~~~~~~~One-way Invariance Invalidated~~~~~~~
Martin Miller
A Significant Question:
If a beam of light is approaching you, and if you change
your speed, will you meet the beam sooner or later than
you would have prior to your speed change?
[YOU]-------> <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[Beam]
Hint:
Think about it like this:
Suppose you are slowly walking across a room toward
a window. A light beam from the sun enters this window,
and travels toward you. Given light's rapid motion,
we need to make the room very long, or pretend that
light moves much slower than it really does in order
to make the following picture clear: As you walk
slowly toward the approaching sun beam, you suddenly
decide to change your speed. Clearly, you and the
incoming beam will then collide either sooner or
later than you would have had you not changed your
walking speed (given of course that the room frame's
speed was constant).
The Answer:
If (as was given) the _only_ thing which changed was
your speed, then - since light's speed in space cannot
change - you must collide with the approaching beam
either sooner or later than if your speed had not
changed.
Experimental Proof of The Answer:
Although for most people the above answer is self-
evident, there are always a few people who refuse
to accept that which is self-evident, and who then
demand direct experimental proof. Here, for those
few extreme people, is that proof: Given that the
room frame speed is constant, the room distance
covered by the light beam as it moves from the window
is a directly proportional to light travel time. Note
that this "time" is _not_ a coordinate (or two-clock)
time; not only are there no clocks involved, but no
clocks are needed; all we are given, and all we need
are the two facts that (1) light's speed did not vary,
and (2) the room frame's speed did not vary. Given
these two simple facts, the light beam _must_ take more
time to travel a long distance across the room than it
would to travel a short distance. This is based on the
simple, well-known equation Time = Distance/Speed. More
distance at the same speed means more time, regardless
of what some frames' coordinate clocks may say.
Question:
What was proved above?
Answer:
It was proved experimentally that a clock in Frame A
will meet an approaching light beam either sooner or
later than will an instantaneously coincident clock
in Frame B, and since this experiment did not involve
coordinate or clock times, but was based on direct
distances plus unchanging speeds, the time difference
here is absolute (i.e., the clocks will meet the light
beam at absolutely different times).
Here is the pertinent diagram, with Clock A in Frame
A, and Clock B in Frame B:
[Clock A]-->
<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[Beam]
[Clock B]------>
Question:
What has this got to do with the one-way invariance
of Einstein's special relativity?
The Quick Answer:
Since Einstein's light speed invariance is not only a
one-way invariance, but is a two-clock invariance
involving two clocks and a light beam, it is immediately
obvious that the above experimental result has profound
implications re Einstein's assumed invariance.
The Full Answer:
First, we need to know how Einstein sets his clocks.
This is shown via the following diagrams:
Both frames' origin clocks are started on zero when
the light beam passes them as these clocks meet in
passing:
Frame A
----[0]------------x-----------[-] (unstarted)
----->Light Beam
----[0]------------x-----------[-] (unstarted)
Frame B
To comply with Einstein's specific definition of clock
synchronization, Frame A's distant clock is forced to
read Einstein's pre-chosen time x/c when it is started
by the light beam:
Frame A
[?]-----------------------[x/c] (forced by definition)
---------------------------->
--------[?]------------------------[-]
Frame B
We can stop here because it is clear at this point
that Einstein's artificial (man-given, by mere
definition) "invariance" does not in fact happen.
Einstein would of course go on to force the B Frame
clock to read the _same_ chosen time x/c despite the
direct experimental fact that the two distant clocks
are started at absolutely different times by the light
beam.
Additionally, the fact that Einstein could not know how
any frame, including Frame A, is moving in relation to
the light beam, invalidates his assumption that light's
travel time in Frame A was x/c.
Two Important Initial Conclusions:
{1) No one knows light's one-way speed in any frame.
(Light's one-way, two-clock speed has not been measured.)
(2) Per direct experiment, light's one-way speed is not
invariant, but varies directly with frame speed.
The Penultimate Conclusion:
Since light's one-way, two-clock speed is _not_ invariant,
and since Einstein based special relativity his assumption
of one-way invariance, special relativity has no basis.
The Final Conclusion:
In fact, we can go much further by saying that special
relativity is not even a scientific theory. As we all
know well, Einstein's primary "postulate" was the alleged
invariance of light's one-way, two-clock speed. Einstein
claimed that this was a law of nature. But in order for
it to be a law of nature, it must be the result of an
experiment. And of course man cannot manipulate any part
of the experiment. For example, if clocks are used, then
man cannot hold back the clocks' hands during the actual
experiment. We MUST let nature take its course. Nature
must provide - and alone provide - the experimental result.
Any input from man would be artificial, and therefore would
destroy the experiment. But in the case of light's one-way,
two-clock speed, man _must_ interfere because nature cannot
synchronize clocks. Only man can devise a clock definition
of synchronization, place clocks in a frame, and (3) carry
out the plan by starting and relating the clocks in accord
with the man-given definition of synchronization. In other
words, light's one-way, two-clock speed cannot be measured
without man's direct and result-affecting input, so there
cannot be any experiment in the one-way case. That is, there
cannot be any natural (or fully nature-given) value for the
one-way, two-clock speed of light. Since there is no such
experiment, there is no postulate, so there is no theory. In
other words, SR is not a scientific theory because it asked
the unscientific question What is the natural value of light's
one-way, two-clock speed? (Or what is the experimental result
when two clocks are used to measure light's one-way speed?)
We can now fully understand for the first time in history why
there has never been a one-way Michelson-Morley experiment.
It is simply because such an experiment cannot exist.
"signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
Martin Hogbin
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02110...@posting.google.com...
> ~~~~~~~One-way Invariance Invalidated~~~~~~~
As we all
> know well, Einstein's primary "postulate" was the alleged
> invariance of light's one-way, two-clock speed. Einstein
> claimed that this was a law of nature.
Wrong. Einstein knew and stated that this was a matter
of human choice.
But you have been told this before.
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
"Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02110...@posting.google.com...
[probably same question as 5, 4 and 2 years ago]
> "signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
Martin Miller = Brian Jones = Who Knows.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
You might ask James S. White at jsw...@bellsouth.net
Maybe he knows?
--
Stephen
s...@speicher.com
Ignorance is just a placeholder for knowledge.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@speicher.com> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.33.021108...@localhost.localdomain...
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > "Martin Miller" <mmti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:a0ac0bee.02110...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > [probably same question as 5, 4 and 2 years ago]
> >
> > > "signed, sealed and delivered" by MM
> >
> > Martin Miller = Brian Jones = Who Knows.
> >
>
> You might ask James S. White at jsw...@bellsouth.net
>
> Maybe he knows?
Are you sure now?
MM aka BJ denied it a few days ago.
Do you have proof?
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
Not exactly. Here is the relevant part of the post:
***********************************************************
> >
> > All this has been posted before when the author was using
> > the strings "Brian Jones", "Brian D Jones", "B Jones" and
> > "George W." to sign her/its/his posts.
> >
>
> I can understand his reluctance to attaching his real name to
> such ignorant drivel. But, James S. White may be our man.
>
Wrong on both counts; it has not been posted before, and
it is not "ignorant drivel," as you so elegantly put it.
(And even if it had been posted previously, there is no
law against re-posting it.)
***********************************************************
Note that "Wrong on both counts" refers to "it has not been
posted before" and "ignorant drivel," not to whether or not his
real name is James S. White. He ignored that part, as he has
done before.
> Do you have proof?
>
Not a high standard of proof. But, as I suggested, maybe writing
James S. White at jsw...@bellsouth.net might be interesting. See
what he says.
Arfur Dogfrey
Gotcha, "no clocks are involved"
> all we are given, and all we need
> are the two facts that (1) light's speed did not vary,
> and (2) the room frame's speed did not vary. Given
> these two simple facts, the light beam _must_ take more
> time to travel a long distance across the room than it
> would to travel a short distance. This is based on the
> simple, well-known equation Time = Distance/Speed. More
> distance at the same speed means more time, regardless
> of what some frames' coordinate clocks may say.
>
"Experiment?" don't you mean "gedankenexperiment?"
> Question:
> What was proved above?
>
> Answer:
> It was proved experimentally that a clock in Frame A
> will meet an approaching light beam either sooner or
> later than will an instantaneously coincident clock
> in Frame B,
Hey, what's with the clocks? I thought you said "no clocks are involved."
> and since this experiment did not involve
> coordinate or clock times, but was based on direct
> distances plus unchanging speeds, the time difference
> here is absolute (i.e., the clocks will meet the light
> beam at absolutely different times).
>
I agree. And, believe it or not, relativity agrees.
If observers A and B stand together but B begins walking toward
the window then ALL INERTIAL OBSERVERS will agree that the
light beam will reach B BEFORE it reaches A. This is exactly
what Einstein's Special theory of Relativity predicts. In fact
Special Relativity even has a name for this absolute idea. It
says that the spacetime interval between light meeting B and light
meeting A is a "timelike" interval.
To "perform" a thought experiment and then get a conclusion that is
in complete harmony with Special Relativity doesn't seem to me to
be any argument against Special Relativity.
Arf!
Arfur
Martin Hogbin
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0JYy9.11524$Nd....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
I am not familiar with the ramblings of James White but those
of Martin Miller and Brian Jones are strikingly similar both in
style and physics (misconception) content.
Martin Hogbin
Dirk Van de moortel
Indeed, so he might not be prepared to lie about it.
Some honesty after all ;-)
>
> > Do you have proof?
> >
>
> Not a high standard of proof. But, as I suggested, maybe writing
> James S. White at jsw...@bellsouth.net might be interesting. See
> what he says.
I'm curious but I'm not going to do it...
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
I did. I got back a denial from a "John S. Weathers." But, the
header information was altered, and key information was missing.
So, the jury is still out, deliberating.
But, whatever his real name is, his nickname should be
"ignoramus."
Martin Miller
> mmti...@hotmail.com (Martin Miller) wrote in message news:<a0ac0bee.02110...@posting.google.com>...
> > ~~~~~~~One-way Invariance Invalidated~~~~~~~
> >
> > Experimental Proof of The Answer:
> > Although for most people the above answer is self-
> > evident, there are always a few people who refuse
> > to accept that which is self-evident, and who then
> > demand direct experimental proof. Here, for those
> > few extreme people, is that proof: Given that the
> > room frame speed is constant, the room distance
> > covered by the light beam as it moves from the window
> > is a directly proportional to light travel time. Note
> > that this "time" is _not_ a coordinate (or two-clock)
> > time; not only are there no clocks involved, but no
> > clocks are needed;
>
> Gotcha, "no clocks are involved"
>
> > all we are given, and all we need
> > are the two facts that (1) light's speed did not vary,
> > and (2) the room frame's speed did not vary. Given
> > these two simple facts, the light beam _must_ take more
> > time to travel a long distance across the room than it
> > would to travel a short distance. This is based on the
> > simple, well-known equation Time = Distance/Speed. More
> > distance at the same speed means more time, regardless
> > of what some frames' coordinate clocks may say.
> >
>
> "Experiment?" don't you mean "gedankenexperiment?"
>
patently obviously that which was stated.
Some experiments are too simple to require their
actual performance, Mr. Dogfrey.
In fact, Dr. Einstein based his entire theory on
a similarly simple experiment, the one where he
invented his "relativity of simultaneity."
> > Question:
> > What was proved above?
> >
> > Answer:
> > It was proved experimentally that a clock in Frame A
> > will meet an approaching light beam either sooner or
> > later than will an instantaneously coincident clock
> > in Frame B,
>
> Hey, what's with the clocks? I thought you said "no clocks are involved."
>
As I said, there were no clocks in the given experiment;
but my above refers to the result of the experiment.
> > and since this experiment did not involve
> > coordinate or clock times, but was based on direct
> > distances plus unchanging speeds, the time difference
> > here is absolute (i.e., the clocks will meet the light
> > beam at absolutely different times).
> >
>
> I agree. And, believe it or not, relativity agrees.
> If observers A and B stand together but B begins walking toward
> the window then ALL INERTIAL OBSERVERS will agree that the
> light beam will reach B BEFORE it reaches A. This is exactly
> what Einstein's Special theory of Relativity predicts. In fact
> Special Relativity even has a name for this absolute idea. It
> says that the spacetime interval between light meeting B and light
> meeting A is a "timelike" interval.
>
> To "perform" a thought experiment and then get a conclusion that is
> in complete harmony with Special Relativity doesn't seem to me to
> be any argument against Special Relativity.
>
> Arf!
> Arfur
>
Given your above errors in judgment, it is no wonder
that you failed to recognize the fact that the given
experiment directly invalidates one-way light speed
invariance.
MM
[snip]
Martin Miller
You can tell me whatever you wish, but I prefer to
accept the word of Einstein himself re this matter.
And here are those words (which I have posted often):
[Quoting Einstein:]
"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 set forth in Section V. 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."
[Source: "Relativity," Chapt. VII]
MM
Stephen Speicher
> "Martin Hogbin" <sp...@hogbin.org> wrote in message news:<aqhdbc$h7i$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>...
> >
> > But you have been told this before.
> >
>
> You can tell me whatever you wish, but I prefer to
> accept the word of Einstein himself re this matter.
>
> And here are those words (which I have posted often):
>
> [Quoting Einstein:]
"Martin Miller (phony name) is an ignorant dolt who
knows nothing about relativity, or any physics for that
matter."
Boy, that Einstein was one smart man!
>
> MM
>
MM -> MiserableMoron
