OWLS & Out of Sync Clocks-By How Much Are They Out of Sync.
Daniel Weston
told that OWLS cannot be done because there is no way to perfectly sync
the 2 clocks necessary to perform the experiment. If it is attempted
over a 2 mile course, what are the error bars of the sync attempt?
More specifically, if the experiment is actually done, what are the
error bars that should be imposed on the results because of the
out-of-syncness of the clocks?
Tom Roberts
> In almost all of the discussions wherein the OWLS is considered, we are
> told that OWLS cannot be done because there is no way to perfectly sync
> the 2 clocks necessary to perform the experiment.
Not quite. Actually, you can choose whatever synchronization method you
happen to like, and thus can obtain any answer you want for OWLS. That
mkes the value of OWLS useless, of course.
But one can measure OWLS given a specified synchronization procedure
(slow clock transport is popular, as is Einstein synchronization; some
cranks around here want to Esynch in the CMBR dipole=0 frame, ...).
> If it is attempted
> over a 2 mile course, what are the error bars of the sync attempt?
Basically, your question cannot be answered until you specify the
synchronization procedure to be used. For instance, if that 2-mile
course spans a timezone boundary, and one chooses to synchronize clocks
to UTC according to their timezone, you can obtain absurd results.
Yes, that synchronization procedure is absurd for such a
measurement. Nevertheless millions of people do indeed
synchronize their clocks that way.
My point is: there is no natural constraint on synchronization
procedures -- you can set the 0-point of your clocks however you choose
to do so. Note, however, that for any current theory of physics the
predictions for _measurable_ quantities do not depend on one's choice of
synchronization (of course the analysis must include the methoed
actually used).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Daniel Weston
using the best methods presently available, that the out-of-syncness
does not produce a "measurable quantity". I have always thought that
that was the answer.
So why does the idea of making a OWLS test generate so much outrage by
many relativists? No testing procedure is perfect nor free of error
bars. Why does the idea of OWLS generate so much heat.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:21627-435...@storefull-3137.bay.webtv.net...
> Tom: If I understand you correctly, I think that you are
> saying that using the best methods presently available,
> that the out-of-syncness does not produce a
> "measurable quantity". I have always thought that
> that was the answer.
Not really what he said. What he said was the sync procedure
will yield whatever results you set it up to yield. Nothing to
do with inherent "error bars".
If you use one of the standard methods, one for which error bars
can be established, you get TWLS, not OWLS.
> So why does the idea of making a OWLS test generate
> so much outrage by many relativists?
Outrage? It is only that (to use your classification scheme)
"non-relativists" that suggest it don't realize that OWLS
determination isn't possible. A distance is already TWLS
established (and based on c), so any measurement derived from
distance is automatically TWLS (and returns c).
> No testing procedure is perfect nor free of error
> bars. Why does the idea of OWLS generate so much heat.
Because it would allow detection of an aether. The Universe is
designed to keep us from being able to destroy each other's
platforms... so we spend a great deal of time and effort hurling
insults. Or simply getting on with the business of science.
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> Tom: If I understand you correctly, I think that you are saying that
> using the best methods presently available, that the out-of-syncness
> does not produce a "measurable quantity".
I have no idea what you mean.
I am merely saying that since there is no constraint on how or when you
push the reset buttons on your clocks, there is no constraint on the
value of OWLS you might measure with those clocks.
IOW: one can devise many methods to push the two reset buttons, and the
different methods yield different values of OWLS.
> So why does the idea of making a OWLS test generate so much outrage by
> many relativists? No testing procedure is perfect nor free of error
> bars. Why does the idea of OWLS generate so much heat.
It's confusion, not heat. And it's not the people who understand SR who
are confused.
Since OWLS measurmeents can yield any value, the people who keep
insisting that they be made have deluded themselves.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:IKC5f.626$Kv....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
Very right. If there is any heat, it's due to the flagrant misunderstanding
that many "OWLS" measurement proposals portray.
Harald
Androcles
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:43575b9d$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
|
| "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
| news:IKC5f.626$Kv....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
| > Since OWLS measurmeents can yield any value, the people who keep
| > insisting that they be made have deluded themselves.
|
| Very right. If there is any heat, it's due to the flagrant
misunderstanding
| that many "OWLS" measurement proposals portray.
|
| Harald
[snip crap]
If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles posted the
orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
done. They literally drool foaming spit.
They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
are.
The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
LITLE PEOPLE LIKE ROBERTS AND HARALD HATE THAT and will
throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
Standard of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result.
The net result is the trivially reproducible falsification of Special
Relativity in existing mathematics all over the world.
Professionals call this "science." We don't care what god-fearing
witch burners and wog haters call it.
Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
rogue researcher.
It's happening. Let the universe decide.
Androcles.
Harry
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
news:XeK5f.152707$RW.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:43575b9d$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> |
> | "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> | news:IKC5f.626$Kv....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> [snip crap]
> | > Since OWLS measurmeents can yield any value, the people who keep
> | > insisting that they be made have deluded themselves.
> |
> | Very right. If there is any heat, it's due to the flagrant
> misunderstanding
> | that many "OWLS" measurement proposals portray.
> |
> | Harald
> [snip crap]
There was nothing to snip - is your newsreader adding crap?
> If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles
Hmm, now you are also starting to refer to yourself in third person?
> posted the
> orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical and
> vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
> scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
> done. They literally drool foaming spit.
That bug exists in your imagination only. But obviously you're beyond help
by now.
At least, nobody can accuse of not having tried!
> They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and attempt
> assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place. What
> do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
> are.
>
> The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
> has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation, public
> disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
> LITLE PEOPLE LIKE ROBERTS AND HARALD HATE THAT and will
> throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
In fact I don't care except for the waste of time, and I'm sorry for you as
you misinterpret your lack of understanding as resulting from lying on our
part.
BTW, LITTLE is spelled with two T's.
> They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
> final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
> Standard of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result.
> The net result is the trivially reproducible falsification of Special
> Relativity in existing mathematics all over the world.
I sympathise with such efforts, as every disproof of theory provides a
refreshing impulse to new physics research, and a return to the scepticism
that *should* be in place but that many nowadays have forsaken. Alas, this
one won't be it.
> Professionals call this "science." We don't care what god-fearing
> witch burners and wog haters call it.
>
> Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an unsuccessful
> rogue researcher.
> It's happening. Let the universe decide.
> Androcles.
Fine to me. Just don't bet your life on it...
Harald
kenseto
> Daniel Weston wrote:
> > In almost all of the discussions wherein the OWLS is considered, we are
> > told that OWLS cannot be done because there is no way to perfectly sync
> > the 2 clocks necessary to perform the experiment.
>
> Not quite. Actually, you can choose whatever synchronization method you
> happen to like, and thus can obtain any answer you want for OWLS. That
> mkes the value of OWLS useless, of course.
This is nonsense. Two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
opposite directions at the same speed and come to rest again....these two
clocks will remain synchronized (according to SR) and these two clocks can
be use to measure OWLS directly.
Your assertion that the direct measurement of OWLS is useless is a bunch of
baloney. A direct measurement of OWLS will reveal the existence of absolute
motion in the vertical direction. The experiments in the following link are
capable of measuring OWLS directly.
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Androcles
|
| "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
| news:XeK5f.152707$RW.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| >
| > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
| > news:43575b9d$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
| > |
| > | "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
| > | news:IKC5f.626$Kv....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
| > [snip crap]
| > | > Since OWLS measurmeents can yield any value, the people who keep
| > | > insisting that they be made have deluded themselves.
| > |
| > | Very right. If there is any heat, it's due to the flagrant
| > misunderstanding
| > | that many "OWLS" measurement proposals portray.
| > |
| > | Harald
| > [snip crap]
|
| There was nothing to snip - is your newsreader adding crap?
|
| > If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles
|
| Hmm, now you are also starting to refer to yourself in third person?
Imitating Uncle Al, your hero.
|
| > posted the
| > orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical
and
| > vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
| > scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
| > done. They literally drool foaming spit.
|
| That bug exists in your imagination only. But obviously you're beyond
help
| by now.
| At least, nobody can accuse of not having tried!
You don't even know what I'm referring to.
|
| > They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and
attempt
| > assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place.
What
| > do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
| > are.
| >
| > The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
| > has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation,
public
| > disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
| > LITLE PEOPLE LIKE ROBERTS AND HARALD HATE THAT and will
| > throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
|
| In fact I don't care except for the waste of time, and I'm sorry for
you as
| you misinterpret your lack of understanding as resulting from lying on
our
| part.
| BTW, LITTLE is spelled with two T's.
I know, see Uncle Al, your hero.
|
| > They cannot prevent the inevitable. The disclosure proceeds and the
| > final knowledge will be had. A null result is the historic Gold
| > Standard of performance, but the truth is a Platinum result.
| > The net result is the trivially reproducible falsification of
Special
| > Relativity in existing mathematics all over the world.
|
| I sympathise with such efforts, as every disproof of theory provides a
| refreshing impulse to new physics research, and a return to the
scepticism
| that *should* be in place but that many nowadays have forsaken. Alas,
this
| one won't be it.
In your case, of course not.
|
| > Professionals call this "science." We don't care what god-fearing
| > witch burners and wog haters call it.
| >
| > Credit for a successful disclosure cannot be stolen by an
unsuccessful
| > rogue researcher.
| > It's happening. Let the universe decide.
| > Androcles.
|
| Fine to me. Just don't bet your life on it...
Fine by me too. Tell that to your hero as well.
Androcles.
Daniel Weston
confess that the answers I found to be non-responsive.
I asked for a quantification of the ambiguity associated with the
attempt to determine the SOL with OWLS measurements. I did not receive
any quantified answers. My purpose in asking the question was to get a
handle on the inherent problems. E.g. are we talking about an error of
1/100 of a percent, or 50%.
I was told that the results of an OWLS experiment could be anything
depending on how I synced the clocks. [I was also told that the results
of an OWLS measurement would be no different than that from a TWLS
measurement, an obvious contradiction] Let us assume that learned and
serious scientists with generous funding performed the OWLS experiment
using the generally accepted optimal sync procedures. HOW MUCH ERROR
ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
I hope that no one in the same post tells me that the results would be
the same as a TWLS measurement, i.e. no error, and also tell me that the
OWLS measurement is wildly unacceptable.
Note: I am in no sense a professional scientist, but based on my
limited knowledge, I would start on the equator and slow transport the
clocks North and South ten miles, (or whatever distance)
Please use any sync procedure you think the most accurate, and then
estimate the error we are talking about that makes the OWLS measurement
so unacceptable.
Tom Roberts
> I was told that the results of an OWLS experiment could be anything
> ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?
Analogy: You have $1,000, and can put a random fraction of it into bank
accounts A and B (and keep any remainder in your pocket). I want to know
the difference in the A balance and the B balance, and how accurately we
know that difference -- how much error are we talking about?
Your question cannot be answered until you specify how to synchronize
the clocks. In the analogy that corresponds to specifying how you decide
what fractions go into A and B.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
kenseto
OK we synchronize the clocks this way:
Two touching and synchronized clocks are moved in the opposite directions at
the same speed and come to rest again....these two clocks will remain
synchronized (according to SR). Now what is the value of OWLS using such two
clocks and what is the errorbar for such measurement? Remember: previously
you asserted that such measurement for OWLS is c.
Ken Seto
Daniel Weston
as my own also. If you don't like the way we have synced the clocks and
think it can be done a better way, please do so and then tell us by how
much error we are talking about.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> In almost all of the discussions wherein the OWLS is considered, we are
> told that OWLS cannot be done because there is no way to perfectly sync
> the 2 clocks necessary to perform the experiment. If it is attempted
> over a 2 mile course, what are the error bars of the sync attempt?
It's not a matter of error bars. There's no ideal value to approximate in
the first place. You're free to specify a procedure involving two clocks,
and you're free to call it by the name "synchronization" if you like, and I
can tell you what relativity predicts for the result of a particular
experiment which involves this procedure. But the universe doesn't care
about your synchronization. There's no correct way of doing it, just like
there's no correct shirt color. My shirt doesn't approximate an ideal shirt;
it's just a shirt.
-- Ben
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> OK we synchronize the clocks this way:
> Two touching and synchronized clocks are moved in the opposite directions at
> the same speed and come to rest again....these two clocks will remain
> synchronized (according to SR). Now what is the value of OWLS using such two
> clocks and what is the errorbar for such measurement?
Making the obvious assumptions, special relativity predicts that the result
of this experiment will be c, with no error bar (you can measure it as
accurately as you like).
-- Ben
Daniel Weston
we will get as you point out the expected relativity prediction of the
value c, what is all the fuss about? Why don't we just do the
experiment? What is generating such animosity? I am really perplexed.
BTW, what experiments have been performed to show that attempts to sync
clocks fail, and by HOW MUCH? I am beginning to feel that OWLS is like
the Ark of the Covenant, to holy to be touched.
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Daniel Weston" <dani...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:22800-435...@storefull-3135.bay.webtv.net...
> Ben: If we make "the obvious assumptions" [in re OWLS
> measurement] and we will get as you point out the expected
> relativity prediction of the value c, what is all the fuss
> about?
> Why don't we just do the experiment? What is generating
> such animosity? I am really perplexed.
I just arrived at an OWLS value of 4 m/sec, based on how I
synchronized my clocks. I repeated it again, with a different
procedure, and got so close to infinity that I scared myself.
Just to be sure, I ran it again, with a different synchronization
procedure, and found that OWLS was negative, that it was detected
by the clock near the source long after it was detected by the
remoted clock.
What is perplexing is that anyone feels such "annoying"
synchronization procedures are "in error", or really might have
any meaning whatsoever.
David A. Smith
Tom Roberts
> OK we synchronize the clocks this way:
> Two touching and synchronized clocks are moved in the opposite directions at
> the same speed and come to rest again....these two clocks will remain
> synchronized (according to SR).
Ok. That's a reasonable method of synchronization as long as the speed
of movement is very small compared to c. Let me assume that is true, and
also the previous value of a 2 mile light path; be sure it is level.
SR unambiguously predicts a value of 299,792,458 meter/sec, with an
errorbar less than a meter/second. There _is_ a theoretical uncertainty
here because this is performed on the rotating earth, and the
orientation of the light path will affect the prediction. I have not
computed that uncertainty, but am pretty sure it is less than a few
parts per billion here.
The measurement will also have an errorbar, because real clocks are not
perfect (as assumed in the SR analysis). Let me assume that atomic
clocks are used, with an intrinsic accuracy of 2 parts in 10^14 for a
duration of 1 hour. I'll assume it takes 10,000 seconds to disconnect
the clocks, move them, connect them up, check them out, and make the
measurement, and that the 1-hour accuracy holds for the 10,000 seconds.
So the errorbar on the time difference measured by those two clocks is:
sqrt(2) * 10,000 * 2 / 10^14 = 0.03 ns
(the sqrt(2) comes from the fact that this is a difference of the
readings of 2 clocks)
NOTE: this is probably optimistic. This really requires an
expert on the actual atomic clocks used. Experts always seem
to find additional error sources that non-experts miss; that's
why they are experts and I am not.
2 miles is just over 3 kilometers, so the time difference is predicted
to be about 10 microseconds. So the errorbar on the measurement is about
3 parts per million, or about 10 kilometers per second.
Given thet modern interferometer techniques can measure anisotropy about
a million times better than that, it ought to be clear that this is not
tremendously useful. It can only marginally distinguish a deviation from
c by the orbital velocity of the earth (that would be about a 3 sigma
effect), and is hopeless for earth's rotational speed. Note also that if
you wait 12 hours for the earth to rotate 180 degrees, the errorbar will
increase considerably due to clock drift; you must re-synchronize the
clocks for each measurement.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Harry
"Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
>
> "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:4357a0a2$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> |
> | "Androcles" <Androcles@ MyPlace.org> wrote in message
> | news:XeK5f.152707$RW.4...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> | >
> | > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> | > news:43575b9d$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> | > |
> | > | "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:IKC5f.626$Kv....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> | > [snip crap]
> | > | > Since OWLS measurmeents can yield any value, the people who keep
> | > | > insisting that they be made have deluded themselves.
> | > |
> | > | Very right. If there is any heat, it's due to the flagrant
> | > misunderstanding
> | > | that many "OWLS" measurement proposals portray.
> | > |
> | > | Harald
> | > [snip crap]
> |
> | There was nothing to snip - is your newsreader adding crap?
> |
> | > If you follow threads from March 1999 when Androcles
> |
> | Hmm, now you are also starting to refer to yourself in third person?
>
> Imitating Uncle Al, your hero.
See my comments to him and you'll notice that he is far from being "my hero"
;-)
> | > posted the
> | > orginal bug in relativity you will see an increasingly hysterical
> and
> | > vicious collusion of bitter little people who deny the process of
> | > scientific inquiry and are utterly rabid about the disclosure being
> | > done. They literally drool foaming spit.
> |
> | That bug exists in your imagination only. But obviously you're beyond
> | help by now.
> | At least, nobody can accuse of not having tried!
>
> You don't even know what I'm referring to.
So you think that you were that ambiguous! If you were not referring to your
c-1 miscomprehension, then to what?
> | > They don't care about the results. They scream, threaten, and
> attempt
> | > assassination to prevent the disclosure from ever taking place.
> What
> | > do they fear? They fear their own exposure as the small people they
> | > are.
> | >
> | > The critic trolls and idiot vituperators have lost. Androcles
> | > has all his ducks in a row - raw theory, support, calculation,
> public
> | > disclosure, and no army. Not even the final result remains.
> | > LITLE PEOPLE LIKE ROBERTS AND HARALD HATE THAT and will
> | > throw any tantrum and invent any lie to prevent the inevitable.
> |
> | In fact I don't care except for the waste of time, and I'm sorry for
> you as
> | you misinterpret your lack of understanding as resulting from lying on
> | our part.
> | BTW, LITTLE is spelled with two T's.
>
> I know, see Uncle Al, your hero.
Funny.
Cheers,
Harald
Androcles
Wanker.
Cheers,
Androcles
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> > OK we synchronize the clocks this way:
> > Two touching and synchronized clocks are moved in the opposite
directions at
> > the same speed and come to rest again....these two clocks will remain
> > synchronized (according to SR).
>
> Ok. That's a reasonable method of synchronization as long as the speed
> of movement is very small compared to c. Let me assume that is true, and
> also the previous value of a 2 mile light path; be sure it is level.
Agree....we can even shorten the light path if you like.
>
> SR unambiguously predicts a value of 299,792,458 meter/sec, with an
> errorbar less than a meter/second. There _is_ a theoretical uncertainty
> here because this is performed on the rotating earth, and the
> orientation of the light path will affect the prediction. I have not
> computed that uncertainty, but am pretty sure it is less than a few
> parts per billion here.
So OWLS measure this way is c. So what is the problem? Why don't we just do
it? Why do we have to assume that OWLS=TWLS=c when we can measure OWLS=c
directly??
BTW such proposed experiments to measure OWLS are decribed in the following
link:
http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf
Ken Seto
Ben Rudiak-Gould
> Ben: If we make "the obvious assumptions" [in re OWLS measurement] and
> we will get as you point out the expected relativity prediction of the
> value c, what is all the fuss about? Why don't we just do the
> experiment?
The human race only has finite resources and there are infinitely many
experiments, so triage is necessary. By far the best way to argue that an
experiment is worth doing is to exhibit two different theories whose
predictions match on all experiments done to date, but disagree on the
outcome of the new experiment. I don't think there are any such theories in
this case. Not just SR but any other theory consistent with existing data
(e.g. LET) will predict the same result for this experiment. It's hemmed in
on all sides by existing data.
> BTW, what experiments have been performed to show that attempts to sync
> clocks fail, and by HOW MUCH?
I think you still don't understand. There's no standard against to measure
failure or success. It's impossible to fail or to succeed.
-- Ben
kenseto
"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:djaspv$soo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> Daniel Weston wrote:
> > Ben: If we make "the obvious assumptions" [in re OWLS measurement] and
> > we will get as you point out the expected relativity prediction of the
> > value c, what is all the fuss about? Why don't we just do the
> > experiment?
>
> The human race only has finite resources and there are infinitely many
> experiments, so triage is necessary.
This is a cop-out. Measuring OWLS directly is the only way to confirm the
validity of the SR postulates and you think that it is not necessary?
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> So OWLS measure this way is c. So what is the problem? Why don't we just do
> it?
Read the rest of my post -- this measurement is on the order of a
million times less accurate than anisotropy measurements that have
already been performed, which makes it not very interesting.
> Measuring OWLS directly is the only way to confirm the
> validity of the SR postulates
Not true. SR is a physical theory that makes predictions about the
outcomes of zillions of different experiments. Many such experiments
have tested SR in many different ways. The agreement between experiment
and SR predictions is as good a verification of the postulates as could
be done.
As is pointed out in the "1+1=2" thread, the axioms of a theory are
(trivially) theorems. The only way to test a physical theory is to apply
one of its theorems to the physical situation of a measurement, and
compare the result of the measurement with the value computed by the
theorem. The particular theorems corresponding to axioms are not special
in this. Indeed, one can choose many different sets of axioms and derive
the same theory (which is at base the set of theorems).
> and you think that it is not necessary?
I think it is not possible with today's technology to be accurate enough
to be useful. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Daniel Weston
bars associated with OWLS. I have asked this question on several
occasions and you are the first person to respond to the question in a
satisfactory way. I could never have done the math that you did and
maybe few other people here could have also done the math. It helps to
have a PHD in physics. Thanks again.
A few thoughts. A meaningful understanding of the problems associated
with the OWLS experiment, should require the assumption that cost is not
an issue. We are looking here for the inherent theoretical problems.
The rotation of the earth. Yes that is a factor that must be ideally
factored into the measurement task. My original statement of the test
layout took the earth's rotation into account by proposing that the lab
be on the equator and that after sync that the clocks be moved on slow
transport, one clock due north and the other due south.
The revolution of the earth around the sun.
Since money is no concern, we will run the experiment thousands of times
and subject the results to deep thought computer analysis for any kind
of periodic changes. (since money is no object, let the test lay out be
expanded to have the testing transport tracks run in the 16 major
compass directions. Think of a wagon wheel.)
"The path should be level". That sounds correct to me but what exactly
is level. Do you mean that the path should be straight line, or it
should curve with the earth's circumference and be level at all times
according to a surveyor's bubble level?
I also have envisioned the railroad transport tracks to be without
blemish and most highly polished to within modern mechanical abilities.
Something like the railroad tracks used by the USAF to test super sonic
stuff.
Clock drift. Let each "clock" consist of a hundred atomic clocks with
their average being taken in accordance with modern clock techniques.
Methodologies used in the GPS system could be a starting point.
Conclusion. Over the last 5 years endless energies have been expended
on this ng on the OWLS measurement. It usually centers around the
syncing issues. If the sync issues are identified and dealt with
individually, and the error bars valued, we can then proceed with OWLS
discussion without being hung up on the sync issue.
Every experiment has its errors it must deal with. Some one much more
physics knowledgeable than I, should start a thread wherein all the
kinks are worked out or quantified.
The OWLS experiment has not been tried and found wanting, it has been
found difficult and left untried.
Harry
"kenseto" <ken...@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:sg66f.145286$lI5.1...@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com...
> So OWLS measure this way is c. So what is the problem? Why don't we just
do
> it? Why do we have to assume that OWLS=TWLS=c when we can measure OWLS=c
> directly??
AFAIK it has been done. No big deal.
When you move the two clocks in the two opposite directions, you must
either:
a. Assume that the clocks move at the same speed relative to space.
In that case, you will expect to measure OWLS=TWLS, and you will also
"measure" that.
b. Assume that they do NOT move at the same speed relative to space, but for
example, taking into account the earth's rotation, with a 0.4 km/s offset in
one direction. That would affect the clock synchronization, and you must
account for that.
Next you will expect to measure relative to your lab OWLS=TWLS +/- 0.4 km/s;
and then you *will* also "measure" that (if it could be accurate enough,
thanks Tom).
Harald
Sue...
> In almost all of the discussions wherein the OWLS is considered, we are
> told that OWLS cannot be done because there is no way to perfectly sync
> the 2 clocks necessary to perform the experiment. If it is attempted
> over a 2 mile course, what are the error bars of the sync attempt?
> error bars that should be imposed on the results because of the
> out-of-syncness of the clocks?
<<
'The Classical Electron Problem'
Tepper L. Gill1, W. W. Zachary and J.Lindesay
Abstract
In this paper, we construct a parallel image
of the conventional Maxwell theory by replacing
the observer-time by the proper-time of the
source. This formulation is mathematically,
but not physically, equivalent to the
conventional form. The change induces a
new symmetrygroup which is distinct from,
but closely related to the Lorentz group,
and fixes the clock of the source for all
observers. The new wave equation contains an additional
term (dissipative), which arises instantaneously
with acceleration. This shows that the
origin of radiation reaction is not the action
of a "charge" on itself but arises from inertial
resistance to changes in motion. This
dissipative term is equivalent to an effective mass
so that classical radiation has both a massless
and a massive part. Hence, at the local
level the theory is one of particles and fields
but there is no self-energy divergence (nor
any of the other problems). We also show that,
for any closed system of particles, there is
a global inertial frame and unique (invariant)
global proper-time (for each observer) from
which to observe the system. This global clock
is intrinsically related to the proper clocks
of the individual particles and provides a unique
deffnition of simultaneity for all events
associated with the system. We suggest that this
clock is the historical clock of Horwitz,
Piron, and Fanchi. At this level, the theory is
of the action-at-a-distance type and the
absorption hypothesis of Wheeler and Feynman
follows from global conservation of energy.
PACS classiffcation codes: 03.30.+,03.50.De
Keywords: generalized Maxwell theory, special relativity, radiation
reaction
...
6.3 Velocity of Light
The price paid for the results of this paper
will certainly seem high to many. We have
rejected the third postulate of Minkowski that
time be put on an equal footing with
position and made a coordinate for four-geometry. >>
http://rene.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/01/01-419.pdf
-----
Sue...
kenseto
More excuses.....why do we have the technology to measure TWLS directly but
not OWLS directly???
Ken Seto
Sue...
If your clocks respond to motion... then the theatre is
surely *space-time*.
Space-time is non-iostropic by definition.
<< space-time has a non-isotropic nature which is quite
unlike Euclidian space with its positive definite metric.
According to the relativity principle, all physical laws
are expressible as interrelationships between 4-tensors
in space-time. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/jk1/lectures/node13.html
Sue...
>
> Ken Seto
Androcles
|
Funny.
Androcles.
Ben Rudiak-Gould
>"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
>news:djaspv$soo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
>>experiments, so triage is necessary.
>
>This is a cop-out. Measuring OWLS directly is the only way to confirm the
>validity of the SR postulates and you think that it is not necessary?
The SR postulates are justified by the fact that they generate SR, the
theory. One can start with entirely different postulates. For example,
Bondi's approach is to postulate reciprocity of the Doppler shift of light:
A as seen by B will be redshifted by the same amount as B as seen by A.
Bondi's postulates don't mention the speed of light. In fact, they don't
mention any notion of speed or distance at all. However, one can define
speed and distance in terms of redshift, and then derive Einstein's
postulates from Bondi's. Since Bondi's postulates can also be derived from
Einstein's, the two sets of postulates are different ways of describing the
same theory. There are other approaches; for example, you can just postulate
the Lorentz transformations right from the start, or you can formalize the
notion of locality and get everything from that.
The predictions in every case are the same, but the postulates are
different. So there's no special importance to "the postulates"; for testing
purposes, any prediction of the theory is as good as any other.
By the way, I don't particularly like Einstein's choice of postulates, for
pretty much the reason brought up in threads like this one: there's a
confusing circularity in them, because they're based on notions like "speed"
and "reference frame" which are actually quite complicated and subtle,
according to SR itself! Doppler shift in SR is much simpler, which is why I
prefer Bondi's approach. This is something which happens over and over in
the development of human knowledge. The first version of an idea is always
unpolished. Even so, there's something to be said for teaching a subject in
a way that mirrors its historical development, because the way in which an
individual human being comes to understand an idea may resemble the way in
which the human race came to understand it historically. The problem is that
most developments of special relativity stop in 1905 or 1908.
-- Ben
Bilge
>The SR postulates are justified by the fact that they generate SR, the
>theory. One can start with entirely different postulates. For example,
>Bondi's approach is to postulate reciprocity of the Doppler shift of light:
>A as seen by B will be redshifted by the same amount as B as seen by A.
>Bondi's postulates don't mention the speed of light. In fact, they don't
>mention any notion of speed or distance at all. However, one can define
>speed and distance in terms of redshift, and then derive Einstein's
>postulates from Bondi's. Since Bondi's postulates can also be derived from
>Einstein's, the two sets of postulates are different ways of describing the
>same theory. There are other approaches; for example, you can just postulate
>the Lorentz transformations right from the start, or you can formalize the
>notion of locality and get everything from that.
Actually, that isn't really the case. The postulate most which is
crucial to the other derivations you mention is the speed of light
postulate, which is essentially irrelevant to deriving relativity.
In fact, the second postulate doesn't really belong with relativity
at all. Relativity does _not_ hinge on the speed of light being
constant. It's simple 4-d geometry.
>The predictions in every case are the same, but the postulates are
>different. So there's no special importance to "the postulates"; for
>testing purposes, any prediction of the theory is as good as any other.
I disagree. For example, the speed of light postulate was included
for the reason that einstein sought to explain maxwell's equations.
Now, using the other formulations you mention, what do you expect
you can say about the weak or strong interaction? Recall, that the
other derivations focus exclusively on deriving relativity in terms
of electromagnetic interactions. Do I need a new value for `c' for
every interaction I discover?
>By the way, I don't particularly like Einstein's choice of postulates, for
>pretty much the reason brought up in threads like this one: there's a
>confusing circularity in them, because they're based on notions like "speed"
>and "reference frame" which are actually quite complicated and subtle,
>according to SR itself!
Einstein's derivation is awkward, but his first postulate is spot on.
It's a concise smmary of newton's 3 laws, only generalized and in
general relativity, generalized again. Nothing in einstein's postulates
introduce those difficulties you mentioned. The derivation from the
first postulate is _identical_ to deriving spatial rotations (which
one gets automatically as part of the derivation). You simply write
down the infinitesimal dispacement x -> x' = x + \delta m.x, find
the infinitesimal matrix, m and construct the finite transforms.
>Doppler shift in SR is much simpler, which is why I prefer Bondi's
>approach. This is something which happens over and over in the
>development of human knowledge. The first version of an idea is always
>unpolished.
Except that the derivation you prefer in effect, calculates
coordinate transforms based on the properties of electromagnetic
radiation, which doesn't allow for the possibility of a massive
photon, nor say what to do about non-electromagnetic interactions.
The speed of light should never even arise in a derivation of
special relativity except as an historical artifact. There is
nothing special about light that would elevate its status to
that of a postulate about spacetime.
>Even so, there's something to be said for teaching a subject in
>a way that mirrors its historical development, because the way in which an
>individual human being comes to understand an idea may resemble the way in
>which the human race came to understand it historically. The problem is that
>most developments of special relativity stop in 1905 or 1908.
But, improvements in understanding didn't stop then. Relativity
is essentially a postulate about which metric should be used to
describe the 4-d affine space that applies to galilean relativity,
special relativity (and afterward), general relativity. That's all
it is. The most useful way to teach it is to get rid of all of the
historical baggage about light and simply present it as one of
several possible options for describing space and time (all of which
are 4-d). In one fell-swoop one eliminates the confusion of what
relativity is about. The confusion is evident in the numerous
strawmen that multitudes of kooks present as strawmen on this
newsgroup which have nothing at all to do with the actual theory
of relativity.
kenseto
> kenseto wrote:
> >"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> >news:djaspv$soo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> >>The human race only has finite resources and there are infinitely many
> >>experiments, so triage is necessary.
> >
> >This is a cop-out. Measuring OWLS directly is the only way to confirm the
> >validity of the SR postulates and you think that it is not necessary?
>
> The SR postulates are justified by the fact that they generate SR, the
> theory.
This is circular reasoning...... SR postulates give rise to SR and thus SR
postulates are justified.
Ken Seto
PD
kenseto wrote:
> "Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:djj2sh$9qm$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > kenseto wrote:
> > >"Ben Rudiak-Gould" <br276d...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > >news:djaspv$soo$1...@gemini.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > >>The human race only has finite resources and there are infinitely many
> > >>experiments, so triage is necessary.
> > >
> > >This is a cop-out. Measuring OWLS directly is the only way to confirm the
> > >validity of the SR postulates and you think that it is not necessary?
> >
> > The SR postulates are justified by the fact that they generate SR, the
> > theory.
>
> This is circular reasoning...... SR postulates give rise to SR and thus SR
> postulates are justified.
Postulates are justified by comparing the predictions that stem from
those postulates with experimental reality. In this, SR has succeeded
admirably.
Let me underscore this point. If a theory -- which may or may not be
based on experimentally untested assumptions -- continues to make
correct experimental predictions in domains where it claims to apply,
then there is *no need* to replace it. The only case where a theory
should be considered for abandonment is when a theory makes an
*incorrect* prediction in a domain where it claims to apply.
bz
@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> Postulates are justified by comparing the predictions that stem from
> those postulates with experimental reality. In this, SR has succeeded
> admirably.
>
> Let me underscore this point. If a theory -- which may or may not be
> based on experimentally untested assumptions -- continues to make
> correct experimental predictions in domains where it claims to apply,
> then there is *no need* to replace it. The only case where a theory
> should be considered for abandonment is when a theory makes an
> *incorrect* prediction in a domain where it claims to apply.
>
There IS one other time a theory should be considered for abandonment; when
a simpler, more useful and better theory is proposed that more fully
explains all known data. But chances are that will NOT happen until sparked
by data that can not be explained by current theories.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz...@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
PD
bz wrote:
> "PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1130429072.795157.270940
> @g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Postulates are justified by comparing the predictions that stem from
> > those postulates with experimental reality. In this, SR has succeeded
> > admirably.
> >
> > Let me underscore this point. If a theory -- which may or may not be
> > based on experimentally untested assumptions -- continues to make
> > correct experimental predictions in domains where it claims to apply,
> > then there is *no need* to replace it. The only case where a theory
> > should be considered for abandonment is when a theory makes an
> > *incorrect* prediction in a domain where it claims to apply.
> >
>
> There IS one other time a theory should be considered for abandonment; when
> a simpler, more useful and better theory is proposed that more fully
> explains all known data. But chances are that will NOT happen until sparked
> by data that can not be explained by current theories.
As far as I know this does not happen. The new theory either
- predicts verifiable phenomena that the old theory mispredicts
- expands the domain to explain more phenomena in a coherent way than
the old theory did
In the former case, the old theory is abandoned when its misprediction
is revealed by experiment. In the latter case, the old theory is
abandoned when the new theory accurately explains something that the
old theory said nothing about.
Perhaps this is what you meant by "more useful and better".
The danger with a vague notion of "more useful and better" and "more
fully explains" is that it opens the door for crackpots who believe
that their theories are better because they make more intuitive sense
to the proposer. It's been repeatedly pointed out to these crackpots
(to no avail) that this in not enough.
PD
bz
news:1130437302.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> (to no avail) that this is not enough.
>
> PD
I could not have said it better.
ken...@erinet.com
then it is incomplete. This means that there exists a theory that is
complete and SR becomes a subset of that theory.....the complete theory
is IRT. IRT includes SR as a subset. However, unlike SR, the equations
of IRT are valid in all environments.....including gravity.
Ken Seto
PD
1. No theory is complete. IRT, for example, doesn't explain psychosis
or the color of butterfly wings. Therefore it has a limited domain of
applicability.
2. IRT does not contain SR as a subset, apparently because you do not
understand what SR says, as has been brought to the fore more than
once. You are under the impression that what SR does is explain the
Michelson-Moreley and Pound-Rebka experiments, and that anything that
explains the results of those experiments necessarily includes SR as a
subset.
3. I thought you had gone into hiding. There are a number of unanswered
questions in your court, Ken, in other threads, particularly one about
isotropy of OWLS and how that implies that OWLS=TWLS. I'm assuming that
you're still mentally processing that and will return to it.
PD
ken...@erinet.com
are exactly the same as the SR postulates.
2.The IRT explanation of the MMX null result and the Pound and Rebka
result is suppoting evidence for existence of absolute motion.
3. I am out of town. That's why I am using Google. I hate it. I can't
find anything except this thread.
4. Isotropy does not im ply that OWLS=TWLS. The TWLS measurement
includes the delay time in the mirror. In any case why don't we measure
TWLS and OWLS directly??? Why you SRians keep on giving us the bogus
excuses that OWLS is not measureable?????
Ken Seto
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<ken...@erinet.com>
wrote
on 28 Oct 2005 17:36:20 -0700
<1130546180....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> 1.IRT contains SR as a subset. Why? Because two of the four postulates
> are exactly the same as the SR postulates.
And yet you postulate that absolute motion is possible and
measurable.
> 2.The IRT explanation of the MMX null result and the Pound and Rebka
> result is suppoting evidence for existence of absolute motion.
> 3. I am out of town. That's why I am using Google. I hate it. I can't
> find anything except this thread.
Yuck.
> 4. Isotropy does not im ply that OWLS=TWLS. The TWLS measurement
> includes the delay time in the mirror. In any case why don't we measure
> TWLS and OWLS directly??? Why you SRians keep on giving us the bogus
> excuses that OWLS is not measureable?????
OWLS has been shown to be isotropic (to an error of about 10^-9, if
memory serves). Is that not good enough?
What does your theory calculate for the mirror reflection time, then?
[.sigsnip]
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
ken...@erinet.com
of light it is constant. But when you use a define absolute second to
measure light speed it is not a univversal constant at all.
IRT explains why the speed of light is constant as follows:
light path length of rod (299792458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock second co-moving with the rod.
Isotropic is not the same as having light speed equal to c.
Ken Seto
PD
ken...@erinet.com wrote:
> 1.IRT contains SR as a subset. Why? Because two of the four postulates
> are exactly the same as the SR postulates.
And yet SR disavows absolute motion.
> 2.The IRT explanation of the MMX null result and the Pound and Rebka
> result is suppoting evidence for existence of absolute motion.
And yet SR disavows absolute motion in its accounting of those results.
> 3. I am out of town. That's why I am using Google. I hate it. I can't
> find anything except this thread.
Click on the little star to turn it yellow, and this will keep track of
threads you want to follow.
> 4. Isotropy does not im ply that OWLS=TWLS. The TWLS measurement
> includes the delay time in the mirror. In any case why don't we measure
> TWLS and OWLS directly??? Why you SRians keep on giving us the bogus
> excuses that OWLS is not measureable?????
As I've already shown you, the delay time in the mirror is easily
removed by comparing two TWLS measurements. After doing that, isotropy
doesn't demand that OWLS be c, but it does demand that OWLS=TWLS. Then,
as it turns out, the experimental value for TWLS is c.
Thus, the *reason* for not doing OWLS measurements directly is that it
is neither necessary nor fiscally responsible.
PD
ken...@erinet.com
not detectable. On this point it is wrong. Numerous past experiments
detected absolute motion but physicists faled to give the proper
intrpretations to these experiments. Also the experiments I have in my
link will definitely capable of detecting absolute motion if it exists.
Your inability to recognize that IRT is a complete theory of motion and
it contains SR as a subset is demonstrating that you are an SR religion
fanatic.
Show me an actual experiment for TWLS that actually discounted the
delay time at the mirror. Your fantasy doen't count. BTW Only direct
measurements of TWLS and OWLS can settle this arguement. Your bogus
reasoning is not accepted.
Ken Seto
Rod Ryker
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130583689.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Rod: I agree here. C is C in all frames period.
Ken is going to kick my butt, but, Ken is wrong.
Many Earth experiments have been done und...
--
Rod Ryker...
The intricacies of nature is man's cannon fodder.
Sue...
No... Kenseto won't kick your butt unless you use
the word 'isotropy' in this thread.
<< Note that space-time cannot be regarded as a
straightforward generalization of Euclidian 3-space
to four dimensions, with time as the fourth dimension.
The distribution of signs in the metric ensures that
the time coordinate is not on the same footing as the
three space coordinates. Thus, space-time has a
non-isotropic nature which is quite unlike Euclidian space,
with its positive definite metric. According to the
relativity principle, all physical laws are expressible
as interrelationships between 4-tensors in space-time. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node113.html
Sue...
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
ken...@erinet.com
measured. The fact is that you don't even knoe that TWLS is constant by
definition.
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<1130685780.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> No....you were wrong. Give us the reference where TWLS or OWLS were
> measured. The fact is that you don't even knoe that TWLS is constant by
> definition.
TWLS is not constant (depends on the refractive index).
TWLS *in vacuo*, however, is hypothesized to be constant.
>
> Ken Seto
ken...@erinet.com
that I was wrong because they measured TWLS to be constant.
Ken Seto
The Ghost In The Machine
<1130714707.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
> So as I said ....TWLS was not measured directly. And yet he claimed
> that I was wrong because they measured TWLS to be constant.
>
> Ken Seto
>
TWLSV has yet to be measured as anything but c at this time, AFAIK.
This despite various attempts, such as:
[1] MMX, which has the flaw of a stationary light source.
[2] Various variants of MMX, one with an extremely long "leg".
[3] Decaying muons at 0.2 c, with a crude (but effective)
measurement of c from the gamma ray photons thereof.
Of course, all TWLSV measurements use lightbased length measurements.
(They have to.)
Sue...
Tom Roberts wrote:
> kenseto wrote:
> > OK we synchronize the clocks this way:
> > Two touching and synchronized clocks are moved in the opposite directions at
> > the same speed and come to rest again....these two clocks will remain
> > synchronized (according to SR).
>
> Ok. That's a reasonable method of synchronization as long as the speed
> of movement is very small compared to c. Let me assume that is true, and
> also the previous value of a 2 mile light path; be sure it is level.
>
> SR unambiguously predicts a value of 299,792,458 meter/sec, with an
> errorbar less than a meter/second. There _is_ a theoretical uncertainty
> here because this is performed on the rotating earth, and the
> orientation of the light path will affect the prediction. I have not
> computed that uncertainty, but am pretty sure it is less than a few
> parts per billion here.
SR doesn't predict that.
Weber measured it on the surface of a conductor.
Maxwell used it but failed to integrate it with
the Coulomb force
http://www.cebik.com/gp/gr-10.gif
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0204034
Sue...
>
> The measurement will also have an errorbar, because real clocks are not
> perfect (as assumed in the SR analysis). Let me assume that atomic
> clocks are used, with an intrinsic accuracy of 2 parts in 10^14 for a
> duration of 1 hour. I'll assume it takes 10,000 seconds to disconnect
> the clocks, move them, connect them up, check them out, and make the
> measurement, and that the 1-hour accuracy holds for the 10,000 seconds.
> So the errorbar on the time difference measured by those two clocks is:
> sqrt(2) * 10,000 * 2 / 10^14 = 0.03 ns
> (the sqrt(2) comes from the fact that this is a difference of the
> readings of 2 clocks)
>
> NOTE: this is probably optimistic. This really requires an
> expert on the actual atomic clocks used. Experts always seem
> to find additional error sources that non-experts miss; that's
> why they are experts and I am not.
>
> 2 miles is just over 3 kilometers, so the time difference is predicted
> to be about 10 microseconds. So the errorbar on the measurement is about
> 3 parts per million, or about 10 kilometers per second.
>
> Given thet modern interferometer techniques can measure anisotropy about
> a million times better than that, it ought to be clear that this is not
> tremendously useful. It can only marginally distinguish a deviation from
> c by the orbital velocity of the earth (that would be about a 3 sigma
> effect), and is hopeless for earth's rotational speed. Note also that if
> you wait 12 hours for the earth to rotate 180 degrees, the errorbar will
> increase considerably due to clock drift; you must re-synchronize the
> clocks for each measurement.
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
PD
Ken,
1. You asked for a list of TWLS measurements and I gave them to you.
2. If you claim those are tainted because they include a time delay in
the mirror, then
2a. This would show up as an inconsistency in the value of c for
different lever arms L, which is conspicuously absent in the cited
results.
2b. If you feel nonetheless that it needs to be removed, I outlined for
you a very simple analysis of two TWLS measurements that would enable
you to determine for yourself what that mirror delay is and to
determine if it is indeed a significant issue. This analysis is a lot
more straightforward and less costly than doing the OWLS measurement
you propose.
PD
ken...@erinet.com
measure the isotropy of TWLS.
The only valid way to measure the value of TWLS directly is by
measuring it the old fashion way as follows:
1. measure the distance with a physical ruler (L).
2. measure the flight time for the return of the light ray (Tr)
3.TWLS=L/Tr.
4. The trouble with this old fashion way is that it includes the delay
time at the mirror.
5. Now has any body attempted to measure TWLS the old fashion way? If
so please provide the reference.
Ken Seto
ken...@erinet.com
matter you didn't provide any reference for any TWLS measurement the
old fashion way. The old fashion way is as folloes:
1a. measure the didtance with a physical ruler (L)
1b. measure the return flight time (Tr).
1c, TWLE=L/Tr.
1d. The trouble with the old fashion way is that it includes the delay
time at the mirror.
1e. Now has any body measure the value of TWLS the old fashion way and
correct it by accounting for the delay time at the mirror?. If so
please provide the reference.
2. The point is OWLS cvan be measured directly and you dream up all
these bogus reasons not to measure it directly.
Ken Seto
PD
ken...@erinet.com wrote:
> What you provided are not measuring the value of TWLS directly. They
> measure the isotropy of TWLS.
No, that is a *different* list of experiments. This is a list of
measurements of the *value* of TWLS. Read them.
>
> The only valid way to measure the value of TWLS directly is by
> measuring it the old fashion way as follows:
This is where I would heartily disagree. There are much better ways to
measure TWLS than the bonehead-direct way you favor.
Tom Roberts
> The only valid way to measure the value of TWLS directly is by
> measuring it the old fashion way as follows:
> 1. measure the distance with a physical ruler (L).
Not since 1983. And between 1960 and 1983 one wouldn't do this, either,
one would use a Kr source and count wavelengths.
> 2. measure the flight time for the return of the light ray (Tr)
> 3.TWLS=L/Tr.
Missing factor of 2. That's the least of your problems, however.
> 4. The trouble with this old fashion way is that it includes the delay
> time at the mirror.
Perhaps you should perform a literature search and find actual measurements.
> 5. Now has any body attempted to measure TWLS the old fashion way?
Look in the FAQ for references to the metrology literature related to
the 1983 redefinition of the meter, and look them up. That redefinition
was not made in a vacuum, or done casually. It was extremely well
supported by measurements of the speed of light, and the error analysis
showing that the major contributor to the resolution was in the
definition of the meter as a given number of Kr wavelengths.
Yes, this is TWLS.
If you cannot be bothered to look up references, you have no hope of
either understanding this or ever convincing anyone else of anything.
<shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Jerry
> 1e. Now has any body measure the value of TWLS the
> old fashion way and correct it by accounting for the
> delay time at the mirror?. If so please provide the
> reference.
What is your estimate for the delay time at the mirror?
I estimate between 10^-15 to 10^-16 seconds. What makes
this amount so important to you?
Jerry
ken...@erinet.com
anything. Besides, you bogus way involves some circular assumptions.
Ken Seto
ken...@erinet.com
the time delay at the mirror and OWLS have no such time delay. So that
makes the assertion OWLS=TWLS/2 bogus. Besides the delay time at the
mirror is significant over a short distance between the mirror and the
source clock.
Ken Seto
PD
Well, I hate to break it to you, but this isn't how we measure the
speed of racehorses or racecars or mile-runners, this isn't how we
measure the speed of quasars and galaxies, it isn't how we measure the
speed of sound in an organ pipe. There are lots of ways to measure
speed, Ken, and not all of them conform to your experimental wishes.
PD
Jerry
1) If we assume a light path on the order of meters,
then the time delay at a mirror would amount to roughly
10^-7 of the total time. Not a big deal by any stretch of
the imagination, and the time delay would be constant and
easily compensated for.
2) In any event, the relevant measurement is almost never
the absolute speed of light, but whether light speed
exhibits anisotropy in different directions.
Experiments have consistently demonstrated isotropy of
light speed in different directions, therefore OWLS=c.
Jerry
PD
Careful. After removal of the mirror delay time (which, as you point
out, is numerically insignificant), isotropy only demonstrates that
TWLS=OWLS. Then a measurement of TWLS=c, regardless of the length arm
of the measurement, demonstrates that OWLS=c.
Ken gets very confused about all the (three) steps required for this
conclusion, and he whines that it's *never* been shown all in one step.
He's quite right about the latter, but this is neither necessary nor
important.
PD
Tom Roberts
> It is important because physicists insist that OWLS=TWLS/2. TWLS has
> the time delay at the mirror and OWLS have no such time delay.
I repeat: that is false. Any sensible measurement of TWLS will want to
measure THE SPEED OF LIGHT and not any delay in a mirror. So whatever
delay there is in the mirror would be considered a systematic error, and
a careful experimenter would take pains to measure it and correct for it
in the reported result.
Get a clue. Look up the references I have given you. Or shut up.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130857912....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Androcles.
Tom Roberts
> 1) If we assume a light path on the order of meters,
> then the time delay at a mirror would amount to roughly
> 10^-7 of the total time. Not a big deal by any stretch of
> the imagination,
To metrology experts such an error is ENORMOUS. The best pre-1983
measurements of TWLS had errorbars <1 m/s, well below your 10^-7 estimate.
> and the time delay would be constant and
> easily compensated for.
Yes.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
PD
kenseto wrote:
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:pg86f.985$Kv....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> > kenseto wrote:
> > > So OWLS measure this way is c. So what is the problem? Why don't we just
> do
> > > it?
> >
> > Read the rest of my post -- this measurement is on the order of a
> > million times less accurate than anisotropy measurements that have
> > already been performed, which makes it not very interesting.
> >
> >
> > > Measuring OWLS directly is the only way to confirm the
> > > validity of the SR postulates
> >
> > Not true. SR is a physical theory that makes predictions about the
> > outcomes of zillions of different experiments. Many such experiments
> > have tested SR in many different ways. The agreement between experiment
> > and SR predictions is as good a verification of the postulates as could
> > be done.
> >
> > As is pointed out in the "1+1=2" thread, the axioms of a theory are
> > (trivially) theorems. The only way to test a physical theory is to apply
> > one of its theorems to the physical situation of a measurement, and
> > compare the result of the measurement with the value computed by the
> > theorem. The particular theorems corresponding to axioms are not special
> > in this. Indeed, one can choose many different sets of axioms and derive
> > the same theory (which is at base the set of theorems).
> >
> >
> > > and you think that it is not necessary?
> >
> > I think it is not possible with today's technology to be accurate enough
> > to be useful. <shrug>
>
> More excuses.....why do we have the technology to measure TWLS directly but
> not OWLS directly???
>
> Ken Seto
Because the TWLS measurement *removes* sources of systematic error that
a direct OWLS measurement cannot. That is precisely what Tom
illustrated for you. This is precisely the motivation that goes into
the design of clever, if less direct, precision measurements. However,
this is a point that eludes those that do not have experimental
experience and who wave hands vigorously, saying, "Surely we have the
technology to do this more directly!"
To reiterate: isotropy of OWLS mandates that TWLS=OWLS, after
correction for delay in a mirror. Furthermore, the TWLS measurement is
free of systematic effects that a OWLS measurement is not. Therefore,
despite the OWLS measurement being more direct, the TWLS measurement is
better, more precise, and leads precisely to the same result desired
from the OWLS measurement.
PD
PD
ken...@erinet.com
distance and the running time of the horse?
You claimed that they performed the experiment for TWLS.....What is the
procedure they used? Did they compensate the delay time at the mirror?
What is the value of TWLS before they compensated? How did they
determine the delay time? Where is the reference for such experiment?
Also, if absolute motion in the vertical direction exists then OWLS is
not equal to TWLS.
Ken Seto
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130862256.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
TWLS = 0, (AB + BA)/(t'A-TA) =0
OWLS = c, AB/( tB-tA) = 300,000km/sec
TWLS <> OWLS.
Reiterate your idiocy all you want, Phuckwit Duck, you are
hopeless at vector algebra.
Androcles.
ken...@erinet.com
apparaent that you couldn't find any reference that TWLS or OWLS were
measured the old fashion way and you expect me to waste my time on
that???
Kr wavelength is dependent on the state of absolute motion of the Kr.
Therefore if absolute motion exists the definition for a meter using Kr
wavelengths is not a good definition.
Ken Seto
ken...@erinet.com
you can measure OWLS directly???????????????????????? Why are you
avoiding measuring OWLS directly at all cost?
Don't give me your shit about the OWLS measurement is too expensive.
Ken Seto
PD
ken...@erinet.com wrote:
> So how do you measure the speed of a race horse if not by measuring the
> distance and the running time of the horse?
With one clock, notice, not two synchronized clocks. TWLS measurements
are quite similar: measure the distance traveled (2L) and the
round-trip time of the light. The only difference is the physical
reflection, which can be accounted for as described.
> You claimed that they performed the experiment for TWLS.....What is the
> procedure they used? Did they compensate the delay time at the mirror?
> What is the value of TWLS before they compensated? How did they
> determine the delay time? Where is the reference for such experiment?
The references have been given. You can look them up.
> Also, if absolute motion in the vertical direction exists then OWLS is
> not equal to TWLS.
Not so. You'll note that the isotropy argument simply refers to two
points A and B without any reference to the direction of those two
points, nor would an imposed direction change the results of the
argument. If OWLS is isotropic, then it is isotropic for *any* two
choices of points A and B, by definition.
PD
PD
TWLV = 0. Inability to discern "TWLS" and "TWLV" noted.
Androcles is driving home from the drug store like a bat out of hell,
and gets stopped by a policeman.
"What is your defense?" the traffic court judge asks.
"I drive from my home to the drug store and from the drug store home,
and I do this every week to fetch my anti-depressant medication. My net
displacement for the two-way trip is zero. Any fool can see that my
two-way velocity for the trip is zero, and the magnitude of the
velocity is the speed. My two-way speed for the trip is zero, and has
been zero every time I've made the trip! I don't care *what* the
policeman says I was doing, I'm a goddamned mathematician! <blather>
<foam> <splutter>"
"Very well sir. Your fine is 200 quid, and your license is revoked."
PD
See Robert's response to this and my follow-up. In short, because it is
an experimentally inferior approach, as well as being redundant.
PD
Androcles
"PD" <TheDrap...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1130866776.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
|
Phuckwit Duck is driving home from his cocaine pickup like a bat out of hell,
and gets stopped by a policeman.
"What is your defense?" the traffic court judge asks.
and I do this every day to fetch my cocaine fix. My net displacement for the two-way trip is zero. Any fool can see that the cop used radar for two-way light speed, and the timing must have been off because the time
for the signal has to be the same each way, Einstein said so.
I'm a goddamned phuckwit <blather><foam> <splutter>"
"Very well idiot . Your fine is 400 dollars, and your license is revoked."
ken...@erinet.com
you don't understand what TWLS means?
You did not give any reference. You did not say what is the procedure
used to measure TWLS. You did not say whether the delay time at the
mirror was accounted for. You did not say what was the result before
the correction for the delay time.OWLS is isotropic horizontally. OWLS
is not isotropic vertically.
Ken Se
ken...@erinet.com
measuring OWLS directly. Also measuring TWLS has all the side issues
such as the delay time at the mirror. Also I have yet seen a link from
you where they measure TWLS directly.
Ken Seto
PD
ken...@erinet.com wrote:
> ROTFLOL.....with onee clock you are making a TWLS measurement. Perhaps
> you don't understand what TWLS means?
Or perhaps you don't. Let's compare.
> You did not give any reference.
You forget so quickly. Here it is again, extracted from another source.
These are not isotropy measurements, but pre-1983 measurements of the
speed of light. If you would like the measurements of the isotropy of
the speed of light, I can give you that information as well.
==================================
Mulligan, Am. J. Phys. 44 no. 10 (1976), p960.
A report on measurements by the NBS.
Rowley et al, Opt. and Quantum Elect. 8 (1976), p1.
A review article on the set of precision frequency and wavelength
measurements that became the basis for the 1973 value of c.
Woods et al, Appl. Optics 17 (1978), p1048; Rowley, Opt. Comm. 34
(1980), p429.
Baird and Whitford, Opt. Comm. 31 (1979), p363, p367.
Measured c = 299792458.8 +- 0.2 meter/s, with 1.2 meter uncertainty
due to realization of the Kr meter standard used. The fact that the Kr
standard for the meter became the limit on accuracy was a major reason
for the 1983 redefinition of the meter in terms of the definition of c
and the definition of the second.
Goldman, J. O. S. A. 70 (1980), 1640.
Discussion of three proposals for a new definition of the meter
(pre-1983).
Jennings et al, J. Res. N.B.S. 92 (1982), p11.
Review of methods to relate c to the meter, and results for further
measurements checking the 1973 determination of c leading to the 1983
adoption of the new meter standard in terms of the definition of c and
the definition of the second.
Giacomo, "The New Definition of the Meter", Am. J. Phys. 52 no. 7
(1984), p607.
An overview of past definitions of the meter with emphasis on the
guidelines that governed the choice of the new definition in 1983 in
terms of the definition of the second and the definition of the speed
of light.
Petley, "New Definition of the Metre", Nature 303 (1983), p373.
A review article discussing the reasons for the re-definition of the
meter in 1983 in terms of the definition of the second and the
definition of the speed of light.
Bates, Am. J. Phys. 51 (1983), p1003.
A summary of measurements of c. [This] paper describes measuring c by
measuring frequency and wavelength and describes a college-level lab
experiment.
===========================
> You did not say what is the procedure
> used to measure TWLS. You did not say whether the delay time at the
> mirror was accounted for. You did not say what was the result before
> the correction for the delay time.
You are certainly free to read the above references to discover how the
delay time at the mirror was accounted for.
> OWLS is isotropic horizontally. OWLS
> is not isotropic vertically.
Then it is not isotropic, by definition. "Isotropic" = "same regardless
of direction". Is this what you are maintaining?
PD
kk
>But one can measure OWLS given a specified synchronization
>procedure (slow clock transport is popular, as is Einstein
>synchronization; ....
It is both sad and shocking that a scientist would use the
word "measure" so lightly.
Re the clock transport case:
Until you have proof that the intrinsic atomic rates of clocks
which are in different frames do not differ, you cannot claim
a correct or valid or useful *measurement* of light's one-way
speed with "synchronization" via clock transport.
Re the Einstein "synchronization" case:
(Warning to those with weak hearts: This is even worse than the
above.) The standard meaning of the phrase "to measure" in this
case is "to experimentally measure"; however, this is certainly
*not* the case when it comes to Einsteinian "synchronization,"
where the "experimental result" is given *before* the "experiment"
is even performed. (Key word: Circularity)
More on the Einstein "synchronization" case:
No one has ever used two clocks (in the same frame) to *measure*
light's one-way speed, contrary to Robert's above claims. (It
would be, as mentioned above, silly and circular to use Einstein's
clocks to "measure" light's one-way speed because his clocks were
forced to obtain "invariance" and "isotropy.")
There is one and only one way to correctly measure light's
one-way speed, and that is by using unslowed, absolutely
synchronous clocks which are affixed to an unshrunken ruler.
Unfortunately for special relativity, the result of *this*
experiment will not be c invariance.
==kk==
ken...@erinet.com
light wave to define a meter the definition is subject to variation by
the state of absolut motion of the measurer (observer). Furthermore
using light speed to define light speed is absurd and circular.
There is no reflecting mirror in any of these experiments.
Isotropy of the speed of light in the horizontal direction had been
tested. The anisotropy of the speed of light in the vertical direction
is confirmed by the Pound and Rebka experiment.
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> T Roberts wrote:
>>But one can measure OWLS given a specified synchronization
>>procedure (slow clock transport is popular, as is Einstein
>>synchronization; ....
>
> Until you have proof that the intrinsic atomic rates of clocks
> which are in different frames do not differ, you cannot claim
> a correct or valid or useful *measurement* of light's one-way
> speed with "synchronization" via clock transport.
Please re-read what I wrote. You are free to use ANY clock
synchronization method you prefer.
Note also that "proof" does not apply to physics. Physics is not
mathematics. What we have are THEORIES, and for slow clocks transport,
all unrefuted theories that apply predict that in the limit of speed
approching zero the difference in clock rates will approach zero; that
is, by slow enough transport you can make the error caused by the
transport to be as small as you like. In practice, speeds achieved by
walking while pushing the clock on a cart induce errors FAR below the
intrinsic accuracy of the best atomic clocks.
So your claim above is irrelevant. I repeat: this is physics --
errorbars are important; errors significantly smaller than other
errorbars are irrelevant.
> Re the Einstein "synchronization" case:
> (Warning to those with weak hearts: This is even worse than the
> above.) The standard meaning of the phrase "to measure" in this
> case is "to experimentally measure"; however, this is certainly
> *not* the case when it comes to Einsteinian "synchronization,"
> where the "experimental result" is given *before* the "experiment"
> is even performed. (Key word: Circularity)
This is a DEFINITION of clock synchronization in SR. If you don't like
it, don't use it. <shrug>
> There is one and only one way to correctly measure light's
> one-way speed, and that is by using unslowed, absolutely
> synchronous clocks which are affixed to an unshrunken ruler.
Perhaps you will explain how to do that. Unobtanium is NOT admissible in
a physical theory or an "experiment".
> Unfortunately for special relativity, the result of *this*
> experiment will not be c invariance.
Nonsense. The claimed "result" of an impossible experiment does not mean
anything at all.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
brian a m stuckless
And, even "the BEST atomic clocks" CANNOT BE SYNCRONiZED, on
any WORLD-line in SPACE-time (..NEiTHER with each other, NOR
with any COMMONLY conceived THiRD clock simulating REAL time.
Tom Roberts wrote: > > kk wrote: > > T Roberts wrote:
> Please re-read what I wrote. You are free to use ANY clock
> synchronization method you prefer.
By Ph Tivity definition:
Clocks on a world-line in space-time CANNOT be syncronized.!!
> Note also that "proof" does not apply to physics.
"Proof" DOEs NOT APPLY, to definitions (i.e. NOMENCLATURE).!!
> Physics is not mathematics. > What we have are THEORIES,
"Physics" is about words (i.e. NOMENCLATURE) and equations.!!
(NOT SLOWLY SEPARATED clocks, on a world-line in space-time.)
> and for slow clocks transport, --
> -- that is, by slow enough transport you can make the error
> caused by the transport to be as small as you like.
That old TRiCK is even BAD MATHEMATiCs besides BAD PHYSiCs.!!
WHAT is ALL this NONSENSE.?!! This is APPROXiMATiON THEORY.!!
WHAT is ALL this NONSENSE.?!! This Ph.Tivity "SLOW LiMiT".?!!
("SLOWLY" separated clocks, on a world-line in space-time.?!)
> In practice, speeds achieved by walking while pushing the
> clock on a cart induce errors FAR below the intrinsic
> accuracy of the best atomic clocks. --
insert ..see top of PAGE.!!
> So your claim above is irrelevant. I repeat: this is physics
> -- errorbars are important; errors significantly smaller
> than other errorbars are irrelevant.
THAT is "SHOP-mechanics" ..NOT "physics", Tom.!! MECHANiCs.!!
You, ADAMANTLY, totally, CONFUSE GR with applied MECHANiCs.!!
Seriously, Git OUT OF TOWN ..you *DAFFY* Ph.Tivity BUFFooN.!!
brian a m stuckless
>><> >><> >><> >><> >><>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Re: OWLS & Out of Sync Clocks-By How Much Are They Out of Sync.
Harry
> There is one and only one way to correctly measure light's
> one-way speed, and that is by using unslowed, absolutely
> synchronous clocks which are affixed to an unshrunken ruler.
Sure - there's only one little hic, see further...
> Unfortunately for special relativity, the result of *this*
> experiment will not be c invariance.
According to SRT, you'll waste your time trying to find a means to do such
an experiment (why do you think that such an experiment is possible?).
Harald
Tom Roberts
> The BEST atomic clock is SiMPLY a *mega-frequency COUNTER*.!!
Sure. Well, ~9 GHz (for Cs). So what?
> And, even "the BEST atomic clocks" CANNOT BE SYNCRONiZED,
Blatantly not true. We do it all the time. Without clock synchronization
it would be impossible to know what time it is. Look up UTC. Look up
GPS. Both inherently rely on synchronized clocks around the world. <shrug>
> [... further nonsense omitted]
Where do you get this stuff? Why do you bother repeatedly spewing so
much nonsense about things you so obviously know nothing about? What's
the point?
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
kk
>Please re-read what I wrote. You are free to use ANY clock
>synchronization method you prefer.
I already carefully read what you wrote, so I do not need
to do so again.
Sure, you are free to use any clock "synchronization" method,
but only one will give you correct results, so why mess around
with failures?
Here is what I mean by "failures":
All methods which are compatible with relativity, including your
aforementioned slow clock transport method.
Why are all these methods failures?
They are all failures because relativity - admittedly - does not
have absolute simultaneity, which, as anyone knows, means that it
has no way to absolutely synchronize two separated clocks, and yet
only absolutely synchronous clocks can yield correct results.
--snip--
>So your claim above is irrelevant. I repeat: this is physics --
>errorbars are important; errors significantly smaller than other
>errorbars are irrelevant.
This is *not* physics, it's *theoretical* physics, and in
theoretically physics, a miss is as good as a mile.
In theoretical physics, either clocks are absolutely
synchronous, or they're not, and Einstein's are not.
Besides, if Einstein uses his method to "synchronize" two
clocks which are either very far apart or moving rapidly
in relation to light, then the out-of-synch error can be
huge by anyone's standards.
-snip-
>This is a DEFINITION of clock synchronization in SR.
>If you don't like it, don't use it. <shrug>
It matters not what I do with it; what matters a lot
is that physicists believe that E-'synch' is the proper
way to relate clocks, and that all the results thereof
are valid and meaningful physical results.
For example, physicists believe that light's one-way speed
is experimentally c because Einstein's clocks get c, and yet
this "result" is merely given up front as part of a mere
definition. It is not an experimental result, and it can
never be an experimental result, so it has no part in either
theoretical or applied physics.
It is *only* Einstein's definition of "synchronization"
that makes special relativity special relativity.
But no scientific theory can be solely a definition.
Are you beginning to get a glimpse of what is not right
about Einstein's method of clock "synchronization"?
>>There is one and only one way to correctly measure light's
>>one-way speed, and that is by using unslowed, absolutely
>>synchronous clocks which are affixed to an unshrunken ruler.
>Perhaps you will explain how to do that. Unobtanium is NOT
>admissible in a physical theory or an "experiment".
Then you will have to eat your own words (or Einstein's),
because one-way, two-clock light speed invariance is
unobtanium at its worst, since it cannot possibly occur
experimentally, so it is not admissible.
>>Unfortunately for special relativity, the result of
>*this* experiment will not be c invariance.
>Nonsense. The claimed "result" of an impossible experiment
>does not mean anything at all.
You need to prove that it is impossible. Until then, the
one-way light speed case is definitely open, even if I
do not proffer a way to absolutely synchronize clocks.
==kk==
PD
The obvious question, kk, is how you would propose to absolutely
synchronize two spatially separated clocks. There are two strategies
you might consider filling in with details:
1. Separating the clocks spatially and then synchronizing them.
2. Synchronizing the clocks and then spatially separating them and then
verifying their synchronization once separated, to be sure that nothing
happened to the synchronization during the separation.
Please fill in the details.
PD
kk
>According to SRT, you'll waste your time trying to
>find a means to do such an experiment (why do you
>think that such an experiment is possible?).
Yes, Einstein would (if he were alive) literally
love it if *no one* "wasted their time" searching
for a way to correctly relate clocks.
This is because SR is based solely on Einstein's
baseless belief that clocks must be set to obtain
"one-way light speed invariance," but absolutely
synchronous clocks would *not* get c, and would
therefore do away with SR and its silliness.
But Einstein did not (and could not) prove that
clocks cannot be (absolutely) synchronized.
That is why "such an experiment" may be possible.
Instead of spending time teaching SR, we should
be searching for a way to synchronize clocks.
Absolutely synchronous clocks = absolute time.
E-"synch" = relative time, but who needs it?
(As an aside, yes, I know that Harry's above
question was intended to get me to release
details of a clock synchronization method, but
I felt like teasing him first with my above.
(He had _his_ fun with that big upfront SNIP!)
Now here a couple of those details: (1) all
parts of the experiment must lie on a single
line; (2) you can get by with only one running
clock up front since all you need to do is to
compare, not quantify, equal speeds of the
objects which start the clocks.)
==kk==
ken...@erinet.com
KK:
>They are all failures because relativity - admittedly - does not
>have absolute simultaneity, which, as anyone knows, means that it
>has no way to absolutely synchronize two separated clocks, and yet
>only absolutely synchronous clocks can yield correct results.
KS:
SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
opposite directions at a rate of separation of 20m/day and come to rest
again such two clocks will remain synchronized. Using such a pair of
clocks to measure OWLS will give the following result:
1. OWLS will be isotropic.
2. OWLS will not have the value of 299,792,458 m/sec.
What this mean is that OWLS can be isortopic but does not have the
value of c. That's the reason why SRians refuse to do any direct OWLS
measurements at all cost. That's why they assert that OWLS=TWLS=c
because both are isotropic. BTW they claim that TWLS had been measured
numerous times and it is equal to c.....this claim is a falsehood. The
truth is that TWLS is c by a circular definition of (1 light second/1
clock second=c).
I have designed experiments to measure TWLS and OWLS directly over the
same distance using the synchronization method I described above. These
experiments are available in the following link:
<http://www.geocities.com/kn_seto/2005Experiment.pdf>
Ken Seto
ken...@erinet.com
clocks will remain synchronized, Using these two clocks to measure OWLS
will get the following results:
1. OWLS is isotropic.
2.OWLS does not have the value of 299,792,458m/sec.
That's why you SRians refuse to do any direct OWLS measurements.
Ken Seto
kk
>The obvious question, kk, is how you would propose to
>absolutely synchronize two spatially separated clocks.
What's the matter, you don't like the current
synchronization method, the one that all
physicists use every day of the week, the
upon which all of SR is based!?
All irony aside, it is fairly easy to absolutely
synchronize clocks once one has rid oneself of
the mess of SR.
The key of course is to send two objects toward
the clocks at truly equal speeds relative to the
clocks. Note that one need not actually measure
an object's speed in order to do this, but one
needs only to compare object speeds. This can be
done very simply by .... ("patent pending")
==kk==
ken...@erinet.com
speeds?
Tom Roberts
> SR says that two touching and synchronized clocks moving in the
> opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day....such a pair of
> clocks will remain synchronized, Using these two clocks to measure OWLS
> will get the following results:
> 1. OWLS is isotropic.
> 2.OWLS does not have the value of 299,792,458m/sec.
While you started that with "SR says", in fact this is your personal
"theory" and not SR.
In SR, those clocks remain only _approximately_ synchronized, and only
to the accuracy with which they remain synchronized IN AN INERTIAL FRAME
will OWLS be isotropic when measured using them. Similarly, only to that
accuracy will the measurement result in a value of 299,792,458m/sec, TO
WITHIN THE RESOLUTION OF THE APPARATUS.
[I assume they were "touching" only when they were
synchronized, and do not remain "touching". You also need to
improve the precision of your writing AND THINKING.]
> That's why you SRians refuse to do any direct OWLS measurements.
You keep trying to promulgate this lie. Such direct OWLS measurements
are not useful becuase the intrinsic accuracy of REAL CLOCKS is not
sufficient to distinguish the types of things physicists would want to
distinguish. Measurements that measure (or put limits on) anisotropy of
OWLS are far better for what physicists want to do.
I have no idea what it is you want to do, but it clearly has no direct
relationship to physics. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
PD
*snort*
1. I'm amused by your implication that you expect to make money off of
a process to absolutely synchronize clocks.
2. I'm amused by your claim that you have filed a patent application.
Do you have a patent application file number?
3. I'm amused by your implication that you have a process worked out
but you decline to publish it. This is similar to the approach taken by
Pons & Fleischmann, who said that they had created cold fusion, but
declined to describe how they did it, exactly. Of course, if you're
looking for a place to stay, I know a small farmhouse in France where
one of the original patent-pursuers for cold fusion has taken refuge.
I'm sure he would enjoy like-minded company. Or maybe not.
PD
kk
>1. I'm amused by your implication that you expect to make
>money off of a process to absolutely synchronize clocks.
I'm amused that you don't seem to realize the
implications of absolute synchronization.
>2. I'm amused by your claim that you have filed a patent
>application. Do you have a patent application file number?
I am amused that you either did not see the quotes on
my phrase "patent pending," or did not know what they
meant.
>3. I'm amused by your implication that you have a process
>worked out but you decline to publish it.
I'm amused that you consider placing the solution to
absolute time in a newsgroup post a proper step to take.
But I have already given enough hints to give it away.
(Or is a word to the wise no longer applicable?)
For example, and this is for KenSeto specifically, it
takes only one clock (as I have already said in this
thread) to *compare* the objects' relative speeds.
==kk==
PD
kk wrote:
> PD *snorted* :
> >1. I'm amused by your implication that you expect to make
> >money off of a process to absolutely synchronize clocks.
>
> I'm amused that you don't seem to realize the
> implications of absolute synchronization.
Good luck, then, with your patent application.
>
> >2. I'm amused by your claim that you have filed a patent
> >application. Do you have a patent application file number?
>
> I am amused that you either did not see the quotes on
> my phrase "patent pending," or did not know what they
> meant.
Ah, so it meant that you *don't* have a good reason for nondisclosure.
>
> >3. I'm amused by your implication that you have a process
> >worked out but you decline to publish it.
>
> I'm amused that you consider placing the solution to
> absolute time in a newsgroup post a proper step to take.
Quite right. I looked for an article with your initials posted on
preprint archives for journal submission, which is where I expected the
proper step to be, but I found nothing.
ken...@erinet.com
excuses not to do any direct OWLS measurements. Then you lied that
there are lots of TWLS measurements that confirm TWLS=c and it turns
out that these are not direct TWLS measurements but rather they are
experiments to establish the defintion for a meter. the definition for
a meter currently is circular and absurd. It establish that TWLS=1light
second/1q clock second.
Ken Seto
kk
--snip--
>I looked for an article with your initials posted on preprint
>archives for journal submission, which is where I expected
>the proper step to be, but I found nothing.
Apparently, realism is not your bag.
Try writing a journal's editor, and asking if they
would even review an anti-SR article.
Here, for your reading pleasure, is a direct quote
from one editor re an article I sent to him:
"There are a number of apparent
conflicts in STR, but they have all
been resolved by careful analysis.
Thus it is difficult, if not impossible,
to find referees who are prepared to
spend any time on finding the flaw
in the paradox of the day."
Any other clever suggestions?
==kk==
The Ghost In The Machine
<ken...@erinet.com>
wrote
on 2 Nov 2005 08:37:10 -0800
<1130949430.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
OK, dumb question. Assuming 20m/day separation and a movement
of, say, 50 days (= 1km distance), and then a measurement,
what would that measurement be? Never mind what it is *not*,
I'm asking you to estimate what it should be.
Are we talking:
[1] 299792458.000001 or 299792457.999999 m/s?
[2] 299792459 or 299792457 m/s?
[3] 299822458 or 299762458 m/s?
[4] other?
Roughly what would the value be?
Also, why would OWLS be isotropic? The Earth, after
all, is moving in a circular (or near-circular) orbit.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.
Harry
"kk" <mr_kurt_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1130945663.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Harry wrote:
> >According to SRT, you'll waste your time trying to
> >find a means to do such an experiment (why do you
> >think that such an experiment is possible?).
>
> Yes, Einstein would (if he were alive) literally
> love it if *no one* "wasted their time" searching
> for a way to correctly relate clocks.
Don't fool yourself: *many* people incl. myself have searched for such a
way, and I even know of one or two that could work - but only if there is a
little flaw in SRT. The problem is that I have come to realise that those
that I know require a huge investment of time and money in order to obtain
credible results, one way or another. If you want to dedicate your life to
that, I'll be happy to advice you, and maybe also Tom Roberts will be
willing to give some advice on error analyis when you design your
experiment.
> This is because SR is based solely on Einstein's
> baseless belief that clocks must be set to obtain
> "one-way light speed invariance," but absolutely
> synchronous clocks would *not* get c, and would
> therefore do away with SR and its silliness.
That's a practical procedure - a convention that was first proposed by
Poincare.
What do you find silly about SRT? Please explain if you mean with SRT:
1. a certain theory of physics according to which all laws of physics are
the same in any inertial frame, and which can be tested with experiments
2. philosophy (metaphysics) related to the above of a. Einstein or b.
Minkowski or c. modern text books
If you - as physicists - mean option 1, then what is silly about it?
But if you in fact mean option 2, then which philosophy do you mean?
> But Einstein did not (and could not) prove that
> clocks cannot be (absolutely) synchronized.
> That is why "such an experiment" may be possible.
That's an open door: no theory can prove itself to be 100% correct. That
such *may be* possible is very different from your opinion that it *is*
possible.
> Instead of spending time teaching SR, we should
> be searching for a way to synchronize clocks.
>
> Absolutely synchronous clocks = absolute time.
>
> E-"synch" = relative time, but who needs it?
>
> (As an aside, yes, I know that Harry's above
> question was intended to get me to release
> details of a clock synchronization method, but
> I felt like teasing him first with my above.
> (He had _his_ fun with that big upfront SNIP!)
No fun: just cutting through to the essential point.
> Now here a couple of those details: (1) all
> parts of the experiment must lie on a single
> line; (2) you can get by with only one running
> clock up front since all you need to do is to
> compare, not quantify, equal speeds of the
> objects which start the clocks.)
I don't know what you're after, but perhaps you overlook the fact that in
SRT what appears as "equal speeds" in one frame, appears as different speeds
in another frame. You'd better first of all have a hypothesis about a glitch
in the laws of SRT, otherwise you'll be chasing windmills. Especially
single-line motion is very straightforward (excuse me for the pun), and the
symmetry of the LT doesn't leave any possibility on success - they have been
extensively verified in such experiments.
Best regards,
Harald
kk
>Don't fool yourself: *many* people incl. myself have
List one textbook on special relativity that states that
a goal of mainstream theoretical or practical physicists
is to find a way to absolutely synchronize clocks.
Show us where Einstein both admitted that he could not
correctly synchronize clocks, and said that we should be
searching for a way to do this.
List a popular book on special relativity which tells us
explicitly that an important goal of physics is to find
a way to absolutely synchronize clocks or that Einstein's
clocks are incorrectly related, so all of SR's results
are wrong.
What I am speaking of here in general is simply truth
in advertising. It does not exist in the case of SR.
>and I even know of one or two that could work - but only
>if there is a little flaw in SRT.
If SR's clocks are incorrectly related, then all of SR is
flawed because all of SR was derived from letting two frames
use two clocks to record two events.
However, if the one or two methods about which you were
talking have even little flaws, then they are worthless.
>The problem is that I have come to realise that those
>that I know require a huge investment of time and money
>in order to obtain credible results, one way or another.
Well, what is absolute time worth?
On the other hand, my method is fairly cheap.
It calls for the use of only a single atomic clock
and two moving entities.
>If you want to dedicate your life to that, I'll be happy
>to advice you, and maybe also Tom Roberts will be willing
>to give some advice on error analyis when you design your
>experiment.
The first step is to get in down theoretically, and for that
step, there is no worry about experimental error; however,
my method is very simple and straightforward, so it could be
used without much trouble.
[Harry stated re Einstein's "synchronization"]
>That's a practical procedure - a convention that was first
>proposed by Poincare.
It may have been a mere practical procedure for Poincare,
but Einstein claimed it to be the basis of theoretical
flat space-time physics. Einstein claimed that clocks must
be set his way, and that all the results thereof are to be
accepted as part of physics, including the invariance of
light's one-way speed, the relativistic transformation
equations, and the relativistic composition of velocities
equation. Does this sound like a mere convention to you?
>What do you find silly about SRT?
It is extremely silly to say that one-way light speed
invariance is a law of physics after one has forced
clocks to obtain it (by sheer and mere definition).
It is worse than silly to claim that Einstein's
"time dilation" has anything to do with physics
when it is merely an improper result due to the
use of his out-of-synch clocks.
It is worse than silly to claim that Einstein's
"length contraction" has anything to do with physics
when it is merely an improper result due to the
use of his out-of-synch clocks. (Since Einstein's
observers cannot absolutely simultaneously locate
a passing rod's end points, they cannot correctly
measure its length, and it is incorrectly measured
as being "shortened.)
It is worse than silly to use incorrectly related
clocks without (1) explicitly admitting that they
are incorrectly related, (2) explicitly stating
that the use is just a stopgap until a way is
found to absolutely synchronize clocks.
It is both foolish and silly to claim that the PR
in any way supports SR. (The PR merely says that
all laws should be the same in all frames; it does
not say which laws must be found, so it could not
prefer one-way light speed invariance over one-way
light speed variance.)
It is silly to claim that SR is a scientific theory
when it is essentially merely a clock-setting
convention, as you yourself admitted above.
You cannot obtain a scientific theory about nature
from a convention. (Note again that all of SR's
results come from the use of at least two clocks
per frame, so all of SR's results are given up
front by a mere convention.)
I would give you more SR silliness, but I am getting
tired of typing about it.
>>But Einstein did not (and could not) prove that
>>clocks cannot be (absolutely) synchronized.
>>That is why "such an experiment" may be possible.
>That's an open door:
But how many SR books state this? How many SR students
know this? All I hear is that SR is a fully valid and
fully accepted scientific theory which has no chance
of being disproved because so many experiments have
fully supported the silly thing for over 100 years!
>no theory can prove itself to be 100% correct. That
>such *may be* possible is very different from your
>opinion that it *is* possible.
Well, even a mere opinion that it merely *may* be
possible is a far cry from the current view of SR as
being locked in forever.
>>([Harry] had _his_ fun with that big upfront SNIP!)
>No fun: just cutting through to the essential point.
You seem to have forgotten how you put it, so let me
refresh your short memory:
"SNIP fruitless debate on semantics" (I would call that
having fun.)
>>Now here a couple of those details: (1) all
>>parts of the experiment must lie on a single
>>line; (2) you can get by with only one running
>>clock up front since all you need to do is to
>>compare, not quantify, equal speeds of the
>>objects which start the clocks.)
>I don't know what you're after, but perhaps you overlook
>the fact that in SRT what appears as "equal speeds" in one
>frame, appears as different speeds in another frame. You'd
>better first of all have a hypothesis about a glitch in the
>laws of SRT, otherwise you'll be chasing windmills. Especially
>single-line motion is very straightforward (excuse me for the
>pun), and the symmetry of the LT doesn't leave any possibility
>on success - they have been extensively verified in such
>experiments.
See, the silliness of SR even destroys perfectly good and
useful phrases such as "equal speeds." Thanks to SR's pure
silliness, I (and others) must continuously guard against
saying simply "synchronous clocks" instead of "absolutely
synchronous clocks," and "equal speeds" instead of "truly
equal relative speeds."
Let me further explain my "equal speeds" thingie:
Picture a long rod floating in space. At two points
of the rod is an unstarted clock set to start on zero
when hit by a movable object.
----[0]----------------------------------------[0]-----
Now add a couple of movable objects somewhere in-
between:
----[0]------------------@--@------------------[0]-----
Just as in your favorite "theory" of flat space-time,
i.e., just as in special relativity "theory," I simply
ignore the possibility that the rod may be moving through
space (just as we know that light can move through space),
so I am interested in only the motions of objects along
the rod **relative to** the clocks.
However, even merely *relative* motion must be *correctly*
measured, but this is not possible in SR due to the
(absolute) asynchronousness of Albert's silly clocks.
Clearly, my main problem is how to make sure that
the objects' merely relative speeds are equal as
each moves toward its clock in this 'closed world'
(aka an inertial ref. frame).
(And while I am at it, I should point out that SR is
also silly because it cannot correctly measure even
its own merely relative speeds!)
Are you beginning to get the picture? Does it seem like
an impossibly complicated and terribly expensive deal?
Slide a couple of objects toward a couple of clocks at
(truly) equal speeds wrt to the clocks, and - voila! -
you have (absolute) synchronization!
(Of course, there are a few more important details to
attend to, but these have been worked out.)
==kk==