Synchronicity and Slow Clock Transport
Aetherist
abutted side by side in the middle of a 400 meter rail. If A & B are then
moved equally to the ends of the rail will these clocks always remain in
synch?
Thanks
Ike Richter
a and b perhaps, but not c
Aetherist
Yeah, I meant A & C moved to the ends (A-B-C) but (A-C-B)
works. I forgot that the center clock does not move, thus
will lose synch. But A & B does.
Thanks for catching my oversight. But then, both A & B
will have an equal offset to C? Right
Thanks,
Ike Richter
if same speed and accl, likely yes
what next?
Tom Roberts
Only in the locally inertial frame in which their velocities are equal (and
opposite in this particular case).
The question "will they remain in synch?" is hopelessly vague, you must ask:
will they remain in synch IN THIS FRAME?
Moreover, for sufficiently slow speeds, all three can remain in synch within
their accuracies. For a typical atomic clock, any speed achievable by an
automobile will do for a 200-meter trip.
> But then, both A & B
> will have an equal offset to C?
In the rest frame of C and the rail, right. But not in other frames. Here I
presume the "offset" is measured simultaneously in the frame in question.
When you phrase things so loosely, with no regard for inertial frames, you
statements will nearly always be wrong. Precision in word and thought is essential.
Tom Roberts
rotchm
You mean that C remains in the middle and to the left and B to the
right.
"In synch" is vague here. "In synch" is defined for inertial
observers. If an observer (or clock) is not inertial, the notion of
'synch' is non-defined. Also sometimes 'synch' means to set to an
initial value; sometimes it mans that two values are he same at some
one time. In your query, you main 'to remain synched at all
times' ...?
Since A and B are in relative motion, then they continuously loose
synch relative to one another.
If A and B have the same (symmetric) motion wrt C and stop their
motion and at the ends of the rail, then both A and B will indicate
the same value as they coincide with the end. Sine they are now at
rest wrt C (and each other) they tick at the same rate and thus remain
in synch wrt each other.
Inertial
news:di0857t4c4brvgqp2...@4ax.com...
> then, both A & B
> will have an equal offset to C? Right
In the frame of reference where all three are at rest .. yes
Inertial
news:564d3dc1-26bb-42da...@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...
>You mean that C remains in the middle and to the left and B to the
>right.
>
>"In synch" is vague here. "In synch" is defined for inertial
>observers. If an observer (or clock) is not inertial, the notion of
>'synch' is non-defined. Also sometimes 'synch' means to set to an
>initial value; sometimes it mans that two values are he same at some
>one time. In your query, you main 'to remain synched at all
>times' ...?
>
>Since A and B are in relative motion, then they continuously loose
>synch relative to one another.
>
>If A and B have the same (symmetric) motion wrt C and stop their
>motion and at the ends of the rail, then both A and B will indicate
>the same value as they coincide with the end. Sine they are now at
>rest wrt C (and each other) they tick at the same rate and thus remain
>in synch wrt each other.
Further to what rotchm correctly states .. by 'in synch' here, we implicitly
mean in the rest frame of reference of the system where A B and C are
finally are at rest. In every frame of reference it will be agreed that the
clocks were initially in synch (of course), but In some frames of reference,
none of the clocks may be in sync by the end.
Inertial
news:4e545184$0$30003$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>Further to what rotchm correctly states .. by 'in synch' here, we
>implicitly mean in the rest frame of reference of the system where A B and
>C are finally are at rest. In every frame of reference it will be agreed
>that the clocks were initially in synch (of course), but In some frames of
>reference, none of the clocks may be in sync by the end.
And further still .. this is the case for SR.
For LET, even though we would measure the moving clocks to have moved at the
same speed relative to C and to be in sync, in 'reality' the clocks did NOT
move at the same speed away from clock C, and (most likely) one moving clock
'really' sped up and the other 'really' slowed down during the move and so
they are not 'really' in sync. If you consider what LET says 'really'
happens, it makes things far more complicated .. it is best to ignore that
and just talk about what is measured .. in which case LET is identical to
SR.
If we are talking about 'theories' where Galilean transforms apply, like
most ballistic theories, then A and B are still in sync (both 'really' and
measured) and so is C as well.
I'm don't think there are any theories that are even remotely taken
seriously where A and B will not be regarded as (at least measure to be) in
sync.
Dono.
In the frame attached to C, A and B stay synchronized.
In any other frame, moving wrt C, they are not. Do you know why?
Aetherist
Yes...
Aetherist
Thank to all that responded. You are right, at 200 meters and with the precision
that we can achieve synchronizing the moving & stopping the apparatii the moved
clocks should be essentually 'in-synch' and the middle stationary one should be so
close as not to be detectable off. Now come the niggling issue that I never
have been able to reconcile, namely OWLS. If the center clock is a transmitter
and the end clocks receivers and the center clock simply broadcasts its time (t) (
to its precision) and the end clock simply record that time and its time when
received (r) as well as r-t.
This process does not require or depend on TWLS. It simply calculated the time
of flight to the receivers from the transmitter and thus OWLS. My question
why would this not work to test for differences in OWLS that would differentate
Lorentz interpretation and SRT???
Note that I am not predicting any outcome but asking if the protocol is valid.
Thanks,
Inertial
news:cnp857d0hs9sgr5h5...@4ax.com...
>Thank to all that responded. You are right, at 200 meters and with the
>precision
>that we can achieve synchronizing the moving & stopping the apparatii the
>moved
>clocks should be essentually 'in-synch' and the middle stationary one
>should be so
>close as not to be detectable off. Now come the niggling issue that I
>never
>have been able to reconcile, namely OWLS. If the center clock is a
>transmitter
>and the end clocks receivers and the center clock simply broadcasts its
>time (t) (
>to its precision) and the end clock simply record that time and its time
>when
>received (r) as well as r-t.
>
>This process does not require or depend on TWLS. It simply calculated the
>time
>of flight to the receivers from the transmitter and thus OWLS. My question
>why would this not work to test for differences in OWLS that would
>differentate
>Lorentz interpretation and SRT???
>
>Note that I am not predicting any outcome but asking if the protocol is
>valid.
It would be valid in a perfect world, but the results would be subject to
much larger amounts of error than a TWLS test combined with a test on
isotropy.
eric gisse
news:cnp857d0hs9sgr5h5...@4ax.com:
No.
Movement means you lose synchronicity.
You can say its' an approximation, but what you can't do is turn around
and use the approximate synchronization by slow transport as a way to
bash relativity
>Now come the niggling issue that I never have been able to
> reconcile, namely OWLS. If the center clock is a transmitter and the
> end clocks receivers and the center clock simply broadcasts its time
> (t) ( to its precision) and the end clock simply record that time and
> its time when received (r) as well as r-t.
>
> This process does not require or depend on TWLS. It simply calculated
> the time of flight to the receivers from the transmitter and thus
> OWLS. My question why would this not work to test for differences in
> OWLS that would differentate Lorentz interpretation and SRT???
Because 'slow transport' doesn't actually escape the fact that any
transport of a clock is going to result in the loss of synchronicity.
>
> Note that I am not predicting any outcome but asking if the protocol
> is valid.
>
> Thanks,
>
No, it isn't. At all.
You've been trying the 'teach me relativity', 'teach me why LET is
crap', etc, since 1995. IT ISN'T FUCKING WORKING.
Put down the keyboard, go to a library, and open a fucking book on
relativity. All your crap theories are based entirely on the fact that
your 'education' in physics comes from reading shit on USENET. And it
shows.
Look what I stumbled upon when trying to figure out how long you've been
spewing bullshit about aether theories!
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.philosophy.meta/msg/75cd333b06da25b1?
dmode=source
Nineteen-nintey-fucking-eight. You've been pushing the same bullshit
numerology since I was in MIDDLE SCHOOL. Isn't it time you put down the
keyboard and have a long hard think about what the fuck it is you think
you are doing?
Tom Roberts
> Now come the niggling issue that I never
> have been able to reconcile, namely OWLS. If the center clock is a transmitter
> and the end clocks receivers and the center clock simply broadcasts its time (t) (
> to its precision) and the end clock simply record that time and its time when
> received (r) as well as r-t.
>
> This process does not require or depend on TWLS. It simply calculated the time
> of flight to the receivers from the transmitter and thus OWLS. My question
> why would this not work to test for differences in OWLS that would differentate
> Lorentz interpretation and SRT???
First, that is a procedure that would measure OWLS in principle, but in practice
the accuracies of available atomic clocks are not sufficient to make it a useful
measurement. Null techniques that test for isotropy are MUCH more accurate.
Since tests for isotropy all come up with very small anisotropies, the OWLS
value must equal the TWLS value to within their errorbars (few parts per
billion), for all sensible synchronization methods (i.e. ones equivalent to the
slow clock transport used by all of the isotropy tests).
Second, there is no possible experiment that can differentiate LET [#] from SR
-- they are experimentally indistinguishable. Rigorously so, because the set of
theorems included in the two theories is identical, and comparison between
theory and experiment always uses a theorem of the theory.
[#] I'm not sure what you mean by "Lorentz interpretation", and
Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is as close as I can come.
BTW there is an infinite class of theories that are experimentally
indistinguishable from SR; they all share the property that TWLS
is isotropically c in any inertial frame, and differ only in how
clocks are synchronized (all but LET and SR use methods that are
not sensible in the above sense). The others do not share the same
set of theorems, but still are provably indistinguishable.
Tom Roberts
Aetherist
>Aetherist wrote:
>> Now come the niggling issue that I never
>> have been able to reconcile, namely OWLS. If the center clock is a transmitter
>> and the end clocks receivers and the center clock simply broadcasts its time (t) (
>> to its precision) and the end clock simply record that time and its time when
>> received (r) as well as r-t.
>>
>> This process does not require or depend on TWLS. It simply calculated the time
>> of flight to the receivers from the transmitter and thus OWLS. My question
>> why would this not work to test for differences in OWLS that would differentate
>> Lorentz interpretation and SRT???
>
>First, that is a procedure that would measure OWLS in principle, but in practice
>the accuracies of available atomic clocks are not sufficient to make it a useful
>measurement. Null techniques that test for isotropy are MUCH more accurate.
>Since tests for isotropy all come up with very small anisotropies, the OWLS
>value must equal the TWLS value to within their errorbars (few parts per
>billion), for all sensible synchronization methods (i.e. ones equivalent to the
>slow clock transport used by all of the isotropy tests).
>
>Second, there is no possible experiment that can differentiate LET [#] from SR
>-- they are experimentally indistinguishable. Rigorously so, because the set of
>theorems included in the two theories is identical, and comparison between
>theory and experiment always uses a theorem of the theory.
>
> [#] I'm not sure what you mean by "Lorentz interpretation", and
> Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is as close as I can come.
You need to become 'more flexible'. The modern Lorentzian view is that
the measurement of both c as a constant (in any FOR where the system
is locally 'at rest') AND so-called isotropy results from the gamma
term. However where and why the gamma term exists differs. Moreover
Lorentz never mandated TWLS/2 clock synchronization, nor does it require
relative simutaneity, or require OWLS to be TWLS/2.
These constraints come from your mind's interpretation of the identical
in the use of gamma in both Lorentz's 1904 paper and Einstein's 1905.
I have no interest in beating this dead horse again and again but the
fact is, as Inertial correctly pointed out, Lorentz's version clearly
has OWLS as anisotropic, based upon the actual underlying medium state.
As has also been pointed out to you endlessly the CMBR would be that
benchmark and thus the infinite class become one, unique amoungst all
others. The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured without
ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'. I'm glad to know that
there exists no hidden logic flaw in my protocol. The only question
left is to how to implement such in the real world.
eric gisse
news:qeu857d4p97qjd96j...@4ax.com:
[...]
> As has also been pointed out to you endlessly the CMBR would be that
> benchmark and thus the infinite class become one, unique amoungst all
> others.
Did you wake up stupid today? There's absolutely nothing special about the
CMB. Why do morons keep citing the CMB as some sort of special reference
frame?
> The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured
> without ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'.
It has been. Repeatedly.
You've been shown John Baez's page on the subject once or twice in the past
15 years. Maybe 2011 is the year in which you'll read it?
Or not. We'll probably be revisiting this in 2012.
[...]
rotchm
>The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured without
> ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'. I'm glad to know that
> there exists no hidden logic flaw in my protocol. The only question
> left is to how to implement such in the real world.
Actually, your procedure is a TWLS. this procedure has been analized
in the literature a long way back. The twls part is in the speed
measurement procedure of the traveling clocks. Although they have the
same measured speed wrt the middle clock, their 'real' (LET) speeds
are not.
Standart kinematical and optical exps (including the one u propose)
can not in principle distinguish between SR and LET.
Androcles
"rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e6060656-056f-4137...@v9g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Standart kinematical and optical exps (including the one u propose)
can not in principle distinguish between SR and LET.
Doppler:
f' = f.(c-v)/c
SR:
f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c]/[1+v/c])
LET:
f' = f.c/(c+v)
Standar(t) kinematical and optical exps (including any YOU propose)
DO in PRINCIPLE distinguish between REALITY, SR and LET, you
fucking imbecile.
rotchm
23rd.2011> wrote:
> "rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e6060656-056f-4137...@v9g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Standart kinematical and optical exps (including the one u propose)
> can not in principle distinguish between SR and LET.
> ======================================
> Doppler:
> f' = f.(c-v)/c
Correct. Classical Doppler.
> SR:
> f' = f.sqrt([1-v/c]/[1+v/c])
Correct.
> LET:
> f' = f.c/(c+v)
Wrong. LET has the same answer as the SR above.
Androcles
> Doppler:
> f' = f.(c-v)/c
Correct. Classical Doppler.
Correct.
> LET:
> f' = f.c/(c+v)
==================================
Imbecile. LET has the same answer as for sound.
When v = -c,
f' = f.c/0 -- a sonic boom, you thick bastard.
The one that is wrong is you, ya stupid clueless fuck.
rotchm
> ==================================
> Imbecile. LET has the same answer as for sound.
> When v = -c,
>
> f' = f.c/0 -- a sonic boom, you thick bastard.
>
> The one that is wrong is you, ya stupid clueless fuck.
wrong. You obviously have no clue of LET.
LET has the same formula as SR for the Doppler effect!
Aetherist
>On Aug 24, 12:32�am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured without
>> ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'. �I'm glad to know that
>> there exists no hidden logic flaw in my protocol. �The only question
>> left is to how to implement such in the real world.
>
>Actually, your procedure is a TWLS.
Moving the clocks certainly is. In the FOR of the clocks the only
thing affecting the is the delta v. And since gamma is insensitive
to the vector of v (because it squared) the end clocks remain
'in-synch'.
> this procedure has been analized in the literature a long way back.
> The twls part is in the speed measurement procedure of the traveling
> clocks.
Yes, thus the invention of the term 'slow clock transport'
> Although they have the same measured speed wrt the middle clock, their
> 'real' (LET) speeds are not.
Relative to the CMBR frame, no. This would be equally true for SR.
You're right for ANY! process that depends on the gamma factor there
exist not possible measurable difference between the two theories.
However, Lorentz's theory is based upon the presumption that along
the axis of travel the net speed of light is:
c - v and c + v
Thus for the 'round trip'
c'^2 = (c - v)(c + v) = c^2 - v^2
thus,
c'^2 = c^2(1 - [v/c]^2)
the fraction is therefore
c'^2/c^2 = 1 - [v/c]^2
c'/c = Sqrt(1- [v/c]^2)
finally,
c/c' = 1/Sqrt(1 - [v/c]^2)
which we call gamma...
So, the flight path from clock B to A would be c + v and B to C c - V
These ARE NOT symmetrical and thus measuring 'actual' time of flight
should show these differences if they actually exist. As long as
the clocks are 'in-synch' in the local FOR these differences should be
observable.
>
>Standard kinematical and optical exps (including the one u propose)
rotchm
> However, Lorentz's theory is based upon the presumption that along
> the axis of travel the net speed of light is:
>
> c - v and c + v
No, not quite. This 'v' as use above (used in the gamma, the SR v,
the *measured speed) is the measured speed, NOT the speed in the
preferred frame (PF) . Call V the speed in the PF; this is the 'real
speed'.
<sniped>
> So, the flight path from clock B to A would be c + v and B to C c - V
? And 'v' or 'V' ? Perhaps restating your scenario to clear thing
up...
> These ARE NOT symmetrical and thus measuring 'actual' time of flight
> should show these differences if they actually exist. As long as
> the clocks are 'in-synch' in the local FOR these differences should be
> observable.
All that can be *measured* or observed are identically predicted by SR
and LET.
eric gisse
news:u0ia57pifkap133cd...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:14:23 -0700 (PDT), rotchm <rot...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 24, 12:32 am, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured without
>>> ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'. I'm glad to know
>>> that there exists no hidden logic flaw in my protocol. The only
>>> question left is to how to implement such in the real world.
>>
>>Actually, your procedure is a TWLS.
>
> Moving the clocks certainly is. In the FOR of the clocks the only
> thing affecting the is the delta v. And since gamma is insensitive
> to the vector of v (because it squared) the end clocks remain
> 'in-synch'.
>
>> this procedure has been analized in the literature a long way back.
>> The twls part is in the speed measurement procedure of the traveling
>> clocks.
>
> Yes, thus the invention of the term 'slow clock transport'
>
>> Although they have the same measured speed wrt the middle clock,
>> their 'real' (LET) speeds are not.
>
> Relative to the CMBR frame, no.
The CMB frame is not special. This is what happens when your education
comes from sci.physics.*
>This would be equally true for SR.
> You're right for ANY! process that depends on the gamma factor there
> exist not possible measurable difference between the two theories.
>
> However, Lorentz's theory is based upon the presumption that along
> the axis of travel the net speed of light is:
>
> c - v and c + v
Observationally wrong.
Why not toss the dead theory, and move on with your life?
[...]
Aetherist
>Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:u0ia57pifkap133cd...@4ax.com:
>
>>>Actually, your procedure is a TWLS.
>>
>> Moving the clocks certainly is. In the FOR of the clocks the only
>> thing affecting the is the delta v. And since gamma is insensitive
>> to the vector of v (because it squared) the end clocks remain
>> 'in-synch'.
>>
>>> this procedure has been analized in the literature a long way back.
>>> The twls part is in the speed measurement procedure of the traveling
>>> clocks.
>>
>> Yes, thus the invention of the term 'slow clock transport'
>>
>>> Although they have the same measured speed wrt the middle clock,
>>> their 'real' (LET) speeds are not.
>>
>> Relative to the CMBR frame, no.
>
> The CMB frame is not special. This is what happens when your education
> comes from sci.physics.*
Define what 'you mean' by special. The CMBR is univeral and uniform.
It is everywhere the photonic 'field' is very smooth. Just like one
would expect of a backgound noise. But because of this you can have
a common background for which to define the speed of any object or
objects in the universe. Many GR analyst use it a the universal
rest frame.
>>This would be equally true for SR.
>> You're right for ANY! process that depends on the gamma factor there
>> exist not possible measurable difference between the two theories.
>>
>> However, Lorentz's theory is based upon the presumption that along
>> the axis of travel the net speed of light is:
>>
>> c - v and c + v
>
>
> Observationally wrong.
Please provide for me an experiment that measured the OW 'time of
flight' of a light pulse. If you can, then you can make that claim.
> Why not toss the dead theory, and move on with your life?
Please give me the basis (as in where doe it come from) for
the gamma factor of SR.
>[...]
Androcles
============================================
Bullshit, you've never seen a lumic boom and wouldn't know how
to recognise it if you did.
Nor can you derive an equation for LET, you are plagiarizing off SR.
And another thing: LET has length contraction, SR has length expansion.
You are just another babbling imbecile repeating what all the other
babbling imbeciles tell you to say like a flock of fucking worthless
bleating sheep. Why don't you learn math or just shut the fuck up?
Androcles
<sniped since you seem to a gree...>
Snipped since you can't spel gud, you babbling moron.
eric gisse
news:i6ua57duibmmv0445...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:08:17 +0000 (UTC), eric gisse
> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>news:u0ia57pifkap133cd...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>>Actually, your procedure is a TWLS.
>>>
>>> Moving the clocks certainly is. In the FOR of the clocks the only
>>> thing affecting the is the delta v. And since gamma is insensitive
>>> to the vector of v (because it squared) the end clocks remain
>>> 'in-synch'.
>>>
>>>> this procedure has been analized in the literature a long way back.
>>>> The twls part is in the speed measurement procedure of the
>>>> traveling clocks.
>>>
>>> Yes, thus the invention of the term 'slow clock transport'
>>>
>>>> Although they have the same measured speed wrt the middle clock,
>>>> their 'real' (LET) speeds are not.
>>>
>>> Relative to the CMBR frame, no.
>>
>> The CMB frame is not special. This is what happens when your
>> education comes from sci.physics.*
>
> Define what 'you mean' by special. The CMBR is univeral and uniform.
Literally anything that endows the CMB frame with any property beyond a
frame of reference in which the CMB dipole moment is equal to zero.
> It is everywhere the photonic 'field' is very smooth. Just like one
> would expect of a backgound noise. But because of this you can have
> a common background for which to define the speed of any object or
> objects in the universe. Many GR analyst use it a the universal
> rest frame.
Except you can't discern the velocity of any nonlocal observer with
respect to the CMB because that's a local measurement. Unless you want
to proxy the measurement by saying 'we are moving this fast with respect
to "x", and we are moving this fast with respect to the CMB' which makes
the whole thing idiotic.
>
>>>This would be equally true for SR.
>>> You're right for ANY! process that depends on the gamma factor there
>>> exist not possible measurable difference between the two theories.
>>>
>>> However, Lorentz's theory is based upon the presumption that along
>>> the axis of travel the net speed of light is:
>>>
>>> c - v and c + v
>>
>>
>> Observationally wrong.
>
> Please provide for me an experiment that measured the OW 'time of
> flight' of a light pulse. If you can, then you can make that claim.
Fucking seriously?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one
-way_tests
15 years of doing this and you can't answer that question yourself?
Both OWLS tests, TWLS tests + anisotropy rule out everything but
contrived theories in which the aether is not an observable in which
case you have to ask "why the hell am I wasting my time?"
>
>> Why not toss the dead theory, and move on with your life?
>
> Please give me the basis (as in where doe it come from) for
> the gamma factor of SR.
>
>>[...]
>
The Lorentz group expressed as a transformation has the same properties
as a rotation in spacetime by an imaginary angle gamma.
I am impressed at how you've managed to spend fifteen years arguing
about relativity but still don't understand the fundamentals well enough
to skip that part of the conversation.
Aetherist
>Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in
>news:i6ua57duibmmv0445...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 21:08:17 +0000 (UTC), eric gisse
>> <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Aetherist <TheAet...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>news:u0ia57pifkap133cd...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>>Actually, your procedure is a TWLS.
>>>>
>>>> Moving the clocks certainly is. In the FOR of the clocks the only
>>>> thing affecting the is the delta v. And since gamma is insensitive
>>>> to the vector of v (because it squared) the end clocks remain
>>>> 'in-synch'.
>>>>
>>>>> this procedure has been analized in the literature a long way back.
>>>>> The twls part is in the speed measurement procedure of the
>>>>> traveling clocks.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, thus the invention of the term 'slow clock transport'
>>>>
>>>>> Although they have the same measured speed wrt the middle clock,
>>>>> their 'real' (LET) speeds are not.
>>>>
>>>> Relative to the CMBR frame, no.
>>>
>>> The CMB frame is not special. This is what happens when your
>>> education comes from sci.physics.*
>>
>> Define what 'you mean' by special. The CMBR is univeral and uniform.
>
>Literally anything that endows the CMB frame with any property beyond a
>frame of reference in which the CMB dipole moment is equal to zero.
Since its universal framework, that's special...
>> It is everywhere the photonic 'field' is very smooth. Just like one
>> would expect of a backgound noise. But because of this you can have
>> a common background for which to define the speed of any object or
>> objects in the universe. Many GR analyst use it a the universal
>> rest frame.
>
>Except you can't discern the velocity of any nonlocal observer with
>respect to the CMB because that's a local measurement. Unless you want
>to proxy the measurement by saying 'we are moving this fast with respect
>to "x", and we are moving this fast with respect to the CMB' which makes
>the whole thing idiotic.
To you perhaps, but I'm not surprised...
>>>>This would be equally true for SR.
>>>> You're right for ANY! process that depends on the gamma factor there
>>>> exist not possible measurable difference between the two theories.
>>>>
>>>> However, Lorentz's theory is based upon the presumption that along
>>>> the axis of travel the net speed of light is:
>>>>
>>>> c - v and c + v
>>>
>>>
>>> Observationally wrong.
>>
>> Please provide for me an experiment that measured the OW 'time of
>> flight' of a light pulse. If you can, then you can make that claim.
>
>Fucking seriously?
>
>http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one-way_tests
So, which one is the 'time of flight' test???
>15 years of doing this and you can't answer that question yourself?
>
>Both OWLS tests, TWLS tests + anisotropy rule out everything but
>contrived theories in which the aether is not an observable in which
>case you have to ask "why the hell am I wasting my time?"
"Ah, Arrogance AND stupidity all in the same package, how efficient of you"
>>> Why not toss the dead theory, and move on with your life?
>>
>> Please give me the basis (as in where doe it come from) for
>> the gamma factor of SR.
>>
>>>[...]
>>
>
>The Lorentz group expressed as a transformation has the same properties
>as a rotation in spacetime by an imaginary angle gamma.
>
>I am impressed at how you've managed to spend fifteen years arguing
>about relativity but still don't understand the fundamentals well enough
>to skip that part of the conversation.
That did NOT answer the question, not even close.
Inertial
news:b351e637-400c-4ffc...@w28g2000yqw.googlegroups.com...
> wrong. You obviously have no clue of LET.
Androcles has no clue about anything ..
> LET has the same formula as SR for the Doppler effect!
It has the same formula as SR for everything one measures :)
rotchm
> > Please provide for me an experiment that measured the OW 'time of
> > flight' of a light pulse. If you can, then you can make that claim.
>
> Fucking seriously?
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one
> -way_tests
>
> 15 years of doing this and you can't answer that question yourself?
>
> Both OWLS tests,
There are no OWLS test; I mean by OWLS is that somewhere in the whole
procedure there is at least one signal in both directions.
rotchm
Your inabilities are compounding. You cant even distinguish between
bad spelling and typo's.
Bruce Richmond
> If there are three atomic clocks, A,B,C which are initially synchronized
> abutted side by side in the middle of a 400 meter rail. If A & B are then
> moved equally to the ends of the rail will these clocks always remain in
> synch?
>
> Thanks
Depends on where you view the move from. When viewed from the
original rest frame of the clocks, assuming they are moved slowly, all
clocks remain in synch. If viewed from a frame moving relative to the
first, and assuming the clocks are moved slowly to opposite ends of
the rail, all clocks will be out of synch with one end offset + and
the other -.
Bruce Richmond
> "Inertial" wrote in message
>
> news:4e545184$0$30003$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> >Further to what rotchm correctly states .. by 'in synch' here, we
> >implicitly mean in the rest frame of reference of the system where A B and
> >C are finally are at rest. In every frame of reference it will be agreed
> >that the clocks were initially in synch (of course), but In some frames of
> >reference, none of the clocks may be in sync by the end.
>
> And further still .. this is the case for SR.
>
> same speed relative to C and to be in sync, in 'reality' the clocks did NOT
> move at the same speed away from clock C, and (most likely) one moving clock
> 'really' sped up and the other 'really' slowed down during the move and so
> they are not 'really' in sync. If you consider what LET says 'really'
> happens, it makes things far more complicated .. it is best to ignore that
> and just talk about what is measured .. in which case LET is identical to
> SR.
What you described is exactly the same thing you see in SR if you view
the move from a moving frame. In his 1904 paper Lorentz showed that
you could translate from one moving frame to another directly, without
the intermediate step of translating to the aether frame, resulting in
the same math as SR.
shuba
> The Lorentz group expressed as a transformation has the same
> properties as a rotation in spacetime by an imaginary angle
> gamma.
That's not quite right. Gamma is the hyperbolic cosine of the
rapidity, and it's the rapidity which can be viewed as a hyperbolic
angle. I'm no fan of using the term "imaginary angle" anyway, as I
believe it promotes more confusion than any benefit it provides.
Gamma is just a name for dt/dTau, the rate of change of coordinate
time with respect to proper time. I think that is the cleanest and
most useful way to look at it.
---Tim Shuba---
eric gisse
news:lj1b57hrsk662ppf4...@4ax.com:
Unless I build a Faraday cage.
You want one way tests of light speed? That's a pile of them.
You want to restrict yourself to a specific kind of test because you
don't understand the others? Well, that will require some reading on
your part.
>
>>15 years of doing this and you can't answer that question yourself?
>>
>>Both OWLS tests, TWLS tests + anisotropy rule out everything but
>>contrived theories in which the aether is not an observable in which
>>case you have to ask "why the hell am I wasting my time?"
>
> "Ah, Arrogance AND stupidity all in the same package, how efficient of
> you"
>
>>>> Why not toss the dead theory, and move on with your life?
>>>
>>> Please give me the basis (as in where doe it come from) for
>>> the gamma factor of SR.
>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>
>>
>>The Lorentz group expressed as a transformation has the same
>>properties as a rotation in spacetime by an imaginary angle gamma.
>>
>>I am impressed at how you've managed to spend fifteen years arguing
>>about relativity but still don't understand the fundamentals well
>>enough to skip that part of the conversation.
>
> That did NOT answer the question, not even close.
>
>
Fifteen years, and no grasp of the fundamentals.
Bruce Richmond
Lorentz did use local time which ends up with what amounts to relative
simultaneity. While light only travels at c in the aether frame all
frames measure it to be c in their own frame using local time. You
have no way of *knowing* which frame is the aether frame. You can of
course assume it is the CMBR frame, or any other frame.
> These constraints come from your mind's interpretation of the identical
> in the use of gamma in both Lorentz's 1904 paper and Einstein's 1905.
>
> I have no interest in beating this dead horse again and again but the
> fact is, as Inertial correctly pointed out, Lorentz's version clearly
> has OWLS as anisotropic, based upon the actual underlying medium state.
>
> As has also been pointed out to you endlessly the CMBR would be that
> benchmark and thus the infinite class become one, unique amoungst all
> others. The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured without
> ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'. I'm glad to know that
> there exists no hidden logic flaw in my protocol. The only question
> left is to how to implement such in the real world.
>
>
>
>
>
> > BTW there is an infinite class of theories that are experimentally
> > indistinguishable from SR; they all share the property that TWLS
> > is isotropically c in any inertial frame, and differ only in how
> > clocks are synchronized (all but LET and SR use methods that are
> > not sensible in the above sense). The others do not share the same
> > set of theorems, but still are provably indistinguishable.
>
> >Tom Roberts- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Aetherist
I know, Eric doesn't...
Bruce Richmond
Thanks for that explaination.
eric gisse
@speranza.aioe.org:
> eric gisse wrote:
>
>> The Lorentz group expressed as a transformation has the same
>> properties as a rotation in spacetime by an imaginary angle
>> gamma.
>
> That's not quite right. Gamma is the hyperbolic cosine of the
> rapidity, and it's the rapidity which can be viewed as a hyperbolic
> angle.
Close enough.
My attention to detail drops like a rock when I realize that the answer
ends up going right over someone's head. Which it did.
>I'm no fan of using the term "imaginary angle" anyway, as I
> believe it promotes more confusion than any benefit it provides.
Though it is true: cos(ix) = cosh(x), modulo sign which I'm not looking
up.
>
> Gamma is just a name for dt/dTau, the rate of change of coordinate
> time with respect to proper time. I think that is the cleanest and
> most useful way to look at it.
mmm, I suppose. There's a thousand ways of getting to it. Which Paul
does not understand, which is not surprising given his previous fifteen
years of not understanding relativity at an expert level.
I think my patience for people who have been saying dumb shit since I
was in middle school has reached zero. If I could get a degree in the
subject in a quarter of the time, there really is no excuse to be
struggling with the basics without overwhelming stupidity.
I mean, goddamn. This isn't hard. It just requires a modicum of personal
effort, without the baggage of crankdom. If it were not understanding
the nitty-gritty of electromagnetic theory or classical mechanics at the
graduate level, well that's different.
But this shit is just a variation on the rotation group, it don't get
easier than that.
>
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
>
Bruce Richmond
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:28:18 +1000, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
> >"Inertial" wrote in message
> >news:4e545184$0$30003$c3e8da3$5496...@news.astraweb.com...
> >>Further to what rotchm correctly states .. by 'in synch' here, we
> >>implicitly mean in the rest frame of reference of the system where A B and
> >>C are finally are at rest. In every frame of reference it will be agreed
> >>that the clocks were initially in synch (of course), but In some frames of
> >>reference, none of the clocks may be in sync by the end.
>
> >And further still .. this is the case for SR.
>
> >For LET, even though we would measure the moving clocks to have moved at the
> >same speed relative to C and to be in sync, in 'reality' the clocks did NOT
> >move at the same speed away from clock C, and (most likely) one moving clock
> >'really' sped up and the other 'really' slowed down during the move and so
> >they are not 'really' in sync. If you consider what LET says 'really'
> >happens, it makes things far more complicated .. it is best to ignore that
> >and just talk about what is measured .. in which case LET is identical to
> >SR.
>
> >most ballistic theories, then A and B are still in sync (both 'really' and
> >measured) and so is C as well.
>
> >I'm don't think there are any theories that are even remotely taken
> >seriously where A and B will not be regarded as (at least measure to be) in
> >sync.
>
> that we can achieve synchronizing the moving & stopping the apparatii the moved
> clocks should be essentually 'in-synch' and the middle stationary one should be so
> close as not to be detectable off. Now come the niggling issue that I never
> have been able to reconcile, namely OWLS. If the center clock is a transmitter
> and the end clocks receivers and the center clock simply broadcasts its time (t) (
> to its precision) and the end clock simply record that time and its time when
> received (r) as well as r-t.
>
> This process does not require or depend on TWLS. It simply calculated the time
> of flight to the receivers from the transmitter and thus OWLS. My question
> why would this not work to test for differences in OWLS that would differentate
> Lorentz interpretation and SRT???
You set your clocks based on light (and radio waves) traveling at c.
If you then measure the speed of light (or radio waves) you will find
it to be what you assumed it was. Set your clocks assuming some
background motion and it will show up in your measurements.
> Note that I am not predicting any outcome but asking if the protocol is valid.
>
> Thanks,- Hide quoted text -
Aetherist
The clocks 'tick' based upon the cyclic oscillations of Cesium. This is clearly
controlled by gamma, not any OWLS process. OTOH r-t are points in time and,
it seems to me, that difference is the time it took for the signal to go
from B to either A or C. As long as the clocks are 'ticking' at the same rate
that differntial ought to be an accurate measure of the 'time of flight', no?
Dono.
>
>
> The clocks 'tick' based upon the cyclic oscillations of Cesium. This is clearly
> controlled by gamma, not any OWLS process. OTOH r-t are points in time and,
> it seems to me, that difference is the time it took for the signal to go
> from B to either A or C. As long as the clocks are 'ticking' at the same rate
> that differntial ought to be an accurate measure of the 'time of flight', no?
Look how the professionals run this experiment :
http://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/qom/research/michelson
Tom Roberts
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 22:45:58 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> [#] I'm not sure what you mean by "Lorentz interpretation", and
>> Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) is as close as I can come.
>
> You need to become 'more flexible'.
One cannot be "flexible" with mathematical proofs. LET is experimentally
indistinguishable from SR, and has been proven to be so.
> The modern Lorentzian view is that [...]
Nonsense. Lorentz expected the vacuum speed of light to be isotropically c in
the ether frame. And he stipulated that the Lorentz transform applies from the
ether frame to any moving frame. This directly implies that in any moving frame
the vacuum speed of light will be c.
If what you said is true, then "the modern Lorentzian view" is COMPLETELY
DIVORCED from anything Lorentz ever wrote.
> Lorentz's version clearly
> has OWLS as anisotropic
Hmmm. Just LOOK in his 1904 paper: the {xyzt} in section 2 are implicitly
related to the ether coordinates by a Galilean transform. In these coordinates
the vacuum speed of light is indeed anisotropic. In section 4 he applies a
"change of variables" and arrives at eq (9) -- if one ignores his error in
defining \rho', these are Maxwell's equations in the moving frame {x'y'z't'};
independent of that error, in THESE coordinates eq (9) shows clearly that the
vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in {x'y'z't'}.
> These constraints come from your mind's interpretation of the identical
> in the use of gamma in both Lorentz's 1904 paper and Einstein's 1905.
No. They come from an analysis of Lorentz's 1904 paper. Something you seem to
not have done, or to have done erroneously.
> As has also been pointed out to you endlessly the CMBR would be that
> benchmark and thus the infinite class become one, unique amoungst all
> others.
Just because you have a specific "absolute frame" that in your mind supersedes
all others, that does NOT reduce the class to "one" -- it is a CLASS OF
DIFFERENT THEORIES, not a "class of different ether frames".
> The point remains, OWLS needs to be distinctly measured without
> ambiguity to settle the issue 'scientifically'.
That simply is not possible. To measure OWLS "without ambiguity" requires a
method of clock synchronization that does not involve TWLS, and no such method
exists.
Hint: clock synchronization via clock transport is only valid
for equal speeds while separating the clocks, and you cannot
know that without reference to SYNCHRONIZED CLOCKS.
> I'm glad to know that
> there exists no hidden logic flaw in my protocol.
Be VERY careful. I answered your narrow question, and you want to extrapolate
that to a much wider question. That's invalid.
> The only question
> left is to how to implement such in the real world.
It OUGHT to be obvious that synchronizing two clocks is completely arbitrary.
That is, you can push their reset buttons using any method you choose to
determine when to push each one, and the two are completely independent. As
measuring OWLS requires such a pair of synchronized clocks, you can obtain any
result depending on your ARBITRARY choice.
IOW: measuring OWLS "without ambiguity" is a fantasy that cannot happen in the
world we inhabit.
Tom Roberts
Dono.
> (few parts per
> billion), for all sensible synchronization methods (i.e. ones equivalent to the
> slow clock transport used by all of the isotropy tests).
BTW, the website is out of date, the latest tests set constraints of
the order of 10^-16 to 10^-17 : http://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/qom/research/michelson
Need to update the website.
Androcles
> > Please provide for me an experiment that measured the OW 'time of
> > flight' of a light pulse. If you can, then you can make that claim.
>
> Fucking seriously?
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one
> -way_tests
>
> 15 years of doing this and you can't answer that question yourself?
>
> Both OWLS tests,
There are no OWLS test;
=========================
Yes there is, the first test of OWLS carried out by Ole Roemer
using a clock at the transmitter, another clock at the receiver, and
he announced his result in 1676, you ignorant bullshitting bastard.
Fucking seriously!
Androcles
=====================================
1) Snip, snipped. Snipe, sniped. A sniper aims a rifle, a snipper uses
scissors.
Snipe rhymes with "the fruit is ripe", snip rhymes with "Your pencil tip".
2) "Can't" is a contraction of cannot or can not. To cant is to lean over.
3) I ignored your typographical error, you imbecile.
As you know neither mathematics nor English you should cease
pontificating and learn, then you may gain some knowledge of physics
as well.
In other words shut the fuck up, you babbling baboon.
Inertial
news:b1aa38a3-40c6-49a9...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>On Aug 23, 3:29 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> If there are three atomic clocks, A,B,C which are initially synchronized
>> abutted side by side in the middle of a 400 meter rail. If A & B are
>> then
>> moved equally to the ends of the rail will these clocks always remain in
>> synch?
>>
>> Thanks
>
>Depends on where you view the move from. When viewed from the
>original rest frame of the clocks, assuming they are moved slowly, all
>clocks remain in synch.
No .. only A and B (the clocks that are measured to be moved symmetrically
in the lab frame) would be measured to remain in synch (according to pretty
much every reasonable theory), but both out of sync with C (according to
some theories, but whether that difference is significant or detectable is
another question). But a more important question is: does it matter if they
are in sync with C anyway? .. if you are just going to test speed from A to
B, you don't need C anyway :)
> If viewed from a frame moving relative to the
>first, and assuming the clocks are moved slowly to opposite ends of
>the rail, all clocks will be out of synch with one end offset + and
>the other -.
Pretty much.
Inertial
Yes ... That's what I just said. LET predicts the same relationships
between what is measured as SR does. There is no difference in the
prediction between SR and LET. The only difference is that LET says that
what is 'real' is only what happens in the rest 'aether' frame, and
everything else is a distortion of that 'reality' due to motion through the
aether. But all that has no effect at all on what LET predicts one will
measure/observe compared to what SR predicts without a special frame.
Inertial
> You set your clocks based on light (and radio waves) traveling at c.
He didn't do that though in this scenario. There was no sync of remote
clocks by light etc.
rotchm
> There are no OWLS test;
> =========================
> Yes there is, the first test of OWLS carried out by Ole Roemer
> using a clock at the transmitter, another clock at the receiver, and
> he announced his result in 1676, you ignorant bullshitting bastard.
> Fucking seriously!
Look into the details of the setup. Its a TWLS.
Tom Roberts
I have accumulated a number of experimental references to improved tests of SR.
Someday I'll find the time to update the FAQ page...
Tom Roberts
shuba
> Look how the professionals run this experiment :
> http://www.physik.hu-berlin.de/qom/research/michelson
Playing around with vacuum chambers, lasers, and other fancy stuff
is fine and dandy, but I don't see evidence that they are doing the
kind of original thinking evidenced by Paul Stowe or Brother Alen.
---Tim Shuba---
Dono.
LOL, good come back, I am guilty as charged.
Dono.
Excellent, I can send you some more.
Androcles
Fucking seriously!
shuba
> shuba <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote
>
> >I'm no fan of using the term "imaginary angle" anyway, as I
> >believe it promotes more confusion than any benefit it provides.
>
> Though it is true: cos(ix) = cosh(x), modulo sign which I'm not
> looking up.
That equation is true, yes. I just don't like calling it an
imaginary angle. Personal preference.
> But this shit is just a variation on the rotation group, it don't
> get easier than that.
This is the part I really wanted to comment on. I agree that at the
level we're talking about (or *not* talking about for some kooks)
it's easy and the analogies should be studied at least a little by
anyone much interested in relativity. But the various rotation
groups and representations are way more involved and subtle than I
once would have guessed, and are full of physical applicability,
especially in quantum mechanics. I don't know the half of it.
---Tim Shuba---
eric gisse
@speranza.aioe.org:
Now that I think about it, I am yet to see a kook here who will rant about
SR in the context of SO(3,1). Lots of bitching and whining about Einstein's
derivation, but no discussion of the modern iteration of SR that is much
simpler to understand.
Tom Roberts
>> I have accumulated a number of experimental references to improved tests of SR.
>> Someday I'll find the time to update the FAQ page...
>>
>> Tom Roberts
>
> Excellent, I can send you some more.
Please do. I don't mind duplicates, which are better than omissions. Send them
via this email or post to the newsgroup; best is to do both -- there are
powerful spam filters on the email.
Tom Roberts
Bruce Richmond
I wont pretend to know the inner workings of a Cesium clock. I do,
however, know that they for all practical purposes behave as ideal
clocks used in SR. I was mistaken in saying that you had used light
to set the clocks, but in SR when transported slowly enough there is
no measurable difference in sync when compared to using light signals,
so what I said would still apply.
>
>
>
> >> Note that I am not predicting any outcome but asking if the protocol is valid.
>
> >> Thanks,- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Bruce Richmond
> "Bruce Richmond" wrote in message
>
> news:b1aa38a3-40c6-49a9...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >On Aug 23, 3:29 pm, Aetherist <TheAether...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> If there are three atomic clocks, A,B,C which are initially synchronized
> >> abutted side by side in the middle of a 400 meter rail. If A & B are
> >> then
> >> moved equally to the ends of the rail will these clocks always remain in
> >> synch?
>
> >> Thanks
>
> >Depends on where you view the move from. When viewed from the
> >original rest frame of the clocks, assuming they are moved slowly, all
> >clocks remain in synch.
>
> No .. only A and B (the clocks that are measured to be moved symmetrically
> in the lab frame) would be measured to remain in synch (according to pretty
> much every reasonable theory), but both out of sync with C (according to
> some theories, but whether that difference is significant or detectable is
> another question). But a more important question is: does it matter if they
> are in sync with C anyway? .. if you are just going to test speed from A to
> B, you don't need C anyway :)
Just to be argumentative ;) if the clocks are moved slowly enough C
stays in sync within the resolution of the clock. I think Tom
provided an example where driving in a car was slow enough.
Bruce Richmond
Correct, my bad. But we also know that slow clock transport yields
the same sync, so what I said would still apply.
BTW, my response was specific to SR not all theories. I had read
ahead to where he mentioned SR vs LET.
Inertial
>
>On Aug 24, 10:19 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Bruce Richmond" wrote in message
>>
>> news:b1aa38a3-40c6-49a9...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>>
Just to be argumentative .. that wasn't argumentative :) That's right ..
and agrees with what I said. Its all a question of calculating the margins
for error to see if any results you are getting are significant.
Inertial
>
>On Aug 24, 10:25 pm, "Inertial" <relativ...@rest.com> wrote:
>> "Bruce Richmond" wrote in message
>>
>> news:9d1fcf68-bbc4-4ef3...@h4g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > You set your clocks based on light (and radio waves) traveling at c.
>>
>> He didn't do that though in this scenario. There was no sync of remote
>> clocks by light etc.
>
>Correct, my bad. But we also know that slow clock transport yields
>the same sync, so what I said would still apply.
Yeup. Its not really that slow clock transport is valid BECAUSE it gives
the same results as the e-synch method. They are both independently valid
methods of setting up what we we reasonably call synchronised clocks (noting
that e-synch is only valid on the if light travels at an isotropic fixed
speed). It is because they are both valid that they agree, not that one is
really an instance of the other :):)
Aetherist
It seems a test of this type has already been done. I can't seem
to get a direct URL but use Google Scholar search - "One way Light Speed" GPS -
and look at:
One-Way Light Speed Determination Using the Range Measurement Equation of the GPS
[PDF] from ccsenet.org
G Gift - Applied Physics Research, 2011 - journal.ccsenet.org
Stephan JG Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of Engineering The
University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies Tel: 868-662-2002
ext 2166 E-mail: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu ... Received: November 29, 2010 Accepted:
Quote:
"In this paper, the range measurement equation of the GPS was
used to determine the one-way light speed between two adjacent
points at the same latitude and fixed on the surface of the
Earth. The result c +/- v represents an unmistakable variation
in the speed of light arising from the rotation of the Earth as
the light travels in the east-west direction and is consistent
with light speed anisotropy results previously obtained [Marmet,
2000; Kelly, 2005; Gift, 2010]. It is a direct repudiation of
the application of the principle of light speed constancy in the
non-inertial frame of the surface of the Earth which is today
done routinely. This confirms the light speed variation claim
made previously by this author in [Gift, 2006] and demolishes the
strident criticisms of that claim by Osborne [2006], Klauber
[2006] and Flanagan and Terzian [2006]."
Published May of this year.
Inertial
news:7srd5755e4pvu42iu...@4ax.com...
>
>G Gift - Applied Physics Research, 2011 - journal.ccsenet.org
>Stephan JG Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty
>of Engineering The
>University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West
>Indies Tel: 868-662-2002
>ext 2166 E-mail: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu ... Received: November 29, 2010
>Accepted:
>
>Quote:
>
> "In this paper, the range measurement equation of the GPS was
> used to determine the one-way light speed between two adjacent
> points at the same latitude and fixed on the surface of the
> Earth. The result c +/- v represents an unmistakable variation
> in the speed of light arising from the rotation of the Earth as
> the light travels in the east-west direction and is consistent
> with light speed anisotropy results previously obtained [Marmet,
> 2000; Kelly, 2005; Gift, 2010]. It is a direct repudiation of
> the application of the principle of light speed constancy in the
> non-inertial frame of the surface of the Earth which is today
> done routinely. This confirms the light speed variation claim
> made previously by this author in [Gift, 2006] and demolishes the
> strident criticisms of that claim by Osborne [2006], Klauber
> [2006] and Flanagan and Terzian [2006]."
>
>Published May of this year.
That's just Sagnac effect. It is NOT a test of what we mean be "the speed
of light" (which is its speed in an inertial frame .. not its speed measured
in an accelerating frame).
Dono.
>
> Quote:
>
> "In this paper, the range measurement equation of the GPS was
> used to determine the one-way light speed between two adjacent
> points at the same latitude and fixed on the surface of the
> Earth. The result c +/- v represents an unmistakable variation
> in the speed of light arising from the rotation of the Earth as
> the light travels in the east-west direction and is consistent
> with light speed anisotropy results previously obtained [Marmet,
> 2000; Kelly, 2005; Gift, 2010]. It is a direct repudiation of
> the application of the principle of light speed constancy in the
> non-inertial frame of the surface of the Earth which is today
> done routinely. This confirms the light speed variation claim
> made previously by this author in [Gift, 2006] and demolishes the
> strident criticisms of that claim by Osborne [2006], Klauber
> [2006] and Flanagan and Terzian [2006]."
>
> Published May of this year.
Stephan Gift is a well known crackpot, with a long history of
antimainstream "papers".
As to Applied Physics Research, it is a fringe journal where authors
need to pay 300$ to get published. Practically any crap gets
published.
Tom Roberts
> G Gift - Applied Physics Research, 2011 - journal.ccsenet.org
> Stephan JG Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of Engineering The
> University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies Tel: 868-662-2002
> ext 2166 E-mail: Stepha...@sta.uwi.edu ... Received: November 29, 2010 Accepted:
>
> Quote:
>
> "In this paper, the range measurement equation of the GPS was
> used to determine the one-way light speed between two adjacent
> points at the same latitude and fixed on the surface of the
> Earth. The result c +/- v represents an unmistakable variation
> in the speed of light arising from the rotation of the Earth as
> the light travels in the east-west direction and is consistent
> with light speed anisotropy results previously obtained [Marmet,
> 2000; Kelly, 2005; Gift, 2010]. It is a direct repudiation of
> the application of the principle of light speed constancy in the
> non-inertial frame of the surface of the Earth which is today
> done routinely. This confirms the light speed variation claim
> made previously by this author in [Gift, 2006] and demolishes the
> strident criticisms of that claim by Osborne [2006], Klauber
> [2006] and Flanagan and Terzian [2006]."
>
> Published May of this year.
Gift made a serious error and his conclusion is wrong.
I would submit a comment on his paper describing it, but have no support to pay
the journal fee, and they won't waive it for a short 1-page comment showing that
one of their articles is flat-out wrong.
One must wonder what sort of "peer-reviewed" journal this is, as the error is
elementary and EVERY physics professor who has ever taught SR would see it
immediately.
Tom Roberts
Dono.
> Aetherist wrote:
> > G Gift - Applied Physics Research, 2011 - journal.ccsenet.org
> > Stephan JG Gift Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Faculty of Engineering The
> > University of the West Indies St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, West Indies Tel: 868-662-2002
>
> > Quote:
>
> > "In this paper, the range measurement equation of the GPS was
> > used to determine the one-way light speed between two adjacent
> > points at the same latitude and fixed on the surface of the
> > Earth. The result c +/- v represents an unmistakable variation
> > in the speed of light arising from the rotation of the Earth as
> > the light travels in the east-west direction and is consistent
> > with light speed anisotropy results previously obtained [Marmet,
> > 2000; Kelly, 2005; Gift, 2010]. It is a direct repudiation of
> > the application of the principle of light speed constancy in the
> > non-inertial frame of the surface of the Earth which is today
> > done routinely. This confirms the light speed variation claim
> > made previously by this author in [Gift, 2006] and demolishes the
> > strident criticisms of that claim by Osborne [2006], Klauber
> > [2006] and Flanagan and Terzian [2006]."
>
> > Published May of this year.
>
> Gift made a serious error and his conclusion is wrong.
>
> I would submit a comment on his paper describing it, but have no support to pay
> the journal fee, and they won't waive it for a short 1-page comment showing that
> one of their articles is flat-out wrong.
>
> One must wonder what sort of "peer-reviewed" journal this is, as the error is
> elementary and EVERY physics professor who has ever taught SR would see it
> immediately.
>
> Tom Roberts
It is a crackpot journal. Anyone paying 300$ can publish any crap.
Stephen Gift is known for his fringe views on relativity. Several took
upon themselves to refute his crackpot claims, Gift thinks he's proven
them wrong. A nutter.
eric gisse
news:7srd5755e4pvu42iu...@4ax.com:
[...]
Nice citation of crank literatuer, Paul.
Ron Aikas
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August.24th.2011> wrote:
Despite his nasty cussin', Uncle Andie is (partly) correct here.
Ol' Ole did perform a one-way experiment, but it was flawed due
to his use of clock transport (where one of the clocks was moved
across Earth orbit). This is a flaw because moving clocks run slow,
thereby falsely reporting a null result. (Very slow clock transport is
of course practically equal to Einstein's stipulation that clocks be
set to get c for light's one-way speed.)
Had Ol' Ole been able to truly or absolutely synchronize two
clocks, then he could have made a valid measurement of
the one-way speed of light, with the result being non-null.
And had M & M been able to get their hands on a ruler that
did not contract, then their result would also have been
non-null.
~RA~
Tom Roberts
> Had Ol' Ole been able to truly or absolutely synchronize two
> clocks, then he could have made a valid measurement of
> the one-way speed of light, with the result being non-null.
Only if there is such a thing as "absolute synchronization" in the world we
inhabit. Nobody has ever found it, and our best models indicate there is none.
> And had M & M been able to get their hands on a ruler that
> did not contract, then their result would also have been
> non-null.
It's easy to get a "ruler that does not contract", just make one out of a solid
material and keep its environment constant. For instance, the Pt-Ir rod in
Paris. But their sandstone table is good enough: just sit there and watch it as
they use it -- MANIFESTLY it does not contract, and repeated measurements of its
size will yield constant values. After all, that is what we MEAN by "contract"
(in this context).
If you are thinking of "length contraction" in SR, then you are
confused. That does not affect any object, it is merely a
geometrical projection between relatively moving frames.
Tom Roberts
Androcles
"Ron Aikas" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4e578d06...@news.astraweb.com...
in the 300 years since he made his measurement. Anyone can
repeat his work today, they have better clocks at this end than
he did.
Martin Grusenick repeated MMX with a ruler that was bent
by gravitational time dilation. He got a non-null result in the
vertical plane.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E
The reply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEryiOKkrc
In re nasty cussing, the nasty snipping fuckwit "rotchm"
<rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
--------------------------------------------------
news:455a2403-08f0-42c3...@c14g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> > Please provide for me an experiment that measured the OW 'time of
> > flight' of a light pulse. If you can, then you can make that claim.
>
> Fucking seriously?
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html#one
> -way_tests
---------------------------------------------------
(Humpty Roberts list of crap that his co-conspirator Baez is complicit in.)
Uncle Androcles is FULLY correct here.
Dirk Van de moortel
aka Brian D. Jones, "CAD designer with expertise in Special Relativity"
and former reviewer of http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/info.htm
aka Da Doo Ron Ron
aka kk,
aka Kurt Kingston,
aka Dark Energy,
aka Forumodus of Halicarnassus,
aka TymBuk2,
aka Cadwgan Gedrych,
aka 2ndPostulateDude,
aka SRdude,
aka Edward Travis,
aka Roy Royce,
aka John Reid,
aka Martin Miller
aka Wings of Truth
aka delta-T
wrote in message
4e578d06...@news.astraweb.com
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 10:32:32 +0100, "Androcles"
> <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August.24th.2011> wrote:
>
>>
>> "rotchm" <rot...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:f4655313-d119-489a...@g31g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> There are no OWLS test;
>>>> =========================
>>>> Yes there is, the first test of OWLS carried out by Ole Roemer
>>>> using a clock at the transmitter, another clock at the receiver, and
>>>> he announced his result in 1676, you ignorant bullshitting bastard.
>>>> Fucking seriously!
>>>
>>> Look into the details of the setup. Its a TWLS.
>>>
>> Nobody sent light to Jupiter, you are dead from the neck up.
>> Fucking seriously!
>>
>
> Despite his nasty cussin', Uncle Andie is (partly) correct here.
Any reason why you need al least 17 different names?
Dirk Vdm
Ron Aikas
<Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August.26th.2011> wrote:
-snip-
>
> Uncle Androcles is FULLY correct here.
>
Are you denying the fact that unaccelerated triplets
age differently when moving at different speeds?
One triplet can still be young like Uncle Dirkie, whereas
the other will be old and worn out like Uncle Andie. This
is what I lovingly refer to as "an intrinsic age difference."
It tells us that moving clocks run slow, intrinsically,
and the faster they move, the slower they run.
("move" here means "moves thru space" - yes,
the dreaded absolute motion that no one wants
to talk about)
Absolute motion also shrinks rulers, intrinsically.
This is the only reasonable physical cause of
the MMx "null result." (Lorentz was right.)
~RA~
Ron Aikas
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
-SNIP-
>It's easy to get a "ruler that does not contract", just make one out of a solid
>material and keep its environment constant. For instance, the Pt-Ir rod in
>Paris. But their sandstone table is good enough: just sit there and watch it as
>they use it -- MANIFESTLY it does not contract, and repeated measurements of its
>size will yield constant values. After all, that is what we MEAN by "contract"
>(in this context).
>
> If you are thinking of "length contraction" in SR, then you are
> confused. That does not affect any object, it is merely a
> geometrical projection between relatively moving frames.
>
>
>Tom Roberts
Actually, I was thinking of SR's contraction, but not the trivial and
useless one of which you just spoke. I was thinking of the one
that prevents absolute clock synchronization.
Since SR flatly forbids absolute clock synchronization, it must
agree to intrinsic ruler contraction.
In an inertial frame, align a standard ruler with the x axis, and,
while the ruler is at rest wrt the axis, cut it to fit precisely
between two points on the x axis. Pick up the ruler, and
place it at another location on the x axis. Slide the ruler inertially
toward the two points. Since the ruler previously fit between the
points, it should still fit, but if it does, then its ends could be
used to start and absolutely synchronize clocks that are located
at the two points.
By now, SR is begging for intrinsic ruler contraction!
~RA~
Androcles
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@nospAm.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:JhP5q.119238$_r1....@newsfe06.ams2...
Any reason why you need to get 10 years older every five years?
Androcles
| On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:47:20 +0100, "Androcles"
| <Headm...@Hogwarts.physics.August.26th.2011> wrote:
| -snip-
Certainly, I'm only too happy to oblige. I usually snip anything
anyone asks me to.
Mission accomplished, anything else I can snip for you?
Tom Roberts
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 08:39:08 -0500, Tom Roberts
> <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> If you are thinking of "length contraction" in SR, then you are
>> confused. That does not affect any object, it is merely a
>> geometrical projection between relatively moving frames.
>
> useless one of which you just spoke. I was thinking of the one
> that prevents absolute clock synchronization.
The "length contraction" of which I spoke is the only one there is in SR.
> Since SR flatly forbids absolute clock synchronization, it must
> agree to intrinsic ruler contraction.
Not true. Your "conclusion" does not follow. The absence of "absolute clock
synchronization" in SR is an aspect of the whole theory, and not just some small
part.
> In an inertial frame, align a standard ruler with the x axis, and,
> while the ruler is at rest wrt the axis, cut it to fit precisely
> between two points on the x axis. Pick up the ruler, and
> place it at another location on the x axis. Slide the ruler inertially
> toward the two points. Since the ruler previously fit between the
> points, it should still fit, but if it does, then its ends could be
> used to start and absolutely synchronize clocks that are located
> at the two points.
The ruler doesn't fit between the points (i.e. its ends don't touch both points
simultaneously in the inertial frame), and the reason is primarily due to the
difference in simultaneity between the inertial frame and the ruler's rest
frame. I said "primarily", because that effect is first order in v/c, but there
is also a contribution due to "length contraction" that is second order in v/c.
Start with a doorway, and cut a ladder to fit sideways in it,
just touching both sides. Now rotate the ladder and carry it
through the doorway without touching either side. This is
THE SAME TYPE OF GEOMETRICAL PROJECTION as the moving ruler
not fitting between the two points.
> By now, SR is begging for intrinsic ruler contraction!
Nope. You REALLY need to lean what SR actually is -- your guesses are wrong.
A ladder does not "intrinsically contract" when you rotate it;
a ruler does not "intrinsically contract" when you move it.
Some geometrical projections change in both cases, but NOTHING
happens to the object itself.
Tom Roberts
Da Do Ron Ron
>The "length contraction" of which I spoke is the only
>one there is in SR.
You are right in that there is only one admitted to,
but by accepting the round-trip null results, Einstein
also accepted whatever caused them (MMX/KTx), and the
causes are intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction.
>>Since SR flatly forbids absolute clock synchronization,
>>it must agree to intrinsic ruler contraction.
>Not true. Your "conclusion" does not follow. The absence of
>"absolute clock synchronization" in SR is an aspect of the
>whole theory, and not just some small part.
At which point did I claim or even imply otherwise?
Indeed, my implication was that all of SR falls given
absolute time or absolute simultaneity or absolute
clock synchronization.
(Given absolutely synchronous clocks, we can detect
absolute motion and have absolute time. Bye-bye SR!)
> In an inertial frame, align a standard ruler with the x axis, and,
> while the ruler is at rest wrt the axis, cut it to fit precisely
> between two points on the x axis. Pick up the ruler, and place
> it at another location on the x axis. Slide the ruler inertially
> toward the two points. Since the ruler previously fit between the
> points, it should still fit, but if it does, then its ends could be
> used to start and absolutely synchronize clocks that are located
> at the two points.
>The ruler doesn't fit between the points (i.e. its ends don't touch
>both points simultaneously in the inertial frame), and the reason
>is primarily due to the difference in simultaneity between the
>inertial frame and the ruler's rest frame. I said "primarily",
>because that effect is first order in v/c, but there is also a
>contribution due to "length contraction" that is second order in v/c.
The problem with your "analysis" is that no definition of
simultaneity given. You improperly inserted one, namely,
Einstein's. (Besides, there is no justification for his
definition in any case, much less my above case, not to
mention the sad fact that it produces absolutely asynchronous
clocks.)(We all know that Einstein did not know how to truly
or absolutely synchronize clocks. Tsk, tsk!)
My example was pre-SR or non-SR. It contained no operating
clocks or a definition of how to relate them even if they
were to be started.
My example clearly pertained only to the physical relationships
between the ruler's end points and the x-axis points.
There are clearly two mutually-exclusive possibilities, viz.,
(i) the ruler's endpoints touch the x-axis points absolutely
or truly simultaneously or (ii) they don't.
There is no "geometrical projection" involved. <shrug>
~RA~
Da Do Ron Ron
26th.2011> wrote:
> "Ron Aikas" <ron_ai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4e57dd08...@news.astraweb.com...
> | On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:47:20 +0100, "Androcles"| <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.August.26th.2011> wrote:
>
> | -snip-
>
> Certainly, I'm only too happy to oblige. I usually snip anything
> anyone asks me to.
> Mission accomplished, anything else I can snip for you?
Naw, I'm good!
BTW, do you think it possible that light's one-way
speed per two mutually-at-rest clocks can be c in
all frames?
Can it even happen on paper?
~RA~
Androcles
"Da Do Ron Ron" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:700ebfb1-60f7-454f...@k15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Naw, I'm good!
==============================================
Jupiter and Earth are not mutually at rest so your question is moot.
In fact Earth approaches Jupiter at 0.0001c every 13 months (Jupiter
has a 12 year period) and recedes from Jupiter 6.5 months later with
the same speed so the speeds of light Ole should have measured are
1.0001c and 0.9999c.
However, that kind of accuracy wasn't possible then, he was uncertain
of the size of Jupiter's orbit.
---------------------------------
--Androcles
Can it even happen on paper?
~RA~
======================================
Jules Verne sent men to the Moon by firing them from a cannon, on paper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOjnFh-TtOk (3 minutes from start of part
3)
H G Wells built a time machine, on paper.
'Really, this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some people
who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it. It is only
another way of looking at Time. There is no difference between Time and any
of the three dimensions of Space except that our consciousness moves along
with it.' -- Herbert George Wells - "The Time Machine" - 1895.
"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." --Einstein
Dork van der Belgian Waffle ages 10 years every 5 years by staying at home,
on paper. He's now 20 years older than he was in 2001.
"So if T = 5 years and v = 0.8c, then the stay at home twin will
have aged 10 years" -- ref:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/TwinsEvents.html
Reality is a little different, there is no requirement for creativity in any
science. Just the facts.
--Androcles
Da Do Ron Ron
> "Da Do Ron Ron" wrote
>
>> BTW, do you think it possible that light's one-way
>> speed per two mutually-at-rest clocks can be c in
>> all frames?
> ==============================================
> Jupiter and Earth are not mutually at rest so your question is moot.
-snip-
> ---------------------------------
> --Androcles
Actually, I was not asking about Jupiter $ Earth, but about
two clocks at rest wrt each other.
Maybe a picture will help?
As you know, time = distance/rate. Therefore, in order for
light's one-way speed to be the same in both frames, both
right-hand clocks must read the time x/c when the ray reaches
and starts them, where x is the ruler-measured distance in
each frame, and x/c is the time per two mutually-at-rest clocks
in each frame. (The rulers in each frame must be at rest
relative to the frame in which the ruler is being used.)
(Note that B is moving to the right relative to A.)
Frame A
[0]------x-------[x/c]
~>light ray
[0]------x-------[x/c]-->
Frame B
Now to repeat my questions:
Is it possible, if only on paper, for light's one-way
speed per two mutually-at-rest clocks (in each frame)
to be c in all frames?
If you think so, then complete the diagram to show it
happening, at least on paper.
Good luck!
~RA~
Androcles
| On Aug 26, "Androcles" wrote:
| > "Da Do Ron Ron" wrote
| >
| >> BTW, do you think it possible that light's one-way
| >> speed per two mutually-at-rest clocks can be c in
| >> all frames?
|
| > ==============================================
| > Jupiter and Earth are not mutually at rest so your question is moot.
| -snip-
Certainly, old chap. I enjoy snipping anything you write whenever you ask.
Only too happy to oblige.
Da Do Ron Ron
26th.2011> wrote:
> Certainly, old chap. I enjoy snipping anything you write whenever you ask.
> Only too happy to oblige.
Odd, ol' chap, always figured you to be anti-SR.
~RA~
Androcles
~RA~
====================================
How very clever of you to figure that out. Just about every other
relativistic
crackpot has known it for the 12 years I've been writing to usenet. Still,
pat
yourself on the back, you were a little slow but you got there in the end.
Do you have anything for me to snip for you?
Tell ya what, have a snip of this:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Question/QUESTION.htm
Oops, you can't, can you?
Difficult to snip someone else's web page.
Never mind, try answering the question. You can read the highly informed
answers from all the deadbeats and relativistic loons, then when you let me
I know I'll add whatever you say, verbatim, just as I have all the rest.
Da Do Ron Ron
26th.2011> wrote:
--snip--
> Never mind, try answering the question. You can read the highly informed
> answers from all the deadbeats and relativistic loons, then when you let me
> I know I'll add whatever you say, verbatim, just as I have all the rest.
Dear Uncle Andie:
I would prefer that you answer my question before
I answer your question, but I take it that you cannot
do the former, so I may as well do the latter anyway.
In order to correctly answer your question, it is
helpful to have at hand many SR reference
sources, and I do have quite a few, one of which
was kind enough to give me the answer.
Here is your (poorly worded) question:
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
(BTW: the stuff that you highlighted in blue is
NOT a "3rd postulate," but is the 2nd postulate.)
And here is the answer:
"The velocity of light [in the given Einsteinian equation]
is not c because x' is a Galilean coordinate. Einstein
removed this coordinate shortly; but at this point its
purpose was to avoid discussing an effect that not yet
deduced - the length contraction."
source:
Albert Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, a book
by Arthur I. Miller (Chapter 9, Miller's line-by-line
re Einstein's derivation of the SR transformation.)
Here, again, is my own little question:
Can light's one-way speed be the same in more than
one inertial frame? (Is this physically possible?)
(If you think so, then show how it can happen.)
--ron aikas-- ron_...@hotmail.com
Tom Roberts
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> The "length contraction" of which I spoke is the only
>> one there is in SR.
>
> You are right in that there is only one admitted to,
> but by accepting the round-trip null results, Einstein
> also accepted whatever caused them (MMX/KTx), and the
> causes are intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction.
Not true. You apparently THINK this is due to "intrinsic clock slowing/ruler
contraction" merely because that is all you happen to be able to think of. Your
imagination and understanding are too limited. You must study SR and learn how
it actually describes this; your GUESSES are WRONG. In SR, this is not
"intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction", and "length contraction" is simply
geometric projection.
> my implication was that all of SR falls given
> absolute time or absolute simultaneity or absolute
> clock synchronization.
Before SR "falls" for that reason, you must actually DEMONSTRATE "absolute clock
synchronization". Given that many experiments show it to fail (e.g. every
confirmation of "time dilation", every implementation of the "twin paradox",
etc.), you'll need to first invalidate a lot of experiments.
It OUGHT to be obvious that if two clocks display different elapsed proper times
between a given pair of events where they meet, then it is impossible to
synchronize those two clocks. There are MANY experiments and measurements that
show that this does occur in the world we inhabit. That establishes the
impossibility of any sort of "absolute clock synchronization".
> (Given absolutely synchronous clocks, we can detect
> absolute motion and have absolute time. Bye-bye SR!)
Again, you must actually DEMONSTRATE "absolute clock synchronization". Your
dreams and fantasies have no power to refute any theory.
>> In an inertial frame, align a standard ruler with the x axis, and,
>> while the ruler is at rest wrt the axis, cut it to fit precisely
>> between two points on the x axis. Pick up the ruler, and place
>> it at another location on the x axis. Slide the ruler inertially
>> toward the two points. Since the ruler previously fit between the
>> points, it should still fit, but if it does, then its ends could be
>> used to start and absolutely synchronize clocks that are located
>> at the two points.
>
>> The ruler doesn't fit between the points (i.e. its ends don't touch
>> both points simultaneously in the inertial frame), and the reason
>> is primarily due to the difference in simultaneity between the
>> inertial frame and the ruler's rest frame. I said "primarily",
>> because that effect is first order in v/c, but there is also a
>> contribution due to "length contraction" that is second order in v/c.
>
> The problem with your "analysis" is that no definition of
> simultaneity given.
I stated "inertial frame", and each such frame comes with a time coordinate that
defines simultaneity in the frame. That is what we MEAN by "inertial frame",
going back to Galileo.
> There are clearly two mutually-exclusive possibilities, viz.,
> (i) the ruler's endpoints touch the x-axis points absolutely
> or truly simultaneously or (ii) they don't.
There is a third possibility: your statement is meaningless. That is indeed the
case UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE "ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY" (OR "ABSOLUTE CLOCK
SYNCHRONIZATION").
Tom Roberts
Androcles
On Aug 27, 7:53 pm, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics.August.
26th.2011> wrote:
--snip--
==========================
Snip accomplished. I'm always happy to snip whatever you ask me too
whenever you ask me to. Three times is a charm, some people never catch on.
Unfortunately now I can't see whatever it was you wanted to say, but
being bound by my own honour I have now added your reply, verbatim,
to rest of the ignorant blind fuckwits on my page at
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Question/QUESTION.htm
Obviously we are not going to get anywhere if you keep asking me to
snip whatever you write, it makes me wonder why you bother to write
at all if all you want me to do is snip it.
Ron-boy
> Da Do Ron Ron wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >> The "length contraction" of which I spoke is the only
> >> one there is in SR.
>
> > You are right in that there is only one admitted to,
> > but by accepting the round-trip null results, Einstein
> > also accepted whatever caused them (MMX/KTx), and the
> > causes are intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction.
>
> Not true. You apparently THINK this is due to "intrinsic clock
> slowing/ruler contraction" merely because that is all you
> happen to be able to think of. Your imagination and
> understanding are too limited. You must study SR and learn
> how it actually describes this; your GUESSES are WRONG.
> In SR, this is not "intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction",
> and "length contraction" is simply geometric projection.
Your failure to grasp the simplest of facts is beyond amazing.
Math cannot cause anything physical. Not to mention the equally
simple fact that no one can show the MMx null result on paper
without also intrinsically contracting the horizontal path.
SR has no explicit physical explanations or causes of the MMx
and KTx null results. (However, as I said, it has to contain
the causes because it accepted round-trip nullness up front.)
To prove your point, all you have to do is show how the MMx
null result can occur without a physical length change.
-snip-
> >> >In an inertial frame, align a standard ruler with the x axis, and,
> >> >while the ruler is at rest wrt the axis, cut it to fit precisely
> >> >between two points on the x axis. Pick up the ruler, and place
> >> >it at another location on the x axis. Slide the ruler inertially
> >> >toward the two points. Since the ruler previously fit between the
> >> >points, it should still fit, but if it does, then its ends could be
> >> >used to start and absolutely synchronize clocks that are located
> >> >at the two points.
>
> >> The ruler doesn't fit between the points (i.e. its ends don't touch
> >> both points simultaneously in the inertial frame), and the reason
> >> is primarily due to the difference in simultaneity between the
> >> inertial frame and the ruler's rest frame. I said "primarily",
> >> because that effect is first order in v/c, but there is also a
> >> contribution due to "length contraction" that is second order in v/c.
>
> > The problem with your "analysis" is that no definition of
> > simultaneity given.
>
> I stated "inertial frame", and each such frame comes with a
> time coordinate that defines simultaneity in the frame. That
> is what we MEAN by "inertial frame", going back to Galileo.
Now you are apparently having to resort to blatant dishonesty;
either that, or you are a very poor reader. (But there is more
evidence for the former; e.g., your deletion of the remainder
of my paragraph.)
I did not say that you gave no definition, but that no definition
was needed in my example. (As I said, it contains no operational
clocks.)
To set things straight, here is my full statement again:
[Instant replay]
The problem with your "analysis" is that no definition of
simultaneity [was] given. You improperly inserted one, namely,
Einstein's. (Besides, there is no justification for his
definition in any case, much less my above case, not to
mention the sad fact that it produces absolutely asynchronous
clocks.)(We all know that Einstein did not know how to truly
or absolutely synchronize clocks. Tsk, tsk!)
> > There are clearly two mutually-exclusive possibilities, viz.,
> > (i) the ruler's endpoints touch the x-axis points absolutely
> > or truly simultaneously or (ii) they don't.
>
> There is a third possibility: your statement is meaningless.
> That is indeed the case UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE
> "ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY" (OR "ABSOLUTE CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION").
>
> Tom Roberts
Do you ever listen to what you are saying?
Do you ever listen to what others are saying?
The physical possibilities of a ruler's endpoints touching
two x-axis points have nothing to do with being able to truly
synchronize clocks.
Since you claim otherwise, the burden is on you to explain.
After you have failed to do that, you will see much more
clearly that my statement was by no means "meaningless."
Maybe the following will help?
Tom wrote, in a related thread:
>As you can see, the difference in simultaneity between the
>frames is an essential aspect of this. "Length contraction"
>is NOT sufficient to describe this. The relativity of
>simultaneity resolves the paradox, because the order of
>doors opening and closing are DIFFERENT in the two frames.
>Yes, "length contraction" IS geometrical projection.
>Observing the endpoints of the pole simultaneously in the barn
>frame PROJECTS the ends of the pole onto the x coordinate of
>the barn frame (motion is along x). It should be clear that
>to measure the length of a moving object you must mark both
>ends simultaneously in your frame and measure the distance
>between the marks -- nothing else could be called a
>measurement of the moving object's length in this frame
>(some aspect of its motion would be included in the
>measurement).
>Tom Roberts
Although it is indeed clear, as you said, that to measure
a moving object's length, you must mark both ends at the
"same time," thereby bringing into play the concept of
simultaneity, it is equally clear that this concept is
_not_ needed when merely _comparing_ two lengths, as in my
sliding ruler example where a ruler's physical length is
simply _compared_ with the physical distance between two
x-axis points.
When ruler end R1 meets the corresponding x-axis point X1,
we know that the other ruler end R2 must either be at the
other x-axis point X2 or not. These are the only two physical
possibilities. Therefore, we must choose between them, and
SR of course chose "not" in order to prevent time from being
absolute (i.e., in order to prevent unstarted clocks that
are located at X1 and X2 from being started absolutely at
the same time (absolutely simultaneously) by the ruler.
However, in its haste to preserve its precious relative time,
SR overlooked the fact that it had to endorse intrinsic or
physical length contraction, and therefore also had to fully
endorse its only possible cause, absolute motion.
Altho I hate long thread messages, it seems that one cannot
possibly write enough to fully educate Tom, so here goes a
bit more:
Tom wrote above [instant replay}:
> There is a third possibility: your statement is meaningless.
> That is indeed the case UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DEMONSTRATE
> "ABSOLUTE SIMULTANEITY" (OR "ABSOLUTE CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION").
>
> Tom Roberts
You seem to be saying here that until someone actually and
experimentally synchronizes clocks absolutely, then there
can be no meaning to the phrase "absolutely synchronous
clocks." Einstein himself not only disagreed, but based
his entire theory of special relativity upon the fact that
absolutely synchronous clocks will result in a varying
one-way speed for light. (That is, such clocks were very
very very meaningful for Albert.)
Here is how the man himself put it:
[Quoting Einstein re his reason for the creation of SR:]
"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.
But this result comes into conflict with the principle
of relativity.... For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo
must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when
the rails are the body of reference."
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
===========================================================
The only way to obtain Einstein's c-v result on paper is to
use absolutely synchronous clocks. Since Einstein wanted to
obtain c-invariance, he was forced to abandon such clocks,
but of course could not prove that they cannot exist.
===========================================================
Einstein's w = c - v is not a closing velocity - such a
velocity would not even apparently conflict with the PR.
===========================================================
~RA~
Androcles
"Ron-boy" <ron_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:e28b749b-0f2e-477b...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
| On Aug 28, Tom Roberts wrote:
| > Da Do Ron Ron wrote:
| >
| > > On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Tom Roberts wrote:
| > >> The "length contraction" of which I spoke is the only
| > >> one there is in SR.
| >
| > > You are right in that there is only one admitted to,
| > > but by accepting the round-trip null results, Einstein
| > > also accepted whatever caused them (MMX/KTx), and the
| > > causes are intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction.
| >
| > Not true. You apparently THINK this is due to "intrinsic clock
| > slowing/ruler contraction" merely because that is all you
| > happen to be able to think of. Your imagination and
| > understanding are too limited. You must study SR and learn
| > how it actually describes this; your GUESSES are WRONG.
| > In SR, this is not "intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction",
| > and "length contraction" is simply geometric projection.
|
| Your failure to grasp the simplest of facts is beyond amazing.
| Math cannot cause anything physical. Not to mention the equally
| simple fact that no one can show the MMx null result on paper
| without also intrinsically contracting the horizontal path.
Your failure to grasp the simplest of facts is beyond amazing.
Math cannot cause anything physical. Not to mention the equally
simple fact that no one can show the ping-pong on a jumbo
jet in no turbulence result, on paper, without also intrinsically
contracting the ping pong table. Except they can, of course,
you ranting, babbling imbecile.
-------------SNIP-----------
-- Androcles.
Inertial
news:e28b749b-0f2e-477b...@l4g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
> Your failure to grasp the simplest of facts is beyond amazing.
Hypocrite
> Math cannot cause anything physical.
Noone is saying it does. It models what happens
> Not to mention the equally
> simple fact that no one can show the MMx null result on paper
> without also intrinsically contracting the horizontal path.
That is simply wrong.
> SR has no explicit physical explanations or causes of the MMx
> and KTx null results. (However, as I said, it has to contain
> the causes because it accepted round-trip nullness up front.)
Wrong
>To prove your point, all you have to do is show how the MMx
>null result can occur without a physical length change.
There is a physical length change. Depending on what you mean by 'physical'
of course.
Tom Roberts
> Math cannot cause anything physical.
You need to READ what I wrote. I never said or implied anything of the sort. I
am discussing Special Relativity, which is a MODEL of the world. We know that
within its domain it is an excellent model, which means it accurately reproduces
the results of measurements and experiments we make in the real world. In that
world, geometry is an important aspect of physical situations. For instance,
whether a ladder fits through a doorway is related to their relative
orientation, and we model that as a GEOMETRICAL relationship -- nothing
"physical" happens to either ladder or doorway when one rotates the ladder to
make it fit through; it is merely their GEOMETRICAL RELATIONSHIP that changed.
> SR has no explicit physical explanations or causes of the MMx
> and KTx null results.
The explanations are GEOMETRICAL, not "physical". As I have said so often,
geometry is an important and essential aspect of physics.
> To prove your point, all you have to do is show how the MMx
> null result can occur without a physical length change.
The speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame. The MMX apparatus
is approximately at rest in an inertial frame during any single measurement, to
an accuracy FAR better than their measurement resolution. So since the geometry
of the instrument does not change from measurement to measurement as it rotates,
the fringe positions remain constant. Naturally their instrument has errors that
are not modeled by SR....
Tom Roberts
PD
> On Aug 28, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> Da Do Ron Ron wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011, Tom Roberts wrote:
>>>> The "length contraction" of which I spoke is the only
>>>> one there is in SR.
>>
>>> You are right in that there is only one admitted to,
>>> but by accepting the round-trip null results, Einstein
>>> also accepted whatever caused them (MMX/KTx), and the
>>> causes are intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction.
>>
>> Not true. You apparently THINK this is due to "intrinsic clock
>> slowing/ruler contraction" merely because that is all you
>> happen to be able to think of. Your imagination and
>> understanding are too limited. You must study SR and learn
>> how it actually describes this; your GUESSES are WRONG.
>> In SR, this is not "intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction",
>> and "length contraction" is simply geometric projection.
>
> Your failure to grasp the simplest of facts is beyond amazing.
> Math cannot cause anything physical. Not to mention the equally
> simple fact that no one can show the MMx null result on paper
> without also intrinsically contracting the horizontal path.
>
I don't get this statement that "math cannot cause anything physical".
Let's lay a board down on the grass, and we're going to make
measurements of two physical properties. We're going to measure its
east-west length and its north-south length. Both those are *physical*
properties, with a well-defined procedure for measuring it. Now it is
apparent that by *either* picking up the board and setting it back down
OR by simply redefining what my reference is for "north" (that is, by
using Polaris rather than magnetic north, for instance), both of those
physical properties change. Note that in the second case, I have
absolutely no interaction with the board whatsoever, and so what
happened to the board in the first case can't be considered some
"intrinsic" change in the board either; yet the properties of the board
change. However, there is another property of the board, which is
NEITHER of these two properties, that does not change. Thus there are
some properties of the board that can change without interacting with
the board, and there are other properties that remain the same.
Ron-boy
>You must study SR and learn how it actually describes this;
Nothing in SR "describes" anything physical about the causes of
the round-trip null results. My point is that mere math does not
apply when it comes to physical causes.
Roberts continued:
>your GUESSES are WRONG.
You have yet to show how they are wrong by showing how the
null results can occur without intrinsic changes.
>In SR, this is not "intrinsic clock slowing/ruler contraction",
>and "length contraction" is simply geometric projection.
And, as I said, geometric projection has nothing to do
with (and cannot be looked at as a physical explanation
of) any experimental results.
Did either H.A. Lorentz or John A. Wheeler make any mention
of your silly "geometric projection" when speaking of that
which caused the MMx null result?
>The explanations are GEOMETRICAL, not "physical". As I have said
>so often, geometry is an important and essential aspect of physics.
Math is important, but not as a physical explanation. No mere
change of some geometrical relationship can possibly cause the
MMx null result.
>>To prove your point, all you have to do is show how the MMx
>>null result can occur without a physical length change.
>The speed of light is isotropically c in any inertial frame.
Merely restating the MMx null result does not explain it, if
that was your goal here.
But, as Wheeler pointed out, even after the MMx null, it
was still possible for light's round-trip speed to vary,
and it took another experiment to close this case (KTx).
And of course, as even Einstein had to admit, light's one-way
speed will certainly vary given correctly or absolutely or
truly synchronous clocks.
>The MMX apparatus is approximately at rest in an inertial frame
>during any single measurement, to an accuracy FAR better than
>their measurement resolution. So since the geometry of the
>instrument does not change from measurement to measurement
>as it rotates, the fringe positions remain constant. Naturally
>their instrument has errors that are not modeled by SR....
>Tom Roberts
You need to read Wheeler's book, wherein he stated that the
physical cause of the MMx null was intrinsic length contraction,
and the physical cause of the KTx null result was intrinsic
clock slowing. He also said that SR has no physical cause, but
only the theoretical assumption that absolute motion cannot be
detected ("the equivalence of all inertial reference frames").
Wheeler also noted that the intrinsic ruler contraction/intrinsic
clock slowing theory is still viable.
And there is nothing in that theory about a ladder fitting thru
a door or anything else of the sort.
~RA~
Ron-boy
>anything physical".
>... and so what happened to the board in the first case
>can't be considered some "intrinsic" change in the board
>either; ...
This was my point, that no mere math or a mere measurement
can affect anything's intrinsic length or cause any result.
>... yet the properties of the board change.
What properties? The numerical value for the length of a
board is not a physical property of the board.
~RA~
PD
>> I don't get this statement that "math cannot cause
>> anything physical".
>
>> ... and so what happened to the board in the first case
>> can't be considered some "intrinsic" change in the board
>> either; ...
>
> This was my point, that no mere math or a mere measurement
> can affect anything's intrinsic length or cause any result.
Presuming that "intrinsic length" means something.
>
>> ... yet the properties of the board change.
>
> What properties? The numerical value for the length of a
> board is not a physical property of the board.
The east-west length and the north-south length are *measurable*
properties of the board and they are certainly physical. Unless you mean
by "physical" something synonymous with "intrinsic" and
"frame-independent". In which case, kinetic energy is not a physical
property of the board either. Which is remarkable, given that it's such
an important term in the physical law commonly known as conservation of
energy.
Whether properties are frame-independent or not is a matter of
measurement, not declaration. You mentioned "intrinsic length" before.
What measurement produces this frame-independent length?
Tom Roberts
> Roberts wrote previously:
>> You must study SR and learn how it actually describes this;
>
> Nothing in SR "describes" anything physical about the causes of
> the round-trip null results. My point is that mere math does not
> apply when it comes to physical causes.
What "physical cause" permits a ladder to be carried through a narrow doorway in
some orientations but not others? -- that CLEARLY shows that geometry can be a
"cause" as much as "physical" phenomena.
Do not be so naive as to claim that sometimes the ladder
hits the doorway and sometimes not -- you must look deeper
and ask "WHY?". The answer, of course, is related to their
relative orientation, which is GEOMETRY.
You need to learn what SR actually is, and how its geometry affects
measurements. You need to learn what science actually is, and why SR is a good
theory of physics. You also need to learn the relationship between the math and
geometry of physical theories and the world we inhabit -- the math of a good
theory does indeed MODEL the physical phenomena (but your notion of the math
"causing" the phenomena is pure fantasy on your part -- the math is MODELING the
phenomena).
Until you learn that, there's no point in continuing.
Tom Roberts
Ron-boy
>What "physical cause" permits a ladder to be carried through
>a narrow doorway in some orientations but not others? -- that
>CLEARLY shows that geometry can be a "cause" as much as
>"physical" phenomena.
The physical cause is simply the fact that the ladder is
less wide than the door when the ladder is tilted, just as
you are less wide when you turn sideways (hopefully). But
this is not math at work, it is physical size at work.
Math can describe but not be a physical cause.
Tom wrote:
>You need to learn what science actually is, and why SR is
>a good theory of physics.
I have learned that SR cannot apply to the MMx.
Tom's position on the MMx null result:
>SR predicts a null result, with identical legs.
>Indeed, in SR the legs must not change for the
>predicted null result to hold.
If by "identical legs," you mean "identical as measured by a ruler,"
then you have the problem that SR cannot prove that the ruler itself
is not physically contracted, so your statement would be of no value.
If by "identical legs," you mean "intrinsically identical," then you
have contradicted the positive-result prediction made all physicists
prior to the MMx, and which was based on the assumption that legs
of identical intrinsic length by direct side-by-side comparison will
stay the same length (intrinsically) when oriented perpendicularly
to each other even if Earth's velocity changes.
On paper, intrinsically identical lengths still yield a positive
result.
On paper, only intrinsically different lengths can yield a null
result.
A simple proof that SR's "length contraction" has nothing to do with
the MMx null result is the simple fact that this experiment was a
closed lab experiment, with no outside observer measuring any
part of the apparatus, and yet such a measurement must be made in
order to produce an SR "length contraction."
In fact, since SR cannot exist without two or more frames, and since
the MMx used only one frame, SR cannot apply to the MMx.
It is also easy to prove that SR's "explanation" of the MMx null
result
is invalid. This "explanation" is SR's statement that light's speed is
the
same in all inertial reference frames, but this is not true in the
case of
light's one-way speed. As even Einstein admitted, given absolutely
or
truly synchronous clocks, light's one-way speed will vary.
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
The cause of SR's one-way light speed "invariance" is SR's use of
incorrectly-related (absolutely asynchronous) clocks.
SR's incorrectly-related clocks obviously cannot make correct time
measurements. Therefore, any SR result involving the use of two or
more clocks cannot be correct, including the transformation equations
and the addition of velocities theorem.
~RA~