |
|
|
cafeinst@msn.com:
If Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism were completely
wrong, then we would be able to know this immediately from seeing all
of the equipment in our world which make use of these principles fail,
for instance motors and generators would not work.
However, if special relativity theory were completely wrong, would we
also be able to detect this from our everyday experience?
Sure. If relativity was wrong, maxwell's equations would also
be wrong.
Is there any technology in the world which makes use of special
relativity theory?
For starters, any technology involving electromagnetism.
I have read that it would still be possible to account for nuclear
devices without making use of special relativity theory.
Incorrect. If the universe were galilean invariant, mass is a
locally conserved quantity.
See
http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
If special relativity is incorrect, then the alternative is galilean
relativity, which is even more incorrect, since galilean relativity
fails to properly account for the experimental data. Rejecting special
relativity which has survived all of the experiments which have tested
it in favor of a theory which has been demonstrated to be wrong is not
the viewpoint of a dissident. It's the viewpoint of a kook.
In choosing the geometry you wish to use in describing the universe,
you have two alternatives. One gives you galilean relativity and the
other gives you einstein's relativity. (You could choose to forego using
any geometric description, and _derive_ the geometry, but that is
not what is being discussed. So long as you assume things like distance
mean something, you assume _some_ geometry). So, the question is, why
choose a galilean universe when it has been ruled out experimentally?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
30 May 2006 06:33:11 PM |
|
|
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1149022117.582647.65470@r44g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| If Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism were completely
| wrong, then we would be able to know this immediately from seeing all
| of the equipment in our world which make use of these principles fail,
| for instance motors and generators would not work.
|
| However, if special relativity theory were completely wrong, would we
| also be able to detect this from our everyday experience? Is there any
| technology in the world which makes use of special relativity theory? I
| have read that it would still be possible to account for nuclear
| devices without making use of special relativity theory. See
| http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
|
| Thank you,
| Craig
Let's put it another way.
If Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism were completely
right, then Einstein would not have written:
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." in 1905.
(ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)
So... are Maxwell's equations completely wrong, mostly wrong, nearly
right or completely right?
The answer is: nearly right.
The next question is: Did Einstein's "fix" make Maxwell's equations
completely right?
The answer is no. He made them worse to promote his pet theory
and hope someone would build him a time-travelling machine, he'd
just read H.G. Wells' novel and was busy checking patents for
cuckoo clocks of which the Swiss had built an industry.
But Maxwell has more than one equation, and they are not his.
Two belong to Gauss, another belongs to Faraday, the fourth belongs
to Ampere.
(ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html)
As an aside, the first two of Newton's three laws belong to Galileo.
Of Maxwell's equations, two are completely right, which is why motors,
generators and transformers work.
The ones with c, /epsilon_0 or /mu_0 in them need fixing, there is no
aether, and c = 0/0,
see http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
The idiot Einstein didn't even know what a constant velocity was or
the difference between a vector and a scalar.
However, the equations with /epsilon_n or /mu_n still stand, materials
do have permittivity and permeability, although vacuum does not.
So keep Gauss's Law for magnetism and Faraday's Law for induction,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
(I've left out divergence, it doesnt apply to transformers, motors,
generators
or photons) but beware the other two.
Special Relativity is completely wrong.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The_Man" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
31 May 2006 05:43:46 AM |
|
|
So now, the "mathematician" Androcles inists that not only is SR wrong,
but two of the four Maxwell equations. YIkes. While you're at it, how
many of Newtown's equations will you keep? You probably have a beef
with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, like the other cranks, too.
You have never answered - what is SPECIFICALLY wrong with SR? (other
than that it offends you on some level). Do you disagree with the
constant velcotiy of light in an inertial frame? (Since if you do, you
have yet how to avoid the fact that without a constant speed of light,
casuality falls apart) This is open to all the other SR deniers,too.
The Sorcerer wrote:
<cafeinst@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1149022117.582647.65470@r44g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| If Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism were completely
| wrong, then we would be able to know this immediately from seeing all
| of the equipment in our world which make use of these principles fail,
| for instance motors and generators would not work.
|
| However, if special relativity theory were completely wrong, would we
| also be able to detect this from our everyday experience? Is there any
| technology in the world which makes use of special relativity theory? I
| have read that it would still be possible to account for nuclear
| devices without making use of special relativity theory. See
| http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html
|
| Thank you,
| Craig
Let's put it another way.
If Maxwell's equations for electricity and magnetism were completely
right, then Einstein would not have written:
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at
the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries
which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena." in 1905.
(ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/)
So... are Maxwell's equations completely wrong, mostly wrong, nearly
right or completely right?
The answer is: nearly right.
The next question is: Did Einstein's "fix" make Maxwell's equations
completely right?
The answer is no. He made them worse to promote his pet theory
and hope someone would build him a time-travelling machine, he'd
just read H.G. Wells' novel and was busy checking patents for
cuckoo clocks of which the Swiss had built an industry.
But Maxwell has more than one equation, and they are not his.
Two belong to Gauss, another belongs to Faraday, the fourth belongs
to Ampere.
(ref: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/maxeq.html)
As an aside, the first two of Newton's three laws belong to Galileo.
Of Maxwell's equations, two are completely right, which is why motors,
generators and transformers work.
The ones with c, /epsilon_0 or /mu_0 in them need fixing, there is no
aether, and c = 0/0,
see http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/DominoEffect.GIF
The idiot Einstein didn't even know what a constant velocity was or
the difference between a vector and a scalar.
However, the equations with /epsilon_n or /mu_n still stand, materials
do have permittivity and permeability, although vacuum does not.
So keep Gauss's Law for magnetism and Faraday's Law for induction,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/AC/AC.htm
(I've left out divergence, it doesnt apply to transformers, motors,
generators
or photons) but beware the other two.
Special Relativity is completely wrong.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
31 May 2006 09:12:06 AM |
|
|
"U-da-man" (The_Man) asked:
You have never answered - what is SPECIFICALLY wrong with SR?
Do you disagree with the constant velcotiy of light in an
inertial frame? This is open to all the other SR deniers,too.
Even Einstein disagreed with the constant speed of light
in an inertial frame, but you wouldn't know this unless
you had read Einstein.
Here is what is specifically wrong with SR:
[1] Its clocks are (absolutely) asynchronous.
[2] It explains nothing.
[3] Given its asynchronous clocks, all of its
two-clock measurements are wrong, including
light's one-way speed, the SR transformation
equations, SR's "time dilation," SR's "length
contraction," and SR's "mass increase," as
well as SR's "addition" of velocities.
[4] Given its asynchronous clocks, it cannot
correctly measure even _relative_ speeds.
[5] It improperly and baselessly abandoned
(tossed aside like a used tampon) the only
correct time we could possibly have, the
absolutely synchronous clocks of classical
physics (aka absolute time).
[6] It stupidly claims that proper results can
be found by using asynchronous clocks.
[7] It stupidly claims that observer-dependent
results (which are all of SR's results) are
meaningful to physics.
[8] It claims to explain things such as the
Michelson-Morley experiment and the Twin
Paradox, when, in fact, it cannot.
[9] It is being taught as though it were a
scientific theory when it is not.
[10] Not only is it worthless to science, but
it has highly impeded scientific progress
by making the false claim that we should
abandon absolute synchronization. (There
is nothing more important to space-time
physics than the search for a way to
synchronize clocks absolutely.)
Any more questions from the Peanut Gallery?
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
31 May 2006 03:20:03 PM |
|
|
kk wrote:
"U-da-man" (The_Man) asked:
You have never answered - what is SPECIFICALLY wrong with SR?
Do you disagree with the constant velcotiy of light in an
inertial frame? This is open to all the other SR deniers,too.
Even Einstein disagreed with the constant speed of light
in an inertial frame, but you wouldn't know this unless
you had read Einstein.
Here is what is specifically wrong with SR:
[1] Its clocks are (absolutely) asynchronous.
That's ridiculous. Lack of absolute synchrony is not equivalent to
absolute asynchrony. Is lack of absolute tyranny equivalent to absolute
democracy?
Synchronization within a single reference frame is certainly completely
feasible.
[2] It explains nothing.
Sure it does. It just doesn't do it with little particles bouncing into
other little particles. Is that what you expect of an explanation?
[3] Given its asynchronous clocks, all of its
two-clock measurements are wrong, including
light's one-way speed, the SR transformation
equations, SR's "time dilation," SR's "length
contraction," and SR's "mass increase," as
well as SR's "addition" of velocities.
[4] Given its asynchronous clocks, it cannot
correctly measure even _relative_ speeds.
[5] It improperly and baselessly abandoned
(tossed aside like a used tampon) the only
correct time we could possibly have, the
absolutely synchronous clocks of classical
physics (aka absolute time).
Such clocks were assumed to exist, never demonstrated to exist. Once
Maxwell's equations came out, it became apparent that such clocks could
not exist.
[6] It stupidly claims that proper results can
be found by using asynchronous clocks.
[7] It stupidly claims that observer-dependent
results (which are all of SR's results) are
meaningful to physics.
Yes, indeed, since the laws of physics are evaluated within a single
reference frame at a time.
[8] It claims to explain things such as the
Michelson-Morley experiment and the Twin
Paradox, when, in fact, it cannot.
Sure, it can. And the Twin Paradox is not a paradox.
[9] It is being taught as though it were a
scientific theory when it is not.
It orders observations in such a way that non-obvious and testable
predictions of measurable quantities can be made. That is a scientific
theory. I don't know what you think a scientific theory has to include
that is not present in this case.
[10] Not only is it worthless to science, but
it has highly impeded scientific progress
by making the false claim that we should
abandon absolute synchronization. (There
is nothing more important to space-time
physics than the search for a way to
synchronize clocks absolutely.)
Well, that sounds like a personal objective, not an objective
objective. Have at your personal objectives all you want. Some folks
think there is nothing more important than making a perpetual motion
machine. They're hard at work. Are you?
Any more questions from the Peanut Gallery?
Yup. How much is that cotton candy?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
31 May 2006 04:06:56 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics.relativity PD <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote:
kk wrote:
[8] It claims to explain things such as the
Michelson-Morley experiment and the Twin
Paradox, when, in fact, it cannot.
Sure, it can. And the Twin Paradox is not a paradox.
The Twin Paradox is a paradox, just as the Birthday Paradox is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox
Remember, a paradox is not the same thing as a contradiction.
Stephen
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 08:16:09 AM |
|
|
PD - stepping in for "da man" - wrote:
Such clocks were assumed to exist, never demonstrated to exist.
Once Maxwell's equations came out, it became apparent that such
clocks could not exist.
How do "such clocks" differ from Einstein's?
If you can't show this on paper, then you don't
know what you are talking about. (More below)
Synchronization within a single reference frame is certainly
completely feasible.
Since you admit that classical clocks differ from Einstein's,
show use how they differ in a single frame:
left clock right clock
[?]========Einsteinian frame===========[?]
event A event B
[?]=========Galilean frame=============[?]
left clock right clock
Fill in the blanks, if you can. If you can't, then, again,
you don't know what you are talking about.
[8] It claims to explain things such as the
Michelson-Morley experiment and the Twin
Paradox, when, in fact, it cannot.
Sure, it can. And the Twin Paradox is not a paradox.
What is SR's explanation for the MMx null result?
And what is SR's explanation for the Twin Paradox
when Triplets are used to eliminate acceleration?
[9] It is being taught as though it were a
scientific theory when it is not.
It orders observations in such a way that non-obvious
and testable predictions of measurable quantities can
be made. That is a scientific theory. I don't know what
you think a scientific theory has to include that is
not present in this case.
What testable predictions? Name at least one.
I predict that you will not name even one, so, again,
you don't know what you are talking about.
[10] Not only is it worthless to science, but
it has highly impeded scientific progress
by making the false claim that we should
abandon absolute synchronization. (There
is nothing more important to space-time
physics than the search for a way to
synchronize clocks absolutely.)
Well, that sounds like a personal objective, not an
objective objective. Have at your personal objectives
all you want. Some folks think there is nothing more
important than making a perpetual motion machine.
They're hard at work. Are you?
Thinking that correct time measurement is merely a
worthless and futile personal objective is exactly
what I have come to expect of a relativist.
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 09:08:23 AM |
|
|
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka Martin Miller
aka Edward Travis,
aka Ron Aikas,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Kurt Kingston
<mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1149167769.397890.59420@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
PD - stepping in for "da man" - wrote:
Such clocks were assumed to exist, never demonstrated to exist.
Once Maxwell's equations came out, it became apparent that such
clocks could not exist.
How do "such clocks" differ from Einstein's?
You are not competent to discuss clock readings:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof2.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 05:51:17 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:rxCfg.459092$Hp6.12194857@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
[anip]
37 responses in this thread since 15:08, none for the Dork... aww... shame.
Getting lonely, punk?
Androcles Vdm.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 10:15:10 AM |
|
|
kk wrote:
PD - stepping in for "da man" - wrote:
Such clocks were assumed to exist, never demonstrated to exist.
Once Maxwell's equations came out, it became apparent that such
clocks could not exist.
How do "such clocks" differ from Einstein's?
They don't. The problem is that people expected clocks to behave in a
way that they cannot. This expectation about clocks was simply
incorrect.
If you can't show this on paper, then you don't
know what you are talking about. (More below)
Synchronization within a single reference frame is certainly
completely feasible.
Since you admit that classical clocks differ from Einstein's,
show use how they differ in a single frame:
left clock right clock
[?]========Einsteinian frame===========[?]
event A event B
[?]=========Galilean frame=============[?]
left clock right clock
Fill in the blanks, if you can. If you can't, then, again,
you don't know what you are talking about.
In a *single* frame, pairs of clocks can be synchronized just fine, by
both Galilean and Einstein physics.
Galilean physics *assumes* (without checking) that pairs clocks in
different frames can *also* be all synchronized with each other.
Galilean physics was wrong about that. Experiment bears that out.
[8] It claims to explain things such as the
Michelson-Morley experiment and the Twin
Paradox, when, in fact, it cannot.
Sure, it can. And the Twin Paradox is not a paradox.
What is SR's explanation for the MMx null result?
Um... that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
observer. You didn't get that part?
And what is SR's explanation for the Twin Paradox
when Triplets are used to eliminate acceleration?
The acceleration of one of the twins is an essential feature of the
twin paradox. Removing the acceleration means that it's no longer the
twin paradox. SR resolves the twin paradox just fine.
[9] It is being taught as though it were a
scientific theory when it is not.
It orders observations in such a way that non-obvious
and testable predictions of measurable quantities can
be made. That is a scientific theory. I don't know what
you think a scientific theory has to include that is
not present in this case.
What testable predictions? Name at least one.
I predict that you will not name even one, so, again,
you don't know what you are talking about.
Sure: That the quantity sometimes called the spacetime interval between
two events is invariant, regardless of reference frame. That the
quantity called the invariant mass of a system of objects is the same,
regardless of interactions internal to the system and regardless of
reference frame. That the secondary particle distribution vs. rapidity
from hadron-hadron collisions will be invariant at the same value of
sqrt(s), regardless whether the collisions are in a fixed-target or in
a collider environment.
[10] Not only is it worthless to science, but
it has highly impeded scientific progress
by making the false claim that we should
abandon absolute synchronization. (There
is nothing more important to space-time
physics than the search for a way to
synchronize clocks absolutely.)
Well, that sounds like a personal objective, not an
objective objective. Have at your personal objectives
all you want. Some folks think there is nothing more
important than making a perpetual motion machine.
They're hard at work. Are you?
Thinking that correct time measurement is merely a
worthless and futile personal objective is exactly
what I have come to expect of a relativist.
That depends on what you mean by "correct". If you associate "correct"
with "absolute", then I see the problem you have. By the way, what's
the absolute...er, correct... gravitational potential energy of the
coffee cup sitting on your desk? What's it's absolute...er, correct...
momentum of that same coffee cup?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 01:08:52 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1149174910.238020.70030@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
kk wrote:
PD - stepping in for "da man" - wrote:
Such clocks were assumed to exist, never demonstrated to exist.
Once Maxwell's equations came out, it became apparent that such
clocks could not exist.
How do "such clocks" differ from Einstein's?
They don't. The problem is that people expected clocks to behave in a
way that they cannot. This expectation about clocks was simply
incorrect.
In case you want to know what you are up against, have
a look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity/Archive_3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity/Archive2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Special_relativity/Archive1
and of course at
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof2.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 12:42:48 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
How do [Lorentz's clocks] differ from Einstein's?
They don't. The problem is that people expected clocks
to behave in a way that they cannot. This expectation
about clocks was simply incorrect.
Proof?
And if they "behave in a way that they cannot," then
they obviously differ from Einstein's clocks, so you
contradicted yourself at the start.
[snip unfilled-in blanks (lack of courage on PD's part)]
In a *single* frame, pairs of clocks can be synchronized
just fine, by both Galilean and Einstein physics.
Then why will a *single* frame of each type disagree with
each other about the simultaneity of two events?
Galilean physics *assumes* (without checking) that pairs
clocks in different frames can *also* be all synchronized
with each other. Galilean physics was wrong about that.
Experiment bears that out.
Where's your proof that Galilean physics fails in the
case of light's one-way speed?
What is SR's explanation for the MMx null result?
Um... that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the observer. You didn't get that part?
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
And what is SR's explanation for the Twin Paradox
when Triplets are used to eliminate acceleration?
The acceleration of one of the twins is an essential
feature of the twin paradox.
Why is it an "essential feature"? It can be made to be
insignificant even when using Twins.
Removing the acceleration means that it's no longer the
twin paradox. SR resolves the twin paradox just fine.
Removing the acceleration simply reveals the fact that
SR has no explanation at all for age differences for
identical triplets or for physical clock slowing.
[9] It is being taught as though it were a
scientific theory when it is not.
It orders observations in such a way that non-obvious
and testable predictions of measurable quantities can
be made. That is a scientific theory. I don't know what
you think a scientific theory has to include that is
not present in this case.
What testable predictions? Name at least one.
I predict that you will not name even one, so, again,
you don't know what you are talking about.
Sure: That the quantity sometimes called the spacetime
interval between two events is invariant, regardless
of reference frame.
This is not a prediction, but is merely the result of
a definition of clock "synchronization," just as is
light's one-way speed per two clocks in SR.
The consequences of a definition are not physics.
That the quantity called the invariant mass of a system
of objects is the same, regardless of interactions internal
to the system and regardless of reference frame.
In SR, mass is measured (masses are compared) by using two
clocks, and this means that *definition* is involved.
I want a real prediction that is not merely the
ramification of some definition given by man.
Thinking that correct time measurement is merely a
worthless and futile personal objective is exactly
what I have come to expect of a relativist.
That depends on what you mean by "correct". If you associate "correct"
with "absolute", then I see the problem you have. By the way, what's
the absolute...er, correct... gravitational potential energy of the
coffee cup sitting on your desk? What's it's absolute...er, correct...
momentum of that same coffee cup?
"Correct" is simple - probably too simple for you too grasp.
It means using undistorted and correctly calibrated measurement
tools.
Can you prove that the clocks of SR have been synchronized in
any frame, and can you prove that the clocks of SR are unslowed
(distorted) in any frame, and can you prove that the rulers of
SR are uncontracted in any frame?
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
01 Jun 2006 06:09:02 PM |
|
|
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
How do [Lorentz's clocks] differ from Einstein's?
They don't. The problem is that people expected clocks
to behave in a way that they cannot. This expectation
about clocks was simply incorrect.
Proof?
Experiment. I listed some earlier.
And if they "behave in a way that they cannot," then
they obviously differ from Einstein's clocks, so you
contradicted yourself at the start.
I didn't say they DID behave in a way that they cannot. I said that
Galilean physics ASSUMED they behave in a way that they cannot.
Galilean physics was wrong. Galilean physics cannot (correctly) insist
that clocks behave the way it says so, simply by fiat.
[snip unfilled-in blanks (lack of courage on PD's part)]
Nah. I answered it. And you snipped it. (Lack of courage on your part.)
In a *single* frame, pairs of clocks can be synchronized
just fine, by both Galilean and Einstein physics.
Then why will a *single* frame of each type disagree with
each other about the simultaneity of two events?
Because the two pairs of clocks in different frames are not
synchronized with each other. Duh. Nor can they be. Duh. So when,
according to synchronized clocks in one frame, two events are measured
to be at the same time, those same two events will not be measured to
be at the same time in the other frame. Duh.
Galilean physics *assumes* (without checking) that pairs
clocks in different frames can *also* be all synchronized
with each other. Galilean physics was wrong about that.
Experiment bears that out.
Where's your proof that Galilean physics fails in the
case of light's one-way speed?
I didn't say that it did, nor do I see the relevance. I said that
Galilean physics was wrong in saying that two pairs of clocks in
different frames can also be synchronized with each other. The proof is
in experiment.
What is SR's explanation for the MMx null result?
Um... that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the observer. You didn't get that part?
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
And what is SR's explanation for the Twin Paradox
when Triplets are used to eliminate acceleration?
The acceleration of one of the twins is an essential
feature of the twin paradox.
Why is it an "essential feature"? It can be made to be
insignificant even when using Twins.
Not so. The length of time of the acceleration can be made small (and
the magnitude of the acceleration large) or the magnitude of the
acceleration can be made small (and the length of time of the
acceleration long), but the fact of the acceleration cannot be made to
go away. It is an essential feature of the twin puzzle, and it is in
fact what breaks the symmetry between the two twins.
Removing the acceleration means that it's no longer the
twin paradox. SR resolves the twin paradox just fine.
Removing the acceleration simply reveals the fact that
SR has no explanation at all for age differences for
identical triplets or for physical clock slowing.
Sure it does. I gave it to you. You just wanted a time-dilation-only
explanation and didn't want to hear a spacetime explanation. The
correct explanation is an SR explanation.
[9] It is being taught as though it were a
scientific theory when it is not.
It orders observations in such a way that non-obvious
and testable predictions of measurable quantities can
be made. That is a scientific theory. I don't know what
you think a scientific theory has to include that is
not present in this case.
What testable predictions? Name at least one.
I predict that you will not name even one, so, again,
you don't know what you are talking about.
Sure: That the quantity sometimes called the spacetime
interval between two events is invariant, regardless
of reference frame.
This is not a prediction, but is merely the result of
a definition of clock "synchronization," just as is
light's one-way speed per two clocks in SR.
No, it's a real prediction. Two events can be *measured* by two
observers, using their own rulers and their own synchronized clocks.
Even though the space and time coordinates as a result of those
*measurements* will be different, the combination of those *measured*
numbers known as the spacetime interval will be the same for both.
That's a prediction about what will be *measured*.
The consequences of a definition are not physics.
That the quantity called the invariant mass of a system
of objects is the same, regardless of interactions internal
to the system and regardless of reference frame.
In SR, mass is measured (masses are compared) by using two
clocks, and this means that *definition* is involved.
No, they're not. In *experiment* (not SR), invariant mass is measured
by measuring the energies and the momenta of the objects of a system.
The energy can be measured in a variety of ways, including calorimetry
and spectrometry, and the momenta can be measured by trajectories in a
magnetic field or other methods. Once you make those *measurements* and
combine those numbers in a way that is called the invariant mass, you
find out that this number stays the same regardless of the internal
interactions of the system and regardless of reference frame.
I want a real prediction that is not merely the
ramification of some definition given by man.
I'm giving it to you. You are apparently aware of the *real
measurements* that are made to verify these predictions. You apparently
think that the veracity of SR is based on argument and logic and
thought experiments. It's not. It's been tested in real experiments,
using real measurements with traditional means of making the
measurement. And those measurements pan out the way that SR says they
will.
Thinking that correct time measurement is merely a
worthless and futile personal objective is exactly
what I have come to expect of a relativist.
That depends on what you mean by "correct". If you associate "correct"
with "absolute", then I see the problem you have. By the way, what's
the absolute...er, correct... gravitational potential energy of the
coffee cup sitting on your desk? What's it's absolute...er, correct...
momentum of that same coffee cup?
"Correct" is simple - probably too simple for you too grasp.
It means using undistorted and correctly calibrated measurement
tools.
And how do you know if it's undistorted and correctly calibrated? If
and only if it gives answer that is frame-independent? So by
definition, if it doesn't do what you want it to do, it's broken?
By the way, you didn't answer the questions about the "correct"
gravitational potential energy or the momentum of your coffee cup.
Can you prove that the clocks of SR have been synchronized in
any frame, and can you prove that the clocks of SR are unslowed
(distorted) in any frame, and can you prove that the rulers of
SR are uncontracted in any frame?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
02 Jun 2006 01:07:01 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
Just one will suffice, the one where light's one-way
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks was measured.
---
PD wrote:
And how do you know if it's undistorted and correctly
calibrated?
SR says that clocks slow and rods shrink. I thought that
you knew what SR says.
Slowed clocks and shrunken rulers are distorted
instruments in anybody's book.
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dirk Van de moortel" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
02 Jun 2006 01:17:52 PM |
|
|
"kk"
aka Brian D. Jones, Cadwgan Gedrych, Martin Miller,
Edward Travis, Ron Aikas, Roy Royce, John Reid,
<mr_kurt_kingston@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1149271620.914307.179630@f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
Just one will suffice, the one where light's one-way
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks was measured.
---
PD wrote:
And how do you know if it's undistorted and correctly
calibrated?
SR says that clocks slow and rods shrink. I thought that
you knew what SR says.
Slowed clocks and shrunken rulers are distorted
instruments in anybody's book.
This is utterly stupid in everyone's book except in yours:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/MathProof2.html
Dirk Vdm
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
02 Jun 2006 01:57:00 PM |
|
|
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:kh%fg.461250$qJ.12241014@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
nothing of importance.
<yawn>
Androcles Vdm.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
02 Jun 2006 01:57:33 PM |
|
|
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
Just one will suffice, the one where light's one-way
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks was measured.
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a measurement of
the isotropy of the speed of light. Would you like references to those
two measurements?
---
PD wrote:
And how do you know if it's undistorted and correctly
calibrated?
SR says that clocks slow and rods shrink. I thought that
you knew what SR says.
It does? Perhaps we should examine a little more closely what that
means. Do you think SR says something physically happens to the rod to
shrink it? Do you think that SR says something physically happens to
the clock to slow it?
Slowed clocks and shrunken rulers are distorted
instruments in anybody's book.
No, I wouldn't say so. There are certain measurements that are
certainly sound measurements and do not involve faulty instruments but
which implicitly involve an observer-dependent procedure. This simply
means that the quantity being measured is not the invariant one, but an
observer-dependent one.
Take momentum, for example. We can measure the momentum of a system of
objects and do so with remarkable precision, and with this we can
confirm that the momentum is conserved in that system regardless of
interactions internal to the system. However, the *value* of the
momentum of the system clearly depends on the reference frame; if I
measure it from a reference point tied to one of the objects in the
system, then I will get a different system momentum than if I measure
it from a reference point tied to another one of the objects in the
system. Does this mean that my momentum measurement is faulty? Not at
all. It just means that there is an inherent observer-dependence to
that measurement.
Now, what you seem to be doing is saying, "Yes, well, some properties
of things are clearly observer-dependent and that's fine. But other
things should not be observer-dependent," and you are deciding *without
consulting nature* which of those properties are observer-dependent and
which are not, according to your *whim*. That's not what scientists do.
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kenseto" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
03 Jun 2006 04:57:47 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149274653.900625.60790@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
Just one will suffice, the one where light's one-way
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks was measured.
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a measurement of
the isotropy of the speed of light. Would you like references to those
two measurements?
But no direct TWLS measurement was ever performed. BTW if TWLS is measured
using the circular definition for a meter to measure length doesn't count as
a direct TWLS measurement.....Why? Because the result using this circular
procedure is TWLS=1 light second/second.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 01:31:10 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149274653.900625.60790@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
Just one will suffice, the one where light's one-way
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks was measured.
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a measurement of
the isotropy of the speed of light. Would you like references to those
two measurements?
But no direct TWLS measurement was ever performed.
Sure there was. Several in fact. One of them was done in 1926 by
Michelson et al.
BTW if TWLS is measured
using the circular definition for a meter to measure length doesn't count as
a direct TWLS measurement.....
Of course not. But I'm referring to measurements prior to 1980.
Why? Because the result using this circular
procedure is TWLS=1 light second/second.
Ken Seto
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "dda1" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
03 Jun 2006 05:46:38 PM |
|
|
kenseto wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149274653.900625.60790@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
Prove that light's one-way speed is observer-motion
independent. You're full of baseless claims.
Um... experiment. Would you like a list of references?
Just one will suffice, the one where light's one-way
speed per two relatively-at-rest clocks was measured.
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a measurement of
the isotropy of the speed of light. Would you like references to those
two measurements?
But no direct TWLS measurement was ever performed. BTW if TWLS is measured
using the circular definition for a meter to measure length doesn't count as
a direct TWLS measurement.....Why? Because the result using this circular
procedure is TWLS=1 light second/second.
Ken Seto
Welcome, "Cretin" -Ken, Seto. No go away.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 01:18:44 PM |
|
|
PD preposterously claimed:
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a
measurement of the isotropy of the speed of light. Would
you like references to those two measurements?
To see how silly that claim is, take the following test:
Given unstarted clocks at two points of an inertial frame,
tell how you would use them to measure light's one-way speed.
---
Do you think SR says something physically happens to the
rod to shrink it? Do you think that SR says something
physically happens to the clock to slow it?
You can't win here, either. By accepting round-trip invariance
and isotropy as given experimental results, SR also accepted
whatever physically caused these results, which, as anyone
can see by showing the MMx and the KTx on paper, involves
intrinsic rod contractions and intrinsic clock slowing. And we
can also see that SR contains physical rod shrinkage by the
fact that SR denies absolute simultaneity, which could be
obtained by using a rod that does not contract by simply sliding
such a rod past two clocks to let its endpoints start the clocks
(truly) simultaneously after the rod had been cut to fit between
the clocks when at rest wrt them. Also, since SR accepts the
results of the Triplet "Paradox" experiment, SR must contain age
differences for identically-born people, and this is, of course,
equivalent to intrinsic or physical clock slowing due to clock
motion through space.
---
Slowed clocks and shrunken rulers are distorted
instruments in anybody's book.
No, I wouldn't say so. There are certain measurements that are
certainly sound measurements and do not involve faulty instruments
but which implicitly involve an observer-dependent procedure. This
simply means that the quantity being measured is not the invariant
one, but an observer-dependent one.
And you cannot win here, so why do you persist? Nothing better to
do, I guess.
OK, even if we say that physically slowed clocks and physically
shrunken rulers are perfectly good instruments, you must then
immediately admit that they physically differ from physically
unslowed clocks and physically unshrunken rulers. Now tell us
what would happen if the latter were used to measure light's
round-trip speed. And then tell us what would happen if they
were used to measure light's one-way speed with two such clocks
having been absolutely synchronized.
If SR were completely wrong, then we could have unslowed (i.e.,
corrected for slowing) and correctly synchronized clocks along
with unshrunken rulers (i.e., corrected for shrinkage), and we
could have results that run totally counter to SR's, even in the
round-trip case (MMx).
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 01:29:14 PM |
|
|
kk wrote:
PD preposterously claimed:
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a
measurement of the isotropy of the speed of light. Would
you like references to those two measurements?
To see how silly that claim is, take the following test:
Given unstarted clocks at two points of an inertial frame,
tell how you would use them to measure light's one-way speed.
I don't know why they have to be unstarted. Let them be started
already. Now I have to synchronize them. So I walk from one clock to
the other, taking note of the time on clock A and the time on clock B
and taking the difference dT. Then I walk back from B to A and check
that the time on A is 2*dT later than when I started. If this is not
the case, then the two clocks are synchronized. All I have to do is be
sure that I walk at the same speed in both directions.
---
Do you think SR says something physically happens to the
rod to shrink it? Do you think that SR says something
physically happens to the clock to slow it?
You can't win here, either. By accepting round-trip invariance
and isotropy as given experimental results, SR also accepted
whatever physically caused these results, which, as anyone
can see by showing the MMx and the KTx on paper, involves
intrinsic rod contractions and intrinsic clock slowing.
Not so. SR makes no inference of intrinsic slowing or intrinsic
contractions whatsoever. In fact, SR explicitly claims that two
observers observing the *same* rod at the *same* time will find two
different results of their length measurement, meaning that the rod
cannot have intrinsically shortened. To which of those different
lengths would the rod shrink?
And we
can also see that SR contains physical rod shrinkage by the
fact that SR denies absolute simultaneity, which could be
obtained by using a rod that does not contract by simply sliding
such a rod past two clocks to let its endpoints start the clocks
(truly) simultaneously after the rod had been cut to fit between
the clocks when at rest wrt them.
Also, since SR accepts the
results of the Triplet "Paradox" experiment, SR must contain age
differences for identically-born people, and this is, of course,
equivalent to intrinsic or physical clock slowing due to clock
motion through space.
---
Slowed clocks and shrunken rulers are distorted
instruments in anybody's book.
No, I wouldn't say so. There are certain measurements that are
certainly sound measurements and do not involve faulty instruments
but which implicitly involve an observer-dependent procedure. This
simply means that the quantity being measured is not the invariant
one, but an observer-dependent one.
And you cannot win here, so why do you persist? Nothing better to
do, I guess.
OK, even if we say that physically slowed clocks and physically
shrunken rulers are perfectly good instruments, you must then
immediately admit that they physically differ from physically
unslowed clocks and physically unshrunken rulers.
There are no physically slowed clocks and physically shrunken rulers.
Why do you keep invoking them?
Now tell us
what would happen if the latter were used to measure light's
round-trip speed. And then tell us what would happen if they
were used to measure light's one-way speed with two such clocks
having been absolutely synchronized.
If SR were completely wrong, then we could have unslowed (i.e.,
corrected for slowing) and correctly synchronized clocks along
with unshrunken rulers (i.e., corrected for shrinkage), and we
could have results that run totally counter to SR's, even in the
round-trip case (MMx).
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 03:42:22 PM |
|
|
PD wrote:
All I have to do is be sure that I walk at the same speed
in both directions.
More hand-waving silliness. How can you make sure that you
are walking at the same speed in both directions if you
don't have synchronized clocks?
Test failed.
Now you can take back your silly claim from before:
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a
measurement of the isotropy of the speed of light.
Light's one-way, two-clock speed is different from light's
round-trip, one-clock speed, and this is seen by the simple
fact that no one has ever performed the one-way, two-clock
experiment (using same-frame clocks).
---
Not so. SR makes no inference of intrinsic slowing or intrinsic
contractions whatsoever. In fact, SR explicitly claims that two
observers observing the *same* rod at the *same* time will find two
different results of their length measurement, meaning that the rod
cannot have intrinsically shortened. To which of those different
lengths would the rod shrink?
This has nothing to do with SR's intrinsic distortions, but has
to do with its observer-dependent distortions caused by SR's lack
of absolute simultaneity. And, as I said, and as you ignored, SR
must contain intrinsic rod shrinkage or it could have absolute
simultaneity. And, as I also said, and as you also ignored, SR
must contain intrinsic clock slowing because it fully accepted
that which caused round-trip, one-clock invariance/isotropy.
---
There are no physically slowed clocks and physically shrunken
rulers. Why do you keep invoking them?
Show the round-trip light speed null results (isotropy and invariance)
on paper without using either physically slowed clocks or physically
contracted rulers.
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 04:00:06 PM |
|
|
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
All I have to do is be sure that I walk at the same speed
in both directions.
More hand-waving silliness. How can you make sure that you
are walking at the same speed in both directions if you
don't have synchronized clocks?
Um... I walk relative to the ground at the same rate. I do this by
carrying a clock with me and a ruler with me, and I make sure my paces
occur regularly and have the same length. Note that I do not need this
clock to check against clocks A or B. I only need it to be sure my
velocity stays the same.
Test failed.
Now you can take back your silly claim from before:
A OWLS measurement using two clocks is experimentally and
mathematically equivalent to a TWLS measurement plus a
measurement of the isotropy of the speed of light.
Light's one-way, two-clock speed is different from light's
round-trip, one-clock speed, and this is seen by the simple
fact that no one has ever performed the one-way, two-clock
experiment (using same-frame clocks).
Nonsense. This is Seto's argument: They are different because you
haven't made a direct measurement that says they are the same.
And, as I said, it is easy to show that a TWLS (one-clock, round-trip)
experiment, plus a OWLS isotropy experiment, is mathematically and
experimentally equivalent to a OWLS (two-clock, one way) measurement.
You seem to not understand this.
---
Not so. SR makes no inference of intrinsic slowing or intrinsic
contractions whatsoever. In fact, SR explicitly claims that two
observers observing the *same* rod at the *same* time will find two
different results of their length measurement, meaning that the rod
cannot have intrinsically shortened. To which of those different
lengths would the rod shrink?
This has nothing to do with SR's intrinsic distortions, but has
to do with its observer-dependent distortions caused by SR's lack
of absolute simultaneity. And, as I said, and as you ignored, SR
must contain intrinsic rod shrinkage or it could have absolute
simultaneity.
But absolute simultaneity is not consistent with the laws of physics
and no set of clocks that preserve simultaneity in all reference frames
has ever been successfully created. You are free to patent such a set.
And, as I also said, and as you also ignored, SR
must contain intrinsic clock slowing because it fully accepted
that which caused round-trip, one-clock invariance/isotropy.
No. Intrinsic clock slowing is not what causes round-trip, one-clock
invariance/isotropy. I don't know where you got that impression.
---
There are no physically slowed clocks and physically shrunken
rulers. Why do you keep invoking them?
Show the round-trip light speed null results (isotropy and invariance)
on paper without using either physically slowed clocks or physically
contracted rulers.
This has been done for you before. Would you like a textbook reference?
Have you read Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 05:10:33 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149541206.078517.97500@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| This has been done for you before. Would you like a textbook reference?
| Have you read Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler?
|
| PD
I prefer the horse's mouth, not the tail wagging it.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Have you read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J. K. Rowling?
It's a fairy story for kids, you might like it if you enjoyed Spacetime
Physics.
Maybe Humpty Roberts recommended Spacetime Physics to you, he's still
working through Alice in Wonderland.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Sorcerer" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 05:09:33 PM |
|
|
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149541206.078517.97500@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| This has been done for you before. Would you like a textbook reference?
| Have you read Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler?
|
| PD
I prefer the horse, not the tail wagging it.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Have you read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J. K. Rowling?
It's a fairy story for kids, you might like it if you enjoyed Spacetime
Physics.
Androcles.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T PuddleDuck" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
05 Jun 2006 05:10:39 PM |
|
|
In article <xY1hg.328289$xt.102034@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"The Sorcerer" <Headmaster@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
"PD" <TheDraperFamily@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149541206.078517.97500@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
| This has been done for you before. Would you like a textbook reference?
| Have you read Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler?
|
| PD
I prefer the horse, not the tail wagging it.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Have you read Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J. K. Rowling?
It's a fairy story for kids, you might like it if you enjoyed Spacetime
Physics.
Androcles.
Need help understanding either?
--
The greatest enemy of science is psuedoscience.
"Time is pseudo-directional because randomness is always pseudo-random..."
Jeff revolutionises physics in sci.physics.
"Now there's two stuck naysay lose cannons and a third sick puppy on the way."
Brad tries to reason with the voices in his head...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
06 Jun 2006 07:48:29 AM |
|
|
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
More hand-waving silliness. How can you make sure that you
are walking at the same speed in both directions if you
don't have synchronized clocks?
Um... I walk relative to the ground at the same rate. I do
this by carrying a clock with me and a ruler with me, and
I make sure my paces occur regularly and have the same length.
This would be fine if only you had proof that your clock ran
at the same intrinsic rate in both directions, and that your
ruler had the same intrinsic length in both directions.
If it were this easy to truly synchronize clocks, then it would
have been done long ago, and we would never had had SR.
---
Show the round-trip light speed null results (isotropy and
invariance) on paper without using either physically slowed
clocks or physically contracted rulers.
This has been done for you before.
Where?
Would you like a textbook reference?
Have you read Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler?
I own two copies for quick reference. Neither copy shows
the Michelson-Morley experiment in full, and neither does
any other book ever printed.
Forget about mentioning references, just do it yourself.
It can't be all that difficult for a bright boy like you.
--kk--
.
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
06 Jun 2006 12:43:24 PM |
|
|
kk wrote:
PD wrote:
kk wrote:
More hand-waving silliness. How can you make sure that you
are walking at the same speed in both directions if you
don't have synchronized clocks?
Um... I walk relative to the ground at the same rate. I do
this by carrying a clock with me and a ruler with me, and
I make sure my paces occur regularly and have the same length.
This would be fine if only you had proof that your clock ran
at the same intrinsic rate in both directions, and that your
ruler had the same intrinsic length in both directions.
You're right. It's a fundamental assumption in physics that the length
going from A to B is the same as the length from B to A. It is also a
fundamental assumption that clocks do not change rate going from A to B
as opposed to going from B to A.
If it were this easy to truly synchronize clocks, then it would
have been done long ago, and we would never had had SR.
That's exactly how we synchronize clocks in any given reference frame.
I don't know why you think it's more complicated. I could also bang on
a pipe between clocks A and B, or I could send an electrical signal in
a wire, or I could use a radio signal. Any of these would work. It's
not complicated. Clock synchronization is not something nobody knew how
to do before SR. I don't know where you got the idea it was.
---
Show the round-trip light speed null results (isotropy and
invariance) on paper without using either physically slowed
clocks or physically contracted rulers.
This has been done for you before.
Where?
Would you like a textbook reference?
Have you read Spacetime Physics, by Taylor and Wheeler?
I own two copies for quick reference. Neither copy shows
the Michelson-Morley experiment in full, and neither does
any other book ever printed.
That's because that's not what you asked for. If you want the
Michelson-Morley experiment in full, get the original paper.
Forget about mentioning references, just do it yourself.
It can't be all that difficult for a bright boy like you.
Why would I spend all that time just for you in such an ungainly forum,
when there are many books out available for your reading? You're asking
me to do something for one person for free what others do for a wide
audience, and with editorial and reviewing support, and for royalty
compensation. Now, if there is something *specific* in a reading that
you don't understand, maybe you could ask a question about that?
PD
.
|
|
|
| User: "kk" |
|
| Title: Re: What if special relativity theory was completely wrong? |
07 Jun 2006 08:46:53 AM |
|
|
PD claimed:
It is also a fundamental assumption that clocks do not
change rate going from A to B as opposed to going from
B to A.
Not according to relativist Wayne Throop
http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm
Throop is mentioned here (Usenet Relativity FAQ):
http://physfac.bspu.secna.ru/usenet/sci.physics.relativity/
As Throop's site shows, clocks moving at different speeds
through space have different tick rates. (Of course, he
used people aging differently, but that's the same thing.)
And since I know that you will find your desired loophole
(cowardly wiggle room) here, I hasten to add the fact that
you cannot know that the clocks have equal speeds through
space because no one today can know that given that SR
does not pertain to such speeds, and yet SR is all we
have for now.
----
If it were this easy to truly synchronize clocks, then it
would have been done long ago, and we would never had had
SR.
That's exactly how we synchronize clocks in any given
reference frame.
Galileo's clocks (even according to Einstein) get c - v
for light's one-way speed, whereas Einstein's clocks get
c. Both Galileo's and Einstein's clocks are "synchronized"
in some way, but their results differ greatly. One has
one-way variance, the other invariance.
Which sort of "synchronization" are you talking about?
Galileo's or Einstein's?
Show how they differ:
clock 1 clock 2
[?]======Galilean frame======[?]
[?]====Einsteinian frame=====[?]
clock 1 clock 2
I dare you to fill in the blanks.
----
That's because that's not what you asked for. If you want
the Michelson-Morley experiment in full, get the original
paper.
You are very good at avoiding the issue. I rate you 5 stars.
--kk--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
