How To Teach Special Relativity
L Hoffman
(Reference: Progress in Scientific Culture, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1976)
"I have long thought that if I had the opportunity to teach this subject,
I would emphasize the continuity with earlier ideas. Usually it is the
discontinuity which is stressed, the radical break with more primitive
notions of space and time. Often the result is to destroy completely the
confidence of the student in perfectly sound and useful concepts already
acquired..."
"It is my impression that those with a more classical education, knowing
something of the reasoning of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare, as well as
that of Einstein, have stronger and sounder instincts..."
"The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major
ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style.
"The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally
impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest,
Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as
meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly
moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view
that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even
though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it
experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one
philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's
philosophy to accept a Lorentz pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive
home the lesson that the laws of physics in any one reference frame
account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving
observers. And it is often simpler to work in a single frame, rather than
to hurry after each moving object in turn.
"The difference of style is that instead of inferring the experience of
moving observers from known and conjectured laws of physics, Einstein
starts from the hypothesis that the laws will look the same to all
observers in uniform motion. This permits a very concise and elegant
formulation of the theory, as often happens when one big assumption can be
made to cover several less big ones. There is no intention here to make
any reservation whatever about the power and precision of Einstein's
approach. But in my opinion there is also something to be said for taking
students along the road made by Fitzgerald, Larmor, Lorentz, and
Poincare. The longer road sometimes gives more familiarity with the
country."
Brian D Jones
wrote [in part]:
>Einstein starts from the hypothesis that the laws will look
>the same to all observers in uniform motion. This permits
>a very concise and elegant formulation of the theory, as
>often happens when one big assumption can be made to cover
>several less big ones.
Einstein's "one big assumption" that supposedly led to such an "elegant"
theory must be made by all theorists because it cannot be false; i.e., it
is trivially true, and therefore worthless, and cannot led to anything.
That is, since all inertial reference frames are of identical construction,
it is physically impossible for frames to find different general laws.
For example, let's suppose that rods physically shrink per a
rod-contraction law when moving through space. Clearly, all rods of the
same material must behave in the same way because all follow the same
rod-contraction law. Therefore, even though the specific results of each
frame will differ, they must all find the same general laws even though
each (parallel) frame's (x-axis) rods will have different (intrinsic)
lengths.
However ---
what Bell (and others) really meant to say was that Einstein's assumption
that "the laws will look the same to all observers in uniform motion" was
really his assumption that "light's one-way speed should be isotropic and
invariant."
But the catch to this is:
Light's one-way speed depends not upon Nature but upon how man sets his
clocks, so it cannot be a unique or single law of Nature.
We can contrast this with light's round-trip speed, which *is* a law of
Nature because Nature is in full control of the elements involved in the
round-trip speed measurement. That is, Nature controls intrinsic clock
rhythm and intrinsic rod length.
Since Nature cannot force us to set our clocks Her way, She cannot force
light's one-way speed to have any particular value.
Of course, if we play into Nature's hands by trying to use the obvious
methods for getting clocks synchronized, then She can and does prevent them
from becoming synchronous - and She also can set them Her way, which is to
get "c" invariantly and isotropically. (For example, in the case of very
slow clock transport, Nature is in full control because all that matters is
intrinsic clock rhythm; Nature slows the moving clock just enough to cause
light's one-way, two-clock speed to be "c" in the frame.)
On the other hand, if we are clever enough not to allow Nature to have Her
way, then we might be able to (correctly or absolutely) synchronize our
clocks. Obviously, we must avoid any method which depends on
constant-length rods and/or constant-rhythm clocks.
Incorrectly believing that light's one-way speed was a law, Einstein
believed that the one-way "law" should be the same as the round-trip law
(isotropy and invariance).
Einstein then had a theory which called for one-way invariance and
isotropy.
But this theory was based on a false assumption, as we have just explained,
so there is no reason for accepting Einstein's theory.
There are two things necessary for one-way light speed invariance and
isotropy: [a] no synchronous clocks, and [b] Nature must cause clocks to
get invariance if She can.
Therefore, Einstein's special theory really says:
Clocks can never be (correctly) synchronized, and if we dare to try, Nature
will always see that they are set to yield one-way invariance.
This is obviously a defeatist attitude, and for no good reason because it
is impossible to prove Einstein's negative statement, plus Nature may not
be able to control every clock-synchronization experiment.
As I mentioned, all we have to do is to find a method that avoids the
physical barriers of rod contraction and clock slowing.
And once we have synchronous clocks, we can use them to measure light's
one-way speed, a speed which will vary with frame speed. This, since
light's speed is known, will give us our speed through space. And since rod
length and clock rhythm vary in a known way with frame speed, these
distortions can be corrected for, and we can at last have Newton's absolute
and universal time.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
david raoul derbes
L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote:
>What follows are some pertinent excerpts from an article by J.S. Bell.
>(Reference: Progress in Scientific Culture, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1976)
For the record, Bell's article is also to be found in a collection of his
work, "Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics", Cambridge U.
Press.
Bell died about fifteen years ago at a relatively young age (59 or so
IIRC.) This is the same Bell who translated some Landau-Lifshitz
volumes, and who originated the famous Bell inequalities in quantum
mechanics.
David Derbes [lo...@midway.uchicago.edu]
Tom Roberts
> Einstein's "one big assumption" that supposedly led to such an "elegant"
> theory must be made by all theorists because it cannot be false; i.e., it
> is trivially true, and therefore worthless, and cannot led to anything.
It could easily be false. If, for instance, there existed an ether
with the properties generally associated with it in the late 19th
centuty. In that case, for instance, Einstein's _second_ postulate
could be true only in the ether rest frame.
> That is, since all inertial reference frames are of identical construction,
> it is physically impossible for frames to find different general laws.
See above for a simple counterexample to your claim.
> Of course, if we play into Nature's hands by trying to use the obvious
> methods for getting clocks synchronized, then She can and does prevent them
> from becoming synchronous
Don't you even read what you write? You have introduced an implicit
pun here and have written nonsense. And if I guess what you are trying
to say it is just plain wrong -- using "the obvious methods" for clock
synchronization does indeed result in the clocks being synchronous.
Unlike you, I will define "synchronous": two clocks are said
to be synchronous in inertial frame A iff whenever they are
read _simultaneously_in_A_ they display identical time values.
Such synchronization is a binary relationship between clocks
which is: reflexive, symmetric, transitive, and permanent.
Note in particular it depends upon the choice of frame A --
this is necessary to specify the definition of simultaneity.
Note that except in certain special cases it is impossible to
synchronize a given pair of clocks unless they are both at rest
in the same inertial frame.
> - and She also can set them Her way, which is to
> get "c" invariantly and isotropically. (For example, in the case of very
> slow clock transport, Nature is in full control because all that matters is
> intrinsic clock rhythm; Nature slows the moving clock just enough to cause
> light's one-way, two-clock speed to be "c" in the frame.)
Earlier you got it right by realizing that humans can synchronize
their clocks any way they wish, and this directly affects the one-way
speed of light. Here you attempt to go on and got it wrong.
There is an entire class of ether theories in which the one-way speed
of light is anisotropic in every frame moving wrt the ether, but for
which slow clock transport in moving frames is also anisotropic, and
exactly cancels the one-way speed of light in any real experiment.
Every theory of this class is equivalent to SR in that they are
experimentally indistinguishable; but they are all counterexamples to
your claim -- the one-way speed of light is not isotropic.
> On the other hand, if we are clever enough not to allow Nature to have Her
> way, then we might be able to (correctly or absolutely) synchronize our
> clocks.
Hmmm. How could humans possibly thwart Nature?????
Your assumption that there is some sort of "absolute" clock
synchronization contadicts what you said earlier, and also contradicts
the way the theories of that equivalence class behave.
> But [Einstein's] theory was based on a false assumption, as we have
> just explained, so there is no reason for accepting Einstein's theory.
Nonsense. The incredibly-accurate agreement between theory and
experiment is sufficient reason to accept his theory. Moreover, you
never showed that his assumption is false, at best you showed that
it is not unique (i.e. other clock-synchronization conventions lead
to an anisotropic one-way speed of light) -- that is well known and
there is a rather large literature on the subject.
> There are two things necessary for one-way light speed invariance and
> isotropy: [a] no synchronous clocks, and [b] Nature must cause clocks to
> get invariance if She can.
This also contradicts what you warote earlier, and how those theories
behave. All that is needed for one-way light speed invariance and
isotropy is that one select the appropriate clock synchronization
cnvention: the one Einstein described. As _ANY_ such convention will
yield the same experimental results, this is the best and simplest
choice of convention. Certainly computations in SR can be VASTLY
simpler than computations in any of those anisotropic ether theories,
and yield the same predictions for _real_ experiments.
For example, one cannot define 4-vectors in those ether
theories -- they are not geometrical. Anyone who has ever
done any real computations will recognize what a disaster
this is....
> Therefore, Einstein's special theory really says: [...]
Don't try to summarize SR until you understand it. You got it
outrageously wrong.
And yet there is a kernel of truth in what you say, "Nature will
always see that they are set to yield one-way invariance." --
Nature does not "set" the clocks, humans do; but no matter what
synchronization convention humans select, a pair of clocks placed
a constant distance apart and synchronized via slow clock
transport will yield an isotropic one-way speed of light.
> all we have to do is to find a method that avoids the
> physical barriers of rod contraction and clock slowing.
That is not possible -- in developing the equivalence class of theories
I mentioned above it was proven that this is impossible.
> And once we have synchronous clocks [...]
Once again your loose vocabulary makes nonsense of your words. Using
the usual meaning of "synchronous" we already have synchronous clocks
and use them to measure an isotropic one-way speed of light. As I said
above, it is not possible to synchronize clocks in any "absolute" way;
nor can one synchronize clocks not at rest in the same inertial frame
(in general). The rest of your parageraph depends in essential ways on
undefined and _undefinable_ concepts (e.g. "speed through space" is an
oxymoron).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Brian D Jones
>See above for a simple counterexample to your claim.
Since you failed to understand my claim, your "counterexample" is a non
sequitur.
[TR]
>Unlike you, I will define "synchronous": two clocks are said
>to be synchronous in inertial frame A iff whenever they are
>read _simultaneously_in_A_ they display identical time values.
Clearly a circular definition.
Here is Einstein's (correct) definition (of absolutely synchronous clocks):
Einstein's definition of (absolute) synchronization:
["Relativity," Appendix V, 15th p.] "This is what is meant when we say that
the time of classical physics is absolute[:] [When] the simultaneity of two
definite events with reference to one inertial system involves the
simultaneity of these events in reference to all [other] inertial systems."
Basically, Einstein was simply saying that a good test for (absolutely)
synchronous clocks is to see if all the clocks in all frames yield
identical time spans for the same two given events.
Einstein then added that time is not absolute in his relativity theory,
which means that this theory's clocks are asynchronous according to its
originator.
[TR]
>Every theory of this class is equivalent to SR in that
>they are experimentally indistinguishable;
Only special relativity theory stipulates one-way light speed isotropy.
[TR]
>Hmmm. How could humans possibly thwart Nature?????
Your incredulity stems from a simple misunderstanding on your part; all I
was saying is that since we know that Nature slows clocks and shrinks rods,
we must use a clock synchronization method that is independent of these
physical distortions.
[TR]
>Your assumption that there is some sort of "absolute" clock
>synchronization contadicts what you said earlier, and also
>contradicts the way the theories of that equivalence class behave.
See above, where Einstein himself defined absolute synchronization.
-----
[TR]
>Nonsense. The incredibly-accurate agreement between
theory and
experiment is sufficient reason to accept his theory.
Since all of the theory is derived from a single stipulation (Einstein's
stipulation that clocks be set to obtain one-way isotropy and invariance),
and since stipulations are not a predictions, the theory predicts nothing,
and therefore there has been zero agreement between the theory and
experiment.
[TR]
>All that is needed for one-way light speed invariance and
isotropy is that one select the appropriate clock synchronization
cnvention: the one Einstein described.
You forgot about very slow clock transport yielding one-way isotropy and
invariance, and you forgot that starting clocks with baseballs also yields
one-way isotropy and invariance, and you also forgot that trying to start
clocks with a passing rod also yields it, and, etc., etc.
[TR]
>Certainly computations in SR can be VASTLY simpler
>than computations in any of those anisotropic ether
>theories, and yield the same predictions for
>_real_ experiments.
SRT makes no explicit predictions about real experiments. (However,
implicitly it predicts that clocks cannot be absolutely synchronized.)
[TR]
>Don't try to summarize SR until you understand it. You got it
>outrageously wrong.
I.E., it is wrong in your outrageously wrong view.
[TR]
And yet there is a kernel of truth in what you say, "Nature will
always see that they are set to yield one-way invariance." --
Nature does not "set" the clocks, humans do; but no matter what
synchronization convention humans select, a pair of clocks placed
a constant distance apart and synchronized via slow clock
transport will yield an isotropic one-way speed of light.
This is self-contradictory - first you say "Nature does not set clocks,"
then you turn around and say that She does set them during slow clock
transport.
[B Jones prior]
>> all we have to do is to find a method that avoids the
>> physical barriers of rod contraction and clock slowing.
[TR]
>That is not possible -- in developing the equivalence
>class of theories I mentioned above it was proven that
>this is impossible.
What is impossible is to prove this sort of negative statement, as anyone
should know.
[B Jones prior]
>> And once we have synchronous clocks [...]
[TR]
Once again your loose vocabulary makes nonsense of your
>words.
I have taken great care to provide Einstein's own definition of absolutely
synchronous clocks. Also, anyone with the least bit of sense knows what
absolutely synchronous means - at least on paper. Indeed, every physicist
in the world tacitly assumed the use of such clocks at all times prior to
Albert's pitiful theory (which is really not a true scientific theory
anyway - it merely stipulates and explains nothing)!
[TR]
>Using the usual meaning of "synchronous" we already
>have synchronous clocks and use them to measure an
>isotropic one-way speed of light.
Circular. Clocks set by Einstein's stipulation to obtain isotropy must of
course obtain it.
You really need to study the theory.
[TR]
>As I said above, it is not possible to synchronize clocks
>in any "absolute" way; nor can one synchronize clocks not
>at rest in the same inertial frame (in general). The rest
>of your parageraph depends in essential ways on undefined
>and _undefinable_ concepts (e.g. "speed through space" is
>an oxymoron).
All this from one who glibly speaks of "an object's trajectory through
math."
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Ken H. Seto
>"The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major
>ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style.
>
>"The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally
>impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest,
>Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as
>meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly
>moving objects is real.
This assumption of Einstein is the cause of all the paradoxes of SR.
I know that the SR experts claimed that there are no paradoxes---but
that's another topic to be discussed at a later time. Also, this
assumption---that the observer assumes himself to be in a state of
rest and that the observed object is doing the moving---is the reason
why an SR observer insists that the observed frame's clock is running
slow.
In real life all objects are moving in a stationary aether. Clocks are
running at different intrinsic rates dependent on their states of
absolute motion in the aether Light is wave packets in the aether and
it is moving at a constant max speed c when it is measured using a
defined absolute second. This means that using a defined absolute
second the speed of light is less than the max c in any moving
frames.in the aether.
With this description of the current universe an observer using his
clock to measure the frequency of a light source in his frame is a
measure of his state of absolute motion in the stationary aether. Now
he uses the same clock ---this means that his clock second is a
defined absolute second---to measure the frequency of an identical
light source in the observed frame. This measurement is a measure of
the state of absolute motion of the observed frame in the stationary
aether.. The difference of these two states of absolute motion is the
truth relative motion between the observer and the observed frame.
Using the above description of the current universe I was able to
develop Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). The equations of DRT are
valid in all environments---including gravity.
Please visit my website for a full description of DRT:
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
Ken seto
L Hoffman
Thanks David! I'm sure that the book will be easier for people to find
than the original paper. By the way, I highly recommend that anyone
interested in the classical interpretation of relativity read the article
in its entirety.
L Hoffman
> [TR]
> >Hmmm. How could humans possibly thwart Nature?????
>
> Your incredulity stems from a simple misunderstanding on your part; all I
> was saying is that since we know that Nature slows clocks and shrinks rods,
> we must use a clock synchronization method that is independent of these
> physical distortions.
Brian,
You must realize that if such a synchronization procedure ever became
available, the whole SR house of cards would come tumbling down. This is
why SR has to maintain that it's not possible even in principle. This is
also why they have to insist, a priori, that no information can ever be
transmitted faster than light. Now, how can they be so certain that this
will NEVER be possible? The scientific enterprise is only a few centuries
old. Not long in the grand scheme of things, and certainly too early to be
making such pronouncements. One of the advantages of LET is that it is
equivalent to SR as long as light is the fastest signal known to us, but
LET doesn't close the door to the possibility that this might not always be
the case.
L Hoffman
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2000 18:35:02 -0700, L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU>
> wrote:
>
> >"The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major
> >ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style.
> >
> >"The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally
> >impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest,
> >Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as
> >meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly
> >moving objects is real.
>
> This assumption of Einstein is the cause of all the paradoxes of SR.
> I know that the SR experts claimed that there are no paradoxes---but
> that's another topic to be discussed at a later time. Also, this
> assumption---that the observer assumes himself to be in a state of
> rest and that the observed object is doing the moving---is the reason
> why an SR observer insists that the observed frame's clock is running
> slow.
> In real life all objects are moving in a stationary aether. Clocks are
> running at different intrinsic rates dependent on their states of
> absolute motion in the aether Light is wave packets in the aether and
> it is moving at a constant max speed c when it is measured using a
> defined absolute second. This means that using a defined absolute
> second the speed of light is less than the max c in any moving
> frames.in the aether.
I can see that you favor the ether explanation. So do I. The trouble is
there doesn't seem to be any way, at present, to determine where the ether
frame is. Unless this changes, what we have is just another way of
interpreting SR. The evidence I know of supports either interpretation
equally well. But, I like to stress the conceptual advantages of LET.
> With this description of the current universe an observer using his
> clock to measure the frequency of a light source in his frame is a
> measure of his state of absolute motion in the stationary aether. Now
> he uses the same clock ---this means that his clock second is a
> defined absolute second---to measure the frequency of an identical
> light source in the observed frame. This measurement is a measure of
> the state of absolute motion of the observed frame in the stationary
> aether.. The difference of these two states of absolute motion is the
> truth relative motion between the observer and the observed frame.
>
> Using the above description of the current universe I was able to
> develop Doppler Relativity Theory (DRT). The equations of DRT are
> valid in all environments---including gravity.
> Please visit my website for a full description of DRT:
> <http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>
>
> Ken seto
Thanks, I'll take a look.
Ken H. Seto
Jones) wrote:
>[TR]
>>See above for a simple counterexample to your claim.
>
>Since you failed to understand my claim, your "counterexample" is a non
>sequitur.
>
>[TR]
>>Unlike you, I will define "synchronous": two clocks are said
>>to be synchronous in inertial frame A iff whenever they are
>>read _simultaneously_in_A_ they display identical time values.
>
>Clearly a circular definition.
>
>Here is Einstein's (correct) definition (of absolutely synchronous clocks):
>
>Einstein's definition of (absolute) synchronization:
>["Relativity," Appendix V, 15th p.] "This is what is meant when we say that
>the time of classical physics is absolute[:] [When] the simultaneity of two
>definite events with reference to one inertial system involves the
>simultaneity of these events in reference to all [other] inertial systems."
This is a description of a specific inteval of absolute time. Not a
procedure for absolute synchronization.
In any case the one-way speed of light, when measured using a clock
second, has a constant math ratio c in all directions. However, when
it is measured using a defined absolute second, the one-way light
speed has a different math ratio in different frames.
What is a defined absolute second? That's the absolute time interval
Einstein was describing in the above paragraph.
Ken Seto
Paul Stowe
writes:
>Brian D Jones wrote:
>> Einstein's "one big assumption" that supposedly led to such
>> an "elegant" theory must be made by all theorists because it
>> cannot be false; i.e., it is trivially true, and therefore
>> worthless, and cannot led to anything.
>
> It could easily be false. If, for instance, there existed an
> ether with the properties generally associated with it in the
> late 19th centuty. In that case, for instance, Einstein's
> _second_ postulate could be true only in the ether rest frame.
Very specifically, state the basis (as in necessary physical properties
and assumptions) of this claim.
>> That is, since all inertial reference frames are of identical
>> construction, it is physically impossible for frames to find
>> different general laws.
>
> See above for a simple counterexample to your claim.
>
>> Of course, if we play into Nature's hands by trying to use the
>> obvious methods for getting clocks synchronized, then She can
>> and does prevent them from becoming synchronous
Really, now how is that? There is NOTHING that restricts one from
saying that separated clocks have exactly the same face value at "a
given instant". If they have no relative motion between themselves,
then they will remain in said state.
> Don't you even read what you write? You have introduced an
> implicit pun here and have written nonsense. And if I guess
> what you are trying to say it is just plain wrong -- using
> "the obvious methods" for clock synchronization does indeed
> result in the clocks being synchronous.
Define your use of synchronous. Mine is, synchronous = same instant in
time, spacially independent.
I want to keep and frame this, you've admitted that which several of us
have stated in long drawn out debates.
You view has one itty-bitty problem. Two or more separated clocks must
be actively adjusted (by human intervention) to 'compensate' for just
that amount of drifting "out of synch" that OWLS =/= c creates. A
measurable physical effect specifically predicted by this so-called
class of ether theories.
>> On the other hand, if we are clever enough not to allow Nature
>> to have Her way, then we might be able to (correctly or absolutely)
>> synchronize our clocks.
>
> Hmmm. How could humans possibly thwart Nature?????
They can't. But they can, fundamentally understand her.
> Your assumption that there is some sort of "absolute" clock
> synchronization contadicts what you said earlier, and also
> contradicts the way the theories of that equivalence class
> behave.
>
>> But [Einstein's] theory was based on a false assumption, as we
>> have just explained, so there is no reason for accepting
>> Einstein's theory.
>
> Nonsense. The incredibly-accurate agreement between theory and
> experiment is sufficient reason to accept his theory. Moreover,
> you never showed that his assumption is false, at best you showed
> that it is not unique (i.e. other clock-synchronization conventions
> lead to an anisotropic one-way speed of light) -- that is well
> known and there is a rather large literature on the subject.
>
>
>> There are two things necessary for one-way light speed invariance
>> and isotropy: [a] no synchronous clocks, and [b] Nature must cause
>> clocks to get invariance if She can.
>
> This also contradicts what you wrote earlier, and how those
> theories behave. All that is needed for one-way light speed
> invariance and isotropy is that one select the appropriate clock
> synchronization convention: the one Einstein described. As _ANY_
> such convention will yield the same experimental results, this is
> the best and simplest choice of convention. Certainly computations
> in SR can be VASTLY simpler than computations in any of those
> anisotropic ether theories, and yield the same predictions for
> _real_ experiments.
Words like best or beauty are totally subjective, and are in the "eyes
of the beholder"...
> For example, one cannot define 4-vectors in those ether
> theories -- they are not geometrical. Anyone who has ever
> done any real computations will recognize what a disaster
> this is....
>
>> Therefore, Einstein's special theory really says: [...]
>
> Don't try to summarize SR until you understand it. You got it
> outrageously wrong.
>
> And yet there is a kernel of truth in what you say, "Nature will
> always see that they are set to yield one-way invariance." --
> Nature does not "set" the clocks, humans do; but no matter what
> synchronization convention humans select, a pair of clocks placed
> a constant distance apart and synchronized via slow clock
> transport will yield an isotropic one-way speed of light.
>
>> all we have to do is to find a method that avoids the
>> physical barriers of rod contraction and clock slowing.
>
> That is not possible -- in developing the equivalence class of
> theories I mentioned above it was proven that this is impossible.
>
>
>> And once we have synchronous clocks [...]
>
> Once again your loose vocabulary makes nonsense of your words.
> Using the usual meaning of "synchronous" we already have
> synchronous clocks and use them to measure an isotropic one-way
> speed of light. As I said above, it is not possible to synchronize
> clocks in any "absolute" way; nor can one synchronize clocks not
> at rest in the same inertial frame (in general). The rest of your
> paragraph depends in essential ways on undefined and _undefinable_
> concepts (e.g. "speed through space" is an oxymoron).
-- (e.g. "speed through space" is an oxymoron)-- Not at all, speed
through all of our known space can be measured wrt the CMBR...
Paul Stowe
Wayne Throop
: You must realize that if such a synchronization procedure ever became
: available, the whole SR house of cards would come tumbling down. This
: is why SR has to maintain that it's not possible even in principle.
SR "has to" maintain this, because any theory that
doesn't maintain it, isn't SR. That's the whole point of SR;
all the laws of physics are THE SAME, when lorentz transformed,
which is contradicted if it were possible, even if just in principle,
to find a frame in a synchronization procedure were possible, because
of the interrelationship between the synchronization and one of the
laws of nature Einstein asserts, which is the "law of propogation of light".
Now, does every *physical* *theory* "have to maintain" that a
frame-independent synchronization is impossible in principle? No. But
LET happens to be a theory where it is, in fact, impossible in principle
with any currently known physical laws.
Basically, the people who think relativists are pushing doctrine and
conformity when they talk about the impossibility of frame-independent
synchronization even in principle are simply barking up the wrong tree.
Math is math, and "impossible, even in principle" is an mathematical
assertion made of a theory. This is no more a matter of "doctrine" or
"conformity" than the question of whether 2+2=4, or some other number.
Either it's a theorem of the peano axioms, or it isn't. And it's a
theorem of LET that it's impossible, even in principle, to discover a
frame-independent synchronization method exploiting light propogation
anisotropies.
Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
In my website I have a new experiment that will guarantee the
detection of the stationary aether frame.
Ken Seto
Brian D Jones
Many if not most negative statements cannot be proved. For example, it is
impossible to prove that there is no God.
As I have mentioned more than once, the same applies to Einstein's negative
statement that clocks cannot be (absolutely) synchronized.
In other words, no one can prove that clocks cannot be (absolutely)
synchronized.
Contrast this with your following (in particular, the 2nd sentence):
[L Hoffman wrote:]
>You must realize that if such a synchronization procedure
>ever became available, the whole SR house of cards would
>come tumbling down. This is why SR has to maintain that
>it's not possible even in principle.
Note that the second sentence runs counter to the fact that (as I just
said) it is impossible even in principle to prove that clocks cannot be
(absolutely) synchronized.
In order to do this, one would have to prove that in every real case,
intrinsic length variance, intrinsic clock rhythm variance, and intrinsic
mass variance can prevent clock synchronization; however, it should be
obvious that no one can conceive of every possible clock-synchronization
experiment, which is why the rule exists (mentioned above) that it
impossible even in principle to prove that clocks cannot be (absolutely)
synchronized.
[W Throop wrote:]
>SR "has to" maintain this, because any theory that doesn't
>maintain it, isn't SR. That's the whole point of SR; all
>the laws of physics are THE SAME, when lorentz transformed,
>which is contradicted if it were possible, even if just in
>principle, to find a frame in [which] a synchronization
>procedure were possible, because of the interrelationship
>between the synchronization and one of the laws of nature
>Einstein asserts, which is the "law of propogation of light".
>And it's a theorem of LET that it's impossible, even in
>principle, to discover a frame-independent synchronization
>method exploiting light propogation anisotropies.
Contrary to Throop's assertion, it cannot be a theorem (in any theory)
(that it's impossible).
And since Throop maintains that the laws of physics somehow back up his
assertion, I have to address this issue lest anyone be confused.
Throop apparently believes that there is a one-way "law of propagation of
light" that tells us that clocks cannot be synchronized. (Although though
he failed to state which of the many light speeds he was talking about, it
was in the context of synchronization, and this means a one-way speed).
As I tried to get across in earlier posts, there cannot be a unique one-way
light speed law because light's one-way speed is determined by how clocks
are calibrated, and there are an infinite number of ways to set clocks.
In other words, only *after* some human has specified how his clocks have
been calibrated can there be a one-way light speed law.
For example, if someone specifies that his clocks are calibrated by using
very slow clock transport, then the result would be "The
Very-Slow-Clock-Transport One-way Light Speed Law."
Similarly, if someone specifies that his clocks are calibrated by using
very gravity-fed baseballs, then the result would be "The
Gravity-Fed-Baseballs One-way Light Speed Law."
(And the latter may differ from the former if the Earth's gravity waves are
source independent.)
Einstein also falsely believed that light's one-way speed could be a law of
physics, and he believed this law to be one-way isotropy and invariance.
But let's look a bit closer at this to see what is really going on:
At first glance, it may seem that Mature could indeed make this law stick
as a real law because all She would have to do is
[a] somehow always prevent us from being able to synchronize clocks, and,
to add to our misery,
[b] whenever we may try to synchronize clocks, She would step in and cause
them to be set to obtain (one-way) isotropy and invariance.
However, not even Nature is all-powerful, and I know that She has only
three "weapons" to use against us, namely,
[1] intrinsic rod length variance
[2] intrinsic clock rhythm variance
[3] intrinsic mass variance
Now these are pretty powerful armaments, but they are not (as I just said)
all-powerful; therefore, there may exist a clock-synchronization process
which is independent of these three physical distortions.
To reiterate:
In order to prove otherwise, one would have to conceive of every possible
clock synchronization procedure, and then prove that none works. (Note:
This is why it is impossible in principle to prove that clocks cannot be
{absolutely} synchronized.)
It is true that clock synchronization is an exceedingly difficult problem,
but that doesn't mean that it's impossible.
Here is a simple picture of the problem:
O---------------<>---------------O
Two unstarted clocks (O) are waiting to be started on zero by the objects
located midway between them (<>).
We simply need to make sure that these two objects move at equal speeds
relative to the clocks. (Here "relative to" does not mean "as measured by,"
but instead means "actually relative to.")(Of course, these two would be
the same if the two clocks were already absolutely synchronous.)
We can think of the objects as being cars, and we can say that the clocks
are sitting on a road; therefore, the goal is to have the cars travel at
(absolutely) equal speeds relative to the road.
If we use a single point on each car as our clock-starting point, then a
car's intrinsic length is irrelevant.
And with sections of the same road being used as the distances traveled by
the cars, we see that even the road's possible physical contraction does
not matter.
I could go on to describe the full certain-to-work (because it's obvious)
process, but it seems more appropriate to try to first have it placed in a
proper physics journal.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Tom Roberts
> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com> writes:
> >Brian D Jones wrote:
> >> Of course, if we play into Nature's hands by trying to use the
> >> obvious methods for getting clocks synchronized, then She can
> >> and does prevent them from becoming synchronous
> Really, now how is that? There is NOTHING that restricts one from
> saying that separated clocks have exactly the same face value at "a
> given instant".
There can be. I have two clocks set 6 hours apart, one in my kitchen
and one in my bedroom. Can one seriously claim they "have exactly the
same face value at 'a given instant'"??? Even if they were set 1 minute
apart one could not reasonably claim that. Even 1 second apart.
But in practice I do not run my household to such precision,
and a 1-minute discrepancy goes unnoticed. But this discussion
was about _physics_, not everyday life....
> Define your use of synchronous. Mine is, synchronous = same instant in
> time, spacially independent.
This was synchronous _CLOCKS_, and I defined it in the very next
paragraph.
Your definition leaves undefined "same instant in time". Defining
that _IS_ the difficulty....
> > There is an entire class of ether theories in which the one-way
> > speed of light is anisotropic in every frame moving wrt the ether,
> > but for which slow clock transport in moving frames is also
> > anisotropic, and exactly cancels the one-way speed of light in
> > any real experiment. Every theory of this class is equivalent to
> > SR in that they are experimentally indistinguishable; but they
> > are all counterexamples to your claim -- the one-way speed of light
> > is not isotropic.
> I want to keep and frame this, you've admitted that which several of us
> have stated in long drawn out debates.
Hmmm. It seemed to me that you were on the other side, and kept
insisting that LET could be distinguished from SR if one could only
find the right experiment. I have written many articles in this
newsgroup on this equivalence class, and the above is nothing new....
> You view has one itty-bitty problem. Two or more separated clocks must
> be actively adjusted (by human intervention) to 'compensate' for just
> that amount of drifting "out of synch" that OWLS =/= c creates.
You need to specify what physical situation you are talking about.
Let us choose one specific theory of that class for which the one-way
speed of light is anisotropic, and let us construct a set of coordinate
clocks throughout a region of space on earth using that theory and use
(say) the CMBR dipole=0 frame as its "ether frame". These coordinate
clocks must be synchronized according to the theory selected. This
set of coordinate clocks can be used to measure the one-way speed of
light, and will obtain anisotropic values.
Now, in adition, let us select one of those coordinate clocks as the
origin, and take a moveable clock, place it right next to the origin
and synchronize it to the origin clock (i.e. make it read the same
value). Now let us _slowly_ transport this clock to some other
position and stop, and then measure the one-way speed of light
between the origin clock and the moveable clock (measure the distance
with rulers at rest wrt both clocks) -- _EVERY_ theory of this class
predicts that this latter measurement will yield c, regardless of the
position selected for the moveable clock (i.e. this measurement yields
c isotropically). Now ask: is the moveable clock synchronized to the
coordinate clock at its new position? No.
In summary: the one-way speed of light measured by the coordinate
clocks will be anisotropic; the one-way speed of light measured
byt clocks synchronized via slow clock transprot will be isotropic.
But "speed" is defined to be wrt a specific coordinate system,
and that is why we say that the one-way speed of light is anisotropic
in these theories.
SR and LET are the only members with isotropic one-way
speeds; but we selected a different member above.
Note that after the coordinate clocks were set up they were never
manually adjusted, and after the moveable clock was synchronized
with the origin clock it was never manually adjusted. Whatever theory
ws originally selected predicts that the slowly-moved clock will not
remain synchronized with its instantaneously-collocated coordinate
clock, even though it was synchronized with the origin clock before
its slow transport began.
Actual experiments (Krisher et al, Cialdea) are reasonably close to
this scenario, and yield results in agreement with the theoretical
predictions of _every_ theory of this class, including SR and LET.
> > "speed through space" is an oxymoron
> -- (e.g. "speed through space" is an oxymoron)-- Not at all, speed
> through all of our known space can be measured wrt the CMBR...
Clearly not: that is just speed wrt the local dipole=0 frame of the
CMBR. "Speed" is only defined wrt a coordinate system, and "space"
is not a coordinate system. But the CMBR dipole=0 frame _does_
specify a coordinate system (ignoring the obviously-irrelevant
ambiguities of orientation, origin, etc.).
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> I like to stress the conceptual advantages of LET.
Hmmm. That seems to me an excessively elementary and naive viewpoint.
The history of modern physics revolves around the concept of symmetry.
SR has clear and obvious symmetries, the Poincare' group, and any
theory consistent with SR clearly shares this large and useful symmetry.
LET has no corresponding symmetry at all, it's just that real
experiments always have cancellations which mimic Poincare' symmetry;
there's no reason to expect theories consistent with LET to share this
specific and rather peculiar property.
Besides, in SR the unusual elementary aspects of length contraction
and time dilation have direct analogies in geometrical perspective
which everybody is familiar with; the assumptions of LET are really
completely foreign to anybody's experience (we _don't_ observe
moving rulers to shrink or moving clocks to slow down).
O'Barr has been trying for years to get scientists to adopt his
"ether approach" which is basically just LET. AFAIK he has not managed
even a single convert among physicists. Because the truth is that SR
is far more elegant than LET, is more parsimonious of assumptions,
and has led to a wealth of further theoretical progress. By comparison
LET is completely ad hoc, makes a large bunch of seemingly unreasonable
assumptions, and leads to no further theoretical insights. Creating a
new theory compatible with SR merely means requiring it to be Poincare'
invariant -- an _ENORMOUS_ reduction in the number of potential theories;
creating a new theory compatible with LET requires adding new assumptions
to LET for every new phenomenon.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Standeven
Brian D Jones <bd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:39747650....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
[...]
> [W Throop wrote:]
> >SR "has to" maintain this, because any theory that doesn't
> >maintain it, isn't SR. That's the whole point of SR; all
> >which is contradicted if it were possible, even if just in
> >principle, to find a frame in [which] a synchronization
> >procedure were possible, because of the interrelationship
> >between the synchronization and one of the laws of nature
> >And it's a theorem of LET that it's impossible, even in
> >principle, to discover a frame-independent synchronization
>
> Contrary to Throop's assertion, it cannot be a theorem (in any theory)
> (that it's impossible).
Theorem: It is impossible to a frame-independent absolute
synchronization procedure, whether by exploiting light
propogation anisotropies, or by any other method whatsoever.
Proof: Consider a set of four relatively stationary clocks:
A, B, C, and D. A and B are collocated and read the same time.
C and D are collocated, and clock D is Einstein-synchronized
with clock B.
Distance = L
A,B ------------------- C,D
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some method is
used to put clock C into absolute sync with clock A.
Now, consider dt, the difference between the reading on
clock D and the reading on clock C. It must be constant
with time, since clock C runs at the same rate as clock
D. Since this quantity is determined by a physical
experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
the clocks.
Now, consider a new set of clocks A', B', C', and D', moving
at speed v with respect to the first. We perform the same
physical process with these clocks; by the PoR, we must get
the same results. Thus, clocks A', B', and C' always read the
same time, clocks A' and D' are Einstein-synchronized, and
the difference between the readings of clock C' and D' is
constant at dt.
Thus, it would appear that our method of absolute synchronization
is equivalent to performing an Einstein synchronization, and
then subtracting off a constant dt from one of the clock readings.
But we know that Einstein-synchronization is frame-dependent.
Thus, it follows that our method of "absolute synchronization"
is also frame-dependent. But this is a contradiction. Ergo,
the assumption that there is a method of absolute clock
synchronization must be incorrect. QED
Exercise: Where does this proof use the second postulate of
SR?
Brian D Jones
>Since this quantity is determined by a physical
>experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
>it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
>the clocks.
You have misapplied the PR; it does not say that each frame must obtain the
same specific result, only that the same general result (law) must be
obtained.
The PR states that frames must all find the same general laws of physics.
It does not state what these laws must be.
For example, even Einstein admitted that the (absolutely) synchronous
clocks of classical physics would get c +/- v for light's one-way speed.
[See his book "Relativity"] The general law of course is c +/- v for all
frames, but of course each frame obtains a different value for light's
one-way speed. Given Einstein's (asynchronous) clocks, the one-way law
becomes simply c for each frame, so is of course c for all frames.
*However*, "Standeven's confusion is certainly understandable because
Einstein himself corrupted the meaning of the PR; he improperly turned it
into the statement that "No experimental result shall vary with frame
velocity."
The real PR does not care what sort of laws are found, and therefore it
does not care if the specific results of a law vary or don't vary with
frame velocity.
Note that the real PR would have held even if the Michelson-Morley
experiment had had a positive result (as was fully expected by every
physicist), but in that case, light's round-trip speed would have been
different for each frame; however, the round-trip law (general result)
would have been the same for all frames, as it must be because all frames
are essentially identical.
["Standeven" asked:]
>Exercise: Where does this proof use the second
>postulate of SR?
Even better Exercise:
What is the second postulate? (Proof required)
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> : L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU>
> : You must realize that if such a synchronization procedure ever became
> : available, the whole SR house of cards would come tumbling down. This
> : is why SR has to maintain that it's not possible even in principle.
>
> SR "has to" maintain this, because any theory that
> doesn't maintain it, isn't SR. That's the whole point of SR;
> all the laws of physics are THE SAME, when lorentz transformed,
> which is contradicted if it were possible, even if just in principle,
> to find a frame in a synchronization procedure were possible, because
> of the interrelationship between the synchronization and one of the
> laws of nature Einstein asserts, which is the "law of propogation of light".
>
> Now, does every *physical* *theory* "have to maintain" that a
> frame-independent synchronization is impossible in principle? No. But
> LET happens to be a theory where it is, in fact, impossible in principle
> with any currently known physical laws.
>
> Basically, the people who think relativists are pushing doctrine and
> conformity when they talk about the impossibility of frame-independent
> synchronization even in principle are simply barking up the wrong tree.
> Math is math, and "impossible, even in principle" is an mathematical
> assertion made of a theory. This is no more a matter of "doctrine" or
> "conformity" than the question of whether 2+2=4, or some other number.
> Either it's a theorem of the peano axioms, or it isn't. And it's a
> theorem of LET that it's impossible, even in principle, to discover a
> frame-independent synchronization method exploiting light propogation
> anisotropies.
Thanks, Wayne, I see where you're coming from. But I don't agree that LET
rules out absolute synchronization IN PRINCIPLE. For example, what if one
day, say 100 million years from now, mankind discovered a way to send
instantaneous messages (or arbitrarily fast, if you prefer)? LET does not
rule this out a priori the way SR does. SR could not survive in the face
of this new technology, but LET would be vindicated! Just because you
have a successful theory is no reason to put you imagination in a mental
straight jacket.
L Hoffman
I tried, but couldn't get on your site. Can you give us the address
again. Thanks
L Hoffman
Thanks, Tom. Although I might sound that way sometimes to emphasize a
point, I'm not out to rewrite physics. I believe physicists are, for the
most part, competent well intentioned people and that modern physics is a
useful, self-consistent edifice. But, I'm a very skeptical and concrete
thinker who doesn't appreciate being told that I must accept, as the
foundations of science, concepts which are conceptually impossible to
integrate with the rest of my knowledge. Imagine my surprise when I found
out that, contrary to what I was told, relativistic phenomena can be
completely described in classical terms! Now that my confidence has been
restored, I am in a better position to appreciate modern physical
theory. But I can't help but suspect that the strangeness that seems to
pervade modern physics has it's roots in the positivistic approach. And
that if SR can be understood classically, it is possible that, in
principle, the rest of it probably can too.
By the way, whatever happened to O'Barr. Is it like him to be away this
long? In spite of what you say, he made some good points. I don't expect
it's too likely that working scientists will be persuaded to accept LET
any time soon. But I maintain that it is a conceptually superior theory.
Larry
L Hoffman
>
> Brian D Jones <bd...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:39747650....@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> [...]
> > >SR "has to" maintain this, because any theory that doesn't
> > >maintain it, isn't SR. That's the whole point of SR; all
> > >which is contradicted if it were possible, even if just in
> > >principle, to find a frame in [which] a synchronization
> > >procedure were possible, because of the interrelationship
> > >between the synchronization and one of the laws of nature
> > >And it's a theorem of LET that it's impossible, even in
> > >principle, to discover a frame-independent synchronization
> >
> > Contrary to Throop's assertion, it cannot be a theorem (in any theory)
> > (that it's impossible).
>
> synchronization procedure, whether by exploiting light
> propogation anisotropies, or by any other method whatsoever.
>
> Proof: Consider a set of four relatively stationary clocks:
> A, B, C, and D. A and B are collocated and read the same time.
> C and D are collocated, and clock D is Einstein-synchronized
> with clock B.
>
> Distance = L
> A,B ------------------- C,D
>
> Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some method is
> used to put clock C into absolute sync with clock A.
> Now, consider dt, the difference between the reading on
> clock D and the reading on clock C. It must be constant
> with time, since clock C runs at the same rate as clock
> experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
> it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
> the clocks.
>
> at speed v with respect to the first. We perform the same
> physical process with these clocks; by the PoR, we must get
> the same results. Thus, clocks A', B', and C' always read the
> same time, clocks A' and D' are Einstein-synchronized, and
> the difference between the readings of clock C' and D' is
> constant at dt.
>
> Thus, it would appear that our method of absolute synchronization
> is equivalent to performing an Einstein synchronization, and
> then subtracting off a constant dt from one of the clock readings.
> But we know that Einstein-synchronization is frame-dependent.
> Thus, it follows that our method of "absolute synchronization"
> is also frame-dependent. But this is a contradiction. Ergo,
> the assumption that there is a method of absolute clock
> synchronization must be incorrect. QED
>
> SR?
Answer: When you Einstein-synchronized some of the clocks.
xxein
thr...@sheol.org (Wayne Throop) wrote:
> : L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU>
> : You must realize that if such a synchronization procedure ever
became
> : available, the whole SR house of cards would come tumbling down.
This
> : is why SR has to maintain that it's not possible even in principle.
>
> doesn't maintain it, isn't SR. That's the whole point of SR;
> which is contradicted if it were possible, even if just in principle,
> of the interrelationship between the synchronization and one of the
light".
>
> Now, does every *physical* *theory* "have to maintain" that a
> frame-independent synchronization is impossible in principle? No.
But
> LET happens to be a theory where it is, in fact, impossible in
principle
> with any currently known physical laws.
>
> Basically, the people who think relativists are pushing doctrine and
> conformity when they talk about the impossibility of frame-independent
> synchronization even in principle are simply barking up the wrong
tree.
> Math is math, and "impossible, even in principle" is an mathematical
> assertion made of a theory. This is no more a matter of "doctrine" or
> "conformity" than the question of whether 2+2=4, or some other
number.
> theorem of LET that it's impossible, even in principle, to discover a
> anisotropies.
>
> Wayne Throop thr...@sheol.org http://sheol.org/throopw
>
adventure? You are of belief, not reality, and refuse to consider it.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Paul Stowe
writes:
>> >> obvious methods for getting clocks synchronized, then She can
>> >> and does prevent them from becoming synchronous
>>
>> saying that separated clocks have exactly the same face value at "a
>> given instant".
>
> There can be. I have two clocks set 6 hours apart, one in my
> kitchen and one in my bedroom. Can one seriously claim they
> "have exactly the same face value at 'a given instant'"??? Even
> if they were set 1 minute apart one could not reasonably claim
> that. Even 1 second apart.
>
> But in practice I do not run my household to such precision,
> and a 1-minute discrepancy goes unnoticed. But this discussion
> was about _physics_, not everyday life....
Which is why your entire above argument is meaningless. You have not
addressed the issue, which is, is it physically impossible to have two
or more clocks with 'exactly' the same face values?
>> Define your use of synchronous. Mine is,
>> synchronous = same instant in time, spatially independent.
>
> This was synchronous _CLOCKS_, and I defined it in the very next
> paragraph.
>
> Your definition leaves undefined "same instant in time". Defining
> that _IS_ the difficulty....
Only to those who wish to semantically quibble. It is not at all
difficult to 'mathematically' define such a situation.
Point A = (x_A, y_A, z_A, t_0)
Point B = (x_B, y_B, z_B, t_0)
Point C = (x_C, y_C, z_C, t_0)
>> > There is an entire class of ether theories in which the one-way
>> > speed of light is anisotropic in every frame moving wrt the
>> > ether, but for which slow clock transport in moving frames is
>> > also anisotropic, and exactly cancels the one-way speed of
>> > light in any real experiment. Every theory of this class is
>> > equivalent to SR in that they are experimentally
>> > indistinguishable; but they are all counterexamples to your
>> > claim -- the one-way speed of light is not isotropic.
>>
>> I want to keep and frame this, you've admitted that which several
>> of us have stated in long drawn out debates.
>
> Hmmm. It seemed to me that you were on the other side, and kept
> insisting that LET could be distinguished from SR if one could only
> find the right experiment. I have written many articles in this
> newsgroup on this equivalence class, and the above is nothing new....
Let be clear, I stated then, as I do now, that if one actually measured
the time it takes a light signal to travel from point A to point B (NOT
from A to B to A or B to A to B) while these points are reoriented in a
uniformly co-moving fashion (as the two would be while sitting on the
surface of the earth), the result would be a sinusoidal variation in
the observed transit times. The magnitude of this variation is
however, as you point out, is equal to that computed to 'drift out of
synch' by so-called slow clock transport.
However, if you want to maintain these clocks in so-called synch, you
MUST actively do so, by manual intervention, as with the GPS...
>> You view has one itty-bitty problem. Two or more separated
>> clocks must be actively adjusted (by human intervention) to
>> 'compensate' for just that amount of drifting "out of synch"
>> that OWLS =/= c creates.
>
> You need to specify what physical situation you are talking about.
>
> Let us choose one specific theory of that class for which the
> one-way speed of light is anisotropic, and let us construct a
> set of coordinate clocks throughout a region of space on earth
> using that theory and use (say) the CMBR dipole=0 frame as its
> "ether frame". These coordinate clocks must be synchronized
> according to the theory selected. This set of coordinate clocks
> can be used to measure the one-way speed of light, and will
> obtain anisotropic values.
There will be NO anisotropy if the clocks exist in the inertial frame
where the CMBR Dipole = 0.
> Now, in addition, let us select one of those coordinate clocks
> as the origin, and take a moveable clock, place it right next
> to the origin and synchronize it to the origin clock (i.e. make
> it read the same value). Now let us _slowly_ transport this
> clock to some other position and stop, and then measure the
> one-way speed of light between the origin clock and the moveable
> clock (measure the distance with rulers at rest wrt both clocks)
> -- _EVERY_ theory of this class predicts that this latter
> measurement will yield c, regardless of the position selected for
> the moveable clock (i.e. this measurement yields c isotropically).
> Now ask: is the moveable clock synchronized to the coordinate
> clock at its new position? No.
If we 'assume' that the two clocks (O & M) are co-moving at say, 370
kps, then have clock M simply record its time, subtracted from the time
sent to it from O. This delta will of course increase as the two
separate. Then with M separated from O by a sufficient distance that a
measurable delta t can be determined, rotate O and M 90 degrees around
a common center (at any speed you wish). Finally, repeat the process
of timing the transit signal. The results will be different,
suggesting one of two conclusions, a) the transit speed was different,
or b) the clocks have 'drifted out of synch'. Note that in this
process, both O and M move at equal speeds, in opposite arch's without
any 'relative' motion between themselves. Certainly however, wrt the
CMBR Dipole frame, they do have different speeds during said arch. But
wrt JUST clocks O and M, there IS no relative motion at any time during
rotation. In fact, at a slow enough rotation velocity, without
knowledge of the CMBR frame, one could NOT tell the clocks we moving BY
ANY measurable means. Except however, that once rotated that 90 d
egrees, the differential delta t would be exactly the same. So, even
without knowing that the CMBR dipole was present, this difference in
transit times would suggest one of two conclusions, a) the transit
speed was changing, or b) the clocks are/have been 'drifted out of
synch'.
> In summary: the one-way speed of light measured by the coordinate
> clocks will be anisotropic; the one-way speed of light measured
> by clocks synchronized via slow clock transport will be isotropic.
> But "speed" is defined to be wrt a specific coordinate system,
> and that is why we say that the one-way speed of light is anisotropic
> in these theories.
>
> SR and LET are the only members with isotropic one-way
> speeds; but we selected a different member above.
Can you explain why you think LET has this feature? Lorentz never
suggests any synchronization, or procedure for same, for separated
clocks.
> Note that after the coordinate clocks were set up they were never
> manually adjusted, and after the moveable clock was synchronized
> with the origin clock it was never manually adjusted. Whatever theory
> we originally selected predicts that the slowly-moved clock will not
> remain synchronized with its instantaneously-collocated coordinate
> clock, even though it was synchronized with the origin clock before
> its slow transport began.
>
> Actual experiments (Krisher et al, Cialdea) are reasonably close to
> this scenario, and yield results in agreement with the theoretical
> predictions of _every_ theory of this class, including SR and LET.
>
>
>> > "speed through space" is an oxymoron
>> -- (e.g. "speed through space" is an oxymoron)-- Not at all, speed
>> through all of our known space can be measured wrt the CMBR...
>
> Clearly not: that is just speed wrt the local dipole=0 frame of the
> CMBR. "Speed" is only defined wrt a coordinate system, and "space"
> is not a coordinate system. But the CMBR dipole=0 frame _does_
> specify a coordinate system (ignoring the obviously-irrelevant
> ambiguities of orientation, origin, etc.).
I think most can recognize your obvious grasping at a semantical out.
In our physical universe, space without the CMBR doesn't seem to exist.
Paul Stowe
Ken H. Seto
wrote:
>
>
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Ken H. Seto wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Jul 2000 19:55:56 -0700, L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >I can see that you favor the ether explanation. So do I. The trouble is
>> >there doesn't seem to be any way, at present, to determine where the ether
>> >frame is.
>>
>> In my website I have a new experiment that will guarantee the
>> detection of the stationary aether frame.
>>
>> Ken Seto
>
>I tried, but couldn't get on your site. Can you give us the address
>again. Thanks
The web page designer is in the process of updating my site. Try again
on Thurs 7/20/2000. My permanent address is as follows:
<http://www.erinet.com/kenseto/book.html>.
However, you can reach my updated material immediately at the
following temporary address:
<www.tuckcom.com/seto>
Ken Seto
Standeven
> ["Standeven" wrote:]
> >Since this quantity is determined by a physical
> >experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
> >it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
> >the clocks.
>
> obtain the same specific result, only that the same general result
> (law) must be obtained.
Precisely. If different observers found different dt, then they would
obtain different general results (laws), contrary to the PoR.
[...]
>
> For example, even Einstein admitted that the (absolutely) synchronous
> clocks of classical physics would get c +/- v for light's one-way speed.
He was correct on this point, of course. Exercise: Why does this
not refute my proof? (Hint: Identify the meaning of "v" in this
equation.)
[...]
> The real PR does not care what sort of laws are found, and therefore it
> does not care if the specific results of a law vary or don't vary with
> frame velocity.
Then the "real PR" is vacuous, and Galileo et. al. were fools for
introducing it; and Lorentz an even bigger one for rejecting it.
No wonder some people seem to think that Einstein invented the PoR.
(Actually, to be fair, Newton's "PR" says the same thing as Einstein's.)
[...]
> Note that the real PR would have held even if the Michelson-Morley
> experiment had had a positive result (as was fully expected by every
> physicist), but in that case, light's round-trip speed would have been
> different for each frame; however, the round-trip law (general result)
> would have been the same for all frames, as it must be because all frames
> are essentially identical.
>
This is also correct, and is the intended answer to my exercise below.
> ["Standeven" asked:]
> >Exercise: Where does this proof use the second
> >postulate of SR?
>
> Even better Exercise:
> What is the second postulate? (Proof required)
Of course, there is no "the" second postulate, since different
books use different sets of postulates. Yilmaz' 1965 book,
_Introduction to the Theory of Relativity and the Principles
of Modern Physics_, uses, "In all inertial frames, the velocity
of propagation of light waves is the same in all directions."
Note this postulate is considerably stronger than needed, even if
"velocity" is taken to mean what is now called "speed"; it implies
that the supposed "absolute synchronization" is _identical_ with
Einstein-synchronization.
For extra credit, his first postulate is, "Laws of nature, whether
mechanical or optical, are of the same form in all inertial frames."
jddescr...@my-deja.com
100...@pavo.U.Arizona.EDU>,
The problems with teaching Special Relativity [SR] can be
summarized quickly and are repeatedly illustrated in this
forum. People seldom describe the way things look to different
observers. The simple cases of aberation of star light and the
headlight effect for electromagnetic beams viewed by differently
moving observers are never fully illustrated. The reason turns
out to be similar to trying to explain a shock pressure wave
when the vehicle drive velocity is exactly the speed of sound.
Such a singular case involves infinite fronts and such and is not
visual. This is the essence of the SR teaching problem but the
most modern approaches such as by William Baylis in
"Electrodynamics; A Modern Geometric Approach" directly addresses
the description that Hamilton solved completely with conical
refraction well over 170 years ago. It is done without the empty
king's chant, high school slogans we hear so often in this forum.
These load mouthed king's men of science [KMS] propogandists aren't
just wrong. That's the least of the problem. They turn many
interested students away from the meanings of SR in disgust and
confusion by pretending they understand when they are just
repeating the memorized magic meaningless slogans.
Good seeing. JD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian D Jones
wrote to Throop:
>Just because you have a successful theory....
"Successful" becomes a strange way of putting it when you begin to realize
that the theory has been so misunderstood that few know exactly what it
would take to properly test it, and it has yet to be properly tested.
Since a merely stipulated (man-given) value for light's one-way speed
produces *all* of the relativistic "effects," none of them in any way backs
up the theory. The only true test of the theory is to use a pair of
synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed.
~~~B Jones~~~
Tom Roberts
> is it physically impossible to have two
> or more clocks with 'exactly' the same face values?
This depends directly upon what you mean. As I have said repeatedly.
> > Your definition leaves undefined "same instant in time". Defining
> > that _IS_ the difficulty....
> Only to those who wish to semantically quibble. It is not at all
> difficult to 'mathematically' define such a situation.
> Point A = (x_A, y_A, z_A, t_0)
> Point B = (x_B, y_B, z_B, t_0)
> Point C = (x_C, y_C, z_C, t_0)
You have still left undefined what your symbols mean. You continue
to miss the entire point, which is that you must define to which
coordinate system your "same instant in time" is referred to. Your
symbols here seem to imply some specific coordinate system, but
NONE of your previous remarks ever came close to doing that.
> Let be clear, I stated then, as I do now, that if one actually measured
> the time it takes a light signal to travel from point A to point B (NOT
> from A to B to A or B to A to B) while these points are reoriented in a
> uniformly co-moving fashion (as the two would be while sitting on the
> surface of the earth), the result would be a sinusoidal variation in
> the observed transit times. The magnitude of this variation is
> however, as you point out, is equal to that computed to 'drift out of
> synch' by so-called slow clock transport.
While you wanted to "be clear", I interpret that paragraph as saying
both that such a variation could be measured, and also that it cannot
be measured (or is measured to be 0) because it is canceled by the
slow-clock transport. The difficulty seems related to your omitting
describing a physical measurement.
Consider two perfect clocks A and B at rest on earth's equator
separated by a few kilometers and connected by a horizontal light path
in vacuum. Let us ignore all other massive bodies but the earth. Clock
A can record the time it shows when a light pulse is emitted from its
end, and clock B can record the time it shows when a light pulse is
received at its end. Pulses are emitted at one-second intervals for
>24 hours. After the data-taking ends, the two clock's records are
brought together and compared, entry by entry, subtracting the clock A
value from the clock B value.
Do you predict a variation in these differences?
Every ether theory of this class predicts zero variation for sucn a
measurement. This class includes all viable ether theories, where
"viable" means consistent with existing experiments.
Hmmm. I suppose it is possible to construct an ether theory
which "lives in the error bars" of existing experiments.
But such a theory would need to be carefully tuned, and I'm
pretty sure its variations would remain within the error
bars of the measurement I described, if it were performed
using real equipment.
> However, if you want to maintain these clocks in so-called synch, you
> MUST actively do so, by manual intervention,
Again your lack of physical description makes it possible to interpret
your words as either correct or wrong. Consider those two clocks in
my description above (note they are at the same altitude). Had they
been initially synchronized in the ECI frame, then they would
automatically maintain their synch. in the ECI frame, without manual
intervention.
> as with the GPS...
The "manual intervention" for the GPS is used merely to correct for
the imperfections of real clocks, and for effects like errors in
orbits and the variations in astronomical relations to the other
planets which are not constant. If the GPS were implemented with
perfect clocks and perfect orbits (etc.) and the earth were the
only mass in the universe, then no "manual intervention" would be
required to keep the GPS clocks in synch. in the ECI frame
(remembering that the clocks are manufactured to account for the
differences in gravitational potential at their altitudes). This
is so for any theory of that class, and for any choice of its
ether frame.
> > Let us choose one specific theory of that class for which the
> > one-way speed of light is anisotropic, and let us construct a
> > set of coordinate clocks throughout a region of space on earth
> > using that theory and use (say) the CMBR dipole=0 frame as its
> > "ether frame". These coordinate clocks must be synchronized
> > according to the theory selected. This set of coordinate clocks
> > can be used to measure the one-way speed of light, and will
> > obtain anisotropic values.
> There will be NO anisotropy if the clocks exist in the inertial frame
> where the CMBR Dipole = 0.
Yes, but you need to read what I wrote -- see that "on earth" above?
>
> > Now, in addition, let us select one of those coordinate clocks
> > as the origin, and take a moveable clock, place it right next
> > to the origin and synchronize it to the origin clock (i.e. make
> > it read the same value). Now let us _slowly_ transport this
> > clock to some other position and stop, and then measure the
> > one-way speed of light between the origin clock and the moveable
> > clock (measure the distance with rulers at rest wrt both clocks)
> > -- _EVERY_ theory of this class predicts that this latter
> > measurement will yield c, regardless of the position selected for
> > the moveable clock (i.e. this measurement yields c isotropically).
> > Now ask: is the moveable clock synchronized to the coordinate
> > clock at its new position? No.
>
> If we 'assume' that the two clocks (O & M) are co-moving at say, 370
> kps,
That was stipulated in the physical description above, where your "370
kps" is relative to the CMBR dipole=0 frame.
> then have clock M simply record its time, subtracted from the time
> sent to it from O. This delta will of course increase as the two
> separate.
I do not understand what you mean here. Are you sending light signals
from O to M repeatedly and then subtracting the times recorded by O
and M for the emission and detection of such a pulse? If so then for
successive pulses T(O)-T(M) will clearly DECREASE (become more
negative, remembering they were synchronized when together). What do
you mean "time sent to it from O"? I described no mechanism to do
this, and your description is unclear. If you imagine that O
periodically broadcasts via light or radio the time it shows and M
receives the broadcast and subtracts its own time from O's, then this
delta will also decrease as the two separate.
> Then with M separated from O by a sufficient distance that a
> measurable delta t can be determined, rotate O and M 90 degrees around
> a common center (at any speed you wish).
Let me assume this keeps the distance between O and M fixed, as
measured by rulers at rest wrt O.
> Finally, repeat the process
> of timing the transit signal. The results will be different,
Not as predicted by any of the theories of this class, assuming that
the rotation you introduced is done slowly wrt the earth. In every one
of these theories, the isotropy of the speed of light measured by
slowly-transported clocks is independent of the path over which they
are transported; as my assumption above keeps the O-M distance
constant, the time difference T(M)-T(O) for a light pulse will
also be constant, and (O-M distance)/(T(M)-T(O))=c.
> Note that in this
> process, both O and M move at equal speeds, in opposite arch's without
> any 'relative' motion between themselves.
What do you mean? To which coordinates are you referring these speeds?
Your description is unclear. Your "without any 'relative' motion
between themselves" seems to refer to some rotating coordinate system.
> Certainly however, wrt the
> CMBR Dipole frame, they do have different speeds during said arch. But
> wrt JUST clocks O and M, there IS no relative motion at any time during
> rotation.
This is garbled. Speed and motion are referred to COORDINATE SYSTEMS,
not simply objects. You seem to be intermixing inertial and rotating
coordinate system here, without specifing which....
> In fact, at a slow enough rotation velocity, without
> knowledge of the CMBR frame, one could NOT tell the clocks we moving BY
> ANY measurable means.
One could look at the stars.
>Except however, that once rotated that 90 d
> egrees, the differential delta t would be exactly the same.
Hmmm. Earlier you claimed there would be a difference. Which is is?
Your description is unclear.
> So, even
> without knowing that the CMBR dipole was present, this difference in
> transit times would suggest one of two conclusions, a) the transit
> speed was changing, or b) the clocks are/have been 'drifted out of
> synch'.
But your previous sentence said that "delta t would be exactly the
same". Which do you mean? Your description is unclear.
And you seem to be assuming that there would be a difference -- NONE
of the theories in this class predict such a difference; BOTH your
a and b occur, and they EXACTLY cancel out (where I interpret your
b to refer to synchronization in the coordinate system I initially
described).
> Can you explain why you think LET has this feature [isotropy]?
Because in Lorentz's 1904 paper he showed that Maxwell's equations
apply in the local coordinates. That was his whole point in writing
that paper. The wave equation derived from the ME is manifestly
isotropic, and describes light.
> Lorentz never
> suggests any synchronization, or procedure for same, for separated
> clocks.
He defined his local time in terms of a Lorentz transform applied to
time in the ether frame. In order to obtain agreement between LET and
experiments, local clocks must display the local time (I forget what
Lorentz himself said about this). As the ME apply in the local
coordinates, one can use Einstein's method to synchronize the local
clocks in LET.
Yes, Lorentz was not as careful as Einstein in defining his terms and
the physical situations he was considering. In fact, Einstein was
remarkably precies in language for his day (or for any other day).
> In our physical universe, space without the CMBR doesn't seem to exist.
So "space" does not exist inside a shielded enclosure???
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> Imagine my surprise when I found
> out that, contrary to what I was told, relativistic phenomena can be
> completely described in classical terms!
Well, yes. If one is willing to swallow the assumption that motion
makes rulers physically shrink and clocks physically slow down.
> But I can't help but suspect that the strangeness that seems to
> pervade modern physics has it's roots in the positivistic approach.
Hmmm. While some early 20th-century physicists were surely positivists
(Born comes to mind), positivism is not essential. I doubt if many
physicsts today would class themselves as positivists. Admittedly
most would not know what that means (and I am a bit vague)....
Quantum phenomena and relativity have certainly taught modern
physicists the lesson to only discuss what can be measured (or at
least to "integrate out" whatever cannot). But this is at most
positivism in a much weakened sense.
> And
> that if SR can be understood classically, it is possible that, in
> principle, the rest of it probably can too.
IMHO Bell's theorem makes this _extremely_ unlikely.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Brian D Jones
["Standeven" wrote:]
>Precisely. If different observers found different dt,
>then they would obtain different general results (laws),
>contrary to the PoR.
As I tried to get across, your dt is not a general law - it is a specific
result.
See more on this below.
--
[B Jones prior]
>>For example, even Einstein admitted that the
>>(absolutely) synchronous clocks of classical
>>physics would get c +/- v for light's one-way speed.
["Standeven":]
>He was correct on this point, of course. Exercise: Why does
>this not refute my proof? (Hint: Identify the meaning of "v"
>in this equation.)
What my above does is show that the PR does not call for invariance and
isotropy in the case of light's speed. It also shows that even though each
frame can obtain a different specific result, the general law must be (and
is) the same for all frames. (The law being c +/- v) As for the meaning of
this v (as I also say below), a single frame can knowingly change its speed
without having to reference any other frame. This is because a speed change
can be *felt* within a closed lab. Therefore, a more precise statement of
this law is "Light's one-way speed per a frame using the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics varies with frame speed." And as I
said, this is not some speed measured by some other frame's observers using
their own clocks and rods. It is a speed whose change can be felt within a
closed lab of the single given frame. This gives me the right to omit
"relative to some other frame" when I use the term v for this single
frame's speed or velocity.
[...]
[B Jones prior:]
>>The real PR does not care what sort of laws are found, and
>>therefore it does not care if the specific results of a law
>>vary or don't vary with frame velocity.
["Standeven":]
>Then the "real PR" is vacuous, and Galileo et. al. were fools
>for introducing it; and Lorentz an even bigger one for rejecting
>it.
Actually, they were fools in this case. To show this, I ask you to tell me
explicitly how any two identically-constructed frames in the same universe
could obtain *different* general physical laws.
[...]
[B Jones prior:]
>> Even better Exercise:
>> What is the second postulate? (Proof required)
["Standeven" continued:]
>Of course, there is no "the" second postulate, since
>different books use different sets of postulates.
But Einstein himself certainly had only one second postulate, and it cannot
be "light's one-way speed is c in all frames" because this cannot be a
postulate. It cannot be because a true postulate refers only to possible
physical laws, and light's one-way speed is not a physical (natural) law
because it depends in part upon man - it takes man to synchronize the
clocks.
So what is the second postulate (Einstein's version)?
["Standeven":]
>For extra credit, his first postulate is, "Laws of nature,
>whether mechanical or optical, are of the same form in all
>inertial frames."
Yes, but what does "the same form" mean to you? To me, it means "the same
general rule." For example, the general rule for rectangular area is A =
LW. "All observers in all frames" obtain this same "law of rectangles," and
therefore the PR is fully satisfied; however, note that each observer's
rectangle's area may be different specifically speaking, even though all
apply the exact same general law. This is analogous to the case where
classical clocks yield different one-way speeds of light in each frame, but
the general light speed law is the same for all, namely, c +/- v. or, more
precisely, where light's one-way speed varies with frame speed. And I don't
need to say "frame speed relative to some other frame" because a frame's
speed can be known to vary without there being any speed measurement made
by any observers in any frame.
Also note that this postulate is trivial because all
identically-constructed frames in the same universe must obtain the same
general laws.
One of the most important things about the (true) PR is this:
At least *one* frame's observers must first obtain an experimental result
before the PR can be applied. For example, the PR cannot be applied to the
case of light's one-way, two-clock speed because *no* frame's observers
have yet used two clocks to measure light's one-way speed.
And, as I said, if light's one-way speed is found to vary in one frame,
then the PR simply says that it must vary in all other frames. This is why
I said that the PR does not care or specify WHICH laws are to be found; it
only cares that all frames' observers find the same laws (which of course
*must* happen if all frames are identically constructed.)
Returning to your example:
Basically, all you were saying is that since the "PR" (your incorrect
version of the PR) calls for an invariant and isotropic one-way light
speed, and since the "PR" is correct, clocks cannot possibly be
(absolutely) synchronized because then light's one-way speed would not be
isotropic and invariant. But, as I have shown, this is wrong because your
opening premise was wrong. The (real) PR does not demand certain laws - it
only demands that after *ANY* law has been found in one frame that this
same law (whatever it may be) be found in all other
(identically-constructed) frames.
Einstein's "PR" was not the real PR. Einstein twisted the meaning of the
real PR to include the statement that no experimental result shall ever
vary with frame velocity. Note that this precludes the use of synchronous
clocks to obtain a variable one-way light speed - but this is not the real
PR because obviously there is nothing in the real PR that says anything at
all about clock synchronization or the possibility of synchronizing clocks.
It is ridiculous to tie clock synchronization to the PR, and it is just as
ridiculous to tie light's one-way speed to the PR.
Now be sure to tell us what Einstein's unique version of the 2nd postulate
is.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Standeven
>
> ["Standeven" wrote:]
> >Precisely. If different observers found different dt,
> >then they would obtain different general results (laws),
> >contrary to the PoR.
>
> As I tried to get across, your dt is not a general law - it is a specific
> result.
>
> See more on this below.
>
> --
> [B Jones prior]
> >>For example, even Einstein admitted that the
> >>(absolutely) synchronous clocks of classical
> >>physics would get c +/- v for light's one-way speed.
>
> ["Standeven":]
> >He was correct on this point, of course. Exercise: Why does
> >this not refute my proof? (Hint: Identify the meaning of "v"
> >in this equation.)
>
> What my above does is show that the PR does not call for invariance
> and isotropy in the case of light's speed. It also shows that even
> though each frame can obtain a different specific result, the general
> law must be (and is) the same for all frames. (The law being c +/- v)
> As for the meaning of this v (as I also say below), a single frame
> can knowingly change its speed without having to reference any
> other frame.
Ah, so v is the _change_ in speed during the course of the experiment.
OK-my observers are inertial, so v is zero.
[...]
>
> [B Jones prior:]
> >>The real PR does not care what sort of laws are found, and
> >>therefore it does not care if the specific results of a law
> >>vary or don't vary with frame velocity.
>
> ["Standeven":]
> >Then the "real PR" is vacuous, and Galileo et. al. were fools
> >for introducing it; and Lorentz an even bigger one for rejecting
> >it.
>
> Actually, they were fools in this case. To show this, I ask you to
> tell me explicitly how any two identically-constructed frames in
> the same universe could obtain *different* general physical laws.
Suppose that there was some magic substance that neutralized inertia,
with the result that any object encased in it would be brought to
absolute rest. Then some observers would find that objects encased
in the substance have a tendency to move, relative to them. But
an identical observer who is absolutely stationary would not find
this. Thus we have a general law which takes different forms,
depending on an observer's absolute velocity.
>
> [...]
>
> [B Jones prior:]
> >> Even better Exercise:
> >> What is the second postulate? (Proof required)
>
> ["Standeven" continued:]
> >Of course, there is no "the" second postulate, since
> >different books use different sets of postulates.
>
[...]
> So what is the second postulate (Einstein's version)?
It was something like, "Light moves through empty space at
the measured velocity c, independent of the motion of the
source," if I recall correctly. (I don't have access to the
paper, unfortunately.)
> ["Standeven":]
> >For extra credit, his first postulate is, "Laws of nature,
> >whether mechanical or optical, are of the same form in all
> >inertial frames."
>
> Yes, but what does "the same form" mean to you? To me, it means
> "the same general rule."
Yes. More precisely, if a law states
A = f(B, C,...)
in one frame, then it must state
A' = f(B', C',...)
in the other, where A' is determined relative to the second frame
in the same fashion that A is determined relative to the first frame,
and similarly for B and B', etc.
In my example above, this fails, since the absolute velocity would
have to depend on the frame to produce the correct results, even
though it is not determined relative to the frame.
L Hoffman
> synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed.
>
> ~~~B Jones~~~
If you want to say that SR is founded on impossible concepts, and that
this makes the theory incomprehensible, then I agree. But you would be
foolish to maintain that the predictions of SR have not been verified
experimentally. Don't forget that postulates are not predictions.
L Hoffman
> L Hoffman wrote:
> > Imagine my surprise when I found
> > out that, contrary to what I was told, relativistic phenomena can be
> > completely described in classical terms!
>
> Well, yes. If one is willing to swallow the assumption that motion
> makes rulers physically shrink and clocks physically slow down.
I have no difficulty at all with the concept of mutable standards of
measure. Our rulers and clocks are regularly subject to distortion caused
by things like temperature changes. We correct for this by determining
the cause of the distortion.
> > But I can't help but suspect that the strangeness that seems to
> > pervade modern physics has it's roots in the positivistic approach.
>
> Hmmm. While some early 20th-century physicists were surely positivists
> (Born comes to mind), positivism is not essential. I doubt if many
> physicsts today would class themselves as positivists. Admittedly
> most would not know what that means (and I am a bit vague)....
>
> Quantum phenomena and relativity have certainly taught modern
> physicists the lesson to only discuss what can be measured (or at
> least to "integrate out" whatever cannot). But this is at most
> positivism in a much weakened sense.
Yes, that's what I meant. If this was made clear whenever physics was
being discussed, much confusion would be eliminated. Furthermore, it's
not at all clear whether the theories taught them the lesson, or the
theories were molded to fit their positivistic assumptions.
> > And
> > that if SR can be understood classically, it is possible that, in
> > principle, the rest of it probably can too.
>
> IMHO Bell's theorem makes this _extremely_ unlikely.
Can you explain why this is so?
Paul Stowe
>> is it physically impossible to have two or more clocks with
>> 'exactly' the same face values?
>
>This depends directly upon what you mean. As I have said repeatedly.
>
>> > Your definition leaves undefined "same instant in time". Defining
>> > that _IS_ the difficulty....
>> Only to those who wish to semantically quibble. It is not at all
>> difficult to 'mathematically' define such a situation.
>>
>> Point A = (x_A, y_A, z_A, t_0)
>> Point B = (x_B, y_B, z_B, t_0)
>> Point C = (x_C, y_C, z_C, t_0)
>
> You have still left undefined what your symbols mean. You continue
> to miss the entire point, which is that you must define to which
> coordinate system your "same instant in time" is referred to. Your
> symbols here seem to imply some specific coordinate system, but
> NONE of your previous remarks ever came close to doing that.
The nicest term that comes to mind is, excessively pedantic.
>> Let be clear, I stated then, as I do now, that if one actually
>> measured the time it takes a light signal to travel from point A
>> to point B (NOT from A to B to A or B to A to B) while these
>> points are reoriented in a uniformly co-moving fashion (as the
>> two would be while sitting on the surface of the earth), the
>> result would be a sinusoidal variation in the observed transit
>> times. The magnitude of this variation is however, as you point
>> out, is equal to that computed to 'drift out of synch' by
>> so-called slow clock transport.
>
> While you wanted to "be clear", I interpret that paragraph as saying
> both that such a variation could be measured, and also that it cannot
> be measured (or is measured to be 0) because it is canceled by the
> slow-clock transport. The difficulty seems related to your omitting
> describing a physical measurement.
>
> Consider two perfect clocks A and B at rest on earth's equator
> separated by a few kilometers and connected by a horizontal light
> path in vacuum. Let us ignore all other massive bodies but the
> earth. Clock A can record the time it shows when a light pulse is
> emitted from its end, and clock B can record the time it shows when
> a light pulse is received at its end. Pulses are emitted at
> one-second intervals for >24 hours. After the data-taking ends, the
> two clock's records are brought together and compared, entry by
> entry, subtracting the clock A value from the clock B value.
>
> Do you predict a variation in these differences?
Further, let's 'define' that at the beginning of this data acquisition
that your 'perfect clocks' has EXACTLY the same face reading down to
the limit of their precision. Further, that the original orientation
of line A-B is perpendicular to the CMBR Dipole direction. Finally,
we're only interested in the transit time (this IS the absolute value
of the time sent to B by A, subtracted from B current value (B')
dt = |A - B'|
For your 2 Km line, this should in an ideal situation, yield a value of
6.6713E-6 seconds (x/c).
> Every ether theory of this class predicts zero variation for such
> a measurement. This class includes all viable ether theories, where
> "viable" means consistent with existing experiments.
Every 'theory of your class' yields a null result for the MMX.
Moreover, LET and SR in particular attribute this to BOTH a length
contraction of inverse gamma, and a time distortion of gamma. LET goes
further, and posit
s a physical contraction of inverse gamma, and simply acknowledges that
we ignore (as an unknown) the longitudinal component of the path taken
by the light along the direction of motion.
What do I mean by longitudinal component? Simply that, like a steel
marble fired across the width of a railroad car in motion, (a.k.a
perpendicular to said motion [P]), those in the car see only the
perpendicular component of the marble's path, even though the actual
path of the marble also has a speed equal to that of the train (the
longitudinal component [L]).
Now, if that marble can only physically move at one fixed speed [say
c], and this speed is along the actual path, it MUST be broken into two
(or more) perpendicular vector components a.k.a c^2 = L^2 + P^2. The
perpendicular component [P] through the railcar, most certainly cannot
be c unless, the railcar is completely motionless. If we wish to think
it is (as one can do in a sealed railcar in perfect inertial motion),
we MUST assume that time distorts (slows) relative to the railcar's
speed. This, is what Lorentz did in his theory, he calls this
perception, "Local Time". Since all actual physical processes are
based upon 'actual' c, this perception can be, and is, self consistent.
However, along the railcar's line of motion there is an actual
directional asymmetry for path taken by the marble. This results in a
differential factor of gamma in the round trip time for a marble moving
along the axis of motion relative to the path for a round trip
perpendicular to said motion. Thus a contraction of gamma in actual
physical length will exactly compensate for this. This is what
Fitzgerald proposed in 1893, and Lorentz in 1895. For the MMX, time
dilation is not required. However, for Maxwell's model to be perceived
the same in all inertial moving frames, it is. Specifically because c
is actually, source independent.
So concluding (and you know, I've done the analyses), there will be an
apparent change in dt (in relation to the 370 Kps CMBR Dipole) ranging
from 0 perpendicular to the direction of motion, to +/- 8.2E-9 seconds
in the direction of, and away from the line of motion respectively.
That is what is predicted. We note that since it is +/- (equal and
opposite), the round trip dt will always be 1.33425E-5 seconds at 2 Km.
Paul Stowe
Wayne Throop
:: to which coordinate system your "same instant in time" is referred
:: to. Your symbols here seem to imply some specific coordinate system,
:: but NONE of your previous remarks ever came close to doing that.
: pst...@ix.netcom.com(Paul Stowe)
: The nicest term that comes to mind is, excessively pedantic.
Right. Stowe prefers to err on the side of insufficient precision.
The point is, if you are too pedantic, you end up making distinctions
that don't matter. Shrug. But if you are insufficiently precise, you end
up with invalid reasoning. And Stowe has, in the past, actually ended
up with invalid reasoning on account of being insufficiently precise.
Indeed, that's what Tom is attempting to point out to him.
So an accusation of "excessive pedantry" is really ... well ...
continuing to miss the entire point.
By the way... does anybody know why Paul Stowe is using invalid references
pointers in his postings in such a way that they can't be used to retrieve
the full text of previous postings in the thread? For example, in his
posting <8l619m$d2t$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, the references are set
to <p2Rd5odQ...@julian.uwo.ca>, but the text he quotes makes it
clear he's actually responding to <3975DF28...@lucent.com>.
( I've repaired the references pointers here. )
Brian D Jones
wrote:
Name one SRT prediction which has been verified experimentally.
~~B J~~
Brian D Jones
[Tom Roberts wrote:]
[L Hoffman wrote:]
>> Imagine my surprise when I found out that, contrary
>> to what I was told, relativistic phenomena can be
>> completely described in classical terms!
>Well, yes. If one is willing to swallow the assumption
>that motion makes rulers physically shrink and clocks
>physically slow down.
[B Jones replies:]
The above Roberts' reply clearly shows
[i] that many relativists either cannot understand or simply refuse to face
facts,
and
[ii] the extremes of irony where the proponents of a theory which explains
absolutely nothing never hesitate to malign a much superior theory which
explains everything!
Re [ii]:
The full Lorentz theory (sans the unneeded aether concept - light waves
need no medium - and replacing that ether with physical space - but not
assuming that space is at absolute rest) physically explains all space-time
experiments, whereas SRT provides exactly *zero* physical explanations.
Re [i]:
It is child's play to prove* that any theory which denies distant
simultaneity (i.e., which calls for the lack of absolutely synchronous
clocks) contains both intrinsic clock slowing and intrinsic rod
contraction. Not to mention the fact that the Michelson-Morley experiment
and the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment cannot be physically explained without
these physical distortions.
[*And I have posted proofs that both intrinsic clock slowing and intrinsic
rod length contraction are given by SRT - proofs which not one person has
refuted.]
Apparently the theory (of special relativity) has been so poorly taught and
even more poorly understood for so long that many relativists cannot even
grasp the truth about their own theory, much less grasp that which lies
beyond it!
I also have a simple proof that intrinsic mass varies even within SRT, and
here it is:
If intrinsic mass does not vary with object speed through space, then
anyone could easily have distant simultaneity by simply using two baseballs
(or whatever) to start clocks absolutely simultaneously. (But due to the
Earth's movement through space, two initially identical inertial objects
(such as two baseballs) will become different mass-wise, and will therefore
*not* start the clocks absolutely simultaneously.
With all theories and all experiments calling for these three intrinsic
distortions, anyone who rejects has to be seriously deluded.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Tom Roberts
> [...]
> So concluding (and you know, I've done the analyses), there will be an
> apparent change in dt (in relation to the 370 Kps CMBR Dipole) ranging
> from 0 perpendicular to the direction of motion, to +/- 8.2E-9 seconds
> in the direction of, and away from the line of motion respectively.
You have apparently forgotten to take into account the changes in the
clock's relative synchronization due to the small but non-zero
variations in their velocity wrt the CMBR dipole=0 frame. This assumes
you used LET for the analysis, of course (or SR). And also that you
used an _INERTIAL_ frame, not the rotating earth-surface frame.
Background: in LET, the local coordinates of a moving inertial
frame are defined by the Lorentz transform of the coordinates
in the ether frame (all are Cartesian).
Lemma of LET: Moving a clock slowly wrt the moving frame which was
initially synchronized to its collocated local-coordinate clock will
preserve its synchronization with its collocated local-coordinate
clock at all points along its path, in the limit as its velocity wrt
the moving frame goes to 0.
[N.B. this lemma is also valid in SR, but not in any other
theory of the equivalence class I discuss. This lemma does
generalize to the entire class, and I proved the generalized
lemma in my post of 11/21/1999, Subject: Theories Equivalent
to SR.]
Note that for clocks on the earth's equator, the synchronization errors
to collocated ECI coordinate clocks (due to the finite rotational
velocity of the surface) apply equally to both clocks, and are NOT
periodic but are linear in time. So this cannot introduce any
periodicity in the measurements being discussed.
The usual ECI coordinate system (e.g. for the GPS) redefines
the duration of the ECI coordinate second by a constant factor
to remove this discrepancy completely. This could not be done
if the discrepancy were not linear in time (e.g. if it were
periodic as Paul Stowe supposes).
So the way the ECI coordinates are used in the GPS is inconsistent
with Stowe's claim. If his claim above were true (8 ns/day deviation
for 2km separation) the timing errors of the GPS would be many
microseconds per day (or per orbit), corresponding to position errors
of many kilometers! Actual position errors of the GPS are thousands
of times less than that.
> That is what is predicted.
Not by LET, when one performs the analysis correctly and completely.
It is simple to prove that in LET the one-way speed of light
is isotropic in the moving _inertial_ frame: In his 1904 paper
Lorentz showed that Maxwell's equations are valid in the local
coordinates of the moving frame, and the M.E. directly imply
an isotropic one-way speed for all solutions to its wave
equation(s).
It is also simple to prove that LET is equivalent to SR in
that every prediction of one is a prediction of the other:
the Lorentz transforms form a group.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Brian D Jones
> [B Jones prior]
>>What my above does is show that the PR does not call
>>for invariance and isotropy in the case of light's
>>speed. It also shows that even though each frame can
>>obtain a different specific result, the general law
>>must be (and is) the same for all frames. (The law
>>being c +/- v) As for the meaning of this v (as I
>>also say below), a single frame can knowingly change
>>its speed without having to reference any other frame.
>Ah, so v is the _change_ in speed during the course of
>the experiment. OK-my observers are inertial, so v is zero.
No -- what I said was this: The v in the above one-way light speed law has
meaning independent of any outside reference frames because it (the v) is
based solely on absolutely different frame speeds - frame speeds that are
absolutely different because a frame speed change is absolute (in the sense
that it can be detected in a closed lab). (In other words, since the law
says that light's one-way speed varies with frame speed v, and since frame
speed variance is detectable in a closed lab, it is not necessary to tie
this v to any outside reference frames.)
I really don't see now anyone could fail to see this simple point,
especially after my prior careful and full explanation, most of which you
deleted.
[...]
>> Actually, they were fools in this case. To show this,
>> I ask you to tell me explicitly how any two
>> identically-constructed frames in the same universe
>> could obtain *different* general physical laws.
>Suppose that there was some magic substance that
>neutralized inertia, with the result that any object
>encased in it would be brought to absolute rest. Then
>some observers would find that objects encased in the
>substance have a tendency to move, relative to them.
>But an identical observer who is absolutely stationary
>would not find this. Thus we have a general law which
>takes different forms, depending on an observer's
>absolute velocity.
Yes, but to do this you broke the second rule that all frames must be in
the same universe, meaning one that is the same throughout, which of course
precludes your stipulated magical zone.
it should be obvious to anyone (beyond the fifth grade) that
identically-contracted instruments under identical conditions (inertial
reference frames in the same universe) *must* obtain the same (general)
results.
[---]
>>So what is the second postulate (Einstein's version)?
>It was something like, "Light moves through empty space
>at the measured velocity c, independent of the motion
>of the source," if I recall correctly. (I don't have
>access to the paper, unfortunately.)
Well, I can sympathize with your not having the paper - I too lack proper
resources - so here is Einstein's statement for your reference:
[QUOTE]
"Light is always propagated in empty space with a fixed speed c which is
independent of the motion of the source."
Note carefully that Einstein made no mention of any reference frame making
any speed measurements; indeed, this was impossible because at this point
in his paper Einstein had yet to define time span measurement (i.e., he had
yet to tell how his clocks are calibrated).
Also note carefully that one must not confuse the 2nd post. with the second
principle - which Einstein gave only **after** giving his definition of
clock calibration. This definition *stipulated* (mandated) that clocks be
set to obtain one-way invariance - so cannot be a postulate, as Einstein
well knew; that's why he did not call it a postulate, but instead called it
a principle. There is a tremendous difference - the latter being purely
from nature (a possible law of physics) and the former being only a
man-given stipulation.
Between stating his first postulate and the 2nd post., Einstein felt the
urgency to *interrupt* his own presentation of the postulates by
interjecting the critical remark that the second postulate was apparently
irreconcilable with the first.
The fact that the postulates were even apparently irreconcilable tells us
that the 2nd post. cannot say that light's one-way speed is invariant
because this is what Einstein's 1st post. says.
His first postulate:
[QUOTE]
"Just as is the case with all mechanical experiments [Galileo's
relativity], no electromagnetic (light) experiments shall result in the
detection of absolute motion."
As I said, Einstein's 1st post. calls for one-way light speed isotropy and
invariance, so there are two reasons why the 2nd post. could not also call
for this, namely, [1] Einstein would not have been stupidly redundant, and
[2] Einstein stated clearly that the postulates apparently conflicted with
each other.
When and how did the postulates conflict?
Well, the answer was obvious to all classical physicists (the audience for
Einstein's original paper): The postulates directly conflict when one
assumes the use (as did all physicists prior to Uncle Albert) the use of
(absolutely) synchronous clocks.
As Einstein said in his simple example ["Relativity"] about the railway
carriage:
[QUOTE]
"The speed W of the man [from the prior section] relative to the embankment
is here [in this example] replaced by the speed of light relative to the
embankment. [This measured one-way speed of light we label w which] is the
... speed of light with respect to the [moving] [railway] carriage, and
[so] we have
w = c - v
The speed of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c."
Note that math does not lie; the above simple equation cannot be wished
away or misconstrued by any relativist.
It is an absolute fact that in Einstein's given example light's one-way
speed varied with frame velocity.
As I said, the math does not lie.
But we know exactly *why* light's one-way speed varied - it was due to the
use of classical physic's (absolutely) synchronous clocks.
And the same thing would happen today if two synchronous clocks were used
to measure light's one-way speed.
This is why Einstein said that the two postulates conflicted.
The 1st post. wants light's one-way speed to be invariant, while the 2nd
post. coupled with synchronous clocks guarantees variance.
The 2bd post. guarantees this by guaranteeing us that light's propagation
speed in space is constant (due mainly to light's source-independent
nature). All light rays travel through space at the same speed. No light
ray ever passes another light ray. No light ray ever accelerates or
decelerates (in "empty" and gravity-free space).
Given something whose speed through space is constant, we could easily
detect our "absolute" motion if we used (absolutely) synchronous clocks to
measure this thing's passing speed (i.e., its one-way speed relative to
us). This didn't work in the round-trip case because Nature was able to
slow clocks and shrink rods. However, Nature does not directly control
clock calibration, so She may not be able to prevent us from (absolutely)
synchronizing clocks. And no one can prove that clocks cannot be
(absolutely) synchronized.
But Einstein - given the unexpected failure to measure light's round-trip
speed - assumed that light's one-way speed also could not be measured. But
this (obviously) called for the rule that clocks cannot be (truly)
synchronized. And if one also wants one-way isotropy and invariance, it
further calls for setting the clocks in one's theory to produce isotropy
and invariance, and this is exactly what Herr 'Einsenberger' did.
Einstein's fundamental problem was to assume that light's one-way speed was
a law. As I have said, despite the fact that light's round-trip speed is a
law, the one-way speed cannot be. This is because in order to have a law,
Nature must be in full control. As I said, in the round-trip case, Nature
*was* in full control because She controlled the essential elements
(intrinsic clock rhythm and intrinsic rod length); however, in the one-way
case, Nature is not in full control because (as I said) She does not fully
and directly control clock calibration. Only man can calibrate clocks, and
he can calibrate them any way he wishes (as long as he is clever enough)!
Nature forces us to us slowed clocks perched on a shrunken rod, but this is
as far as She can go; She cannot force us to set the clocks in a certain
way, and if we try, we may be able to absolutely synchronize them.
In that case, Einstein's theory would be gone because his primary postulate
would be destroyed.
But, as I said, this "postulate" was never a real postulate anyway because
light's one-way speed is not a law, and true postulates pertain only to
potential true laws of physics.
In other words, if Einstein had fully understood his position, he would
never have created his theory.
All he had the right to do (scientifically speaking) was to proffer his
preference for the belief that we shall never be able to detect the Earth's
motion through space.
But a much better path to take (scientifically speaking) would have been to
continuously search for a way to synchronize clocks. However, Einstein
seemed determined *not* to do this!
[---]
Regarding "Standeven's" "Proof" (replayed below in full), I had mistakenly
thought that he would easily see his error if I gave a hint or two;
however, I now see that I am going to have to provide a detailed rebuttal,
much to my typing fingers' dismay!
[Pin-pointing the Error of "Standeven's" "Proof":]
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Proof: Consider a set of four relatively stationary clocks:
A, B, C, and D. A and B are collocated and read the same time.
C and D are collocated, and clock D is Einstein-synchronized
with clock B.
Distance = L
A,B ------------------- C,D
Suppose, for the sake of argument, that some method is
used to put clock C into absolute sync with clock A.
Now, consider dt, the difference between the reading on
clock D and the reading on clock C. It must be constant
with time, since clock C runs at the same rate as clock
D. Since this quantity is determined by a physical
experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
the clocks.
Now, consider a new set of clocks A', B', C', and D', moving
at speed v with respect to the first. We perform the same
physical process with these clocks; by the PoR, we must get
the same results. Thus, clocks A', B', and C' always read the
same time, clocks A' and D' are Einstein-synchronized, and
the difference between the readings of clock C' and D' is
constant at dt.
Thus, it would appear that our method of absolute synchronization
is equivalent to performing an Einstein synchronization, and
then subtracting off a constant dt from one of the clock readings.
But we know that Einstein-synchronization is frame-dependent.
Thus, it follows that our method of "absolute synchronization"
is also frame-dependent. But this is a contradiction. Ergo,
the assumption that there is a method of absolute clock
synchronization must be incorrect. QED
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
["Standeven" belief, stated after he presented his above "Proof":]
>>If different observers found different dt, then they
>>would obtain different general results (laws), contrary
>>to the PoR.
[We now focus on the critical part of "Standeven's "Proof":]
>Now, consider dt, the difference between the reading on
>clock D and the reading on clock C. It must be constant
>with time, since clock C runs at the same rate as clock
>D. Since this quantity is determined by a physical
>experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
>it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
>the clocks.
The problem here is "Standeven's" note that
>Since this quantity is determined by a physical
>experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
>it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
>the clocks.
As I have tried to get across, the PR does not apply to such specific
quantities determined by physical experiment; it only applies to the
generalized rule which follows from having many frames perform the same
experiment.
Einstein took care to point this out at the very beginning of his
"Relativity" chapter on PR. There he used the simple example of a raven
flying past two frames. Einstein noted that despite the fact that both the
raven's speed and direction were different for each frame, the overall rule
was the same for both (and for all other) frames. Einstein put it as
follows: [QUOTE] "Expressed in an abstract manner we may say: If a mass m
is moving uniformly and in a straight line with respect to a co-ordinate
system K, then it will also be moving uniformly and in a straight line
relative to a second co-ordinate system K', provided that the latter is
executing a uniform translatory motion with respect to K."
Specific results are not general results, and the PR applies only to
general results.
I already mentioned that Einstein himself said that given the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics, the one-way law is c - v. To you
this means that each frame finds a *****DIFFERENT***** general law! To me
and Einstein, it merely means that each frame finds a different specific
result depending on frame velocity through space, and the general law (c -
v) is the *****SAME***** for all frames.
Returning to your "proof," let's examine those clocks of yours a little
closer:
You said that
>clock D is Einstein-synchronized with clock B.
Are you aware that Einstein-synchronized clocks are set differently in each
frame?
Here are on-paper diagrams of five frames with Einstein clocks:
[1]---------x-axis---------[2]Frame A
[1]---------x-axis---------[3]Frame B
[1]---------x-axis---------[4]Frame C
[1]---------x-axis---------[5]Frame D
[1]---------x-axis---------[6]Frame E
Not only are no frame's clocks (absolutely) synchronous, but each frame's
clocks are **differently** asynchronous.
Here is a simple proof (beyond the fact that we know that each frame will
find a different time span for the same two given events):
[0]---------x-axis---------[X]Frame A
~~~>light signal
[0]---------x-axis---------[X]Frame B -->
As shown, Frame B moves to the right relative to Frame A. A key fact: Since
light's motion in space is source-independent, it matters not to which
frame the light source is attached. Therefore, we attached it to Frame A.
[Even if Frame B had its own light source, the rays from both sources must
travel together as if they were one ray (because light's speed through
space is unaffected by its source's motion through space). Therefore, more
than one light source would be redundant.]
After the left-hand clocks are started on zero as the light signal leaves
them, Einstein's clock calibration procedure calls for both right-hand
clocks to read x/c when the light reaches them. However, this will happen
at absolutely different times (because one light signal cannot be at two
spatially-separated clock at absolutely the same time), as seen by all
observers in all frames (i.e., they all will see the ray hit the clocks
when the clocks are not at the same location). Since most relativists
believe that Einstein does not believe in intrinsic clock slowing, we can
almost safely assume that the left-hand clocks continue to agree, but to be
absolutely safe, we can go on to specify that whatever may cause clocks to
intrinsically slow affects both these frames in the same manner so that the
left-hand clocks must agree even after separating. Doing Einstein a favor,
we will assume that both left-hand clocks read x/c when the first
right-hand clock is started on x/c by the light signal. This step is shown
below:
[x/c]---------x-axis---------[x/c]Frame A
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>
`````````[x/c]---------x-axis---------[X]Frame B -->
Even if the Frame A's clocks are made absolutely synchronous by Einstein's
clock calibration process, Frame B's clocks cannot be absolutely
synchronized. This is because B's right-hand clock will read x/c absolutely
*after* B's left-hand clock read x/c since this clock will be started
absolutely after A's right-hand clock, whose reading is now assumed (to
help Einstein) to match those of both left-hand clocks.
Usually (i.e., in all but one case out of an infinity of cases), *both*
frames' clocks will be set asynchronously by Einstein's process. This is
because all frames in the universe except one move relative to all light
rays.
And if the frames move relative to the clock-starting light signal, then of
course the frames' clocks cannot be absolutely synchronized by the use of
clock-starting light signals (as in Einstein's definition of clock
calibration).
Here is your diagram from your so-called proof that clocks cannot be
absolutely synchronized:
A,B ------------------- C,D
You said that by assumption clocks C and A are absolutely synchronized, and
that the other two clocks are Einstein-synchronized. Here is a diagram of
this
condition for this one arbitrary frame:
[0][0]-------------------[0][2] Frame A
and here is another frame:
[0][0]-------------------[0][3] Frame A'
Note that if Einstein could produce clocks with a constant difference (same
difference between clock in all frames), then light's one-way speed would
vary with frame speed just as if the clocks were absolutely synchronized.
The above diagram shows what would happen if an your "proof's" experiment
were actually performed, and it disagrees with your "proof" because you did
not know how Einstein's clocks are actually set. That is, you failed to
realize that Einstein clocks are *differently* asynchronous from frame to
frame.
It is Einstein's variable asynchronousness that allows all frames (moving
at many different velocities through space) to obtain the same two-clock
value "c" for light's one-way speed.
The main point of all this is that if one wishes to seriously discuss the
theory, then one should know the theory.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Standeven
> ["Standeven" wrote:]
> > [B Jones prior]
> >>What my above does is show that the PR does not call
> >>for invariance and isotropy in the case of light's
> >>speed. It also shows that even though each frame can
> >>obtain a different specific result, the general law
> >>must be (and is) the same for all frames. (The law
> >>being c +/- v) As for the meaning of this v (as I
> >>also say below), a single frame can knowingly change
> >>its speed without having to reference any other frame.
>
> >Ah, so v is the _change_ in speed during the course of
> >the experiment. OK-my observers are inertial, so v is zero.
>
> No -- what I said was this: The v in the above one-way light speed
> law has meaning independent of any outside reference frames because
> it (the v) is based solely on absolutely different frame speeds -
> frame speeds that are absolutely different because a frame speed
> change is absolute (in the sense that it can be detected in a
> closed lab). (In other words, since the law says that light's
> one-way speed varies with frame speed v, and since frame speed
> variance is detectable in a closed lab, it is not necessary to
> tie this v to any outside reference frames.)
>
Once again, my observers are inertial, and therefore do _not_ change
their speed. Ergo, they must have v = 0. (I do realize, of course,
that what you really intend is to smuggle an absolute velocity in
without violating the PoR. But in fact, all your reasoning gives
is an absolute _change_ in velocity, which doesn't work.)
[...]
> >> Actually, they were fools in this case. To show this,
> >> I ask you to tell me explicitly how any two
> >> identically-constructed frames in the same universe
> >> could obtain *different* general physical laws.
>
> >Suppose that there was some magic substance that
> >neutralized inertia, with the result that any object
> >encased in it would be brought to absolute rest. Then
> >some observers would find that objects encased in the
> >substance have a tendency to move, relative to them.
> >But an identical observer who is absolutely stationary
> >would not find this. Thus we have a general law which
> >takes different forms, depending on an observer's
> >absolute velocity.
>
> Yes, but to do this you broke the second rule that all frames must
> be in the same universe, meaning one that is the same throughout,
> which of course precludes your stipulated magical zone.
OK. But, a priori, it is not obvious that there is only one
"universe", as you put it, so Galileo's PoR is non-trivial.
[...]
> >>So what is the second postulate (Einstein's version)?
>
> >It was something like, "Light moves through empty space
> >at the measured velocity c, independent of the motion
> >of the source," if I recall correctly. (I don't have
> >access to the paper, unfortunately.)
>
> Well, I can sympathize with your not having the paper - I too
> lack proper resources - so here is Einstein's statement for
> your reference:
>
> [QUOTE]
> "Light is always propagated in empty space with a fixed speed c
> which is independent of the motion of the source."
>
[...]
> His first postulate:
> [QUOTE]
> "Just as is the case with all mechanical experiments [Galileo's
> relativity], no electromagnetic (light) experiments shall result
> in the detection of absolute motion."
>
> As I said, Einstein's 1st post. calls for one-way light speed isotropy and
> invariance, so there are two reasons why the 2nd post. could not also call
> for this, namely, [1] Einstein would not have been stupidly redundant, and
> [2] Einstein stated clearly that the postulates apparently conflicted with
> each other.
>
[...]
>
> The 1st post. wants light's one-way speed to be invariant, while the 2nd
> post. coupled with synchronous clocks guarantees variance.
>
> The 2bd post. guarantees this by guaranteeing us that light's propagation
> speed in space is constant (due mainly to light's source-independent
> nature). All light rays travel through space at the same speed. No light
> ray ever passes another light ray. No light ray ever accelerates or
> decelerates (in "empty" and gravity-free space).
[...]
In light of _these_ statements of the postulates, I will have to change
the answer to my exercise. (See below for details.)
So far, everything depends only on the _first_ of Einstein's
postulates.
> Thus, it would appear that our method of absolute synchronization
> is equivalent to performing an Einstein synchronization, and
> then subtracting off a constant dt from one of the clock readings.
> But we know that Einstein-synchronization is frame-dependent.
>
> Thus, it follows that our method of "absolute synchronization"
> is also frame-dependent. But this is a contradiction. Ergo,
> the assumption that there is a method of absolute clock
> synchronization must be incorrect. QED
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[...]
> The problem here is "Standeven's" note that
>
> >Since this quantity is determined by a physical
> >experiment, the Principle of Relativity requires that
> >it be the same, independent of the state of motion of
> >the clocks.
>
> As I have tried to get across, the PR does not apply to such
> specific quantities determined by physical experiment;
Under Einstein's formulation, it most certainly does. If the
value of dt depended on the frame's state of motion, then the
frame's state of motion can be found by measuring dt. But,
by the first postulate, no mechanical or electromagnetic
experiment can do this.
[...]
> Returning to your "proof," let's examine those clocks of yours
> a little closer:
>
> You said that
>
> >clock D is Einstein-synchronized with clock B.
>
> Are you aware that Einstein-synchronized clocks are set
> differently in each frame?
Of course. That is, in fact, the whole point of the proof
(and the one place where it uses Einstein's second postulate).
Without this fact, all we would have is a theorem that
Einstein-syncronization and absolutely synchronization are
equivalent, modulo a constant dt.
For example in Ritzian theory, the first postulate holds, so
my proof is valid, up to the point I mentioned. Nonetheless,
it is a classical theory, and so absolute synchronization does
exist. In fact, it is equivalent to Einstein-synchronization!
L Hoffman
> Name one SRT prediction which has been verified experimentally.
SR predicts that matter can not be accelerated beyond the speed of
light. This is verified daily in particle accelerators all over the
world.
Face it, Brian, SR is successful at predicting experimental outcomes.
The physicists of the world aren't boneheads. They wouldn't continue
using a theory for 100 years if it gave them wrong answers. The open
question is not whether SR works, but why it should work. This is where
interpretation comes into play. This is where we notice that LET makes
the same predictions and hence is as well verified as SR. This begs the
question: Are the absurd assumptions of SR really justified? Might we
better model our theories on rational foundations, wherever possible?
Frank Wappler
> Brian D Jones wrote:
> > Name one SRT prediction which has been verified experimentally.
> SR predicts that matter can not be accelerated
> beyond the speed of light.
> This is verified daily in particle accelerators
> all over the world.
That's _not_ a falsifiable prediction at all,
but trivially intrinsic in the conventional (SR) procedures
for how "speed of some particular piece of matter"
is defined and to be measured in the first place.
(Whatever its acceleration).
Constrast this with a _falsifiable_ prediction:
"Those two pieces of matter will be measured at the same
velocity, wrt. this particular (third) observer system,
in the next trial."
That's not a prediction "of SR" either, but (usually)
made through the principle of stationary action;
SR would merely provide the procedures and definitions
by which to derive velocity values from the observations
collected trial by trial.
In short, SR _doesn't_ make any nontrivial predictions;
measurement procedures cannot be experimentally falsified,
but they must be selected a priori to obtain any
experimental results in the first place.
> This is where we notice that LET makes the same predictions
Such as?
Regards, Frank W ~@) R
Wayne Throop
:: light. This is verified daily in particle accelerators all over the
:: world.
: Frank Wappler <fw7...@csc.albany.edu>
: That's _not_ a falsifiable prediction at all, but trivially intrinsic
: in the conventional (SR) procedures for how "speed of some particular
: piece of matter" is defined and to be measured in the first place.
Wrong, of course. There's nothing in the SR notion of velocity
as distance/time with "time" taken as described in section 1 that
prevents one from observing FTL movement, if indeed the universe
allowed such in any frame.
Same with isotropic light propogation. SR says "if you do thus-and
such, with coordinates like thus-and-so, you will find that light
propogation is isotropic in those coordinates". But do the procedures
ensure you'll get isotropy no matter what light actually does. No,
rather obviously not: try it for sound, which in fact does *not* act
like light. And son of a gun, you do *not* always get isotropic
propogation when you follow the rules.
So. Lightspeed as a limit and isotropy of light propogation are both
predictions SR makes about physical phenomena, no matter how fond Frank
is of fantasizing otherwise.
Brian D Jones
>>>the speed of light. This is verified daily in particle
>>>accelerators all over the world.
[Frank Wappler:]
>>That's _not_ a falsifiable prediction at all, but
>>trivially intrinsic in the conventional (SR)
>>procedures for how "speed of some particular
>>piece of matter" is defined and to be measured in
>>the first place.
[W Throop:]
>Wrong, of course. There's nothing in the SR notion
>of velocity as distance/time with "time" taken as
>described in section 1 that prevents one from observing
>FTL movement, if indeed the universe allowed such in
>any frame.
[B Jones replies:]
Throop conveniently - for him, not us - changed the subject to speed
measurement from mass variance.
The problem here, as far as understanding this goes, is that there are two
different types of mass variances, as follow:
[1] Intrinsic mass variance
and
[2] Point-of-view "mass variance"
And to add to the confusion, even though the relativists claim that SRT has
only [2], I have proved that it also contains [1].
Here is a simple example of [2] so you can see how it works:
[A] [B]
|-------| ----> <---- |-------|
Frame A Frame B
In space, tables carrying two intrinsically identical soft, sticky objects
are meeting while moving at equal speeds through space. (I did not say that
we can currently measure these speeds, nor did I say that space is known to
be at absolute rest.) (But we all know that objects move through space, and
that they have to move at some speeds!) As the objects collide
inelastically, observers in Frame A see object B overwhelm their object A,
pushing it backward. Thus, these observers say that object B is more
massive than their object A. But of course, the observers in Frame B say
the same thing in reverse, finding (or observing) object A to be more
massive than their own object B. And of course, in reality (as specified),
the object's intrinsic masses are identical.
It should be clear to anyone that only an intrinsic mass variance can
hinder the magnets of particle accelerators.
But SRT's standard view does not contain any intrinsic mass variance. SRT's
standard view does not even like to talk about intrinsic mass. It likes to
speak of something called "proper mass," which just adds to the already
immense confusion.
SRT's standard view likes to speak of momentum, which involves speed,
because the only instruments SRT has are rods (rulers) and clocks. Since
intrinsic mass cannot be measured by these two tools, standard SRT claims
to say nothing about intrinsic mass. But when you involve speed by using
momentum, you can obtain a sort of "mass increase" that makes it appear
that SRT calls for the intrinsic mass increase that is actually observed in
the particle accelerators.
But staunchly denying that "intrinsic mass" has any meaning whilst at the
same time claiming to predict and/or explain the observed-every-day
intrinsic mass variance is almost irrational.
Standard SRT will say that proper mass is constant, but this is a trivial
remark; _of course_ an object's mass will be constant to observers at rest
in the object's own rest frame!
But let's wrap this mess up, hopefully once and for all (but I know that
this hope has been dashed at the start!); as I said, standard SRT does not
have intrinsic mass variance, but claims to predict it, so I refuse to
accept their claim, and so I counterclaim that standard SRT does not
predict the observed-every-day intrinsic mass variance. {"Standard SRT" =
"basically SRT as given by Einstein," but even this definition is not 100%
correct because Einstein seemed at times to say opposite things about some
critical SRT points.)
Maybe the best way to put it is as follows:
SRT explicitly does *not* predict mass variance, but does so implicitly.
But I prefer a theory which makes all its predictions honestly and
up-front, such as the fully-extended Lorentz theory (sans the unneeded
aether). This is a physical theory which physically explains all, whereas
SRT does not explain anything, but merely makes the unprovable negative
statement that clocks cannot ever be (absolutely) synchronized.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Tom Roberts
> The problem here, as far as understanding this goes, is that there are two
> different types of mass variances, as follow:
> [1] Intrinsic mass variance
> and
> [2] Point-of-view "mass variance"
Not when using the usual vocabulary of modern physics. You get yourself
confused, and make false statements, in part because you do not
understand the meanings of the words you attempt to use.
> [A] [B]
> |-------| ----> <---- |-------|
> Frame A Frame B
> In space, tables carrying two intrinsically identical soft, sticky objects
> are meeting while moving at equal speeds through space. (I did not say that
> we can currently measure these speeds, nor did I say that space is known to
> be at absolute rest.) (But we all know that objects move through space, and
> that they have to move at some speeds!) As the objects collide
> inelastically, observers in Frame A see object B overwhelm their object A,
> pushing it backward. Thus, these observers say that object B is more
> massive than their object A.
In SR they do NOT say "B is more massive than A", they merely observe
that in their frame A has 0 momentum and B has non-zero momentum, and
that momentum is conserved in the inelastic collision. This is no
different from a Newtonian description (except in the numbers assigned
to the various momenta).
> But of course, the observers in Frame B say
> the same thing in reverse, finding (or observing) object A to be more
> massive than their own object B.
Again false. In both Newtonian mechanics and in SR.
> And of course, in reality (as specified),
> the object's intrinsic masses are identical.
Yes.
> It should be clear to anyone that only an intrinsic mass variance can
> hinder the magnets of particle accelerators.
I don't know what you mean by "hinder". It _IS_ clear that SR
describes observations of what happens in particle accelerators
extremely accurately.
> But SRT's standard view does not contain any intrinsic mass variance. SRT's
> standard view does not even like to talk about intrinsic mass. It likes to
> speak of something called "proper mass," which just adds to the already
> immense confusion.
Only you are confused. Proper mass (aka invariant mass) is intrinsic,
and saying "intrinsic mass" for it is quite acceptable; they are
synonyms. The use of the term "proper" is better, however, because
it relates this usage to other usages (e.g. "proper time") which
are not intrinsic. Ditto for "invariant".
> But when you involve speed by using
> momentum, you can obtain a sort of "mass increase" that makes it appear
> that SRT calls for the intrinsic mass increase that is actually observed in
> the particle accelerators.
Except, of course, that no experiments in particle accelerators observe
such an "intrinsic mass increase". Intrinsic, proper, and invariant
mass are all constant (for a given particle), no matter what its lab
energy may be in an accelerator. The "relativistic mass" of a particle
is neither intrinsic nor constant (in an accelerator). But this
anachronistic term is really the lab energy of the particle, and
there's obviously no expectation that the lab energy of a particle be
constant in an accelerator -- increasing it is the whole purpose of the
accelerator!
You need to get your facts right before you can hope to understand
what you are trying to discuss, and you need to learn the definitions
of the words you attempt to use. You also need to learn what SR
_ACTUALLY_SAYS_ before criticising it -- you get that wrong, too.
> Standard SRT will say that proper mass is constant, but this is a trivial
> remark; _of course_ an object's mass will be constant to observers at rest
> in the object's own rest frame!
The statement is stronger than that: the norm of the 4-momentum of an
object is constant, and equal to its proper mass. This gives a
relationship between the object's energy and its 3-momentum which can
be experimentally tested; this relationship is different from that
predicted by Newtonian mechanics, and the SR prediction is the one
confirmed by experiments -- the Newtonian formula is completely ruled
out by experiments.
> But let's wrap this mess up, hopefully once and for all (but I know that
> this hope has been dashed at the start!); as I said, standard SRT does not
> have intrinsic mass variance,
You keep getting it wrong, so there's is no hope whatsoever that _YOU_
can "wrap it up". At least not until you actually learn something
about SR, the vocabulary of modern physics, and the experimental
record.
> so I counterclaim that standard SRT does not
> predict the observed-every-day intrinsic mass variance.
Please give a reference to such "observed-every-day" variance.
Remember that "relativistic mass" is an anachronism, and is
really energy, not mass, and is clearly not intrinsic. OF
COURSE the energy varies....
> But I prefer a theory which makes all its predictions honestly and
> up-front,
SR _IS_ such a theory. But you simply don't understand it.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Frank Wappler
: : : SR predicts that matter can not be accelerated beyond
: : : the speed of light. This is verified daily in particle
: : : accelerators all over the world.
: Frank Wappler wrote:
: : That's _not_ a falsifiable prediction at all, but trivially
: : intrinsic in the conventional (SR) procedures for how
: : "speed of some particular piece of matter" is defined
: : and to be measured in the first place.
: Wrong, of course. There's nothing in the SR notion of velocity
: as distance/time with "time" taken as described in section 1
: that prevents one from observing FTL movement, if indeed the
: universe allowed such in any frame.
I'm referring to Einstein's defintion of pairwise distance, as
"c/2 calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval"
(Ann. Phys. 17, 894),
and Einstein's calibration procedure, that
"pairs calibrate their individual notions of "now" to each other
through light signals to (or from) "the middle between" each other"
(described in "Relativity", chap. viii, "On the notion of time
in physics"), together with the definition of an observer M as
"the middle between" observers A and B, in any particular trial, if
- A finds two roundtrips to M same as one roundtrip to B,
- B finds two roundtrips to M same as one roundtrip to A,
- M finds the roundtrip to A same as the roundtrip to B.
I also assume that the notion of the exchange of a light signal
is understood, as mutual observation.
From those definitions, together with
speed_in_a_direction == distance_in_that_direction /
calibrated_travel_time,
it is of course not difficult to prove that the speed _measured_ by
sufficiently many observers/things wrt. each other is less than "c".
Incidentally, the same definitions are required to prove that
the "speed of an exchanged light signal is c",
which is thus well-defined as an abbreviating postulate of SR.
The distance definition is conventional following
http://www.bipm.fr/enus/6_Publications/si/si-brochure.html,
together with Asher Peres' comment, Nature 312, 1, p. 10, 1984.
Without having a statement of reproducible definitions that you
assume, I can of course not even evaluate whether you are wrong.
Besides that, anyone is free to _individually observe_ as one does.
> Same with isotropic light propogation. SR says "if you do thus-and
> such, with coordinates like thus-and-so
SR has no a priori notion of coordinates. Instead, it provides
the measurement procedures for determining and labelling
(pairwise) coordinate relations in the first place.
> you will find that light propogation is isotropic in those
> coordinates". But do the procedures ensure you'll get isotropy
> no matter what light actually does.
The notion of "light doing" is inconsistent with the definition
of exchange of a light signal as exchange of no_thing/charge,
but mutually observed correlated transitions between states
of two observers. Light _doesn't_; observers/charges/masses _do_.
> No, rather obviously not: try it for sound, which in fact
> does *not* act like light.
The notion of "light acting" is already inconsistent.
Light _doesn't_; observers/charges/masses/molecules _do_.
> And son of a gun, you do *not* always get isotropic
> propagation when you follow the rules.
Sure, propagation of a sound signal is not necessarily isotropic
wrt. "propagation" of a light signal, as measured through the
same/reproducible SR procedures, exchanging one of the other
signal type (as far as the exchange of sound signals can be
assumed distinguishable from the exchange of light signals) -
bulk modulus, density, and refractive index of a given system
are not necessarily isotropic, and isotropically distributed.
(However, a prediction about the distribution of those
quantities measured in the next trial is surely falsifiable.)
Not even the refractive index of a given system itself
is not necessarily isotropic and isotropically distributed.
(However, a prediction about the distribution of this tensor
measured in the next trial is surely falsifiable.)
That doesn't make the measurement procedures themselves
falsifiable, by which those quantities are to be determined
in the first place, trial by trial.
> So. Lightspeed as a limit and isotropy of light propagation
> are both predictions SR makes about physical phenomena,
> no matter how fond Frank is of fantasizing otherwise.
No: lightspeed as a limit is trivial through the SR definitions;
and SR itself _doesn't_ make any predictions about values
of refractive index (or mass/stress/energy) in any particular
region, in any particular trial.
Instead, such predictions are derived from the SR measurements
of coordinate relations, as inputs into variational calculations,
no matter how ignorant Wayne appears to be of the principle
of stationary action.
Brian D Jones
>accelerators observe such an "intrinsic mass increase".
[B Jones replies:]
Here is a simple thought experiment:
Preliminary remarks:
In any race with a light ray, all inertial objects always lose absolutely,
as seen by direct observation at the finish line. This simple fact tells us
that light's propagation speed in space is an absolute maximum, not merely
a clock-measured maximum.
The experiment:
An extremely large array of simple paddles is constructed in space. These
paddles are used to move an inertial object through space, with each paddle
giving the object a little push. Eventually, given enough of these
consecutive shoves, the object's speed could exceed that of light's -
unless of course the object's intrinsic mass increases with its speed
through space.
And the burning question now is:
How exactly does SRT explain this experimental result?
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Brian D Jones
So we agree that Einstein's version of the PR (which is a bogus version)
calls for no changes with frame velocity, so his version backs your
"proof." However, since his version is bogus, so is your "proof."
The real PR pertains to actual laws of physics, whereas Einstein's version
is merely his wishful thinking (his opinion).
The real PR does not prohibit experimental changes with frame velocity, so
your "proof" was fighting a straw man.
And besides, Einstein's version is self-contradictory in that although it
denies physical differences among frames based on only different frame
velocities, his theory contains such differences; for example, Einsteinian
clocks at the same event read different times. Also, his clocks record
different time spans between the same two events. And these differences
vary with frame velocity through space.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> But let's wrap this mess up, hopefully once and for all (but I know that
> this hope has been dashed at the start!); as I said, standard SRT does not
> have intrinsic mass variance, but claims to predict it, so I refuse to
> accept their claim, and so I counterclaim that standard SRT does not
> predict the observed-every-day intrinsic mass variance. {"Standard SRT" =
> "basically SRT as given by Einstein," but even this definition is not 100%
> correct because Einstein seemed at times to say opposite things about some
> critical SRT points.)
>
> Maybe the best way to put it is as follows:
> SRT explicitly does *not* predict mass variance, but does so implicitly.
>
> But I prefer a theory which makes all its predictions honestly and
> up-front, such as the fully-extended Lorentz theory (sans the unneeded
> aether). This is a physical theory which physically explains all, whereas
> SRT does not explain anything, but merely makes the unprovable negative
> statement that clocks cannot ever be (absolutely) synchronized.
If you don't like the SR explanation, try this: Lorentz seemed to think
that the property of matter we call inertial mass has its origins in the
interaction between the particle's electric field and the ether. This can
explain why "mass" seems to increase with velocity and why matter can not
be accelerated beyond the speed of propagation of the electric field (c).
L Hoffman
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:32:38 -0700, L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU>
> wrote:
> >If you don't like the SR explanation, try this:
> >Lorentz seemed to think that the property of matter
> >we call inertial mass has its origins in the interaction
> >between the particle's electric field and the ether.
> >This can explain why "mass" seems to increase with
> >velocity and why matter can not be accelerated beyond
> >the speed of propagation of the electric field (c).
> Lest I be seen as a mostly just a Grumbling Grouch, I do wish to sincerely
> thank you for your sincerity, Mr. Hoffman, not to mention your diplomacy.
> But now, having properly proffered the amenities, I simply must get down to
> business, if you don't mind.
Thank you, Mr. Jones. I don't think any less of you for questioning
SRT. I went through much the same mental struggle when first introduced
to the subject myself. It is a sign of healthy skepticism to question
that which seems irrational to you. I have a feeling that those who claim
that SRT came easily to them, don't have a deep understanding of the
fundamental issues involved.
> [Brace thouself, at least to some degree]
> First - "SR" is not "SR"; you omitted the most important letter - the "T."
Why make an issue out of this?
> Second, as I have said (more than once, mind you), SRT explains nothing, so
> I don't see how I can like or not like "the SR[T] explanation."
I agree. It predicts well, but explains nothing to my satisfaction.
> Third, mass does not _seem_ to increase with speed (not velocity) - it
> _does_ increase, as the straining, struggling magnets of the particle
> accelerators tell us every day (except Saturdays and Sundays?).
Whether mass really increases or just seems to increase is a philosophical
issue. The working scientist doesn't need to answer this to collect his
data and hence isn't too concerned about it.
> Fourth, whereas I do appreciate Lorentz's valiant attempts to explain the
> ever-deeper details, my prime goal for now is Newton's Universal Time, so I
> am much more interested in how to (correctly) synchronize clocks.
For me the key to unraveling the mysteries of SRT was to first study
Lorentz theory. Historically SRT was heavily influenced by Lorentz' work,
and it is in that context that I could see where Einstein was coming from.
> Fifth, given the gross misunderstandings re SRT (and please _don't_ forget
> that "T" - it's much more important than those other letters!), it is
> difficult to even talk about clock synchronization of the absolute sort,
> much less get many relativists to understand what is going on with it -
> meaning where SRT stands, etc.
Yes, there are gross and widespread misunderstandings about SRT. But what
would you expect of a theory that purposely leaves the normal intuition in
the dark (even celebrates the fact!). In your mind you can picture clocks
in absolute sync. This is good, it is at the foundation of LET. But, you
must realize that absolute sync is apparently not attainable
experimentally. It may be possible someday (for example, by means
of faster than light signals) but the kinds of things you are suggesting
have all been thought through many times before and never lead to absolute
sync. If you can accept this, you can then go on to imagine how the world
must work in the absence of absolute sync. If you can find a copy of "The
Einstein Myth and the Ives papers" I think you'll find it very
enlightening in this regard.
> Sixth, after we possess Newton's Absolute Universal Time (NAUT), we can
> have correctness throughout all of physics. By that I mean that we can at
> last correctly measure speeds, lengths, and times, something we have never
> been able to do. (For example, given NAUT, the Michelson-Morley
> experimental result will be positive, not negative. This is because we will
> be able to correct for the intrinsic distortion of rod length. But this
> would not bring back the standard aether because it never existed in the
> first place. It would only mean that - as Einstein well knew because it was
> the second postulate of his theory - light's speed - even its round-trip
> speed - actually has always varied with frame velocity.
Why do you insist we must leave the ether out? It provides the causal
mechanism for light propagation. What do you propose in its place?
Brian D Jones
wrote:
>If you don't like the SR explanation, try this: Lorentz seemed to think
>that the property of matter we call inertial mass has its origins in the
>interaction between the particle's electric field and the ether. This can
>explain why "mass" seems to increase with velocity and why matter can not
>be accelerated beyond the speed of propagation of the electric field (c).
>
On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 14:32:38 -0700, L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU>
wrote:
>If you don't like the SR explanation, try this:
>Lorentz seemed to think that the property of matter
>we call inertial mass has its origins in the interaction
>between the particle's electric field and the ether.
>This can explain why "mass" seems to increase with
>velocity and why matter can not be accelerated beyond
>the speed of propagation of the electric field (c).
>
Lest I be seen as a mostly just a Grumbling Grouch, I do wish to sincerely
thank you for your sincerity, Mr. Hoffman, not to mention your diplomacy.
But now, having properly proffered the amenities, I simply must get down to
business, if you don't mind.
[Brace thouself, at least to some degree]
First - "SR" is not "SR"; you omitted the most important letter - the "T."
Second, as I have said (more than once, mind you), SRT explains nothing, so
I don't see how I can like or not like "the SR[T] explanation."
Third, mass does not _seem_ to increase with speed (not velocity) - it
_does_ increase, as the straining, struggling magnets of the particle
accelerators tell us every day (except Saturdays and Sundays?).
Fourth, whereas I do appreciate Lorentz's valiant attempts to explain the
ever-deeper details, my prime goal for now is Newton's Universal Time, so I
am much more interested in how to (correctly) synchronize clocks.
Fifth, given the gross misunderstandings re SRT (and please _don't_ forget
that "T" - it's much more important than those other letters!), it is
difficult to even talk about clock synchronization of the absolute sort,
much less get many relativists to understand what is going on with it -
meaning where SRT stands, etc.
Sixth, after we possess Newton's Absolute Universal Time (NAUT), we can
have correctness throughout all of physics. By that I mean that we can at
last correctly measure speeds, lengths, and times, something we have never
been able to do. (For example, given NAUT, the Michelson-Morley
experimental result will be positive, not negative. This is because we will
be able to correct for the intrinsic distortion of rod length. But this
would not bring back the standard aether because it never existed in the
first place. It would only mean that - as Einstein well knew because it was
the second postulate of his theory - light's speed - even its round-trip
speed - actually has always varied with frame velocity.
Seventh, I will then be satisfied, and will gladly leave it to others to
delve into the details of why mass increases, etc., etc.
Yours ever so humbly,
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Paul Stowe
writes:
>
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> [...]
>> So concluding (and you know, I've done the analyses), there will
>> be an apparent change in dt (in relation to the 370 Kps CMBR
>> Dipole) ranging from 0 perpendicular to the direction of motion,
>> to +/- 8.2E-9 seconds in the direction of, and away from the line
>> of motion respectively.
>
> the clock's relative synchronization due to the small but non-zero
> variations in their velocity wrt the CMBR dipole=0 frame. This
> assumes you used LET for the analysis, of course (or SR). And also
> that you used an _INERTIAL_ frame, not the rotating earth-surface
> frame.
Not at all. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain how 'these' affect
the otherwise 'relatively' motionless clocks on Earth's surface,
specifically in SR.
> Background: in LET, the local coordinates of a moving
> inertial frame are defined by the Lorentz transform of
> coordinates in the ether frame (all are Cartesian).
Yes, and in LET this transform has a very specific basis. It is
derivable, and the roots are, of course, (c + v) and (c - v).
> Lemma of LET: Moving a clock slowly wrt the moving frame which
> was initially synchronized to its collocated local-coordinate
> clock will preserve its synchronization with its collocated
> local-coordinate clock at all points along its path, in the limit
> as its velocity wrt the moving frame goes to 0.
>
> [N.B. this lemma is also valid in SR, but not in any other
> theory of the equivalence class I discuss. This lemma does
> generalize to the entire class, and I proved the generalized
> lemma in my post of 11/21/1999, Subject: Theories Equivalent
> to SR.]
>
> Note that for clocks on the earth's equator, the synchronization
> errors to collocated ECI coordinate clocks (due to the finite
> rotational velocity of the surface) apply equally to both clocks,
> and are NOT periodic but are linear in time. So this cannot
> introduce any periodicity in the measurements being discussed.
Who said ANYTHING about the ECI?
Moreover, are you then claiming that two clocks separated on the
surface of the Earth will NOT experience a cyclic apparent timing
variations (drift)? Such that, for two clocks A & B, a signal sent
from A to B would not do the following:
|
| . - .
| . .
+-----------------+----------------+---------------+----------------+
| 6 12 . 18 . 24Hr
| . _ .
|
and a signal from B to A then consequently?
|
| . - .
| . .
+-----------------+----------------+---------------+----------------+
| . 6 . 12 18 24Hr
| . _ .
|
Show us how you think the plot should look. Do you go on record as
saying that the above violates SR's premise?
> The usual ECI coordinate system (e.g. for the GPS) redefines
> the duration of the ECI coordinate second by a constant factor
> to remove this discrepancy completely. This could not be done
> if the discrepancy were not linear in time (e.g. if it were
> periodic as Paul Stowe supposes).
ECI was not, and is not, even in our original problem definition...
However, this statement is simply, silly...
> So the way the ECI coordinates are used in the GPS is inconsistent
> with Stowe's claim. If his claim above were true (8 ns/day deviation
> for 2km separation) the timing errors of the GPS would be many
> microseconds per day (or per orbit), corresponding to position
> errors of many kilometers! Actual position errors of the GPS are
> thousands of times less than that.
What are the 'compensated' errors that the GPS accounts for, and how?
>> That is what is predicted.
>
> Not by LET, when one performs the analysis correctly and completely.
>
> It is simple to prove that in LET the one-way speed of light
> is isotropic in the moving _inertial_ frame: In his 1904 paper
> Lorentz showed that Maxwell's equations are valid in the local
> coordinates of the moving frame, and the M.E. directly imply
> an isotropic one-way speed for all solutions to its wave
> equation(s).
This can be dealt with latter, let's focus on the above specifics…
> It is also simple to prove that LET is equivalent to SR in
> that every prediction of one is a prediction of the other:
> the Lorentz transforms form a group.
Paul Stowe
Brian D Jones
>that which seems irrational to you.
I now have to wonder if you have really read any of my other many posts
because I never even implied that SRT seems in any way irrational. In point
of fact, I stated most explicitly and quite often that SRT per se is simply
Einstein's opinion that clocks cannot be (absolutely) synchronized, and
there is obviously nothing irrational about that!
But, just for you (since I have just "turned off" {i.e.,
alienated-to-the-max} all true relativists), I will go much further re
Einstein's so-called theory. Yes, you read it correctly - I said "so-called
theory"; as you know (or should know) a scientific theory must make at
least one scientific prediction which can be scientifically tested; in
other words, a physics theory must predict some potential law of physics;
however, SRT does not fall into this requisite category, despite the
opinions of all physicists, including Sir Albert.
Einstein's fallacy was his false belief that light's one-way speed is a
law.
As I have said (in those posts which you must have ignored), despite the
fact that light's round-trip speed *is* a physical law, light's one-way
speed cannot be.
To see this, of course one must fully (deeply) understand the meaning of "a
law of physics."
As I said, a law of physics is the result of any experiment of which Nature
was in full control of the essential elements.
As I also said (see those posts you missed!), Nature just happened to be in
full control of all the essential elements of the round-trip speed of light
experiment, and I even named those elements; they are (a) intrinsic clock
rhythm and (2) intrinsic rod length.
Of course, these same two elements appear in the one-way experiment, but
there they are vastly overshadowed by the real sine qua non known as
**clock synchronization**.
Nature does not have full control over clock synchronization, so light's
one-way speed cannot be a physical law.
And since SRT predicts only that clocks cannot be synchronized, and if we
try to synchronize them that Nature will set them to yield isotropy and
invariance, we see that SRT is not scientific theory at all, but is merely
Einstein's untestable opinion that clocks will never be (absolutely)
synchronized.
So why should we have to study a nontheory?
[B Jones prior]
>>[Brace thouself, at least to some degree]
>>First - "SR" is not "SR"; you omitted the most
>>important letter - the "T."
>Why make an issue out of this?
[a] Writing "SR" tells folks that "I believe that this theory has been so
completely tested that it should no longer be called a theory." As you can
see now, this is an affront to scientific integrity, and I despise it!
[b] Even worse, not only has SRT not been tested, it cannot be tested, so
it is not only not a "fully-tested theory," but is not even a theory at
all!
[c] And consider yourself "lucky" that I did not insist that you write the
word "theory" _before_ writing "special relativity." ;-)
>>Second, as I have said (more than once, mind you), SRT
>>explains nothing, so I don't see how I can like or not
>>like "the SR[T] explanation."
>I agree. It predicts well, but explains nothing to my
>satisfaction.
How does your phrase "it predicts well" sound now?
>Whether mass really increases or just seems to increase
>is a philosophical issue. The working scientist doesn't
>need to answer this to collect his data and hence isn't
>too concerned about it.
Oops! Silly me! I was under the impression that mass was one of the
fundamental properties of the universe!
>Yes, there are gross and widespread misunderstandings
>about SRT. But what would you expect of a theory that
>purposely leaves the normal intuition in the dark (even
>celebrates the fact!).
No, SRT does not leave intuition in the dark. I am speaking here of
Einstein's version, not the popularized one. Einstein himself was dedicated
to the use of common sense, and applied it every step of the way when
coming up with his (so-called) theory of special relativity, and the
results reflect this by making perfect common sense. Nothing is
counter-intuitive in SRT. However, SRT began due to _Nature's_
anti-intuitive actions in the Michelson-Morley case. There, extremely
counter to common sense, She physically shrunk a rod simply because it
moved through space! No one could have ever even dreamed of such a
scenario, much less have predicted it! (Thus - as all good historians know
- but as many relativists refuse to believe - the MMx null result was
totally and completely unexpected - it was the shock of the century!) And
having seen that Nature went completely out of Her way to cause the MMx
round-trip null result, Herr Einstein took the "word to the wise" and
extrapolated a one-way null result. But he quickly saw a formidable
theoretical roadblock, namely, the always-held assumption by every
physicist that clocks could be absolutely synchronized.
And of course, given such clocks, light's one-way speed would vary with
frame velocity, a result that Herr Einsenberger did not like because he was
totally convinced that the MMx round-trip null result could be carried over
to the one-way case.
It was then that Einstein made his most important (anti-)discovery, viz.,
that clocks have never been synchronized in real life, and apparently
cannot be!
All other physicists had simply taken clock synchronization for granted,
and had therefore assumed synchronous clocks in all of their work. But
Albert had a motive for getting rid of such clocks (even though they are of
course the only good clocks), and he was determined to toss them aside in
order to put forth his notion of one-way invariance and isotropy.
Having subconsciously accepted light's one-way speed as a law, and having
made up his mind that this law must be like the round-trip law, Einstein
became totally focused on his worthless goal. In other words, instead of
trying to see how he could produce some "theory" (a nontheory as it turned
out) that forbids absolute synchronization, Einstein should have put his
powerful mind to use to search for a way to (absolutely) synchronize
clocks.
And this brings us to your next statements:
>...you must realize that absolute sync is apparently not
>attainable experimentally. It may be possible someday
>(for example, by means of faster than light signals)
>but the kinds of things you are suggesting have all
>been thought through many times before and never lead
>to absolute sync. If you can accept this, you can
>then go on to imagine how the world must work in the
>absence of absolute sync. If you can find a copy of
>"The Einstein Myth and the Ives papers" I think you'll
>find it very enlightening in this regard.
I have had that book for years, and it was indeed helpful at first; but I
have gone far beyond it now. And I am very clear as to how a world without
absolute synch looks, thanks to Albert's nontheory! As for
faster-than-light signals, they cannot produce synchronization because only
infinitely-fast signals would work. (Of course, this means that quantum
entanglements may work, but I have serious doubts.) You said that "the
kinds of things you are suggesting have all
>been thought through many times before"; here is my reply: First, given the total confusion surrounding SRT, very few people in the world have actually made any dedicated searches for ways to synchronize clocks, and second, given that I have not told you how my experiment works, how do you know what kinds of things I am suggesting?
And how do you know that they have been thought through many times before?
And how do you know that they won't work?
As I said (as you would have known had you carefully read my posts), it is
in principle impossible to prove the negative statement that clocks cannot
be synchronized. This is a powerful statement. It tells us that we must not
give up because there is always hope. The only physical facts which run
counter to clock synchronization are [1] rod contraction, [2] clock
slowing, [3] mass increase, and [4] no test for absolute perpendicularity.
If we think about it long enough, it may be possible to avoid these
roadblocks, but Einstein did not think about it for one second, and neither
have most other physicists. They were/are all to busy imagining what the
world would be like without correct clocks.
Here, without the details, here is how my experiment takes care of the
roadblocks:
[1] Only one rod is used, so its contraction is irrelevant;
[2] Only one clock is used, so its slowing is irrelevant;
[3] My clock-starting objects are self-propelled, so mass increase is
irrelevant;
[4] All the action occurs along the x-axis (or along a single line), so
there is no need for a test of absolute perpendicularity.
>Why do you insist we must leave the ether out?
>It provides the causal mechanism for light propagation.
>What do you propose in its place?
It is not I who insists that the standard luminiferous aether is "out"; it
is Nature. But given all the confusion running rampant re both SRT and LET,
it is no wonder that no one has seen this.
After reading all the books on SRT I could find, and after having study
every word in Einstein's SRT stuff over and over, I then starting thinking
for myself. The whole process began in circa 1970, and there has not been a
single day (or night - subconsciously at least) that I have not though
about relativity 'theory' and the related issues. Also, I have been lucky
enough to have had - especially since the Internet - some helpful feedback.
But let's return to the aether question. Picture a light ray emitted into
the aether. Once it has been emitted, its track through space is fixed.
That is, the ray cannot go where it was not aimed because it is really just
undulations of the aether. To put it simpler, the light waves would be just
like sound waves. The latter are source-independent both speedwise and
directionwise. A directional speaker moving perpendicularly to its aimed
direction would not have any effect on the sound's direction or speed. If
the sound was aimed northward, then it will move northward even if the
speaker moved rapidly westward. But, as I proved using a directional light
source (a small laser), light waves are not source-independent
directionwise. Therefore, there can be no light medium (no luminiferous
aether). Light from a moving laser will behave like a bullet from a moving
gun - directionally speaking. The light will be emitted at an angle to the
line of fire (i.e., to the direction in which the laser was aimed). And
this fits in perfectly with Einstein's point of view because otherwise we
could easily use an aimed laser to detect our "absolute" motion (i.e., our
motion through space). For example, if the Earth is moving "eastward," but
our laser is aimed "southward," then given a fixed-in-space light medium
(the aether), we would expect the light pulse to travel directly southward
upon emission. And since the target (any surface with a target painted on
it) moves westward with the Earth, the due-south pulse must miss the target
(or at least cannot hit it dead center). In fact, we need not perfectly aim
our laser at the target; all we need to do is shoot it randomly anywhere on
the target, and then wait until the Earth's velocity has changed (just like
Michelson & Morley did) to see if the continuously-emitted light pulses
have drifted from our aimed target spot. Since the laser's aim was not
changed, any change in Earth velocity must cause a drift *if* there really
is an aether out there. However, when I performed this experiment, the
light never drifted the slightest throughout a whole year. The light was
able to track the moving target despite the fact that the laser's aim was
constant and fixed in a certain direction.
Therefore, it is Nature, and not I, who insists that there is no (standard)
aether. (But I also have a simple prove that there is no dragged aether, so
I really can drop the word "standard.")
As we have long known, light needs no mechanism to propagate because it is
self-propagational. (An electric field in motion creates a magnetic field
in motion, which in turn creates another electric field in motion, etc.,
etc.) Unlike sound, light needs no medium, as I have mentioned before in
those posts you must have ignored.
And as for your final question "What do I propose in the place of the
aether?", I propose simple physical space through which self-propelled
light rays move, and through which propelled inertial objects move. But
this is not really a proposal - it is simply a statement of what has long
been true.
Finally, just in case you missed it, I should say that I do not need to nor
do I assume that space is at absolute rest in order to have Newton's
universal absolute time. We need only synchronous clocks.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> [L Hoffman wrote:]
> >I don't think any less of you for questioning SRT.
> >... It is a sign of healthy skepticism to question
> >that which seems irrational to you.
>
> I now have to wonder if you have really read any of my other many posts
> because I never even implied that SRT seems in any way irrational. In point
> of fact, I stated most explicitly and quite often that SRT per se is simply
> Einstein's opinion that clocks cannot be (absolutely) synchronized, and
> there is obviously nothing irrational about that!
Sorry if I missed the point you were trying to make. I'm beginning to see
what you're getting at. Tell me please, How do you define absolute
synchronization, and how will you know when it has been achieved?
> Einstein's fallacy was his false belief that light's one-way speed is a
> law.
I'd say his fallacy was believing (or conning the world into
believing) that it makes any sense to say that it is physically
possible for light to ACTUALLY have the same speed in all reference
frames, rather than admitting that this is an apparent effect.
> And since SRT predicts only that clocks cannot be synchronized, and if we
> try to synchronize them that Nature will set them to yield isotropy and
> invariance, we see that SRT is not scientific theory at all, but is merely
> Einstein's untestable opinion that clocks will never be (absolutely)
> synchronized.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that Einstein was very explicit
about what he meant by synchronization. It's just not the same thing you
understand by the term.
> So why should we have to study a nontheory?
Is someone forcing you to study it?
> [c] And consider yourself "lucky" that I did not insist that you write the
> word "theory" _before_ writing "special relativity." ;-)
I like your sense of humor :)
> >>Second, as I have said (more than once, mind you), SRT
> >>explains nothing, so I don't see how I can like or not
> >>like "the SR[T] explanation."
>
> >I agree. It predicts well, but explains nothing to my
> >satisfaction.
>
> How does your phrase "it predicts well" sound now?
It still sounds fine to me, thanks for asking.
> >Whether mass really increases or just seems to increase
> >is a philosophical issue. The working scientist doesn't
> >need to answer this to collect his data and hence isn't
> >too concerned about it.
>
> Oops! Silly me! I was under the impression that mass was one of the
> fundamental properties of the universe!
That was precisely my point. What one regards as fundamental properties
IS a philosophical issue.
> >Yes, there are gross and widespread misunderstandings
> >about SRT. But what would you expect of a theory that
> >purposely leaves the normal intuition in the dark (even
> >celebrates the fact!).
>
> No, SRT does not leave intuition in the dark. I am speaking here of
> Einstein's version, not the popularized one. Einstein himself was dedicated
> to the use of common sense, and applied it every step of the way when
> coming up with his (so-called) theory of special relativity, and the
> results reflect this by making perfect common sense.
This only makes sense in the historic context, like I said in a previous
post, which you must have missed. SRT can make sense if one understands
the ether theory that preceded it. But like you said, it's not
popularized that way.
> Einstein should have put his
> powerful mind to use to search for a way to (absolutely) synchronize
> clocks.
Yes, it does seem like he gave up too easily.
> As for faster-than-light signals, they cannot produce synchronization
> because only infinitely-fast signals would work.
The signals would not have to be infinitely fast. Arbitrarily fast would
do. Then you could interpolate to infinity.
> And how do you know that they have been thought through many times before?
>
> And how do you know that they won't work?
Forgive my presumption. I've worked through many scenarios myself. It's
easy to think you've discovered something new, when you haven't. This is
no reason to stop trying, it just means you should be careful before
jumping to conclusions.
> As I said (as you would have known had you carefully read my posts), it is
> in principle impossible to prove the negative statement that clocks cannot
> be synchronized. This is a powerful statement.
I don't recall Einstein saying that clocks can't be synchronized. Can you
provide a reference, please. Furthermore, It's only a powerful statement
if you have a clear definition of what it means for clocks to be
synchronized. How do you define this?
> Here, without the details, here is how my experiment takes care of the
> roadblocks:
> [1] Only one rod is used, so its contraction is irrelevant;
> [2] Only one clock is used, so its slowing is irrelevant;
> [3] My clock-starting objects are self-propelled, so mass increase is
> irrelevant;
> [4] All the action occurs along the x-axis (or along a single line), so
> there is no need for a test of absolute perpendicularity.
I'm glad you're working on this. Please let us know the results.
> But let's return to the aether question. Picture a light ray emitted into
> the aether. Once it has been emitted, its track through space is fixed.
> That is, the ray cannot go where it was not aimed because it is really just
> undulations of the aether. To put it simpler, the light waves would be just
> like sound waves. The latter are source-independent both speedwise and
> directionwise. A directional speaker moving perpendicularly to its aimed
> direction would not have any effect on the sound's direction or speed. If
> the sound was aimed northward, then it will move northward even if the
> speaker moved rapidly westward. But, as I proved using a directional light
> source (a small laser), light waves are not source-independent
> directionwise. Therefore, there can be no light medium (no luminiferous
> aether). Light from a moving laser will behave like a bullet from a moving
> gun - directionally speaking. The light will be emitted at an angle to the
> line of fire (i.e., to the direction in which the laser was aimed). And
> this fits in perfectly with Einstein's point of view because otherwise we
> could easily use an aimed laser to detect our "absolute" motion (i.e., our
> motion through space). For example, if the Earth is moving "eastward," but
> our laser is aimed "southward," then given a fixed-in-space light medium
> (the aether), we would expect the light pulse to travel directly southward
> upon emission. And since the target (any surface with a target painted on
> it) moves westward with the Earth, the due-south pulse must miss the target
> (or at least cannot hit it dead center).
I addressed this phenomena in another post you must have missed. It's
essentially the light clock aberration angle problem. Here's how I
described in the previous post:
This angle is a very interesting thing! In fact this consideration is
what finally convinced me that Lorentz was right! Tell me, what is the SR
explanation for why, in the Light Clock "thought experiment," the SAME
light ray must be taken to propagate at different angles for different
observers? I look forward to reading your answer. In LET this is how to
understand it:
There is only one true angle and light path. That is the path light takes
through its conducting medium. When an experimenter (who doesn't know his
velocity through the ether) sets up his laser to bounce a light ray off a
mirror across the room, he automatically sets it up so that the ray
returns to the laser aperture. If he's moving through the light medium he
will have to introduce an angle to the beam. But he is unaware that he
has done this since the light he sees all around him is also similarly
reflected off the walls with this same angle. So, what he erroneously
calls a right angle is in fact an optical illusion. A protractor won't
help either because it is distorted by length contraction in the direction
of motion and thus also reads 90 degrees when the laser is setup as
described.
> In fact, we need not perfectly aim
> our laser at the target; all we need to do is shoot it randomly anywhere on
> the target, and then wait until the Earth's velocity has changed (just like
> Michelson & Morley did) to see if the continuously-emitted light pulses
> have drifted from our aimed target spot. Since the laser's aim was not
> changed, any change in Earth velocity must cause a drift *if* there really
> is an aether out there. However, when I performed this experiment, the
> light never drifted the slightest throughout a whole year. The light was
> able to track the moving target despite the fact that the laser's aim was
> constant and fixed in a certain direction.
What you're describing here is a little different from what you described
above. Here you accelerate the system after the beam is emmited. (The
Earth's orbital motion is an accelerated reference frame). As I
understand it, both SRT and LET predict a deflection, but the angle in
this case will be vanishingly small. Have you calculated what it should
be? At any rate I commend you for actually doing the experiment.
Brian D Jones
>will you know when it has been achieved?
There are four good signs - one of them absolutely certain (and
mathematical) - and they are as follow:
[1] Light's one-way speed will vary directly with frame velocity.
[2] Observers in all frames (meaning inertial ref. frames) will find the
same time span between any two given events. [This one is the only one
Einstein mentioned - and he hid it way back on page 15 of his _fifth_
appendix! "Relativity"]
[3] In my case (which seems to be unique), there is no known theoretical
reason for failure (to absolutely synchronize the clocks).
[4] [The ultimate and absolute sign:] Any observer's self-measured speed
(determined of course by first using his supposedly synchronous clocks to
measure light's one-way speed, and then by using light's constant, known
speed {through space} to calculate his own speed through space) will be the
same as any other observer's determination of the his (the first
observer's) speed (where the second observer also uses his own clocks to
determine his own speed through space, and then, based on that, determines
the other observer's speed through space.)
Since [4] is mathematically certain and mathematically unique, it provides
direct proof of absolute clock synchronization.
(But Einstein felt that [2] was sufficient, and I agree!)
>>Einstein's fallacy was his false belief that light's
>>one-way speed is a law.
>I'd say his fallacy was believing (or conning the world
>into believing) that it makes any sense to say that it
>is physically possible for light to ACTUALLY have the
>same speed in all reference frames, rather than admitting
>that this is an apparent effect.
That was no fallacy; it _is_ physically possible for light to _actually_
have the same speed in all frames; indeed, this _must_ happen if clocks are
set per Einstein's definition.
As I said earlier, light's one-way speed is not a single law, but many
different conditional laws. The condition: Only after man has first stated
how he is going to calibrate the clocks can Nature then step in and do her
part.
Contrary to popular opinion, clock synchronization is an extremely
difficult concept, which of course explains your trouble with it, and which
of course explains why every physicist who ever lived prior to Einstein
took it for granted that we could easily synchronize clocks any time we
wanted to. (_Every_ theory involving time assumed synchronous clocks
without question.)
And it took even Einstein himself ten full years of deep study to break
through this long-time barrier re time. (That is, it took Einstein ten
years to see that we could only synchronize clocks on paper.)
And since I am approximately 2.5 times dumber than Einstein, it took me 30
years to reach beyond him!
I mentioned that there are various one-way light speed laws, depending on
how the clocks have been calibrated.
Here is an example of one of the simplest one-way laws:
You stand between two clocks and reach out and touch them to start them.
Most laypersons would bet big money that this simple process would
(absolutely) synchronize the clocks, but that would be a losing
proposition, and for _two_ reasons, not just one. First, your arms become
slightly different lengthwise, and second, they become slightly different
masswise. And either change is sufficient to preclude (absolute)
synchronization.
But it goes beyond that (as I said before); not only does Nature *prevent*
us from (absolutely) synchronizing the clocks, she also sets them to obtain
one-way invariance.
This also happens when slow clock transport is used to calibrate clocks,
although there Nature "monkeys with" intrinsic clock rhythm(s).
Also, if we use light rays to start clocks, they will end up being set by
Mama Nature to yield Einstein's one-way invariance.
Even though Einstein did not explicitly mention that Nature could step in
and cause clocks to be set to obtain one-way invariance (because to do so
would have caused him trouble - he would have had to admit openly that his
clocks were asynchronous, and he would have had to state openly that he
could not find a way to synchronize clocks, and he would also have had to
admit that intrinsic distortions occur, just as his "enemy" Lorentz had
said), I am sure that Einstein thought about at least some of them; in
fact, I know for certain that he thought about the latter (light signal
case) because he used light signals to calibrate clocks in his "theory."
Einstein - knowing that he was brilliant - liked to quickly run with the
first hint (recalling the phrase "a word to the wise is sufficient"). But
this can be done a little too quickly, even if one _is_ brilliant
(recalling the phrase "haste makes waste").
Having seen that Nature was amazingly able to cause (force) one-way
invariance in the round-trip case (actually, the Michelson-Morley
experiment had only one-way isotropy, but Einstein quickly extrapolated
invariance from this -- a fair move in that case -- it took the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment to show invariance because they used a clock),
having seen that light rays set clocks asynchronously to yield invariance,
and having discovered that no one really knew how to synchronize clocks,
Einstein took the these hints, and concluded that Nature wants light's
one-way speed to be invariant!
In other words, Einstein assumed that light's one-way speed was a law, and
he assumed that he knew what it was.
He therefore set clocks in his "theory" to generate one-way invariance.
Indeed, since the round-trip case was factual and closed experimentally
(given the reasonable extrapolation from isotropy to invariance), SRT
pertained (as a supposed theory) only to the future - and in that direction
there lay only the one-way case. That is, the entire "theory" says only
that [1] clocks can never, ever be (absolutely) synchronized, and [2] if we
try to synchronize clocks, Nature will force invariance.
But --- as I just pointed out in my prior post re this same "Teach
Relativity" thread (a very appropriate name, as it turned out), light's
one-way speed is not a law of physics.
This is the fact which Einstein failed to see.
And it is this failure that led him to create a nontheory called "special
relativity," and to call it a theory.
>>And since SRT predicts only that clocks cannot be
>>synchronized, and if we try to synchronize them
>>that Nature will set them to yield isotropy and
>>invariance, we see that SRT is not scientific theory
>>at all, but is merely Einstein's untestable opinion
>>that clocks will never be (absolutely) synchronized.
>Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that Einstein
>was very explicit about what he meant by synchronization.
>It's just not the same thing you understand by the term.
Yes, of course Einstein was very explicit - has _was_ giving a
_definition_! And since I never said or implied otherwise, your above
statements are confusing! (For example, I would really like to know what
you think I "understand by the term.")
>>So why should we have to study a nontheory?
>Is someone forcing you to study it?
The point was that a nonscientific statement should not be taught as a
scientific theory.
>>>>Second, as I have said (more than once, mind you), SRT
>>>>explains nothing, so I don't see how I can like or not
>>>>like "the SR[T] explanation."
>>>I agree. It predicts well, but explains nothing to my
>>>satisfaction.
>>How does your phrase "it predicts well" sound now?
>It still sounds fine to me, thanks for asking.
Well, it should sound disgusting at best because SRT predicts nothing,
scientifically speaking.
Indeed, it is not even a physics theory!
>>>Whether mass really increases or just seems to increase
>>>is a philosophical issue. The working scientist doesn't
>>>need to answer this to collect his data and hence isn't
>>>too concerned about it.
>
>>Oops! Silly me! I was under the impression that mass was
>>one of the fundamental properties of the universe!
>That was precisely my point. What one regards as
>fundamental properties IS a philosophical issue.
No, I meant one of the important physical properties of matter, the stuff
of which all of physics is concerned. And whether or not mass just seems to
increase or really does is a very important physical issue - and certainly
not just a philosophical issue. For example, only if mass really increases
are we limited to near light speed when exploring space. Otherwise, we
could accelerate without bound.
[Hoffman re SRT being commonsensical]
>This only makes sense in the historic context, like I
>said in a previous post, which you must have missed.
>SRT can make sense if one understands the ether theory
>that preceded it. But like you said, it's not popularized
>that way.
Actually, the aether theory just adds confusion because it is false, as I
have proved. See my above account of the commonsense approach Einstein
used.
>>As for faster-than-light signals, they cannot produce
>>synchronization because only infinitely-fast signals
>>would work.
>The signals would not have to be infinitely fast.
>Arbitrarily fast would do. Then you could interpolate
>to infinity.
How?
[Hoffman re his notion that my clock-synch method is more than likely
doomed:]
>Forgive my presumption. I've worked through many scenarios
>myself. It's easy to think you've discovered something new,
>when you haven't. This is no reason to stop trying, it just
>means you should be careful before jumping to conclusions.
We must all try to remember cases such as the Wright brothers'. Many folks
were actually killed while failing to fly, and many failures occurred. (And
as an aside, the brothers were not professionals or experts.) After thirty
years of dedicated labor, I don't see myself "jumping to conclusions" all
that easily! (But the real clincher is that my way is so simple that it is
self-evidently capable of synchronizing clocks!)
>>As I said (as you would have known had you carefully read
>>my posts), it is in principle impossible to prove the
>negative statement that clocks cannot be synchronized. This
>>is a powerful statement.
>I don't recall Einstein saying that clocks can't be
>synchronized. Can you provide a reference, please.
>Furthermore, It's only a powerful statement if you
>have a clear definition of what it means for clocks to
>be synchronized. How do you define this?
I answered your question above.
You misunderstood what I meant by "powerful statement," but this is
perfectly understandable given the complexity of the subject. I was
referring to my statement that "it is in principle impossible to prove the
negative statement that clocks cannot be synchronized." And I called this a
powerful statement because it proves that the one-way case cannot be
closed, as was the round-trip case (by the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment).
In other words, there will _always_ be hope that clocks can be (absolutely)
synchronized.
And as for my referencing Einstein's statement that clocks cannot be
synchronized:
["Relativity"] [Einstein, speaking to an imaginary person who is trying to
define simultaneity:]
[START QUOTE]
"After thinking the matter over for some time, you then offered the
following suggestion with which to test simultaneity: By measuring along
the rails, the connecting line AB should be measured up and an observer
placed at the midpoint of the distance AB. This observer should be supplied
with an arrangement (e.g., two mirrors inclined at 90 degrees) which allows
him visually to observe both places A and B at the same time. If the
observer perceives the two flashes of lightning at the same time, then they
are simultaneous.
I [Einstein] am very pleased with this suggestion, but for all that I can
not regard the matter as quite settled, because I feel constrained to raise
the following objection: 'Your definition would certainly be right, if only
I knew that the light ... travels along the length A->M at the same speed
as along the length B->M. But and examination of this supposition would
only be possible if we already have at our disposal the means of measuring
time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a logical
circle.'"
[END QUOTE]
Note Einstein's phrase "the means of measuring time."
What do you think this simple phrase means?
There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that Einstein was speaking of
absolute clock synchronization; more precisely, he was speaking of the lack
of same.
By explicitly admitting that he did not possess the means of measuring
time, Einstein was saying that he did not know how to synchronize clocks
(correctly).
Therefore, at this critical stage, Einstein was forced to find a
substitution for absolute synchronization.
However, as his later phrase "the most natural definition of simultaneity"
shows, Einstein believed that he was really doing more than merely
providing a substitute by sheer stipulation.
That is, he felt that he had discovered the one true one way light speed
"law."
To Einstein, this "law" mimicked the round-trip law, so it was one-way
invariance.
So despite his initial insistence that he was only stipulating one way
invariance, Einstein ended up using that word "natural," which means he was
really speaking of what he assumed to be a law of nature.
Anyway, the main point here is that Einstein, in his own roundabout way,
explicitly admitted that he was unable to synchronize clocks absolutely.
Of course, Einstein did not emphasize his failure, but instead bragged
about his new clock calibration process by saying that it was called for by
the principle of relativity.
But, as I have shown, Einstein's version of the PR is bogus.
Einstein thought incorrectly that the PR called for one-way isotropy, but
it does not. All the PR says is that if one frame's observers find light's
one-way speed to vary, then all other frames' observers must also find this
speed to vary.
The PR does not pertain to light's one-way speed prior to clock
synchronization because, as I said, this is not a law. However, Einstein
tried to use his bogus PR to pick the "proper way" to set clocks.
Hopefully, this has more or less explained the whole synchronization mess!
(But I have my doubts.)
[Hoffman re another topic - the so-called Light Clock:]
>This angle is a very interesting thing! In fact this
>consideration is what finally convinced me that Lorentz
>was right! Tell me, what is the SR explanation for why,
>in the Light Clock "thought experiment," the SAME light
>ray must be taken to propagate at different angles for
>different observers? I look forward to reading your answer.
As you discovered below, I was not talking about the Light Clock. However,
since you asked....
You asked above why in SRT the Light Clock light angle was different for
each frame. This is the same as stellar aberration, but stellar aberration
is not all that simple for most folk. Let's say that a single light ray
from a distant star is moving "straight down" (say truly straight toward
the Earth) in space. Then let's have various frames' x axes move
"horizontally" through this area. Due to frame motion relative to space
(and also relative to the ray), the light ray will pass through each frame
differently (at a different angle). This is mentioned in Sears'
"introduction to special relativity," where it is correctly called
"aberration, but no mention is made of frame movement through space, light
movement through space, or frame movement relative to light, the three
things that "really run the show." All that is mentioned is the standard
two mutually-moving frames and their coordinates, plus the fact that since
the "relativistic contraction" changes deltaX without altering either
deltaY or deltaZ, the light ray's direction varies with frame speed. Sears
even adds (as a mere footnote) that "Strictly speaking, the _velocity_ of a
given light signal is not an invariant, since velocity denotes direction as
well as speed."
[Hoffman's LET "report":]
>In LET this is how to understand it:
>There is only one true angle and light path.
This is also true in SRT, and of course I agree.
>That is the path light takes through its conducting
>medium.
Since there is no medium - light is self-propelled - it is in fact light's
path through physical space - without making the unwarranted, unneeded, and
unprovable assumption that physical space is at absolute rest.
>When an experimenter (who doesn't know his velocity through
>the ether) sets up his laser to bounce a light ray off a
>mirror across the room, he automatically sets it up so that
>the ray returns to the laser aperture. If he's moving
>through the light medium he will have to introduce an angle
>to the beam.
Not so, as I proved experimentally. Let your experimenter place a chalk
line on the floor between the laser and the mirror (or target). (Let the
laser and the target be fairly close to the line, i.e., near the floor.)
Regardless of whether this chalk line is absolutely perpendicular to the
target, we can still absolutely aligned the laser's firing axis with the
chalk line, so we can know that the laser is aimed at the target along this
line. Let's say that at this point, the experimenter's frame is not moving
through space (or that it is not moving through the "aether"). We now fire
the laser at the target, and the light pulse will hit the target at the end
of the chalk line. If the frame now moves upward through space, and the
laser is again fired along the chalk line, we know - because we just
specified it - that the chalk line, the target, and the laser will all move
upward. But IF there were an aether, the light pulse could not move upward,
and would therefore MISS the target (or would at least not hit it at the
chalk line position). However, in reality (as my laser experiment showed),
the light pulse will always hit the target dead center (or at the chalk
line), regardless of frame velocity through space! This is a direct
experimental proof that the standard luminiferous aether *does not* exist.
>But he is unaware that he has done this since
>the light he sees all around him is also similarly
>reflected off the walls with this same angle.
He cannot be unaware that he has tilted the laser relative to the room.
>What you're describing here is a little different from
>what you described above.
No, it was just a continuation - more details.
>Here you accelerate the system after the beam is emmited.
>(The Earth's orbital motion is an accelerated reference frame).
Michelson & Morley did not worry about this acceleration, and neither did
I.
>At any rate I commend you for actually doing the experiment.
But it would be so nice if someone could understand it! However, not even
the relativists can see it, and therefore they continue to argue with the
aetherists!
Let me give it one more try:
Picture a long, narrow tube at rest in space (i.e., it is not moving
relative to light or wrt physical space). Let's say that it is ten
light-years long, and is only one inch in diameter. We place a laser at
one end, and aim this laser at the other end by aligning it with the tube's
longitudinal axis. We then check our aim by firing a light pulse down the
tube; if the light comes out the other end on center, we are OK. Now
picture the tube being accelerated until it is moving rapidly through
space. After the acceleration period, the tube is once more moving
inertially, and our laser is still aligned with the tube's longitudinal
axis. We once again fire a light pulse down the tube. If there is an
aether, this pulse must move independently of the tube. That is, the pulse
will move through the fixed ether in the direction in which it was aimed
regardless of the tube's motion through the ether. Therefore, the tube
will collide with the pulse. In this case, there will be no light at the
end of the "tunnel." However, in reality, there is always light at the end
of the tunnel!
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Tom Roberts
> In any race with a light ray, all inertial objects always lose absolutely,
> as seen by direct observation at the finish line. This simple fact tells us
> that light's propagation speed in space is an absolute maximum, not merely
> a clock-measured maximum.
Yes. But I would not say "absolute maximum" as that implies aspects of
this whicha re not valid. Say instead "invariant maximum".
> The experiment:
> An extremely large array of simple paddles is constructed in space. These
> paddles are used to move an inertial object through space, with each paddle
> giving the object a little push. Eventually, given enough of these
> consecutive shoves, the object's speed could exceed that of light's -
> unless of course the object's intrinsic mass increases with its speed
> through space.
Not according to Newtonian mechanics, much less SR.
Assume all the paddle pivot-points are at rest in inertial frame S, and
all of the paddles move with velocity V wrt S (where they would strike
the object). Once the object is going faster than V wrt S these paddles
cannot strike the object and cannot impart any additional momentum of
velocity to it. They could, however, "strike it backwards" and _SLOW_
it down....
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> [L Hoffman wrote:]
> >How do you define absolute synchronization, and how
> >will you know when it has been achieved?
> There are four good signs - one of them absolutely certain (and
> mathematical) - and they are as follow:
> [1] Light's one-way speed will vary directly with frame velocity.
> [2] Observers in all frames (meaning inertial ref. frames) will find the
> same time span between any two given events. [This one is the only one
> Einstein mentioned - and he hid it way back on page 15 of his _fifth_
> appendix! "Relativity"]
> [3] In my case (which seems to be unique), there is no known theoretical
> reason for failure (to absolutely synchronize the clocks).
It is impossible to meet your claim [2] with identical clocks in every
frame. In order to achieve [2] you must modify each clock by "knowing"
its velocity wrt the "absolute" frame, and then setting its intrinsic
rate appropriately so that [2] is achieved. Nobody else thinks this is
a reasonable way to do things -- in particular you must select which
frame is to be anointed as the "absolute" one by some rather arbitrary
precedure.
How do I know this is impossible? Because _experiments_ show it to
disagree with their measurements. In particular: Haefle and Keating,
and Bailey et al. Both are experimental realizations of the twin
scenario, and show that absolute synchronicity is impossible for
identical clocks moving wrt each other.
> it _is_ physically possible for light to _actually_
> have the same speed in all frames;
SR is a counterexample to this claim. Lorentz invariance gives a single
speed which must be invariant (the same in all inertial frames).
> [...]
Tom Roebrts tjro...@lucent.com
Tom Roberts
> In <39774586...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
> writes:
> > You have apparently forgotten to take into account the changes in
> > the clock's relative synchronization due to the small but non-zero
> > variations in their velocity wrt the CMBR dipole=0 frame. This
> > assumes you used LET for the analysis, of course (or SR). And also
> > that you used an _INERTIAL_ frame, not the rotating earth-surface
> > frame.
> Not at all. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain how 'these' affect
> the otherwise 'relatively' motionless clocks on Earth's surface,
> specifically in SR.
I haven't a clue what you are asking me to "explain". The "motionless
clocks on earth's surface" are not at rest in _ANY_ inertial frame.
Read what I said above -- you must use an inertial frame for the
analysis (or perform an exceedingly careful analysis of the rotating
frame).
> Who said ANYTHING about the ECI?
I did, because it is the simplest inertial frame to use in this
discussion.
> Moreover, are you then claiming that two clocks separated on the
> surface of the Earth will NOT experience a cyclic apparent timing
> variations (drift)? Such that, for two clocks A & B, a signal sent
> from A to B would not do the following:
> | . - .
> | . .
> +-----------------+----------------+---------------+----------------+
> | 6 12 . 18 . 24Hr
> | . _ .
> and a signal from B to A then consequently?
> | . - .
> | . .
> +-----------------+----------------+---------------+----------------+
> | . 6 . 12 18 24Hr
> | . _ .
> Show us how you think the plot should look. Do you go on record as
> saying that the above violates SR's premise?
Yes, they should not do that. The plot should be a horizontal line.
Yes, the above result in a believable and reproducible experiment
would refuts SR. Note, however, for anybody who knows anything about
the analysis of physics experiments to be convinced, this result would
need to exceed the experimental resolutions by a significant margin,
and would have to be reproducible. Note that Krisher et al's variations
are smaller than their resolution. I suspect that Torr and Kolen's are
also, but cannot verify that without being able to acquire their paper.
The effect wuld also have to be significantly larger than the
effects due to other solar-system objects like the sun and
moon. Their gravitational influence will produce such a
variation, but it is vastly smaller than what you are claiming,
AFAIK. It is also not modelable in SR, of course.
> What are the 'compensated' errors that the GPS accounts for, and how?
The GPS compensates for things which cannot be modelled accurately by
GR, or for which the corrections would be too complicated for the
limited computational capacity of the satellites. Things like:
corrections for errors in clock rate (they are real clocks, not perfect
ones), effects of the sun and other planets (too complicated), errors
in the details of the satellite's orbit (different for each satellite),
etc. IIRC the GPS compensates for the sun, the moon, all of the planets,
and several asteroids -- it is a _VERY_ acurate system.
> > It is simple to prove that in LET the one-way speed of light
> > is isotropic in the moving _inertial_ frame: In his 1904 paper
> > Lorentz showed that Maxwell's equations are valid in the local
> > coordinates of the moving frame, and the M.E. directly imply
> > an isotropic one-way speed for all solutions to its wave
> > equation(s).
> This can be dealt with latter, let's focus on the above specifics…
Why? It demolishes your claim directly and decisively.
Unless, of course, you are really thinking of the gravitational
influence of sun and moon. But then that is not LET.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
L Hoffman
First of all let me thank you for your thoughtful, lengthly
reply. Forgive me if I don't have time to respond to all of your
points, but rest assured that I did read it carefully.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Brian D Jones wrote:
> [L Hoffman wrote:]
> >How do you define absolute synchronization, and how
> >will you know when it has been achieved?
>
> There are four good signs - one of them absolutely certain (and
> mathematical) - and they are as follow:
Thank you, but, Can you provide a concise definition of absolute
synchronization?
> >Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems that Einstein
> >was very explicit about what he meant by synchronization.
> >It's just not the same thing you understand by the term.
>
> Yes, of course Einstein was very explicit - has _was_ giving a
> _definition_! And since I never said or implied otherwise, your above
> statements are confusing! (For example, I would really like to know what
> you think I "understand by the term.")
Well, at first I thought you had in mind the LET definition, but it seems
I was wrong.
> >>As for faster-than-light signals, they cannot produce
> >>synchronization because only infinitely-fast signals
> >>would work.
>
> >The signals would not have to be infinitely fast.
> >Arbitrarily fast would do. Then you could interpolate
> >to infinity.
>
> How?
Suppose you have a signal that can be sent at any speed, this side of
infinity. Set it up next to a light source such that the light and the
signal come on simultaneously. Place a detector for both signals some
measured distance away. Compare the delta t's between light's arrival and
the arrival of the fast signal at the detector for several settings of the
fast signal. With ever faster signals the delta t's should approach a
maximum, which could be plotted on a graph. From this one could deduce
the true one way speed of light.
> You asked above why in SRT the Light Clock light angle was different for
> each frame. This is the same as stellar aberration
It's similar but not the same as stellar aberration. In the light clock,
as in you laser experiment, the source and detector are co-moving. In the
stellar case the source and detector are in relative motion.
> Sears
> even adds (as a mere footnote) that "Strictly speaking, the _velocity_ of a
> given light signal is not an invariant, since velocity denotes direction as
> well as speed."
A very good point to remember.
> [Hoffman's LET "report":]
> >In LET this is how to understand it:
> >There is only one true angle and light path.
>
> This is also true in SRT, and of course I agree.
How can this be true in SRT, where determination of such matters is
observer dependent? Also, your quote from Sears suggests otherwise.
> >That is the path light takes through its conducting
> >medium.
>
> Since there is no medium - light is self-propelled - it is in fact light's
> path through physical space - without making the unwarranted, unneeded, and
> unprovable assumption that physical space is at absolute rest.
You eliminate the ether at you own peril.
> >When an experimenter (who doesn't know his velocity through
> >the ether) sets up his laser to bounce a light ray off a
> >mirror across the room, he automatically sets it up so that
> >the ray returns to the laser aperture. If he's moving
> >through the light medium he will have to introduce an angle
> >to the beam.
>
> Not so, as I proved experimentally. Let your experimenter place a chalk
> line on the floor between the laser and the mirror (or target). (Let the
> laser and the target be fairly close to the line, i.e., near the floor.)
> Regardless of whether this chalk line is absolutely perpendicular to the
> target, we can still absolutely aligned the laser's firing axis with the
> chalk line, so we can know that the laser is aimed at the target along this
> line. Let's say that at this point, the experimenter's frame is not moving
> through space (or that it is not moving through the "aether"). We now fire
> the laser at the target, and the light pulse will hit the target at the end
> of the chalk line. If the frame now moves upward through space, and the
> laser is again fired along the chalk line, we know - because we just
> specified it - that the chalk line, the target, and the laser will all move
> upward. But IF there were an aether, the light pulse could not move upward,
> and would therefore MISS the target (or would at least not hit it at the
> chalk line position). However, in reality (as my laser experiment showed),
> the light pulse will always hit the target dead center (or at the chalk
> line), regardless of frame velocity through space! This is a direct
> experimental proof that the standard luminiferous aether *does not* exist.
Hogwash! Until you've calculated the expected deviation (if any) it could
be argued that the effect was too small to be noticed on your crude
apparatus.
> >But he is unaware that he has done this since
> >the light he sees all around him is also similarly
> >reflected off the walls with this same angle.
>
> He cannot be unaware that he has tilted the laser relative to the room.
Why not? If everything in the room is similarly affected by aberration
angles and Fitzgerald contractions, how's he going to notice?
> Let me give it one more try:
> Picture a long, narrow tube at rest in space (i.e., it is not moving
> relative to light or wrt physical space). Let's say that it is ten
> light-years long, and is only one inch in diameter. We place a laser at
> one end, and aim this laser at the other end by aligning it with the tube's
> longitudinal axis. We then check our aim by firing a light pulse down the
> tube; if the light comes out the other end on center, we are OK. Now
> picture the tube being accelerated until it is moving rapidly through
> space. After the acceleration period, the tube is once more moving
> inertially, and our laser is still aligned with the tube's longitudinal
> axis. We once again fire a light pulse down the tube. If there is an
> aether, this pulse must move independently of the tube. That is, the pulse
> will move through the fixed ether in the direction in which it was aimed
> regardless of the tube's motion through the ether. Therefore, the tube
> will collide with the pulse. In this case, there will be no light at the
> end of the "tunnel." However, in reality, there is always light at the end
> of the tunnel!
This isn't the same as your experiment, because you claim not to need
acceleration.
Paul Stowe
writes:
>Paul Stowe wrote:
>> In <39774586...@lucent.com> Tom Roberts <tjro...@lucent.com>
>> writes:
>> > You have apparently forgotten to take into account the changes in
>> > the clock's relative synchronization due to the small but non-zero
>> > variations in their velocity wrt the CMBR dipole=0 frame. This
>> > assumes you used LET for the analysis, of course (or SR). And also
>> > that you used an _INERTIAL_ frame, not the rotating earth-surface
>> > frame.
>> Not at all. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to explain how 'these'
>> affect the otherwise 'relatively' motionless clocks on Earth's
>> surface, specifically in SR.
>
> I haven't a clue what you are asking me to "explain". The "motionless
> clocks on earth's surface" are not at rest in _ANY_ inertial frame.
> Read what I said above -- you must use an inertial frame for the
> analysis (or perform an exceedingly careful analysis of the rotating
> frame).
That's it...
>> Who said ANYTHING about the ECI?
>
>I did, because it is the simplest inertial frame to use in this
>discussion.
>
>> Moreover, are you then claiming that two clocks separated on the
>> surface of the Earth will NOT experience a cyclic apparent timing
>> variations (drift)? Such that, for two clocks A & B, a signal sent
>> from A to B would not do the following:
>> | . - .
>> | . .
>>
>> +----------------+----------------+---------------+----------------+
>> | 6 12 . 18 .
24Hr
>> | . _ .
>> and a signal from B to A then consequently?
>> | . - .
>> | . .
>> +----------------+----------------+---------------+----------------+
>> | . 6 . 12 18
24Hr
>> | . _ .
>> Show us how you think the plot should look. Do you go on record as
>> saying that the above violates SR's premise?
>
> Yes, they should not do that. The plot should be a horizontal line.
> Yes, the above result in a believable and reproducible experiment
> would refuts SR. Note, however, for anybody who knows anything about
> the analysis of physics experiments to be convinced, this result
> would need to exceed the experimental resolutions by a significant
> margin, and would have to be reproducible. Note that Krisher et al's
> variations are smaller than their resolution. I suspect that Torr
> and Kolen's are also, but cannot verify that without being able to
> acquire their paper.
>
> The effect would also have to be significantly larger than the
> effects due to other solar-system objects like the sun and
> moon. Their gravitational influence will produce such a
> variation, but it is vastly smaller than what you are claiming,
> AFAIK. It is also not modelable in SR, of course.
see: http://govt.argreenhouse.com/~jjd/bss/clockdrift.html
note specifically the identical inverse pattern when the one way paths
are reversed. Note also the cyclic sinusoidal pattern in the data.
>> What are the 'compensated' errors that the GPS accounts for, and
>> how?
>
> The GPS compensates for things which cannot be modelled accurately
> by GR, or for which the corrections would be too complicated for
> the limited computational capacity of the satellites. Things like:
> corrections for errors in clock rate (they are real clocks, not
> perfect ones), effects of the sun and other planets (too
> complicated), errors in the details of the satellite's orbit
> (different for each satellite), etc. IIRC the GPS compensates for
> the sun, the moon, all of the planets, and several asteroids -- it
> is a _VERY_ acurate system.
and have both built-in correction algorithym and four ground based
stations tied to the master clock for constant correction as necessary.
>
>> > It is simple to prove that in LET the one-way speed of light
>> > is isotropic in the moving _inertial_ frame: In his 1904 paper
>> > Lorentz showed that Maxwell's equations are valid in the local
>> > coordinates of the moving frame, and the M.E. directly imply
>> > an isotropic one-way speed for all solutions to its wave
>> > equation(s).
>> This can be dealt with latter, let's focus on the above specifics…
>
> Why? It demolishes your claim directly and decisively.
Not at all. Later...
Paul Stowe
Brian D Jones
Brian D Jones wrote:
>>>How do you define absolute synchronization, and
>>how will you know when it has been achieved?
>>frames) will find the same time span between any
>>two given events.
>It is impossible to meet your claim [2] with
>identical clocks in every frame. In order to
>achieve [2] you must modify each clock by "knowing"
>its velocity wrt the "absolute" frame, and then
>setting its intrinsic rate appropriately so that
>[2] is achieved. Nobody else thinks this is a
>reasonable way to do things -- in particular you
>must select which frame is to be anointed as
>the "absolute" one by some rather arbitrary
>precedure.
Yes, you are certainly right; but since I was speaking to Mr. Hoffman who
had already read my full explanation, I didn't see the necessity to repeat
all the boring details, one of which of course was to do exactly what you
just required. (But the "absolute" frame is by no means merely arbitrary,
as I have said often; it is the one frame which moves not relative to
physical space or to any light ray's emission point in space.)(This is the
only frame whose x-axis clocks are absolutely synchronized even by
Einstein's arbitrary clock calibration procedure.) (As for you statement
that nobody else likes absolute universal time, I would like to mention Mr.
Isaac Newton for one.)
>>it _is_ physically possible for light to _actually_
>>have the same speed in all frames;
>SR is a counterexample to this claim. Lorentz invariance
>gives a single speed which must be invariant (the same
>in all inertial frames).
?
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Brian D Jones
Brian D Jones wrote:
>>In any race with a light ray, all inertial objects
>>always lose absolutely, as seen by direct observation
>>at the finish line. This simple fact tells us that
>>light's propagation speed in space is an absolute
>>maximum, not merely a clock-measured maximum.
>Yes. But I would not say "absolute maximum" as that
>implies aspects of this which are not valid. Say instead
>"invariant maximum".
I don't follow you here - what aspects? It seems to me that in such cases
the word absolute is appropriate. If you were standing at the finish line,
you would note that nothing in the universe could "beat" light in a race,
and this is an absolute, is it not?
>>The experiment:
>>An extremely large array of simple paddles is constructed
>>in space. These paddles are used to move an inertial object
>>through space, with each paddle giving the object a little
>>push. Eventually, given enough of these consecutive shoves,
>>the object's speed could exceed that of light's - unless of
>>course the object's intrinsic mass increases with its speed
>>through space.
>Not according to Newtonian mechanics, much less SR.
>Assume all the paddle pivot-points are at rest in inertial
>frame S, and all of the paddles move with velocity V wrt S
>(where they would strike the object). Once the object is
>going faster than V wrt S these paddles cannot strike the
>object and cannot impart any additional momentum of velocity
>to it. They could, however, "strike it backwards" and _SLOW_
>it down....
Thanks for straightening me out on this one! I was trying to find an
easy-to-see way to say that an object could be accelerated indefinitely if
its intrinsic mass did not increase with its speed (through space), and
since I knew that this was true, I was careless about thinking through my
little experiment.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Brian D Jones
>of absolute synchronization?
[B Jones replies:]
Do you mean a working definition, a conceptual definition, or a
verification definition such as the one I gave?
>>You asked above why in SRT the Light Clock light angle
>>was different for each frame. This is the same as
>>stellar aberration.
>It's similar but not the same as stellar aberration.
>In the light clock, as in you laser experiment, the
>source and detector are co-moving. In the stellar case
>the source and detector are in relative motion.
If there are other, outside frames, as there must be in your given case
(where you asked why the Light Clock angle was different for each frame),
then the source and detectors are not comoving. [But of course if each
frame carries its own Light Clock (as opposed to my idea of what you were
talking about where each frame looks at the _same_ Light Clock), then each
frame will find the same angle (given that all the Clocks are pointed in
the same frame coordinate direction in each frame.]
> [Hoffman's LET "report":]
>>>In LET this is how to understand it:
>>>There is only one true angle and light path.
>>This is also true in SRT, and of course I agree.
>How can this be true in SRT, where determination of such
>matters is observer dependent? Also, your quote from Sears
>suggests otherwise.
Sears was not concerned with light's unique path, but only of its observed
path in different passing frames; however, this does not mean that Einstein
denied that each light ray has only one true path in space. That would have
been sheer folly. (As I have mentioned, Einstein agreed fully that light's
one-way speed would have a unique value in each frame if only the observers
could obtain a pair of synchronous clocks. He even went as far as to say
that a departing ray's one-way speed would be c - v, or less than c.)
>You eliminate the ether at you own peril.
>Hogwash! Until you've calculated the expected deviation
>(if any) it could be argued that the effect was too small
>to be noticed on your crude apparatus.
I fully appreciate your concern, and will address it. In your favor, I will
use a fairly slow Earth speed (through space - or - in your view - through
"the aether") of only 0.0001c (this is just using Earth's orbital speed). I
placed my laser 100 feet from the target. Thus, whilst the laser pulse
traveled 100 feet, the Earth had time to move 100/10,000 feet or 0.01 feet
or 0.12 inches (almost a full eighth of an inch). And this easy-to-see
effect was derived under very conservative given conditions. But, as I
said, I saw zero (visible) deviation, and certainly nothing anywhere near
1/8 inch! (And I used a period of over 18 months.)
>>>But he is unaware that he has done this since
>>>the light he sees all around him is also similarly
>>>reflected off the walls with this same angle.
>>>He cannot be unaware that he has tilted the laser
>>>relative to the room.
>Why not? If everything in the room is similarly affected
>by aberration angles and Fitzgerald contractions, how's he
>going to notice?
He notices by simply comparing the laser's axis with the room's.
>This isn't the same as your experiment, because you claim
>not to need acceleration.
No, I said that it was just like the Michelson-Morley experiment, where
they waited for six months to give the Earth a chance to change its
velocity (through space).
But the lose of the aether (a supposed light medium) is really no loss at
all, so I wouldn't fret about it if I were you. Light still travels through
space (speedwise, not directionally) exactly as if there were an aether.
Indeed, physical space can be looked at as an "aether" as far as light's
propagation speed through space is concerned. And neither physical space
nor the standard aether can be said to be at absolute rest because the
universe as a whole may be moving, carrying its physical space along with
it. However, as I have said, it matters not that we cannot detect or
measure absolute motion; our real goal is to have absolute universal time,
and this can be obtained without absolute motion detection because we can
get by by simply relating everything to light rays in space since there
their speeds are all the same and never change, and the known physical
distortions are related only to light's speed through space, and not to
some possible other (absolute) value of light's speed (which may not be c
if the universe carry's both light and physical space along with it as it
moves as a whole).
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> [L Hoffman wrote:]
> >Thank you, but, Can you provide a concise definition
> >of absolute synchronization?
>
> [B Jones replies:]
> Do you mean a working definition, a conceptual definition, or a
> verification definition such as the one I gave?
Well, since you've already given the verification definition, how about
the other two?
> > [Hoffman's LET "report":]
> >>>In LET this is how to understand it:
> >>>There is only one true angle and light path.
>
> >>This is also true in SRT, and of course I agree.
>
> >How can this be true in SRT, where determination of such
> >matters is observer dependent? Also, your quote from Sears
> >suggests otherwise.
>
> Sears was not concerned with light's unique path, but only of its observed
> path in different passing frames; however, this does not mean that Einstein
> denied that each light ray has only one true path in space. That would have
> been sheer folly. (As I have mentioned, Einstein agreed fully that light's
> one-way speed would have a unique value in each frame if only the observers
> could obtain a pair of synchronous clocks. He even went as far as to say
> that a departing ray's one-way speed would be c - v, or less than c.)
You have an unusual take on the subject. It seems you are trying to
develop a hybrid theory using concepts from both SRT and LET. I
understand that Einstein used ether concepts while developing SRT, but
once it was fully developed the absolute concepts were no longer needed
(To apply the theory, that is.)
> >Hogwash! Until you've calculated the expected deviation
> >(if any) it could be argued that the effect was too small
> >to be noticed on your crude apparatus.
>
> I fully appreciate your concern, and will address it. In your favor, I will
> use a fairly slow Earth speed (through space - or - in your view - through
> "the aether") of only 0.0001c (this is just using Earth's orbital speed). I
> placed my laser 100 feet from the target. Thus, whilst the laser pulse
> traveled 100 feet, the Earth had time to move 100/10,000 feet or 0.01 feet
> or 0.12 inches (almost a full eighth of an inch). And this easy-to-see
> effect was derived under very conservative given conditions. But, as I
> said, I saw zero (visible) deviation, and certainly nothing anywhere near
> 1/8 inch! (And I used a period of over 18 months.)
Thanks for providing some numbers. I see now where your error lies. What
you need to consider is NOT how far the Earth moved through space, but:
How far was the Earth deflected from a straight path during the time it
took the laser beam to hit the target? (It will be practical to use the
sun centered reference frame here.) This will prove to be a much smaller
number.
> >>>But he is unaware that he has done this since
> >>>the light he sees all around him is also similarly
> >>>reflected off the walls with this same angle.
> >>>He cannot be unaware that he has tilted the laser
> >>>relative to the room.
>
> >Why not? If everything in the room is similarly affected
> >by aberration angles and Fitzgerald contractions, how's he
> >going to notice?
>
> He notices by simply comparing the laser's axis with the room's.
You're missing the point that in LET the room itself is distorted by
uniform motion.
> >This isn't the same as your experiment, because you claim
> >not to need acceleration.
>
> No, I said that it was just like the Michelson-Morley experiment, where
> they waited for six months to give the Earth a chance to change its
> velocity (through space).
Like I said above, your experiment should, in theory (LET and SRT), produce
a deflection, but it will be much smaller that you anticipate.
> But the lose of the aether (a supposed light medium) is really no loss at
> all, so I wouldn't fret about it if I were you. Light still travels through
> space (speedwise, not directionally) exactly as if there were an aether.
> Indeed, physical space can be looked at as an "aether" as far as light's
> propagation speed through space is concerned. And neither physical space
> nor the standard aether can be said to be at absolute rest because the
> universe as a whole may be moving, carrying its physical space along with
> it. However, as I have said, it matters not that we cannot detect or
> measure absolute motion; our real goal is to have absolute universal time,
> and this can be obtained without absolute motion detection because we can
> get by by simply relating everything to light rays in space since there
> their speeds are all the same and never change, and the known physical
> distortions are related only to light's speed through space, and not to
> some possible other (absolute) value of light's speed (which may not be c
> if the universe carry's both light and physical space along with it as it
> moves as a whole).
I see what you're saying. These are metaphysical issues. I imagine
absolute space as infinite in extent. The ether (light medium) may or may
not be infinite or at absolute rest. We have no way of answering this, so
for practical purposes I consider ether to be equivalent to absolute
space.
Brian D Jones
>... for practical purposes I consider ether to be
>equivalent to absolute space.
Well, to keep on the safe side, I would drop the absolute part, and use
physical space ( - mathematicians also "hate" that word, but it's the
better choice by far).
Since you have decided to more or less drop the aether concept, there is
really not much need for me to go on with my experimental disproof of it,
but since we have both invested a good bit of time in it, I will go ahead
and "just for fun" attempt once more to clarify.
[As you may notice, I have rearranged things while omitting nothing]
[Hoffman:]
>You're missing the point that in LET the room itself is
>distorted by uniform motion.
[Hoffman:]
>Thanks for providing some numbers. I see now where your
>error lies. What you need to consider is NOT how far the
>Earth moved through space, but:
[Hoffman:]
>How far was the Earth deflected from a straight path during
>the time it took the laser beam to hit the target? (It will
>be practical to use the sun centered reference frame here.)
>This will prove to be a much smaller number.
Only because you have replaced my experiment with a totally different one.
Let's start over "from scratch."
Given:
The standard luminiferous aether of classical physics.
Given:
A single inertial frame moving through this aether.
Given:
As is standard practice, the frame's x axis is parallel to the frame's
motion direction.
----------x-axis---------- -->
Given:
A laser aligned with the y axis is aimed at point (0,0,0).
[laser]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---------x-axis---------- -->
(0,0,0)
[Historical Note:
This is the same as the Michelson-Morley experiment except it involves
light's direction instead of its round-trip speed. (Clearly, a directional
light source is required, as opposed to the original MMx's omnidirectional
source.)]
The Experiment:
As the frame is moving through the given aether, a single brief light pulse
is emitted from the laser (a "light bullet"). Given that the laser is aimed
straight down, and given that light is waves in the aether, this pulse
(bullet) must move straight down through the aether after its emission.
However, the frame moves forward through the aether, carrying the target
point (0,0,0) with it. Obviously, the light bullet will miss the target.
And it will miss the target by 0.12 inches even if the frame's "absolute"
speed is a slow 0.0001c.
No acceleration involved. Just a simple and direct disproof of the aether's
physical existence in our universe (as I said before).
---
[Hoffman:]
You have an unusual take on the subject. It seems you are trying to
develop a hybrid theory using concepts from both SRT and LET. I
understand that Einstein used ether concepts while developing SRT, but
once it was fully developed the absolute concepts were no longer needed
(To apply the theory, that is.)
Pardon me, but it's really just your mindset that causes you to believe
that I have an unusual take. For example, I just proved again above (and
had also proved it earlier) that Einstein viewed light exactly as if it
moved through an aether (i.e., he viewed light as having a one-way speed of
c +/- v when measured by correctly-set clocks). He was forced to do this
because all experiments point to it. No one (except Ritz) believed for a
minute that light rays are source-dependent. No one believed that light's
color affected its speed through space (or through "the aether). And no one
ever believed that light's direction of motion in space affected its speed
through space. And, unnoticed or ignored by most relativists, Einstein
himself -[[-->--->** NOT JONES **<---<--]] gave all *three* of these
reasons for his being forced to accept the second postulate of special
relativity theory. Yes, I said the second postulate of *special relativity
theory*.
As Einstein said, this postulate CONFLICTED with Einstein's first postulate
(his view of the PR), which said that light's one-way speed must be
invariant (as if this one-way speed could be a unique law). (And that
potential conflict still exists - picture synchronous clocks on paper
measuring light's speed!)
If you are a careful reader (as you *must* be in order to understand SRT),
you will have noticed that I named the postulates *differently*.
I did this because Einstein himself did it.
Einstein never called the second postulate "his" second postulate because
it - by his own admission - was not his. He, as he stated explicitly, took
this postulate from the Maxwell-Lorentz view.
But even though Einstein went to the trouble to say all of this, and even
though it should be obvious to even a moron that Einstein would not have
had two postulates saying the same thing (one-way invariance), many, many,
many relativists STILL do not get it!
And here is what they do not get:
The (not Einstein's) second postulate says only that light's speed through
space (or through "the aether") is constant because [a] light is
source-independent, [b] light's color does not affect its speed through
space, and [c] light's direction of motion through space does not affect
its speed through space.
IN OTHER WORDS, IN EINSTEIN'S MIND, THE SECOND POSTULATE PERTAINED TO
LIGHT'S ABSOLUTE SPEED IN SPACE.
(I see it as light's speed wrt physical space, which may or may not be at
absolute rest, but Einstein simply assumed that it was at absolute rest.)
I certainly cannot help it if many of Einstein's followers failed miserably
to get their Master's Message. And I cannot help it if they still fail to
get it even after I have proved (over and over) what this Message was/is.
Let's give an instant replay of your sentiments:
[Hoffman said:]
>I understand that Einstein used ether concepts while
>developing SRT, but once it was fully developed the
>absolute concepts were no longer needed (To apply the
>theory, that is.)
Your opening phrase here ("I understand that") is the only part that is
valid - to put it bluntly; that is, it is your particular understanding
that's involved, not Einstein's. If you would only read Einstein's words
with full comprehension (and they are not really all that difficult, given
no mindset against them), then you could easily see that *the* (not
Einstein's) second postulate pertained directly to light's "absolute" speed
in space.
As Einstein said, the two relativity postulates CONFLICT (when synchronous
clocks are used). (And remember that Einstein's 1905 paper's statement
containing Einstein's definition of clock calibration was not a postulate -
Einstein called it a principle - as it must be because it was based on a
merely stipulated light speed value, and therefore could never be a law,
and so could not have been a postulate because a postulate is a potential
law.)
Inescapable Conclusion:
SRT is half "absolute" and half relative. It is a hybrid. Therefore, I am
forced to sound hybrid when I speak of the theory.
[Hoffman said (another instant replay):]
>[Jones], [y]ou have an unusual take on the subject.
>It seems you are trying to develop a hybrid theory
>using concepts from both SRT and LET.
All of the evidence shows clearly that it's not I who did this; it was
Einstein, so blame him!
Jones' Hard Evidence:
To see for yourself - if you wish to know the facts - that the second
postulate came not from Einstein but from Maxwell and Lorentz, open
Einstein's little book "Relativity," and go to Appendix V, turn to the 14th
page of that appendix, and look at what Uncle Albert said explicitly about
the second postulate's origins.
Please never think that I think that anyone should merely take MY word for
anything re relativity theory.
I will always have FULL backup --> full proofs directly from the Master's
Mouth. And all anyone must do is comprehend - which of course involves
getting rid of the mindset (the standard approach to SRT in schools across
the land).
You can also read what Einstein had to say about that nasty (anti-SRT)
second postulate, and here is a telling statement:
[QUOTE:]
["Relativity," Chapter VII, first page:]
[Einstein on the second postulate:]
Who would imagine that this simple law [the second postulate] has plunged
the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the greatest of intellectual
difficulties?
OBVIOUSLY, nothing in any way in harmony with SRT could have possibly given
Einstein a headache, but the second postulate was clearly horrific!
Where else did Einstein use such a word as "plunged"!
And note that phrase "the greatest of intellectual difficulties"!
Hopefully, all of this direct (from Albert) evidence has convinced you that
the (not Einstein's) second postulate is not pro-SRT. (If not, then you
prove to me what this postulate actually says!)
---
[L Hoffman wrote:]
>>>Thank you, but, Can you provide a concise definition
>>>of absolute synchronization?
> [B Jones replied:]
>>Do you mean a working definition, a conceptual definition,
>>or a verification definition such as the one I gave?
>Well, since you've already given the verification definition,
>how about the other two?
Well, since I cannot yet divulge my full actual plan to synchronize clocks
(I have already given a pretty definite description of the general idea,
enough to show that I have something for sure), this leaves only the
conceptual definition, as follows:
Since we cannot move either clock (of the two to be synchronized) because
Nature can and does vary a clock's intrinsic rhythm with the clock's speed,
since we must use only one rod (which is all that is needed to hold our two
clocks) because Nature varies intrinsic rod length with rod speed, since we
cannot use either light rays (Einstein's method, where the clocks move as
the light rays move) or propelled objects because Nature varies their
intrinsic masses, and since what we need to absolutely synchronize the
clocks is a way to start them at absolutely the same time - which can only
be done by clock-starting entities whose speeds relative to the clocks (but
not a clock-measured speed) are equal, we see that we must use two comoving
clocks mounted on a rod, and started by using self-propelled (or
remote-controlled) objects whose speeds relative to the clocks are forced
to be equal. (Here, as I hinted, these relative speeds are true relative
speeds, which can only be measured by truly synchronous clocks. They are
not the speeds measured by the clocks of SRT - which are asynchronous.)
So, basically, we just need to find a way to send (move) objects in
opposite directions at truly equal speeds wrt the clocks. Given such
objects, clock synchronization is assured.
As an example, we can use cars moving along a road. These are
self-propelled objects, as opposed to being propelled objects such as
baseballs, whose masses affect their speeds. As long as the cars' engines
are sufficiently strong, the cars' masses will not affect their speeds.
Since both cars travel along the same road (our single rod), it matters not
if the road's intrinsic length is contracted. But we cannot let each car's
driver use his own clock (to regulate his car's speed) because clocks
moving at different speeds through space have different intrinsic rates,
and therefore onboard clocks could not guarantee equal car speeds (in
opposite directions along the road). However, there is a simple-but-subtle
way to use a single at-rest clock to time the car's speeds, and it matters
not that this clock may be slowed intrinsically because all it does it
*compare* speeds.
Just should be enough detail for a conceptual definition of absolute
synchronization, but here is one final example:
A brief conceptual definition of absolute synchronization:
Two collocated comoving ideal clocks can be absolutely synchronized
according to all physicists. Given that no physical change takes place when
one of the clocks is moved very slowly to a different location, these
clocks will still be absolutely synchronized after slow clock transport.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Jim Carr
}
Note that BDJon snipped the fact that Hoffman was quoting J.S. Bell.
}
} Einstein starts from the hypothesis that the laws will look
} the same to all observers in uniform motion. This permits
} a very concise and elegant formulation of the theory, as
} often happens when one big assumption can be made to cover
} several less big ones.
In article <396f6c8a...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>
bd...@worldnet.att.net (Brian D Jones) writes:
>
>Einstein's "one big assumption" that supposedly led to such an "elegant"
>theory must be made by all theorists because it cannot be false; i.e., it
>is trivially true, and therefore worthless, and cannot led to anything.
This is contradicted by the existence of laws that are not of the
same form in every coordinate system depending on what transformation
laws you use between coordinate systems, and the fact that some people
at the time (as described by Bell) thought this assumption of Newton's
had to be dumped
>That is, since all inertial reference frames are of identical construction,
>it is physically impossible for frames to find different general laws.
>
>For example, let's suppose that rods physically shrink per a
>rod-contraction law when moving through space. ...
You have provided an example of a physical law that is different
in different coordinate systems.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
Brian D Jones
>L Hoffman <lhof...@U.Arizona.EDU> wrote [in part]:
>Note that BDJon snipped the fact that Hoffman was
>quoting J.S. Bell.
It does not matter who said it, which is why I cut the ref. In fact, I have
said that Einstein himself was incorrect re his own "theory" in more ways
than one, so I don't fear the likes of Bell.
[Someone claimed that:]
} Einstein starts from the hypothesis that the laws will look
} the same to all observers in uniform motion. This permits
} a very concise and elegant formulation of the theory, as
} often happens when one big assumption can be made to cover
} several less big ones.
[B Jones replied]
>>Einstein's "one big assumption" that supposedly led to
>>such an "elegant" theory must be made by all theorists
>>because it cannot be false; i.e., it is trivially true,
>>and therefore worthless, and cannot led to anything.
[Carr:]
>This is contradicted by the existence of laws that are not
>of the same form in every coordinate system depending on
>what transformation laws you use between coordinate systems,
>and the fact that some people at the time (as described by
>Bell) thought this assumption of Newton's had to be dumped
As you should know, mere math transformations do not make laws of physics,
and have nothing to do with them.
[Jones:]
>>That is, since all inertial reference frames are of
>>identical construction, it is physically impossible
>>for frames to find different general laws.
>>For example, let's suppose that rods physically shrink
>>per a rod-contraction law when moving through space. ...
[Carr:]
>You have provided an example of a physical law that
>is different in different coordinate systems.
You have just provided an example of your misunderstanding of "a physical
law." (In my above example, it was l = Lsqrt[1 - (s^2/c^2)] for all
frames.)
As I said before, the PR (the real one) does not pertain to specific
(individual) results, but to general (overall) rules. And the real PR does
not tell us which laws must be found. (It does not, for example, tell us
that light's one-way speed must be invariant. The PR would say this only
*after* at least one frame had already found light's one-way speed to be
invariant.)
Why don't *you* provide an example of a law that it different for different
frames (given standard frames located in our universe).
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Patrick Reany
Brian D Jones wrote:
> As you should know, mere math transformations do not make laws of physics,
> and have nothing to do with them.
>
> [snip]
>
> Why don't *you* provide an example of a law that it different for different
> frames (given standard frames located in our universe).
Please define what a "law of physics" is.
Patrick
orton
of physics,
>and have nothing to do with them.
>
for different
>frames (given standard frames located in our universe).
>
>
>
>
bj,
HERBERT IVES AND THE ETHER
Herbert Ives was a top scientist at Bell Laboratories who
performed some largely forgotten experiments on relativity and
space-time a few decades ago. His experimental prowess and
reputation were so good that his work on relativity was
published in great detail in the Journal of the Optical Society
of America. Ives would have had a more difficult time getting
his results published today, for he showed quite clearly that
Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity did not correspond to
lab results. At the time, such results were not so shocking.
Indeed, some philosophers had shown that Special Relativity led
to undesirable paradoxes, and experiments by Sagnac and
Michelson/Gale had cast additional doubt on this aspect of
Relativity.
Such experiments by Ives and other key scientists suggested that
an ether actually did exist and that it could serve as an
absolute reference frame. Another implication was that time was
an independent entity unaffected by motion and that the infamous
Twin Paradox was a fiction.
Ives himself believed his work proved that so-called
relativistic effects could be easily explained by phenomena
appealing more to the common sense, such as the change of a
light source's frequency with motion (over and above the Doppler
Effect), rather than revamping space-time concepts. In short,
Ives thought he had proved Special Relativity untenable
experimentally and an un-necessary distortion of science's
worldview.
(Barnes, Thomas G., and Ramirez, Francisco S.; "Velocity Effects
on Atomic Clocks and the Time Question," Creation Research
Society Quarterly, 18:198, 1982.)
Comment. Why do the textbooks neglect to mention the Ives
experiments and why should a review of Ives' work appear in a
creationist publication? The answers are easy: Special
Relativity now has the status of scientific dogma, which one
questions at his own peril. The creationists, on the other hand,
vehemently reject relativitism in favor of absolute standards in
space-time as well as other features of human existence. It
would be amusing if the real world conformed to neither model,
both of which are defended so passionately.
From Science Frontiers #22, JUL-AUG 1982. © 1982-2000 William R.
Corliss
do
if a nickle coin has three holes in it how many sides does it have?
http://www.fh-niederrhein.de/~physik07/knobelecke/k_dorton.htm
_the third side of every coin always gave me the edge, (orton).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
Brian D Jones
>Brian D Jones wrote:
>>As you should know, mere math transformations do
>>not make laws of physics, and have nothing to do with them.
>>Why don't *you* provide an example of a law that i[s]
>>different for different frames (given standard frames
>>located in our universe).
>Please define what a "law of physics" is.
It is the generalized result of any experiment where the essential
phenomena are fully controlled by nature.
For example:
In the round-trip, two-clock light speed experiment (Kennedy-Thorndike
experiment), there are two essential phenomena, namely, (1) intrinsic rod
length and (2) intrinsic clock rhythm. Since nature is in full control of
both of these phenomena, the round-trip result is a valid natural law;
however, we don't take each frame's individual numerical value as the
general law; what we do is generalize to obtain the law that says light's
round-trip speed is either invariant or not, depending on what nature does
to the essential phenomena.
Contrasting example:
In the one-way, two-clock light speed case (no experiment yet), there are
three essential ingredients, but only two are natural phenomena, the same
two just mentioned above. The third ingredient is clock synchronization,
which must be done by man because nature doesn't synch clocks. This is why
there has not been a one-way, two-clock (same-frame clocks) light speed
experiment. And this is why there is no unique one-way law, despite
Einstein's beliefs that there was one and that he knew what it is.
Hybrid example:
If we first specify how two (same-frame) clocks are calibrated, *then* we
can have a one-way law of sorts; it would be "the one-way light speed law
for such-and-such clock calibration." For example, if the clocks are set
(on paper) classically (i.e., if the clocks are absolutely synchronized),
then the one-way light speed law for such clocks is c +/- v. And even
though each frame obtains a _different_ numerical value, the general law is
the same for all frames (as it must be because all frames are of identical
construction and "live" in the same universe).
Geometrical example:
Although the general law for rectangular area is LW, each rectangle has its
own unique area.
The Sources of All the PR Confusion:
Given that all frames are of the same construction, and given that all are
within the same universe, it is physically impossible for frames to find
different general laws of nature. This is why I said that the (real) PR is
trivially true; however, as I also said, Herr Einstein created his own
(improper) version of the PR, and his version said (improperly) that each
frame must obtain the same _specific_ result. Applying this to the one-way
case, we see immediately that this version of the PR precludes the use of
classical clocks in real life (because such clocks yield different specific
one-way results per the equation c +/- v). As I said, Einstein falsely
believed that the one-way case involved a unique law, just as did the
round-trip case. And by simple extrapolation (from the MMx null result),
Einstein was convinced that the one-way law was like the round-trip law
(i.e., Einstein was convinced that the one-way law was "isotropy and
invariance"). This told him that not only is (absolute) synchronization not
suppose to exist, but that clocks should be set just asynchronously enough
in each frame to cancel out the frame's motion through space, and to
thereby yield one-way isotropy and invariance. But of course Einstein could
not prove the negative statement that absolute synchronization cannot
exist, so his "law" cannot be the one one-way law, not to mention the fact
(stated above) that there cannot be a single one-way law due to clock
synchronization. In other words, in order for there to be a one-way light
speed law as Einstein saw it, nature must be in full control of clock
synchronization, which means that any time we place two clocks at relative
rest in a room, nature will step in and calibrate them naturally.
Obviously, this does not happen.
A Bit More:
Einstein was in no way interested in synchronizing clocks because he was
convinced (by the MMx result) that such clocks cannot exist. But the fact
that this statement cannot be proved should have clued Einstein in to his
fallacy, which was (as I said) his assumption that a single, unique one-way
law existed. Indeed, his entire "theory" of special relativity is
essentially just Einstein's mistaken opinions that there exists a unique
one-way law, and that this law is "isotropy and invariance." Since there is
no such unique law, Einstein's "theory" is not about physics, i.e., it is
not really a theory of physics. (A proper {i.e., a scientific} theory must
make predictions about potential laws, real laws.)
Recap:
[1] Einstein's PR (his first postulate) is not the real PR.
[2] Light's one-way, two-clock speed is not a (unique) law.
[3] SRT is not a scientific theory.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Brian D Jones
<dorton385...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>It would be amusing if the real world conformed
>to neither model, both of which are defended
>so passionately.
Then amusement is the case because (as I have proved) the real world has
neither the aether nor a theory called special relativity. (See my new post
to P Reany.)
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~~
orton
><dorton385...@aol.com.invalid> wrote:
>>to neither model, both of which are defended
>>so passionately.
>
world has
>neither the aether nor a theory called special relativity. (See
my new post
>to P Reany.)
>
>~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
B Jones,
good brian, i am laughing too, he he. thanks for your nice reply.
your post to patrick was of course very highly informative.
me? i respect prince louis de broglies theory of subquantics and
will hold subcules, (internal galaxies), and internal universe
(space) although i would hate to have to stand on it, he he.
there will be space theory until the truth is found.
thanks brian,
dave orton
L Hoffman
Also GIVEN: According to LET, what you have assumed to be a 90 degree
angle, in the moving system, really isn't.
Brian D Jones
[Jones:]
>> Given:
>> A laser aligned with the y axis is aimed at point (0,0,0).
>>
>> [laser]
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> |
>> ---------x-axis---------- -->
>> (0,0,0)
>Also GIVEN: According to LET, what you have assumed to be
>a 90 degree angle, in the moving system, really isn't.
Of course it is. (Why do you believe it's not? The Lorentz length
contraction does not affect angles; it affects only lengths.)
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> >[Hoffman:]
> [Jones:]
> >> Given:
> >> A laser aligned with the y axis is aimed at point (0,0,0).
> >>
> >> [laser]
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |
> >> |
> >> ---------x-axis---------- -->
> >> (0,0,0)
>
> >Also GIVEN: According to LET, what you have assumed to be
> >a 90 degree angle, in the moving system, really isn't.
>
> Of course it is. (Why do you believe it's not? The Lorentz length
> contraction does not affect angles; it affects only lengths.)
>
> ~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Length contraction does indeed affect angles. For example, think of a
square piece of sheet metal, with lines drawn from corner to corner.
When viewed at rest, the 90 deg. corners are each divided into two 45 deg
angles. When the square is in motion, the Fitzgerald contraction turns it
into a rectangle. Now the angles are no longer 45 deg.
But length contraction does not tell the whole story. Here's how I
understand it. Any determination of the magnitude of an angle ultimately
relies on light. Like I said before, when you set up the laser to shine a
beam across the room you automatically set it up so that the reflected or
scattered light from the target comes "straight" back to the laser,
right? Well, if the room is moving through the light medium you will have
to introduce an angle to the beam to make it 'look' like it's lined up
properly. But you will have no way of noticing this, since all the light
around you will be similarly affected.
If you want to calculate what this angle would be for a given velocity,
here's the formula:
sin A sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
sin A' = ----------------------
1 + (v cos A)/c
Where A is the angle in the rest frame and A' is the angle in the moving
frame.
Brian D Jones
>Length contraction does indeed affect angles.
>For example, think of a square piece of sheet metal,
>with lines drawn from corner to corner. When viewed
>at rest, the 90 deg. corners are each divided into
>two 45 deg angles. When the square is in motion,
>the Fitzgerald contraction turns it into a rectangle.
>Now the angles are no longer 45 deg.
{B Jones]
Yes - but I was - although I did not say it carefully enough - thinking of
the right angles in an inertial reference frame - as in my example. And
your above example did not invalidate my example anyway.
>... Any determination of the magnitude of an angle ultimately
>relies on light. Like I said before, when you set up the laser
>to shine a beam across the room you automatically set it up so
>that the reflected or scattered light from the target comes
>"straight" back to the laser, right?
I see that you didn't carefully follow my description of my experiment(s).
As I said more than once, there is absolutely no reliance on light re the
laser's alignment.
Two rods can be placed absolutely perpendicularly as long as they are
coming. These are the Y and X axes of an inertial reference frame.
Y
|
|
|
|
|
|
|___________________X
All I am doing is using direct physical contact between a laser and the Y
axis to align the laser's longitudinal axis with the frame's Y axis.
(As you may or may not recall - probably the latter - I mentioned placing a
chalk line on the lab floor. Aligning a laser with a chalk line does not
involve light rays.)
[]Laser directly aligned with Y axis by physical contact
Y
|
|
|
|
|
|
|___________________X
Note that it really doesn't matter at all if the Lorentz contraction
changes the angle between the Y and X axes; what really matters is the
experimental fact that the laser "bullet" (brief light pulse) will always
land at the bottom of the Y axis (at the frame's origin point). This could
not happen if there were the standard luminiferous aether, and if the frame
is moving through that aether.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> [Hoffman:]
> >... Any determination of the magnitude of an angle ultimately
> >relies on light. Like I said before, when you set up the laser
> >to shine a beam across the room you automatically set it up so
> >that the reflected or scattered light from the target comes
> >"straight" back to the laser, right?
>
> I see that you didn't carefully follow my description of my experiment(s).
>
> As I said more than once, there is absolutely no reliance on light re the
> laser's alignment.
>
> Two rods can be placed absolutely perpendicularly as long as they are
> coming. These are the Y and X axes of an inertial reference frame.
>
> Y
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |___________________X
>
> All I am doing is using direct physical contact between a laser and the Y
> axis to align the laser's longitudinal axis with the frame's Y axis.
>
> (As you may or may not recall - probably the latter - I mentioned placing a
> chalk line on the lab floor. Aligning a laser with a chalk line does not
> involve light rays.)
But it does! How do you decide whether you have drawn it straight and
perpendicular, except by sighting along the line?
> []Laser directly aligned with Y axis by physical contact
> Y
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |___________________X
>
> Note that it really doesn't matter at all if the Lorentz contraction
> changes the angle between the Y and X axes; what really matters is the
> experimental fact that the laser "bullet" (brief light pulse) will always
> land at the bottom of the Y axis (at the frame's origin point). This could
> not happen if there were the standard luminiferous aether, and if the frame
> is moving through that aether.
>
> ~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
Let's look at this another way. Do you agree that the math of special
relativity is correct? If so, then you must also agree with the math of
LET, because it is, by all accounts, observationally the same. That angle
transformation formula I gave you came right out of James Smith's
"Introduction to Special Relativity."
Brian D Jones
>> Aligning a laser with a chalk line does not
>> involve light rays.)
[LH]
> But it does! How do you decide whether you have
> drawn it straight and perpendicular, except by
> sighting along the line?
Picture the lab floor in a lab that is oriented NSEW for simplicity. Walk
along this floor over to the east wall, and place a red mark where the
floor's edge meets the wall's edge at their (the edges') coincident
midpoints. Then walk over the west wall and place a blue mark in the
analogous position. As you should know, two points generate a line, so we
place a tightly-drawn string between the two marks. We then place a target
at the red mark, and we place a "gun" (laser) at the blue mark. We then use
direct physical contact to align the laser's longitudinal axis with our
sting. The laser is now aimed directly at the center of our target across
the room.
But, as I said before (which you seem to keep overlooking), there is *no*
*need* whatsoever to aim the laser; all that is needed is a comparison of
any given arbitrary laser-target relationship for any two different Earth
velocities through space.
If there is an overall aether (the standard aether), then any given
arbitrary laser-target relationship's result (i.e., a red dot on the
target) will not remain constant as the Earth's velocity varies. For
example, let's say that our arbitrary and fixed laser position just
happened to place a red dot 2 inches to the right of the target's
bulls-eye. Given the aether hypothesis, this location is good for only the
current Earth velocity because as soon as the Earth's velocity changes, the
emitted light bullets (light pulses) must still go where the laser was
arbitrarily aimed - a fixed position - so the bullets cannot track the
target.
However, as I proved experimentally by using a laser arbitrarily aimed at a
target, the bullets (light pulses) always remain on target no matter how
the Earth's velocity varied throughout the year.
Therefore, there cannot be any standard universal aether.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
>
> If there is an overall aether (the standard aether), then any given
> arbitrary laser-target relationship's result (i.e., a red dot on the
> target) will not remain constant as the Earth's velocity varies. For
> example, let's say that our arbitrary and fixed laser position just
> happened to place a red dot 2 inches to the right of the target's
> bulls-eye. Given the aether hypothesis, this location is good for only the
> current Earth velocity because as soon as the Earth's velocity changes, the
> emitted light bullets (light pulses) must still go where the laser was
> arbitrarily aimed - a fixed position - so the bullets cannot track the
> target.
Like I said before, I agree that there should be a deflection in this
experiment, but it will be much smaller than the eighth of an inch you are
expecting. The deflection will be caused by the Earth's acceleration, not
it's constant velocity (as you assumed in you calculations). You have not
disproven the ether hypothesis by your experiment, since you still haven't
established that your apparatus is sensitive enough to see the deflection
this theory actually predicts. As I said before, the predicted,
observerable deflection depends not on the Earth's uniform motion during
the laser pulse flight time, but on how far the Earth deviates from a
straight path during this time. Why not try working it out this way and
see what you get.
Brian D Jones
Do you know what an inertial reference frame is?
If so, try to picture just a piece of one moving through space, namely,
only its y and x axes, with the latter being "horizontal."
Stop me if this is too difficult.
Let its speed through space be zero ("absolute" zero).
Tie a laser tightly to the y axis at point (0,100 feet,0).
Thus, the laser is aimed at the point (0,0,0).
Fire the laser.
A light pulse can be seen traveling down the y axis, and it can be seen
hitting the point (0,0,0).
Now let the frame's speed through space be 0.0001c ("absolute" speed, or
speed wrt light) to the right (positive x direction).
Fire the laser again.
At the firing instant, of course the light bullet is in contact with the y
axis.
Mathematically, the light bullet is at frame coordinate (0,100 feet,0), as
we said.
Now suppose that there is an "absolutely at rest" aether which pervades all
of space.
And suppose that this aether is to light waves what air is to sound waves.
In other words, suppose the light bullet we have just fired must move
straight down through the "absolutely stationary" aether because this
bullet is simply vibrations of the stationary aether.
Just to make sure that you understand, I repeat:
The light bullet must move straight down if the standard aether actually
exists, as we have supposed.
But I have stipulated that the frame moves at speed 0.0001c to the right.
Therefore, the frame's y axis must leave the light bullet's downward path.
No one in his right mind can deny this obvious and extremely simple fact.
In other words, if the y axis moves to the right (and it most certainly
does), and if the light bullet simply moves straight downward through
space, then these two entities must physically separate.
In other words, the light bullet will leave the y axis, and will not travel
along it.
Therefore, the light bullet cannot possibly hit the frame point (0,0,0)
which lies at the base of the y axis.
All that is left to do is to calculate their final spatial separation (when
the light bullet reaches the x axis).
We know that the light bullet traveled straight down through space and
through the aether a distance of exactly 100 feet at a through-space speed
of c.
We also know that the frame traveled to the right for a distance of
0.0001(100 feet) during the time that the bullet traveled straight
downward.
Therefore, the frame traveled to the right a distance through space of
exactly 0.01 feet.
Since the light bullet had no rightward motion, and since the y axis had no
downward displacement, the two entities ended up being spatially separated
by
0.01 feet, which is 0.12 inches (almost 1/8 inch).
(And the angle between the y and x axes is fixed at 90 degrees, so this
experiment has no varying angles.)
(Indeed, as should be obvious to anyone, the angle between the axes is
irrelevant; even if it changed with frame velocity, the laser would still
be tied to the y axis, and therefore still aimed along it, so the light
bullet must follow it on down to frame point (0,0,0) **unless** there is a
universal luminiferous aether.)
If you see anything wrong with any of the above, then be explicit when
pointing it out; otherwise, the case is closed.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
> Do you know what an inertial reference frame is?
>
> If so, try to picture just a piece of one moving through space, namely,
> only its y and x axes, with the latter being "horizontal."
>
> Stop me if this is too difficult.
>
> Let its speed through space be zero ("absolute" zero).
>
> Tie a laser tightly to the y axis at point (0,100 feet,0).
>
> Thus, the laser is aimed at the point (0,0,0).
>
> Fire the laser.
>
> A light pulse can be seen traveling down the y axis, and it can be seen
> hitting the point (0,0,0).
>
> Now let the frame's speed through space be 0.0001c ("absolute" speed, or
> speed wrt light) to the right (positive x direction).
> Fire the laser again.
When you find a way to bring the Earth to absolute rest, set up your
experiment, get the Earth moving again, fire the laser a second time, then
I believe you will get the results you anticipate. But this is clearly
not possible, and is not what you did experimentally.
Brian D Jones
>When you find a way to bring the Earth to absolute
>rest, set up your experiment, get the Earth moving
>again, fire the laser a second time, then I believe
>you will get the results you anticipate. But this
>is clearly not possible, and is not what you did
>experimentally.
What's the difference between starting at zero, then going 50 miles per
hour, and starting at 100 miles per hour, and then going 150 miles per
hour?
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
I think you could make your experiment work just as well that way. As the
Earth speeds up and slows down in its elliptical orbit, you should see a
small deflection, superimposed upon the small deflection we already
discussed due to centripetal acceleration.
Brian D Jones
>I think you could make your experiment work just as
>well that way. As the Earth speeds up and slows down
>in its elliptical orbit, you should see a small deflection,
>superimposed upon the small deflection we already discussed
>due to centripetal acceleration.
Have you not read about the Michelson-Morley experiment?
My experiment is the same (except for light's direction instead of speed).
There was no mention in the Michelson-Morley experiment about centripetal
acceleration.
There was no mention of the Earth's speeding up and slowing down in its
elliptical orbit.
Why, then, do you continue to raise such irrelevant issues?
Go read a good presentation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and then we
can properly discuss my almost identical experiment.
~~~~~~~B Jones~~~~~~~
L Hoffman
rational understanding. This is not to say that the theory is invalid in
any way. My intent, rather, is that we might strengthen our understanding
of relativity by stressing the continuity with earlier ideas, rather than
the discontinuity. It is generally agreed (though rarely admitted) that
the classical interpretation developed by Lorentz and Poincare is equally
valid with the approach of Einstein and Minkowsky. Unfortunately,
authoritative information on the classical interpretation is difficult to
find. That is why I have taken the liberty of copying some excerpts from
an article by J.S. Bell. The interested reader is encouraged to read the
article in its entirety.
What follows are some pertinent excerpts from an article by J.S. Bell.
Reference: Progress in Scientific Culture, Vol. 1, No. 2, Summer 1976 Also
reproduced in his book: "The Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum
Mechanics"
"HOW TO TEACH SPECIAL RELATIVITY"
"I have long thought that if I had the opportunity to teach this subject,
I would emphasize the continuity with earlier ideas. Usually it is the
discontinuity which is stressed, the radical break with more primitive
notions of space and time. Often the result is to destroy completely the
confidence of the student in perfectly sound and useful concepts already
acquired..."
"It is my impression that those with a more classical education, knowing
something of the reasoning of Larmor, Lorentz, and Poincare, as well as
that of Einstein, have stronger and sounder instincts..."
"We have followed here very much the approach of H.A. Lorentz. Assuming
physical laws in terms of certain variables (t,x,y,z), an investigation is
made of how things look to observers who, with their equipment, in terms
of these variables, move. It is found that if physical laws are Lorentz
invariant, such moving observers will be unable to detect their motion.
As a result it is not possible experimentally to determine which, if
either, of two uniformly moving systems, is really at rest, and which is
moving. All this for uniform motion: accelerated observers are not
considered in the 'special' theory.
"The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major
ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style.
"The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally
impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest,
Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as
meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly
moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view
that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even
though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it
experimentally. The facts of physics do not oblige us to accept one
philosophy rather than the other. And we need not accept Lorentz's
philosophy to accept a Lorentz pedagogy. Its special merit is to drive
home the lesson that the laws of physics in any one reference frame
account for all physical phenomena, including the observations of moving
observers. And it is often simpler to work in a single frame, rather than
to hurry after each moving object in turn.
"The difference of style is that instead of inferring the experience of
moving observers from known and conjectured laws of physics, Einstein
starts from the hypothesis that the laws will look the same to all
observers in uniform motion. This permits a very concise and elegant
formulation of the theory, as often happens when one big assumption can be
made to cover several less big ones. There is no intention here to make
any reservation whatever about the power and precision of Einstein's
approach. But in my opinion there is also something to be said for taking
students along the road made by Fitzgerald, Larmor, Lorentz, and
Poincare. The longer road sometimes gives more familiarity with the
country."
Tom Roberts
> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
> rational understanding.
The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
belies your claim.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
GLOBARR
In <39889B44...@lucent.com>
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com wrote:
>L Hoffman wrote:
>> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
>> rational understanding.
>
>The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do >understand it belies
your claim.
>
Gerald L. O'Barr (Globarr) comments:
The statement by Hoffman included the thought, 'rational.'
It was not a question of their mathematical understanding.
It was not a question if their understanding was not useful!
Anyone who truly understands the correct ether can see
just how irrational SR is. Not only is it not rational, it is not
even physically possible! And anyone with a brain knows
that math cannot do physical things. Math cannot be the
physical causes. So SR becomes Voodoo!
And we are now going to end these false Voodoo beliefs.
Only the ether approach is physically possible, and only the
ether provides us with physical causes and effects, and only
the ether provides us with a physics that is doable. And in
every other way, the ether is superior!
And it is rational!!!!
Thanks!!!!!!!!
(and I am sorry that numbers do not you right!)
Gerald L. O'Barr glo...@yahoo.com
Please Read: http://www.uc-online.com/absolute
And Jan 99 issue of Physics Today about the ether!
(We need to improve the SR FAQ)
Patrick Reany
L Hoffman wrote:
> "The approach of Einstein differs from that of Lorentz in two major
> ways. There is a difference of philosophy, and a difference of style.
>
> "The difference of philosophy is this. Since it is experimentally
> impossible to say which of two uniformly moving systems is really at rest,
> Einstein declares the notions "really resting" and "really moving" as
> meaningless. For him only the relative motion of two or more uniformly
> moving objects is real. Lorentz, on the other hand, preferred the view
> that there is indeed a state of real rest, defined by the aether, even
> though the laws of physics conspire to prevent us identifying it
> experimentally.
It is mere fancy to say that Lorentz's undefined "laws of physics" "conspire"
to hide anything. The purpose of physical laws is to expose numeric
relationships within certain reference frames under certain conditions. You
can say any form of mumbo jumbo about "laws of physics" when you haven't made
a definition of what one is!
Einstein believed, I believe, in two things: 1) there are definitely at least
some "laws of physics" such as those associated with SR, and 2) probably all
phenomena can be accounted for by generally covariant laws of physics. The
degree to which both of these are secure these days is high when dealing with
realms larger than the ultra small.
In any case, at least Einstein had an implicit definition of a law of physics:
A law of physics is a numeric relation that is form invariant under a group of
transformations among a set of preferred reference frames. I have no
requirement that every law of physics so defined must deal directly with
observables, but every law of physics which does not itself deal directly with
observables must be coupled to some law/laws of physics that does/do deal
directly with observables. This is the role of a physical theory: to
encapsulate a set of physical-numeric relationships or laws. (I should
probably use a dozen more paragraphs to deal with necessary refinements in the
definition, but for now I won't.)
If Lorentz did provide us with a definition of a law of physics, would someone
please let us know. Thanks.
Patrick
Darrin Yarbrough
"Matter234" <matt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000802202222...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> Tom Roberts wrote
>
> >L Hoffman wrote:
> >> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
> >> rational understanding.
> >
> >The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
> >belies your claim.
>
or
> why clocks slow down when in motion. It is only believed in by using
faith, and
> not with any understanding of the material and mechanical universe.
Darrin: I totally disagree with this statement. Many physicists understand
completely why clocks slow down when in motion ( introduce a variable and
your clocks measurement will vary). This does not require faith and has
everything to do with the mechanical universe (it is a mechanical event and
fact).
What totally eludes me is the illusion that somehow clocks should remain in
sink when not physically connected, this is illogical and unrealistic. Take
two clocks that keep lousy time and tie their mechanisms together, I'll show
you two clocks perfectly sychronized, keeping lousy time together. Two
clocks not connected are only synchronized to the extent that their
variables have in common.
The fundamentally hilarious suggestion that LET alludes to, is the fact
that the theory actually suggests that objects shrink and time must be
absolute in order to force the theory to fit the clocks synchronicity and
light being constant. This is similar to me suggesting that all the
dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. be revised to show a left foot as a hand
because we don't have time to take a picture of a hand.
Darrin Yarbrough
> Darrin Yarbrough wrote
>
> >"Matter234" <matt...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >news:20000802202222...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> >> Tom Roberts wrote
> >>
> >> >L Hoffman wrote:
> >> >> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
> >> >> rational understanding.
> >> >
> >> >The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
> >> >belies your claim.
> >>
> >> but there isn't a single physicists that understands the mechanics, or
how
> >or
> >> why clocks slow down when in motion. It is only believed in by using
> >faith, and
> >> not with any understanding of the material and mechanical universe.
> >
> >Darrin: I totally disagree with this statement. Many physicists
understand
> >completely why clocks slow down when in motion ( introduce a variable and
> >your clocks measurement will vary).
>
> clocks vary with motion. is just repeating yourself.
>
> This does not require faith and has
> >everything to do with the mechanical universe (it is a mechanical event
and
> >fact).
>
and
> please don't repeat yourself.
Darrin: Clocks vary with motion due to the parameters by which the clock is
set to
measure time.
Meaning, if a clock is set to record the distance an object is traveling. It
has
a point of origin, a point of completion. a speed, and the ratio of
gravitational
effect upon it throughout the trip. These four things are almost never
completely
coincidental when measuring the relationship between two clocks.
A simple analogy would be to set a clock on the surface of earth and a
clock
on the surface of mars. Both perfectly synchronized. Neither would stay
synchronized
due to the parameters of the environment they are subject to. The starting
point of
the measurement would be constant. The ending point (any moment of
comparison)
would be constant. The distance between the two points would always be a
variable.
This is due to a whole lot of circumstances. One, mean equatorial radius,
Earth 6378,
Mars 3396. Two, Mass (X10__24th kg) Earth 5.98, Mars 0.642. Three, Mean
distance from the
sun (10_6th km) Earth 150, Mars 228. Four, Orbit eccentricity, Earth 0.017,
Mars 0.093.
Surface pressure (mbar) Earth 1000, Mars 7. Five, Surface Gravitational
Acceleration
(cm/s_-2) Earth 981, Mars 371.
I suppose one could try the comparison in free space, however, clocks like
people are
individually idiosyncratic to the environment they experience. This is
unique and individual to
each clock as it is to ourselves, "we are the same but different." "Clocks
are the same but
different." They cannot read the same time unless they experience exactly
the same parameters.
Sending two clocks in opposite directions at identical accelerations could
still in fact leave
discrepancies in time, While one could "differentiate the equation" and
theoretically plot every
moment of each clocks travel, the curves would not completely coincide due
to differences
in environmental parameters on the imaginary left vs right. Not to mention
the fact that no
one stops to remember that they cannot physically be in both places at once
to examine the
results of the experiment.
>
> > What totally eludes me is the illusion that somehow clocks should remain
in
> >sink when not physically connected, this is illogical and unrealistic.
Take
> >two clocks that keep lousy time and tie their mechanisms together, I'll
show
> >you two clocks perfectly sychronized, keeping lousy time together. Two
> >clocks not connected are only synchronized to the extent that their
> >variables have in common.
> > The fundamentally hilarious suggestion that LET alludes to, is the fact
> >that the theory actually suggests that objects shrink and time must be
> >absolute in order to force the theory to fit the clocks synchronicity and
> >light being constant. This is similar to me suggesting that all the
> >dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. be revised to show a left foot as a
hand
> >because we don't have time to take a picture of a hand.
>
> I really can't understand your point. Everything in LET is an enviromental
> effect, which is just simple common sense, and is basic Clasical Physics.
It is
> in Special Relativity that everything is switched, and new definitions are
> needed for everything.
Darrin: I agree with this only to the extent that LET requires an imaginary,
undetectable medium that has never been proven to exist, and has been
proven to be unnecessary for the purpose of explaining mechanical events.
In Special Relativity, nothing is switched, it is the most experimentally
proven
and realistic rendering of events as they occur in reality. This has been
proven
through experiment. Special Relativity is common sense. Things don't change
shape in order to reconcile man's clocks. Clocks and sychronicity are human
terms that define human conditions. Unfortunately, no law says the universe
must
read our terms and conditions, then follow them. Lorentz theory did not
survive
because it is not right, irregardless of how much easier it makes
understanding.
>
>
>
Darrin Yarbrough
"Matter234" <matt...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000802202222...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
> Tom Roberts wrote
>
> >L Hoffman wrote:
> >> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
> >> rational understanding.
> >
> >The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
> >belies your claim.
>
> Relativity or the formula to solve how much clocks will slow down in
motion,
> but there isn't a single physicists that understands the mechanics, or how
or
> why clocks slow down when in motion. It is only believed in by using
faith, and
> other hand, the Lorentz Ether Theory's math is easily understood by
physicists,
> and the material and mechanical explanations of the universe make total
sense.
Darrin: How do you know clocks slow down in motion, unless you are comparing
the clock to another clock? I don't see a clock slowing down in motion at
all, the only time this becomes apparent is when compared to a clock that
has not experienced the same event. How does one determine that one clock is
right and the other is wrong? Why don't we say the slower clock speeded up?
Where is your basis for differentiation? (there lies the problem to this
dilemma).
>
>
>
>
L Hoffman
> L Hoffman wrote:
> > The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
> > rational understanding.
>
> The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
> belies your claim.
I have a very high regard for working physicists, and have no doubt that
most of them understand SR better than I. But of the students who study
relativity, how many would you say ever reach this level of understanding?
One percent maybe? What about the rest of them who aren't even physics
majors. Should we deny them a potential stepping stone to deeper
understanding? It is also my belief that even physics majors could gain
deeper understanding by studying LET. Much like the way that learning a
foreign language deepens our understanding of our native tongue.
L Hoffman
>
> In any case, at least Einstein had an implicit definition of a law of physics:
> A law of physics is a numeric relation that is form invariant under a group of
> transformations among a set of preferred reference frames. I have no
> requirement that every law of physics so defined must deal directly with
> observables, but every law of physics which does not itself deal directly with
> observables must be coupled to some law/laws of physics that does/do deal
> directly with observables. This is the role of a physical theory: to
> encapsulate a set of physical-numeric relationships or laws. (I should
> probably use a dozen more paragraphs to deal with necessary refinements in the
> definition, but for now I won't.)
>
> If Lorentz did provide us with a definition of a law of physics, would someone
> please let us know. Thanks.
His understanding seems to have been the same as that of all classical
physicists. I'm sorry if it doesn't fit your positivistic needs, but in
my opinion it raises science to a nobler cause:
All our theories help us to form pictures, or images, of the world
around us, and we try to do this in such a way that the phenomena
may be coordinated as well as possible, and that we may see clearly
the way in which they are connected.
Problems of Modern Physics
H. A. Lorentz, 1927
Matter234
>L Hoffman wrote:
>> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
>> rational understanding.
>
>The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
>belies your claim.
There is no question that many physicists understand the math of Special
Matter234
>"Matter234" <matt...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000802202222...@ng-fz1.aol.com...
>> Tom Roberts wrote
>>
>> >L Hoffman wrote:
>> >> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
>> >> rational understanding.
>> >
>> >The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
>> >belies your claim.
>>
>> but there isn't a single physicists that understands the mechanics, or how
>or
>> why clocks slow down when in motion. It is only believed in by using
>faith, and
>> not with any understanding of the material and mechanical universe.
>
>Darrin: I totally disagree with this statement. Many physicists understand
>completely why clocks slow down when in motion ( introduce a variable and
>your clocks measurement will vary).
Saying that the reason time on clocks vary with motion, is because time on
clocks vary with motion. is just repeating yourself.
This does not require faith and has
>everything to do with the mechanical universe (it is a mechanical event and
>fact).
Please explain the mechanics of how the time on clocks vary with motion, and
please don't repeat yourself.
> What totally eludes me is the illusion that somehow clocks should remain in
Jim Carr
Wayne Throop wrote:
}
} :: SR predicts that matter can not be accelerated beyond
} :: the speed of light. This is verified daily in particle
} :: accelerators all over the world.
}
} Frank Wappler wrote:
} : That's _not_ a falsifiable prediction at all, but trivially
} : intrinsic in the conventional (SR) procedures for how
} : "speed of some particular piece of matter" is defined
} : and to be measured in the first place.
}
} Wrong, of course. There's nothing in the SR notion of velocity
} as distance/time with "time" taken as described in section 1
} that prevents one from observing FTL movement, if indeed the
} universe allowed such in any frame.
In article <3978691D...@csc.albany.edu>
Frank Wappler <fw7...@csc.albany.edu> writes:
>
>I'm referring to Einstein's defintion of pairwise distance, as
>
>"c/2 calibrated_lightsignal_roundtrip_interval"
>(Ann. Phys. 17, 894),
>
>and Einstein's calibration procedure, that
>
>"pairs calibrate their individual notions of "now" to each other
> through light signals to (or from) "the middle between" each other"
>
>(described in "Relativity", chap. viii, ...
That will not give c for FTL movement; it will only give c for light.
By your logic, every speed measured with the Einstein calibration
procedure will come out to be c, including the speed of runners
at the Olympics.
--
James A. Carr <j...@scri.fsu.edu> | "The half of knowledge is knowing
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/ | where to find knowledge" - Anon.
Supercomputer Computations Res. Inst. | Motto over the entrance to Dodd
Florida State, Tallahassee FL 32306 | Hall, former library at FSCW.
L Hoffman
> >
> > >L Hoffman wrote:
> > >> The subject of Special Relativity, as it is usually taught, defies
> > >> rational understanding.
> > >
> > >The fact that tens of thousands of working physicsts do understand it
> > >belies your claim.
> >
> > but there isn't a single physicists that understands the mechanics, or how
> or
> > why clocks slow down when in motion. It is only believed in by using
> faith, and
> > not with any understanding of the material and mechanical universe.
>
> Darrin: I totally disagree with this statement. Many physicists understand
> completely why clocks slow down when in motion ( introduce a variable and
> everything to do with the mechanical universe (it is a mechanical event and
> fact).
> sink when not physically connected, this is illogical and unrealistic. Take
> two clocks that keep lousy time and tie their mechanisms together, I'll show
> you two clocks perfectly sychronized, keeping lousy time together. Two
> clocks not connected are only synchronized to the extent that their
> variables have in common.
> The fundamentally hilarious suggestion that LET alludes to, is the fact
> that the theory actually suggests that objects shrink and time must be
> absolute in order to force the theory to fit the clocks synchronicity and
> light being constant. This is similar to me suggesting that all the
> dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. be revised to show a left foot as a hand
> because we don't have time to take a picture of a hand.
Darrin,
If you are satisfied with your understanding of SR, then I'm happy for
you. I'm not trying to force ether ideas on anyone. My goal is to make
these ideas available to those who are not satisfied with their
understanding of SR. Contrast this with the attitude we see from many SR
proponents, who seem to view LET as some kind of threat, which must be
suppressed and ridiculed at every opportunity.
LH
L Hoffman
> Darrin Yarbrough wrote
>
> > The fundamentally hilarious suggestion that LET alludes to, is the fact
> >that the theory actually suggests that objects shrink and time must be
> >absolute in order to force the theory to fit the clocks synchronicity and
> >light being constant. This is similar to me suggesting that all the
> >dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. be revised to show a left foot as a hand
> >because we don't have time to take a picture of a hand.
>
> I really can't understand your point. Everything in LET is an
> enviromental effect, which is just simple common sense, and is basic
> Clasical Physics. It is in Special Relativity that everything is
> switched, and new definitions are needed for everything.
Yes, LET is quite rational and easily integrates with the rest of our
knowledge. SR is the theory that asks us to change our whole world view.
L Hoffman
>
> undetectable medium that has never been proven to exist, and has been
> proven to be unnecessary for the purpose of explaining mechanical events.
> In Special Relativity, nothing is switched, it is the most experimentally
> proven
> and realistic rendering of events as they occur in reality. This has been
> proven
> through experiment. Special Relativity is common sense. Things don't change
> shape in order to reconcile man's clocks. Clocks and sychronicity are human
> terms that define human conditions. Unfortunately, no law says the universe
> must
> read our terms and conditions, then follow them. Lorentz theory did not
> survive
> because it is not right, irregardless of how much easier it makes
> understanding.
You're entitled to your opinions, but I can't remain silent while you tell
overt lies about LET. LET is observationally equivalent to SR. Every
fact which supports SR also supports LET. So LET is just as "right" as
SR. And since LET came before SR and arguably is easier to comprehend,
then maybe it should be incumbent upon SR to predict something LET does
not, to justify its universal acceptance.