Special Relativity Is Inadequate
John Reid
There is more to motion than the mere frame-to-frame
relative motion of special relativity.
For example, both space and light exist, and light
moves through space. There are no standard inertial
reference systems involved. There is only the motion
relationship between light waves and space.
Continuing with this simple example, we could ask the
following pertinent questions:
[A] Should we say that space moves relative to light?
[B] Or should we say that light moves relative to space?
[C] Or should we say that they move relative to each other?
Let's try to answer the above questions.
Presumably, some properties of space control light's
propagation speed through space. Given this, light's
speed through space would be fixed even if space as
a whole moves. Therefore, as far as light's motion
relationship with space is concerned, space is not
doing any of the moving, and light is doing all of
the moving.
Reiterating, we have seen that space is a fixed background
as far as the movement of light waves in space is concerned.
We also saw that since there are no inertial reference frames
involved, the relative motion between light and space is not
like that of special relativity.
Einstein claimed that the only motion about which it
makes any sense to speak is the motion of one inertial
reference frame with respect to another, but we have
found that it also makes sense to speak of the motion
of light relative to space with the latter being fixed,
and with the former doing all of the moving.
Let's further examine this new notion of motion.
Consider a point P in space at which a light ray is
emitted. What can be said about the light source?
Suppose we have three sources, S1, S2, and S3.
Suppose these sources are moving at vastly different
speeds. For example, S1 could be at rest with respect
to point P, S2 could be moving to the left at .99c
wrt point P, and S3 could be moving to the right at
.99c relative to point P. What happens if each of
these three sources emit a light ray when they meet
at point P? If all three light rays are emitted in
the same direction, then they will travel together
as if they were one ray. This is due to light's
source-independent nature.
I mentioned above that three light sources were moving
at vastly different speeds. What does the phrase
"different speeds" mean in the given context? Does it mean
"different speeds relative to some inertial reference
frame" as in special relativity? No, it means much more
than this. First, it means "absolutely different speeds"
because this involves a purely qualitative comparison that
is exactly analogous to the direct comparison of one rod's
length with that of another by simply placing the rods
side by side at relative rest. That is, we know that the
three sources' speeds are absolutely different because
the sources do not move side by side, but separate, and
continue to separate forever. Second, the phrase "different
speeds" also means "different speeds relative to space."
Third, and finally, it means "different speeds relative to
any light ray in space."
Since each source is in an inertial reference frame, it is
clear that each frame moves differently relative to any given
light ray.
Einstein, however, ignored frame motion relative to light
when setting his clocks. Below is a simple diagram showing
two frames' clocks being set Einstein's way.
(Clocks are represented by [T])
(Light ray designated by ~~~~~>)
(Although the odds are against it, we shall give
Einstein a little help by assuming that Frame A
is at rest relative to the light ray's fixed emission
point in space.)
"X" is the distance between the clocks per a ruler
at rest in each frame.
In accordance with Einstein's definition, both
right-hand clocks have been pre-set to read
Einstein's chosen time X/c before these clocks are
started by the light ray.
Frame A
[0]---------X----------[X/c]
~>
[0]---------X----------[X/c]-->
Frame B
Frame A
[0]---------X----------[X/c](clock starts)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
------[0]---------X----------[X/c]-->
Frame B
Frame A
[0]---------X-----------[?]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
----------------[0]---------X----------[X/c](clock starts)
Frame B
Note that when observers in both frames see the light ray
hit A's right-hand clock, B's right-hand clock is not there,
but is some distance away. This is experimental proof that
the light ray must travel different distances through space
as it hits each right-hand clock in sequence.
But Einstein incorrectly insisted upon using the _same_
distance X for the clock readings when they are hit by
the light ray.
Further note that a light ray's tip cannot be in two
places at the same time.
Finally note that whenever A's right-hand clock is hit by
the light ray, B's right-hand clock is _not_ there, so it
must be hit at an absolutely _different_ time.
To put it another way, unless a single point-like entity (such
as the light ray's tip) touches two touching objects, it cannot
touch them absolutely simultaneously, so it must touch them
at absolutely different times.
All of this tell us in no uncertain terms that Einstein's
placement of the _same_ time reading on both right-hand
clocks conflicts with physical reality.
There can be no doubt that the light ray traveled different
distances through space. We do not know either distance; all
we know is that they differ. We can label them Xa and Xb
for Frame A and Frame B respectively.
Thus, the light ray's travel time for Frame A = Xa/c, and
the ray's travel time for Frame B = Xb/c, where c is light's
speed relative to space (or to a frame that is at rest
wrt space).
We can now let each frame calculate light's one-way speed,
and we have the following values:
Light's one-way speed in Frame A = (X)(c)/Xa
Light's one-way speed in Frame B = (X)(c)/Xb
As I said, this direct experimental result contradicts
Einstein's definition of clock "synchronization."
Not only is there no justification for Einstein's definition,
there is experimental evidence against it.
As I also said, Einstein ignored frame movement relative to
light when setting his clocks with light signals.
He also ignored frame movement relative to light when
saying that the only meaningful motion is frame movement
relative to another frame.
What are physicists to make of these serious defects?
Contrary to special relativity, light's one-way speed is
variant and it is not isotropic (except in the one frame that
is at rest relative to space).
Contrary to Einstein, each frame is unique. Each frame moves
differently relative to space, and each frame moves differently
relative to light, and since light rays are used - in special
relativity - to set clocks, each frame's clocks will be set
differently, meaning differently asynchronously. Only the frame
that is at rest wrt space will have absolutely synchronous clocks
when light rays are used to start clocks.
What is meant by the phrase "absolute clock synchronization"?
Although the average man in the street has a clear picture of
this, those who have studied special relativity have lost most,
if not all, of this commonsense clarity. Therefore, I am forced
- when speaking to those who know - or think they know - about
special relativity - to bend over backward in order to explicitly
define something as simple as absolute clock synchronization.
This will be started in the next paragraph.
[Start Absolute Synchronization Definition - in theory]
An atomic clock is basically a very simple mechanism, being
nothing more than natural atomic "vibrations." (Precisely,
the second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of radiation associated
with the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium-133 atom.)
After about nine billion natural atomic cycles, an atomic
clock will read one second.
Note that the atomic clock's natural rhythm is independent
of any observer's viewpoint. Therefore, the reading on an
atomic clock is independent of all observers' viewpoints.
Physicists agree that two touching clocks can be absolutely
synchronized.
Suppose we use this simple method to absolutely synchronize
two identical-constructed atomic clocks A and B.
We watch these two clocks for a while, and we notice that
their natural atomic rhythms are identical.
That is, every time clock A reads a time t, clock B reads
the same time t.
We now slowly and gently move clock B away from clock A
to a new resting place.
Clearly, these two atomic clocks must remain absolutely
synchronous unless their natural atomic rhythms somehow
become different.
However, the only given physical difference between these
two atomic clocks is the absolute difference between their
speeds. (As explained above, since they are no longer
comoving, their speeds must be absolutely different.)
In other words, the only way the clocks differ physically
as far as we know up front is that they move at different
speeds through space.
Therefore, if and only if an atomic clock's natural atomic
rhythm varies with the clock's speed through space will the
two clocks disagree after one is moved.
We can use the above fact as our descriptive or in-principle
definition of absolute clock synchronization because it
certainly tells any scientist what is meant physically
by the phrase "absolute clock synchronization."
[End Theoretical Definition of Absolute Synchronization]
Why all this talk about absolute synchronization? Well,
only absolutely synchronous clocks can make correct time
measurements; it's that simple! And, as we have seen,
Einstein's clocks are not only absolutely asynchronous,
but are differently asynchronous in each frame.
There can be no doubt that Einstein improperly set all
clocks in all frames to obtain his pre-chosen (prior to
any one-way measurement) value "c" for light's one-way,
two-clock speed. I said "improperly" because, as we found
above, one-way invariance conflicts with direct experiment.
Although it would be interesting to know why Einstein did
this (and I do know), it is not necessary to delve into
that at this time.
All that matters regarding special relativity is the
experimental fact that Einstein's prime postulate
(one-way light speed invariance and isotropy in all
frames) is invalid.
And all that matters regarding physical reality is
that only (absolutely) synchronous clocks can correctly
measure the time between two events, including the time
between the start and end of a light ray's one-way trip.
Conclusion:
We need to forget about special relativity because its
clock readings conflict with reality, and therefore it
(special relativity) does not provide correct temporal
measurements. Instead of preaching special relativity,
we need to find a way to (absolutely) synchronize clocks.
It can't hurt to put a little reality back into physics.
-JR
===================END=====================
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>What are physicists to make of these serious defects?
>
>Contrary to special relativity, light's one-way speed is
>variant and it is not isotropic (except in the one frame that
>is at rest relative to space).
Not true. Light's one way speed is also isotropic. This is due to the
fact that space is structured. Light follows the geometry of the
structure while a material object follows a different course in the
structure. This is the reason why material objects move relative to
light according to Lorentz invariant.
BTW, the speed of light is not a universal constant as asserted by SR.
It is a constant math ratio of:
Light path length of a moving rod in the ether/the absolute
time content in a clock second comoving with the rod.
Other than this your concept is very close to mine. If you are
interested please visit my website at
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Click on to the section entitled Doppler Relativity Theory..
BTW, DRT is schedule to be published in the peer-reviewed journal
"Galilean Electrodynamics" in the Nov-Dec issue.
Ken Seto
Paul Cardinale
<a bunch of nonsense snipped>
John Reid proved:
1. He doesn't know what experimental evidence is.
2. He doesn't know what it takes to falsify a theory.
3. He doesn't understand relativity.
Paul Cardinale
Beatrice Galbraith
groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group
Bea
"John Reid" <silve...@4learning.com> wrote in message
news:3465e0c7.01080...@posting.google.com...
John Reid
> Light's one way speed is also isotropic.
I proved experimentally that it is not.
Would you mind explaining your experiment in
full physical detail?
-JR
John Reid
Such a vague "counterargument" is always a direct
indication of the fact that the original poster
(yours truly) is making headway.
Thanks!
-JR
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote in message news:<3b694f35$0$1523$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
>
>> Light's one way speed is also isotropic.
>
>I proved experimentally that it is not.
What is your experiment? Please describe.
>Would you mind explaining your experiment in
>full physical detail?
The MMX.. The mirrors at the ends of the arms acted as sources. The
null result implied that the speed of light is independent of the
motion of the sources and also independent of the orientation of the
arms. This means one way speed of light is isotropic in all
directions.
Ken Seto
John Reid
> There is an interesting discussion similar to this at
> groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group
>
> Bea
J Reid-
Here is all I found when I searched for "relativity" at the Web site
"http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Discipline_Group/":
----
I found the thread
"Relativity and binary signals faster than the speed of light"
I found another thread called "The technology behind THE BELL. . ."
But both of these threads are apparently discussing the quantum
entanglement of two particles, and this is not what my thread is
about.
(And I find it odd that anyone would seriously try to discuss special
relativity without going to the main relativity newsgroup
[sci.physics.relativity]).
-JR
John Reid
>>>Light's one way speed is also isotropic.
John Reid-
>>I proved experimentally that it is not.
>>What is your experiment? Please describe.
>>Would you mind explaining your experiment in
>>full physical detail?
>The MMX.. The mirrors at the ends of the arms acted as sources.
>The null result implied that the speed of light is independent
>of the motion of the sources and also independent of the
>orientation of the arms. This means one way speed of light is
>isotropic in all directions.
>Ken Seto
Actually, the MMx null result was a round-trip - not
a one-way - result that said nothing about light's
one-way speed except that the sum of the two one-way
times per clocks at rest in the MMx frame cannot
exceed the round-trip time. (Of course, since there
was no clock in the MMx, we are really talking about
the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment here.)
Obviously, it is impossible to obtain a one-way experimental
result without performing the one-way experiment.
From what you had written in your prior post, I assumed
that you had performed the one-way experiment either as
a legit (fully-described and acceptable-to-all) thought
experiment or as an actual experiment using two clocks
and a rod.
It is easy to show that the MMx did not imply one-way invariance.
All you have to do is use the sliding mirror thought experiment.
Attach a light source to one end of a long table, and attach a
sliding mirror near the other end. Turn on the light source
to let it send its light waves toward the mirror. If this
mirror is far enough from the source, it is possible for an
assistant of yours to slide the mirror either toward or away
from the source before the light reaches the mirror. Now ask
yourself the following question: Will the light ray's actual
one-way travel time vary with the mirror's final position?
Explanatory interlude:
[The phrase "actual travel time" means "the time recorded by
any chosen clock even though this clock cannot be at both
the start and end of the light ray's trip." In other words,
this is just a reference clock for our convenience. For
example, suppose we simply use the Earth as a clock (as
was done for centuries). It is a simple physical fact that
during the light ray's one-way journey, the Earth clock will
experience some time in the form of Earth rotations (or
part of a rotation). Let's say that the Earth experienced R1
rotations during a given one-way trip when the mirror's final
position was at point P1. It is easy to see that if the
mirror's final position is at another point P2, then the
Earth clock will have experienced a _different_ number of
rotations R2.]
Now back to our experiment:
No sane person would claim that the light ray's one-way (actual)
travel time would be the same for different final positions
of the mirror. We now add a second table identical to the
first. In this case, each table has its own mirror, and the
mirrors cannot slide. However, this second table can roll.
Each table has its own light source at the end that is
opposite the end where the fixed mirrors are attached.
Table B (the second table) is rolling to the right relative
to Table A (the first table).
See diagram below.
[S(a) = Table A's light source]
[M(a) = Table A's mirror]
[~~> = light ray]
After the light rays are emitted together when the left ends
of the tables meet, Table B rolls on to the right.
Table A
=============================M(a)
S(a)~~>
S(b)~~>
=============================M(b)-->
Table B
The result of this one-way experiment is based on the single
physical fact that both light rays will travel side-by-side.
This is essentially the same as the sliding mirror experiment.
The light ray that hits mirror M(b) will have a different actual
one-way travel time than the light ray that hits mirror M(a).
Here is how the diagram looks when the light rays reach the first
mirror:
Table A
=============================M(a)
S(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
S(b)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
======================================M(b)-->
Table B
Since observers in both these frames know (from the sliding
mirror thought experiment) that the twin light rays' actual
one-way travel times were different for the two mirrors,
they can enter this fact into their log books. They do this
by simply entering two different symbols since they have no
clocks to quantify times. For example, the observers in the
Table A frame can enter the symbol T(a) for their one-way
travel time, and the other observers can use the symbol T(b).
Since the tables are identical, the frame distances traveled
by the light ray are equal, and can both therefore be labeled
X.
Using their log book data, the observers in each frame can
now calculate light's one-way speed.
Light's one-way speed wrt Table A = X/T(a)
Light's one-way speed wrt Table B = X/T(b)
Conclusion: Light's one-way speed is not invariant.
Clearly, the physical reasons for this result are
the source-independent nature of light plus the fact
that each frame moves differently relative to light.
If the light source on Table B imparted some extra speed
to its light ray, then of course this ray's actual one-way
travel time could be the same as that of the Table A ray.
But light's speed through space is not affected by its
source's motion through space. This is the true meaning
of the phrase "light is source-independent."
-JR
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote in message news:<3b694f35$0$1523$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
>
>>>>Light's one way speed is also isotropic.
>
>John Reid-
>>>I proved experimentally that it is not.
>>>What is your experiment? Please describe.
>>>Would you mind explaining your experiment in
>>>full physical detail?
>
>>The MMX.. The mirrors at the ends of the arms acted as sources.
>>The null result implied that the speed of light is independent
>>of the motion of the sources and also independent of the
>>orientation of the arms. This means one way speed of light is
>>isotropic in all directions.
>
>>Ken Seto
>
>Actually, the MMx null result was a round-trip - not
>a one-way - result that said nothing about light's
>one-way speed except that the sum of the two one-way
>times per clocks at rest in the MMx frame cannot
>exceed the round-trip time. (Of course, since there
>was no clock in the MMx, we are really talking about
>the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment here.)
The MMX is one way. You can replace the mirrors at the ends of the
arms with real light sources and you would still get the null result
in all orientations of the arms. Same with the Kennedy-Theorndike
experiment replace the mirrors with light sources and you still get
null results in all orientations of the unequal arms.
>
>Obviously, it is impossible to obtain a one-way experimental
>result without performing the one-way experiment.
I have a couple of one way experiments in my website. Those
experiments are designed to detect absolute motion.
>
>From what you had written in your prior post, I assumed
>that you had performed the one-way experiment either as
>a legit (fully-described and acceptable-to-all) thought
>experiment or as an actual experiment using two clocks
>and a rod.
The speed of light is not a universal constant but rather it is a
constant math ratio of:
Light path length of a moving rod in the ether/ the absolute
time content of a clock second comoving with the rod.
Using two clocks and a rod will always give you the same math ratio in
all directions.
>
>It is easy to show that the MMx did not imply one-way invariance.
>All you have to do is use the sliding mirror thought experiment.
>
>Attach a light source to one end of a long table, and attach a
>sliding mirror near the other end. Turn on the light source
>to let it send its light waves toward the mirror. If this
>mirror is far enough from the source, it is possible for an
>assistant of yours to slide the mirror either toward or away
>from the source before the light reaches the mirror. Now ask
>yourself the following question: Will the light ray's actual
>one-way travel time vary with the mirror's final position?
This doesn't prove anything. The light path length is shorter as the
mirror is moved toward you and therefore a shorter transit time. The
light path length is longer as the mirror is moving away from you and
therefore a longer transit time.
To prove one way isotropy you need to measure one way light speed in
different directions with two clocks and a rod. Slow clock transport
will do the job.
You got it all wrong.To measure OWLS wrt table A you have to be at
rest with your two clocks and rod at table A. To measure OWLS wrt to
table B you must be at rest with your two clocks and rod at table B.
When you do that you will find that both A and B get the same value
for OWLS.
>
>Clearly, the physical reasons for this result are
>the source-independent nature of light plus the fact
>that each frame moves differently relative to light.
This movment is not detectable if you perform the experiment in the
frame A and B. In other words, both A and B will get the same OWLS.
>If the light source on Table B imparted some extra speed
>to its light ray, then of course this ray's actual one-way
>travel time could be the same as that of the Table A ray.
>But light's speed through space is not affected by its
>source's motion through space. This is the true meaning
>of the phrase "light is source-independent."
The speed of light is also independent of the motion of the detector.
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> For example, both space and light exist, and light
> moves through space. There are no standard inertial
> reference systems involved. There is only the motion
> relationship between light waves and space.
Except that we humans have never been able to _describe_ this without
reference to a set of coordinates, and the simplest set of coordinates
known is those of an inertial frame. Historically, of course, inertial
frames of coordinates played a special and unique role in the
development of physical theories.
> [A] Should we say that space moves relative to light?
Only if you can define what you mean by this. So far nobody has been
able to do so. Including you.
> [B] Or should we say that light moves relative to space?
Ditto. It is _easy_ to describe light's motion wrt any given set of
coordinates, but that is not what one means by "space"....
> Reiterating, we have seen that space is a fixed background
Hmmm. Modern theories of physics do not include this. What do you
mean by this, and why do you think it is so? Normally the phrase "we
have seen" introduces a conclusion from an earlier argument; you merely
state this without supporting argument.
> We also saw that since there are no inertial reference frames
> involved, the relative motion between light and space is not
> like that of special relativity.
Again, you need to support such statements. Remember that SR makes no
claim about "relationships to space", it _explicitly_ deals with
relationships to the coordinates of inertial frames -- Einstein was
remarkably precise in his terminology for his time, and remains so
today. You, on the other hand, don't bother to say what you mean at
all and require your readers to _guess_....
As I alluded to before, the inertial frame becomes involved when we
humans describe the situation. Yes indeed, no such frame is required for
any physical phenomena, including the propagation of light. But we humans
need some coordinates to describe the situation, and an inertial frame of
coordinates is often the best and simplest.
> but we have
> found that it also makes sense to speak of the motion
> of light relative to space
No, "we" haven't -- all you have done is to _ASSERT_ that it "makes
sense", without explaining what you mean at all, and without showing
any "sense" at all.
> [--- long-winded nonsense ---]
> Conclusion:
> We need to forget about special relativity because its
> clock readings conflict with reality,
Aparently you are completely unaware of the actual experimental record,
and consider your verbal ramblings to be "reality". In actual fact, SR
agrees extremely well with actual experiments within its domain of
applicibility, and has not been refuted within that domain by any
reproducible experiments. This includes "clock readings" in many
different settings and situations.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
John Reid
<TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in <3B6C27EF...@avenew.com>:
-slight deletion-
J Reid-
>> Reiterating, we have seen that space is a fixed background
T Roberts-
>Hmmm. Modern theories of physics do not include this. What do you
>mean by this, and why do you think it is so? Normally the phrase "we
>have seen" introduces a conclusion from an earlier argument; you
merely
>state this without supporting argument.
No, you merely deleted my supporting argument.
Here it is replayed:
>>Let's try to answer the above questions.
>>Presumably, some properties of space control light's
>>propagation speed through space. Given this, light's
>>speed through space would be fixed even if space as
>>a whole moves. Therefore, as far as light's motion
>>relationship with space is concerned, space is not
>>doing any of the moving, and light is doing all of
>>the moving.
This is analogous to sound waves in air, where the
air's properties control the sound's movement through
it, so we can correctly say that this is purely a
sound-air relationship where sound does all of the
moving while the air is "at rest." Even if the air
is moving within a jet plane at Mach 2, we know that
sound still moves relative to the air at the standard
speed of sound in air (Mach 1).
[Note that the speed of sound in air varies slightly with
air temperature and air pressure. Similarly, the speed of
light through space is controlled by the properties of space.]
>> We also saw that since there are no inertial reference frames
>> involved, the relative motion between light and space is not
>> like that of special relativity.
>
>Again, you need to support such statements. Remember that SR makes no
>claim about "relationships to space", it _explicitly_ deals with
>relationships to the coordinates of inertial frames -- Einstein was
>remarkably precise in his terminology for his time, and remains so
>today. You, on the other hand, don't bother to say what you mean at
>all and require your readers to _guess_....
So let me know which part of the sound wave analogy you
cannot grasp.
>> Conclusion:
>> We need to forget about special relativity because its
>> clock readings conflict with reality,
>
>Aparently you are completely unaware of the actual experimental
record,
>and consider your verbal ramblings to be "reality". In actual fact,
SR
>agrees extremely well with actual experiments within its domain of
>applicibility, and has not been refuted within that domain by any
>reproducible experiments. This includes "clock readings" in many
>different settings and situations.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Without presenting a single valid objection, and
without pointing out a single flaw, you declare all
of my post to be invalid.
Interesting way to do business!
Also, you did not document a single relativity experiment which
does not depend upon Einstein's circular clock-setting process.
(In case you are not familiar with this procedure, let me fill
you in: Before performing any one-way light speed experiment, and
before starting any clocks, Einstein pre-sets all clocks to make them
obtain his pre-chosen one-way light travel time of x/c. Anyone will
now agree that Einstein will now "obtain" one-way invariance and
isotropy. And anyone will now agree re the "results" of forcing
clocks to "obtain" this "invariance." One such "result" being the
fact that a passing clock's Einsteinian readings - when compared to
two on-board Einsteinian clocks - will apparently "run slower." But
this is merely a reciprocal, observer-dependent, "clock slowing"
that has nothing to do with any physical clock slowing. In short,
it is merely the "result" of Einstein's circular clock-setting
process, and so has nothing to do with real physics.)
[And in case you cannot understand what I meant by "physical
clock slowing," here is a primer: Let's create a simple atomic
clock just for the sake of this example: Suppose this clock is
a single atom of hydrogen, and let its time readings be controlled
by the natural vibrations of this atom's electron. That is, one
vibration = one time unit. Note that this clock's time readings
are not dependent on any outside observers' points-of-view or on
any comparison of this clock with the clocks of any other frames.
This clock's time readings are due to its intrinsic and nature-given
atomic rhythm. Now suppose we have two such clocks, and they are
touching at mutual relative rest. We can then start them absolutely
simultaneously. We can also directly (absolutely) compare their
intrinsic rates, and we shall see that these intrinsic rates are
identical. Clearly, only some external force can change either
clock's intrinsic natural atomic rhythm. We now slowly move one
of the clocks to a different location. As was just pointed out,
unless some outside force acts on the clocks, their atomic rhythms
will not change, so they would still have identical atomic rhythms
even after the one clock has been moved (given negligible acceler-
ation forces.) Therefore, given no outside forces, the two clocks
must still be absolutely synchronous (just as they were before the
one clock was moved). So, not only have we seen what is meant by
the phrase "physical clock slowing," but we have seen what is
meant by "clock motion relative to space." We have seen the latter
because the only way Einstein can be right is if the clocks somehow
become asynchronous upon their spatial separation. And, as you should
know, Einstein's view denies absolute simultaneity in general, so
Einstein does not allow absolutely synchronous spatially separated
clocks. And this means of course that some outside force must act
upon one or both of the clocks in order to change one or both of
their intrinsic atomic rhythms. Nothing else can change the initial
conditions. And of course, the only known way the clocks physically
differ is via their different speeds through space. So we must
conclude
that clock speed through space controls intrinsic clock rhythm.
However, this also runs counter to Einstein's view because he flatly
denied any meaning to "motion through space." Conclusion: Either
Einstein must give up his rule that absolute distant simultaneity
cannot exist, or he must give up his rule that "motion through space
is meaningless." This is known as "being between a rock and a hard
place." How are you going to save Einstein?]
-JR
John Reid
>The MMX is one way.
No, the one-way speed of anything, including a light
ray requires the use of two clocks.
Seto-
>The speed of light is not a universal constant but
>rather it is a constant math ratio of:
> Light path length of a moving rod in the ether
> /the absolute time content of a clock second
> comoving with the rod.
>Using two clocks and a rod will always give you the
>same math ratio in all directions.
Show this on paper.
Seto-
>This doesn't prove anything.
It proved one-way variance.
J R-
>>Light's one-way speed wrt Table A = X/T(a)
>>
>>Light's one-way speed wrt Table B = X/T(b)
>>
>>Conclusion: Light's one-way speed is not invariant.
Seto-
>You got it all wrong. To measure OWLS wrt table A
>you have to be at rest with your two clocks and rod
>at table A. To measure OWLS wrt to table B you must
>be at rest with your two clocks and rod at table B.
>When you do that you will find that both A and B get
>the same value for OWLS.
The Table A observers were at rest wrt Table A, and
the Table B observers were at rest wrt Table B.
Seto-
>The speed of light is also independent of
>the motion of the detector.
As I showed, it is not, and neither is light's
observed direction of motion nor its observed frequency.
All three of these things vary with detector motion.
-JR
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>Seto-
>>The MMX is one way.
>
>No, the one-way speed of anything, including a light
>ray requires the use of two clocks.
No. If there is no fringe shift in any orientations of the arms then
that means that the one way speed is the same in all directions.
>
>Seto-
>>The speed of light is not a universal constant but
>>rather it is a constant math ratio of:
>> Light path length of a moving rod in the ether
>> /the absolute time content of a clock second
>> comoving with the rod.
>>Using two clocks and a rod will always give you the
>>same math ratio in all directions.
>
>Show this on paper.
OK. Here it is:
__________________________________________
Light is waves in a light conducting medium.
How does the existence of a light conducting medium (ether) and
absolute time gives rise to isotropy light speed in all inertial
frames? The answer to this question is as follows:
The speed of light is_NOT_a universal constant as implied by SRT.
But rather it is a constant math ratio of:
light path length of a moving rod in the ether / the absolute time
content in a clock second comoving with the rod in the ether.
The following will explain what this mean
By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the ether is:
c=299,792,458 m /1 ether frame clock second
=L/1 ether frame clock second
Where L is the proper length of the rod in the ether frame
The 1 ether frame clock second is an interval of absolute time as
recorded by the ether frame clock. It is also commonly known as an
interval of proper time or a proper second in the ether frame.
Assuming length of rod is L=299,792,456 m
Also assuming that 1 ether frame clock second is an interval of
absolute time
Using the coordinate free Lorentz transform equations we can transform
these quantities into any moving frame in the ether as follows:
The light path length of the rod L in any moving frame = L*gamma
1 clock second of the moving clock = (1 ether clock second)*gamma
Where gamma=1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Therefore the speed of light in any moving frame in the ether is a
constant math ratio c as follows:
c=L*gamma/(1ether frame clock second)*gamma
=L/1 ether frame clock second
This means that the speed of light is a constant math ratio as defined
above.
__________________________________________________________
>
>Seto-
>>This doesn't prove anything.
>
>It proved one-way variance.
The MMX already proved one-way invariant..
>
>J R-
>>>Light's one-way speed wrt Table A = X/T(a)
>>>
>>>Light's one-way speed wrt Table B = X/T(b)
>>>
>>>Conclusion: Light's one-way speed is not invariant.
>
>Seto-
>>You got it all wrong. To measure OWLS wrt table A
>>you have to be at rest with your two clocks and rod
>>at table A. To measure OWLS wrt to table B you must
>>be at rest with your two clocks and rod at table B.
>>When you do that you will find that both A and B get
>>the same value for OWLS.
>
>The Table A observers were at rest wrt Table A, and
But he cannot use his relative motion with table B to figure out his
one way light pseed. That is he cannot use the the following of your
assertions:
"This is essentially the same as the sliding mirror experiment.
The light ray that hits mirror M(b) will have a different actual
one-way travel time than the light ray that hits mirror M(a)"
In real life light ray will hit mirror(b) at Tb and it will hit
mirror(a) at Ta. These clock reading will be equal---that is Ta=Tb.
However, Ta will have a different absolute time interval than Tb.
>the Table B observers were at rest wrt Table B.
See explanation above.
>
>Seto-
>>The speed of light is also independent of
>>the motion of the detector.
>
>As I showed, it is not, and neither is light's
>observed direction of motion nor its observed frequency.
>All three of these things vary with detector motion.
It is. Otherwise you would not be able to measure that the speed of
light is indepemndent of the motion of the source.
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> [Note that the speed of sound in air varies slightly with
> air temperature and air pressure. Similarly, the speed of
> light through space is controlled by the properties of space.]
Your analogy is flawed, and misses the important difference: air has
physical properties, space does not. I know of no way of defining
"motion relative to space" in any meaningful way. Certainly you have
presented no such definition. "Motion relative to air" is easy.
Note I mean distinct from motion relative to some object or
coordinate system -- _those_ are well defined.
> Also, you did not document a single relativity experiment which
> does not depend upon Einstein's circular clock-setting process.
Hmmm. As I have said MANY TIMES around here, one cannot measure any one-way
velocity without selecting a clock-synchronization procedure; there are
infinitely-many such procedures, and one's choice is _ARBITRARY_.
Einstein's is the simplest, and the fact that it is equivalent to slow clock
transport wrt an inertial frame makes it the one which is what was meant
by "clock synchronization" before 1905 when he pointed out the subtleties.
So EVERY one-way measurement depends upon an arbitrary _human_ choice.
Therefore no physical phenomena can depend upon such one-way speeds....
Note that round-trip measurements can be made using a single clock, so
one's choice of synchronization method is irrelevant. The class of theories
I discuss around here is distinguished by the round-trip speed of light
being isotropically c in every inertial frame; the theories in the class
have wildly-different one-way speeds, but all are experimentally
insdistinguishable from each other, _including_ SR. Among other things,
every theory of this class predicts that slow clock transport is
equivalent to Esynch, even though they have wildly-different one-way
speeds of light.
> [about Esynch] One such "result" being the
> fact that a passing clock's Einsteinian readings - when compared to
> two on-board Einsteinian clocks - will apparently "run slower."
That is completely unrelated to synchronization procedures.
> this is merely a reciprocal, observer-dependent, "clock slowing"
> that has nothing to do with any physical clock slowing.
Yes. It is analogous to the effects of geometric prespective, not any sort
of "physical" effect. But then you go on to contradict yourself:
> In short,
> it is merely the "result" of Einstein's circular clock-setting
> process, and so has nothing to do with real physics.)
Not true.
Sanity check: Einstein's procedure sets the clock readings _ONCE_ before
the measurement begins. So it can change the OFFSETS of clocks, but not
their tick rates. But in experiments of this type an observer measures
the _TICK_RATE_ of the moving clock to be slower than the _TICK_RATE_ of
an identical clock at rest in the observer's frame. So your claim here
cannot possibly be right.
Second sanity check: pion beams exist. The pion is unstable, and without
time dilation ("clock slowing"), its (proper lifetime)*c is only about
7 meters; real pion beams are over a kilometer long, and the pions in
them are measured to travel at c (within experimental accuracies of
~0.1%). So without time dilation there is no way pions could travel that
far. Obviously no clocks are synchronized in this observation. Your claim
is just plain wrong.
> [description of a pair of atomic clocks]
> Clearly, only some external force can change either
> clock's intrinsic natural atomic rhythm.
You are assuming what you are trying to prove.
But that's OK, because you don't need to "prove" it -- Bailey et al did
an experiment which shows that the "internal clock" of a muon is unaffected
(at the 0.1% level or so) by magnetic accelerations of 10^18 g (1 g =
9.8 m/s^2). So even incredibly large forces do not significantly affect
the rate of such clocks.
> So, not only have we seen what is meant by
> the phrase "physical clock slowing," but we have seen what is
> meant by "clock motion relative to space."
You have not shown EITHER ONE. You only showed what you mean by "intrinsic
clock rate", and "motion wrt another clock". There was no mention of "space"
anywhere in your discussion.
> the only way Einstein can be right is if the clocks somehow
> become asynchronous upon their spatial separation.
You simply do not understand what SR predicts. SR does not claim that mere
spatial separation causes clocks to get unsynchronized, it claims that
_RELATIVE_MOTION_ causes them to become unsyncyhronized. But your
description said to move them "slowly", which normally means something
like "take the limit in which their speed approaches 0" -- in that limit
the effect of the motion on the synchronization of the clocks will vanish.
> And, as you should
> know, Einstein's view denies absolute simultaneity in general, so
> Einstein does not allow absolutely synchronous spatially separated
> clocks.
First you need to define what you mean by "absolutely synchronous clocks".
So far nobody has been able to define that, either.
In SR is it easy to have spatially-separated clocks which are at rest in
a given inertial frame, and which are synchronized IN THAT FRAME. Of course
they will not be synchronized in any other inertial frame, and there is
nothing "absolute" about this. If two clocks are not at rest in the same
inertial frame, then in general it is impossible for them to remain
synchronized -- any inertial observer who measures both their rates will
obtain different values for them.
It is clear, isn't it, that for two clocks to remain synchronized
they must tick at the same rate? It's just that in SR there is
nothing "absolute" about this at all, and every measurement and
observation must be referenced to a specific observer/frame. So
"remain synchronized" and "same rate" are BOTH frame-dependent.
> And this means of course that some outside force must act
> upon one or both of the clocks in order to change one or both of
> their intrinsic atomic rhythms.
Hmmm. Here you mention intrinsic rhythms, but the discussion was about
"clock slowing". In SR the intrinsic rates of identical clocks remain
unchanged no matter which inertial frame the clocks are at rest in, but
different observers will measure the rates of clocks in different frames
to be different.
An analogy: when I look at a building from directly in front it appears
wider that when I look at it diagonally from a corner. What "outside force"
made THE BUILDING narrower? -- obviously none did, and the appearance of
being narrower is merely due to a change in the _RELATIONSHIP_ between
observer and building.
Similarly, the time dilation ("clock slowing") of SR is merely geometric
perspective, and is due to a change in the _RELATIONSHIP_ between observer
and clock, and not any sort of "outside force" (or any other physical
process) which affected THE CLOCK. Ditto for length contraction....
Note: You seem confused, and have omitted the clear and obvious distinction
between the instrinsic clock rhythm and the _observation_ of the clock by
an observer. SR is concerned with the latter. Note that Bailey et al's
experiment shows that the intrinsic clock rhythm of the muons is unaffected
by either their enormous velocity (0.9994 c) or their enormous acceleration
(10^18 g). But the lab observer _MEASURES_ the moving muons to have
considerably longer lives MEASURED IN THE LAB than they have when measured
at rest (which obviously measures their intrinsic lifetime).
> And of course, the only known way the clocks physically
> differ is via their different speeds through space.
You need to define what you mean by "speeds through space". All one can
really say is that they have differen speeds relative to the measuring
apparatus -- and that is ALL THAT MATTERS. In essence, that is what the
word "relativity" means.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Wilson
>On Sat, 04 Aug 2001 11:50:55 -0500, Tom Roberts
>Also, you did not document a single relativity experiment which
>does not depend upon Einstein's circular clock-setting process.
>
>(In case you are not familiar with this procedure, let me fill
>you in: Before performing any one-way light speed experiment, and
>before starting any clocks, Einstein pre-sets all clocks to make them
>obtain his pre-chosen one-way light travel time of x/c. Anyone will
>now agree that Einstein will now "obtain" one-way invariance and
>isotropy. And anyone will now agree re the "results" of forcing
>clocks to "obtain" this "invariance." One such "result" being the
>fact that a passing clock's Einsteinian readings - when compared to
>two on-board Einsteinian clocks - will apparently "run slower." But
>this is merely a reciprocal, observer-dependent, "clock slowing"
>that has nothing to do with any physical clock slowing. In short,
>it is merely the "result" of Einstein's circular clock-setting
>process, and so has nothing to do with real physics.)
This is precisely correct, John.
Einstein makes OWLS always equal to TWLS, by DEFINITION, and then goes on to
concoct a silly 'approximate' theory based on that postulate.
What is more, and as I already pointed out elsewhere, a consequence of this
definition is that TWLS cannot MATHEMATICALLY be exceeded. Imaginary
'contractions' in length and time are necessary to satisfy Einstein's
precondition.
In general, TWLS=OWLS /(1-(v/OWLS)^2), where v is the observer's 'absolute'
velocity. SR, by definiton, ensures that v is always zero. There is no physical
basis for any of this.
You must discriminate between clock reading and clock rhythm.
The rhythms of clocks at rest can easily be compared.
For moving clocks, rhythms can only be compared if their positions and
velocities can be accurately known.
However, because physical properties are obviously not 'observer-velocity'
dependent, we can deduce that clock rhythm, like length, does not physically
change with velocity alone. We can be 100% confident that inertially moving
clocks will retain their original rhythms. They might have varied during the
acceleration phase of the journey.
Having established by experiment that two separated clocks at rest have the same
rhythm, it is still impossible to know if they show the same reading, (as would
be seen by an instantaneous observer). Einstein got around this by simply
defining that as being true. In doing so, he also rendered the times L/(c-v) and
L/(c+v) the same, these being the light travel times in any round trip
experiment.
I guess this is a roundabout way of saying that every observer DEFINES his own
position as being in a state of absolute rest.
>
>-JR
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>John Reid wrote:
>> [Note that the speed of sound in air varies slightly with
>> air temperature and air pressure. Similarly, the speed of
>> light through space is controlled by the properties of space.]
>
> Your analogy is flawed, and misses the important difference:
> air has physical properties, space does not.
You do love to promulgate that untruth, don't you? What is the
"impedance of Free Space"?
> I know of no way of defining "motion relative to space" in any
> meaningful way.
Liar, you are quite aware of the CMBR... By all 'rational'
definitions of meaningful, one can define "motion relative to
space" by it, since it fills all of such in a non-local manner.
> Certainly you have presented no such definition. "Motion
> relative to air" is easy.
Motion relative to space is equally easy..., CMBR doppler.
<Snip of the rest>
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> In article <3B70036B...@lucent.com>,
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>
> >John Reid wrote:
> >> [Note that the speed of sound in air varies slightly with
> >> air temperature and air pressure. Similarly, the speed of
> >> light through space is controlled by the properties of space.]
> >
> > Your analogy is flawed, and misses the important difference:
> > air has physical properties, space does not.
>
> You do love to promulgate that untruth, don't you? What is the
> "impedance of Free Space"?
>
> > I know of no way of defining "motion relative to space" in any
> > meaningful way.
>
> Liar, you are quite aware of the CMBR... By all 'rational'
> definitions of meaningful, one can define "motion relative to
> space" by it, since it fills all of such in a non-local manner.
>
There is just no end to misconceptions of this NG!
CMBR is a collection of putative things, be they
waves or particles of energy. It is most certainly
NOT space in itself. Sure, on THIS NG we get all
kinds of screwy definitions which serve the
idiosyncratic metaphysical interests of the "definers."
If people on this NG would only read the classical
arguments of absolute motion there would be less
of this pointless bickering.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> In article <3B70036B...@lucent.com>,
>> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>>
>> >John Reid wrote:
>> >> [Note that the speed of sound in air varies slightly with
>> >> air temperature and air pressure. Similarly, the speed of
>> >> light through space is controlled by the properties of space.]
>> >
>> > Your analogy is flawed, and misses the important difference:
>> > air has physical properties, space does not.
>>
>> You do love to promulgate that untruth, don't you? What is the
>> "impedance of Free Space"?
>>
>> > I know of no way of defining "motion relative to space" in any
>> > meaningful way.
>>
>> Liar, you are quite aware of the CMBR... By all 'rational'
>> definitions of meaningful, one can define "motion relative to
>> space" by it, since it fills all of such in a non-local manner.
>>
>
> There is just no end to misconceptions of this NG! CMBR is a
> collection of putative things, be they waves or particles of
> energy.
Oh, and air is not?
> It is most certainly NOT space in itself.
OK, where DOES the impedance of free space come from?
> Sure, on THIS NG we get all kinds of screwy definitions which serve
> the idiosyncratic metaphysical interests of the "definers."
Yeah, just about as screwy as your own version of "idiosyncratic
metaphysical interests ". Ya'know what they say about opinions...
> If people on this NG would only read the classical arguments of
> absolute motion there would be less of this pointless bickering.
Yeah, and if every one bought chocolate, there'd be no need for
vanilla...
Paul Stowe
Max Keon
>
>John Reid wrote:
>> For example, both space and light exist, and light
>> moves through space. There are no standard inertial
>> reference systems involved. There is only the motion
>> relationship between light waves and space.
> Except that we humans have never been able to _describe_ this without
> reference to a set of coordinates, and the simplest set of coordinates
> known is those of an inertial frame. Historically, of course, inertial
> frames of coordinates played a special and unique role in the
> development of physical theories.
>> [A] Should we say that space moves relative to light?
> Only if you can define what you mean by this. So far nobody has been
> able to do so. Including you.
Defining space as moving relative to light is almost impossible
using coordinate systems which are based on our natural intuition
because these systems are all based in a world where light is
clearly perceived to be always "propagating" (by indeterminate means)
through space at c. But such evidence is **not** proof that space
isn't propagating through light. It only proves that this is not
what we **perceive** as reality.
Rather than assuming that space moves through light, imagine that,
with the advance of time, everything that exists is advancing into
a void of dimension of its own creation, advancing toward a future
present location within its self created void. The **stationary**
past is then left behind to expand away forever at the speed of this
action, which is the speed of light. The past from any such action
will encroach on the territory of the present of other matter, and
the recorded message carrying every detail of bygone eras will be
played back as it "flows" by (if the recording can interact).
The reasoning may seem illogical, but this is only because it's
not what our reality allows us to perceive. We could not easily
perceive that we are the moving component in the system. Apart from
our inability to define a mode of "propagation" for light, there
are no other indicators that could suggest that light doesn't
actually move anywhere. Assuming the present to be the moving
component annuls all light propagation dilemmas.
Try defining the above in a manner which is even remotely compatible
with our perception of reality. Postulates certainly can't be used
as any sort of reality defining tool either because they are
conjured up according to observations. Postulates lead us nowhere.
Such a concept cannot be satisfactorily defined with this very brief
description. THERE CANNOT BE A SIMPLE DEFINITION.
--
Max Keon
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> [snip]
> >>
> >
> > There is just no end to misconceptions of this NG! CMBR is a
> > collection of putative things, be they waves or particles of
> > energy.
>
> Oh, and air is not?
Air is no more space than the CMBR is.
> > It is most certainly NOT space in itself.
>
> OK, where DOES the impedance of free space come from?
From the human mind.
> > Sure, on THIS NG we get all kinds of screwy definitions which serve
> > the idiosyncratic metaphysical interests of the "definers."
>
> Yeah, just about as screwy as your own version of "idiosyncratic
> metaphysical interests ". Ya'know what they say about opinions...
I have a minimalist metaphysics in science. That is, a set of
metaphysical beliefs held in common by most physicists.
(Maybe even fewer that that!) By being minimalist I avoid
the dogmatism of realists. I am not interested in forcing my
metaphysical opinions on other by contaminating science
with them. I'll propagate my opinions to others through
Natural Philosophy, where the promotion is legitimate.
There's way too much promotion of Natural Philosophy
on this NG as though it were science itself!!!
All you people who think that you're going to
finally knock off Einstein, take a year off from
your labor of love and read the classics about
absolute space and the philosophy of science. Most
of all read Einstein's many excellent essays on
space, time and the philosophy of science. They're
easily obtainable in inexpensive paperback
form from any decent bookstore.
> > If people on this NG would only read the classical arguments of
> > absolute motion there would be less of this pointless bickering.
>
> Yeah, and if every one bought chocolate, there'd be no need for
> vanilla...
Read the classical arguments. Get a REAL education
for once. The sciolism around this NG is sickening.
Patrick
rbw...@mindspring.com
writes:
I already read Einstein's book. He was right about a lot of things. His
mistake was in replacing the Galilleian transformation equations with the
Lorentz equations, which only give a close approximation of transmission of
light instead of using the correct equations:
x'=x-vt'
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t[c/(c+v)]
Robert B. Winn
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
rbw...@mindspring.com
Max,
There is a simple definition which is given by the equations:
x'=x-vt'
y'=y
z'=z
t'=t[c/(c+v)]
You can understand why scientists would not want to acknowledge these
equations since they have been using
x'=(x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
y'=y
z'=z
t'=(t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Which equations look to you like they would be the most profitable to
scientists in obtaining public revenues for research?
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> > I know of no way of defining "motion relative to space" in any
> > meaningful way.
> Liar, you are quite aware of the CMBR...
Sure, one can define motion relative to the CMBR dipole=0 frame. But
the issue was about motion relative to _SPACE_ and not relative to the
CMBR.
Can't you read? -- just _LOOK_ up there in the words you quoted -- it is
spelled S-P-A-C-E and not C-M-B-R. Not only are the words different,
their meanings are vastly different, too. <shrug>
> By all 'rational'
> definitions of meaningful, one can define "motion relative to
> space" by it, since it fills all of such in a non-local manner.
You have an incredibly loose definition of 'rational'. This is utter
nonsense: space is very different from the CMBR.
Your argument applies equally well to air here on earth -- which is
"really" your "space": CMBR or air??? Or water in the ocean??? Or rock
underground??? Just because some substance "fills all of space" does
not mean that the substance _IS_ space.
And the CMBR is no more ubiquitous than air, water or rock: Do you
seriously think a Faraday-caged lab occupies no "space"???
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
John Reid
--snip--
> The light path length of the rod L in any moving frame = L*gamma
--snip--
> Ken Seto
You did not do as I asked.
You did not present a full physical explanation.
You must physically explain both the derivation and
the meaning of "gamma."
-JR
Paul Stowe
Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> >>
>> >
>> > There is just no end to misconceptions of this NG! CMBR is a
>> > collection of putative things, be they waves or particles of
>> > energy.
>>
>> Oh, and air is not?
>
> Air is no more space than the CMBR is.
So in the 'real, objective phyiscal realm' what IS space as you
conceive it?
>> > It is most certainly NOT space in itself.
>>
>> OK, where DOES the impedance of free space come from?
>
> From the human mind.
Really? So are you the type of philosopher that believes everything
is a figment of the 'human mind'?
>> > Sure, on THIS NG we get all kinds of screwy definitions which serve
>> > the idiosyncratic metaphysical interests of the "definers."
>>
>> Yeah, just about as screwy as your own version of "idiosyncratic
>> metaphysical interests ". Ya'know what they say about opinions...
>
> I have a minimalist metaphysics in science. That is, a set of
> metaphysical beliefs held in common by most physicists.
> (Maybe even fewer that that!) By being minimalist I avoid
> the dogmatism of realists. I am not interested in forcing my
> metaphysical opinions on other by contaminating science
> with them. I'll propagate my opinions to others through
> Natural Philosophy, where the promotion is legitimate.
> There's way too much promotion of Natural Philosophy
> on this NG as though it were science itself!!!
Oh, by the views exhibited in your postings herein, you have shown
yourself to be FAR from a 'minimalist'. But, self delusion is such
because one's self cannot see it...
> All you people who think that you're going to finally knock off Einstein,
> take a year off from your labor of love and read the classics about
> absolute space and the philosophy of science. Most of all read Einstein's
> many excellent essays on space, time and the philosophy of science.
> They're easily obtainable in inexpensive paperback form from any decent
> bookstore.
And I probably personal own, and have read, most of these... So what
does that have to do with your morphing of this thread?
>> > If people on this NG would only read the classical arguments of
>> > absolute motion there would be less of this pointless bickering.
>>
>> Yeah, and if every one bought chocolate, there'd be no need for
>> vanilla...
>
> Read the classical arguments. Get a REAL education for once. The sciolism
> around this NG is sickening.
Well I'd rather see the practice of sciolism that what you practice, sophism...
Paul Stowe
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>
>> Tom Roberts wrote:
>> > I know of no way of defining "motion relative to space" in any
>> > meaningful way.
>> Liar, you are quite aware of the CMBR...
>
> Sure, one can define motion relative to the CMBR dipole=0 frame.
> But the issue was about motion relative to _SPACE_ and not relative
> to the CMBR.
And, 'out there' in the 'real universe', where can one find such space
devoid of the CMBR and other intrinsic physical properties (which you
claim it doesn't have) such as the 'impedance of FREE SPACE'? What do
you think, people are too dumb to notice your selective deletion? What
about it Tom, point me to where I can find 'your kind' of space?
> Can't you read? -- just _LOOK_ up there in the words you quoted -- it is
> spelled S-P-A-C-E and not C-M-B-R. Not only are the words different,
> their meanings are vastly different, too. <shrug>
OK fine, where can one find such?
>> By all 'rational' definitions of meaningful, one can define "motion
>> relative to space" by it, since it fills all of such in a non-local
>> manner.
>
> You have an incredibly loose definition of 'rational'. This is utter
> nonsense: space is very different from the CMBR.
What IS your 'physical' definition of it then? Again, tell us where
we can look 'out there' for it...
> Your argument applies equally well to air here on earth -- which is
> "really" your "space": CMBR or air??? Or water in the ocean??? Or rock
> underground??? Just because some substance "fills all of space" does
> not mean that the substance _IS_ space.
>
> And the CMBR is no more ubiquitous than air, water or rock: Do you
> seriously think a Faraday-caged lab occupies no "space"???
Do you really think a Faraday-caged lab has no internal intrinsic EM
properties? Can a lab attendant shine a light across the lab. Your
grasping is getting quite silly, don't you think?
Paul Stowe
Bilge
>
>OK, where DOES the impedance of free space come from?
You mean besides the poor choice of units for a Volt/Amp?
? = 1/epsilon0 c
? = (377 ohms)(q_electron^2)/(4pi*hbar)
and finally:
? = (1/epsilon0) (q^2/4 pi hbar c)
We could have chunked the epsilon0 and then the free space impedence would
have been 1, but due to the particular order that things got defined, we
have a half-dozen or so redundant constants lying around.
>> Sure, on THIS NG we get all kinds of screwy definitions which serve
>> the idiosyncratic metaphysical interests of the "definers."
>
>Yeah, just about as screwy as your own version of "idiosyncratic
>metaphysical interests ". Ya'know what they say about opinions...
>
>> If people on this NG would only read the classical arguments of
>> absolute motion there would be less of this pointless bickering.
>
>Yeah, and if every one bought chocolate, there'd be no need for
>vanilla...
There's still no excuse for rutabega sherbet.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>ken...@erinet.com (Ken H. Seto) wrote in message news:<3b6f3337$0$1526$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>...
>
>--snip--
>
>> The light path length of the rod L in any moving frame = L*gamma
>
>--snip--
>
>> Ken Seto
>
>You did not do as I asked.
>You did not present a full physical explanation.
What is there to explain? It is just the inverse of the time dilation
and length contraction equations.
The light path length of a moving rod in the stationary ether is
longer. This is very logical. Light from one end of a moving rod will
take longer to traverse the rod and the relationship is L*gamma. A
co-moving clock second will have a longer duration than a clock second
at rest in the ether frame and the relationship is gamma clock seconds
of the ether clock..
>You must physically explain both the derivation and
>the meaning of "gamma."
You don't know?
It is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Ken Seto
Tom Roberts
> And, 'out there' in the 'real universe', where can one find such space
> devoid of the CMBR
Any real laboratory with a real Faraday cage.
> and other intrinsic physical properties (which you
> claim it doesn't have) such as the 'impedance of FREE SPACE'?
That is merely an _analogy_, not any real property. Try to measure it
with an Ohmmeter, for instance....
> point me to where I can find 'your kind' of space?
In the minds of physicists. Space is an aspect of a _MODEL_ of the
universe we inhabit.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
John Reid
<3b7319c5$0$1519$4c5e...@news.erinet.com> Seto wrote:
>What is there to explain? It is just the inverse of the time dilation
>and length contraction equations.
>The light path length of a moving rod in the stationary ether is
>longer. This is very logical. Light from one end of a moving rod will
>take longer to traverse the rod and the relationship is L*gamma. A
>co-moving clock second will have a longer duration than a clock
second
>at rest in the ether frame and the relationship is gamma clock
seconds
>of the ether clock..
>
>>You must physically explain both the derivation and
>>the meaning of "gamma."
>
>You don't know?
>It is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
>Ken Seto
I mentioned "gamma" just to focus your attention on
what you are doing in your experiment.
Let's go back to your prior post:
You claimed that light's one-way speed is isotropic,
and I said -
>>Show this on paper.
You replied -
______________________________________________
Let me repeat your example using the much-simpler
light-year unit (LY):
Suppose a rod is at rest in the "aether." (I would simply
say that it is at rest relative to space because we all know for
sure that space exists.)
Suppose this rod's intrinsic (physical, actual, natural) length is
5 LYs.
Per experiment (Kennedy-Thorndike), the round-trip time
for light along this rod is 10 LYs.
In your example, you divided this round-trip result by
2, and you got 5 years as the one-way time for light
in each direction along this at-rest-wrt-space rod.
(10/2 = 5)
Given that this rod is not moving relative to space,
it is perfectly obvious to anyone that the one-way times
will both be equal to exactly half of the round-trip time.
But you mistakenly applied this reasoning to the very
different case when the rod is _moving_ wrt space.
That is, you falsely assumed that even when the rod
is moving through space, each one-way trip time will
be half of the round-trip time.
You were of course correct in saying that the total time
(i.e., the round-trip time) will remain the same, but this
does _not_ mean that the one-way times will still be
equal.
For example, suppose the rod is now moving at 0.8c
relative to space. As you said, the rod will now be only
L*gamma long, and the clock will be slowed by the
gamma factor.
(5 LYs)*gamma = (5)(0.6) = 3 LYs
The moving rod's length is only 3 LYs.
This physical rod contraction combined with the
physical clock slowing keeps the round-trip time
at 10 years.
But the fact that you overlooked is the very simple
fact that not even a combination of (a) the time per a
single clock at the origin and (b) a shorter rod length
can force equal one-way times.
The reason for this is the fact that the light ray must
chase down the departing rod end, but will collide
head-on with the other rod end. It is these totally
different rod/ray relationships that causes totally
different one-way trip times - even though the total
or round-trip time is always the same.
Note that the total (round-trip) time is 10 years, and
note also that 10 can be divided into two parts in an
infinite number of ways (e.g., 3 & 7 ).
There is no physical or theoretical reason for your
dividing the 10 into two equal halves (5 & 5).
But there are very good physical reasons for NOT
dividing 10 by 2 (see above).
|---3-LYs---| --> 0.8c
-> ray
----------------|---3-LYs---| --> 0.8c
------------------------------> ray
|<--------15-LYs--------->|
Since both the rod and the ray are moving
relative to space, and since the rod's distant
end is moving _away_ _from_ the ray, it
is obvious that the ray must travel a longer
distance through space than 3 LYs in order
to reach the far end of the rod.
----------------------|---3-LYs---| --> 0.8c
---------------------<--------|
----------------------|<----->| 1.67 LY
On the other hand, the ray must meet
the origin end of the rod when the ray
changes direction. And since both the
ray and the rod are moving very fast
wrt space, it is perfectly obvious that
they will collide or meet much quicker
than before. In fact, it takes only 1.67
years instead of 15 years.
If we want to convert these "true" times
(times per a clock that is at rest relative to
space) to the times per a clock that is moving
with the rod, then, as you said, we must apply
the Lorentzian gamma factor.
1.67*gamma = 1.67*0.6 = 1 year
15*gamma = 15*0.6 = 9 years
And we see of course that the total or round-trip time
is still only 10 years per the rod's origin clock. But this
single clock cannot possibly know how long each
one-way trip took. All it can know is the total time.
And, as I said, a single clock cannot force equal
one-way times.
Also, it is clear that the _only_ way to measure
each one-way trip time is by using two clocks.
If we had used two absolutely-synchronous clocks,
then we would have recorded 9 years for the outgoing
one-way trip, and 1 year for the return one-way trip.
Clearly, light's one-way speed is NOT isotropic
even though light's round-trip (one-clock) speed
is certainly isotropic (and invariant).
The only reason Einstein has one-way "isotropy"
and "invariance" is by brute force.
Einstein forces his clocks to read the equal one-way
trip times even though the times may actually be
vastly different (as in the above case).
Einstein did this to (incorrectly) mimic the round-trip
result, which really said nothing at all about any one-way
times (except that they can't add up to be more than the
round-trip time).
There is nothing in nature that says one-way isotropy.
There is no experiment that says one-way isotropy.
In fact, nature says one-way anisotropy and variance.
And we could easily detect this one-way variance if
we used (absolutely) synchronous clocks to measure
light's one-way speed.
And of course we _will_ _not_ detect it at all if we
pre-set our clocks to obtain Einstein's chosen one-way
"isotropy" and "invariance."
Einstein overlooked the simple fact that each frame
moves differently relative to any passing light ray.
Einstein improperly and baselessly extrapolated
round-trip isotropy to the one-way case.
And Seto overlooked the simple fact that no _single_
clock can record a light ray's one-way trip time.
-JR
John Reid
wrote in <3B70036B...@lucent.com>:
>John Reid wrote:
>> [Note that the speed of sound in air varies slightly with
>> air temperature and air pressure. Similarly, the speed of
>> light through space is controlled by the properties of space.]
>
>Your analogy is flawed, and misses the important difference: air has
>physical properties, space does not. I know of no way of defining
>"motion relative to space" in any meaningful way. Certainly you have
>presented no such definition. "Motion relative to air" is easy.
>
> Note I mean distinct from motion relative to some object or
> coordinate system -- _those_ are well defined.
>
Space has the physical property of being able to
contain matter. Space also has the physical property
of allowing matter to move through it. Space further
has the physical property of allowing light to move
through it.
There is no essential difference between the motion
of light through space and the motion of sound through
air.
And you were incorrect when you said "'Motion relative
to air' is easy." It is so difficult to measure that no
one has ever measured sound's one-way speed in air.
(I am of course speaking of a correct measurement, one
made by using two clocks.)
Are you saying that you do not believe that light rays
move through space?
>
>> Also, you did not document a single relativity experiment which
>> does not depend upon Einstein's circular clock-setting process.
>
>Hmmm. As I have said MANY TIMES around here, one cannot measure any
one-way
>velocity without selecting a clock-synchronization procedure; there
are
>infinitely-many such procedures, and one's choice is _ARBITRARY_.
Correct measurement is never arbitrary.
If light rays move through space, and most sane
people believe they do, then it is perfectly
legitimate to say that they move relative to space.
And if they move wrt space, then they must move
at some speed relative to space. This is a definite
physical relationship between light and space.
It does not vary with one's choice of clock-setting
procedure.
Similarly, frames move through space. And since light
rays also move through space, it is clear that each
frames has a unique motion relationship with a light
ray. (We all know that the Earth moves through space
as it travels around the Sun. Einstein did not deny
the existence of motion through space; he merely said
that we cannot quantify it correctly.)
But we don't need to go into any discussion about
motion through space in order to see that no one
has yet made any correct one-way speed measurement.
A single clock cannot make a one-way speed measurement
(unless some length assumption is made).
A bug crawling along a table has a unique motion
relationship wrt the table. This physical relationship
cannot be changed by using different clock-setting
methods. It is fixed. It is intrinsic. It does not
in any way depend upon some outside observation.
It is a simple scientific fact that no one has ever
correctly measured the one-way speed of a bug that is
crawling along a table, and this is only a relative
speed, not an absolute speed!
In order to correctly measure any one-way speed,
one must be certain that one's clocks have been
correctly synchronized.
There is nothing arbitrary about correct synchronization.
Anyone who understands the simple concept of initial
conditions can see the following:
Theoretical Definition of Absolute Synchronization
for Spatially-separated Clocks:
Two touching atomic clocks can by all accounts be
absolutely synchronized. Also, their atomic rhythms
can be compared directly to show that they are
equal. Given that nothing in an average Earth lab
can physically alter an atomic clock's atomic rhythm,
we very slowly move one clock to another location,
and we know that the clocks must still be absolutely
synchronous because there is nothing that has changed
the initial conditions.
(We can even avoid all acceleration by simply using
another inertially-moving clock to pass along the
first clock's time to the second clock even though
the latter is always spatially-separated from the
first clock.)
"Once absolutely synchronous, always absolutely synchronous"
is the simple rule here unless you can name some physical
phenomenon that can affect an atomic clock's atomic rhythm.
And the main point here is that only two absolutely
synchronous comoving clocks can correctly measure any
one-way speed, including light's.
There is nothing arbitrary about correct measurement.
Each light ray passes each frame differently, and
if each frame has absolutely synchronous clocks, then
these different passing speeds can be correctly measured.
Do you now see how silly your "Motion through air is
easy" statement is?
>Einstein's is the simplest, and the fact that it is equivalent to
slow clock
>transport wrt an inertial frame makes it the one which is what was
meant
>by "clock synchronization" before 1905 when he pointed out the
subtleties.
[snip]
Can anyone prove that Einstein's clocks are absolutely
synchronous?
If not, then how do we know that Einstein's clocks can
correctly measure any one-way speeds?
Since you said Einstein's method of setting clocks
was purely arbitrary, it is clear that we should not
expect his one-way measurements to be correct.
But this means that his primary premise is not correct.
(His primary premise being that light's one-way speed
is invariant.)
>> [about Esynch] One such "result" being the
>> fact that a passing clock's Einsteinian readings - when compared to
>> two on-board Einsteinian clocks - will apparently "run slower."
>
>That is completely unrelated to synchronization procedures.
>
Says who?
Have you never worked it out on paper?
>> this is merely a reciprocal, observer-dependent, "clock slowing"
>> that has nothing to do with any physical clock slowing.
>
>Yes. It is analogous to the effects of geometric prespective, not any
sort
>of "physical" effect. But then you go on to contradict yourself:
>
It's funny how you think clock readings are merely
"perspective effects."
>> In short,
>> it is merely the "result" of Einstein's circular clock-setting
>> process, and so has nothing to do with real physics.)
>
>Not true.
>
>Sanity check: Einstein's procedure sets the clock readings _ONCE_
before
>the measurement begins. So it can change the OFFSETS of clocks, but
not
>their tick rates. But in experiments of this type an observer
measures
>the _TICK_RATE_ of the moving clock to be slower than the _TICK_RATE_
of
>an identical clock at rest in the observer's frame. So your claim
here
>cannot possibly be right.
>
Again I ask: Have you never done any of this on paper?
The example I gave had nothing at all to do with TICK RATES or
with a clocks' internal atomic rhythms. It had to do with one
clock in Frame B passing two Frame A clocks. And we can specify
identical TICK RATES for all three clocks, but the A-frame observers
will STILL see an apparent clock slowing.
You need to read some elementary relativity texts.
I suggest Sears'.
>Second sanity check: pion beams exist. The pion is unstable, and
without
>time dilation ("clock slowing"), its (proper lifetime)*c is only
about
>7 meters; real pion beams are over a kilometer long, and the pions in
>them are measured to travel at c (within experimental accuracies of
>~0.1%). So without time dilation there is no way pions could travel
that
>far. Obviously no clocks are synchronized in this observation. Your
claim
>is just plain wrong.
>
Your pion example pertains not to my example of an apparent
clock "slowing," but to intrinsic clock slowing.
And you are right; this has nothing at all to do with
Einstein's arbitrary "synchronization" process.
Unless the pion's internal clock is physically altered,
it cannot survive the trip.
But why speak of pions when we can use the
much more down-to-earth triplets example?
Triplet A stays on Earth while Triplet B passes
Earth and goes on to meet incoming Triplet C
who also passes the Earth.
Even though there are no accelerations, the fact is
that Triplets A and C will have different physical
ages upon meeting even if Triplets B and C had the
same ages upon meeting.
We can make it even simpler by using clocks.
Atomic Clock A stays on Earth while Atomic Clock
B passes Earth and goes on to meet incoming
Atomic Clock C which also passes the Earth.
Even though there are no accelerations, the fact is
that Clocks A and C will read different times upon
meeting even if Clocks B and C read the time upon meeting,
and Clock A and B also read the same time upon meeting.
Atomic clock readings are controlled by their intrinsic
atomic rhythms, and are not controlled by the view-points
of outside observers in passing frames.
Why, then, did the two clocks A and C disagree
upon meeting when both A and B and B and C
agreed upon meeting?
No mere perspective story can explain this
because mere perspective cannot affect an
atomic clock's internal atomic rhythm.
And no mere point-of-view story can explain
this because mere perspective cannot affect
an atomic clock's internal atomic rhythm.
And there were - as was pointed out above -
no accelerations.
Therefore, UNLESS mere motion through space somehow
affects an atomic clock's internal atomic rhythm,
there is NO physical cause for the clock disagreement
at the end of this experiment.
What is Tom Robert's physical explanation for this
simple experimental result?
>> [description of a pair of atomic clocks]
>> Clearly, only some external force can change either
>> clock's intrinsic natural atomic rhythm.
>
>You are assuming what you are trying to prove.
>
The only other possibility is that the clock
can change its own atomic rhythm, but this is
too farfetched to be considered.
Therefore, I was not assuming what I was trying
to prove.
>But that's OK, because you don't need to "prove" it -- Bailey et al
did
>an experiment which shows that the "internal clock" of a muon is
unaffected
>(at the 0.1% level or so) by magnetic accelerations of 10^18 g (1 g =
>9.8 m/s^2). So even incredibly large forces do not significantly
affect
>the rate of such clocks.
>
That's good, but how did Baily et al physically explain
the Three-clock Experiment I presented above?
>> So, not only have we seen what is meant by
>> the phrase "physical clock slowing," but we have seen what is
>> meant by "clock motion relative to space."
>
>You have not shown EITHER ONE. You only showed what you mean by
"intrinsic
>clock rate", and "motion wrt another clock". There was no mention of
"space"
>anywhere in your discussion.
>
Wrong.
There was mention of space just following my above-quoted
statement.
Here is what I said:
---------Instant Replay-------------
We have seen the latter because the only way Einstein can be right is
if the clocks somehow become asynchronous upon their spatial
separation. And, as you should know, Einstein's view denies absolute
simultaneity in general, so
Einstein does not allow absolutely synchronous spatially separated
clocks. And this means of course that some outside force must act
upon one or both of the clocks in order to change one or both of
their intrinsic atomic rhythms. Nothing else can change the initial
conditions. And of course, the only known way the clocks physically
differ is via their different speeds through space. So we must
conclude
that clock speed through space controls intrinsic clock rhythm.
---------------------------------------
>> the only way Einstein can be right is if the clocks somehow
>> become asynchronous upon their spatial separation.
>
>You simply do not understand what SR predicts. SR does not claim that
mere
>spatial separation causes clocks to get unsynchronized, it claims
that
>_RELATIVE_MOTION_ causes them to become unsyncyhronized. But your
>description said to move them "slowly", which normally means
something
>like "take the limit in which their speed approaches 0" -- in that
limit
>the effect of the motion on the synchronization of the clocks will
vanish.
>
1. Tell us how mere relative motion can affect any clock's
intrinsic atomic rhythm.
2. Prove that Einstein's clocks are absolutely synchronous.
3. If you don't think that Einstein's clocks are absolutely
synchronous, then tell us how they are related.
4. List any prediction of SR.
5. Tell us why the two atomic clocks in my
above Three-Clock Example disagreed at the end.
>
>> And, as you should
>> know, Einstein's view denies absolute simultaneity in general, so
>> Einstein does not allow absolutely synchronous spatially separated
>> clocks.
>
>First you need to define what you mean by "absolutely synchronous
clocks".
>So far nobody has been able to define that, either.
>
See my above.
>In SR is it easy to have spatially-separated clocks which are at rest
in
>a given inertial frame, and which are synchronized IN THAT FRAME. Of
course
>they will not be synchronized in any other inertial frame, and there
is
>nothing "absolute" about this. If two clocks are not at rest in the
same
>inertial frame, then in general it is impossible for them to remain
>synchronized -- any inertial observer who measures both their rates
will
>obtain different values for them.
>
How exactly are same-frame clocks made "synchronous"
in Einstein's view?
Is there any baseless assumption involved?
>> And this means of course that some outside force must act
>> upon one or both of the clocks in order to change one or both of
>> their intrinsic atomic rhythms.
>
>Hmmm. Here you mention intrinsic rhythms, but the discussion was
about
>"clock slowing". In SR the intrinsic rates of identical clocks remain
>unchanged no matter which inertial frame the clocks are at rest in,
but
>different observers will measure the rates of clocks in different
frames
>to be different.
>
1. Why do different SR observers find different rates for
clocks in different frames?
2. In any discussion re clock slowing, it is certainly
appropriate to speak about that which controls a
clock's TICK RATE, and that is its intrinsic rhythm.
I agree that Einstein's apparent clock "slowing" is
similar to the case of the "changing" building in your
above-given building example.
But, as I tried to get you to see, no mere point
of view can physically affect an atomic clock's
intrinsic atomic rhythm, so no perspective example
can physically explain the disagreement between the
two clocks in my above example.
>
>> And of course, the only known way the clocks physically
>> differ is via their different speeds through space.
>
>You need to define what you mean by "speeds through space". All one
can
>really say is that they have differen speeds relative to the
measuring
>apparatus -- and that is ALL THAT MATTERS. In essence, that is what
the
>word "relativity" means.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
If there is no physical meaning to the phase
"motion through space," then how do you physically
explain the disagreement between the two atomic
clocks in my above Three-clock example?
-JR
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
The Kenedy-Thorndike experiment is one way. The mirrors at the ends
of the arms are replaced with real sources. The results will be the
same.
>
>In your example, you divided this round-trip result by
>2, and you got 5 years as the one-way time for light
>in each direction along this at-rest-wrt-space rod.
>(10/2 = 5)
Wrong. My example uses one way transit time. At the rest frame of the
rod the one-way transit time is 5 LY. Observing the rod from the ether
frame the transit time is 5*gamma.LY.
>
>Given that this rod is not moving relative to space,
>it is perfectly obvious to anyone that the one-way times
>will both be equal to exactly half of the round-trip time.
There is no round trip involved.
>
>But you mistakenly applied this reasoning to the very
>different case when the rod is _moving_ wrt space.
No I didn't. The one-way transit time for a moving rod is 5*gamma LY.
>
>That is, you falsely assumed that even when the rod
>is moving through space, each one-way trip time will
>be half of the round-trip time.
I don't know where you got this from---the one-way transit time is
5*gamma LY.
>
>You were of course correct in saying that the total time
>(i.e., the round-trip time) will remain the same, but this
>does _not_ mean that the one-way times will still be
>equal.
>
>For example, suppose the rod is now moving at 0.8c
>relative to space. As you said, the rod will now be only
>L*gamma long, and the clock will be slowed by the
>gamma factor.
>
>(5 LYs)*gamma = (5)(0.6) = 3 LYs
This is wrong. Gamma is always one or greater.
so 5*gamma LY=5/0.6=8.333 LY
>
>The moving rod's length is only 3 LYs.
The light path length of the moving rod is 8.333 LYs as calculated
from the rest frame of the ether.
>
>This physical rod contraction combined with the
>physical clock slowing keeps the round-trip time
>at 10 years.
>
>But the fact that you overlooked is the very simple
>fact that not even a combination of (a) the time per a
>single clock at the origin and (b) a shorter rod length
>can force equal one-way times.
You are wrong.
The one way transit time for a 5 LY moving rod (from the rest ether
frame point of view) is 5 years*gamma
The one-way light path length for a 5LY moving rod (from the rest
ether frame point of view) 5 LY*gamma
Ken Seto
Patrick Reany
Paul Stowe wrote:
> In article <3B71245E...@asu.edu>,
> Patrick Reany <re...@asu.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Paul Stowe wrote:
> >
> >> [snip]
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is just no end to misconceptions of this NG! CMBR is a
> >> > collection of putative things, be they waves or particles of
> >> > energy.
> >>
> >> Oh, and air is not?
> >
> > Air is no more space than the CMBR is.
>
> So in the 'real, objective phyiscal realm' what IS space as you
> conceive it?
You guys are CONSISTENTLY confusing metaphysics
and physics. I may think of space as anything I please
in my own personal philosophy. The question for this NG
is what MODELS of space are theoretically successful.
And models need have NO connection with deep reality.
The justification of the model is simply how well it works!
I have asked over and over again, do you believe
that macroscopic matter is really continuous just
because physics has successful models of it as
continuous? The truth is that to DO science it
DOESN'T make any difference what the TRUE
nature of macroscopic matter really is! Physics
just makes MODELS. And physics may make
many models for many purposes. They need not
even be mutually consistent.
> >> > It is most certainly NOT space in itself.
> >>
> >> OK, where DOES the impedance of free space come from?
> >
> > From the human mind.
>
> Really? So are you the type of philosopher that believes everything
> is a figment of the 'human mind'?
No. As I said above the issue is MODELS,
not REALITY.
> >> > Sure, on THIS NG we get all kinds of screwy definitions which serve
> >> > the idiosyncratic metaphysical interests of the "definers."
> >>
> >> Yeah, just about as screwy as your own version of "idiosyncratic
> >> metaphysical interests ". Ya'know what they say about opinions...
> >
> > I have a minimalist metaphysics in science. That is, a set of
> > metaphysical beliefs held in common by most physicists.
> > (Maybe even fewer that that!) By being minimalist I avoid
> > the dogmatism of realists. I am not interested in forcing my
> > metaphysical opinions on other by contaminating science
> > with them. I'll propagate my opinions to others through
> > Natural Philosophy, where the promotion is legitimate.
> > There's way too much promotion of Natural Philosophy
> > on this NG as though it were science itself!!!
>
> Oh, by the views exhibited in your postings herein, you have shown
> yourself to be FAR from a 'minimalist'. But, self delusion is such
> because one's self cannot see it...
Specify please.
> > All you people who think that you're going to finally knock off Einstein,
> > take a year off from your labor of love and read the classics about
> > absolute space and the philosophy of science. Most of all read Einstein's
> > many excellent essays on space, time and the philosophy of science.
> > They're easily obtainable in inexpensive paperback form from any decent
> > bookstore.
>
> And I probably personal own, and have read, most of these... So what
> does that have to do with your morphing of this thread?
A anti-relativist telling me that I morph threads!
There are other NG groups for anti-relativists.
Please feel free to visit them.
> >> > If people on this NG would only read the classical arguments of
> >> > absolute motion there would be less of this pointless bickering.
> >>
> >> Yeah, and if every one bought chocolate, there'd be no need for
> >> vanilla...
> >
> > Read the classical arguments. Get a REAL education for once. The sciolism
> > around this NG is sickening.
>
> Well I'd rather see the practice of sciolism that what you practice, sophism...
Explain.
Patrick
Tom Roberts
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2001 10:04:11 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> wrote in <3B70036B...@lucent.com>:
> >physical properties, space does not. I know of no way of defining
> >"motion relative to space" in any meaningful way. Certainly you have
> >presented no such definition. "Motion relative to air" is easy.
> > Note I mean distinct from motion relative to some object or
> > coordinate system -- _those_ are well defined.
> Space has the physical property of being able to
> contain matter. Space also has the physical property
> of allowing matter to move through it. Space further
> has the physical property of allowing light to move
> through it.
None of those are "physical" in the usual sense.
> There is no essential difference between the motion
> of light through space and the motion of sound through
> air.
Yes there is -- one can measure speed relative to air, but not relative
to "space".
> And you were incorrect when you said "'Motion relative
> to air' is easy." It is so difficult to measure that no
> one has ever measured sound's one-way speed in air.
> (I am of course speaking of a correct measurement, one
> made by using two clocks.)
Nonsense. Besides, there is no difficulty in measuring the speed of
sound with a single clock and two microphones with cables back to
the clock. That does not yield a one-way measurement for light, but
for sound is perfectly adequate. The difference is in the magnitude
of the errors involved....
> Are you saying that you do not believe that light rays
> move through space?
That was not the issue. The issue was the _SPEED_ of light RELATIVE
TO SPACE. _THAT_ is undefiniable; the bare fact that light moves through
space is both definable and well known. The issue is what one means by
"speed" and how to measure relative to "space".
> Correct measurement is never arbitrary.
Sure it can be arbitrary, when the measurement procedure depends in an
inherent way on an arbitrary decision, such a clock-synchronization
method.
> If light rays move through space, and most sane
> people believe they do, then it is perfectly
> legitimate to say that they move relative to space.
Not true. "Through" and "Relative" are very different concepts and
carry significantly different denotations and connotations.
> And if they move wrt space, then they must move
> at some speed relative to space.
See -- your loose terminology gets you into trouble.
First review what one means by "speed": distance traveled divided by
the time taken. Now try to define those for "space" -- it cannot be
done. The only way to define or measure speed is relative to some
coordinate system. And to erect a coordinate system using spatially-
separated clocks one must _synchronize_ them.
> A single clock cannot make a one-way speed measurement
> (unless some length assumption is made).
A single clock cannot make a one-way measurement. PERIOD.
OK, this can be false in universes with nonstandard topology.
And it can make an _approximate_ one-way measurement, and in
some/many cases the approximation is vastly better than other
errors involved (e.g. in the case of the speed of sound, or of
racecars, or...).
> A bug crawling along a table has a unique motion
> relationship wrt the table.
Sure. But you cannot define such a relationship wrt "space" -- _THAT_
is my point. You can do it wrt a coordinate system, but that is not
"space". You can do it wrt some object, but that is not "space".
> This physical relationship
> cannot be changed by using different clock-setting
> methods. It is fixed. It is intrinsic. It does not
> in any way depend upon some outside observation.
Sure. But one cannot determine any "speed" without using a coordinate
system....
> There is nothing arbitrary about correct synchronization.
Sure there is -- there are MANY different methods to choose from. And
different methods in general give different results for a one-way speed
measurement of _ANYTHING_.
> Two touching atomic clocks can by all accounts be
> absolutely synchronized. Also, their atomic rhythms
> can be compared directly to show that they are
> equal. Given that nothing in an average Earth lab
> can physically alter an atomic clock's atomic rhythm,
> we very slowly move one clock to another location,
> and we know that the clocks must still be absolutely
> synchronous because there is nothing that has changed
> the initial conditions.
There is nothing "absolute" about this -- those clocks will remain
synchronized ONLY in the inertial frame in which they end up at rest
(assuming _SLOW_ clock transport, i.e. in the limit as the separation
velocity wrt the inertial frame in question goes to 0).
> [...]
I give up -- you make far to many mistakes for me to bother reading the
rest.
You clearly do not understand SR at all. I suggest you learn about
it before attempting to discuss it. I suggest:
Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Androcles
"John Reid" <silve...@4learning.com> wrote in message
news:3465e0c7.01081...@posting.google.com...
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2001 22:04:50 GMT, in sci.physics.relativity in message
> <3b7319c5$0$1519$4c5e...@news.erinet.com> Seto wrote:
>
> >What is there to explain? It is just the inverse of the time dilation
> >and length contraction equations.
> >The light path length of a moving rod in the stationary ether is
> >longer. This is very logical. Light from one end of a moving rod will
> >take longer to traverse the rod and the relationship is L*gamma. A
> >co-moving clock second will have a longer duration than a clock
> second
> >at rest in the ether frame and the relationship is gamma clock
> seconds
> >of the ether clock..
> >
> >>You must physically explain both the derivation and
> >>the meaning of "gamma."
> >
> >You don't know?
> >It is 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> >
> >Ken Seto
the other is 1/ -sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
or -1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
so that when we have
t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
we also get
t' = (vx/c^2 - t)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
x' = (vt-x)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
More interestingly, we can let c = 1 to change the units to 1ly/y
and get
t' = (vx-t)/sqrt(1-v^2)
x' = (vt-x)/sqrt(1-v^2)
and
t' = (t-vx)/sqrt(1-v^2)
x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2)
and from a different derivation, see
http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble.htm
we have
t' = (t+vx)/sqrt(1-v^2)
x' = (x+vt)/sqrt(1-v^2)
Take your pick, they are all available in SR.
John Reid
<TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in
<3B749613...@avenew.com>:
>I give up -- you make far to many mistakes for me to
>bother reading the rest.
Your assessment of "too many mistakes" is merely subjective
at best, and may even involve some prejudices, not to mention
an agenda.
>You clearly do not understand SR at all. I suggest you learn about
>it before attempting to discuss it. I suggest:
> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
>Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
Another objective assessment from our Mr. Roberts.
As for Wheeler/Taylor, I practically have their stupid
book memorized, Mr. Roberts, but all it tells me is that
Einstein is dead wrong.
For example, why don't you give us any experimental, theoretical,
or even a merely reasonable justification for Einstein's pre-setting
clocks to obtain his pre-chosen result in the one-way light speed
case?
(And don't bring up clock transport unless you can prove
experimentally that the clocks' tick rates - their intrinsic atomic
rhythms - are not physically affected by transportation. If clocks
moving at different speeds have different atomic rhythms, then they
can become asynchronous upon being moved apart even if they were
initially absolutely synchronous by direct observation.)
(More on this absolute synchronization below.)
Here is Wheeler's description of Einstein's definition:
"How are the different clocks in the lattice to be synchronized with
one another? As follows: pick one of the clocks in the lattice as the
standard of time and take it to be the origin of and x, y, z
coordinate system. Start this reference clock with its pointer at t =
0. At the this instant let it send out a flash of light that spreads
in all directions. Call this flash of light the reference flash.
When the reference flash gets to a clock 5m away, we want that clock
to read 5 m of light travel time. So an assistant sets that clock to
5m of time long before the experiment begins, holds it at 5m, and I
releases it only when the reference flash arrived. When assistants at
all the clocks in the lattice have followed this procedure ..., the
clocks in the lattice are said to be synchronized."
Note especially the following two Wheelerian phrases:
"long before the experiment begins"
and
"are said to be synchronized"
Einstein claimed that one-way invariance is a physical law
to which his theory pertains. My question is How can there
be any a priori law (i.e., one that exists _prior_ to
the definitive experiment itself)?
Merely giving us an arbitrary man-given mere definition of
clock setting is fine, but it is not fine to later call this
mere stipulation a "law of physics," as Einstein did.
A physical theory pertains only to laws of physics, and
not to mere man-given definitions.
For your information, since you seem to be totally
ignorant re such matters, here is the way it works:
The standard scientific process runs as follows:
HYPOTHESIS--->THEORY--->LAW
In other words, Mr. Roberts, a scientific theory is
supposed to be a potential LAW of physics, but this
is clearly not the case with special relativity.
As your buddy John Archibald Wheeler said, the "experimental
result" was _preordained_ in the Einsteinian one-way light speed
case.
My contention is that there cannot be a law of nature
sans an experiment.
Einstein's contention was that his man-given arbitrary
definition is a law of physics.
Guess who is right.
-----------
>> There is no essential difference between the motion
>> of light through space and the motion of sound through
>> air.
> Yes there is -- one can measure speed relative to air,
> but not relative to "space".
Given your unscientific belief that a mere man-given definition
can be a law of nature, why should we believe your above statement?
But since you cannot conceive of measurement relative to
a vacuum, we will simply use something equivalent but a
little more solid.
We all know that light waves travel through space. And we
all should know that their propagation speed through space
is constant (fixed) due to the facts of light's source
independence and its self-propagational nature.
No light ray can outrun another light ray.
And light rays emitted in the same direction from
sources which meet in passing will all move together
as if they were a single ray.
The above facts give us trackable points in empty
space. These points are the emission points of
light rays.
And they are trackable because light rays are visible,
and because their speed through space could be correctly
measured by correctly synchronized clocks.
Even Einstein had to admit this - and he did so by
saying that when using the clocks of classical physics,
light's one-way speed would vary with frame velocity.
Einstein wrote ["Relativity" Chapt. VII]:
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative
to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c."
This is the pre-Einsteinian-clock-setting-definition version
of light's one-way speed.
It is before Einstein forced clocks to obtain one-way
invariance.
It is the one-way speed of light that results if we
use the absolutely synchronous clocks of classical physics.
And there is no natural rule that prohibits such clocks.
There is only Einstein's rule saying that we must set
clocks in order to force one-way invariance.
But why?
As I said, there is no experimental or theoretical
reason.
There is only Einstein's supposedly mere arbitrarily-given
mere man-given definition given supposedly to give us some
way of using more than one clock in lieu of correct clock
synchronization.
But, as I said, even Einstein had to admit mathematically
that light's one-way speed per synchronous clocks will vary
will frame velocity.
And since I have proved that every light ray's emission
point in space is fixed wrt space, we can use correctly
synchronized clocks to determine our speed through space
by simply measuring our speed wrt any passing light ray.
-----
>> And you were incorrect when you said "'Motion relative
>> to air' is easy." It is so difficult to measure that no
>> one has ever measured sound's one-way speed in air.
>> (I am of course speaking of a correct measurement, one
>> made by using two clocks.)
> Nonsense.
No names or dates for the implied experiment?
>Besides, there is no difficulty in measuring the speed of
>sound with a single clock and two microphones with cables back to
>the clock. That does not yield a one-way measurement for light, but
>for sound is perfectly adequate. The difference is in the magnitude
>of the errors involved....
We can always measure anything's round-trip, one-clock speed,
but my point was that there is currently no way to correctly
measure anything's one-way, two-clock speed.
And note that my analogy still stands because if we were
at rest relative to space, we could then correctly determine
light's one-way speed by means of the round-trip measurement.
>>Are you saying that you do not believe that light rays
>>move through space?
>That was not the issue. The issue was the _SPEED_ of light
>RELATIVE TO SPACE. _THAT_ is undefiniable; the bare fact that
>light moves through space is both definable and well known.
>The issue is what one means by "speed" and how to measure
>relative to "space".
Well, even that "bare fact" alone opens up a large anti-Einstein
can of worms, of which you are seemingly totally unaware.
For example, given the bare fact that light moves
through space, it must take a finite amount of time
to move through any finite distance in space. And this
gives us both a finite travel distance and a finite travel
time, which in turn gives us a finite one-way speed value,
at least in principle.
However, Einstein declared mere motion through space
to be meaningless.
>>Correct measurement is never arbitrary.
>Sure it can be arbitrary, when the measurement procedure
>depends in an inherent way on an arbitrary decision, such
>a clock-synchronization method.
When a frame moves through space at a constant given speed,
and when a light ray moving through space passes this frame,
there is obviously only one physical relationship between the
ray and the frame. And this unique physical relationship
gives us only one correct answer to the question What is
light's passing speed in this case?
>>If light rays move through space, and most sane
>>people believe they do, then it is perfectly
>>legitimate to say that they move relative to space.
>Not true. "Through" and "Relative" are very different concepts
>and carry significantly different denotations and connotations.
>>And if they move wrt space, then they must move
>>at some speed relative to space.
>See -- your loose terminology gets you into trouble.
>First review what one means by "speed": distance traveled
>divided by the time taken. Now try to define those for "space"
> -- it cannot be done. The only way to define or measure speed
>is relative to some coordinate system. And to erect a coordinate
>system using spatially-separated clocks one must _synchronize_ them.
As I said above, when a light ray moves through space, then
it moves some finite distance in a finite time. And this has
nothing to do with any measurements made by some coordinate
systems. And it also does not depend upon our being able
to currently measure a distance in space or a time re
light's motion through space.
But given correctly synchronized clocks, as Einstein admitted,
we can easily measure our speed relative to a passing light ray,
and of course if this speed turned out to be c, then we would
know that we were at rest wrt space. And in that special case,
our rulers would correspond to a distance through space, and
our clock times would correspond to times for light's one-way
travel through space.
>>A single clock cannot make a one-way speed measurement
>>(unless some length assumption is made).
>A single clock cannot make a one-way measurement. PERIOD.
You can measure the one-way speed of a passing rod
by using a single clock, but you must then assume
that the rod's intrinsic (nature-controlled) length
does not vary with rod velocity.
>>Two touching atomic clocks can by all accounts be
>>absolutely synchronized. Also, their atomic rhythms
>>can be compared directly to show that they are
>>equal. Given that nothing in an average Earth lab
>>can physically alter an atomic clock's atomic rhythm,
>>we very slowly move one clock to another location,
>>and we know that the clocks must still be absolutely
>>synchronous because there is nothing that has changed
>>the initial conditions.
>There is nothing "absolute" about this -- those clocks
>will remain synchronized ONLY in the inertial frame in
>which they end up at rest (assuming _SLOW_ clock transport,
>i.e. in the limit as the separation velocity wrt the inertial
>frame in question goes to 0).
As I said, all physicists agree upon absolute simultaneity
at a given single point. We can see both clocks at absolutely
the same time because we don't have to rely on light rays
sent from them as long as the clocks' dials are in direct
physical contact. This is as simple as the fact that two of
your fingertips can touch at absolutely the same time.
And in physics, as in other disciplines, there is the
standard concept of "the initial conditions," a concept
which seems to elude your grasp.
Once two identical atomic clocks have been seen by all
observers in all frames to be absolutely synchronous,
and once one of the clocks has been slowly transported
to a new location, the clocks must remain absolutely
synchronous unless the moved clock's internal atomic
rhythm changed.
This, along with the fact that a velocity change can
be closed-lab detected, tells us clearly that there
is much more to motion than Einstein's mere frame-to-
frame relative motion.
Indeed, since the Michelson-Morley experiment was a
closed-lab one, the physical explanation cannot involve
some outside passing frame or frames.
The physical explanation must be within the walls
of the Michelson-Morley experiment itself.
But Einstein's silly theory denies this simple fact,
saying that the "explanation" for the null result has
to do with measurements made by some passing frame's
observers.
This is clearly ridiculous.
-JR
Paul B. Andersen
>
> No, no, no. sqrt has two answers.
> the other is 1/ -sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> or -1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> so that when we have
> t' = (t-vx/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> x' = (x-vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> we also get
> t' = (vx/c^2 - t)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
> x' = (vt-x)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
And since sqrt(1) = 1 and sqrt(1) = -1
it follows that 1 = -1
Paul
Bill Rowe
silve...@4learning.com (John Reid) wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:18:59 -0500, Tom Roberts
><TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in
><3B749613...@avenew.com>:
>>You clearly do not understand SR at all. I suggest you learn about
>>it before attempting to discuss it. I suggest:
>> Taylor and Wheeler, _Spacetime_Physics_.
>As for Wheeler/Taylor, I practically have their stupid
>book memorized, Mr. Roberts, but all it tells me is that
>Einstein is dead wrong.
The only way to reach a concludion that Spacetime Physics by Taylor and
Wheeler conflicts with Einstein is to either misunderstand Spacetime
Physics or Einstein or both.
>Here is Wheeler's description of Einstein's definition:
>"How are the different clocks in the lattice to be synchronized with
>one another? As follows: pick one of the clocks in the lattice as the
>standard of time and take it to be the origin of and x, y, z
>coordinate system. Start this reference clock with its pointer at t =
>0. At the this instant let it send out a flash of light that spreads
>in all directions. Call this flash of light the reference flash.
>When the reference flash gets to a clock 5m away, we want that clock
>to read 5 m of light travel time. So an assistant sets that clock to
>5m of time long before the experiment begins, holds it at 5m, and I
>releases it only when the reference flash arrived. When assistants at
>all the clocks in the lattice have followed this procedure ..., the
>clocks in the lattice are said to be synchronized."
>Note especially the following two Wheelerian phrases:
>"long before the experiment begins"
>and
>"are said to be synchronized"
>Einstein claimed that one-way invariance is a physical law
>to which his theory pertains. My question is How can there
>be any a priori law (i.e., one that exists _prior_ to
>the definitive experiment itself)?
What does your question have to do with the quoted text? The phrase
"long before the experiment begins" isn't referring to some "a priori
law". It is merely describing one of the experimental conditions.
All that is being said is before the experiment begins (as defined by
starting the reference clock) another clock is placed some distance away
held pre-set to the time it take light to travel the distance between
the clocks. Then when the light reaches this clock it is alowed to begin
ticking. This is simply one way to sychronize clocks and is equivalent
to slow clock transport.
>> Yes there is -- one can measure speed relative to air,
>> but not relative to "space".
> why should we believe your above statement?
To show Tom Roberts wrong, all you need to do is show how speed relative
to space can be unambiguously defined. I am certain you will only be
able to define speed of an object with reference to another object.
Until you can do differently, there is every reason to accept Tom's
statement. (In fact, I would argue Tom's satement is self evident.)
>We all know that light waves travel through space. And we
>all should know that their propagation speed through space
>is constant (fixed)
>No light ray can outrun another light ray.
>And light rays emitted in the same direction from
>sources which meet in passing will all move together
>as if they were a single ray.
>The above facts give us trackable points in empty
>space. These points are the emission points of
>light rays.
The emission points of light rays are physical objects, i.e. light
sources. Light rays are not created from nothing. At best, you've a
method of determing speed relative to those sources. You've not defined
speed relative to space.
[rest skipped as I don't have the patience right now to respond]
--
-
PGPKey fingerprint: 6DA1 E71F EDFC 7601 0201 9243 E02A C9FD EF09 EAE5
Androcles
Instead read "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein,
the absurd little paper that started all the cashing in on publications that
charlatans like Taylor and Wheeler are part of.
Then read a refutation of Einstein's nutty ideas, at
http://members.home.net/androcles/fumble
"Bill Rowe" <bjr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bjrowe-F977DA....@nnrp05.earthlink.net...
John Reid
wrote in <bjrowe-F977DA....@nnrp05.earthlink.net>:
>>Einstein claimed that one-way invariance is a physical law
>>to which his theory pertains. My question is How can there
>>be any a priori law (i.e., one that exists _prior_ to
>>the definitive experiment itself)?
>
>What does your question have to do with the quoted text? The phrase
>"long before the experiment begins" isn't referring to some "a priori
>law". It is merely describing one of the experimental conditions.
>
>All that is being said is before the experiment begins (as defined by
>starting the reference clock) another clock is placed some distance
away
>held pre-set to the time it take light to travel the distance between
>the clocks. Then when the light reaches this clock it is alowed to
begin
>ticking. This is simply one way to sychronize clocks and is
equivalent
>to slow clock transport.
As I said, if it were merely just some way of setting clocks,
then it would be perfectly acceptable; however, as I also
said, Einstein insisted that his merely defined-by-man one-way
isotropy was from nature, i.e., that it is a law of physics.
If you understood special relativity, you would know that
Einstein considered light's one-way speed to be a physical
law, a law of nature, a law of physics.
For example, he wrote a chapter entitled
"The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light [Light's One-way Speed]
With the Principle of Relativity"
If you knew anything at all about special relativity,
then you would know that Einstein's so-called law of
propagation of light is
"one-way light speed invariance and isotropy in all
frames."
And if you knew anything at all about the real world
of experimental physics, then you would know that there
has never been a one-way light speed experiment using two
comoving clocks, so there is no one-way light speed law.
Einstein incorrectly claimed that the principle of
relativity called for the one-way light speed law
to be invariance and isotropy in all frames.
To any thinking person, this is obviously an error
because of the simple fact that there cannot be a
law without experiment, and no experiment has ever
had one-way light speed invariance as its result.
Not to mention the simple fact that Einstein
misinterpreted the principle of relativity.
This principle does not call for or specify any
particular physical law or laws, but merely and
only states that WHENEVER a law has been found
by observers in one frame, then all other observers
in all other frames must find this SAME law.
The principle of relativity cannot dictate to us
what laws shall be found, as no mere principle can
dictate anything in physics.
The principle of relativity does not dictate which
laws shall be found because only experiment can tell
us what nature's laws are.
As I said, all the principle of relativity does is
to "spread around" any FOUND law to all frames.
In other words, and to reiterate, the principle of
relativity ---- contrary to Einstein --- does NOT
call for (and cannot call for) any law, and this
includes any one-way light speed law.
Based on his
GROSS MISINTERPRETATION
of the (trivial) principle of relativity, Einstein
falsely declared that clocks must be set to find
the same one-way light speed in all directions in
all frames.
In other words, Einstein stupidly believed that
man can make the laws of physics.
And Wheeler and Taylor also stupidly believed this
ridiculous notion.
That's why Wheeler, Taylor, and Einstein saw
NOTHING WRONG
with forcing clocks to obtain one-way invariance.
They thought that nature had somehow called for
one-way invariance through the (mere) principle
(not even a law itself) of relativity.
But this, as I said, was simply putting words into
Nature's mouth. At no time did Nature in any way
say
"Light's one-way speed per two clocks is isotropic
in all frames and invariant."
Contrast this simple fact (i.e., the simple fact that
there has never been a one-way, two-clock light speed
experiment) with the following absurd statements by
Einstein:
"Now before the advent of the [special] theory of
relativity it had always tacitly been assumed in
physics that the statement of time had an absolute
significance, i.e. that it is independent of the state
of motion of the body of reference. But we have just
seen that this assumption is incompatible with the
most natural definition of simultaneity; if we need
discard this assumption, then the conflict between
the law of the propagation of light in vacuo and
the principle of relativity disappears."
Note Einstein's phrase "the law of propagation of light."
In legitimate physics, all laws must come from nature,
and the only way to find out what nature is saying is
to perform experiments.
Einstein had no basis for using the phrase "the law of
propagation of light" because he had never performed the
one-way light speed experiment in order to find out what
the one-way, two-clock law may be.
Note also Einstein's sneaky phrase "the most natural
definition of simultaneity."
As any idiot knows, either we have a purely artificial
man-given definition, or we have a purely natural law
of physics. We cannot have a crazy hybrid called "the
most natural definition." This is a gross contradiction
in terms.
There can be no doubt that Einstein fully believed
that one-way invariance is a law of physics.
But there can also be no doubt that there has never
been a one-way (two-clock) light speed experiment.
All we have, as Wheeler pointed out clearly, is a
man-given value for light's one-way speed.
As Wheeler said, this value was chosen before our
clocks are even started.
My point was WHO CHOSE THIS VALUE?
And we see that Einstein chose it due to his
gross misinterpretation some mere principle.
And even if a principle somehow called for a
certain law, no mere principle can dictate the
laws of physics; only experiments can give us the
laws.
Contrary to Einstein, there is no one-way light
speed law, and there was never any conflict between
such a law and the principle of relativity.
But even if there were, it is clear that no mere
principle can say anything about laws.
Conclusion:
Although it is okay to proffer some arbitrary
definition of "synchronization," it is by no
means okay to declare the result of such a
man-made definition a "law of nature."
-----snip-----
>The emission points of light rays are physical objects, i.e. light
>sources. Light rays are not created from nothing. At best, you've a
>method of determing speed relative to those sources. You've not
defined
>speed relative to space.
>
Are you unaware of the simple experimental fact of
light's source-independent nature?
A light ray's origin point in space is not attached
to or controlled by the light source. As I took the
pains to point out to you dummies, sources moving
at vastly different speeds emit identically-moving
light rays just as if all of the sources were at
relative rest wrt each other. This proves experimentally
that any light ray's emission point in space is fixed
in space, and does not travel with the source frame.
>[rest skipped as I don't have the patience right now to respond]
Replace the word "patience" with "knowledge and intelligence."
-JR
Bill Rowe
silve...@4learning.com (John Reid) wrote:
>On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 22:28:48 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net>
>wrote in <bjrowe-F977DA....@nnrp05.earthlink.net>:
>>What does your question have to do with the quoted text? The phrase
>>"long before the experiment begins" isn't referring to some "a priori
>>law". It is merely describing one of the experimental conditions.
>>All that is being said is before the experiment begins (as defined by
>>starting the reference clock) another clock is placed some distance
>>away held pre-set to the time it take light to travel the distance
>>between the clocks. Then when the light reaches this clock it is
>>alowed to begin ticking. This is simply one way to sychronize clocks
>>and is equivalent to slow clock transport.
>As I said, if it were merely just some way of setting clocks,
>then it would be perfectly acceptable; however, as I also
>said, Einstein insisted that his merely defined-by-man one-way
>isotropy was from nature, i.e., that it is a law of physics.
[big snip]
I frankly don't understand the point of your confusion. If your point is
by synchronizing clocks differently than Einstein you can arrive at
different conclusions, yes that is true and reasonably well known. But
so what?
>To any thinking person, this is obviously an error
>because of the simple fact that there cannot be a
>law without experiment,
Why is it you think a "law" cannot exist without experiment? A "law"
represents how nature operates. Surely, such rules or mechanisms exist
whether or not experiments are performed. An experiment really is
nothing more than a way to observe a "law". Lack of observation
(experiment) doesn't imply non-existence.
[more snips]
>>The emission points of light rays are physical objects, i.e. light
>>sources. Light rays are not created from nothing. At best, you've a
>>method of determing speed relative to those sources. You've not
>>defined speed relative to space.
>Are you unaware of the simple experimental fact of
>light's source-independent nature?
I am aware of the fact the speed of light in vacuum is independent of
the speed of the source. But light is not source-independent in all
respects.
>A light ray's origin point in space is not attached
>to or controlled by the light source. As I took the
>pains to point out to you dummies, sources moving
>at vastly different speeds emit identically-moving
>light rays just as if all of the sources were at
>relative rest wrt each other. This proves experimentally
>that any light ray's emission point in space is fixed
>in space, and does not travel with the source frame.
Try again. A mathematical ray representing the path of light extends
infinitely in both directions. How do you choose the origin of a ray if
you do not choose the source of the photons? If you do choose the source
of the photons you've measured speed relative to that source not space.
>>[rest skipped as I don't have the patience right now to respond]
>Replace the word "patience" with "knowledge and intelligence."
Believe what you will.
Henry Wilson
Dead right, John.
Einstein concocted his theory on the false assumption that OWLS =TWLS=constant.
At low velocities, round trip light speed IS very nearly constant, varying by
only the presently immeasureable factor (v/c)^2
Einstein used a 'brute force' definition, as you said, with absolutely no
justification.
Bilge
Re: Special Relativity Is Inadequate to usenet:
The justification is that the assumption works, regardless of
whether you believe some circularity is involved, since you don't
have a replacement that is circular and working much less non-circular
and plausible. A scientst's job is to make assumptions. Justification
(and their job) rests on whether their assumptions work on a regular
basis. You have done a remarkable job proving your interpretation of
relativity is wrong, and that your assumptions about it aren't
justified, though.
John Reid
(Bilge) wrote in <slrn9neqe...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>:
You are confusing two different issues.
As a mere definition (an arbitrary clock-setting method),
Einstein's view is of course acceptable, but it is not
a valid scientific _assumption_ because it says nothing about
nature, and all scientific assumptions must say something
about nature.
Worse, taken as a scientific assumption, Einstein's isotropy in
all frames actually _conflicts_ with nature (or with reality).
Here is how:
Frame A
|----------X----------|
-->light
|----------X----------|
Frame B
Frame A
|----------X----------|
---------------------->light
-----|----------X----------|
Frame B
If white light is used, and the A-frame observers filter out
the red, then essentially a second light ray will eventually
reach the far end of the B-frame rod. And observers in all
frames will see that when the ray reached the end of the A-frame
rod, the end of the B-frame rod was _not_ there. These experimental
facts prove that the ray reached the rod ends at absolutely different
times. We can label them Ta and Tb, and qualitatively Ta /= Tb.
The light ray traveled the same frame distance X in both frames.
Thus we have the following simple and direct experimental results:
Light's one-way speed wrt A = X/Ta
Light's one-way speed wrt B = X/Tb
Ergo, not only does no experiment say one-way isotropy and/or
invariance, but the above simple experiment proves just the
opposite, and therefore proves that Einstein's definition conflicts
with reality.
Returning to the notion of mere man-given definition (nothing
given by nature), we see that IF clocks are pre-set by mere
man-given definition (nothing from nature), THEN of course the
clocks will obtain whatever they are forced by definition to
obtain, and no sane person would argue for a minute about this.
Further, no one would argue about the so-called relativistic
results of Einstein's man-given (nothing from nature) definition,
viz., [1] apparent rod "contraction," [2] apparent (reciprocal,
observer- or frame-dependent) clock "slowing," and [3] apparent
mass "increase." Moreover, no one would argue that given Einstein's
mere man-given (not from nature) definition, frame views of events
are related by the Einsteinian (relativistic) transformations, and
not the classical Galilean transformations. But nature did not give
us the relativistic transformations. They were dictated by mere
man, supposedly in order to have a mere definition, but some folks
try their best to turn Einstein's mere definition into either a
scientific assumption or a full law of nature, as if nature had
anything at all to do with it!
Not only does light's one-way speed vary with frame velocity, but so
does its motion direction and frequency.
Everything in _Nature_ says optical _variance_, in stark contrast
to Einstein's optical invariance and isotropy.
And none of this says anything bad about anyone's lack of a
working procedure for absolute clock synchronization.
It has everything to do with the sad fact that many see
Einstein's mere man-given definition as a law of nature.
As was proved above, it is not only _not_ a law, but it
actually _conflicts_ with nature.
-JR
John Reid
wrote in <bjrowe-27A9A7....@nnrp02.earthlink.net>:
>In article <3465e0c7.0108...@posting.google.com>,
> silve...@4learning.com (John Reid) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 Aug 2001 22:28:48 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net>
>>wrote in <bjrowe-F977DA....@nnrp05.earthlink.net>:
>
>>>What does your question have to do with the quoted text? The phrase
>>>"long before the experiment begins" isn't referring to some "a priori
>>>law". It is merely describing one of the experimental conditions.
>
>>>All that is being said is before the experiment begins (as defined by
>>>starting the reference clock) another clock is placed some distance
>>>away held pre-set to the time it take light to travel the distance
>>>between the clocks. Then when the light reaches this clock it is
>>>alowed to begin ticking. This is simply one way to sychronize clocks
>>>and is equivalent to slow clock transport.
>
>>As I said, if it were merely just some way of setting clocks,
>>then it would be perfectly acceptable; however, as I also
>>said, Einstein insisted that his merely defined-by-man one-way
>>isotropy was from nature, i.e., that it is a law of physics.
>
>I frankly don't understand the point of your confusion. If your point is
>by synchronizing clocks differently than Einstein you can arrive at
>different conclusions, yes that is true and reasonably well known. But
>so what?
Frankly, I _do_ see "the point of _your_ confusion"; you do not know
the scientific method.
As I pointed out earlier, here is how science works:
HYPOTHESIS--->THEORY--->LAW
The goal of all scientific endeavor is a law of nature.
But a mere man-given definition is NOT even a hypothesis, much
less a law of nature, and yet, as I proved, Einstein came to the
final conclusion that his mandated one-way invariance and isotropy
in all frames were somehow laws of nature.
HOW DO WE KNOW FOR SURE THAT ALBERT EINSTEIN
BELIEVED THAT HE HAD FOUND A LAW OF NATURE?
BECAUSE ALBERT EINSTEIN CLAIMED TO HAVE A THEORY.
And, as we all should know, any scientific theory is
supposed to be a potential LAW of physics.
Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all how a mere definition
from man can become a law of nature?
Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all how any scientific theory
can be based on nothing but a man-given arbitrary definition?
All scientific theories must say something about nature.
Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all what Einstein's so-called
theory says about the nature of nature?
Actually, all Einstein's so-called theory says is that if we
force clocks to obtain one-way isotropy, then, by George, they
will obtain it!
This is fine as long as we take it to be merely a definition from
a mere man, but it is NOT fine if some idiot tries to insist that
it is from nature, and is therefore a law of nature.
And it is not fine if someone insists that there is some
scientific theory involved when all that exists is a mere
arbitrary definition from some mere man.
Tell us what special relativity says about nature that does
not depend upon Einstein's mere man-given definition.
There can be nothing because every single relativistic result
is based on the use of Einstein's clocks.
The definition came first. Then came the Einsteinian transformation
equations. Then came the Einsteinian addition of velocities theorem.
Then came the relativistic effects of apparent and reciprocal and
frame-dependent clock "slowing," rod "shrinkage," and mass "increase,"
all of which would not exist were it not for Einstein's definition.
But no mere definition can be a hypothesis, no mere definition can
be a theory, and no mere definition can be a law of physics.
There is no scientific theory involved; there is only a man-given
arbitrary clock-setting definition from Albert Einstein.
There is not a single word from nature re light's one-way, two-
clock speed relative to inertial reference frames.
(Except the obvious fact that the sum of the one-way travel times
cannot exceed the round-trip time.)
Nothing in nature says one-way isotropy in any frame.
Nothing in nature says one-way invariance.
But somehow, a dude named Albert supposedly has a theory
that says one-way invariance and one-way isotropy in all frames.
I hate to break the bad news to Albert's followers that Albert
had/has no scientific theory; all Albert had/has is an arbitrary
definition.
And no mere man-given definition says or can say anything at
all about the nature of nature.
>>To any thinking person, this is obviously an error
>>because of the simple fact that there cannot be a
>>law without experiment,
>
>Why is it you think a "law" cannot exist without experiment? A "law"
>represents how nature operates. Surely, such rules or mechanisms exist
>whether or not experiments are performed. An experiment really is
>nothing more than a way to observe a "law". Lack of observation
>(experiment) doesn't imply non-existence.
>
Jeez, of course laws exist sans experiment; my point was that we
cannot know what the law is without performing an experiment.
For example, how did Albert Einstein "know" what the one-way
light speed law is without performing any one-way, two-clock
experiment?
>[more snips]
>
>>>The emission points of light rays are physical objects, i.e. light
>>>sources. Light rays are not created from nothing. At best, you've a
>>>method of determing speed relative to those sources. You've not
>>>defined speed relative to space.
>
>
>>Are you unaware of the simple experimental fact of
>>light's source-independent nature?
>
>I am aware of the fact the speed of light in vacuum is independent of
>the speed of the source. But light is not source-independent in all
>respects.
>
I did not say or even imply that light is source-independent in
all ways; all that matters to me and to my post is the simple
experimental fact that light's speed is unaffected by the speed
of its source.
>>A light ray's origin point in space is not attached
>>to or controlled by the light source. As I took the
>>pains to point out to you dummies, sources moving
>>at vastly different speeds emit identically-moving
>>light rays just as if all of the sources were at
>>relative rest wrt each other. This proves experimentally
>>that any light ray's emission point in space is fixed
>>in space, and does not travel with the source frame.
>
>Try again. A mathematical ray representing the path of light extends
>infinitely in both directions. How do you choose the origin of a ray if
>you do not choose the source of the photons? If you do choose the source
>of the photons you've measured speed relative to that source not space.
>
Reread my words: A photon's emission point in space cannot be
linked to its source because light is source-independent.
Here is a simple inertial example for contrast:
[Start Example]
If three guns moving at different velocities fire bullets
in the same direction, then each bullet will move at a
different speed. The bullets will NOT travel side-by-side,
but will spatially separate.
[End Example]
This gun/bullet experiment proves that a bullet's speed is
not source-independent, and it also shows that a bullet's
emission point in space is linked to the gun from which it
was fired. In other words, a gun and its bullet travel
through space as a unit that is separate from all other
gun/bullet combinations. Each bullet is directly and
physically tied to its own gun because a bullet's speed
is source-dependent.
When a bullet is "emitted" from a gun, it is emitted at
a definite point in space. But this point is not trackable
because the gun/bullet combination may leave it behind.
The gun may leave it behind because the gun may be moving
through space, and if the gun leaves it behind, then so
will the bullet because it is forced to follow the gun.
That is, the bullet's final velocity will not be simply
its muzzle velocity m, but will be v + m, where v is the
gun's velocity.
On the other hand, and as I took the pain to point out
before, a photon is NOT linked to its source.
A photon moves independently of its source (speedwise).
As I pointed out, and as you merely ignored or did not
grasp the significance of, the fact is that when light
sources moving at vastly different speeds emit light
rays in the same direction when the sources meet in
passing, all of these light rays will travel side-by-side
as if they were one ray. Unlike bullets, the light rays
will not spatially separate.
Unlike a bullet, a light ray is not pushed faster or
slowed down by its source. Thus we know that at whatever
point in space a light ray is emitted, the ray moves at
the constant through-space speed c from this fixed-in-space
point, UNLIKE a bullet, which does not move at its emitted
or muzzle velocity from its emission point in space.
Contrast my above with your above claim that
>If you do choose the source of the photons you've measured
>speed relative to that source not space.
Since light is source-independent speedwise, it is not linked
to its source speedwise.
My three-source experiment proved that all light rays are
trackable from their fixed-in-space emission points.
But this is not to say that space itself is somehow at
absolute rest, and there is no need to go this far because
all we care about is light's speed through space and our
speed through space.
And all we need to measure or quantify our speed through space
is a pair of (correctly) synchronized clocks.
What we certainly DO NOT need (as far as correct measurements go)
is a pair of clocks set per Einstein's mere definition.
And we DON'T need some circular so-called theory telling us
that when clocks are set to obtain one-way invariance, they
will obtain one-way invariance.
And we DO NOT need some circular so-called theory telling us
that if we force clocks to obtain one-way isotropy and invariance,
then frames will be related mathematically by the Einsteinian
(not the Lorentzian) transformation equations.
-JR
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>
>Here is how:
>
>Frame A
>|----------X----------|
>-->light
>|----------X----------|
>Frame B
>
>
>Frame A
>|----------X----------|
>---------------------->light
>-----|----------X----------|
>Frame B
>
>If white light is used, and the A-frame observers filter out
>the red, then essentially a second light ray will eventually
>reach the far end of the B-frame rod. And observers in all
>frames will see that when the ray reached the end of the A-frame
>rod, the end of the B-frame rod was _not_ there. These experimental
>facts prove that the ray reached the rod ends at absolutely different
>times. We can label them Ta and Tb, and qualitatively Ta /= Tb.
Correct: Ta is not equal to Tb in terms of absolute time intervals. If
we assume that rod A is at rest in the ether then Ta represents the
shortest absolute time interval for light to traverse the rod length X
in A's frame. This means that B is moving in the ether. Light will
take a longer absolute time interval to traverse the length X. This
means that the absolute time interval Tb is larger than the absolute
time interval Ta. The relationship between Ta and Tb is as follows:
Tb=Ta*gamma
>
>The light ray traveled the same frame distance X in both frames.
Yes but the light path length for A is X and the light path length
for in frame B is X*gamma.
>
>Thus we have the following simple and direct experimental results:
>
>Light's one-way speed wrt A = X/Ta
>
>Light's one-way speed wrt B = X/Tb
=X*gamma/Ta*gamma
=X/Ta
This shows that both frame A and B have the same math ratio for
one-way light speed.
Ken Seto
Daryl McCullough
>Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all how a mere definition
>from man can become a law of nature?
>
>Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all how any scientific theory
>can be based on nothing but a man-given arbitrary definition?
>
>All scientific theories must say something about nature.
>
>Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all what Einstein's so-called
>theory says about the nature of nature?
>
>Actually, all Einstein's so-called theory says is that if we
>force clocks to obtain one-way isotropy, then, by George, they
>will obtain it!
The predictions of Einstein's theory include:
1. The energy of a particle of mass M travelling at speed v
is given by E = Mc^2/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
2. The momentum of a particle of mass M travelling at speed v
is given by p = Mv/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
3. The elapsed time shown on a clock for any trip is given
by Tau = integral of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt.
Einstein's conventions about the synchronization of distant
clocks are used to *derive* these results. Different synchronization
conventions would make the derivations more difficult, but not
impossible. As a matter of fact, in developing General Relativity,
Einstein dropped the constraint that distances and times be
determined by his conventions. Instead, he frames his theory
in terms of an arbitrary coordinate system. All predictions
made by GR are completely independent of what conventions one
uses to set up a coordinate system.
--
Daryl McCullough
CoGenTex, Inc.
Ithaca, NY
Bilge
.
>
>You are confusing two different issues.
>As a mere definition (an arbitrary clock-setting method),
>Einstein's view is of course acceptable, but it is not
>a valid scientific _assumption_ because it says nothing about
>nature, and all scientific assumptions must say something
>about nature.
Einstein's assumptions in special relativity are the two postulates.
Those say something about nature. The rest follows as a consequence.
>Worse, taken as a scientific assumption, Einstein's isotropy in
>all frames actually _conflicts_ with nature (or with reality).
That's literally obvious. The universe is lumpy. You don't need an
elaborate argument to see that. Furthermore, it's obvious from the fact
that if special relativity were strictly true, einstein would not have
needed general relativity to address its shortcomings. However, locally,
space is isotropic. And few tests need to worry about the difference. If
you have to worry about the difference, then you need to use general
relativity as your yardstick.
[...]
>Ergo, not only does no experiment say one-way isotropy and/or
>invariance, but the above simple experiment proves just the
>opposite, and therefore proves that Einstein's definition conflicts
>with reality.
No, you just misunderstand special relativity.
>Returning to the notion of mere man-given definition (nothing
>given by nature), we see that IF clocks are pre-set by mere
I don't care about a clocks argument. If the postulates (which do say
something about nature) are used to construct a synchronization process,
then the clocks will be set according to what special relativity says
about nature. Your idea of what constitutes a clock is incredibly narrow
and naive. Aclock could be a lump of 22Na. That reduces observers to
note-takers.
[...]
>not the classical Galilean transformations. But nature did not give
>us the relativistic transformations.
That is correct. Nature provided the symetry which the lorentz
tranformations describe. Nature did not give us the formula d = rd\theta
either, but nature did give us spherical symetry from which it was
derived.
> They were dictated by mere
>man, supposedly in order to have a mere definition, but some folks
>try their best to turn Einstein's mere definition into either a
>scientific assumption or a full law of nature, as if nature had
>anything at all to do with it!
We've alreday discussed your mistake regarding what was assumed.
>Not only does light's one-way speed vary with frame velocity, but so
>does its motion direction and frequency.
>
>Everything in _Nature_ says optical _variance_, in stark contrast
>to Einstein's optical invariance and isotropy.
When you have a working experiment that demonstrates this conclusively
so that it conflicts with what special relativity tells you, then let me
know.
>And none of this says anything bad about anyone's lack of a
>working procedure for absolute clock synchronization.
>
>It has everything to do with the sad fact that many see
>Einstein's mere man-given definition as a law of nature.
>
>As was proved above, it is not only _not_ a law, but it
>actually _conflicts_ with nature.
No. You proved your understanding of relativity was incorrect,
not relativity. I can go along with that.
Tom Roberts
> Frame A
> |----------X----------|
> -->light
> |----------X----------|
> Frame B
>
> Frame A
> |----------X----------|
> ---------------------->light
> -----|----------X----------|
> Frame B
> Light's one-way speed wrt B = X/Tb
>
> Ergo, not only does no experiment say one-way isotropy and/or
> invariance, but the above simple experiment proves just the
> opposite, and therefore proves that Einstein's definition conflicts
> with reality.
To make such a claim you need to use SR to analyze the situation, not
whatever it is you are using.
First let me assume that your Frame B is moving inertially wrt Frame A
and the above diagrams are supposed to be _snapshots_ of their
configurations at two different instants in time . Then your diagrams
are wrong -- the two endpoints of the path length X in both frames
cannot be the same length as you drew them. If the snapshots are taken
simultaneously in Frame A (as seems likely as Frame A does not move),
then you forgot the length contraction of Frame B.
More importantly, you did not take into account the OFFSET in the
right-hand Frame B clock relative to the left-hand Frame B clock
-- in the snapshot taken simultanously in Frame A, the Frame B clocks
at the two endpoints of the Frame B interval will NOT display the
same time value -- they are synchronized in Frame B, not in Frame A.
When you put it all together, using the Lorentz transform and not
whatever it is that you are trying to use, one finds that the speed
of the light pulse in Frame A is X/Ta=c, and the speed of the light
pulse in Frame B is X'/Tb'=c. Note carefully that in the latter both
the distance X' and the time Tb' must be measured in Frame B using
rulers and clocks at rest in Frame B and synchronized in Frame B.
In short, your attempt to show that "Einstein's definition conflicts
with reality" fails because you did not really use Einstein's
theory, you used some hodge-podge you put together yourself. Yes,
_YOUR_ hodge-podge does indeed conflict with reality. <shrug>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> here is how science works:
> HYPOTHESIS--->THEORY--->LAW
Not really. You forgot the ESSENTIAL aspect of science: experiment.
You also forgot that science is inherently an ITERATIVE process which
yields successively better theories and experiments.
And most devastatingly of all, you forgot that the true "Laws of
Nature" are unknowable to us humans; at best we can only arrive at
theories which accurately predict experimental results -- whether or
not they "truly correspond" to the "actual" "laws of nature" is
impossible to know.
Just as you make elementary errors in attempting to apply SR to your
gedanken (this thread, different post), so too you make basic errors in
your attempts to lecture on the philosophy of science. You seem to have
a hyper-inflated opinion of your knowledge in both fields. I suggest
you actually _STUDY_ these fields before attempting to discuss them....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Wilson
Nonsense, Bilgey. There isn't one skerrick of concrete evidence in favour of SR.
Henry Wilson
>In article <3465e0c7.01081...@posting.google.com>,
> silve...@4learning.com (John Reid) wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 10 Aug 2001 21:18:59 -0500, Tom Roberts
>>>You clearly do not understand SR at all. I suggest you learn about
There is a natural reference in space.
Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
It might even be universally absolute.
>
>>We all know that light waves travel through space. And we
>>all should know that their propagation speed through space
>>is constant (fixed)
>
>>No light ray can outrun another light ray.
>
>>And light rays emitted in the same direction from
>>sources which meet in passing will all move together
>>as if they were a single ray.
John, that is the aether principle. I for one don't accept it outright. However,
even if passing photons DO have a velocity distribution, the mean will still
define a rest frame.
>
>>The above facts give us trackable points in empty
>>space. These points are the emission points of
>>light rays.
>
>The emission points of light rays are physical objects, i.e. light
>sources. Light rays are not created from nothing. At best, you've a
>method of determing speed relative to those sources. You've not defined
>speed relative to space.
As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?", light rays
can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and still carry enough
information about their source velocity for the correct doppler shift to occur
when they hit something. Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that
to be possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be source
dependent.
Spaceman
"Bilge" <ro...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9nfuo...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> I don't care about a clocks argument. If the postulates (which do say
> something about nature) are used to construct a synchronization process,
> then the clocks will be set according to what special relativity says
> about nature. Your idea of what constitutes a clock is incredibly narrow
> and naive. Aclock could be a lump of 22Na. That reduces observers to
> note-takers.
No,
that reduces your thought of time to the time that 22Na
moves/bounces.. travels when heated...etc.. (or whatever you count)
at the surrounding pressures and gravitational forces and motion
being applied to that chunk of 22Na, so,
It means nothing about the rest of the Universes elements
that would have nothing to do with chunk of 22Na at all.
and may not be moving or be in the same field effect of gravity.
(actual pressure of excess electrons in motion throughout Outer Space)
So ,
that is not completely all time ,
time is not even completely measurable unless you could check every
single motion of every single atom and electrons surrounding such and so on
..
time does not exist as a reality..
the motion of a ticker only does. (and it's surrounding forces..)
stop giving time any force or power to change anything else
except the motion of that pendulum.
and not complete time itself.
and
I hope people can drop the Time Travel crap soon too,
and of course the FTL causes time travel stuff .,.
for it's all bologna.
and
FTL is more than likely possible without violation of any laws..
(until there is a Galactic Police Force<G>)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
www.realspaceman.com
Great minds think different....
Yup, I'm a high school drop out just like Einstein.
Bilge
Re: Special Relativity Is Inadequate to usenet:
>
>news:slrn9nfuo...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> I don't care about a clocks argument. If the postulates (which do say
>> something about nature) are used to construct a synchronization process,
>> then the clocks will be set according to what special relativity says
>> about nature. Your idea of what constitutes a clock is incredibly narrow
>> and naive. Aclock could be a lump of 22Na. That reduces observers to
>> note-takers.
>
>No,
>that reduces your thought of time to the time that 22Na
>moves/bounces.. travels when heated...etc.. (or whatever you count)
>at the surrounding pressures and gravitational forces and motion
Spaceman
> Spaceman said some stuff about
> >that reduces your thought of time to the time that 22Na
> >moves/bounces.. travels when heated...etc.. (or whatever you count)
> >at the surrounding pressures and gravitational forces and motion
>
> Go drink another beer, see it helps.
So you don't want to think about what time is huh?
silly monkey with eyes covered and ears covered and
mouth not ...
you are the third monkey.
go away or cover your mouth and sit with the others.
<LOL>
John Reid
<tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in
<3B781356...@lucent.com>:
>When you put it all together, using the Lorentz transform and not
>whatever it is that you are trying to use, one finds that the speed
>of the light pulse in Frame A is X/Ta=c, and the speed of the light
>pulse in Frame B is X'/Tb'=c.
It's difficult to type while laughing so hard!
You can't be serious!
But just in case you may be, here is what Einstein said
about the Lorentz (actually, the Einsteinian) transformation
equations:
"[Note that] the same result ['c' for light's one-way speed
per Einstein's clocks] is obtained for [light] rays advancing
[or moving] in any direction whatsoever. Of course this is
not surprising [except to some people such as Tom Roberts],
since the equations of the Lorentz [actually, the Einsteinian]
transformation were derived conformably to this point of view."
Tom, tell us which of the above words you failed to grasp when
you first read them, and I am sure that you read them before.
Was it the Einstein's little phrase "conformably to this point
of view"?
Do you know to which point of view the Einsteinian transforms
were forced to conform, or are we (Einstein and I) going to have
to tell you?
And your phrase "whatever it is that you are trying to use"
is so hilarious that it could be made into its own sitcom!
Here is what I used:
Two identical sticks and a light ray.
Is that too complicated for you?
Actually, it must have been too simple for you because
you insisted on adding Einstein's clocks to the experiment.
And you insisted on setting them per Einstein's man-given
definition, a definition that forces clocks to obtain Einstein's
pre-chosen (but never found by experiment) isotropy and
invariance for light's one-way, two-clock speed.
Let me put it to you this way:
At BEST, Einstein has only a theory.
How can any theory dictate or even know anything
about any physical law?
But Einstein claimed that a physical law of light's
one-way speed came from or preceded or is somehow
connected to with his mere theory. (And I am being
very generous when calling it a scientific theory.)
Instead of using mathematical gibberish for which you
showed no physical derivation, why not simply show us
on paper a picture of two frames getting the same one-way
speed for a passing light ray?
What could be so hard about that?
You would only have to add clocks to my experiment.
But you can't preset them to force them to obtain
the one-way result that you may want.
You must let nature give us her result, the real
experimental result.
But then the question arises How can nature synchronize
clocks in order to give us her result?
And we all know the answer - nature cannot set clocks
in any way, so there can be no one-way experiment.
And that's why no one-way, two-clock light speed
experiment has been performed.
Einstein did not perform it, but he claimed to somehow
know the "result."
Einstein then set all of his clocks to "obtain" this
mysterious prechosen "result" of an experiment that has
never been performed, and which cannot possibly be
performed because nature cannot set clocks.
And after forcing his clocks to obtain his chosen
one-way invariance, Einstein used these clocks to
derive his transformation equations.
And then Tom Roberts blindly followed Einstein by
trying to force my simple two-stick experiment to
include Einstein's rigged clocks and his man-given
transformation equations.
In other words, Tom simply and merely forced me to
accept and apply Einstein's theory to my experiment,
and, not surprisingly at all, he was able to get
Einstein's "result" in place of the correct experimental
result.
There is a word for such stuff, but I won't be mean
this time.
-JR
John Reid
(Daryl McCullough) wrote in <9l8tq...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>silve...@4learning.com (John Reid) says...
>
>>Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all how a mere definition
>>from man can become a law of nature?
>>
>>Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all how any scientific theory
>>can be based on nothing but a man-given arbitrary definition?
>>
>>All scientific theories must say something about nature.
>>
>>Why don't you, Mr. Rowe, tell us all what Einstein's so-called
>>theory says about the nature of nature?
>>
>>Actually, all Einstein's so-called theory says is that if we
>>force clocks to obtain one-way isotropy, then, by George, they
>>will obtain it!
>
>The predictions of Einstein's theory include:
>
> 1. The energy of a particle of mass M travelling at speed v
> is given by E = Mc^2/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>
> 2. The momentum of a particle of mass M travelling at speed v
> is given by p = Mv/square-root(1-(v/c)^2)
>
> 3. The elapsed time shown on a clock for any trip is given
> by Tau = integral of square-root(1-(v/c)^2) dt.
>
>Einstein's conventions about the synchronization of distant
>clocks are used to *derive* these results. Different synchronization
>conventions would make the derivations more difficult, but not
>impossible.
You truly seem to be unaware that clock synchronization is
not from nature, which means that anything derived from it
(i.e., from clock synchronization) cannot be from nature.
And how did you obtain the value of your one-way "speed v"?
Is this speed a correctly-measured one?
If so, then how did you set the two clocks that are required
to measure any one-way speed?
If your speed v is not correctly measured, then how can
you claim that the momentum is measured correctly?
How can you claim that actual (or physical or intrinsic)
momentum varies as shown?
Or are you merely speaking of a frame-dependent,
reciprocal (and therefore only an apparent) "momentum
variance"?
And are you not aware that correct (or absolute) clock
synchronization leads to the Galilean transformation
equations? And are you not aware that these equations
do not contain your above-mentioned gamma factor?
-JR
John Reid
wrote in <3B78161A...@lucent.com>:
Since you suddenly seem so enamored of experiments,
why not tell us exactly which lovely experiment showed
the invariance and isotropy of light's two-clock, one-way
speed?
Einstein wrongly declared that one-way invariance and
isotropy is a law of nature, or the result of some
experiment. Which experiment? Performed by whom?
When? How? How were the clocks synchronized?
-JR
Tom Roberts
> <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in
> >When you put it all together, using the Lorentz transform and not
> >whatever it is that you are trying to use, one finds that the speed
> >of the light pulse in Frame A is X/Ta=c, and the speed of the light
> >pulse in Frame B is X'/Tb'=c.
> "[Note that] the same result ['c' for light's one-way speed
> per Einstein's clocks] is obtained for [light] rays advancing
> since the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived
Hmmm. Einstein and I say essentially the same thing: the one-way
speed of light is measured to be c in both inertial frames. <shrug>
Like so many critics of SR around here, you seem to have
some difficulty in reading comprehension. Why you think
this quote from Einstein is in conflict with what I said is
beyond me -- and somehow I strongly doubt that any other
knowledgeable person around here will see any conflict either.
> And your phrase "whatever it is that you are trying to use"
> is so hilarious that it could be made into its own sitcom!
> Here is what I used:
> Two identical sticks and a light ray.
Had you read what I wrote, it would be obvious that my phrase
"whatever it is that you are trying to use" refered the _method_
of constructing your diagrams, not their contents; specifically
whatever theory/formulas you used which caused you to draw both
lengths the same length, ignoring the Lorentz contraction of SR.
As you claimed to be showing "Einstein's definition conflicts
with reality" you need to use EINSTEIN'S DEFINITION and theory
(SR) rather than whatever hodge-podge you used to construct that
drawing and make your conclusions. You did indeed show that YOUR
METHOD "conflicts with reality", but said NOTHING AT ALL about SR.
And your laughter in response didn't discuss SR, either. It merely
shows you are better at laughing than reading.
> you insisted on adding Einstein's clocks to the experiment.
Of course -- you were discussing the _speed_ of the light ray as
measured in the two frames. That requires clocks in each frame.
I remind you that you were attempting to show that "Einstein's
definition conflicts with reality", so you _MUST_ use Einstein's
definition. Of course when one does so your "demonstration" fails,
so perhaps that is why you are so antagonistic to using his
synchronization method.
> But you can't preset them to force them to obtain
> the one-way result that you may want.
> You must let nature give us her result, the real
> experimental result.
Obviously you know nothing about actually performing an experiment.
In order to use multiple clocks in one measurement, one _MUST_ set
them first, and the _METHOD_ used to set them will affect the result.
This is known as clock synchronization, and there are many possible
methods to choose from, but if you want to show that "Einstein's
definition conflicts with reality" then you _MUST_ select EINSTEIN'S
METHOD.
Learn something about physics and SR before attempting to discuss them.
Learning to read with comprehension and understanding is probably a
necessary prerequisite....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> There is a natural reference in space.
> Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
> mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
> It might even be universally absolute.
How silly. On average the photons near earth are travelling RADIALLY
AWAY FROM THE SUN at almost exactly the speed of light. And not very
far away (just 2 a.u. away, on the opposite side of the sun) they are
on average MOVING IN PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. And one can find
nearby points in which they are trveling on average in ANY DIRECTION
WHATSOEVER.
If instead of "photons" you really meant the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation (CMBR), then sure one can define a local frame
in which their dipole moment vanishes. But there is nothing
"absolute" about that -- it is no different in principle from
choosing a frame in which the sun, the earth, or my little finger is
at rest.
There is, of course, no "point about which their mean velocity is zero"
-- there is an ENTIRE LOCALLY_INERTIAL FRAME in which their mean
velocity is zero (i.e. their dipole moment vanishes).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
John Reid
wrote in <3b77fb20$0$1530$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>:
>On 13 Aug 2001 06:11:39 -0700, silve...@4learning.com (John Reid)
>wrote:
-------snip-------
>Correct: Ta is not equal to Tb in terms of absolute time intervals.
If
>we assume that rod A is at rest in the ether then Ta represents the
>shortest absolute time interval for light to traverse the rod length
X
>in A's frame. This means that B is moving in the ether. Light will
>take a longer absolute time interval to traverse the length X. This
>means that the absolute time interval Tb is larger than the absolute
>time interval Ta. The relationship between Ta and Tb is as follows:
> Tb=Ta*gamma
>>
>>The light ray traveled the same frame distance X in both frames.
>
>Yes but the light path length for A is X and the light path length
>for in frame B is X*gamma.
>>
>>Thus we have the following simple and direct experimental results:
>>
>>Light's one-way speed wrt A = X/Ta
>>
>>Light's one-way speed wrt B = X/Tb
>
>=X*gamma/Ta*gamma
> =X/Ta
>This shows that both frame A and B have the same math ratio for
>one-way light speed.
>
>Ken Seto
>
Actually, Tb = (Rod B Absolute Time) * 1/gamma.
And actually, the moving-rod observers cannot tell
that their rod is physically contracted, so they will
still see it as being X long.
Now that I am a little less tired than I was when I
made my gamma typo, I think we can get this mess
straightened out once and for all.
Since you seem to get mixed up a bit when using
mere math formulas, let's use a numerical example.
Here are the two rods:
(Distances shown are actual or absolute)
Rod A
|<----10 LYs--------->
|--------------------|
-->light ray
|-----------|
|<--6 LYs-->|
Rod B
Rod A
|<----10 LYs--------->
|--------------------|
--------------------->
----------------|-----------|
----------------|<--6 LYs-->|
Rod B
For the rod A observers, the light ray has traveled
10 LYs and it took the absolute time of 10 years.
Light's speed relative to Rod A = 10 LYs/10 Yrs = c
Rod A
|<----10 LYs--------->
|--------------------|
-------------------------------------------------->
--------------------------------------|-----------|
--------------------------------------|<--6 LYs-->|
|<--------------------30 LYs--------------------->|
Rod B
The light ray has now traveled 30 LYs through space,
but has traveled 10 LYs per the Rod B observers' ruler.
(This ruler is contracted, so it finds their 6 LY
rod to be 10 LYs long.) The absolute travel time is
of course 30 years, but the Rod B observer's clocks
are slowed by 1/gamma, so their clock time is only
30*1/gamma = 30*1/1.667 = 30*.6 = 18 years.
Light's speed relative to Rod B = 10 LYs/18 Yrs = .56c
Of course, if you want to do all this relative to space,
and not in the context of special relativity, then it
would be much better and simpler to let the two rods
move in opposite directions but at equal speeds through space.
Then all the clocks in both frames will run at the same
intrinsic rate, and the two rods will have the same intrinsic
length.
-JR
Bill Rowe
He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>There is a natural reference in space. Photons are going past the
>earth in all directions. The point about which their mean velocity is
>zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame. It might even be
>universally absolute.
Unless you know of a situation where one of the postulates of special
relativity don't apply there is no such frame. Specifically, I am
referring to the postulate that says light moves at c in all inertial
frames. That is in direct conflict with your "locally absolute" rest
frame above.
>As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?",
>light rays can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and
>still carry enough information about their source velocity for the
>correct doppler shift to occur when they hit something. Their source
>velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that to be possible, either
>space must be absolute or light speed must be source dependent.
I and others pointed out to you the fallacy in this logic when you
posted it earlier. Simply put, you've no way to distinguish between a
doppler shifted photon and a photon emitted from a source at rest wrt
you having the identical energy as the doppler shifted photon. In short,
individual photons do not encode source velocity information.
Velocity information is inferred from an ensemble of photons with
different wavelengths. One finds a velocity that shifts the wavelengths
to a matching set of spectral emission lines from known elements. Once
this is done the assumption is that ensemble represents doppler shift
spectral emissions from that element. But this *cannot* be done with a
ensemble of photons at a single wavelength.
Bill Rowe
>On 13 Aug 2001 09:04:26 -0700, da...@cogentex.com
>(Daryl McCullough) wrote in <9l8tq...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>Einstein's conventions about the synchronization of distant
>>clocks are used to *derive* these results. Different synchronization
>>conventions would make the derivations more difficult, but not
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>impossible.
^^^^^^^^^^
>You truly seem to be unaware that clock synchronization is
>not from nature, which means that anything derived from it
>(i.e., from clock synchronization) cannot be from nature.
Re-read what Daryl wrote and think about the implications.
He is saying different synchronization methods makes it more complicated
to derive the results of SR but not impossible. Hence, the conclusions
of SR are not invalidated by a different choice of clock synchronization.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
No. You must express Tb in terms of Ta if you want to use the A frame
as reference to compare light speed. The relationship is:
Tb=Ta*gamma
Your equation of Tb=Ta*1/gamma will mean that Tb is a shorter interval
of time which we know is wrong.
>
>And actually, the moving-rod observers cannot tell
>that their rod is physically contracted, so they will
>still see it as being X long.
In that case, you cannot use A as reference to compare light speed.
That means that Tb will remain as Tb and
The speed of light according to B = X/Tb =c
>
>Now that I am a little less tired than I was when I
>made my gamma typo, I think we can get this mess
>straightened out once and for all.
>
>Since you seem to get mixed up a bit when using
>mere math formulas, let's use a numerical example.
????????No I didn't get mixed up.
>
>Here are the two rods:
>(Distances shown are actual or absolute)
Why do you need two rods when you already indicated that each frame
measure its own light speed?? But if you want to compare light speed
in the two rod frames then you must convert the B frame's Tb and X
innto A's frame before making the comparison.
When you do that you will find that both frames have the same math
ratio c for light speed.
The rest of your post is way too confusing. I have no idea what you
are trying to say. Sorry.
Ken Seto
John Reid
in <3b784fba...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>:
>As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?",
>light rays can travel for eons, far removed from their sources,
>and still carry enough information about their source velocity
>for the correct doppler shift to occur when they hit something.
>Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that to be
>possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be
>source dependent.
J Reid replies-
Of light's three primary characteristics, only one is
source-independent.
[A] FREQUENCY
As you noted, light's _intrinsic_ frequency is
affected by and fixed by the source's velocity.
(Additionally, light's _observed_ frequency
depends on the observer's or the detector's
velocity.)
[B] MOTION DIRECTION
As you did not note, light's _intrinsic_ direction
of motion through space is affected by the source's
motion through space.
(Also additionally, light's _observed_ direction of
motion varies with frame velocity. This is called
"stellar aberration" in the case of star light.)
[C] SPEED
As was proved experimentally in 1977, light's speed
through space (its intrinsic speed, not its observer-
measured speed on paper per Einstein's rigged clocks)
is source-independent.
[Kenneth Brecher, Phys. Rev. Lett. 39, 1051 (1977)]
More re frequency:
If a white-light source is at rest in space,
then the light's frequency will not be changed
upon emission, and intrinsically white light
will be emitted in all directions. Of course,
whenever some observer observes this white
light, he may be moving through space, so he
will see a frequency shift. Since both the
source and the detector can affect frequency,
we can't use a known-color source to measure
our speed through space. For example, just
because we know that we have a white-light
source, and just because we see white light
as it leaves this source, this does not mean
that we and the source are at rest wrt space
because the same view occurs when we are moving
at any speed through space. This happens because
as the white light leaves the source, the source
red-shifts it in one direction, and blue-shifts
it in the other direction, but then the moving
(through space) observers on each side of the
source will be moving either toward or away from
the light rays, and this will re-shift the
frequency back to normal for both observers.
Sound waves are source-independent speedwise,
but their frequencies are also affected by
both the source's and the detector's motions.
-JR
Spaceman
"John Reid" <silve...@4learning.com> wrote in message
news:3465e0c7.01081...@posting.google.com...
<snipped some great stuff.>
> Sound waves are source-independent speedwise,
> but their frequencies are also affected by
> both the source's and the detector's motions.
and the medium they travel in or on., dependant too!
:)
Paul B. Andersen
>
> There is a natural reference in space.
> Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
> mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
> It might even be universally absolute.
Isn't it a bit daft to assert something which was
proven false more than a century ago?
> As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?", light rays
> can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and still carry enough
> information about their source velocity for the correct doppler shift to occur
> when they hit something. Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that
> to be possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be source
> dependent.
I receive a photon and measure lambda = 0.5 um.
What was the velocity of its source?
Paul
Bilge
Re: Special Relativity Is Inadequate to usenet:
>in <3b784fba...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>:
>
>>As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?",
>>light rays can travel for eons, far removed from their sources,
>>and still carry enough information about their source velocity
>>for the correct doppler shift to occur when they hit something.
>>Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that to be
>>possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be
>>source dependent.
>
>J Reid replies-
>Of light's three primary characteristics, only one is
>source-independent.
That's because two of the three you listed aren't primary
characteristics while you left off the second of the two that are. The
only intrinsic properties of light are its spin and it's mass, which is 0
as far as anyone can determine. The second is equivalent to your [C]. Your
[B] is related to the spin, sort of, since the helicity is a good
quantum number if [C] is true.
[...]
>More re frequency:
>
>If a white-light source is at rest in space, then the light's frequency
There is no such thing. I can't even see what you mean by
"white light", since the concept is rather nebulous.
Daryl McCullough
>(Daryl McCullough) wrote in <9l8tq...@drn.newsguy.com>:
>>Einstein's conventions about the synchronization of distant
>>clocks are used to *derive* these results. Different synchronization
>>conventions would make the derivations more difficult, but not
>>impossible.
>
>You truly seem to be unaware that clock synchronization is
>not from nature, which means that anything derived from it
>(i.e., from clock synchronization) cannot be from nature.
Sorry, that just isn't true. All measurements involve
arbitrary conventions. We have to choose whether to use
meters or yards or miles. We have to pick an x-axis, a
y-axis,a z-axis. However, if we are careful, we can
develop our scientific theories so that it is
straight-forward to translate between different conventions.
If you want to do Special Relativity in a coordinate
system that does not follow Einstein's synchronization
conventions, you can do it. It's more difficult, but
not impossible. Einstein's inertial coordinate systems
were chosen so as to make the laws of physics as *simple*
as possible. In different coordinate systems, things
are more complicated.
>And how did you obtain the value of your one-way "speed v"?
>Is this speed a correctly-measured one?
>If so, then how did you set the two clocks that are required
>to measure any one-way speed?
The speed v used in the Lorentz transformations is
the speed as measured in an inertial coordinate system
following Einstein's synchronization convention.
Using any other coordinate system, it's still possible
to compute the quantity v but they would not correspond
to anything as simple as speed.
>If your speed v is not correctly measured, then how can
>you claim that the momentum is measured correctly?
>
>How can you claim that actual (or physical or intrinsic)
>momentum varies as shown?
The physical prediction is that performing such and
such a measurement will yield such and such a result.
In Einstein's inertial coordinate systems, those
measurements correspond to simple quantities in
terms of the speed v. In different coordinate systems,
the measurements may not correspond directly to any
simple function of coordinates or their time derivative.
But the physical predictions don't depend on the choice
of coordinate system.
>Or are you merely speaking of a frame-dependent,
>reciprocal (and therefore only an apparent) "momentum
>variance"?
>
>And are you not aware that correct (or absolute) clock
>synchronization leads to the Galilean transformation
>equations? And are you not aware that these equations
>do not contain your above-mentioned gamma factor?
Yes. But Galilean relativity is wrong. Empirically,
all laws of physics are invariant under Lorentz
transformations. They are not invariant under
Galilean transformations.
If you use Galilean relativity, you get violations
of conservation of energy and momentum.
John Reid
(Ken H. Seto) wrote in <3b78b65e$0$1533$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>:
>On 13 Aug 2001 19:46:09 -0700, silve...@4learning.com
>(John Reid) wrote:
>>Actually, Tb = (Rod B Absolute Time) * 1/gamma.
>
>No. You must express Tb in terms of Ta if you want to use the A frame
>as reference to compare light speed. The relationship is:
> Tb=Ta*gamma
>Your equation of Tb=Ta*1/gamma will mean that Tb is a shorter interval
>of time which we know is wrong.
As I said, you get confused when trying to use math formulas.
I did not say that Tb = Ta*1/gamma.
I said that Tb = (B's Absolute Time)*1/gamma
It is completely wrong to put B's measurements in terms
of A. This is never done when speed measurements are made,
and I don't intend to do it now.
Each frame simply uses its own rods and clocks to
measure anything's passing speed.
And if you also can't understand my simple
pictures, then I guess you are hopelessly lost.
-JR
John Reid
<TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in <3B788BF3...@avenew.com>:
>Of course -- you were discussing the _speed_ of the
>light ray as measured in the two frames.
Wrong.
I was discussing a qualitative speed comparison.
You cannot change my experiment to suit your prejudices.
You need to stop acting like a spoiled brat.
-JR
Tom Roberts
> Since you suddenly seem so enamored of experiments,
As anyone who has been around here for a while knows full well, this is
not "sudden" on my part at all -- I have been a constant advocate of
experimental tests of SR and all other theories since long before this
newsgroup existed. I have a stack of papers 2-3 feet tall about
experimental tests of relativity, and have written an update to the FAQ
which references several hundred of them.
> why not tell us exactly which lovely experiment showed
> the invariance and isotropy of light's two-clock, one-way
> speed?
Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/sec.
Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, p. 1322 (1990).
Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21-km
fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/sec.
Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/sec.
Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.
Uses a rotating source and fixed Moessbauer detector to place an
upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/sec.
Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), p1767.
A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR.
You will find a common thread among _ALL_ of these experiments -- no
clock synchronization is actually performed, and both "clocks" are
free-running and independent of each other; "synchronization" is
arbitrary and implicit (e.g. choice of phase=0 in the plots). None
actually measure the speed, rather they place upper limits on any
anisotropy. In most cases the "clocks" are simultaneously and
inherently sources. All rely on the rotational and orbital motions
of the earth to place their apparatus in different instantaneously-
comoving inertial frames.
Tom Roberts tjro...@Lucent.com
John Reid
wrote in <bjrowe-6F66DB....@nnrp04.earthlink.net>:
Re-read what I said, and think about its implications.
I said that no matter what comes from using synchronized
clocks no matter how they were synchronized is not from
nature, and this means that all of Einstein's stuff,
including his entire "theory" is not from nature.
The special "theory" of relativity began with a mere
man-given (artificial) definition.
A man-given definition is not science.
A man-given definition is not from nature.
And all results of using such a definition are
also not science.
There is no experiment that proved one-way isotropy.
There is nothing in nature that says one-way isotropy.
There is only Einstein's artificial definition that
says one-way isotropy.
Since when does science bow down and worship a mere definition?
Since when does a man-made definition control physics?
Let's get real, folks.
And of course Daryl is even wrong about the different
clock synchronization methods. Einstein said that when
clocks are set in accordance with classical physics,
the result will be completely against relativity "theory."
As Einstein said, the result is c - v for the "moving"
observer, but only "c" for the "stationary" observer.
Try using synchronous clocks on paper, and you will
be able to see that Einstein was correct about such
clocks obtaining one-way variance.
-JR
PaulDanaher
comparison"? The only possible meaning that comes to mind is "45 mph is
worse than 35 mph in an area with a 35 mph speed limit" ...
I still can't decide if you're the Mr Jones at
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-4/Jones-pub.pdf
since you use the same words, references and diagrams, but I'm coming to the
conclusion that you aren't, because you seem to have misunderstood his
diagrams as thoroughly as you misunderstand Einstein.
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 04:14:15 GMT, ken...@erinet.com
>(Ken H. Seto) wrote in <3b78b65e$0$1533$4c5e...@news.erinet.com>:
>
>>On 13 Aug 2001 19:46:09 -0700, silve...@4learning.com
>>(John Reid) wrote:
>
>>>Actually, Tb = (Rod B Absolute Time) * 1/gamma.
>>
>>No. You must express Tb in terms of Ta if you want to use the A frame
>>as reference to compare light speed. The relationship is:
>> Tb=Ta*gamma
>>Your equation of Tb=Ta*1/gamma will mean that Tb is a shorter interval
>>of time which we know is wrong.
>
>As I said, you get confused when trying to use math formulas.
>I did not say that Tb = Ta*1/gamma.
>I said that Tb = (B's Absolute Time)*1/gamma
Sorry you are the one who is confused. Where do you get this "B's
absolute time" from anyway? How do you measure it??
>
>It is completely wrong to put B's measurements in terms
>of A. This is never done when speed measurements are made,
>and I don't intend to do it now.
If you don't then each observer will make his own measurements and
each will conclude as follows:
A will say that his speed of light is c=Xa/Ta
B will say that his speed of light is c=Xb/Tb
Your problem is that you accept that Tb >Ta but insisted that Xa and
Xb are of the same length. They are not. Xa and Xb are light path
lengths. Your original diagramsshow this clearly:
Frame A
|----------X----------|
-->light
|----------X----------|
Frame B
Frame A
|----------X----------|
---------------------->light
-----|----------X----------|
Frame B
Clearly this shows that the light path length Xb is larger than Xa and
that's why Tb is >than Ta.
>
>Each frame simply uses its own rods and clocks to
>measure anything's passing speed.
Yes but light will have to traverse a greater distance to cover the
moving rod Xb.
>
>And if you also can't understand my simple
>pictures, then I guess you are hopelessly lost.
Your simple pictures involve absolute distances I have no idea where
you get them from.
Ken Seto
PaulDanaher
news:3b798e14$0$1523$4c5e...@news.erinet.com...<snipped>
> >
> >And if you also can't understand my simple
> >pictures, then I guess you are hopelessly lost.
>
> Your simple pictures involve absolute distances I have no idea where
> you get them from.
>
> Ken Seto
>
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Articles/2-4/Jones-pub.pdf
Henry Wilson
>John Reid wrote:
>> Frame A
>> |----------X----------|
>> -->light
>> |----------X----------|
>> Frame B
>>
>> Frame A
>> |----------X----------|
>> ---------------------->light
>> -----|----------X----------|
>> Frame B
>> Light's one-way speed wrt A = X/Ta
>> Light's one-way speed wrt B = X/Tb
>>
>> Ergo, not only does no experiment say one-way isotropy and/or
>> invariance, but the above simple experiment proves just the
>> opposite, and therefore proves that Einstein's definition conflicts
>> with reality.
>
>To make such a claim you need to use SR to analyze the situation, not
>whatever it is you are using.
>
>First let me assume that your Frame B is moving inertially wrt Frame A
>and the above diagrams are supposed to be _snapshots_ of their
>configurations at two different instants in time . Then your diagrams
>are wrong -- the two endpoints of the path length X in both frames
>cannot be the same length as you drew them. If the snapshots are taken
>simultaneously in Frame A (as seems likely as Frame A does not move),
>then you forgot the length contraction of Frame B.
There is no physical length contraction Tom. The proof of that is trivial, as I
have shown many times.
>
>More importantly, you did not take into account the OFFSET in the
>right-hand Frame B clock relative to the left-hand Frame B clock
>-- in the snapshot taken simultanously in Frame A, the Frame B clocks
>at the two endpoints of the Frame B interval will NOT display the
>same time value -- they are synchronized in Frame B, not in Frame A.
>
>When you put it all together, using the Lorentz transform and not
>whatever it is that you are trying to use, one finds that the speed
>of the light pulse in Frame A is X/Ta=c, and the speed of the light
>pulse in Frame B is X'/Tb'=c. Note carefully that in the latter both
>the distance X' and the time Tb' must be measured in Frame B using
>rulers and clocks at rest in Frame B and synchronized in Frame B.
>
>In short, your attempt to show that "Einstein's definition conflicts
>with reality" fails because you did not really use Einstein's
>theory, you used some hodge-podge you put together yourself. Yes,
>_YOUR_ hodge-podge does indeed conflict with reality. <shrug>
Tom, in a typical two-way 'aetherlike' light experiment, the total travel time
taken by a reflected light pulse will increase with frame velocity,
proportionally to the factor 1/(1-(v/c)^2). Therefore c(t.w) SHOULD always
appear to be slower than c(o.w).
Einstein said, 'we cannot have that because all measurements of c appear to be
roughly the same'.
So he devised a way of keeping the ratio L/t constant in any moving system.
The geometric mean of the above bracketted factor is gamma. By multiplying L and
dividing t by this factor, the value of c will always remain constant. So in the
Einsteinian universe, everything appears to be multiplied or divided by gamma.
Unfortunately that is not what happens physically.
In reality, TWLS is not constant. We simply haven't resolved the factor (v/c)^2.
There are no length or time contractions. They are observer illusions.
SR is merely an approximation of how we perceive the universe at low relative
speeds.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Wilson
>In article <3b784fba...@nsw.nnrp.telstra.net>,
> He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>
>>There is a natural reference in space. Photons are going past the
>>earth in all directions. The point about which their mean velocity is
>>zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame. It might even be
>>universally absolute.
>
>Unless you know of a situation where one of the postulates of special
>relativity don't apply there is no such frame. Specifically, I am
>referring to the postulate that says light moves at c in all inertial
>frames. That is in direct conflict with your "locally absolute" rest
>frame above.
See my answer to Tom.
>
>>As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?",
>>light rays can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and
>>still carry enough information about their source velocity for the
>>correct doppler shift to occur when they hit something. Their source
>>velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that to be possible, either
>>space must be absolute or light speed must be source dependent.
>
>I and others pointed out to you the fallacy in this logic when you
>posted it earlier. Simply put, you've no way to distinguish between a
>doppler shifted photon and a photon emitted from a source at rest wrt
>you having the identical energy as the doppler shifted photon. In short,
>individual photons do not encode source velocity information.
>
>Velocity information is inferred from an ensemble of photons with
>different wavelengths. One finds a velocity that shifts the wavelengths
>to a matching set of spectral emission lines from known elements. Once
>this is done the assumption is that ensemble represents doppler shift
>spectral emissions from that element. But this *cannot* be done with a
>ensemble of photons at a single wavelength.
That's the source dependency option - if you think about it.
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>> There is a natural reference in space.
>> Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
>> mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
>> It might even be universally absolute.
>
>How silly. On average the photons near earth are travelling RADIALLY
>AWAY FROM THE SUN at almost exactly the speed of light. And not very
>far away (just 2 a.u. away, on the opposite side of the sun) they are
>on average MOVING IN PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. And one can find
>nearby points in which they are trveling on average in ANY DIRECTION
>WHATSOEVER.
But you don't know that the ones on opposite sides are moving at the same speed
relative to the sun, do you Tom?
Are all the photons moving away from our sun moving at the same speed as those
coming from other, far off suns (in the same directions)? We cannot assume that.
>
>If instead of "photons" you really meant the Cosmic Microwave
>Background Radiation (CMBR), then sure one can define a local frame
>in which their dipole moment vanishes. But there is nothing
>"absolute" about that -- it is no different in principle from
>choosing a frame in which the sun, the earth, or my little finger is
>at rest.
I think there is a big difference. The CMBR rest frame is not arbitrarily chosen
- it exists.
>
>There is, of course, no "point about which their mean velocity is zero"
>-- there is an ENTIRE LOCALLY_INERTIAL FRAME in which their mean
>velocity is zero (i.e. their dipole moment vanishes).
In the absence of one-way light speed information, you have no justification for
saying that. You don't know that light is moving to your left at the same speed
it is moving to your right. All you know is that the two way measurements of
these speeds is pretty close - in fact identical. Close enough for surveying,
for instance.
If you reverse the direction of a two-way light speed experiment you MUST get
the same answer! But that in no way suggests that the same applies to OWLS
measurements.
>
>
>Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Wilson
>On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 20:01:47 GMT, Bill Rowe <bjr...@earthlink.net>
>Actually, all Einstein's so-called theory says is that if we
>force clocks to obtain one-way isotropy, then, by George, they
>will obtain it!
>
>This is fine as long as we take it to be merely a definition from
>a mere man, but it is NOT fine if some idiot tries to insist that
>it is from nature, and is therefore a law of nature.
>
>And it is not fine if someone insists that there is some
>scientific theory involved when all that exists is a mere
>arbitrary definition from some mere man.
>
>Tell us what special relativity says about nature that does
>not depend upon Einstein's mere man-given definition.
>
>There can be nothing because every single relativistic result
>is based on the use of Einstein's clocks.
>
>The definition came first. Then came the Einsteinian transformation
>equations. Then came the Einsteinian addition of velocities theorem.
>Then came the relativistic effects of apparent and reciprocal and
>frame-dependent clock "slowing," rod "shrinkage," and mass "increase,"
>all of which would not exist were it not for Einstein's definition.
>
>But no mere definition can be a hypothesis, no mere definition can
>be a theory, and no mere definition can be a law of physics.
>
>There is no scientific theory involved; there is only a man-given
>arbitrary clock-setting definition from Albert Einstein.
>
>There is not a single word from nature re light's one-way, two-
>clock speed relative to inertial reference frames.
>
>(Except the obvious fact that the sum of the one-way travel times
>cannot exceed the round-trip time.)
>
>Nothing in nature says one-way isotropy in any frame.
>
>Nothing in nature says one-way invariance.
>
>But somehow, a dude named Albert supposedly has a theory
>that says one-way invariance and one-way isotropy in all frames.
>
>I hate to break the bad news to Albert's followers that Albert
>had/has no scientific theory; all Albert had/has is an arbitrary
>definition.
>
>And no mere man-given definition says or can say anything at
>all about the nature of nature.
>
>For example, how did Albert Einstein "know" what the one-way
>light speed law is without performing any one-way, two-clock
>experiment?
>
>>[more snips]
John I agree wholeheartedly with everything you say up to here.
>>
>>>>The emission points of light rays are physical objects, i.e. light
>>>>sources. Light rays are not created from nothing. At best, you've a
>>>>method of determing speed relative to those sources. You've not
>>>>defined speed relative to space.
>>
>>
>>>Are you unaware of the simple experimental fact of
>>>light's source-independent nature?
>>
>>I am aware of the fact the speed of light in vacuum is independent of
>>the speed of the source. But light is not source-independent in all
>>respects.
>>
>
>I did not say or even imply that light is source-independent in
>all ways; all that matters to me and to my post is the simple
>experimental fact that light's speed is unaffected by the speed
>of its source.
This is where I think you should keep an open mind. Source dependency is by no
means disproven. If fact, the MMX is the good evidence in favour of source
dependency.
>
>>>A light ray's origin point in space is not attached
>>>to or controlled by the light source. As I took the
>>>pains to point out to you dummies, sources moving
>>>at vastly different speeds emit identically-moving
>>>light rays just as if all of the sources were at
>>>relative rest wrt each other. This proves experimentally
>>>that any light ray's emission point in space is fixed
>>>in space, and does not travel with the source frame.
>>
>>Try again. A mathematical ray representing the path of light extends
>>infinitely in both directions. How do you choose the origin of a ray if
>>you do not choose the source of the photons? If you do choose the source
>>of the photons you've measured speed relative to that source not space.
>>
>
>Reread my words: A photon's emission point in space cannot be
>linked to its source because light is source-independent.
Don't be too sure of that. When, for instance, a long living photon eventually
strikes something, the correct doppler shift occurs. So either the photon
carries with it all the required information concerning its source's ABSOLUTE
velocity OR photon speeds are source dependent.
>
snip
>On the other hand, and as I took the pain to point out
>before, a photon is NOT linked to its source.
>
>A photon moves independently of its source (speedwise).
>
>Contrast my above with your above claim that
>
>>If you do choose the source of the photons you've measured
>>speed relative to that source not space.
>
>Since light is source-independent speedwise, it is not linked
>to its source speedwise.
>
>My three-source experiment proved that all light rays are
>trackable from their fixed-in-space emission points.
>
>But this is not to say that space itself is somehow at
>absolute rest, and there is no need to go this far because
>all we care about is light's speed through space and our
>speed through space.
I would prefer to keep open the two options. Neither is proven or disproven and
neither supports or is supported by SR.
>
>And all we need to measure or quantify our speed through space
>is a pair of (correctly) synchronized clocks.
>
>What we certainly DO NOT need (as far as correct measurements go)
>is a pair of clocks set per Einstein's mere definition.
>
>And we DON'T need some circular so-called theory telling us
>that when clocks are set to obtain one-way invariance, they
>will obtain one-way invariance.
very true.
>
>And we DO NOT need some circular so-called theory telling us
>that if we force clocks to obtain one-way isotropy and invariance,
>then frames will be related mathematically by the Einsteinian
>(not the Lorentzian) transformation equations.
>
Exactly!
>-JR
Bill Rowe
silve...@4learning.com (John Reid) wrote:
>I said that no matter what comes from using synchronized
>clocks no matter how they were synchronized is not from
>nature, and this means that all of Einstein's stuff,
>including his entire "theory" is not from nature.
<sigh> You just don't get it do you? If you arrive at the same
conclusions independent of choice of units, clock synchronization etc.
then it follows your conclusions are a feature of nature in some respect.
Daryl pointed out the conclusions of SR can be derived from different
clock synchronization. This means those conclusions are independent of
clock synchronization even though a specific derviation will not be
independent of clock synchronization.
*If* correct derivations from differing clock synchronization
proceedures led to *different* conclusions you would have a point. But
this just isn't the case.
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts wrote:
> >[...] If the snapshots are taken
> >simultaneously in Frame A (as seems likely as Frame A does not move),
> >then you forgot the length contraction of Frame B.
> There is no physical length contraction Tom.
You are supposed to read what I wrote. I never said or implied there
is any "physical" length contraction. I merely said that "If the
snapshots are taken simultaneously in Frame A [...] then [there is]
length contraction of Frame B."
> in a typical two-way 'aetherlike' light experiment, the total travel time
> taken by a reflected light pulse will increase with frame velocity,
> proportionally to the factor 1/(1-(v/c)^2).
This depends STRONGLY on what aether theory one uses. But any theory in
which the round-trip speed of light is not isotropic is refuted by
many experiments. So the theory you have in mind is totally uninteresting
-- it cannot correspond to the world we inhabit.
> In reality, TWLS is not constant.
Not true. You need to actually LOOK at the experimental record.
> We simply haven't resolved the factor (v/c)^2.
For any v greater than 0.9 meter/sec we have. The speed of light is
DEMONSTRABLY isotropic to that acccuracy.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> There is a natural reference in space.
>> Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
>> mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
>> It might even be universally absolute.
>
>Isn't it a bit daft to assert something which was
>proven false more than a century ago?
I hope you are not refering to the MMX again.
Paul, as I said once before, cast your eyes up into the sky. Can you not imagine
that photons are whizzing past the earth in all directions. You cannot see them
but you can be pretty sure they are there because if you send a rocket up, light
will shine on it.
The question is, are they all going past at the same speed? Are the ones
traveling east moving at exactly the same speed as those going west?
If they are, then the earth centrists are right and the earth is indeed the
centre of the universe.
Now since nobody has measured the speeds of east and west moving photons, I
don't think you can say with any authority that the speeds are indeed equal wrt
you.
Whatever the case, some property of space is determining the outcome, not the
idiosynchrosies of some particular observer. Light 'moves' even when it is not
being seen. Light was moving past the Earth long before any human emerged from
the mire.
>> As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?", light rays
>> can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and still carry enough
>> information about their source velocity for the correct doppler shift to occur
>> when they hit something. Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that
>> to be possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be source
>> dependent.
>
>I receive a photon and measure lambda = 0.5 um.
>What was the velocity of its source?
I'm glad I raised this topic again because you chaps all ran away with your
tails between your legs last year..
Let's start again shall we. I think it is the biggest question of all. If we can
answer it we will have learnt a lot about space.
When a group of photons, emitted simultaneously from an ancient hydrogen source,
reaches a random observer after traveling through deep space, something about
the group as a whole enables that observer to experience the correct doppler
shift at all wavelengths. In effect, each photon carries enough intrinsic
information with it to cause any arbitrary observer to know exactly what its
source velocity was eons ago, compared to that observer's velocity now.
The observer can only know of the source velocity via the photon itself.
I can see only two conceiveable ways that this can happen. Either space is
absolute and photons are coded with source information - or light speed is
source dependent.
>
>Paul
Patrick Reany
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote:
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
> > There is a natural reference in space.
> > Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
> > mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
> > It might even be universally absolute.
>
> Isn't it a bit daft to assert something which was
> proven false more than a century ago?
>
>
It is always easy to claim to have a "preferred"
frame of reference. In fact, it is even quite
allowable for certain purposes to choose
one inertial reference frame over all others to
perform a certain experiment or make a
certain observation. But does this "preferred"
arbitrarily chosen frame record phenomena
in such a way that the laws of physics which
will be derived from the measurements of
that phenomena be any different than the
laws derived from observations in any other
inertial reference frame? SR says NO,
at least for the expression of laws locally.
In fact, Newtonian mechanics says
NO also!
The point is that anytime someone claims
that they have or know of a "natural" or
"preferred" frame of reference, I have to
ask, So what?
No reference frame chosen on the
basis of the positions or velocities of
matter or energy constitutes an "absolute"
reference frame. Historically "absolute"
referred to space itself devoid of matter
or energy. The debate for 400 years
has been the possibility of making
physical sense out of motion with respect
to "space itself." To claim that a reference
frame based on matter/energy is "absolute" is
completely missing the point of the original
debate. If you want to call it a "preferred" or
even "natural" reference frame, I see no
problem with that. But such a frame cannot
be declared "absolute" on the basis of the
reasoning given above.
According to Einstein, the notion of a
"preferred" frame is somewhat different
in meaning to the notion of absolute, for it
is referring to different concepts. The
"preferred" frame of reference is preferred
because in it the "Laws of Physics" have their
simplest form. So this "preferred" notion
derives from a purely subjective human opinion.
The analogy, though, is the comparison of
inertial frames to noninertial frames. Newtonian
mechanics is far simpler to do the math
in inertial frames than in rotating frames. Newton's
second law takes the form F=ma in the former
and F=ma + terms with cross products in space
and velocity vector variables in the latter.
Einstein never liked this notion of "preferred"
reference frame. He couldn't understand why
nature could care from what reference frame
humans view it.
This thought must have occurred to Einstein:
Wouldn't it be neat if ALL the laws of physics
would have the same form in ALL reference
frames? He wrote:
"What has nature to do with our coordinate systems and
their state of motion? If it is necessary for the purpose of
describing nature, to make use of a coordinate system
arbitrarily introduced by us, then the choice of its state of
motion ought to be subject to no restriction; the laws
ought to be entirely independent of this choice (general
principle of relativity)." (First printed in 1919. Appeared
in Albert Einstein's General Relativity, Crown
Publication, New York, 1979, p63.)
The downside of formulating physics in this
program of research is to invoke a more
sophisticated form of mathematics than Newton
needed, but the upside of it is to produce
laws of physics that have more generality and
unity than Newton could ever have hoped
to arrive at. You see, Einstein figured out
what most people overlookl, and that is
that reference frames are human inventions
and should NOT intrude themselves into the
laws of physics. Anyone who believes that
reference frames have some intrinsic physical
meaning to the laws of physics have some
explaining to do. In any case, physics cannot
just ignore the philosophical "problem of the
reference frame."
Note: I use the terms "preferred" and
"privileged" in about the same way when
referring to reference frames.
People often overlook the obvious.
-- Dr. Who
Patrick
Spaceman
"Tom Roberts" <TomRo...@avenew.com> wrote in message
news:3B79DA40...@avenew.com...
> You are supposed to read what I wrote. I never said or implied there
> is any "physical" length contraction. I merely said that "If the
> snapshots are taken simultaneously in Frame A [...] then [there is]
> length contraction of Frame B."
Damn Carl Sagan screwed everyone up on this one, (Cosmos)
On his show he stated that they actually do happen and that it's
not an illusion.
But,
It is an illusion.
(To an eye or camera or anything that uses light for seeing it.
but in reality, light has nothing to do with an objects true size
and speed alone never changes the size in reality..
So,
It is illusion and not reality.
Paul B. Andersen
>
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2001 15:53:27 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a natural reference in space.
> >> Photons are going past the earth in all directions. The point about which their
> >> mean velocity is zero defines a 'locally absolute' rest frame.
> >> It might even be universally absolute.
> >
> >Isn't it a bit daft to assert something which was
> >proven false more than a century ago?
> I hope you are not refering to the MMX again.
I am indeed.
> Paul, as I said once before, cast your eyes up into the sky. Can you not imagine
> that photons are whizzing past the earth in all directions. You cannot see them
> but you can be pretty sure they are there because if you send a rocket up, light
> will shine on it.
> The question is, are they all going past at the same speed?
Yes.
> Are the ones
> traveling east moving at exactly the same speed as those going west?
> If they are, then the earth centrists are right and the earth is indeed the
> centre of the universe.
Right.
Like every point in any inertial frame is "the centre of the universe".
As alway, your reasoning is based on Galilean relativity.
Wake up, Henry. It was falsified more than a century ago.
> Now since nobody has measured the speeds of east and west moving photons, I
> don't think you can say with any authority that the speeds are indeed equal wrt
> you.
Where have you been the last century+, Henry?
The isotropy of light is measured a lot of times while you were away.
> Whatever the case, some property of space is determining the outcome, not the
> idiosynchrosies of some particular observer. Light 'moves' even when it is not
> being seen. Light was moving past the Earth long before any human emerged from
> the mire.
And the point?
> >> As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?", light rays
> >> can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and still carry enough
> >> information about their source velocity for the correct doppler shift to occur
> >> when they hit something. Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that
> >> to be possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be source
> >> dependent.
> >
> >I receive a photon and measure lambda = 0.5 um.
> >What was the velocity of its source?
> I'm glad I raised this topic again because you chaps all ran away with your
> tails between your legs last year..
> Let's start again shall we. I think it is the biggest question of all. If we can
> answer it we will have learnt a lot about space.
And I note that you didn't even try to answer the question.
That is of course because there is no way you from a single photon
can deduce the state of motion of its source. It doesn't carry that
information.
> When a group of photons, emitted simultaneously from an ancient hydrogen source,
> reaches a random observer after traveling through deep space, something about
> the group as a whole enables that observer to experience the correct doppler
> shift at all wavelengths. In effect, each photon carries enough intrinsic
> information with it to cause any arbitrary observer to know exactly what its
> source velocity was eons ago, compared to that observer's velocity now.
> The observer can only know of the source velocity via the photon itself.
Wrong. No single photon can tell you that it came from a hydrogen source.
The information in the spectrum (assuming this was the point with your
group of photons) lies in the relationship between the photons, NOT in
any single photon.
Ask yourself: if the information lies in each photon, why do you
then have to have a group of them to make this information readable?
Put a lot of black dots together, and you can write a book.
The information lies in the relationships between the dots,
it is not imprinted in each dot.
> I can see only two conceiveable ways that this can happen. Either space is
> absolute and photons are coded with source information - or light speed is
> source dependent.
I can't dispute what you can or cannot see.
BTW, I have stated my arguments about this a lot of times before.
(As have others.) You invariably ignore the arguments and repeat your
assertion about the "imprinted information".
Exactly like in this posting.
There is no point in repeating the same thing over and over.
So let's terminate it.
Paul
PaulDanaher
news:3B7AF67E...@hia.no...
> Henry Wilson wrote:
> >
<snipped>
>
> Wrong. No single photon can tell you that it came from a hydrogen source.
> The information in the spectrum (assuming this was the point with your
> group of photons) lies in the relationship between the photons, NOT in
> any single photon.
>
> Ask yourself: if the information lies in each photon, why do you
> then have to have a group of them to make this information readable?
>
> Put a lot of black dots together, and you can write a book.
> The information lies in the relationships between the dots,
> it is not imprinted in each dot.
>
I don't understand holograms anyway, so the question's doubly dumb no
doubt - but how many photons are needed to carry the information in a
hologram? (I know you'd get lousy resolution eventually, but the principle
remains.) How is the information in the spectrum distributed over the
photons?
Tom Roberts
> [about length contraction and time dilation]
> Damn Carl Sagan screwed everyone up on this one, (Cosmos)
> On his show he stated that they actually do happen and that it's
> not an illusion.
> But, It is an illusion.
> (To an eye or camera or anything that uses light for seeing it.
This has NOTHING AT ALL to do with using light to "see" it, and the
effects occur for the usual method of measurement using assistants
collocated with what they are measuring.
Length contraction and time dilation in SR are _EXACTLY_ as much
"illusion" as the following:
When I look at a building from directly in front it appears
wider than when I look at it diagonally from a corner.
Yes, this uses light to "see" it, but the correspondence remains:
the building does NOT "get narrower", but the angle it subtends at
my eye does indeed change, as does my perception of its width. In
particular, this latter can cause _real_ effects (such as fitting
on the film of my camera for the diagonal view but not for the
frontal view).
Length contraction and time dilation do NOT represent any sort of
physical change in the object being observed. But they DO directly
affect the measurments made of a moving object. The word "illusion"
does not cover this very adequately at all, because those latter
measurements are _REAL_.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> but how many photons are needed to carry the information in a
> hologram? (I know you'd get lousy resolution eventually, but the principle
> remains.) How is the information in the spectrum distributed over the
> photons?
I assume you are discusing the taking of a "3-d picture" on
film, aka a hologram.
Remember that one requirement for making a hologram is that the light
source have a coherence length greater than the size of the subject.
That said, your two questions above have VERY different answers: the
number of photons required depends upon the sensitivity of the film
and the size of the image on it. But the complete information of the
entire image is contained in each and every photon. But if one attempted
to make a hologram from a single photon one would get at most a single
dark point on the film, and it would be completely impossible to
reconstruct the original image from the film.
Note also that a light source with a long coherence length inherently
has a VERY narrow spectrum.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
PaulDanaher
> PaulDanaher wrote:
> > but how many photons are needed to carry the information in a
> > hologram? (I know you'd get lousy resolution eventually, but the
principle
> > remains.) How is the information in the spectrum distributed over the
> > photons?
>
> I assume you are discusing the taking of a "3-d picture" on
> film, aka a hologram.
Er, yes - I was asking about a hologram.
> Remember that one requirement for making a hologram is that the light
> source have a coherence length greater than the size of the subject.
>
> That said, your two questions above have VERY different answers: the
> number of photons required depends upon the sensitivity of the film
> and the size of the image on it.
Film sensitivity wasn't part of the question, and I already said that the
resolution would be lousy.
> But the complete information of the
> entire image is contained in each and every photon. But if one attempted
> to make a hologram from a single photon one would get at most a single
> dark point on the film, and it would be completely impossible to
> reconstruct the original image from the film.
>
> Note also that a light source with a long coherence length inherently
> has a VERY narrow spectrum.
Apologising for my physical ignorance, how wide does an (ultrafine) spectrum
have to be to be different in nature to a coherent light source?
Ken H. Seto
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>Right.
>Like every point in any inertial frame is "the centre of the universe".
>
>As alway, your reasoning is based on Galilean relativity.
>Wake up, Henry. It was falsified more than a century ago.
ROTFL. This is a classic case of pot calling the kettle black. Are you
saying that c+v and c-v used to get relativity of simultaneity in SR
is not Galilean Relativity????
Ken Seto
Paul B. Andersen
Is 7-4 Galilean or Lorentzian relativity, Ken?
Keep rolling!
Paul
Henry Wilson
Irrespective of all that, if what I say is true, then what is the meaning of
this apparently natural frame, in which the mean velocity of photons is zero in
all directions.
I pointed out that it might only be a 'locally absolute' frame, whatever that
implies. However, there is no doubt that a property of SPACE is involved in the
determination of photon speed in free space. Of course we don't really have any
justification for assuming that all free photons move at the same speed.
Patrick Reany
Henry Wilson wrote:
Henry,
What you maintain and what SR maintains are mutually
contradictory, so they can't be irrespective of each other.
I agree with you that the frame you indicate is
"natural" in some sense, but as astronomy is not my
field -- even as an amateur's study -- then I can't say
for what purpose it could be used. There are many
"natural" or preferred frames in use in both SR and
Newtonian mechanics. For example, both systems
use a transformation between the so-called LAB
frame and CM (center-of-mass) frame for analyzing
particle collision experiments. And, in like manner,
SR introduced the use of analyzing the "fields" produced
by a "moving" charge as a Lorentz transformation on
the electric field produced by the charge at "rest," which
is accomplished by passively transforming the reference
frame into the rest frame of the particle and then back
again. In the instantaneous rest frame of the charge
the field is only the electric field. But when we transform
this field to any other frame, there's a magnetic field
as well. So try that in Newtonian mechanics!
SR tells us that electric and magnetic fields are NOT
independent of each other, but are two aspects of
a single field, and whose "reality" is independent
of the inertial frame that is arbitrarily chosen
to view that field. This is the kind of unification
that Einstein lived for. And it is the death knell
of the false dogma that scientific theories need
to be "falsifiable." But that's another lecture.
> I pointed out that it might only be a 'locally absolute' frame, whatever that
> implies.
I guess I'm not happy with the use of the term "absolute"
applied in this case no matter how this frame is being
used. One important reason to avoid this combination
of terms as in 'locally absolute' is because in the historical
use of the term "absolute" as applied to space, it was
a matter of all or nothing, i.e., either absolute space was
universal or there was no point to invoking the metaphor
of space being "absolute" at all. In short, the term
'locally absolute' is an oxymoron from the historical
viewpoint.
However, the term 'locally absolute' can be made
meaningful in SR and GR in the sense that the spacetime
model used in these theories is always locally unbiased
in its treatment of all inertial reference frames at a given
point with respect to the formulation of the laws of
physics. Obviously, if we allow this nomenclature
then we are making a clean break from the historical
meaning of "absolute" but that's OK because we
explicit declare this break from erstwhile definitions.
What I don't like is when people try to argue for
the "old view" of the world but use terms contrary
to the way those terms were historically used in the
program of the "old view."
As far as I can tell, the meaning of "absolute" in the
old view was that all inertial observers share absolute
X in the exact same way. So, if space = X then
all inertial observers mark off space intervals in exactly
the same way. And if time = X then all inertial observers
mark off time intervals in exactly the same way. In
SR all inertial observers mark off the so-called
"spacetime interval" in exactly the same way, locally.
And as a result, the laws of physics based on these
"absolute" kinematics are shared in exactly the
same way for all inertial observers.
The MAJOR problem that Einstein solved, when no
one else even thought of it as a problem at all, was
how to generalize the notion of "absolute" to all
reference frames, to produce the same shared
set of physical laws for ALL observers, inertial
or not. According to GR, "reality" is no longer
that which is perceivable from an inertial reference
frame, but rather is that which is perceivable from
ANY reference frame! The end result of this was
more generality and more unification in physics.
So why do people not understand or appreciate
what Einstein accomplished? I'll tell you why.
It's because people don't understand that physics
is the search for "general physical laws," which are
not only abstract but also are dependent on the
answer to the Big Question: What is the ultimate
role that reference frame has in the formulation of the
general laws of physics? Most cranks on this NG just
haven't a clue as to the real issues involved in physics,
be it in so-called "relativistic physics" or otherwise.
Einstein helped to answer an important question in
philosophy: Whatever space and time "really" are --
if they "really" are anything at all -- they can be treated
relativistically in modern physics. That's all
that really matters!
> However, there is no doubt that a property of SPACE is involved in the
> determination of photon speed in free space. Of course we don't really have any
> justification for assuming that all free photons move at the same speed.
If space has a property then space is assumed to be
a real thing. I don't know what this is supposed to
mean from the epistemological standpoint. Space
itself has no directly determinable empirical properties.
One can model space in many ways. I have no idea
what space is. I have no idea what time is. But in GR
I know that spacetime is just a model to sort out how
various observers deal with the same physical events.
It is just a tool of thought, a free creation of the human
mind, which is useful for organizing empirical data and
making empirical predictions. Please stop thinking
of physics as though it were capable of answering
metaphysical questions of reality, because it can't.
And the reason it can't has NOTHING to do
with relativity per se.
The Light Principle is a mystery and I suppose that that
bothers a lot of people. Physics should remove all mystery
from itself, right? I'm kind of glad that physics can "explain"
and yet NOT remove the wonderful mystery of Nature.
You're hung up over the mystery of the Light Principle,
but I'm still in awe of how the top works, even though
I know the Newtonian and Lagrangian explanations for
it. I dread the day when there will be no more mysteries
in physics. Is that the legacy you want to hand down
to future generations?
But to directly deal with your statement I have to disagree.
There is overwhelming reason to accept SR's assumption
that the MEASURED speed of light from within any
inertial reference frame in a vacuum is always the number c.
Patrick
Paul Stowe
Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote:
>John Reid wrote:
>> Since you suddenly seem so enamored of experiments,
>
> As anyone who has been around here for a while knows full well, this is
> not "sudden" on my part at all -- I have been a constant advocate of
> experimental tests of SR and all other theories since long before this
> newsgroup existed. I have a stack of papers 2-3 feet tall about
> experimental tests of relativity, and have written an update to the FAQ
> which references several hundred of them.
>
>
>> why not tell us exactly which lovely experiment showed
>> the invariance and isotropy of light's two-clock, one-way
>> speed?
>
>
> Cialdea, Lett. Nuovo Cimento 4 (1972), p821.
> Uses two multi-mode lasers mounted on a rotating table to look for
> variations in their interference pattern as the table is rotated.
> Places an upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 0.9 m/sec.
This one is a solid experiment, I can find nothing in this presentation to
complain about. It definitely needs independent repetition and study...
> Krisher et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, p. 1322 (1990).
> Uses two hydrogen masers fixed to the earth and separated by a 21-km
> fiber-optic link to look for variations in the phase between them.
> They put an upper limit on the one-way linear anisotropy of 100 m/sec.
This one, as presented, is useless. Very bad protocol and presentation,
authors threw out 99% of collected data, presented no actual data, and
WAGed at attempting to explain the non-null results they did obtain. That
Tom would include this reference and NOT the ones I list below is quite telling
as to his bias. This one needs re-evaluation of the existing complete data set,
and independent review before any consideration as to its reported findings can
be given. Independent repetition of this has, to my knowledge, never been done.
> Champeny et al, Phys. Lett. 7 (1963), p241.
>
> Champeney, Isaak and Khan, Proc. Physical Soc. 85, p583 (1965).
>
> Isaak et al, Phys. Bull. 21 (1970), p255.
> Uses a rotating Moessbauer absorber and fixed detector to place an
> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 3 m/sec.
> Turner and Hill, Phys. Rev. 134 (1964), B252.
> Uses a rotating source and fixed Moessbauer detector to place an
> upper limit on any one-way anisotropy of 10 m/sec.
>
> Gagnon, Torr, Kolen, and Chang, Phys. Rev. A38 no. 4 (1988), p1767.
> A guided-wave test of isotropy. Their null result is consistent with SR.
Add,
"An Experiment to Measure Relative Variations in the One-Way Speed of Light",
D.C. Torr and P.T. Kolen, Proceedings of the Precision Measurement and
Fundamental Constants II, p. 675, NBS publication #617, 1984.
E.W. Silvertooth and S.F. Jacobs, Appl. Opt. 22, 1274 (1983).]
E.W. Silvertooth, Nature 322, 590 (1986)
E. W. Silvertooth experiment “Motion through the ether”, GALILEAN ELECTRODYNAMICS
Vol. 1, no. 1, p. 12.
'A Note on the Silvertooth Experiment', Speculations in Science and Technology,
v. 10, pp. 9-11 (1987).
Silvertooth, Ernest W. (1987). `Experimental detection of the ether,' Speculations
in Science and Technology, Vol. 10; -, (1989).
"A new Michelson-Morley experiment" in Physics Essays, vol. 5 (1992)
http://home.planetinternet.be/~pin30390/exp4.htm
http://home.sprintmail.com/~websterkehr/Physics.pdf
Except of course, all of these stand in contrast to Mr. Roberts belief system
showing positive OWLS measurements. By his reckoning then, these MUST contain
experimental of evaluative errors. Forget the the 'fact' the Krisher et. al.
cited above is much worst in presentation and protocol than any of the ones
cited above in this list. Dr. Aspden's comment on Silvertooth's experiment
cites no such flaws per:
http://www.energyscience.co.uk/bib/1990a.htm
But, like many of the experiments cited by Tom (Cialdea, Krisher as examples),
independent verification has not been performed. Thus, there is no rigorous
experimental scientific basis for claims that OWLS is/or is not isotropic
at this juncture. The question remains unanswered and there are certainly as
many positive findings as negative.
> You will find a common thread among _ALL_ of these experiments -- no
> clock synchronization is actually performed, and both "clocks" are
> free-running and independent of each other; "synchronization" is
> arbitrary and implicit (e.g. choice of phase=0 in the plots). None
> actually measure the speed, rather they place upper limits on any
> anisotropy. In most cases the "clocks" are simultaneously and
> inherently sources. All rely on the rotational and orbital motions
> of the earth to place their apparatus in different instantaneously-
> comoving inertial frames.
Phase comparisons can be problematic since the signal trains can be numerically
out of phase but 'in-phase' angularly.
Example,
0 90 180 270 360
Train A: 1---+---+---+---2---+---+---+---3---+---+---+---4
0
0 90 180 270 360
Train B: 1---+---+---+---2---+---+---+---3---+---+---+---4
0
Trains A & B are 90 degrees out of phase with wave trains 1,2,3,...etc.
0 90 180 270 360
Train A: 1---+---+---+---2---+---+---+---3---+---+---+---4
0
0 90 180 270 360
Train B: 1---+---+---+---2---+---+---+---3---+---+---+---4
0
Trains A & B are 360 (0) degrees out of phase with Train B's #1 overlapping
Train A's #2. Measurement of phase interference in this case results in
not differences... For experiments of the Krisher class, this distinction
is quite important...
Paul Stowe
Bill Hobba
> And most devastatingly of all, you forgot that the true "Laws of
> Nature" are unknowable to us humans; at best we can only arrive at
> theories which accurately predict experimental results -- whether or
> not they "truly correspond" to the "actual" "laws of nature" is
> impossible to know.
>
I do not know if this is true or false as I can think of no way of testing
it. Certainly based on historical evidence it is true but how do we know IN
ADVANCE if a law we now accept as true is a true law or not?
This is not to say I think our current laws are the true laws of nature; I
simply do not know. Also I think it may be possible to preserve a law if we
are willing to complicate things unnecessarily eg the existence of the
aether. All the evidence says it does not exist but LET is a consistent
(although IMHO a misguided one) theory.
Perhaps Tom knows a good book or site where these things are discussed in
depth.
Bill
Henry Wilson
So why should GPS clock rhythms change with velocity, Tom?
You agree that nothing 'physically' changes in the clocks. We know the observed
changes follow the simple doppler equation. Where does gamma come into this?
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>> Are the ones
>> traveling east moving at exactly the same speed as those going west?
>> If they are, then the earth centrists are right and the earth is indeed the
>> centre of the universe.
>
>Right.
>Like every point in any inertial frame is "the centre of the universe".
>
>As alway, your reasoning is based on Galilean relativity.
>Wake up, Henry. It was falsified more than a century ago.
>
>> Now since nobody has measured the speeds of east and west moving photons, I
>> don't think you can say with any authority that the speeds are indeed equal wrt
>> you.
>
>Where have you been the last century+, Henry?
>The isotropy of light is measured a lot of times while you were away.
By faulty experiments.
That does not answer my question anyway. I'm referring to photons which AREN'T
being observed. Clearly, if they are isotropic wrt me, they are not isotropic to
a person moving wrt me.
>
>> Whatever the case, some property of space is determining the outcome, not the
>> idiosynchrosies of some particular observer. Light 'moves' even when it is not
>> being seen. Light was moving past the Earth long before any human emerged from
>> the mire.
>
>And the point?
The point, Paul, is that present day physics cannot give any kind of reasonable
answer to any of the big questions. So. instead of making out you know
everything, you and your SR friends should have the courage to admit that there
are just as many unanswered questions now as there ever were.
Science doesn't progress because scientists latch onto the first silly answer
that appears and then close their minds to the other options.
>
>> >> As I pointed out last year in the thread "how does a photon know?", light rays
>> >> can travel for eons, far removed from their sources, and still carry enough
>> >> information about their source velocity for the correct doppler shift to occur
>> >> when they hit something. Their source velocity MUST be encoded in them. For that
>> >> to be possible, either space must be absolute or light speed must be source
>> >> dependent.
>> >
>> >I receive a photon and measure lambda = 0.5 um.
>> >What was the velocity of its source?
>
>> I'm glad I raised this topic again because you chaps all ran away with your
>> tails between your legs last year..
>> Let's start again shall we. I think it is the biggest question of all. If we can
>> answer it we will have learnt a lot about space.
>
>And I note that you didn't even try to answer the question.
>That is of course because there is no way you from a single photon
>can deduce the state of motion of its source. It doesn't carry that
>information.
yes, somehow, it does. there is no other way the observer can get that
information.
Whether I consider one or many photons from the same source matters not. The
problem remains. Somehow the source's velocity is evident when the photon
reaches its random destination.
The obvious solution in source dependency. The only other option is that each
minute corpuscle of light is encoded with its source's 'absolute velocity
through space' relative to its ultimate observer.
>
>> When a group of photons, emitted simultaneously from an ancient hydrogen source,
>> reaches a random observer after traveling through deep space, something about
>> the group as a whole enables that observer to experience the correct doppler
>> shift at all wavelengths. In effect, each photon carries enough intrinsic
>> information with it to cause any arbitrary observer to know exactly what its
>> source velocity was eons ago, compared to that observer's velocity now.
>> The observer can only know of the source velocity via the photon itself.
>
>Wrong. No single photon can tell you that it came from a hydrogen source.
>The information in the spectrum (assuming this was the point with your
>group of photons) lies in the relationship between the photons, NOT in
>any single photon.
>
>Ask yourself: if the information lies in each photon, why do you
>then have to have a group of them to make this information readable?
Of course you have a group - every member of the group from a particular source
carries the relevant information.
>
>Put a lot of black dots together, and you can write a book.
>The information lies in the relationships between the dots,
>it is not imprinted in each dot.
What are you talking about. You are acting dumb, surely. Even one single photon
from a distant galaxy will experience the appropriate doppler when it hits.
Wherther or not theobserver can identify the source is of no importance. the
fact is, the correct doppler shift WILL occur.
If that's not good evidence for source dependency, nothing is.
>
>> I can see only two conceiveable ways that this can happen. Either space is
>> absolute and photons are coded with source information - or light speed is
>> source dependent.
>
>I can't dispute what you can or cannot see.
can you give an alternative explanation?
>
>BTW, I have stated my arguments about this a lot of times before.
>(As have others.) You invariably ignore the arguments and repeat your
>assertion about the "imprinted information".
>
>Exactly like in this posting.
>There is no point in repeating the same thing over and over.
>So let's terminate it.
I agree. There can be no imprinted data without absolute space.
This is why I favour the source dependency explanation. It is so simple.
>
>Paul
Henry Wilson
>PaulDanaher wrote:
>> but how many photons are needed to carry the information in a
>> hologram? (I know you'd get lousy resolution eventually, but the principle
>> remains.) How is the information in the spectrum distributed over the
>> photons?
>
> I assume you are discusing the taking of a "3-d picture" on
> film, aka a hologram.
>
>Remember that one requirement for making a hologram is that the light
>source have a coherence length greater than the size of the subject.
>
>That said, your two questions above have VERY different answers: the
>number of photons required depends upon the sensitivity of the film
>and the size of the image on it. But the complete information of the
>entire image is contained in each and every photon.
that is a big statement Tom. Are you infering that photons have a structure
which can contain intelligent data?
>But if one attempted
>to make a hologram from a single photon one would get at most a single
>dark point on the film, and it would be completely impossible to
>reconstruct the original image from the film.
I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is no such entity as a single
PHOTON. It doesn't exist. EM is a continuum with wave 'packets' extending to
infinity even though their influence drops off very rapidly with distance. The
vibrations from a short pulse of light remain 'forever' wherever the pulse has
been - but they are damped so quickly that they are reduced to virtually zero in
an instant. This is somewhat analogous to a water wave.
High energy packets are smaller than long wave ones. Gamma rays behave like
particles because of their minute size.