The SR Question of the Century

[Martin Miller]

The SR Question of the Century
=================================
=================================
Why has no one simply used two clocks on a table
to measure light's one-way speed?
=================================
=================================

(Note: No, Roemer did not do it; he used slow
clock transfer, where one clock spanned the
Earth's orbit, and since moving clocks run
slow, his clocks were asynchronous.)

For those who may need it, here is a detailed
version of my question:

=================================
Given two new atomic clocks still in their
shipping crates, how would anyone use these
clocks to measure light's one-way speed in
a way that is proved to be correct?
=================================

Basically, I am speaking simply of the one-way
version of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

And if you happen to believe that the MMx
round-trip experiment somehow even _implied_
one-way invariance, then you need to prove
this via the critical case of a frame that
moves wrt the light source.

The given question is extremely important
because an incorrect measurement of light's
one-way speed means incorrect measurements
of all one-way speeds and all time spans
involving two or more clocks.

The given question is also extremely important
because special relativity (our current theory
of time measurement) is based solely upon
Einstein's light postulate, which claims light
speed invariance in the one-way case.

[russ_watters]

How long must the table be and how accurate must the clocks be to satisfy an aether proponent?

Also, since GPS uses one-way transmissions, doesn't it qualify as a good test of the invariance of the speed of light?

[outandbeyond2004]

GPS good test? I don't know, so many effects are involved, I would hardly think it is "clean".

Here's a "Living Review" of the many effects involved in designing and maintaining the GPS:


relativity.livingreviews.gps (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html)


I think you have to assume one-way light travel goes at c, because of the issues involved in keeping the clocks synchronized as you separate them.

These issues are not important because in the solar system gravity is so weak and velocities so low, I guess.

[Martin Miller]

'outandbeyond' is right; in the GPS case,
as in all current 2-clock cases, scientists
simply assume one-way invariance and isotropy.

Since my question pertained to theoretical physics,
it matters not how long the tables are, and the
clocks are really ideal clocks.

Let me put it to 'russ_watters' this way:

Given two ideal unstarted spatially-separated clocks,
show how they could be correctly related temporally -
bearing in mind that proof is required, and also
bearing in mind that no assumptions are allowed,
and further bearing in mind that you must show this
for a frame that moves wrt the light source if light
signals are involved.

I claim that so far no one has ever correctly related
any two clocks in any frame. (Thus, no one has ever
correctly measured any one-way speed, any momentum,
or any two-clock time span.) (If Einstein had known
how to correctly relate clocks, then he would have
had absolute simultaneity instead of his merely
relative simultaneity, and SR would never have been
created.)

[Hurkyl]

also bearing in mind that no assumptions are allowed

I can't even assume I can turn the clocks on? That they're at rest with respect to each other? That if I send light signals from one location at regular intervals that the destination receives the signals at regular intervals? That there's not a michevious devil between the two clocks that will intercept all communications and transmit fake data?


If Einstein had known
how to correctly relate clocks, then he would have
had absolute simultaneity instead of his merely
relative simultaneity, and SR would never have been
created.

Sounds like you've already decided SR is wrong; I doubt any argument or experiment, no matter how sound, could convince you otherwise.

[outandbeyond2004]

Absolute simultaneity was assumed pre-Einstein's relativity theory. However, Einstein showed that this is something that has to be carefully defined in operational terms; say, partly by all observers agreeing that one and only one of them will be the arbitrator of which events are simultaneous and which not. He didn't acutally reject absolute simultaneity; just that it is something that has to be agreed on in operational terms beforehand, if it is to be used at all.

SR does not always need absolute simultaneity. GR theorists often define hypersurfaces in space-time, each of which has a unique time: i.e., defined absolute simultaneity. However, the definition can change from treatment to treatment.



I have been trying to think of a reason why it is necessary to specify that the clocks be unstarted. So far, i don't see that it is necessary.

[wisp]

The SR Question of the Century
=================================================
=================================================
Why has no one simply used two clocks on a table
to measure light's one-way speed?
=================================================
=================================================
Good question Martin.

Don't get fobbed of with the GPS stuff or synchronization issues. Scientists are spending a fortune sending probes to Mars to try and find water, life, etc, surely this simple low cost test should be done.
I have no idea why nobody has done it, but I think the results will be surprising.
Two similar tests were done around the 1990s
1. Roland DeWitte used an electrical pulse to measure one-way speeds and found SR at fault (he is an amateur and so was ignored).
2. Krisher et al (JPL) did a test but the results were too noisy to be conclusive. However, they claimed it supported SR! (They are the professionals and so their results were accepted as good).
See http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/oneway/oneway.html for more info and also go to "reasons Einstein was wrong"

[outandbeyond2004]

Perhaps this should be explained: Either two events are simultaneous as seen by an observer, or they are not. Einstein's point is that events seen as simultaneous by one observer are not necessarily seen as simultaneous by any other observer. Is this what Martin Miller meant by mere "relative simultaneity"? If so, won't he please explain, contra Einstein, why all observers can see two events as simultaneous?


Ordinary distance measurements require simultaneity. If one had a measuring stick, then we could just line up points on the stick with the endpoints of the interval whose distance we wish to measure. However, if a one-way light-speed measuring procedure requires a distant place, then we would have to transport a clock there, correct?


Could table-top measurements of the one-way speed be made with today's technology? I guess not. But Martin Miller has made ideal clocks (and by definition? ideal measuring rods as well) available to us. So, let me see if I can ...

Put a one-meter stick on the table top. Put one unstarted clock at one end and the other at the other end. Nah, won't do. We need to start the clocks and make sure they are well synchronized. Then put one clock at one end and the other clock at the other end. We can design read-outs so that any observer standing in front of the table and equidistant from the clocks can monitor them to ensure that they are synchronized throughout the measurement process.

Release a light pulse at time = sometime and get the time = sometime + traveltime when the pulse arrives at the other end. One-way speed is then 1 meter/traveltime.

Neat, huh? However, H.L. Mencken said something to the effect that every neat, obvious, simple solution is apt to be wrong.

[outandbeyond2004]

People are trying to see if light speed varies from place to place; from time to time; from direction to direction (anti-isotropy).

See this "Living Review" article on experimental tests of GR:

relativity.livingreviews.experiments (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html)

[Martin Miller]

---

'outandbeyond2004' wrote:
"Put a one-meter stick on the table top. Put one unstarted clock at
one end and the other at the other end. Nah, won't do. We need to
start the clocks and make sure they are well synchronized. Then put
one clock at one end and the other clock at the other end. We can
design read-outs so that any observer standing in front of the table
and equidistant from the clocks can monitor them to ensure that they
are synchronized throughout the measurement process."

MM replies:
You did not tell us how the clocks are to be synchronized, and your
midpoint observer cannot verify correct synchronization unless he can
prove that he is not moving either toward or away from the light rays
from the clocks' readouts.

(To see that he may be moving wrt the light signals, simply add
a light source at each clock beside its readout, with the light
sources' frame moving wrt the clocks' frame, and let each source
emit light rays simultaneously with its nearby readout. This makes
it clear that only one frame out of an infinity of frames will
remain at rest relative to these sources, which in turn means that
only one frame out of an infinity of frames will remain at rest
in relation to the sources' light signals, which in turn means
that only one frame out of an infinity of them will remain at
rest in relation to the clock readouts' light signals. Bear in
mind that light's source independency guarantees us that the
light rays from a clock readout and a nearby light source will
travel together as if they were one ray.)
---

'Hurkyl' noted:
"Sounds like you've already decided SR is wrong; I doubt any argument
or experiment, no matter how sound, could convince you otherwise."

MM replies:
Try me.
---

'outandbeyond2004' noted:
"I have been trying to think of a reason why it is necessary to
specify that the clocks be unstarted. So far, i don't see that it
is necessary."

MM replies:
This was just an initial condition, not a final one. (I mentioned
it only to make sure that the experiment started from scratch;
the experimenter must of course start the clocks at some point,
but how and when are parts of the given problem.)

'outandbeyond2004' also noted:
"Perhaps this should be explained: Either two events are simultaneous as
seen by an observer, or they are not. Einstein's point is that events seen
as simultaneous by one observer are not necessarily seen as simultaneous by
any other observer. Is this what Martin Miller meant by mere "relative simultaneity"? If so, won't he please explain, contra Einstein, why all observers can see two events as simultaneous?"

MM replies:
Yes, that is exactly what I meant by "relative simultaneity," but I can
still see that a little more explanation is necessary here. The key
questions here are (a) Since events are observer-independent, why should
observers' mere _viewpoints_ of light rays from events be involved? and
(b) What is physical cause of Einstein's relative simultaneity?

To answer the last question first, the precise physical cause of the
relativity of simultaneity is simply different frame movements in
relation to the light rays from the events. No matter how two events
may actually occur, observers in different frames who view light rays
from the events _must_ see the rays arrive differently. For example,
Frame A's observer may move toward the light from Event 1 but away
from the light from Event 2, whereas Frame B's observer may move
away from the light from Event 1 but toward the light from Event 2.
(And it should be apparent that this answer also answers the first
question.)

Of course, simultaneity would not be relative if truly or absolutely
synchronous clocks were used to time events.

As I mentioned earlier, Einstein's clocks are not synchronous. In
fact, he explicitly admitted this in his book _Relativity_. Here is
how he put it:

quote from Einstein's _Relativity_:
" But an examination of this supposition would only be possible if
we already had at our disposal the means of measuring time."
[Ref.: http://www.bartleby.com/173/8.html]

In this brief sentence, Einstein said a lot. Since the context was
light's one-way, two-clock speed, he was admitting that he could
not correctly measure this speed. Also, he was admitting that he
could not correctly measure any other one-way speed because, as
he said, he did not possess the means of (correctly) measuring
time. Further, he was admitting that he could not correctly
measure any two-clock times. In short, he was admitting that the
clocks of special relativity are not truly synchronous.

We do _not_ need a theory whose clocks are asynchronous.
We _do_ need synchronous clocks.
---

'wisp' noted:
"Good question Martin."

MM replies:
Thanks. And as soon as its full meaning has become apparent, you will
see that it is the most important question re flat space-time physics
that can be asked.

See the following to see why no rotating clocks can yield anisotropy:
http://www.geocities.com/antirelativity/Rotating_Clock_Analysis.html

The only real test of Einstein's light postulate is a direct and
simple measurement of light's one-way speed between two same-frame
clocks which are correctly related temporally. (No rotating clocks;
no transported clocks; no asynchronous {Einsteinian} clocks.)
---

'outandbeyond2004' further noted:
"People _are_ trying to see if light speed varies from place to place;
from time to time; from direction to direction (anti-isotropy)."

"See this "Living Review" article on experimental tests of GR:"

"relativity.livingreviews.experiments"

MM replies:
I saw nothing there about correctly synchronizing clocks or correctly
measuring any one-way speeds.

Here is what one must do to prove that one's two-clock time measurements
are correct:

[1] One must prove that one's clocks are correctly related.
[2] One must prove that one's clocks are not slowed.
[3] One must prove that the rod connecting the clocks is
not contracted.

So far, no one has presented a proof of any of the above; therefore,
no one has presented a proof that even mere _relative_ speeds can
be correctly measured, such as the speed of a bug relative to a log!

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller, have you studied the lunar laser ranging experiment? There should be time-varying components in the data making possible an analysis to determine the one-way speed of light. I admit a lack of familiarity with the state of art: I do not know if such an analysis is possible now.

[Martin Miller]

To 'outandbeyond2004':
Since LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging) is a one-clock measurement of the
time taken by the light signal to travel to the moon and back, no
synchronization is involved.

To fully understand what it’s all about, we need a proper and
simple example, such as the following one:

[clock]---------[rod]---------[mirror]
[source]~~>ray

Imagine a rod in space which has been ruler-measured to be
1 LY long. (Ignore the hardships involved if this were actually
done.) Picture a started-and-running atomic clock at one end of
the rod, and a mirror at the other end. Imagine a light source
that is moving relative to the clock-mirror frame. As this light
source meets the clock in passing, the former emits a light ray
toward the mirror. It is at this point that we must be careful;
i.e., we must ask ourselves What are the consequences of the
relative motion between the clock-mirror frame and the light
source frame? Clearly, if the mirror moves away from the light
source, then the light ray from the source should take longer to
reach the mirror than otherwise. Similarly, it is clear that if
the mirror moves toward the light source, then the light ray from
the source should take less time to reach the mirror than otherwise.
However, if the rod is physically contracted, and if the clock is
physically slowed, then these two physical distortions will yield
an incorrect result, namely, round-trip light speed invariance.
Of course, this incorrectness could not be revealed by a ruler
because the ruler would also be physically contracted. Therefore,
an LLR measurement will always seem to obtain very accurate
results of the ('instantaneous') distance between two objects, but
this ignores the fact that (a) no one has taken into account the
objects' movements in relation to the light signals, (b) no one
has proved that the clock is unslowed, and (c) no one has proved
that the rod is uncontracted.

In other words, the Michelson-Morley experiment did not correctly
measure light's round-trip speed, and the LLR cannot correctly
measure the distance to the moon. (Given undistorted clocks and
rods, we would find that light's round-trip, one-clock speed
varies.)

Here are the differences and similarities of the Michelson-Morley
(MMx) round-trip case and the one-way case:

Round-trip Case:
The MMx null result is a law of nature; however,
the MMx result was incorrect because Nature distorted
the instruments.

One-way Case:
In the one-way case, there can be no law of nature
because Nature cannot synchronize clocks; however, man
can synchronize clocks, and if he synchronizes them
_correctly_ (absolute synchronization), then he can obtain
a _correct_ result. (Disclaimer: Of course, he would have
to mathematically correct for clock slowing and rod
shrinkage, but we have the formulas, so this is easy!)

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller, your response does not show that you know how useful time-varying data can be. For the benefit of other readers if not yours, let me give an example.

A laser based on earth is shooting photons at a mirror that is orbiting earth. Let's pretend we do not know exactly what the speed of the photons are, so we can calculate only roughly the round-trip distance to and from the mirror. Nevertheless, we continue to gather data, and we notice that the round-trip time varies with time. There is a diurnal dependence, a monthly dependence and an annual one, among others. Theorists develop an elaborate theoretical model of the experiment with many adjustable mathematical parameters, including one for the speed of light. When we have many data points spread over a period of many years, we try to fit the model to the data, adjusting the model parameters as necessary to match the data with the predictions of the model.

If the time-varying components of the data are not important, the fitting of the model to the data would not work, of course. One reason might be too much noise. However, if the quality of the data is good, then we may have an interesting or "tight" range of values for each parameter including the speed of light.

Actually, every experiment with important time varying data is modeled that way. Other examples are the Shapiro round-trip radar time delay experiment and binary pulsars. Many other ongoing experiments depend on the speed of light, so I feel fairly confident that we do have a good grip on its one-way value even though we have not yet measured it directly.

For details see the article I had linked to earlier and have relinked here for convenience:
relativity.livingreviews.experiments (http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2001-4/index.html)

[Loren Booda]

Martin,

Such clocks' asynchronicity may realize the GR effect of the expanding universe on nearly local time, or even the curvilinear movement of the observer himself relative to each clock.

[Martin Miller]

'outandbeyond2004' wrote:
"Many other ongoing experiments depend on the speed of light,
so I feel fairly confident that we do have a good grip on its
one-way value even though we have not yet measured it directly."

If we correctly word your above, then we have the following:
"Many other ongoing round-trip experiments depend on the
round-trip speed of light, so I feel fairly confident that
we do have a good grip on its round-trip value."

We certainly have a firm grip on light's round-trip speed - it is
invariant and isotropic; however, as I will prove below, the round-
trip speed has nothing to do with either light's one-way, two-clock
speed or with clock synchronization.

The conceptual keys behind the following experiment are two, namely,
(i) a ban on Einstein's rigged clocks (which are _forced_ by a
baseless definition from man to obtain one-way 'invariance'), and
(ii) the use of two frames sharing one light source (something
which is never done in relativity texts).

The physical facts upon which the experiment is based are also two,
viz., (i) the simple fact that light's motion through space is not
infinitely rapid, and (ii) the corollary that light must always
take a finite amount of time T to move between any two points.

The Apparatus (2 tables, 4 clocks, 1 light bulb):
[diagram given below]

>>> There are two narrow, adjacent tables, each 30 meters long and 1
meter high (per a ruler at rest wrt each table). Table F is fixed
relative to the lab, whereas Table R can roll relative to the lab.
>>> There is an unstarted clock [C] each end of each table.
>>> There is a light source [S] (e.g., a light bulb, represented by the
asterisk) aligned with the left end of Table F at table-top height.

At the start, Table R's left end is to the left of Table F's left
end, as shown:

...[C]=======Table R=======[C]
........[S]
........[C]=======Table F=======[C]

In the 2nd scene, the source emits a light ray to the right just
as the left clocks meet in passing and start on zero:

........[C]=======Table R=======[C]
........[S]~~>ray
........[C]=======Table F=======[C]

In the 3rd scene, the light ray reaches Table F's right-hand clock:

.............[C]=======Table R=======[C]
........[S]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>ray
........[C]======Table F======[C]

In the final scene, the light ray reaches Table R's right-hand clock:

.................[C]=======Table R=======[C]
........[S]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>ray
........[C]======Table F======[C]

Since not even a light ray can be in two places at once, and
since (as was mentioned above) not even a light ray can move
infinitely rapid), the ray must take a finite amount of time
T to travel between the two right-hand clocks.

Here is what the experiment tells us about light's one-way
speed relative to each of the two frames:

***************************
Light's one-way speed wrt Table F
= 30m/100ns = c

Light's one-way speed wrt Table R
= 30m/(100+T)ns =/= c
***************************

In other words, experiment shows that light's one-way speed
varies with frame velocity.

So how did Einstein obtain his one-way invariance? He did so
by incorrectly placing the _same_ time x/c on both right-hand
clocks when they were 'hit' by the light ray.

Why did Einstein force clocks to obtain one-way invariance?
He did this because he improperly extrapolated invariance
from the round-trip case.

Ironically, exactly none of the above has anything at all to
do with the real problem which is How to correctly measure
time? (And this problem was also ignored by outandbeyond's
talk of "how useful time-varying data can be.")

In other words, the real problem for today's space-time
theorist is How can clocks be correctly synchronized?

Here is a hint: Without using more than one clock, one
must be able to guarantee that the clock-starting entities
have truly equal speeds relative to the clocks.

Let's quit talking about "how useful time-varying data can be,"
"how great the GPS system is," "how wonderful it is that we
have atomic clocks," "how the MMx took away the aether," "how
Einstein made time relative," "how wonderful special relativity
is," "how the MMx proved round-trip invariance," etc., etc.,
etc., and let's concentrate on the real issue of absolute clock
synchronization because as of now, we cannot even correctly
measure the speed of a bug relative to a log.

[russ_watters]

Wow, Martin - what you suggest is a test of relativity that ignores the effects of relativity. You completely miss the point of SR by not applying it to your apparatus: the moving table experiences a tme dilation and as a result, it still takes 100ns (according to the moving clocks) and still measures C to be C.

This is why I asked you before how big your apparatus had to be and how accurate the clocks had to be to test this. Add also how fast the apparatus has to move and how you synchronize clocks in different frames of reference. Try doing the calculation: I think you will find that for an apparatus like the one you suggest, time dilation (or your "T") is less than the precision of the experiment and thus outside its ablity to detect. But with a big enough (and fast enough) apparatus, you will detect a time dilation.

And if you plan on arguing against time dilation, please remember that time dilation is no longer just an untested prediction of SR, but is in fact, experimental data.

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin, I don't suppose you ever got caught speeding. You'd be put in an asylum for the insane if you tried to convince the patrolman with statements like this:

\\
as of now, we cannot even correctly
measure the speed of a bug relative to a log. //

Good driving, Martin!

Kidding aside, it wasn't Einstein's original idea that the speed of light is constant to every inertial observer. Rather it is a theoretical consequence of Maxwell's equations for electromagnetism. These equations in turn are based on the results of countless experiments that were done long before Einstein's birth. Einstein did have the original thought that the laws of mechanics should be recast to be based on the same speed of light constant as the laws of electromagnetism are.

Martin, your problem may be that you are basing your theory on your everyday experience, instead of experiments done by others. It can be difficult to appreciate how every working GPS device is confirming the truth of GR and SR. It is indeed hard for people to accept that the speed of light is absolutely the same to every inertial observer. So very, very bizarre.

[Martin Miller]

Note to russ_watters:
Time dilation cancels out in the experiment because the
two tables speeds through space are equal.

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"Kidding aside, it wasn't Einstein's original idea that the
speed of light is constant to every inertial observer. Rather
it is a theoretical consequence of Maxwell's equations for
electromagnetism."

You are mixing up light's propagational motion through space
with Einstein's definition of clock synchronization. Maxwell's
equations say nothing at all about light's one-way, two-clock
speed, and Einstein's definition says nothing at all about
Maxwell's equations. (If you believe otherwise, then tell us
how Maxwell synchronized clocks.)

Since you have claimed that light's one-way, two-clock speed
is the same for all inertial observers, you have the burden
to prove this, so let's see if you can.

You have also claimed the "truth" of SR, so let's see if you
can prove that its clocks are correctly synchronized.

And I could not help but notice that you had no counter to my
very simple and very direct experimental proof that Einstein's
clocks are not correctly synchronized, and that light's one-way
speed is not invariant.

I have presented a simple and direct experiment, and you have
(to put it bluntly, so pardon me!) presented absolutely nothing.
To repeat, the burden of proof is on the claimer. (This means
that I did not even need my experiment!)

Let's please stop runnning around in circles, and let's see
some 'meat on the table' for Einstein's case! Where's the
beef??

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
Note to russ_watters:
Time dilation cancels out in the experiment because the
two tables speeds through space are equal.
In relativity, there is no such thing as "speed though space" - no absolute speed, only relative speed: the speed of each table relative to the other. And even if there were an absolute speed, since the tables are moving relative to each other, their absolute speeds would be different.

Sorry, no, this is a classic time/length dilation problem. I have presented a simple and direct experiment, and you have
(to put it bluntly, so pardon me!) presented absolutely nothing.
To repeat, the burden of proof is on the claimer. (This means
that I did not even need my experiment!)

Let's please stop runnning around in circles, and let's see
some 'meat on the table' for Einstein's case! Where's the
beef?? Hehe, no. That's called burden-of-proof-shifting. Einstein's relativity is the accepted explantion because it has met the scientific community's standard of proof. YOU are claiming it is false, and YOU must therefore provide positive evidence of that. It is clear to me, however, that your assertions are based soley on your flawed understanding of what the theory says.

[Martin Miller]

russ_watters noted:
"In relativity, there is no such thing as "speed though space" -
no absolute speed, only relative speed: the speed of each table
relative to the other. And even if there were an absolute speed,
since the tables are moving relative to each other, their absolute
speeds would be different."

"Sorry, no, this is a classic time/length dilation problem."

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.
You were the one who mentioned time dilation.
Were you speaking of intrinsic clock slowing or
a mere point-of-view "slowing"? If it's the latter,
then it has nothing to do with physics; if it's
the former, then it must be due to clock motion
through space.

And, no, even using speeds through space does not mean
that the tables speeds through space differ because I
can specify that their speeds through space are equal.

russ_watters noted:
"Hehe, no. That's called burden-of-proof-shifting. Einstein's relativity
is the accepted explantion because it has met the scientific community's
standard of proof. YOU are claiming it is false, and YOU must therefore
provide positive evidence of that. It is clear to me, however, that your
assertions are based soley on your flawed understanding of what the theory says."

To repeat, ad nauseam, where is your proof of one-way, two-clock
invariance and isotropy?

To also repeat ad nauseam, where is your proof that Einstein's
cute little (hehe) clocks are correctly related temporally?

And while you are at it, please present at least one scientific
prediction made by special relativity. (That is, at least one
prediction that does not directly depend upon clocks which have
yet to be validated by you or anyone else.)

And I did not merely claim that Einstein's clocks are incorrectly
related, I proved it experimentally. I also proved that light's
one-way speed varies with frame velocity.

Re your claim that "Einstein's relativity is the accepted explantion
because it has met the scientific community's standard of proof,"
who in that community has experimentally measured light's one-way
speed and found it to be invariant and isotropic? Was this critical
experiment performed under cover of darkness at the Antarctic? hehe!

And please try to remember that Einstein himself explicitly
admitted that he did not possess the means of measuring time!

This is why no one has ever correctly measured even the relative
speed of a bug wrt to log.

[Martin Miller]

Being a nice guy, I let russ_watters off a little too
easily in my prior post.

What I should have asked him for was the math.

Will he please show us mathematically how time dilation
of any sort in any way invalidates my experiment?

Thanks.

[outandbeyond2004]

The Cosmic Radiation Background does seem to provide an absolute frame of reference. Any Doppler shift dipole (red-shifted area in one direction and blue-shifted area in the opposite direction) that shows up in measurements of the CRB can be interpreted as being the effect of the solar system's motion wrt the CRB. Any observer, not just inertial ones, can check whether a dipole appears or not. (To be sure, if the observer were completely enclosed in a box that does not permit observations to be made of the outside of the box . . .) However, Martin's argument still makes no sense.

Table-top experiments to measure the speed of light are, as far as I know, beyond the means and abilities of the vast majority of the world. Maybe not even Bill Gates could do them to get good data, even if he were to devote most of his wealth.

Martin still shows no sign of having grasped the beauty of time-varying data, as I tried to show in prior posts. Why would varying the two-way distance in a known and repeatable way NOT allow measurement of the one-way value (assuming isotropy even if not experimentally verified yet), even if some experiments always have the light going to and fro?

Let's set up a table-top experiment in imagination. Attach a laser to the table together with a "radar blip" detector that records the time of departure and the time of arrival of each blip. Put a mirror on rails mounted on a motor. The motor moves at a rate of the fraction of the vacuum speed of light v (we would need a long table) away from the laser. At time = 0 let the mirror be 1 meter from the laser, and let the laser release a blip, which travels to the mirror. We are doing the experiment in vacuum, so SR says that the blip is traveling at c. Let's see what SR predicts. The mirror moves a distance D until the blip hits it, given by

D = \frac{v}{1-v} (meters)

So the time the blip has to take to hit the mirror T_b is given by

T_b = \frac{1}{c} + \frac{\frac{v}{1-v}}{c}

= \frac{1}{c(1 - v)}

The blip bounces off the mirror back to the blip detector, traveling the same distance in the opposite direction. If we have isotropy, then the total trip time is twice T_b = 2T_b.

All right so far?

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"Table-top experiments to measure the speed of light are, as far as
I know, beyond the means and abilities of the vast majority of the
world. Maybe not even Bill Gates could do them to get good data,
even if he were to devote most of his wealth."

Nice try, but no cigar.
To repeat, here is the given problem:
No one can - even on paper - correctly synchronize clocks.
(Therefore, no one can - even on paper - correctly measure
any two-clock time span, including the time span involved
in measuring light's one-way, two-clock speed.)

outandbeyond2004 also noted:
"Let's set up a table-top experiment in imagination.
[--long, irrelevant experiment snipped--]

All right so far?"


No. Just a bunch of smoke and mirrors.
(Not to mention your math typo. D should have been v/(c-v),
which means that Tb should have been c/[c(c-v)] = 1/(c-v).)

You assumed what you were trying to prove; i.e., you merely assumed
a one-way light speed of c. (If you did not merely assume this, then
you need to tell us how you correctly measured light's one-way speed
before you used the value c in your given Rube Goldbergian nightmare.)

You also assumed that you could correctly measure both v and D.
Where's your proof?

You wrote:
"Let's see what SR predicts."

SR does not predict one-way invariance - Einstein forced light's
one-way speed to be c by definition. (This is also known as a
convention.)(It is of no more importance to physics than the
convention of setting the length of a foot ruler to match the
King's foot.)

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
No one can - even on paper - correctly synchronize clocks.

What do you mean by that?

What is wrong with the following procedure:

1. Start two clocks on the same signal,
2. Wait a month,
3. Compare their times. The difference, divided by one month, gives you the fractional error on their synchronization.

For atomic clocks, that fractional error is small enough as to make definite statements about relativistic corrections.

Also, speacking "on paper", would you agree that two cesium atoms are "acceptably synchronized"? What about two radioactive samples (of the same material)?

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin, well, yes, the constant light speed principle of SR can be considered to be a convention. If you can get enough people to agree to reject it in favor of another "convention," you would have wrought a revolution in physics. The name "Martin Miller" would be on lips just as "Albert Einstein" was once. (No this is NOT sarcasm or irony.)

You'd be going against not only scientific inertia but Oakham's Rule (Occam's Rule) and experimental results though.

I had not realized this before, but not only does the constant principle imply isotropy everywhere for inertial observers, but that two-way measurements imply one-way speed. Two-way c = one-way c if isotropy is true. Hence insisting on one-way measurements is tantamount to insisting that isotropy is not true. Are you aware of that point?

If you are, then where's the experimental evidence? Remember that I wrote before that people ARE looking for evidence that the constant principle is not true? People have been doing so for a long time. Albert Michelson, for one, who rejected SR and would have loved to disproved it.

[Martin Miller]

ahrkron wrote:
[from MM: My reply to outandbeyond follows]

"quote:

Originally posted by Martin Miller
No one can - even on paper - correctly synchronize clocks.

What do you mean by that?

What is wrong with the following procedure:

1. Start two clocks on the same signal,
2. Wait a month,
3. Compare their times. The difference, divided by one month, gives
you the fractional error on their synchronization.

For atomic clocks, that fractional error is small enough as to make
definite statements about relativistic corrections.

Also, speacking "on paper", would you agree that two cesium atoms
are "acceptably synchronized"? What about two radioactive samples
(of the same material)?"

MM replies:
I meant just what I wrote; as of today, no one has placed on paper
a procedure for correctly (or absolutely) synchronizing two clocks.
(If Einstein had had absolute synchronization, then he would not
have had relative synchronization and SR.)

The fact that you asked the question re cesium atoms shows that you
do not understand what "on paper" means; it means that ideal (perfect)
clocks are assumed.

And as for your above procedure, it is much too vague to analyze.
(For example, how do you "compare their times"?)
Why can't you draw a diagram of the two clocks, and show their times?
Is it too much to ask for a simple numerical example?

-------

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"Martin, well, yes, the constant light speed principle of SR can be
considered to be a convention. If you can get enough people to agree to
reject it in favor of another "convention," you would have wrought a
revolution in physics. The name "Martin Miller" would be on lips just
as "Albert Einstein" was once. (No this is NOT sarcasm or irony.)"

But it is an appeal to authority.
And I certainly do _not_ wish to merely use another convention; what
I wish to do is to replace Einstein's asynchronous clocks with ones
that are synchronous. Is this not a reasonable goal?

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"You'd be going against not only scientific inertia but Oakham's
Rule (Occam's Rule) and experimental results though."

Einstein himself went against 300 years of scientific inertia.
And as for experimental results, they are in my favor because
my experiment proved that light's one-way speed varies. (It
also proved the incorrectness of Einstein's clocks.)

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"I had not realized this before, but not only does the constant
principle imply isotropy everywhere for inertial observers, but that
two-way measurements imply one-way speed. Two-way c = one-way c if
isotropy is true. Hence insisting on one-way measurements is
tantamount to insisting that isotropy is not true.
Are you aware of that point?"

What do you mean by "isotropy everywhere for inertial observers"?
Are you aware of the historical fact that even Einstein admitted
mathematically that light's one-way speed will vary given synchronous
clocks?

[REF.: "w is the required velocity of light with
respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c." (From _Relativity_ Chap.
VII)]

outandbeyond2004 further noted:
"If you are, then where's the experimental evidence? Remember that
I wrote before that people ARE looking for evidence that the constant
principle is not true? People have been doing so for a long time. Albert Michelson, for one, who rejected SR and would have loved to
disproved it."

I have already presented one experimental proof of the variance of light's one-way speed. Here is yet another:

Given 2 people (P1 and P2) meeting in passing while steadily walking at different speeds as a single light ray approaches, as shown:

....P1.............<~~~~ray
....P2

At the above critical point in the experiment, both the light ray's tip is at a single point, and the observers are at a single point; this proves to the observers that the ray is now equidistant from them; they can qualitatively label this distance X.

After the observers separate, the ray will reach one of them
first, as shown:

........P1<~~~~~~~~ray
P2

Since the tip of the light ray cannot be in two places at once,
the observers know that it reached them sequentially at absolutely
different times. (Here is a down-to-earth example: If I see the
real you in Texas and in New York, then this proves that I saw you
at absolutely different times because you cannot be in two places
at once.) They can qualitatively label these absolutely different
times T1 and T2.

The observers can now qualitatively compare one-way light speeds.
Here are their simple results:

Light's speed wrt P1 = X/T1

Light's speed wrt P2 = X/T2

This is a simple and direct experimental proof of the variance
of light's one-way speed.

How many more such proofs do you need?

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
The fact that you asked the question re cesium atoms shows that you do not understand what "on paper" means

Don't patronize.

And as for your above procedure, it is much too vague to analyze (For example, how do you "compare their times"?)

1. Make the two clocks as small as possible, and make them able to start and stop upon reception of an electric signal.
2. Also, have them store their final count in memory, and display (and keep) it in a screen.

This way, you can start and stop both by connecting the same trigger wire to both terminals. Once they stop, you can read the final counts on the screens.

Since they were started and stopped by the same signal, you can then subtract their resulting counts and do whatever adjustment you need until they coincide after, say, a month. Then you know that their counts are the same up to the fraction 1/(number of counts in a month) of the times they measure.

[Martin Miller]

ahrkron wrote:
"1. Make the two clocks as small as possible, and make them able
to start and stop upon reception of an electric signal.
2. Also, have them store their final count in memory, and display
(and keep) it in a screen."

"This way, you can start and stop both by connecting the same trigger
wire to both terminals. Once they stop, you can read the final counts
on the screens."

"Since they were started and stopped by the same signal, you can then
subtract their resulting counts and do whatever adjustment you need
until they coincide after, say, a month. Then you know that their counts
are the same up to the fraction 1/(number of counts in a month) of the
times they measure."

You cannot use one trigger wire for two clocks.
You cannot start two clocks with one signal.
Would you mind drawing a diagram?
(And bear in mind that if you were able to absolutely
synchronize two clocks, then you would be the _first_
person in history to do so.)

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
You cannot use one trigger wire for two clocks.

We do it all the time in lots of devices. You just need to connect the trigger wire to both clocks (say, using a trigger wire made in the shape of a "Y", so that no inhomogeneities make you nervous). Antother, equivalent way, would be to solder together the two clocks' trigger terminals and still use one wire to start them both up.

You cannot start two clocks with one signal.

Once you have the two clocks' terminal connected to the same source, you just send the signal. Each will receive half the current, but they will start prompted by the same pulse.

[outandbeyond2004]

Oh, sorry, I see now that you ARE asserting anisotropy . . . are you? I feel a little confused.

Your P1-P2-light ray does not prove that. It is only a thought experiment; and, more important, your analysis is mistaken or inadequate. The light ray is going in one direction only. To prove anisotropy you need to show that speeds in other directions are different. That light speed may vary from place to place or time to time is not what is meant by anisotropy. I assume from now on that you meant to disprove anisotropy. Again, certainly not.
That the light ray reaches P1 before P2 is merely a consequence of the different speeds of the persons, not of anisotropy. You can repeat the experiment in another direction, by rotating the "arena" (where the persons are walking and over which the ray is traveling). You did not do that not even in imagination. I would scarely be astonished if the results of the experiment came out exactly the same, provided the initial conditions were reproduced exactly, except for direction. However you would stagger about and cry out, "But we used asynchronous clocks! How is this possible? HOW?"
[o)]

[Hurkyl]

And don't forget that everyday observation contradicts classical mechanics too! Inertia? Pthht! When I stop pushing something, it stops!

[outandbeyond2004]

In a previous post

v

is a dimensionless quantity representing a fraction of the speed of light. If you have a velocity in say meters/sec, divide it by c before plugging it into

v

. Sorry.


It's been fun, it made me think about issues I had not really thought about before, and I think I gained a better understanding of SR. Good mental exercise, too, from trying to convince a skeptic of the truth of SR. This is not necessarily my last post in this topic, but . . .

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
And don't forget that everyday observation contradicts classical mechanics too! Inertia? Pthht! When I stop pushing something, it stops!


Not true. Performing the ball rolling experiment by Galileo would show that the ball always tries to achieve a final height that is equal to its initial height, roughly demonstrating a conservation of energy. And probably by oiling the surface the ball rolled on, he and Newton were able to show friction as a force that slowed down the ball, so that in its absence, the previously demonstrated conservation of energy would require the ball to move for all time.
No contradictions at all. Galileo and Newton merely used inductive reasoning to arrive at the law of inertia.

On the other hand, Einstein's SR proposed a totally absurd and illogical notion that velocity of light can be an absolute constant for all observers, regardless of their velocities through space. This is trivially proven false by demonstrating that motion exists. Or more elegantly, like MM, that one ray of light cannot be everywhere at once.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
SR dogma... Heh - so SR is 100 year old dogma while Newtonian physics is 500 year old....what?

Eyesaw and MM, asserting something to be true is not the same as proving it. You guys have made a lot of assertions but have provided only misunderstood interpetations as proof. SR is thoroughly proven. If you wish to overturn it, first learn it. Of course once you learn what it and the evidence for it actually says, you'll realize why it is accepted: it works.

Also, while arguments are welcome, attitudes are not. Lose the attitudes.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Martin Miller

I have already presented one experimental proof of the variance of light's one-way speed. Here is yet another:

Given 2 people (P1 and P2) meeting in passing while steadily walking at different speeds as a single light ray approaches, as shown:

....P1.............<~~~~ray
....P2

At the above critical point in the experiment, both the light ray's tip is at a single point, and the observers are at a single point; this proves to the observers that the ray is now equidistant from them; they can qualitatively label this distance X.

After the observers separate, the ray will reach one of them
first, as shown:

........P1<~~~~~~~~ray
P2

Since the tip of the light ray cannot be in two places at once,
the observers know that it reached them sequentially at absolutely
different times. (Here is a down-to-earth example: If I see the
real you in Texas and in New York, then this proves that I saw you
at absolutely different times because you cannot be in two places
at once.) They can qualitatively label these absolutely different
times T1 and T2.

The observers can now qualitatively compare one-way light speeds.
Here are their simple results:

Light's speed wrt P1 = X/T1

Light's speed wrt P2 = X/T2

This is a simple and direct experimental proof of the variance
of light's one-way speed.

How many more such proofs do you need? [/B]

You had the right idea but this experiment is flawed. The X distance the light traveled with respect to your thought experiment is different for p1 and p2. The experiment should be revised to
say that x marks the spot where p1 and p2 meet, who were traveling at different velocities so that when the light strikes the spot x, p1 and p2 would have traveled a different distance with respect to the light in the same amount of time. I.e.,

light's speed wrt P1 = (X + P1x)/T
light's speed wrt P2 = (X + P2x)/T

c for P1 not equal to c for p2- QED.

[outandbeyond2004]

Eyesaw, once again, it was not Einstein who first proposed that the speed of light was a constant. It was a theoretical consequence of Maxwell's equations for electrodynamics, which were based on decades of experiments. Was your computer designed using equations other than Maxwell's? You might as well as assert that it was.

I've come to appreciate how hard it is for some people to accept the notion that the vaccum local speed of light is really a constant. I can't remember whether I started out disbelieving in its constancy before finally accepting it as a scientific fact, but I can't think of any table-top experiment that the average Joe or Joette can do. The GPS devices are good 'experiments,' but one still has to be told that their design requires GR. (I once told a friend that, and he showed amazement, if not disbelief.) I have toured several science fairs by now, and certainly nobody was demonstrating light-speed constancy, ha, ha.

Perhaps what Eyeshaw should do is to apply for a job as particle-accelerator designer. I would be totally staggered if he became one.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Heh - so SR is 100 year old dogma while Newtonian physics is 500 year old....what?

Eyesaw and MM, asserting something to be true is not the same as proving it. You guys have made a lot of assertions but have provided only misunderstood interpetations as proof. SR is thoroughly proven. If you wish to overturn it, first learn it. Of course once you learn what it and the evidence for it actually says, you'll realize why it is accepted: it works.

Also, while arguments are welcome, attitudes are not. Lose the attitudes.

You are the one with the attitude. I would not waste my energy trying to explain something to a robot whose designers, running
out of AI chips, replaced with a NI chip- i.e., No Intelligence technology.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
Eyesaw, once again, it was not Einstein who first proposed that the speed of light was a constant. It was a theoretical consequence of Maxwell's equations for electrodynamics, which were based on decades of experiments. Was your computer designed using equations other than Maxwell's? You might as well as assert that it was.

I've come to appreciate how hard it is for some people to accept the notion that the vaccum local speed of light is really a constant. I can't remember whether I started out disbelieving in its constancy before finally accepting it as a scientific fact, but I can't think of any table-top experiment that the average Joe or Joette can do. The GPS devices are good 'experiments,' but one still has to be told that their design requires GR. (I once told a friend that, and he showed amazement, if not disbelief.) I have toured several science fairs by now, and certainly nobody was demonstrating light-speed constancy, ha, ha.

Perhaps what Eyeshaw should do is to apply for a job as particle-accelerator designer. I would be totally staggered if he became one.

Once again, Maxwell's equations were formulated under the pretext of an ether- this is evident in the fact that the EM propogation equations were wave equations and not equations that describe motion of individual particles. Since Einstein disposed of the ether, he revokes his right to the Maxwell formulation of EM phenomena. So any fanatic of SR should be obligated to produce the derivation of a constant c in vacuum without the Maxwell equations. Show me then
how Einstein arrived at his postulate of a constant c without the
Maxwell equations.

Furthermore, the fact that c is a constant in Maxwell's equations
in no way implies the Galilean transformation for light to be invalid. This rather is a consequence of SR's illiteracy in logic. Nor does it require that c be independent of the velocity of source
or inertial frame. Einstein's two postulates in SR contradict each other and have never been proven by any experiment when they are simultaneously applied.

It's not that c being constant in vacuum is hard for people to believe (since if we are accustomed to the law of inertia alreadyyy and in the absence of any external force, there's no reason c should vary from place to place), but Einstein's illogical requirement that c be constant
for observers moving at a different velocity than the frame in which c was obtained, which resulted in the absurd notions of time dilation and space contraction, which ironically, if SR's logic was taken to its conclusions, could not even exist.

[Hurkyl]

Not true. Performing the ball rolling experiment by Galileo would show that the ball always tries to achieve a final height that is equal to its initial height, roughly demonstrating a conservation of energy. And probably by oiling the surface the ball rolled on, he and Newton were able to show friction as a force that slowed down the ball, so that in its absence, the previously demonstrated conservation of energy would require the ball to move for all time.
No contradictions at all. Galileo and Newton merely used inductive reasoning to arrive at the law of inertia.

If I roll a ball downhill (oiled or not), it stays downhill. It's totally illogical to think otherwise. And "friction" is just absurd; the ball slows down because there's nothing to keep it moving!

Law of Inertia! Hah! It is trivially proven false by demonstrating that an object will come to rest on its own!

I bet that you're gonna tell me that feathers and bowling balls fall at the same speed too, aren't you?

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If I roll a ball downhill (oiled or not), it stays downhill. It's totally illogical to think otherwise. And "friction" is just absurd; the ball slows down because there's nothing to keep it moving!

Law of Inertia! Hah! It is trivially proven false by demonstrating that an object will come to rest on its own!


Actually I like your notion of inertia better (I thought the same myself). But I think Galileo and Newton's law of inertia are made consistent with observation by the different assumptions they make about motion. In G and N's model, motion is carried out by tireless donkeys so that the only way to slow the carriage down is by forcefully removing the donkeys or attaching to the carriage donkeys that move in the opposite direction until the forces are balanced ("force" here having a different meaning than that in F=ma). In your model, the carriage is a Honda Civic, a Lumina, Maxima, e.gs., that requires gas to run and only gives you miles to the gallon.

Otoh, I can't see how Einstein's SR can be made consistent with logic and daily observations. It seems to require that there be an infinite number of predetermined universes.



I bet that you're gonna tell me that feathers and bowling balls fall at the same speed too, aren't you?

As a matter of fact, I don't believe they do. And there's an usenet poster with a very high IQ that is currently trying to dispute this notion:

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf

[outandbeyond2004]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
Once again, Maxwell's equations were formulated under the pretext of an ether-

To be sure, the aether idea was raised and debated long before Maxwell, but I learned electrodynamics without its aid.


Originally posted by Eyesaw
this is evident in the fact that the EM propogation equations were wave equations and not equations that describe motion of individual particles.

What about the Lorentz force law?


Originally posted by Eyesaw
Since Einstein disposed of the ether, he revokes his right to the Maxwell formulation of EM phenomena.


A kind of Yogi Berraism is a saying that makes you want to reply to it, but you just can't think of something good to say, it's so illogical and/or irrelevant. You'd open your mouth to reply then think better of it. And then one minute later you again want to reply but again decide not to. And so on.


Originally posted by Eyesaw
So any fanatic of SR should be obligated to produce the derivation of a constant c in vacuum without the Maxwell equations. Show me then
how Einstein arrived at his postulate of a constant c without the
Maxwell equations.

Who, me? Nay, nay, rather ask God to transport you back to the time when Einstein was pondering such matters on his way to his 1905 SR paper.


Originally posted by Eyesaw
Furthermore, the fact that c is a constant in Maxwell's equations
in no way implies the Galilean transformation for light to be invalid. This rather is a consequence of SR's illiteracy in logic. Nor does it require that c be independent of the velocity of source
or inertial frame. Einstein's two postulates in SR contradict each other and have never been proven by any experiment when they are simultaneously applied.

Eyesaw, what the boys in white ought to do is to take you in a straitjacket off to one of these particle smashers and make you a nice plumb juicy target for these wee lil beasties to smash into and produce lovely data to wow the world and lead us into peace and joy forever.

[Nereid]

Eyesaw, in another thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15764&perpage=15&pagenumber=5) in this very same sub-forum, I post two links to lists (with references) of tests of SR and GR. Your reply to my post was (excerpts): "Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test can be claimed to have confirmed SR ..."

In a nutshell, the answer to your question is 'you can make quite specific predictions from SR; you can do the experiments and make the observations; when you do, you find that the predictions are correct, to within the experimental/observational errors'. IMHO, that's all you can ask of a theory.

So, let's go look at the experiments on the lists:
1) was a specific prediction from SR made?
2) was that prediction made correctly (e.g. no screw-up in the math)?
3) did the researchers do the experiment/make the observation?
4) were the results consistent with the prediction?

Please tell us which of the experiments, in your mind, have "NO" as the answer to any question.

[outandbeyond2004]

I would like to suggest that anybody try to design a system like the GPS withOUT GR (at least the low-velocity, low-stress, weak-gravity version or the Parameterized Post-Newtonian formalism). It can be done, I think. I won't try it myself; I trust GR and suspect it would be a well-nigh impossible feat to pull off. However, if Eyesaw, MM, or someone else actually pulls it off, I may decide to abandon GR, especially if the mathematics is simpler.

Let me apologize to Eyesaw. I thought for a moment that he was kidding. I didn't intend to start a flame war.


The Galilean velocity addition theory HAS been tested -- and found to be wrong for particles traveling at high speeds. I mean if in a frame another frame is traveling at speed v and in the second frame an object is traveling at speed w, then the object is predicted to travel at speed w + v wrt the first frame (that's only if the respective velocities are parallel). Is that what MM, Eyesaw, etal. have in mind, the Galilean velocity addition theory?

[Hurkyl]

Otoh, I can't see how Einstein's SR can be made consistent with logic and daily observations.

It can't! SR is indistinguishable from Newton when low velocities are involved, and we already see that Newton is inconsistent with logic and daily observations.

You know, we might have a lot more competent engineers if we drop science from their cirriculum, so we don't lead them astray from the obvious facts of everyday experience!


Furthermore, the fact that c is a constant in Maxwell's equations
in no way implies the Galilean transformation for light to be invalid.

We don't need Maxwell to prove them invalid! We just have to toss a ball straight up while running very fast - it lands behind me, not in my hand!

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Nereid
Eyesaw, in another thread (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15764&perpage=15&pagenumber=5) in this very same sub-forum, I post two links to lists (with references) of tests of SR and GR. Your reply to my post was (excerpts): "Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test can be claimed to have confirmed SR ..."

In a nutshell, the answer to your question is 'you can make quite specific predictions from SR; you can do the experiments and make the observations; when you do, you find that the predictions are correct, to within the experimental/observational errors'. IMHO, that's all you can ask of a theory.

So, let's go look at the experiments on the lists:
1) was a specific prediction from SR made?
2) was that prediction made correctly (e.g. no screw-up in the math)?
3) did the researchers do the experiment/make the observation?
4) were the results consistent with the prediction?

Please tell us which of the experiments, in your mind, have "NO" as the answer to any question.

That webpage provides references to the literature of the experiments, without details to any of them so not much for discussion there. And it's obvious from the author's commentaries on the experiments that he holds a clear bias for SR results- it's like reading a report on the effects of smoking from the tobacoo companies. If you have details on a specific experiment in mind,
I'm sure we would find some flaw in it since it's clearly impossible for SR's postulates to be correct.

The speed of light being source independent and a constant c relative to the vacuum, yes. That physics is the same in all inertial frames, maybe. That both are true simultaneously- no.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
It can't! SR is indistinguishable from Newton when low velocities are involved, and we already see that Newton is inconsistent with logic and daily observations.



Impossible. The classical interpretation of SR requires different
inertial frames to be living in different space and time zones- the resulting time dilation and space contraction effects is what allows the c from a stationary frame to be observed as c from a moving frame. That was the whole purpose for the Lorentz transformation. Thus, metaphysically, SR is not indistinguishable from Newton at any velocity.


Nor have you demonstrated how Newtonian mechanics is inconsistent with logic and daily observations to support your other remark.




We don't need Maxwell to prove them invalid! We just have to toss a ball straight up while running very fast - it lands behind me, not in my hand!

Here you are introducing gravity which isn't even covered by SR. Even so, when you toss the ball straight up, you did not apply horizontal velocity to it so the ball ends up in a different inertial frame than you, when horizontal velocities are compared. This result is in complete agreement with Galilean transformation
whereby the ball's velocity in the horizontal direction is c +/- v as observed by the running person, with c being 0 in this particular case. So, wrong again. Once again, the addition of velocities in different inertial frames is a fundamental statement about motion, space and time- one cannot make a reality based on absolute time and space consistent with one that requires a relative space and time- but this is not to say that SR is even correct in the latter respect.
Try analyzing the motion of the ball using SR with respect to the runner- you run into the scenario I brought up awhile ago of having 3 dimensions for time in SR. Ridiculous.

[Martin Miller]

ahrkron wrote:
"Once you have the two clocks' terminal connected to the same source,
you just send the signal. Each will receive half the current, but
they will start prompted by the same pulse."

There are only two problems with this, namely, you have yet to
prove that the pulses travel at equal speeds wrt the clocks, and
you have yet to provide a means of verifying absolute synchronicity.

And, as I said, but as you seemingly ignored, _if_ you had actually
discovered a means of absolutely synchronizing clocks, then you
would be the first.
[Ref: for some others who have tried, see the following:
"Conventionality in Distant Simultaneity," wherein three
proposals for absolute synch are shot down.
Peter Ohrstrom, Found. Phys. 10, 333 (1978).]

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
That webpage provides references to the literature of the experiments, without details to any of them so not much for discussion there.Yes, there are a lot of them, aren't there? Which ones have you performed? Originally posted by Eyesaw : And it's obvious from the author's commentaries on the experiments that he holds a clear bias for SR results- it's like reading a report on the effects of smoking from the tobacoo companies. If you have details on a specific experiment in mind,It's not a question of 'bias', it's a question of results. You're the one proposing that SR is invalid (in some way), I'm challenging you to tell us which of the dozens of experiments which are consistent with SR are, in fact, not. Originally posted by Eyesaw : I'm sure we would find some flaw in it since it's clearly impossible for SR's postulates to be correct.That's precisely what I'm asking* you to do, show us the flaws in the experiments. Originally posted by Eyesaw : The speed of light being source independent and a constant c relative to the vacuum, yes. That physics is the same in all inertial frames, maybe. That both are true simultaneously- no. Experimental or observational results which show this, please!

*For the avoidance of doubt (and at the risk of being painfully repetitious), please look at the experiments on the lists, and for each *you* answer these questions:
1) was a specific prediction from SR made?
2) was that prediction made correctly (e.g. no screw-up in the math)?
3) did the researchers do the experiment/make the observation?
4) were the results consistent with the prediction?

Having done that, please tell us which of the experiments, in your mind, have "NO" as the answer to *any* question.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
I would like to suggest that anybody try to design a system like the GPS withOUT GR (at least the low-velocity, low-stress, weak-gravity version or the Parameterized Post-Newtonian formalism). It can be done, I think. I won't try it myself; I trust GR and suspect it would be a well-nigh impossible feat to pull off. However, if Eyesaw, MM, or someone else actually pulls it off, I may decide to abandon GR, especially if the mathematics is simpler.

Let me apologize to Eyesaw. I thought for a moment that he was kidding. I didn't intend to start a flame war.


The Galilean velocity addition theory HAS been tested -- and found to be wrong for particles traveling at high speeds. I mean if in a frame another frame is traveling at speed v and in the second frame an object is traveling at speed w, then the object is predicted to travel at speed w + v wrt the first frame (that's only if the respective velocities are parallel). Is that what MM, Eyesaw, etal. have in mind, the Galilean velocity addition theory?

No need for apologies, I don't take flames very seriously anyways and think it's healthy. Sticks and stones... Anyways, please provide the experiments demonstrating the Galilean velocity addition to be incorrect.

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"Oh, sorry, I see now that you ARE asserting anisotropy . . . are you? I feel a little confused."

That's funny, I would have bet good money that I said
"In other words, experiment shows that light's one-way
speed varies with frame velocity" in a prior post of
3-16-2004.

outandbeyond2004 noted:
Your P1-P2-light ray does not prove that. It is only a thought experiment;

Name one reason why it cannot be actually done;
in fact, it is done every day by people walking
toward light from the sun or even car headlights.
Not to mention the fact that all of SR is based
on thought experiments.

outandbeyond2004 continued:
... and, more important, your analysis is mistaken or inadequate.
The light ray is going in one direction only. To prove anisotropy
you need to show that speeds in other directions are different.

You are the one who brought up anisotropy; my experiment
disproves Einstein's invariance.

And you have yet to prove either invariance or isotropy.

You also have yet to prove that Einstein's clocks are
correctly synchronized.

You have also yet to present a single piece of experimental
evidence for SR that is untainted by Einstein's clocks.

But I can fully understand why, so don't sweat it.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
There are only two problems with this, namely, you have yet to
prove that the pulses travel at equal speeds wrt the clocks,

If both clocks are identical, there is no reason to expect otherwise. Anyway, this potential problem is easy to overcome: just reduce the length of the "Y" branches as much as possible. Clearly, there is no reason why this coudln't be zero. Ultimately, you can even attach the two clocks to, say, both sides of the same circuit board, so that they share the exact same input lines (so there are not two pulses).

and you have yet to provide a means of verifying absolute synchronicity.

I did. You just need to let the two clocks run for, say, a day, and then send the stop signal. At that moment, both clocks are programmed to store their final times in memory devices, and both are displayed in a screen. If both show the same number, you know that they are in sych down to one count in a day worth of counts.

As an example, say that they count once per nanosecond (ns) (which is not much; the computer I'm working on has a 2GHz clock, i.e., its clock ticks twice every nanosecond). In a day, you have a total of 86400 seconds, which makes 8.64x10^13 ns. Adjust anything you need until, after a day, you get the two clocks to get the same count. Then you know that they are syncronized to one part in 8.64x10^13. Not bad at all, and good enough to make the measurement for the speed of the space shuttle (8 km/s, which gives a time dilation difference of the order of 10^-9; i.e., the potential experimental error is four orders of magnitude smaller than the difference you want to measure! that allows for a very good measurement)

And, as I said, but as you seemingly ignored, _if_ you had actually
discovered a means of absolutely synchronizing clocks, then you
would be the first.

Time synchronization is not the problem you make of it. There are high speed networks all around us these days. In order for them to work properly, transmitters and receivers need to have similar speeds and to exchange signals at the right times.

[outandbeyond2004]

I googled "Michelson-Morley interferometer ("table-top" OR tabletop)"

Guess what, some authors actually propose that a MM interferometer mounted on a table can measure the Milky Way Galaxy mass. Why don't MM, Eyesaw, et. al. construct their own interferometers and try to verify the predictions in the following paper:

Weighing the Milky Way (http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0203098)

If one is all thumbs, surely one has techie friends who could help. I am going to send my nephew the URL. Maybe at the next science fair he will wow people.

[Nereid]

ahrkron wrote: Time synchronization is not the problem you make of it. There are high speed networks all around us these days. In order for them to work properly, transmitters and receivers need to have similar speeds and to exchange signals at the right times. To amplify on ahrkron's comment: modern telecoms networks - whether a large office one, or the China Telecom's phone network (>150 million circuits), or anything in between - rely heavily upon accurate synchronisation.

The problem of 'distributing the clocks' is an old one in telecoms, and was solved (from an engineering perspective) a long time ago. There are commercial solutions - such as this one from Symmetricom (http://www.empowerednetworks.com/solution/products/symmetricom.htm) -widely available. If you google on 'distributing clock telecom network' (or similar) you'll find a large number of good sites; some of the vendors have extensive product data sheets describing clock synchronisation in much detail.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Nereid
To amplify on ahrkron's comment: modern telecoms networks - whether a large office one, or the China Telecom's phone network (>150 million circuits), or anything in between - rely heavily upon accurate synchronisation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, GPS also requires precise time signal synchronization - to within just a few nanoseconds.

[Martin Miller]

ahrkron wrote:
"Time synchronization is not the problem you make of it. There
are high speed networks all around us these days. In order for
them to work properly, transmitters and receivers need to have
similar speeds and to exchange signals at the right times."

It is not my problem - it is SR's and Einstein's problem.
It was Einstein who claimed that he did not possess the
"means of measuring time." (his words, not mine) Also,
did you not look at the peer-reviewed physics article to
which I referred?

Anyway, let's see if we can clear up this matter via the
following simple question:

Would you please show at least two inertial coordinate
systems' observers using your "synchronized" clocks to
measure light's one-way speed - in full numerical detail?
(I want to see times on all clocks used.)

Although my query just given should be sufficient, I will,
nonetheless, continue to address your reply.

ahrkron wrote:
"If both clocks are identical, there is no reason to expect otherwise.
Anyway, this potential problem is easy to overcome: just reduce the
length of the "Y" branches as much as possible ...."

I agree with you that very closely-spaced clocks can be nearly
absolutely synched, but I was speaking of absolute synchronization
in theory. That is, you must tell us how to absolutely synchronize
two clocks which may be 10,000 light-years apart.

quote:
and you have yet to provide a means of verifying absolute synchronicity.

ahrkron wrote:
"I did. You just need to let the two clocks run for, say, a day, and
then send the stop signal."

How do you know that the stop signal travels at equal speeds
wrt the clocks?

ahrkron wrote:
"... Then you know that they are syncronized to one part in 8.64x10^13.
Not bad at all, ...."

No, not bad for use on Earth, but try it for two clocks which are
moving at 90% light speed and are 10 light-years apart.

Please remember that all physicists and all other scientists
have only **one** definition of clock synchronization, namely,
Albert Einstein's, and it merely assumes one-way light speed
isotropy and invariance, and does not prove it. (Actually,
it is not really an assumption because it cannot be proved
because there is nothing to be proved -- it is a merely a
mandate that forces clocks to obtain one-way invariance and
isotropy. If anyone believes otherwise, then let her or him show
on paper how it can be proved or tested experimentally.)

[Martin Miller]

Eyesaw noted:
"You had the right idea but this experiment is flawed.
The X distance the light traveled with respect to your
thought experiment is different for p1 and p2. ....."

The experiment was designed to fit within the
context of SR, which involves measurements wrt
inertial coordinate systems.

To explain further:
Let's say that you and I are in different frames whose
x axes are parallel. I am at my frame's origin, and
you are at your frame's origin. At the moment that
these two origins meet in passing, suppose an explosive
event occurs some distance away near our frames' x axes.
Suppose this explosion burns spots on both axes. All
SR proponents will say that we will each measure the
_same_ distance from our origin to the burn mark on our
x axis. This is why I said that the approaching light
ray traveled the _same_ distance wrt the observers.

[outandbeyond2004]

Well, Martin Miller does have a good point, in a way. We can synchronize nearby clocks all we want, but what about events say 10 LY distant? We can't transport any clock there in any practical way; and even if we use FTL transport, how do we know that the transported clock stays synchronized?

Well, I hate to admit it, but we just assume that an hydrogen molecule there acts like an hydrogen molecule in the lab. Synchronization between a distant hydrogen molecule and a lab hydrogen molecule? You win [*(]

Indeed, a dirty secret in science is that astrophysics is done on the assumption that whatever happens in the lab also applies in a general way to what happens out there. That's all it is, just an assumption. The laws of physics on earth are the same in distant places of the universe, I hope.

But, Martin, are you going to reject everything just because it is based on assumptions like the above? If you do, why are they so unreasonable? They are not proven and may never be, but are they really unreasonable?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
Well, Martin Miller does have a good point, in a way. We can synchronize nearby clocks all we want, but what about events say 10 LY distant? We can't transport any clock there in any practical way; and even if we use FTL transport, how do we know that the transported clock stays synchronized? For synchronizing clocks in different reference frames, we use SR and GR: again, like they do with GPS.

[Hurkyl]

Even so, when you toss the ball straight up, you did not apply horizontal velocity to it so the ball ends up in a different inertial frame than you

*boggle*

You do realize that Galilean relativity says that if I throw a ball straight up (by my reckoning), it should come straight down and bonk me on the head, don't you?


It, of course, doesn't happen, because the ball will land behind me; I have to throw it slightly forward in order for it to bonk me on the head.

[selfAdjoint]

The first postulate of SR is that an inertial observer sees all physics the same as he would if at rest. Including the effects of local gravity, to a high degree of approximation. This is Galilean relativity. If you stand still on the surface of an airless, rotating planet and throw up a ball, it will have the same tangential speed as you do and will rise and fall, from your point of view, just as if you were at rest. And it will come down and bonk you.

Now if you project the ball very hard, so that it soars high, then maybe tidal effects will have some effect, but that is very very small. Basically Galilean relativiy rules, and your theories of what happens are wrong.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
*boggle*

You do realize that Galilean relativity says that if I throw a ball straight up (by my reckoning), it should come straight down and bonk me on the head, don't you?


Only if you threw the ball up while standing still. If you threw the ball up then ran away from it, it will obviously fall away from you since you gained velocity in the horizontal direction with respect to the earth frame while the ball did not.


It, of course, doesn't happen, because the ball will land behind me; I have to throw it slightly forward in order for it to bonk me on the head.

The ball will not land behind you if never ran away from it. GAlilean relativity most definitely does not predict the ball to fall behind you if you threw it while standing still with respect to the earth frame. This simple motion of the ball on the other hand cannot be analyzed by SR since the ball is in an accelerated frame with respect to you and is also moving in a direction perpedicular to your motion so that you end up with time dilation and space contraction in two different directions. Absurd.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The first postulate of SR is that an inertial observer sees all physics the same as he would if at rest. Including the effects of local gravity, to a high degree of approximation. This is Galilean relativity. If you stand still on the surface of an airless, rotating planet and throw up a ball, it will have the same tangential speed as you do and will rise and fall, from your point of view, just as if you were at rest. And it will come down and bonk you.

Now if you project the ball very hard, so that it soars high, then maybe tidal effects will have some effect, but that is very very small. Basically Galilean relativiy rules, and your theories of what happens are wrong.

The postulate Galilean relativity and SR have in common is the one that says that physics is the same in all inertial frames. I don't think GAlileo every mentioned about transforming events from one inertial frame to another but if one were to do so then obviously something moving at c, y, m, l, j, a, b, d, e, x, n, s, q, et al in a "rest" frame would have a velocity of c +/- v after transforming coordinates. This is the logical consequence of the addition or subtraction of velocity to the rest coordinates.

The relevant point here is that after transforming coordinates by Galilean relativity, the c, representing a physical constant maybe,
can remain a constant only if we make the additional assumption of source dependency. This c could be the speed of light for example as measured in an inertial frame.

SR on the other hand introduces a postulate that contradicts the first postulate. That's why any attempts at physical interpretation led to paradox.

[Hurkyl]

Only if you threw the ball up while standing still.

While running, I am still in the inertial reference frame centered on me.


This is the logical consequence of the addition or subtraction of velocity to the rest coordinates.

And why should we believe in addition/subtraction of velocity to the rest coordinates? It is this assumption that SR contradicts.


Shall I remind you that the assumption that "All physical laws are the same in all inertial reference frames" implies that the speed of an electromagnetic wave is the same in every reference frame, ala Maxwell's theory of Electrodynamics?

[outandbeyond2004]

Eyesaw, perhaps you have a techie friend who would enjoy cobbling together a tabletop Michelson-Morley interferometer using spare parts. He could then demonstrate for you personally that the postulate of linear velocity addition is not natural, contrary to what you think is logical.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
While running, I am still in the inertial reference frame centered on me.

No, Inertial frames are distinguished by the difference in velocity they have between them. When you start running, you change your inertial frame. Thus if you threw the ball upwards while standing and afterwards proceeded to run horizontally away from it, you and the ball end up in different inertial frames, whether under Galilean Relativity or SR. Only if you threw the ball while running, at constant velocity, will it be in the same inertial frame as you
and therefore fall down to bonk you- of course such an experiment
is difficult to perform because of the difference in air drag e.g.




And why should we believe in addition/subtraction of velocity to the rest coordinates? It is this assumption that SR contradicts.



Because 1+1 = 2. Because 2+2 = 4. Because 3+3=6. Because 5+5=10. Because if J is moving at c relative to M, and L is moving at v relative to M, then J must be moving at c +/- v relative to L or else we arrive at the contradiction that L is not moving relative to M.


Shall I remind you that the assumption that "All physical laws are the same in all inertial reference frames" implies that the speed of an electromagnetic wave is the same in every reference frame, ala Maxwell's theory of Electrodynamics?

And as I already explained in response to self-adjoint, any physical law can be made constant in Galilean relativity by assuming source dependency. SR assumed source independency, that's what resulted in contradiction. You can logically assume source independency only if physical laws are frame dependent.

[Hurkyl]

Only if you threw the ball while running, at constant velocity, will it be in the same inertial frame as you
and therefore fall down to bonk you- of course such an experiment
is difficult to perform because of the difference in air drag e.g.

This is the point I was trying to make that got lost in the parody.

Experience "proves" Galilean relativity wrong because of air drag. If I'm running and I throw a ball up, it falls behind me, which seems to contradicts Galilean relativity. However, if you were the type who didn't want to believe in Galilean relativity, you could easily use this scenario to rationalize your belief that Galilean relativity is false.


Because if J is moving at c relative to M, and L is moving at v relative to M, then J must be moving at c +/- v relative to L or else we arrive at the contradiction that L is moving relative to M.

What's the contradiction? Are you assuming that if M measures the distance between J and L, then L simultaneously measures the same distance?


And as I already explained in response to self-adjoint, any physical law can be made constant in Galilean relativity by assuming source dependency.

Funny, I've never seen a consistent version of Maxwell's equations that has source dependancy.

[outandbeyond2004]

Originally posted by Eyesaw

Because 1+1 = 2. Because 2+2 = 4. Because 3+3=6. Because 5+5=10. Because if J is moving at c relative to M, and L is moving at v relative to M, then J must be moving at c +/- v relative to L or else we arrive at the contradiction that L is moving relative to M.


Do you have an analysis of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment?

Also, how do you explain this experiment with a magnetometer at rest wrt a electrically charged ball: The magnetometer registers zero, but if it moves at speed v wrt the ball, it registers the strength of a magnetic field in proportion to v?

[Eyesaw]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
[B]Do you have an analysis of the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment?

Some descriptions of the Michelson Morley experiments differ from others- I shall use this one for my answer :http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Using Galilean relativity, the null result can be explained either assuming the light is source dependent or not, weird as it seems. In the case of source independence, the horizontal path (assuming this is the direction of motion of the Earth through space) travelled by the light would be L+v in the direction of the Earth's motion and L-v going back for a round trip distance of 2L. In the vertical path, the distance is just L up and L down for a roundtrip of 2L. Since both vertical and horizontal paths are equal, a null result is obtained. The argument applies even when the apparatus is turned.

In the case of source dependence, the time traveled for the light would be (M+v) - v in the direction of Earth motion and (M-v) + v going back for a roundtrip time of 2M. Vertically, the time of flight would be (M+( hypotenuse displacement of light)) - ((hypotenuse displacement of velocity of source)) upwards and the same back down for a roundtrip time of (M+N) - N + (M+N) -N = 2M. Since both times are equal, the result is again a nullshift.

It seems a little strange that both assumptions lead to a null result so feel free to double check my calculations.

OTOH, interpreting the MMX using SR results in a contradiction. Taking the detector as the inertial frame (which would include the whole apparatus), it would say the apparatus is in a frame that is both time dilated and not time dilated , space contracted and not space contracted - since it would need time dilation and length contraction to explain the light traveling at c in a frame that is moving relative to a frame that is not moving with respect to the EArth. But this is no surprise since the theory uses two contradicting postulates.

If anything the MMX disproves SR, as any real experiment should. The weird result obtained for Galilean relativity is because we used the roundtrip speed of light and also because we assumed there is no stationary ether that can drag the light. That's about the only thing MMX proves- that light is not being dragged by a stationary ether.

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 wrote:
"... Synchronization between a distant hydrogen molecule and
a lab hydrogen molecule? You win"

"Indeed, a dirty secret in science is that astrophysics is done
on the assumption that whatever happens in the lab also applies
in a general way to what happens out there. That's all it is,
just an assumption. The laws of physics on earth are the same
in distant places of the universe, I hope."

"But, Martin, are you going to reject everything just because it
is based on assumptions like the above? If you do, why are they
so unreasonable? They are not proven and may never be, but are
they really unreasonable?"

----
russ_watters noted:
"For synchronizing clocks in different reference frames, we use
SR and GR: again, like they do with GPS."

russ_waters also wrote the following in a slightly earlier post:
"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, GPS also requires
precise time signal synchronization - to within just a few nanoseconds."

----

MM replies (sans any hope of really getting thru, so it's basically
just for the record):
Empty claims of absolute synchronization (as in the above cases)
are not proofs of it.

FYI: There is only one way to prove absolute synchronization,
and that is by showing step-by-step how it can be done. (This
involves the necessary step of providing the verification
process.)

I would add that anyone who claims to be able to absolutely
synchronize clocks should also show what happens to light's
one-way speed when it is measured by said clocks.

Also, I should add that anyone who finds a way to absolutely
synchronize clocks will thereby disprove special relativity,
which of course has only relative simultaneity. (This includes
the scientists involved in the GPS system, but none of them has
publicly claimed to have found absolute synchronization.)

My prediction re the above is that no one in this forum will
ever show the required step-by-step proof of absolute clock
synchronization. (In fact, if I were wealthy, I would bet
big bucks on it!)

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
This is the point I was trying to make that got lost in the parody.

Experience "proves" Galilean relativity wrong because of air drag. If I'm running and I throw a ball up, it falls behind me, which seems to contradicts Galilean relativity. However, if you were the type who didn't want to believe in Galilean relativity, you could easily use this scenario to rationalize your belief that Galilean relativity is false.



No, what it shows is that you can continue burning calories to overcome airdrag to keep at a constant velocity while the ball cannot because it doesn't have a digestive system for one. I don't think you've even tried this experiment yourself by the way. I'm in my office right now, which can be considered an inertial frame since everything in it are stationary. While standing in one place, I throw a ball in the air and it falls down in my hand. If I throw it upwards and then run away from the ball, it falls behind me. I then started running with the ball in my hand and after I throw it- as vertically as possible- it falls in my hand, not behind me.

But there are much better illustrations then your experiment that clearly demonstrates the validity of Galilean relativity and the Galilean addition law. In a car moving at 25 miles per hour with the windows rolled up while seated, throw a ball vertically and see if it flies to the back or lands in your hand.

I still think you are joking because I've never heard anyone dispute the validity of Galilean relativity in every day observations because it's so easily verified.


What's the contradiction? Are you assuming that if M measures the distance between J and L, then L simultaneously measures the same distance?

The contradiction is that we started out assuming there is velocity between M and L, then using J as a standard by which the velocity between M and L are to be determined. The only way J can have the same value for both M and L then is if there is no velocity between them, contradicting our starting assumption that there was. This is a reductio absurdum.

[quote]
Funny, I've never seen a consistent version of Maxwell's equations that has source dependancy.

[quote]


The postulate of physics being the same in all inertial frames makes any transformation equation redundant. Since the postulate is a statement about physics inside an inertial frame, of what relevance is it to transform an event into a different inertial frame? And this postulate is definitely not specific to the Lorentz Transformations since one can just as well transform the value C in one inertial frame using the Galilean transformation then adding or subtracting v to the c-value in the new frame to obtain the universal constant C, i.e. by assuming source dependency. The main difference is that the Lorentz Transformation starts out by assuming absolute space-time but then rejects it in the same equations in order to make C a universal constant- i.e. it results in physical and logical nonsense.

[Martin Miller]

Nereid noted:
"Einstein's theories ... have been tested in the
crucible of experiment and observation, and have
passed with flying colours."

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Mr. Nereid," but as
far as Einstein's special relativity goes, your
above is purely an urban legend.

There have been exactly zero tests of SR.

For example, the very basis of SR, Einstein's
light postulate (i.e., one-way, two-clock light
speed invariance) has not been tested.

(To explain: No one has ever used two clocks in
one frame to measure light's one-way speed.)
(In fact, no one has ever even shown on paper
how this could be done!)

For another example, actual time dilation effects
were not predicted by SR, so these effects do not
test or support SR.

(To explain: It is easy to prove that SR does not
pertain to actual or intrinsic time dilation {or to
an atomic clock's internal rhythm} -- all that needs
be done is to point out the very simple facts that [1]
any inertially-moving atomic clock always has only
_one_ atomic rhythm, and yet [2] Einstein's observers
in various frames find _many_ "rhythms" for one and the
same passing clock; these facts prove that SR can't
pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms.)

(And of course the same argument applies to the
"mass increase" and "length contraction" cases.)

Please check the historical record before posting
any more silly urban myths.

And as for Einstein's genius, he was indeed a very
brilliant person, a genius even, but he did not win
the Nobel for SR. Also, it is not genius-like to say
"I am merely stipulating one-way invariance purely
by definition" out of one side of one's mouth whilst
stating the exact opposite out of the other side (i.e.,
claiming that one-way invariance is a prediction or
a postulate or a law of physics per experiment).

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by Martin Miller

I would add that anyone who claims to be able to absolutely
synchronize clocks should also show what happens to light's
one-way speed when it is measured by said clocks.

Also, I should add that anyone who finds a way to absolutely
synchronize clocks will thereby disprove special relativity,
which of course has only relative simultaneity. (This includes
the scientists involved in the GPS system, but none of them has
publicly claimed to have found absolute synchronization.)

My prediction re the above is that no one in this forum will
ever show the required step-by-step proof of absolute clock
synchronization. (In fact, if I were wealthy, I would bet
big bucks on it!)

I must admit that I have come into this discussion a bit late, but I have read through the entire thread. The discussion seems to be focused on clock synchronization, so my question is on the meaning of clock synchronization. I just want to be sure we all agree on the meaning of "synchronization".

MEANING OF CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION

We have two clocks, clock A and clock B. Let them be of identical construction, therefore if they are both in inertial reference frames, they tick at the same rate. Let us suppose that the two clocks are at the ends of an absolutely rigid rod, therefore if one clock is in an inertial reference frame, then so is the other. Let us suppose then, that the clocks are in an inertial reference frame (hence the rod isn't rotating), now focus on the meaning of synchronization. To say that the clocks are 'synchronized' means that when clock A reads zeta, clock B simultaneously reads zeta. So, for example, if one clock currently read 17, and the other clock simultaneously reads 9929, then the two clocks aren't synchronized. Do we all agree that this is the meaning of synchronization?

Thank you.

[Nereid]

Martin Miller wrote:[n] Nereid noted: "Einstein's theories ... have been tested in the crucible of experiment and observation, and have passed with flying colours."

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Mr. Nereid," but as far as Einstein's special relativity goes, your above is purely an urban legend.

There have been exactly zero tests of SR. That's Ms Nereid to you Martin.

Do you have a copy of Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations, World Scientific (1997)? If so, please tell us which of the tests discussed in this book failed?

If you don't, please check this page (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), and tell us which tests failed.

Please note that I am interested FIRST in 'pass/fail' in the following sense:
1) was there a specific, objective prediction made from SR?
2) did the experiment or observation produce a clear, unambiguous result?
3) was the result the same as that predicted by SR (within the errors of the observation)?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not interested (at this stage) in whether you feel there may or may not be inconsistencies in SR.

[outandbeyond2004]

Eyesaw, you assumed that if source-independent light goes out at L+v and comes back at L-v, then the trip time would be the same as though we have average (L+v plus L-v)/2 = L. Nay, nay, not so fast.

Going out, the half-trip time is D/(L+v) (assuming of course that D is not contracted or expanded). Coming back, the halftrip time is D/(L-v).

The total trip time is then D (1/(L+v) + 1/(L-v)) = D\frac{2L}{(L^2 - v^2)} = (2D/L)\frac{1}{1 - (v/L)^2}

If v is a substantial fraction of L, then there would be a rather obvious difference. Anyway, the MMXI should be able to detect interference from very small fractions of light.

I will look at the rest of your post hoping to catch more errors.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
Eyesaw, you assumed that if source-independent light goes out at L+v and comes back at L-v, then the trip time would be the same as though we have average (L+v plus L-v)/2 = L. Nay, nay, not so fast.

Going out, the half-trip time is D/(L+v) (assuming of course that D is not contracted or expanded). Coming back, the halftrip time is D/(L-v).

The total trip time is then D (1/(L+v) + 1/(L-v)) = D\frac{2L}{(L^2 - v^2)} = (2D/L)\frac{1}{1 - (v/L)^2}

If v is a substantial fraction of L, then there would be a rather obvious difference. Anyway, the MMXI should be able to detect interference from very small fractions of light.

I will look at the rest of your post hoping to catch more errors.

Actually, the v I used represents a distance- i.e. the displacement through space of the moving apparatus as a result of its velocity v. Thus, it's clear that in the direction of motion, the light travels an extra distance of +v while in the round trip, the lesser distance traveled is -v. Even so, there is an error in your formula for time of flight since the time of flight of the light cannot be D/c+v and D/c-v if the distance back and forth for the light is not the same. Your usage of c+v and c-v is also in error since we are assuming the speed of light as source independent. The actual time of flight should be D+Q/c + D-Q/c = 2D/c. That is, the roundtrip distance is 2D or 2L or 2M or 2 and any other alphabet.

[outandbeyond2004]

We need to do this problem more carefully, at least I do. I made at least two mistakes in my last post.

Okay, let's assume light independence.

Shall we assume that the interferometer is moving at velocity v wrt the ether or the distant stars? To an observer moving with the interferometer, for light moving in the direction of the velocity, it appears to be moving at speed c - v? For light moving in the opposite direction, the observed speed is -c-v?

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
FYI: There is only one way to prove absolute synchronization,
and that is by showing step-by-step how it can be done. (This
involves the necessary step of providing the verification
process.) Except for the word "absolute" (it doesn't exist in science), you can prove quite easily that GPS clocks are synchronized to within nanoseconds: stand over a benchmark with a gps reciever and compare the positions.MEANING OF CLOCK SYNCHRONIZATION Good point: since MM hasn't defined what he means by it, we can only make assumptions and he can flippantly reject any attempt to guess his intent. To most people, "synchronized" isn't a binary situation: clocks are synchronized to within a certain arbitrary precision. For my example of GPS clocks, they are synchronized to within a few nanoseconds of each other.

So, MM, perhaps you could precisely define what you mean by "synchronized."The postulate of physics being the same in all inertial frames makes any transformation equation redundant. Since the postulate is a statement about physics inside an inertial frame, of what relevance is it to transform an event into a different inertial frame? [emphasis added] I'm sorry, but that statement by being self contradictory displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Einstein's Relativity says. The key word there is "in," not "between." If the rules worked the same between different frames, there would be no need for transformations. But since they only work the same in different frames, you need to do transformations to go between them.

And different frames are still related. By knowing how they are related you can make the appropriate transformations.

[Eyesaw]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The postulate of physics being the same in all inertial frames makes any transformation equation redundant. Since the postulate is a statement about physics inside an inertial frame, of what relevance is it to transform an event into a different inertial frame? [emphasis added]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I'm sorry, but that statement by being self contradictory displays a fundamental misunderstanding of what Einstein's Relativity says. The key word there is "in," not "between." If the rules worked the same between different frames, there would be no need for transformations. But since they only work the same in different frames, you need to do transformations to go between them.

And different frames are still related. By knowing how they are related you can make the appropriate transformations.


If physics is the same in all inertial frames, why do you need to transform anything? You can just use any arbitrary set of coordinates as long as it is an inertial frame. The only reason to transform coordinates is if physics is not the same in different inertial frames. But if you are going to use one inertial frame to view the events in another inertial frame, it's a contradiction to say first there is velocity between them and then say there is no velocity between them. Transforming coordinates to make the laws of physics the same in all inertial frames can be done many ways- doing it by the Lorentz Transformation results in contradiction. The better way to do it is to decide on source dependency from the getgo (through experimentation) and then decide whether the laws of physics are the same or not inside inertial frames. If experiments show source independency then the laws of physics can't be the same in different inertial frames; if the show source dependency then they can. That's inertial frame physics in a nutshell.

[Martin Miller]

russ_watters wrote (in part):
"So, MM, perhaps you could precisely define what you mean
by "synchronized."

"Originally posted by Martin Miller
FYI: There is only one way to prove absolute synchronization,
and that is by showing step-by-step how it can be done. (This
involves the necessary step of providing the verification
process.)"

"Except for the word "absolute" (it doesn't exist in science),
you can prove quite easily that GPS clocks are synchronized to
within nanoseconds: stand over a benchmark with a gps reciever
and compare the positions."

MM replies:
Please pardon my protest, but the word "absolute" does exist in
science; indeed, it is simply the opposite of "relative," so if
"relative" exists, then so does "absolute." For example, since
Einstein's clocks are based on relative simultaneity, all I have
to do to define absolutely synchronous clocks is to say that they
are the opposite of Einstein's. And as I mentioned earlier, even
Einstein stated mathematically that the absolutely synchronous
clocks of classical physics yield a variable one-way light speed.
Here is the relevant Einsteinian quote (repeated):

"w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage,
and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c." (_Relativity_ Chap. VII)

Furthermore, every physicist agrees that two touching clocks
can be absolutely synchronized.

And this last fact provides us with the following simple way of
defining absolute synchronization for separated clocks:

Begin with two unstarted atomic clocks which are inertially moving
along one's frame's x axis. As the clocks meet in passing, absolutely
synchronize them by letting one start the other on touching. Then
assume (as did Einstein) that these clocks have identical internal
atomic rhythms. Given this, we know that they will remain absolutely
synchronous forever, no matter how far apart in space they may be.

Here is yet another definition of absolute clock synchronization:
Begin with two unstarted clocks located on one's frame's x axis
at some distance apart. Cut a rod to fit precisely between these
two clocks. Remove the rod, place it somewhere else on the x axis,
and then slide it (inertially) toward the clocks. If we assume
(as did Einstein) that this rod's physical (or intrinsic) length
does not really vary with rod speed, then the rod will absolutely
synchronize the clocks if the former's ends are used to start the
latter.

And here is a simple image-based definition of absolute clock
synchronization: Picture two clocks which are running and which
are 50 light-years apart. One of them is on your desk very close
to your eyes. You are to reach out and touch the face of this
nearby clock with your index finger. If, at this exact moment,
the distant clock happens to read the same time as your near
clock, then the two clocks are (very, very nearly) absolutely
synchronous. (Disclaimer: I am of course _not_ saying here
that we can somehow _know_ what the distant clock is reading
when you touch the near clock; all I am doing here is providing
a graphical image of absolute synchronization which anyone can
fully understand instantly.)

Here is a pretty good indication of absolute synchronization:
If there is no theoretical or empirical reason for the failure
of one's chosen method for absolute synchronization.

Here are two almost-certain indications of absolute synchronization:
[1] Light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary with frame velocity.
[2] Observers in all frames would find the same times for any given
set of events.

Finally, here is a mathematically-certain indication of absolute
synchronization: Clocks in all frames are absolutely synchronous
IFF any given frame's observer's self-measured speed is the same
as that as determined by any other frame's observer. (A self-
measured speed is found by using one's two supposedly synchronous
clocks to measure the one-way speed of a passing light ray; as
Einstein himself noted, this speed should vary with frame velocity.)

I have repeatedly asked for a step-by-step description of some
means of absolutely synchronizing two clocks; so far, none has
appeared. I am of course speaking of dead-on synchronization
for clocks located anywhere in space, and not just close (i.e.,
within nanoseconds) of closely-located clocks. I am also talking
about proper verification of the claimed absolute synchronization.

[Peterdevis]

Here are two almost-certain indications of absolute synchronization:
[1] Light's one-way, two-clock speed would vary with frame velocity.
[2] Observers in all frames would find the same times for any given
set of events.


So in other words this clocks don't exist in a world ruled be GR.
In GR it is impossible to say if two clocks are synchronizated when they are at a certain distance. The time dilitation ( = a measure of non synchronisity)depends of the path the information takes to come to us.

There is only one way to prove absolute synchronization,
and that is by showing step-by-step how it can be done. (This
involves the necessary step of providing the verification
process.)"


Since this absolute synchronization is a proof of the incorrectness of GR, it 's up to you (who claimed the whole academic world is wrong) to proof of an existing absolute synchronizated set of clocks.

Begin with two unstarted atomic clocks which are inertially moving
along one's frame's x axis. As the clocks meet in passing, absolutely
synchronize them by letting one start the other on touching. Then
assume (as did Einstein) that these clocks have identical internal
atomic rhythms. Given this, we know that they will remain absolutely
synchronous forever, no matter how far apart in space they may be.
moving

we know that= Martin Miller assume that
What reason do you have that two clocks must stay synchronous forever

If we assume
(as did Einstein) that this rod's physical (or intrinsic) length
does not really vary with rod speed, then the rod will absolutely
synchronize the clocks if the former's ends are used to start the
latter.


The poor man can't defend himself, so don't put words in hi mouth he didn't mend to say

[outandbeyond2004]

Eyeshaw:

I got lost at the L-M step. What is wrong with the following analysis?

upleg travel time t_u can be found from this equation:

c = \frac{L + vt_u}{t_u}

Equation to find roundtrip travel time (downleg travel time t_d):

c = \frac{L + vt_u + L - vt_d}{t_u + t_d}

Eliminating t_u and solving for t_d, I got

round trip time = \frac{L}{c-v} + \frac{L}{c+v}

That is not the same as \frac{2L}{c}, as we can see when we transform the equation just above:

roundtrip time = (\frac{2L}{c})\frac{1}{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}

[wisp]

For example, the very basis of SR, Einstein's
light postulate (i.e., one-way, two-clock light
speed invariance) has not been tested.

(To explain: No one has ever used two clocks in
one frame to measure light's one-way speed.)
(In fact, no one has ever even shown on paper
how this could be done!)

For another example, actual time dilation effects
were not predicted by SR, so these effects do not
test or support SR.

Very true, but don't forget Roland DeWitte's experiment - two clocks and an electrical pulse (similar to the one-way light speed test). His results showed SR to be false.

And the physical cause of moving clocks running slow (time dilation)can be explained outside of SR using ether concepts.

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by Martin Miller

I have repeatedly asked for a step-by-step description of some
means of absolutely synchronizing two clocks; so far, none has
appeared. I am of course speaking of dead-on synchronization
for clocks located anywhere in space, and not just close (i.e.,
within nanoseconds) of closely-located clocks. I am also talking
about proper verification of the claimed absolute synchronization.

Martin, I do not understand why clock synchronization is so important to you, since actual clock readings fall out of the mathematical analysis. In SR all that matters is how the "amount of time of an event" in one inertial reference frame relates to the amount of time of the same event viewed in a different inertial frame. My point is fairly simple to understand:

1. Let us stipulate that we have two clocks of identical construction, and that the clocks are attached by a rigid rod.

2. Let it be stipulated that the clocks are in an inertial reference frame.

Therefore, the clocks will tick at the same rate.

Thus, if they are in sync then they remain in sync, and if they are out of sync, then the difference in their readings is constant.

For example, suppose that when one clock reads 4, the other clock simultaneously reads 7. Since the readings of the two clocks differ, the clocks aren't synchronized. The difference in readings is:

7-4=3

Thus, the clocks are not in sync by 3 units.

If the readings had been equivalent, then the two clocks would be truly synchronous.

So here is my point though. The difference in readings is constant, and falls out of the mathematical analysis. In other words, relativity talks about how an amount of time in one inertial system "transforms" into a different inertial system.

For example, suppose that some event lasts \Delta t seconds measured by clock A, which is in an inertial reference frame. Now, suppose that clock B is moving relative to clock A, at a constant speed of v. According to SR, the time of the event will not be \Delta t seconds, according to clock B. Instead, the time measured by clock B will be delta t times gamma.

My point is that it is the difference in readings that matters, not the actual readings themselves. So, I don't see why clock synchronization is an issue.

I think your real question isn't being addressed. The issue shouldn't be how do you make two clocks synchronous, I think the real issue is, how does one determine the absolute difference in clock readings.

For example, suppose that one clock reads X, and another clock simultaneously reads Y. The difference in clock readings is defined as follows:

X-Y

If X=Y then the clocks are synchronized.
if not (X=Y) then the clocks aren't synchronized.

I think the real question for you is, "can one empirically determine the value of X-Y?" You seem to be hung up on empirically determining that X-Y=0. Wouldn't it be just as good to empirically determine "X-Y"? For example, suppose you already determined that X-Y = 52. Thus, the reading of clock X always exceeds the reading of clock Y by 52 units. Thus, if you are stationed at clock Y, and your clock currently reads 733, then you know that clock X reads 733+52=785.

So I guess my question is, "why do you need us to show that two clocks cannot be brought into synchronization?"

[StarThrower]

Originally posted by Nereid
That's Ms Nereid to you Martin.

Do you have a copy of Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations, World Scientific (1997)? If so, please tell us which of the tests discussed in this book failed?

If you don't, please check this page (http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html), and tell us which tests failed.

Please note that I am interested FIRST in 'pass/fail' in the following sense:
1) was there a specific, objective prediction made from SR?
2) did the experiment or observation produce a clear, unambiguous result?
3) was the result the same as that predicted by SR (within the errors of the observation)?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not interested (at this stage) in whether you feel there may or may not be inconsistencies in SR.


Hello Ms. Nereid, I believe Martin said ALL of them.

:)

[outandbeyond2004]

It is not so much that clock A must show the same time as clock B, but simply that they have the same rate. Suppose A reads 10:00 and we can somehow simultaneously determine that B reads 10:30 PM. We wait about one hour, and check the clocks again. If we still can read them simultaneously and clock A reads 11:01 & B reads 11:31, then their rates are the same. Either we adjust one of the clocks so that they read the same, or simply take note of the initial times and take the time differences. For example we note Ta0 = 10:21, Tb0 = 10:31 and later Ta1 = 12:01 and Tb1 = 12:31. The time differences, deltaTa = Ta1 - Ta0 and deltaTb1 = Tb1 - Tb0 are still the same. Would this not be good enough?

Note that many physical processes can serve as relative clocks and cannot be adjusted to give absolute time. You can't look at me and exclaim, "Omy! 10:34 AM! I'm late!" Yet, some physicist might regard my beating heart as a sort of clock. How does anyone synchronize my heart with Greenwich mean time? My heart does beat at about 1 beat per second, sometimes, but I'll be darned if I am going to carry around a time read-out device for my heart.

How do you adjust the rate of all those binary pulsar systems out there? Can you attach a time-readout device to any of them? No, SR and GR really only work with time differences, not absolute time like Greenwich Mean Time or Universal Time.

[Hurkyl]

Since the interferometer went a distance of +v with respect to the vacuum, the light traveled L+M in the direction of motion and L-M back for a round trip distance of 2L.


Impossible. Did you even try to do the math on this one?

Suppose the interferometer lies on the x-axis and is travelling in the direction of the positive x-axis with a speed of v.

Suppose we emit a photon from the left edge of the interferometer at time 0 when the left edge of the interferometer is at x-coordinate 0. (So the right edge has coordinate L).

IOW, at time 0:
The left edge has x-coordinate 0
The right edge has x-coordinate L
The photon has x-coordinate 0

Now, let's find at what time the photon strikes the right edge:
The formula for the photons position is

x = 0 + ct

The formula for the right edge's position is

x = L + vt

Setting the x-coordinates equal gives:

L + vt = ct

or

t = L / (c - v)


So, at time t = L / (c - v):
The left edge is at x-coordinate L v / (c - v)
The right edge is at x-coordinate L c / (c - v)
The photon is at x-coordinate L c / (c - v)

Now, let's find out when the photon strikse the left edge again.

The formula for the position of the left edge is

x = v t

The formula for the position of the photon is

x - L c / (c - v) = -c (t - L / (c-v))
simplifying:
x - L c / (c - v) = -c t + L c / (c - v)
x = 2 L c / (c - v) - ct

Setting the x-coordinates equal and solving gives:

vt = 2 L c / (c - v) - ct
t = 2 L c / ( (c - v) (c + v) ) = 2 L c / (c^2 - v^2)


So the photon travels for time 2 L c / (c^2 - v^2). In that time, it travels a distance of 2 L c^2 / (c^2 - v^2). Funny, but that seems to be inequal to 2 L.


And you get an even different distance if the inferometer is moving in a different direction!

[Hurkyl]

If physics is the same in all inertial frames, why do you need to transform anything?

Practically, one very useful reason to transform anything is because computation may be simpler in another frame.


Conceptually, careful application of the transform laws help one work through errors in their understanding.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
If physics is the same in all inertial frames, why do you need to transform anything? I'm not sure where you're getting this idea from, but the whole point of "relativity," a concept which predates Einstein's version, is that the laws are the same in all reference frames. Under classical (also called Galilean) relativity, the fundamental postulate is the same as in Einstein's: The laws of the universe are the same for all observers regardless of inertial frame of reference.

This does not and never did imply that two observers in different frames would see the same thing - transformations are needed even under classical relativity. This should be self-evident from the commonly cited thought experiment with a man walking on a train:

A man is walking forward on a train at 1m/s relative to the train. The train is moving forward at 10m/s relative to the station. To a man standing on the platform, how fast is the man on the train moving? To a man sitting on the train, how fast is the walking man moving.

Clearly, the man sitting on the train and the man standing on the platform will not agree on the speed of the man walking unless they have a transformation equation by which to relate the two different frames of reference.

[outandbeyond2004]

One can indeed assert that physics is the same from frame to frame, in the sense that the laws of physics are the same in all frames. Yet, someone in free fall is not the same as someone lying on the ground. Nevertheless, we ought to be able to apply the _same_ laws to both persons' experiences. Transforming the laws from frame to frame is a necessity, because physics do differ from frame to frame, at least in evidence or observations.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
Very true, but don't forget Roland DeWitte's experiment - two clocks and an electrical pulse (similar to the one-way light speed test). His results showed SR to be false. If true, it would be relatively (no pun intended) trivial to duplicate his results. From what I have heard, his results aren't accepted as credible by the scientific community. And the physical cause of moving clocks running slow (time dilation)can be explained outside of SR using ether concepts. That's true, but it is never preferable in science to add unsupported assumptions to a theory in order to make it fit some preconcieved notion of how the universe "should" work. So until someone finds real, scientific, positive evidence to show that there is an ether, we cannot assume there is one. At the very least, ether theory fails on those grounds. Hello Ms. Nereid, I believe Martin said ALL of them. That's nice, but I say all of them are valid. Do we have a Mexican standoff now, or should we practice some science by explaining why?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by StarThrower
Hello Ms. Nereid, I believe Martin said ALL of them.

:) What Martin actually wrote was: "There have been exactly zero tests of SR." IOW, no one has tested SR. What he didn't say was whether any of the tests in the list I provided were a) predictions of SR, b) done, and c) consistent.

The strange thing is, I've asked this of all SR and GR naysayers here at PF, and (apart from wisp) they are all mute (except re MMx).

[Martin Miller]

StarThrower wrote:
"Martin, I do not understand why clock synchronization is so
important to you, since actual clock readings fall out of the
mathematical analysis. In SR all that matters is how the
'amount of time of an event' in one inertial reference frame
relates to the amount of time of the same event viewed in a
different inertial frame."

I would love to see the reaction if you posted the above in the
relativity newsgroup. Anyway, I can now see why my messages are
not getting through here. In no way do clock readings "fall out
of the math analysis." For example, it is only because Einstein's
clocks are asynchronous that light's one-way, two-clock speed is
found to be invariant and isotropic, so it is only because of
the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks that SR exists.

Given absolutely synchronous clocks (or their equivalent, namely,
clocks with a known difference), light's one-way speed will *NOT*
be invariant, and it will *NOT* be isotropic, and we would say
"Goodbye" to all of SR! [see diagrammed examples below]

Does this sound as if clock readings "fall out"?
I don't think so!

StarThrower also wrote:
"I think the real question for you is, 'can one empirically
determine the value of X-Y?'"

Well, of course all we need to know is the absolute difference
between the clocks; that goes without saying, so why the heck
am I having to say it!?

StarThrower finally wrote:
"So I guess my question is, 'why do you need us to show that two
clocks cannot be brought into synchronization?'"

Because clock synchronization controls all one-way speed values,
including light's. (And there are one-way speed values in both
Einstein's transformation equations and his composition of
velocities theorem, so these are controlled primarily by clock
synchronization.)

You have to understand that the only difference between Galilean/
Newtonian physics and Einstein's is the two-clock value of light's
one-way speed, and this value is controlled by **synchronization**.
Galileo assumed truly or absolutely synchronous clocks, and this
gave him c ± v as light's one-way, two-clock speed. Einstein
mandated absolutely ****asynchronous****, which gave him the
_incorrect_ result of c for all.

Special relativity stands or falls on the single question of
clock synchronization. This is why clock synchronization is
of the utmost importance re flat space-time physics.

If I produce truly synchronous clocks (or their equivalent,
clocks with a known difference), then I will overthrow SR.

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"It is not so much that clock A must show the same time as
clock B, but simply that they have the same rate."

Apparently you never simply used a couple of clocks to measure
light's one-way speed on paper; I very strongly suggest that
you do this ASAP.

In fact, I will help you by doing it _now_, as follows:

First, I will use Einstein's asynchronous clocks
in a single inertial frame:
(frame speed is 0.6c wrt the light source S, about which
an emitted light sphere is assumed to remain symmetrical)
(distance is per an in-frame ruler which is contracted
by 20% due to its motion wrt the light source S)
(time T is per a clock with is at rest wrt S; time t
is per the clock which is moving wrt S at speed 0.6c)
([t] represents a clock which now reads time t)

[0]----1 LY----[-0.6]->0.6c
S~>light ray

....[1.6]----1 LY----[1]->0.6c
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~>light ray

Due to length contraction, the rod which is measured by the
in-frame rule to be 1 LY long is only 0.8 LY long. Due to the
frame's motion wrt S and its emitted light, the ray's effective
speed on paper is c - v. Thus, the time T is 0.8/(c - v) =
0.8/(1 - 0.6) = 2 yrs. Thus, the time t = gamma * 2 = 0.8 * 2
= 1.6 yrs. Of course, the light ray's speed per the frame's
observers is their ruler-measured frame distance of 1 LY divided
by their two-clock-measured time span of [1.6 + (-0.6)] - 0 = 1 yr.
So the light ray's measured speed is simply c, as it simply _must_
be in all Einsteinian frames.

It should be clear from the above that it is impossible to obtain
Einstein's necessary one-way light speed invariance for any frame
which moves wrt the light source _unless_ the frame's clocks are
absolutely _asynchronous_, but just to nail home this critical point,
I will now show what happens when truly synchronous clocks are used
to measure light's one-way speed:

[0]----1 LY----[0]->0.6c
S~>light ray

....[1.6]----1 LY----[1.6]->0.6c
S~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>light ray

As shown, the initial speed result is 1 LY/1.6 yrs = 0.625c, which
seems to tell the observers that their frame speed is 0.375c, but
they need to correct for clock slowing and rod shrinkage as follows:
The actual on-paper rod length is 0.8 LY, and the on-paper clock
time T is 2 yrs, so the corrected value of the light ray's one-way
speed is 0.8 LY/2 yrs = 0.4c, which yields the correct frame speed
of 0.6c.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
Given absolutely synchronous clocks (or their equivalent, namely,
clocks with a known difference), light's one-way speed will *NOT*
be invariant, and it will *NOT* be isotropic, and we would say
"Goodbye" to all of SR! You are operating under the incorrect and unfounded assumption that SR is incorrect. You'll need to do better than using your own assumption as a proof.

It also appears you are using a definition of "synchonized" which has clocks operating at precisely the same rates without transformations in all frames. I'm not sure though, because as much as you are harping on synchronization, you have yet to actually define what you mean by it.

In any case, you've purposely structured the your assumptions in way that logically excludes the possibility of SR being correct. While that may be compelling to you, you can't simply assume anything you want and base a logical proof on it. Even the assumptions have to be grounded in reality. Yours are not.

You (and others) keep asserting your position to be correct without explanation. You can't simply assert you are correct and demand to be proven wrong. Science doesn't work that way. You have to actively prove your position correct with scientifically valid data and calculations.

In addition, a number of people have shown a number of flaws in your reasoning and you have declined to address the problems we found. Particularly, Nereid, several pages ago (in response to an assertion that SR hasn't been demonstrated in any experiments), linked a list of experiments proving SR and asked for specific problems you (and others) have with these experiments. No response. Here's that post again: Eyesaw, in another thread in this very same sub-forum, I post two links to lists (with references) of tests of SR and GR. Your reply to my post was (excerpts): "Yes, I have looked at that webpage before. But before we go over these experiments, I'd still like an answer to how any test can be claimed to have confirmed SR ..."

In a nutshell, the answer to your question is 'you can make quite specific predictions from SR; you can do the experiments and make the observations; when you do, you find that the predictions are correct, to within the experimental/observational errors'. IMHO, that's all you can ask of a theory.

So, let's go look at the experiments on the lists:
1) was a specific prediction from SR made?
2) was that prediction made correctly (e.g. no screw-up in the math)?
3) did the researchers do the experiment/make the observation?
4) were the results consistent with the prediction?

Please tell us which of the experiments, in your mind, have "NO" as the answer to any question. Until you guys can begin to address what the existing theories actually say and mean (not what you assert they say and mean, but what actual scientists say they say and mean) and tell us precisely where the flaws lie in the mountains of papers/experiments supporting them (pick one or two for a start), you haven't proven your point in our eyes.

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller:

I think now what you refer to as absolute synchronization is in fact what others refer to as the absolute time of Newton and Galileo -- a single standard of time for all observers.

Back in Galileo and Newton's time, experimental equipment and technique were not as advanced as ours are. The best Galileo could say regarding the speed of light was that it must be very great if not infinite. However, by the time Einstein was beginning to ponder the matters that led to his 'miracle year' (1905), experiments began to show that Galilean-Newton relativity didn't seem to account for the facts of Nature very well. In particular the Michelson-Morley experiment shook physics quite a bit.

Eyesaw is not doing a good job of explaining the null results of experiments like the MMx. Can you do a good job? It seems as though light speed was not really infinite or practically so ('must be very great'), but was finite. Maxwell's electrodynamic equations predicted a single, fixed speed for EM radiation, but until Einstein, nobody really understood what it implied for physics.

Galilean relativity works fine as long as the speed of light is 'very great.' But, Einstein showed contradictions in Galilean Rel. when he analyzed in a single frame of reference what two observers moving wrt each other should observe.

SR (and GenRel) does permit each observer to use a single standard of time, but one standard for all observers turned out to be unworkable. Instead, at least conceptually, each observer was allowed to set up and use his own standard of time.

Your "not absolutely synchronized" objections misses the point that one can always analyze the physics of two observers moving wrt each other in a different frame, with a single standard of time.

One thing you must do if you continue to insist on Galilean relativity is to show that observers can get information faster than the speed of light. I know of no such experiment showing that this is possible.

[jdavel]

Martin Miller posted (again!):

"For example, the very basis of SR, Einstein's light postulate (i.e., one-way, two-clock light speed invariance) has not been tested."


But that doesn't matter! To validate a theory in physical science, it's not necessary to prove (or even to test) the POSTULATES of the theory. The theory is validated or refuted by testing its PREDICTIONS. It doesn't even matter whether the postulates are testable. IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER WHETHER THE POSTULATES ARE TRUE! If the theory is a good predictor, it's a good theory. If it's the best predictor, it's the best theory.

SR predicts (among other things) that measurements of time made with a moving clock will show it to be running slow compared to measurements made with the same clock when it's stationary, that measurements of the length and mass of a moving object will show it to be shorter and more massive than measurements on the same object when it's standing still. Experiments, with ever increasing precision, have tested these predictions (ad nauseum) for nearly 100 years. At the present time, it is by far the best predictor for the results of these experiments; no other theory even comes close.

[Martin Miller]

'Ms Nereid' (not 'Mr.') wrote:
"... please check this page, and tell us which tests failed."

Hello, Ms Nereid, I know where you are coming from because
I have seen that page many times. It contains only round-trip
cases, rotating clock cases, and intrinsic time dilation, not
one of which applies to, supports, or tests SR.
For example, see the following site which proves that all
rotating clock cases are expected to have null results: http://www.geocities.com/antirelativity/Rotating_Clock_Analysis.html

You have to know SR to know what could test it.

SR did not predict round-trip invariance or isotropy.
This was proved - at least the latter was proved - prior to SR.

SR does not pertain to intrinsic time dilation, but only to a
trivial and irrelevant point-of-view (apparent) "clock slowing"
caused by the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks. (That SR's
"time dilation" does not pertain to the actual atomic rhythms
of clocks is extremely easy to prove, and here is a proof:
Any single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only
one intrinsic atomic rhythm, and yet Einstein's observers in
various frames always will find _different_ "rhythms" for one
and the same passing atomic clock; therefore, SR's "time dilation"
does _not_ pertain to the physical or intrinsic atomic rhythm of
an atomic clock.) (Similarly, SR does not pertain to either
intrinsic rod lengths or to intrinsic mass.)

What does SR predict?
To what does SR pertain?
What does SR say?
Not surprisingly, since SR is wrong, the web site you
referenced made no mention of the real SR, but, as you
requested, I will not go into the "SR is wrong stuff"
yet, but will merely explain what SR predicts.

SR began when Einstein saw round-trip isotropy (given by the
Michelson-Morley experiment of course). Einstein then assumed
that round-trip isotropy implied both round-trip invariance and
one-way isotropy/invariance. Seeing that clock synchronization
controls all two-clock times, he saw that light's one-way,
two-clock speed depends on clock synchronization, so he then
related his clocks to obtain one-way invariance/isotropy.

At this critical point, we must decide whether Einstein had
a postulate or merely a clock synchronization definition.
But either way, Einstein loses.

Case I - Assuming that Einstein had a light postulate -
If Einstein had a light postulate, and if this postulate says
one-way, two-clock light speed invariance/isotropy, then _how_
can this postulate be tested?

The answer of course is as follows:
Only by using correctly synchronized clocks.

Case II - Assuming that Einstein had a mere definition -
If all Einstein had was a mere convention or definition for
relating clocks, then how can it be proved that his clocks
are correctly related?

One answer is as follows:
By proving that light's one-way, two-clock speed is indeed
invariant and isotropic - independently of his _definition_
(which _forces_ invariance and isotropy).

Do you see the logical circle which is wound tightly around
the neck of relativity?

Adding to the problems for SR is the fact that Einstein himself
explicitly (mathematically) admitted that the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics would NOT find his
precious invariance and isotropy in the one-way case. And
he was unable to prove that such clocks cannot exist.
[REF: "w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c."
(From _Relativity_ Chap. VII)]

SR has never been tested because no one has found a way to
correctly synchronize clocks, not even on paper.

[Martin Miller]

russ_watters noted:
"You (and others) keep asserting your position to be correct without
explanation. You can't simply assert you are correct and demand to be
proven wrong. Science doesn't work that way. You have to actively prove
your position correct with scientifically valid data and calculations."

Wrong. I need not prove anything. It is Einstein who claimed that
light's one-way speed is invariant and isotropic. Thus it is he
(or his followers) who must prove this claim. (OTOH, I have proved
that the claim is dead wrong.)

russ_watters noted:
"In addition, a number of people have shown a number of flaws in your
reasoning and you have declined to address the problems we found.
Particularly, Nereid, several pages ago (in response to an assertion
that SR hasn't been demonstrated in any experiments), linked a list of experiments proving SR and asked for specific problems you (and others) have with these experiments. No response."

No one has found a single flaw. The Nereid-cited site does not
have a single experiment which proves Einstein's sole claim of
the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed
(where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be).

Can you prove Einstein's claim?
Can you even show - even on paper - _how_ it could be proved?

No, you cannot.

Therefore, SR's sole basis (Einstein's claim) is unproved, and
cannot be proved even on paper.

Does this sound as if SR is a valid scientific theory?

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 noted:
"One thing you must do if you continue to insist on Galilean
relativity is to show that observers can get information faster
than the speed of light. I know of no such experiment showing
that this is possible."

One thing you must do if you continue to insist on Einsteinian
relativity is to show that observers can get invariance and
isotropy for the one-way speed of light, but I know of no way
to show this experimentally, and neither do you.

(BTW, getting information faster than light has nothing to
do with the facts that Einstein's clocks are incorrectly
related and that truly synchronous clocks will yield a
variable one-way light speed.)

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 wrote:
"Eyesaw is not doing a good job of explaining the null results
of experiments like the MMx. Can you do a good job?"

I don't need to explain it, but many have claimed that SR
explains it. Can you explain how SR is supposed to have
explained the MMx null result? (Or do you believe that SR
cannot explain it?)

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller, is your preferred alternative to Einsteinian relativity Galilean Relativity? If not, what is it? Why continue to ride something that seems to be realistic no more?

Do you know about the binary pulsar systems? They involve one-way EM signals.

Look, nothing can be proven in science. You have to start with assumptions. This is a fact of life that I need not prove: YOU show us a fact that need not be assumed apart from facts of your own existence or facts inferred from them. You are going the wrong way by insisting on proof of something that may need to be assumed. Ultimately all that can be asked of a theory is that it predicts things correctly. Do you really believe Galiliean R. still does so?

[jdavel]

Martin Miller wrote:

"SR has never been tested because no one has found a way to correctly synchronize clocks, not even on paper."


As I posted previously, the test of a scientific theory is a test of its predictions not its postulates. However, since you're so adamant about the a measurement of the one-way speed of light being the only true test of SR, here's a test you could do, at least "on paper"?

Put a clock into the same orbit around the sun that the earth travels in but trailing behind the earth by, say, 90 degrees (i.e., three months). Now watch the clock through a telescope. If light speed depends on direction, you'll observe the clock speeding up and slowing down over the course of a year. If it doesn't, you won't.

How's that?

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by jdavel
Martin Miller posted (again!):

"For example, the very basis of SR, Einstein's light postulate (i.e., one-way, two-clock light speed invariance) has not been tested."


But that doesn't matter! To validate a theory in physical science, it's not necessary to prove (or even to test) the POSTULATES of the theory. The theory is validated or refuted by testing its PREDICTIONS. It doesn't even matter whether the postulates are testable. IT DOESN'T EVEN MATTER WHETHER THE POSTULATES ARE TRUE! If the theory is a good predictor, it's a good theory. If it's the best predictor, it's the best theory.

Yes, quite so! Utility is the easiest way to determine the value of a theory. It makes predictions. Einstein made plenty of predictions via his theories, and they have plenty of utility. Recall E=Mc^2? What was that, a lucky guess? SR, GR, numerous contributions to early quantum theory.

No one is going to prove his theories wrong, but even more accurate ones may come along in the future. The same thing happened with Newton's laws of gravitional attraction, which are still quite useful today. Einstein did not invalidate Newton's work when he advanced General Relativity. So Newton's contributions are not diminished.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
Wrong. I need not prove anything. It is Einstein who claimed that
light's one-way speed is invariant and isotropic. Thus it is he
(or his followers) who must prove this claim. (OTOH, I have proved
that the claim is dead wrong.)...

The Nereid-cited site does not have a single experiment which proves Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be). So basically then your arguement boils down to 'my assertions are correct and the entire scientific community is wrong.' Still not a very compelling argument.

[Nereid]

Ha, outandbeyond2004 beat me to it!

Consider the following thought experiment:

A very reliable clock is located at a very great distance, in a stable environment (= nothing of any significance changes over a period of a century). The clock emits signals across the EM spectrum, at a rate (according to itself) of 1 'tick' per second.

The clock is located, from our perspective, on the ecliptic* (= the plane of the orbit of the Earth around the solar system's baricentre). Martin has a radio, X-ray (some caveats), and optical observatory fixed on the surface of the Earth, and his position, relative to the solar system barycentre, is known to him - and all other PF members - to an accuracy of 1cm**. Eyesaw, wisp, and many others visit his observatory regularly, and have full access to all equipment. Indeed, they are free to install their own equipment at his observatory, to be sure that their own concerns about SR and GR are properly addressed.

What one-way test does Martin perform?

*To ensure that gravitational effects of the Sun are properly accounted for, there is, in fact, a set of accurate, distant clocks, at angular distances of 10o, 20o, 30o, and 40o above and below the ecliptic.

**Of course there's several years' effort to explain and convince all that the +/- 1cm is acceptable; for the purpose of this thought experiment, please assume this huge effort has resulted in consensus.

[Nereid]

Martin Miller wrote: *SNIP
No one has found a single flaw. The Nereid-cited site does not have a single experiment which proves Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be).

Can you prove Einstein's claim?
Can you even show - even on paper - _how_ it could be proved?

No, you cannot.

Therefore, SR's sole basis (Einstein's claim) is unproved, and cannot be proved even on paper. Does this sound as if SR is a valid scientific theory?
*SNAPAt the risk of boring readers to death, the list contains:
- predictions from SR
- experiments to test those predictions
- results that are, within the experimental error limits, consistent with the predictions.

Are the predictions correctly derived (e.g. no mistakes in the math)?

Did the experimenters do what they said they did?

Are the results consistent with the predictions?

How hard is it to answer these questions????

Now to 'Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as they must be)'. We could say "cool, let's go test it!", or we could say "assume this to be true for now; what predictions follow? how well do those predictions match experiments?"

Martin would like to do the former - OK, let's help Martin set up an experiment to do the test he wants.

Others are OK with the latter - and *all* such tests of SR pass with flying colours. Further, putting SR into QM produced QED (OK, this is a gross over-simplification), and QED, when tested in the lab, turns out to be the most accurate physics we've got, so far.

I hope your nose isn't too put out of joint Martin, but I personally am quite comfortable with proceeding to devise cosmological experiments, based on the assumption that SR (actually GR) is a valid description for the whole universe, at least from the time of last (neutrino) scattering.

[wisp]

Re quotes from russ_watters:

Regarding the Roland DeWitte experiment.
From what I have heard, his results aren't accepted as credible by the scientific community.

Unless a professional body repeats this experiment, they should not dismiss his findings.

Regarding the ether:
So until someone finds real, scientific, positive evidence to show that there is an ether, we cannot assume there is one. At the very least, ether theory fails on those grounds.

We could say the same about Einstein's space-time. There is no proof that space is joined with time and no one will find evidence to show that the two are joined, because the idea is absurd and defies common sense. Space has nothing to do with time, as they are separate things.
So why do people readily accept Einstein's proposal that they are joined together?
If an ether-based theory gives the same answers as SR surely the ether theory has more credibility.

[Martin Miller]

jdavel claimed:
"SR predicts (among other things) that measurements of time made
with a moving clock will show it to be running slow compared to
measurements made with the same clock when it's stationary, that
measurements of the length and mass of a moving object will show
it to be shorter and more massive than measurements on the same
object when it's standing still. Experiments, with ever increasing
precision, have tested these predictions (ad nauseum) for nearly
100 years. At the present time, it is by far the best predictor
for the results of these experiments; no other theory even comes
close."

None of the above are SR predictions; all were given by Einstein's
clock synchronization definition, which preceded SR. Additionally,
all are mere point-of-view effects (as your phrase "show it to be"
indicated) which have nothing to do with real physics.

Real physics is interested not in observer-dependent, point-of-view
effects; real physics is concerned with real physical phenomena,
such as the intrinsic atomic rhythms of atomic clocks.

And we know that SR says nothing about an atomic clock's internal
rhythm because we can prove this as follows:

A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only
_one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers in their
various frames will find _different_ rhythms for the same passing
atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above); ergo, SR's
"time dilation" does _not_ pertain to actual clock rhythms, but
only to mere point-of-view "rhythms."

As a side line, I would like any relativist to tell us the
physical cause of SR's "time dilation." Why do observers in
different Einsteinian frames find that "a moving clock runs
slow"? I seriously doubt that Mr. jdavel could give an answer,
but of course this did not prevent him from jumping on my case
and screaming at me as if I were the world's worst crackpot!

SR makes exactly zero predictions which are not fully based
upon a mere definition of clock synchronization, so none of
SR's predictions are real predictions of what might happen
experimentally. Therefore, SR is not a scientific theory.

[Haelfix]

Any serious Ether proponent has to at the very least accept Lorentz invariance to even be remotely taken seriously by physicists now days.

Particle and astrophysicists see relativistic particles that obey SR every day in the lab. In fact, one usually takes the classical regime as a simplifying assumption when one begins a calculation, before we generalize to SR. Invariably, its the latter that is the observed behaviour. Often discrepancies can run as high as 4 or 5 orders of magnitude, it would be patently obvious if lorentz invariance was broken (and some physicist would get a nobel prize for the experiment).

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by wisp
We could say the same about Einstein's space-time. There is no proof that space is joined with time and no one will find evidence to show that the two are joined, because the idea is absurd and defies common sense. Space has nothing to do with time, as they are separate things.
So why do people readily accept Einstein's proposal that they are joined together?
If an ether-based theory gives the same answers as SR surely the ether theory has more credibility.

Despite the facts that a) SR/GR are universally accepted and have been for over 80 years, that b) quantum theory has been made to work under the umbrella of SR, and c) there are no current rival theories which make predictions beyond the accuracy of SR/GR... it is really a fraud perpetrated on an unsuspecting public.

The truth emerges about why wisp started this thread, as I suspected. Naturally, if wisp thinks SR & GR are "absurd" then Einstein cannot be a genius, and it is actually wisp who is the genius for exposing the fraud.

wisp, start a thread called "SR is wrong" and debate the issue there. Please don't use a red herring about Einstein's intellect as a way to advance your alternative viewpoints when there is a perfectly good mechanism for doing that in this forum.

Your lack of understanding of what theory is used for is evident, and you would do well to learn more about this subject before continuing on this track. Whether or not there is a physical ether has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with special relativity. If you think that is central to the theory, you are reading something into it that is not present. Ditto for GR. Factually, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of an ether and none of it affects GR at all.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Impossible. Did you even try to do the math on this one?

Suppose the interferometer lies on the x-axis and is travelling in the direction of the positive x-axis with a speed of v.

Suppose we emit a photon from the left edge of the interferometer at time 0 when the left edge of the interferometer is at x-coordinate 0. (So the right edge has coordinate L).

IOW, at time 0:
The left edge has x-coordinate 0
The right edge has x-coordinate L
The photon has x-coordinate 0

Now, let's find at what time the photon strikes the right edge:
The formula for the photons position is

x = 0 + ct

The formula for the right edge's position is

x = L + vt

Setting the x-coordinates equal gives:

L + vt = ct

or

t = L / (c - v)


So, at time t = L / (c - v):
The left edge is at x-coordinate L v / (c - v)
The right edge is at x-coordinate L c / (c - v)
The photon is at x-coordinate L c / (c - v)

Now, let's find out when the photon strikse the left edge again.

The formula for the position of the left edge is

x = v t

The formula for the position of the photon is

x - L c / (c - v) = -c (t - L / (c-v))
simplifying:
x - L c / (c - v) = -c t + L c / (c - v)
x = 2 L c / (c - v) - ct

Setting the x-coordinates equal and solving gives:

vt = 2 L c / (c - v) - ct
t = 2 L c / ( (c - v) (c + v) ) = 2 L c / (c^2 - v^2)


So the photon travels for time 2 L c / (c^2 - v^2). In that time, it travels a distance of 2 L c^2 / (c^2 - v^2). Funny, but that seems to be inequal to 2 L.


And you get an even different distance if the inferometer is moving in a different direction!

You and outandbeyond are right on this one. All my posts were about how physics is not the same in different inertial frames if light is not source dependent so I'm not sure why I goofed when applying that logic to the MMX (I think I was trying too hard to allow for the possibility that light is not source dependent) But thanks for refreshing my memory of the math.

But I think my analysis of the situation for source dependence is correct, but feel free to check it:

For horizontal path:

rightwards: (c+J)t(right) = L+J(t(right))
c(t(right))+J(t(right))= L + J(t(right))
c(t(right)) = L

leftwards: (c-J)t(left) = L-J(t(left))
c(t(left))-J(t(left)) = L - J(t(left))
c(t(left) = L
so that roundtrip distance = 2L

upwards: (c+M)t(up) = L + M(t(up))
c(t(up)) + M(t(up)) = L + M(t(up))
c(t(up)) = L
downwards: same as upwards since the light is reflected at a 90 degree angle and in the direction of motion of the apparatus going downwards. Hence roundtrip distance = 2L,
which is the same as for left and rightwards, yielding a null shift.

M Stands for the VeLocitY CoMponent in the hypoteNuse directioN.

So the MMX actually proves source dependency of light, meaning
Galilean Relativity is correct and SR is not. QED.

As a reminder, the Galilean transformation is about how some event inside one inertial frame looks like using the coordinate system of a different inertial frame- the transformed event is not the actual experiment being performed inside the new inertial frame- thus there is no requirement for any transformed value to be constant (like the speed of light). Logically, it cannot since when you add velocity to a set of coordinates, every event from the old coordinates must obtain this velocity or velocity doesn't exist. This however does not mean that physics cannot be the same in all inertial frames since experiments performed inside different inertial frames are all source dependent (i.e., since all events inside the first inertial frame are "blown up or down" by the same amount, the relative coordinates between events inside the first frame are retained in the second frame- it's like when you blow up a picture, the distances between objects inside the picture are still the same, using the new scale). So Inertial frame M would can measure the speed of light as c inside inertial frame M, inertial frame L can measure the speed of light as c inside inertial frame L, inertial frame N can measure the speed of light as c inside inertial frame N, et al. Thus the Galilean relativity is logically consistent and consistent with every day observations and even experiments on light, such as the MMX.

[outandbeyond2004]

I will check Eyesaw's source dependency math, but let me note the observations of pions. These beasties like to go out in grand style, a big flash of light. They are light (sorry about the pun, I mean little mass), so can be accelerated to say 95% of the speed of light.

Eyesaw would say we'd see light at almost 2*c. Nay, nay, Eyesaw.

Also, one version of the MMx used sunlight and another used starlight, with apparently essentially the same result as those using sources of light that move with the interferometer. I can list references, if Eyesaw so desires.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by wisp
Regarding the Roland DeWitte experiment.

Unless a professional body repeats this experiment, they should not dismiss his findings. Actually, you have it precisely backwards (or rather, while true, what you said is completely irrelevant): unitil a professional body (or easier still, a handful of credible peers) repeats his experiment, they cannot consider his findings to be valid.

That's just how science works. When people (generally laymen outside the scientific community, but sometimes scientists themselves) don't obey that, things like the Cold Fusion debacle happen.

And actually, laymen just tend to go for Pascal's wager: betting at low odds and low cost on a high payoff. What you're doing is worse: assuming DeWitt to be correct without verification simply because you like what he said. We could say the same about Einstein's space-time. There is no proof that space is joined with time and no one will find evidence to show that the two are joined, because the idea is absurd and defies common sense. Space has nothing to do with time, as they are separate things. Who'se notion of common sense? Yours? It fits just fine with mine and the common sense of the scientific community. As Nereid likes to harp on, common sense is something that happens in your head and is completely unrelated to physics: physics is about experimentation, data, theory, prediction. You cannot dismis a theory that makes accurate, testable, repeatable predictions (the very things DeWitt has not done yet) just because you don't like it (do we need to discuss QM vs common sense?). What isn't science.

MM, you keep asserting the same things over and over and they don't get any more correct the more you say them. There are at least a dozen points brought up by myself and others that you have yet to address other than to simply dismiss.

This statement in particular shows a clear lack of understanding of what SR/GR does: A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only _one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers in their various frames will find _different_ rhythms for the same passing atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above); A clear and incontrovertible example of SR/GR time dilation predictions comes from (again) GPS. Prior to launch, the tick rates of the clocks on GPS satellites are adjusted in accordance with the predictions of SR and GR in order that the clocks, once in orbit, will remain synchronized with similar clocks on the ground. That is a fact followed by data resulting from a prediction of Relativity and unless you can address that (and the dozen or so other points), you're not showing anything other than a lack of understanding of Relativity.

[outandbeyond2004]

I am not sure what Eyesaw means by source dependency. At first I thought he meant only dependence on the etheric speed of the primary source of light, but he seems to include the mirrors as well.

If Eyeshaw does, I do not understand why a mirror going at J wrt the ether would reflect light going at c + J so that it goes -c + J afterwards. Why not -c or maybe even -c-J? The latter might even be in accordance with the law of energy conservation.

I find it hard to believe that any experiments have been done with moving mirrors that show this sort of source dependency. What happens if light goes at c towards a mirror that goes at J?

I do not see that the math for the upwards and downwards trip makes any sense.

The upward mirror is moving J in the x direction, like the leftward mirror, NOT M, as far as I can understand. The light going upwards needs to have a velocity in the x direction or it will miss the mirror altogether.

I'll stop here and wait for explanation and clarification. Besides, maybe Eyesaw has at last seen the light by now.

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
'Ms Nereid' (not 'Mr.') wrote:
"... please check this page, and tell us which tests failed."

Hello, Ms Nereid, I know where you are coming from because
I have seen that page many times. It contains only round-trip
cases, rotating clock cases, and intrinsic time dilation, not
one of which applies to, supports, or tests SR.
For example, see the following site which proves that all
rotating clock cases are expected to have null results: http://www.geocities.com/antirelativity/Rotating_Clock_Analysis.html

You have to know SR to know what could test it.

SR did not predict round-trip invariance or isotropy.
This was proved - at least the latter was proved - prior to SR.

SR does not pertain to intrinsic time dilation, but only to a
trivial and irrelevant point-of-view (apparent) "clock slowing"
caused by the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks. (That SR's
"time dilation" does not pertain to the actual atomic rhythms
of clocks is extremely easy to prove, and here is a proof:
Any single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only
one intrinsic atomic rhythm, and yet Einstein's observers in
various frames always will find _different_ "rhythms" for one
and the same passing atomic clock; therefore, SR's "time dilation"
does _not_ pertain to the physical or intrinsic atomic rhythm of
an atomic clock.) (Similarly, SR does not pertain to either
intrinsic rod lengths or to intrinsic mass.)

What does SR predict?
To what does SR pertain?
What does SR say?
Not surprisingly, since SR is wrong, the web site you
referenced made no mention of the real SR, but, as you
requested, I will not go into the "SR is wrong stuff"
yet, but will merely explain what SR predicts.

SR began when Einstein saw round-trip isotropy (given by the
Michelson-Morley experiment of course). Einstein then assumed
that round-trip isotropy implied both round-trip invariance and
one-way isotropy/invariance. Seeing that clock synchronization
controls all two-clock times, he saw that light's one-way,
two-clock speed depends on clock synchronization, so he then
related his clocks to obtain one-way invariance/isotropy.

At this critical point, we must decide whether Einstein had
a postulate or merely a clock synchronization definition.
But either way, Einstein loses.

Case I - Assuming that Einstein had a light postulate -
If Einstein had a light postulate, and if this postulate says
one-way, two-clock light speed invariance/isotropy, then _how_
can this postulate be tested?

The answer of course is as follows:
Only by using correctly synchronized clocks.

Case II - Assuming that Einstein had a mere definition -
If all Einstein had was a mere convention or definition for
relating clocks, then how can it be proved that his clocks
are correctly related?

One answer is as follows:
By proving that light's one-way, two-clock speed is indeed
invariant and isotropic - independently of his _definition_
(which _forces_ invariance and isotropy).

Do you see the logical circle which is wound tightly around
the neck of relativity?

Adding to the problems for SR is the fact that Einstein himself
explicitly (mathematically) admitted that the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics would NOT find his
precious invariance and isotropy in the one-way case. And
he was unable to prove that such clocks cannot exist.
[REF: "w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c."
(From _Relativity_ Chap. VII)]

SR has never been tested because no one has found a way to
correctly synchronize clocks, not even on paper.

Excellent.

[Nereid]

Maybe Eyesaw (and others) could devise an elaborate experiment - variant MMx - involving the sun and moving 'mirrors in the sky' - could be the Moon, or Jupiter, or an Iridium satellite (unless they've all de-orbitted). Phase info may get a little noisy (shall we say), and maybe the whole thing would have to be done in space, with satellites in different orbits, and nice shiny mirrors on them, ... but at least a good description of the 'in principle' experiment would allow us to see clearly what predictions Eyesaw would make.

How about it?

[Nereid]

Originally posted by Eyesaw
Excellent. Care to comment on the responses to MM's post? There've been a few [8)]

[Eyesaw]

Originally posted by outandbeyond2004
I am not sure what Eyesaw means by source dependency. At first I thought he meant only dependence on the etheric speed of the primary source of light, but he seems to include the mirrors as well.

If Eyeshaw does, I do not understand why a mirror going at J wrt the ether would reflect light going at c + J so that it goes -c + J afterwards. Why not -c or maybe even -c-J? The latter might even be in accordance with the law of energy conservation.

I find it hard to believe that any experiments have been done with moving mirrors that show this sort of source dependency. What happens if light goes at c towards a mirror that goes at J?

I do not see that the math for the upwards and downwards trip makes any sense.

The upward mirror is moving J in the x direction, like the leftward mirror, NOT M, as far as I can understand. The light going upwards needs to have a velocity in the x direction or it will miss the mirror altogether.

I'll stop here and wait for explanation and clarification. Besides, maybe Eyesaw has at last seen the light by now.

using -c-j doesn't change anything since the j still cancels and you
get -c(t(left)) = L- all I did was change the point of view. I used J and M to denote the velocity components of the mirror given to the light. If you dropped a bomb from a plane, it does not travel straight down because the bomb has a horizontal velocity component n addition to a vertical velocity component- which is kind of what M represents. I guess I am assuming projectile motion in empty space.
Let me think about the ether situation a little.

[Martin Miller]

outandbeyond2004 wrote:
"Martin Miller, is your preferred alternative to Einsteinian
relativity Galilean Relativity? If not, what is it? Why continue
to ride something that seems to be realistic no more?"

I do not need any alternative - I have pointed out the fact
that there has been no test of Einstein's light postulate
(the basis of SR), and I have presented experimental proof
that his clocks are incorrectly related temporally.

-----

russ_watters noted:
"So basically then your arguement boils down to 'my assertions
are correct and the entire scientific community is wrong.' Still
not a very compelling argument."

See the above.

-----

Nereid wrote:
"Consider the following thought experiment:" etc., etc., etc.

Why can't you be scientific enough to either refute or
accept the result of my experiment which proved the
incorrectness of Einstein's clocks?

-----

Nereid noted:
"At the risk of boring readers to death, the list contains:
- predictions from SR
- experiments to test those predictions
- results that are, within the experimental error limits, consistent
with the predictions."

Are the predictions correctly derived (e.g. no mistakes in the math)?

Did the experimenters do what they said they did?

Are the results consistent with the predictions?

How hard is it to answer these questions????"

MM replies:
It is not hard at all, and I have already done so, more than once.
Why did you not pay attention?

Nereid continued:
"Now to 'Einstein's sole claim of the invariance/isotropy of light's
one-way, two-clock speed (where the clocks are in the same frame, as
they must be)'. We could say 'cool, let's go test it!', or we could
say 'assume this to be true for now; what predictions follow? how well do those predictions match experiments?'"

Nereid, you do not even know what _you_ are saying, so it's no wonder
that you cannot see what I am saying. But I will give you a chance to
prove that you do know what you are saying; simply tell us the
meaning of your above phrase "assume this to be true ...." Please
show on paper how two clocks on a table could possibly produce
one-way light speed invariance experimentally, even in your wildest
dream.

-----

Haelfix noted:
"Any serious Ether proponent has to at the very least accept
Lorentz invariance to even be remotely taken seriously by
physicists now days."

When did I say that I was an "Ether proponent"?
And who has proved the Lorentz invariance of light's one-way
speed? (No one has, but I did prove that this speed varies with
frame velocity, thereby disproving SR.)

Haelfix further noted:
"Particle and astrophysicists see relativistic particles that
obey SR every day in the lab."

Which part of SR says anything about the intrinsic masses of
particles?

If you had taken the time to read any of my recent posts, you
would have found my proofs that SR does not pertain to intrinsic
mass or to intrinsic clock rhythms or to intrinsic rod lengths.

I get tired of repeating myself to deaf ears.

[Martin Miller]

russ_watters asserted:
"MM, you keep asserting the same things over and over and
they don't get any more correct the more you say them."

When did you or anyone else refute the result of my
experiment which proved one-way light speed variance?

russ_watters also asserted:
"There are at least a dozen points brought up by myself and
others that you have yet to address other than to simply dismiss."

This is simply and merely a falsehood.

russ_watters further asserted:
"This statement in particular shows a clear lack of understanding
of what SR/GR does:

quote:
A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have
only _one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers
in their various frames will find _different_ rhythms for
the same passing atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above);

A clear and incontrovertible example of SR/GR time dilation predictions
comes from (again) GPS. Prior to launch, the tick rates of the clocks
on GPS satellites are adjusted in accordance with the predictions of SR
and GR in order that the clocks, once in orbit, will remain synchronized
with similar clocks on the ground. That is a fact followed by data
resulting from a prediction of Relativity and unless you can address
that (and the dozen or so other points), you're not showing anything
other than a lack of understanding of Relativity."

Listen to me: The above quote from me already addressed this issue.
Don't blame me if you cannot understand this.

Which part of SR pertains to intrinsic clock rates?

Which part of SR proved that any clocks are synchronized?

Who has proved that the GPS clocks are synchronized?

Are you aware of the fact that GPS scientists simply and
merely assume that c is the value of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved the invariance of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved that SR has made any predictions that are
not totally based upon a mere definition?
(All times and speeds in both the Einsteinian transformation
equations and the Einsteinian composition of velocities
equation were found by using Einstein's clocks which were
related per his definition of "synchronization.")

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by Martin Miller
...When did you or anyone else refute the result of my
experiment which proved one-way light speed variance? ...


Simple forum etiquette dictates you should abandon your thread hijacking and return to your already started thread "SR Question of the Century" on this same subject.

[outandbeyond2004]

Martin Miller does not address the observations of the binary pulsar systems. Why not? The pions - I sure wonder what he thinks about those observations of them.

Did Martin mean that he does not have any alternative to SR that he likes? Or did he simply mean that his focus is on proving SR wrong?

Well, SR is wrong all right. That's why Einstein went on to think up GR. What's more, GR is wrong, too. That's why E. was busy in his old age looking for better theories. The people following his path are busy too.

Martin should focus his energies on developing a theory to replace GR instead of repeating things to "deaf ears." He must show that he can "postdict" all relevant experimental facts, things to which he unfortunately seems to be blind.

[Nereid]

Nereid:
1) was there a specific, objective prediction made from SR?
2) did the experiment or observation produce a clear, unambiguous result?
3) was the result the same as that predicted by SR (within the errors of the observation)?

Martin Miller: I have seen that page [list of tests of SR] many times. It contains only round-trip cases, rotating clock cases, and intrinsic time dilation, not one of which applies to, supports, or tests SR. For example, *SNIP

What does SR predict?
To what does SR pertain?
What does SR say?
Not surprisingly, since SR is wrong, the web site you referenced made no mention of the real SR, but, as you requested, I will not go into the "SR is wrong stuff" yet, but will merely explain what SR predicts.

So, let's see now. An example from 'that website':
"Kinematics is basically the study of how energy and momentum conservation laws constrain and affect physical interactions. The two basic predictions of SR in this regard are that massive objects will have a limiting velocity of c (the speed of light), and that their "relativistic mass" will increase with velocity. [...] This has become so obvious in particle experiments that few experiments test the SR equations, and virtually all particle experiments rely upon SR in their analysis."

Taking the three simple questions above, the answers are Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Except that Martin feels we should perform the following substitution: replace "SR" with "a theory that is not SR"; let's call it "Theory X" for now.

I guess this is some kind of progress, but mustn't make assumptions. Questions for Martin:

a) Does Theory X predict that massive objects will have a limiting velocity of c? Have experiments been done to test this prediction? Are the experimental results consistent with the prediction, to the error limits of the experiment?

b) Who wrote Theory X?

[Eyesaw]

The MMX result is exactly the same as obtained if the
apparatus was not moving through space. Since the Earth
frame is not stationary, the MMX null result shows that physics
is the same in different inertial frames. This is not very surprising
since when we add velocity to a system of coordinates, we are adding velocity to all the coordinates (like a mobile ether) so that in the new inertial frame, all the coordinates remain at rest with respect with each other. So in the new frame, the light has to have a speed of c+v in one direction and c-v in the other, relative to the rest frame, in order that the new "rest coordinates" measure it to be c. This is Galilean Relativity. It is verified for every day
physics and also for light, vis a vis the MMX.

Here's an analogy:
Scenario 1:

In space is placed a silver baseball and a green bowling ball. A ruler is taped between the centers of the balls and measures off 25 inches of space. A photo is taken of this set up. We now blow up the photo 200%. The distance between the centers of the balls in this new frame still reads 25 inches from the ruler in the photograph. This ruler represents the speed of light and how it is constant in different inertial frames because its size is "frame dependent".

Imagine now the same set up in lieu that we omit the ruler and then take the photo. Blow up the photo 200%. Now we use a real ruler to measure off
the distance between the balls inside the photos. Of course we find the
distance in the first to be 25 inches and 50 inches in the larger photo. Again this ruler represents the speed of light, but now being "independent of source
frame". Clearly from the analogy, if the speed of light represents a law of physics, it is not the same in all frames if it is independent of source, but is if it is. Special Relativity proposes that we alter the second photo in a way that would make the real ruler measure the distances the same as the first. So, we'd have to cut the photo in half and trim the space between the balls. But since the balls are also larger according to the real ruler, we'd have to trim the balls as well. By the time we finish cutting and then pasting the second photo, we end up with a photo that is identical to the first. That's the only way physics can be made invariant in all inertial frames in SR- by making every inertial frame identical to each other- because its two postulates contradict each other logically. This is trivially proven false beccause I can drive my car to a 7-11 while my wife remainn sstationaryy at homme.

[Martin Miller]

Nereid gave the following quote from a website:
"The two basic predictions of SR in this regard are that massive
objects will have a limiting velocity of c (the speed of light),
and that their 'relativistic mass' will increase with velocity.
[...] This has become so obvious in particle experiments that
few experiments test the SR equations, and virtually all
particle experiments rely upon SR in their analysis."

MM replies:
SR does not pertain to actual, physical, intrinsic mass.
This is very easy to prove, as follows:

Any given massive object moving inertially cannot have but
_one_ intrinsic mass, but SR observers in various frames
find _different_ masses for one and the same passing object;
therefore, SR does not pertain to intrinsic masses.

The math comes out OK when using SR's formulas because the
Earth's speed is improperly assumed (or given) to be zero.
This works only because the Earth's speed is indeed nearly
zero when compared to the particles' speeds. But we do not
know how fast the Earth is really moving, and yet this is
needed if we want truly correct results regarding real masses.
(Note that SR does not even supply us with the real rest
mass of any particle because SR cannot measure intrinsic
mass, and yet the rest mass is the starting point for all of
the math done on the particles which are rapidly accelerated.)
(Further note that - as I mentioned above - one can obtain an
infinite number of answers from SR simply by using different
Earth speeds or by using observers in frames other than the
Earth frame.)

Can you tell us how a single object moving at a single steady
speed could possibly have 150,000,000 different actual masses?
(SR has an _infinite_ number, but I am trying to be nice!)

The only theory that pertains to all actual, intrinsic, physical
properties of inertial objects is Lorentz's twice-extended theory.
(Originally, it pertained only to intrinsic lengths, then
it was extended to cover intrinsic clock rhythms, and finally,
it was extended to cover intrinsic masses.)

But all of the above sidesteps the most important question,
which is How can we correctly synchronize two same-frame clocks?

I have proved experimentally the incorrectness of Einstein's
clocks, so we cannot look to SR for help. (Indeed, Herr Einstein
explicitly admitted that he did not possess the means of measuring time!)

[Nereid]

Martin Miller wrote: *SNIP
The only theory that pertains to all actual, intrinsic, physical properties of inertial objects is Lorentz's twice-extended theory. (Originally, it pertained only to intrinsic lengths, then it was extended to cover intrinsic clock rhythms, and finally, it was extended to cover intrinsic masses.)
*SNAP I'm guessing that Martin has given us a name for Theory X: "Lorentz's twice-extended theory". But, best to be sure - Martin, is this the replacement for "SR" in all the tests mentioned in 'that website'?

[Integral]

MM,
You would get a lot of interest in you ideas if you could give a reasonable theory as to why we would expect a difference in velocity for a 1 way trip.

Your theory would not and should not even mention Einstein or Michelson Morley, neither of these are the basis for a constant speed of light. You must address the term

c= \frac 1 {\sqrt {{\epsilon_0} {\mu_0}}}

and what is wrong with Maxwell's equations that it gives this incorrect expression for the propagation speed of E-M waves.

I am sure that if I designed an experiment that showed a consistent and constant speed of light for a one way trip, you would dismiss it as insufficiently accurate, the difference being 2 decimal places further out. That of course is the beauty of not having a theory. Since you do not make a measurable prediction you cannot be proven wrong.

[Nereid]

russ_watters wrote: This statement in particular shows a clear lack of understanding of what SR/GR does

Martin Miller wrote: A single inertially-moving atomic clock will always have only _one_ intrinsic atomic rhythm, but Einstein's observers in their various frames will find _different_ rhythms for the same passing atomic clock (just as you openly admitted above).

russ_watters wrote: A clear and incontrovertible example of SR/GR time dilation predictions comes from (again) GPS. Prior to launch, the tick rates of the clocks on GPS satellites are adjusted in accordance with the predictions of SR and GR in order that the clocks, once in orbit, will remain synchronized with similar clocks on the ground. That is a fact followed by data resulting from a prediction of Relativity and unless you can address that (and the dozen or so other points), you're not showing anything other than a lack of understanding of Relativity.

Martin Miller wrote: Listen to me: The above quote from me already addressed this issue. Don't blame me if you cannot understand this.

Which part of SR pertains to intrinsic clock rates?

Which part of SR proved that any clocks are synchronized?

Who has proved that the GPS clocks are synchronized?

Are you aware of the fact that GPS scientists simply and merely assume that c is the value of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved the invariance of light's one-way speed?

Who has proved that SR has made any predictions that are not totally based upon a mere definition? (All times and speeds in both the Einsteinian transformation equations and the Einsteinian composition of velocities equation were found by using Einstein's clocks which were related per his definition of "synchronization.").

Hmm, GPS works, and Galileo will likely work too. The designers and operators used a number of physics theories to build the GPS system and keep it working, among them “SR” and “GR”. Since they system works, and the designers presumably didn’t get it all right by getting the math all wrong, can we conclude that SR and GR are pretty good physics theories?

Not according to Martin, because (he says) SR is wrong.

So how did the designers get it all right, even though they were working with a theory that cannot be correct? From reading Martin’s posts, I guess the answer would be “because the math they used gives the same results as the ‘correct’ theory, which is “Lorentz's twice-extended theory” (LTET). Further, the (maths) steps one takes to get the results which make the GPS work are so closely the same in SR and LTET that the designers didn’t even know they were following LTET and not SR.”

Am I close Martin?

[Martin Miller]

Integral wrote:
"MM,
You would get a lot of interest in you ideas if you could give
a reasonable theory as to why we would expect a difference in
velocity for a 1 way trip."

Well, this is direct proof that you meatheads are just
playing games here because I gave an experimental proof
of one-way variance long ago.

I outta here! Cling to your precious disproved dogmas!

[Integral]

MM,
Do you fail to understand the difference between theory and experiment?

[outandbeyond2004]

Readers of this topic might profit from a reading or rereading of The Universe and Dr. Einstein by Lincoln Barnett, which should be easy to obtain from the library or on Amazon or on BN.com. A quote I think is apropos here:
"Einstein . . . [showed] that even space and time are forms of intuition, which can be no more divorced from consciousness than can our concepts of color, shape, or size. Space has no objective reality except as an order or arrangement of the objects we perceive in it, and time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it."

[Nereid]

It's a pity Martin Miller has gone. I have re-read this thread, and am quite curious as to how people have been able to physics and engineering in domains where SR (and GR) is important - even the data pipeline for HIPPARCOS includes GR corrections! - in Martin's (and Eyesaw's and wisp's) view.

It also occurred to me that VLBI would be a good test of Martin's 'one-way, two-clock light speed invariance', and now that serious optical 'LBI' is underway, perhaps the precision is good enough for Martin's (and wisp's) concerns.

Where does this leave Eyesaw's concern?

[outandbeyond2004]

Nereid, perhaps it would be good to have a detailed explanation of why LBI (and VLBI) would be a good test of the idea that one-way EM speed is not always the same as two-way EM speed.

[Nereid]

Nereid, perhaps it would be good to have a detailed explanation of why LBI (and VLBI) would be a good test of the idea that one-way EM speed is not always the same as two-way EM speed.The details of how radio astronomers do VLBI (very long baseline interferometry) will surely matter, and I would need to go look them up (oh for a better memory!). So, a brief description of an idealised observation.

Two radio telescopes observe a distant object. The observed radio signals from the object are processed, recorded on mag tape, along with very accurate (local clocks) time stamps. Later - up to several months later - the mag tapes are brought together, and processed. The processing essentially involves combining the phase information in the recorded signals, to reproduce interference, as if the two telescopes were but small elements of a giant telescope. 'One-way light, two (local) clock light speed' assumed invariant.

If one-way light speed were different in some way from two-way light speed, VLBI would produce different 'images' of the distant object, depending upon the nature of the one-way vs two-way difference.

[outandbeyond2004]

Nereid, the speed of light in the opposite direction (from Earth to distant object) is not involved in any way. If it is not involved, LBI cannot be a test. That GR seems to predict what happens earns points for it, but no test can be the decisive test, one that establishes a theory for once and all. A fortiori, no test can validate any part of the foundation of a theory (principles and/or postulates and/or assumptions).

[outandbeyond2004]

So far we have not met MM's demand. In reality, it is an impossible demand, and unfortunately he perhaps does not understand that. I do not pretend any confidence that I know his reasoning (if it could be called that), but he seems to think we should reject SR simply because it cannot answer some questions or because we cannot know that its logical foundation is built on the very bedrock of truth. It is simply that we hope SR is true because otherwise we are wasting time on it. I am sorry that MM cannot accept that and be content to work within the limitations of science. His refusal to offer an alternative to SR coupled with a demand like his is a bad attitude, because we cease to do physics if we reject SR with no alternative to it.

[outandbeyond2004]

I have been thinking that no better test for meeting MM's demand could be found than observation of the binary pulsar systems. It is in fact my favorite GR test. It would be nice if y'all could come up with a better test, tho.

[Nereid]

Nereid, the speed of light in the opposite direction (from Earth to distant object) is not involved in any way. If it is not involved, LBI cannot be a test. That GR seems to predict what happens earns points for it, but no test can be the decisive test, one that establishes a theory for once and all. A fortiori, no test can validate any part of the foundation of a theory (principles and/or postulates and/or assumptions).But with VBLI you can, in principle, measure as many distant objects with your telescopes as you wish! And they can be located anywhere in the sky. You can have hundreds of telescopes, at all kinds of distances from each other. The processing of the signals is the same, no matter which source is being looked at, or which pair of telescopes recorded the signals. Since the distant objects we are observing are all identical (in principle), any anisotropy in the speed of light will show up in (differences in) the images. Of course, the universe could cruelly be structured so that distant objects vary, and the speed of light varies, in just the right way so all the images are the same.

BTW, I think you'll find that Martin didn't want to consider binary pulsars because the reference frames are clearly not inertial (so whatever is observed may be irrelevant wrt SR).

[outandbeyond2004]

2 replies to Nereid's last post: Oh, right, similar objects in all parts of the sky. Well, not "any anisotropy." We still don't have observations of EM signals going from Earth to some distant point.

Any test of GR also constitutes in a deep way a test of SR. Everywhere and everywhen GR is locally SR. Also, if one were clever and industrious enough, one can apply SR to non-inertial observations.

[outandbeyond2004]

Oops, I forgot lunar laser ranging to the moon; Shapiro time delay experiments; ranging to the Pioneer and Voyager space crafts, etc. If we combine results from these experiments with LBI results . . . Only Solar system, not intergalactic, but still powerful.

[wisp]

It also occurred to me that VLBI would be a good test of Martin's 'one-way, two-clock light speed invariance', and now that serious optical 'LBI' is underway, perhaps the precision is good enough for Martin's (and wisp's) concerns.

I'm surprised that this thread lasted so long. You say that Martin's gone! At which point did he give up? Or has he argued his case enough?

I'm involved with some local politics now and have had less time to argue a case against SR. But my view hasn't changed. I'm 100% convinced that a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks will falsify SR.

[Nereid]

I'm surprised that this thread lasted so long. You say that Martin's gone! At which point did he give up? Or has he argued his case enough?

I'm involved with some local politics now and have had less time to argue a case against SR. But my view hasn't changed. I'm 100% convinced that a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks will falsify SR.To what extent is VLBI not 'a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks'?

[outandbeyond2004]

One source of experimental error lies in the synchronization bw the two clocks. No two clocks are ever in exact synch. Every clock rate may vary unpredictably. Won't wisp explain the experiment in detail so that we can understand all the possible experimental errors and judge how well it must be done in order to falisfy SR? How much would it cost, etc? What overall experimental error can we achieve?

Wisp may possibly have a lack of understanding of the limits of science and technology. No one experiment can invalidate any theory ever. It's always possible that the experimenter overlooked something or did something wrong, for one thing. The results of any one experiment should never be relied on 100%.

[outandbeyond2004]

It occurs to me that it may be rather more technologically more feasible to test for anisotropy than to measure the one-way speed directly. Would this be acceptable to Wisp, MM, and Eyesaw? Why not?

[wisp]

To what extent is VLBI not 'a simple one-way light speed test using 2 clocks'?

This test falls into the category of GPS. I had a discussion "SR and one-way speed of light tests" on Tom's Metaresearch forum some months back. After much discussion I concluded that GPS cannot be used to verify a one-way speed of light test. See
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
and go to the end of the page.
So on this basis VLBI equally cannot be use as a one-way test.
The reason a one-way test using two clocks is important is because it is simple to do and will prove one and for all if the speed of light is really constant, and hence if SR is true or false.

[Nereid]

This test falls into the category of GPS. I had a discussion "SR and one-way speed of light tests" on Tom's Metaresearch forum some months back. After much discussion I concluded that GPS cannot be used to verify a one-way speed of light test. See
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
and go to the end of the page.
So on this basis VLBI equally cannot be use as a one-way test.
The reason a one-way test using two clocks is important is because it is simple to do and will prove one and for all if the speed of light is really constant, and hence if SR is true or false.Have you considered doing this test yourself? A laser can be purchased for <US$10, but two atomic clocks would be a bit more expensive. Still less than US$100k I should think, and prices are falling all the time. Then you may have missed a good opportunity; with the collapse of so many telephone/telecom start-up companies - to compete with BT, AT&T, FT, DT, Verizon, ... - there were surely bargains to be had as the receivers auctioned off their large numbers of very accurate clocks. There are probably (UK) high schools or (US) colleges which might be interested in organising such an experiment, if done as part of larger project into SR; they may not have the $/£ to buy the equipment, but they would have several good students who may be willing to do the leg work.

[outandbeyond2004]

Wisp, some questions:
1. (Just curious. This question may or may not be quite relevant to this topic.) The GPS satellites have to move through the earth's atmosphere. It is extremely rarified at the GPS satellite altitude, but I believe space-and-time varying atmospheric drag is a significant and somewhat unpredictable factor as far as trying to determine the speed of light to high precision. Correct? You never mentioned it as a reason to reject GPS data for one-way light measurement.

2. Have you performed a detailed analysis of your proposed one-way light speed experiment using unsynch'd clocks that takes into account anisotropic gravitational effects, such as the rotation of the experiment relative to the Milky Way center?

3. What about ring lasers? For those who don't know about them, they use 3 mirrors in an equilateral triangle arrangement, with each mirror angled so that any correctly aimed light signal between them travels on the triangle formed by the mirrors. A laser is mounted between two mirrors. It shoots mono & coherent light out of either end, equally. One set of light rays travels the triangle one way. Let's label the mirrors A, B, and C. So the set goes A, B, C and finally back to where it started from. Another set goes the other way, C, B, A, and finally back to its start. This can be a table-top device. I don't know today's state of art, so I cannot say how sensitive advanced ring lasers are to anistropy.

[wisp]

Have you considered doing this test yourself?

I think a professional body should do this experiment. Amateurs like Roland DeWitte have carried out a similar experiment with positive results. But professional bodies have ignored this without good reason.

[Nereid]

Wisp, some questions:
1. (Just curious. This question may or may not be quite relevant to this topic.) The GPS satellites have to move through the earth's atmosphere. It is extremely rarified at the GPS satellite altitude, but I believe space-and-time varying atmospheric drag is a significant and somewhat unpredictable factor as far as trying to determine the speed of light to high precision. Correct? You never mentioned it as a reason to reject GPS data for one-way light measurement.

2. Have you performed a detailed analysis of your proposed one-way light speed experiment using unsynch'd clocks that takes into account anisotropic gravitational effects, such as the rotation of the experiment relative to the Milky Way center?

3. What about ring lasers? For those who don't know about them, they use 3 mirrors in an equilateral triangle arrangement, with each mirror angled so that any correctly aimed light signal between them travels on the triangle formed by the mirrors. A laser is mounted between two mirrors. It shoots mono & coherent light out of either end, equally. One set of light rays travels the triangle one way. Let's label the mirrors A, B, and C. So the set goes A, B, C and finally back to where it started from. Another set goes the other way, C, B, A, and finally back to its start. This can be a table-top device. I don't know today's state of art, so I cannot say how sensitive advanced ring lasers are to anistropy.
For all readers, FYI:
1) One of the things that GRACE (http://www.csr.utexas.edu/grace/) will determine, to great precision, is the distortion in radio signals through the ionosphere (inc those from GPS satellites)
2) ring lasers are the heart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope) of many modern gyroscopes, including those in commercial airliners. To underline outandbeyond2004's point, if there were any anisotropies, or other deviations of the kind that wisp and Eyesaw have described, it would seem remarkable that they'd cancel out perfectly in devices like ring lasers. But maybe that's exactly what wisp et al expect?

[outandbeyond2004]

A ringlaser project that is able to detect the anistropy of the sort theorized by Wisp? http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/CII/precise.htm

This group says it hopes to achieve resolution of the earth's rotation to a few parts in a billion! That's much more than we need, if the wisp ether speed of the ring laser on the equator is totally due to Earth's rotation. speed of the r.l/c is about 1 per million or maybe much more. I forgot what the speed of the solar system (divide by c) is wrt the CRB, but it must be much more, I think.

[Nereid]

outandbeyond2004: I forgot what the speed of the solar system (divide by c) is wrt the CRB ...Well, the speed is approx 385 km/sec (http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March02/Plionis/Plionis1_2.html), so the ratio you're looking for is >1:1,000.

[wisp]

2) ring lasers are the heart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope) of many modern gyroscopes, including those in commercial airliners. To underline outandbeyond2004's point, if there were any anisotropies, or other deviations of the kind that wisp and Eyesaw have described, it would seem remarkable that they'd cancel out perfectly in devices like ring lasers. But maybe that's exactly what wisp et al expect?

The principle on which the ring laser gyroscope works is due to an effect that SR cannot explain clearly.

The Sagnac Effect
An article that explains this clearly, but from relativity's viewpoint is given at http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm.
The first few paragraphs explain the Sagnac effect (you can ignore the section showing loop and area calculations). The argument in support of relativity's explanation is summed up on the basis that the device centres around one particular system of inertial coordinates (centre of circle), and all other inertial coordinate systems are related to it by Lorentz transformations.

But the flaw in this argument is simply this: What happens to the measuring clock when the radius of the circle becomes very large and the clock's velocity small - a limit process?
The Sagnac effect still applies and the clock's motion becomes more linear. In this limit process it is not unreasonable to treat the moving clock as an inertial reference frame in its own right (the Sagnac effect has been tested to great accuracy and so it perfectly reasonable to use a limit process to make the moving clock's frame inertial). Now according to relativity, since this is an inertial frame, light must travel at speed c in both directions. But the Sagnac effect requires that the speed of light must be c+v and c-v respectively, and not c! This limit process shows that relativity contradicts itself, as the real measurements are made in the moving clock frame and not at the centre of the circle. An argument that focuses on one inertial frame that is the centre of the circle is the only way relativity can explain this effect, and so the case for relativity is very weak.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

[wisp]

A ringlaser project that is able to detect the anistropy of the sort theorized by Wisp? http://www.wettzell.ifag.de/LKREISEL/CII/precise.htm

This group says it hopes to achieve resolution of the earth's rotation to a few parts in a billion! That's much more than we need, if the wisp ether speed of the ring laser on the equator is totally due to Earth's rotation. speed of the r.l/c is about 1 per million or maybe much more. I forgot what the speed of the solar system (divide by c) is wrt the CRB, but it must be much more, I think.

I don't believe that this experiment will detect any galactic ether flow, because it will be affected by "jiggle effect" (wisp theory). It will suffer the same fate of the MM experiment carried out on the surface of the earth.

However, it will measure the rotation of the earth with incredible accuracy.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

[Hurkyl]

But the flaw in this argument is simply this: What happens to the measuring clock when the radius of the circle becomes very large and the clock's velocity small - a limit process?

You mean relativity isn't preserved by limits? *gasp* Guess what? Neither is mathematics.

Besides, if v is negligably small, then c - v and c + v are negligably different. :biggrin:

[outandbeyond2004]

Exactly how does this limit process that wisp writes about in post #151 work? It seems as though as the circle gets larger, the angular speed gets slower proportionally, so as to keep the linear velocity the same. If that is correct -- so what? The rotating frame becomes more and more like a inertial frame -- neglecting gravitational effects of course. If you keep the measurement time small enough, the rotating frame is indistinguishable from an inertial frame beyond the limits of instrumental technology, and that's far easier to do that with a huge and s-l-o-w-l-y rotating r.l.

One has to be careful in applying SR to situations where the curvature of spacetime cannot be neglected. The huge ringlaser is simply in reality not a subject for SR anyway.

There may be some worth in wisp theory, the explantion of how gravitational effects may arise from wisps is intriguing. However, I am less enthusiatic than before. I will continue to skim wisp's future posts to see if there is any significant change of some nature, but except for one thing, I do not think I will post any more on wisp theory.

[russ_watters]

Besides, if v is negligably small, then c - v and c + v are negligably different. :biggrin: Cute, isn't it - wisp declares negligible the most important piece of the model in order to disprove the validity of the model.

[Hurkyl]

The problem is that as the ring's radius grows to infinity, so does the amount of time it takes for the light to travel around the ring. An infinite amount of time is plenty of time for those negligable errors to build up. :smile:

Basically, he's neglecting the fact that 0 * &infin; and &infin; - &infin; are indeterminate forms.

[outandbeyond2004]

I propose to derive the Sagnac effect from classical physics for the benefit of readers not familiar with the effect. I want then to incorporate reasonable wisp-theory changes. I hope to go on from there and then to show that we have reasonable grounds to expect that wisp theory does predict time-varying signals that ringlasers can detect, contrary to wisp's dismissal of them (post #151).

If my derivations pass muster (e.g. nobody can show any error or show that an assumption is unreasonable), I am going to unsubscribe this thread. Look for the next post . . . (How's that for salesmanship? <smile> )

[outandbeyond2004]

If wisp ever thought that my last post (#157) was an April Fool joke, no, he fooled himself.

The link that wisp gave in #151 on the Sagnac Effect would be helpful tho not necessary.

A laser can be viewed as a chamber that creates conditions for resonance. There must be a positive integer number, called the mode number, N, of whole cycles (no partial cycles) between the ends of the chamber:

N\lambda = L, _________ EQUATION 1

where L is the "optical length" between the ends of the chamber, and \lambda is the wavelength. That is the resonance condition for lasing.

A ringlaser is two chambers, one for counterclockwise traveling photons, and the other for cw photons. Let's consider in this thread only a circular ringlaser of radius R. Let it be at rest in an inertial frame of reference whose origin is at the center of the circle. On a point of the circle is a device that does several things:

1. shoot out photons of the same mode number in either end equally (often many modes appear in the ringlaser, but we can assume just one mode is excited);
2. combine the ccw signal with the cw signal to form a beat frequency;
3. and measure the beat frequency.

Experimentalists would see the above description as an overly simple and impractical model of the laser, but it should suffice for order-of-magnitude estimates.

Let's modify Equation 1 to get the frequency:

f = N/T, _____________ EQUATION 2

where T is the time for a photon to go around the ring from the device and back to it.

Given T_+ for the trip time of a ccw photon, and T_- for that of a cw photon, we have for the beat frequency f_b:

f_b = N|\frac{1}{T_+} - \frac{1}{T_-}|. ________________ EQUATION 3

Of course if no anisotropy existed in the two chambers, and the ringlaser was still at rest ia inertial rf, the beat would be zero. Suppose the irf moved through wisp space at speed v, it will still not change anything. For every ccw photon going at c + w
we also have, on the other side of the circle, a cw photon going c + w; and likewise for photons going c - w, for any speed w <= v.

However, the situation changes when you rotate the ringlaser at a constant angular speed of \omega wrttirf. Then the photon speeds cannot be matched up that way, canceling out all the w's.

Readers may find it helpful for later posts to derive the Sagnac Effect beat frequency.

[wisp]

Besides, if v is negligably small, then c - v and c + v are negligably different. :biggrin:

No, the radius of the ring increases, but v stays the same. So c - v and c + v are not negligibly different.
And if the radius were very large, why should errors come into this argument!

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

[wisp]

However, the situation changes when you rotate the ringlaser at a constant angular speed of \omega wrttirf. Then the photon speeds cannot be matched up that way, canceling out all the w's.

Your reasoning is OK, but if no change occurs due to a galactic ether flow, SR supporters would argue that this was expected - just like in the MM experiment.

But wisp theory also predicts a no change. The argument is similar to that used in the MM experiment and is due to jiggle dilation effect.

So SR and Wisp predict no change due to an ether flow component.

However, if the device were operated away from the earth's surface things would be different. SR would again predict no change, whereas wisp theory would predict change due to the reduced jiggle effect.

See section 7.7 / equation set 7.7 for the affect of jiggle on the MM experiment.
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/wisp_ch_7/wisp_ch_7.html

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

[outandbeyond2004]

Response to wisp's post #159:

I am sorry that other people misread your prior post. However, your infinitely large ringlaser hardly disproves SR. Did you indeed get the point that SR is only of limited validity (the spatio-temporal dimensions of the irf must be small enough that our instruments cannot detect gravitational/acceleration effects)? Your monstrous rl pushes poor SR out of its limits, shivering and shivering. O! Cruel Wisp!

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

I think that the main problem of SR is the clock travelling together with light.
Any object cannot travel in c except of light. Including the clock.

[outandbeyond2004]

Just to make sure, Wisp: you think that your theory predicts that the motion of the rl through wisp space will not produce any beat whatsoever? No matter how fast it may be rotating and how it is oriented to the motion? If yes, I am surprised that jiggle would cancel things out or balance out so neatly. Oh well, we'll see. . .

You realize, of course, that if you just say that jiggle does this or that so that a null effect ALWAYS occurs, it is just too convenient an ad hoc hypothesis. Your only possible justification for this wondrous pheonomenon is experimental verification. I doubt you can get people to spend scarce time and money on ad hoc experiments to find jiggle without some substantial theoretical foundation.

One correction: I will ignore SR corrections to my calculations. Keep in mind that I specified "optical length." That is not necessarily the same as the circumference of the at-rest, nonrotating rl. That is about all the concession to SR that I have made and that I think I will make. Perhaps after I have presented my theory including the effects of jiggle as I understand it, we can discuss the effects of SR corrections.

[Hurkyl]

No, the radius of the ring increases, but v stays the same.

The argument to which I responded said that v was small. :smile:


Anyways, how did you manage to conclude that if R is large enough so that the observer is in an essentially inertial frame, then the speed of light around the ring was c+v or c-v?

[outandbeyond2004]

Here a ringlaser rotating at angular speed w is moving through the ether at velocity v. Jiggle and wisp space will be considered in later posts but not here.

Source independence is assumed, i.e. EM signals travel through empty ether at c. At the outset of calculating the modified SE beat frequency, let's try to get a clear picture of what is going on. In ether space, each ringlaser photon travels in ether space what we might call pseudo cycloids, but the photon generator/beater travels a true cycloid. It is worth noting that no ringlaser photon travels the same path in ether space as any other; in that sense we do have one-way travel (if this is not acceptable to MM et al. -- why not?).

The following point is not one I am sure ought to be made, but I will make it nevertheless. The photons that beat together in the beater are not photons that start out together, at the same time. Instead of my drawing a diagram, why don't you draw it following these instructions: Draw the following on a piece of paper:
A circle about the size of your fist on a piece of paper.
About the center of the circle, draw a curved arrow going ccw and label it w for angular speed.
A vertical arrow starting near the right side of the circle and label it v for the ring's velocity wrt the ether.
On the circle make a tick somewhere between zero and pi/2 from the direction of v (which we can take to be the x axis also). Label the tick thetab, for the point on the circle where a ccw photon and a cw photon meet in the beater to create the beat frequency.

Now, the ccw photon had to have started earlier than the cw photon, so you have to draw their respective ticks on the circle as follows:
For the cw photon, simply go a little cw from the first tick and between that and zero angle, draw a tick. Label that theta-.
Again go a little cw and so on except label *that* theta+.

The ccw photon leaves theta+, goes through theta- and then thetab and on all around the circle, ending at thetab. The cw photon goes the other way and on *almost* all around the circle, ending at thetab.

I want to do the math in the ether frame of reference, and am finding it tough going. I never got really good at problems like that. It might be several days before I decide it is good enough to present. Or maybe I will decide on another approach.

[wisp]

outandbeyond2004

No, it is not acceptable. The ring laser device that controls the motion of the photons is moving through the ether at speed v.
To mimic the pseudo cycloid motion from the ether frame, a device would have to be made that could accelerate and decelerate the photons, which would make the photons feel forces that were variable.
In the moving frame the forces are of constant acceleration only.
Also in ether frames force devices operate differently, as force dilates as the speed v increases (but, Lorentz symmetry stays the same).
With SR you can swap frames about, but you cannot do this with ether frames.

To start of with a simple model, why not make a square sided laser device, which rotates by pi/2. The sides can be the x-y-axes, and later the model can be made circular.

wisp

"particles of nothingness"

[outandbeyond2004]

wisp, I do not understand your post, but I did imply that I will not consider wisp theory for now. Later I will consider it. Then I probably will need considerable amounts of discussion. Got the time for that?

I think I am getting the hang of the problem, anyway. In truth, I caught a blooper. The motion of the beater is pseudo cycloid, not true, because its rotation does not necessarily have the proper relationship to the velocity.

[outandbeyond2004]

My calculations made it obvious to me that the theory of linear addition of speeds plus the postulate of constant speed of light in the ether predicts a modification of the Sagnac Effect:

Multiply it by a factor like

sqrt ( 1 - (gamma*cos(theta))^2 ) - gamma sin(theta),

where theta is the angular position of the beater measured at the center of the ringlaser from the velocity direction and gamma = v/c, v being the speed of the ringlaser wrt the ether.

I am confident that if some ringlasers can resolve the modified Sagnac Effect to better than the order of gamma (v/c), they would disprove SR, provided gamma is known.

My calculations did not reach the point where the Sagnac Effect is modified, but surely time varying signals in it are obviously demonstratable. The calculations are now presented (skip to --------------- if you want) and some discussion follows.

The position P(vector) of a photon at time t starting from theta0 at t = 0 in the ether frame, given

R = radius of the ring
v = speed of the ring wrt the ether, in the x direction
theta = angular position, = theta0 at t = 0, measured at the center of the ring from the x direction:

P = (vt + R cos(theta) , R sin(theta))

Take the derivative wrt t:

dP/dt (vector) = (v - Rsin(theta)*dtheta/dt, Rcos(theta)*dtheta/dt)

Because the photon is supposed to move at the speed of light in the ether frame,

c^2 = |dP(vector)/dt| (square of the magnitude) =
v^2 + (R*dtheta/dt)^2 -2vRsin(theta)*dtheta/dt

Let w = angular speed = dtheta/dt, and solve for it:

w = (c/R)(+/-sqrt(1-(gamma*cos(theta))^2) -gamma*sin(theta))

The ccw photon requires the plus sign in the above equation; the cw photon the minus sign.
-------------------------

Note that the formula given above does not apply to a ringlaser attached to the surface of Earth, if gamma = Earth rotation speed/c, because the ringlaser does not go in a line, rather it revolves in a circle. I don't see, however, that the qualitative picture is any different.

The factor after c/R in the above equation does approximate 1 - gamma*sin(theta) for gamma << 1, but if you take gamma = 0.9 it is obviously asymmetric as a plot shows. Not that we would ever have ringlasers hurtling through ether at speeds like that, but it was interesting at least to me.

Remember the ringlaser that claimed to be able to resolve Earth's rotation to a few parts in a billion? I do not know the particulars of its design, so I cannot really say 100% positively that its operators ought to see ether anistropy effects generated by Earth's motion and rotation like predicted above, but I would be amazed if it were not so. If my calculations and conclusion are correct, I believe we would have seen reports of anisotropy in ringlaser experiments by now if gamma ~ 1/1000 as per Nereid. MM et al would have been happy. Happy now? :smile:

[wisp]

Let w = angular speed = dtheta/dt, and solve for it:

w = (c/R)(+/-sqrt(1-(gamma*cos(theta))) -gamma*sin(theta))

The ccw photon requires the plus sign in the above equation; the cw photon the minus sign.

I got a quadratic, which gives
w=(v*sin(theta)/R)+/-sqrt((v^2*sin^2(theta)-(v^2)+(c^2))/R)

Anyway, with the jiggle factor (slows light in the perpendicular direction to the earth's motion through the ether) the v terms will cancel. It did exactly this with the MM formula, which had v terms.
I will use your formula and add in the wisp bits. It should give a formula for w without any v term.

[outandbeyond2004]

Wisp's quadratic result is correct. However, v^2 -(v^2)sin^2 = (v^2)cos^2. My result is the same.

edit - I did leave out the factor ^2, sorry, while copying from my paper. I edited it into that previous post.

[outandbeyond2004]

Anybody know how to solve this analytically?

\int \frac{d\theta}{\pm \sqrt{1-(\gamma cos\theta)^2} - \gamma sin\theta}

[outandbeyond2004]

The readers who want a neat formula for the modified Sagnac Effect:

There is not any, generally speaking. Numerical approximation looks necessary. This post assumes that you have followed the directions in post #165 http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=177177&postcount=165

A general procedure goes as follows:

Obtain a formula relating initial angle and final angle for the ccw photon to the trip time:

T_+ = T_+(\theta_+, \theta_b)

Likewise for the cw photon:

T_- = T_-(\theta_-, \theta_b)

We also have

\omega_bT_+ = \theta_b - \theta_+

and

\omega_bT_- = \theta_b - \theta_-

where omega_b is the rotation speed of the beater.

Even if we had analytic formulas for the trip times as functions of the initial and final angles, these equations must still be solved simultaneously. This is in general impossible to do so analytically. I fear this is the case for the rotating ringlaser in translational motion. I am not sure whether I will do the numerical work necessary to show a time-varying signal. I can program my computer, but I must learn how to solve these equations simulataneously on it. I don't know how much time that would take.

It might be worth doing if it were original work and would be accepted in a journal like Physics Review.

[wisp]

outandbeyond2004

I can’t see a simple solution either, but I will use your formula to input into mathcad and calculate a set of series equations that will give an approximation answer.
I will do this with and without jiggle.
Jiggle slows light on the earth's surface in the perpendicular direction to ether motion by
\gamma \equiv \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 - v^2/c^2}}

Initial mathcad plots (without jiggle) of w against theta show that it is affected by the ether flow and varies in a sinusoidal pattern.
I haven’t added the jiggle effect yet, and initially said that the results would cancel any ether flow effect. However, there is a small asymmetry to the jiggle cancellation effect due to device rotation, which will result in an extremely small variation in w, which will be dependant on the ether flow, but its value may be too small to detected.

[outandbeyond2004]

Mathcad! O, you lucky fellow. What I was planning to do is simply to calculate the photon trajectories backwards until omega_b*deltatime = deltaangle for both photons. Probably have to do this several times, a few times integrating forwards rather than backwards like above, until you find a good step size that minimizes numerical error. Then run with the optimal step size for all theta_b. I guess the angle that would give the most trouble is when cos(theta) = 1, i.e. theta ~ pi/2. That's where I would look for optimal step size. No, come to think of it, I'd try pi/4, because the cos term is only of second order in gamma.

I cannot believe the jiggle only operates in the peripendicular direction. I think it has something like a sine dependence. Let v be the velocity (vector) of the rl and n be an unit vector in the peripendicular direction to c travel. then

\gamma_{jiggle} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(v\cdot n)^2}}

Possibly wrong formula, but you get the idea.

[outandbeyond2004]

I looked at the case of a circular ringlaser attached to the spinning earth, ignoring Earth's revolution about the Sun.

Let

v_L =
velocity of photon measured in ether space;
v_E =
velocity of ringlaser center wrt inertial frame centered on Earth's center of mass or in ether space; both velocities are fractions of the inertial speed of light in vacuo.

For the case of a ringlaser on the equator, with its plane parallel to the equatorial plane, let

\theta_L =
angle of photon position measured wrt x axis of the inertial frame of Earth used above at the center of the rl;
\theta_E =
angle of rl position measured wrt x axis of the same irf at the Earth center of mass;

So,

v_L^2 + 2v_E cos(\theta_E + \theta_L)v_L - c^2 + v_E^2 = 0

Surprisingly simple. I am not sure what the cos term would lead to in the beat frequency.

[outandbeyond2004]

If we take the beat frequency from a ringlaser like in the last post and that of a same rl but twice as big, that would be more than three x the fun <wild and insane laughter>.

[outandbeyond2004]

The beat frequency from a combination of Earth revolution (orbit about Sun) and Earth rotation is certainly going to be much more complex. I will just await wisp's numerical results for this (Earth rotation only) case before considering the revolution + rotation case, if that's OK.

edit - the position of the beater of the equatorial ringlaser is fixed wrt the Earth, so the rotational modification to the Sagnac effect is constant. To measure that, one needs to know the other contributions to the overall effect, such as that of Earth's revolution about the sun. So, it would be better to look at that instead. But, why not consider the Sun's "orbit" about the Milky Way center? Even better, the Milky Way galaxy's orbit about the barycenter of the local group of galaxies . . . the motion wrt the CRB?

In the next post, I will just consider a simple case to see if it's all right to calculcate each effect separately and add 'em up afterwards (principle of superposition).

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

I've done some calculations using mathcad and thought on how jiggle affects light in the ring laser. Two things happen:

1. Light is slowed by jiggle in the perpendicular direction and this slows light in all directions by the same amount because, light cannot change its path (unlike its affect on the MM experiment where it can change its path). The result is that all light slows in the ring laser by a factor of jiggle.
2. We must apply the "rules for time dilation compensation" (wisp theory 7.15.4). An observer moving with the ring laser records the speed of light in the ring laser as being increased by gamma (gamma has the same value as jiggle). The result is that the speed of light will be measured as being unaffected by jiggle.


(We ignoring the refractive index for glass and will consider the motion of the earth through the cosmic ether - not its orbit around the sun).
If we assume that the ring laser moves thought the ether at 340km/s in the direction suggested in your message #165. Then the speed of light will slow by 1 part in 1038422 according to your classical ether calculations. And because jiggle and time dilation cancel out, I see no reason to doubt that this does happen.
If the ring laser is perpendicular to the ether flow then the speed of light will remain fixed at c.
If the tilt of the earth causes the a component of the perpendicular ether flow to move in the x-axis direction by [sin (35.5) = 0.4] then the variation in light speed is 0.4*(1 part in 1038422) or 1 part in 4153689.

The question that I feel needs answering is:
How does the speed of the earth through the ether combined with the earth's tilt affect the beat frequency?
I believe that a very sensitive laser ring device will detect a small sidereal variation in beat frequency.

I will do some calculations using your formula.

[outandbeyond2004]

Whoa, wisp! (1)Either you are getting something wrong, or I am. I don't see how you get the 1 in 1038422 thing. I would have thought it was more like 340e3/c ~ 1.1/1000. See, expand in powers of v/c and sort of use the principle of superposition for the first power. I suspect you assumed that the rl does not rotate to produce the Sagnac effect. You merely assumed zero rotation, did you? If so, well it would indeed be something for the rl to produce a difference in trip time of even that relative size, all right. However zero or very small rotation is simply not practical for at least one technical reason that I won't go into here. You must let the rl rotate with the earth. Not at the equator, either. See (2) please.

(2) To be practical, you have to consider ringlasers lying flat on the ground of the spinning AND moving earth. I have been struggling to get results, and I am getting there. I was never good with multiple reference frames, especially this: One is moving wrt another, which is moving wrt yet another. Right now I am going over the calculations several times to be sure I have everything straight. I can't say when I feel confident enough to post the results here. Maybe Monday evening, if not sooner. Would you wait until then?

[outandbeyond2004]

This is the first part of a three-part post.

A spherical planet of radius R_p (p for planet) hurtles through ether space with velocity \vec v_e (e for ether -- not Ethel!), which is treated as constant for sufficiently brief intervals of time. The planet's angular velocity wrt ether space is \vec\omega_e, also treated as constant. Attached flat to the planet's surface is a circular ringlaser of radius R_L (L for laser). The ringlaser's center is represented by location \vec P_p. The location of a photon in the rl is represented by \vec P_L.

[outandbeyond2004]

Second part of a three-part post

Wrt a particular rf attached to the rl,

\vec P_L = R_L(cos\phi, sin\phi, 0)

where \phi = \phi_0 at time t = 0.

If we orient a reference frame attached to the planet (rfP) so that its z axis runs through \vec\omega_e and the angle from \vec\omega_e to \vec P_p is \theta_p, then wrt rfP

\vec P_L = R_L(cos\theta_p cos\phi, sin\phi, -sin\theta_p cos\phi) + \vec P_p

Let us orient a reference frame attached to ether space (rfE) so that its x axis runs through \vec v_e and its y axis points in the direction of \vec \omega_e \times \vec v_e . Let the angle from the z axis to the angular velocity be \theta_e . Then wrt rfE,

\vec P_L = R_L( (cos\theta_e cos\theta_p - sin\theta_e sin\theta_p)cos\phi,
sin\phi,
-(sin\theta_e cos\theta_p + cos\theta_e sin\theta_p)cos\phi )
+ \vec P_p + \vec P_e


where \vec P_e is the position of the planet's center wrt rfE.

[outandbeyond2004]

Third part of a three-part post

Let

v_L = \mbox{velocity of photon in rl}

\phi = \frac{v_L}{R_L}t + \phi_0
where \phi_0 = constant

\vec Y = ((-cos\theta_e cos\theta_p + sin\theta_esin\theta_p)sin\phi ,
cos\phi,
(sin\theta_e cos\theta_p + cos\theta_e sin\theta_p)sin\phi )

\phi_p = \omega_e t + \phi_{p0}
where \phi_{p0} = constant

\vec P_p = R_p(cos\theta_e cos\phi_p ,
sin\phi_p ,
-sin\theta_e cos\phi_p )

\vec \omega_e = \omega_e (sin\theta_e,0,cos\theta_e ); \omega_e = |\vec \omega_e |

\vec v_e = v_e(1,0,0); v_e = |\vec v_e|

Now we can write

v_L^2 + Av_L - B = 0

where we take all velocities to be in units of c ( = 1; e.g. if you have a velocity in m/s, divide by c = 299 etc m/s) and

A = 2\vec Y \cdot ((\vec \omega_e \times \vec P_p) + \vec v_e ),

B = 1 - v_e^2 - 2(\vec \omega_e \times \vec P_p)\cdot \vec v_e

Note that B is an approximation, a constant term was omitted as being small compared to 1.

This is such a complex formula that computer simulation is necessary to comprehend fully what happens in the beat frequency. I still hope to see a nicely complex time-varying signal in it of the order of v_e.

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

Your right, my calculation on the variation on light speed around the ring laser didn't take rotation into account. I was interested in seeing how light speed varied before taking things further.
The ether flow will alter the speed of light moving in the ring laser, but the effect will be too small to be detected by measuring changes in the time interval.
A variation in light speed of 1 part in 4153689 will result in a time variation of 10^-24 second or less – too small to be detected.

Taking rotation into account, you end up with the standard sagnac equation for time delay in the ring laser. And even though the ether does affect the speed of light slightly, the affect of the rotation dominates the final time delay by many orders of magnitude. I don’t think the results will show up any differences that can be experimentally checked. :frown:

[outandbeyond2004]

Wisp, you seem to have forgotten this group thinks it can resolve the sagnac effect of Earth's rotation to 1 part in a billion:
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=173214&postcount=149

I don't pretend to know what "resolution" in this case means exactly, but I hope it means that the group can detect time-varying signals in the beat frequency even though they may be several orders of magntitude smaller than the main effect. What I would like to do is to calculcate what the time varying signals should be if Galilean R is correct blah blah, then write the group to ask, can you detect such signals?

I suspect you, wisp, are correct. They probably would say, no, they cannot. But I think the possibility is there. It is somewhat like a mom managing to hear her child in a noisy room full of dozens of squalling tots.

[outandbeyond2004]

Given the following equation:

d\phi/dt = 1/R + f(\phi, t)

and

f << 1/ R

how would one obtain the "corrections" to the solution of the following equation that the f term gives rise to?

d\phi/dt = 1/ R
?

[outandbeyond2004]

This talks about detecting the motion of the solar system relative to the CRB! (Scroll to the last paragraph):
http://www.phys.canterbury.ac.nz/research/ring_laser/ring_open.html

It also talks about special relativity tests. If Gal R were right and SR incorrect, would we know about them?

In the ringlaser, Gal R and SR agree to zero order. However, in the second order (v/c)^2, they disagree. Gal R does not demand that a factor be included to account for the slow rate of the beat detector's proper time compared to the time in an inertial frame whose center is momentarily at rest at the center of the ringlaser's center.

I will continue to work on my theory. Unfortunately, my three-part posts contain errors, which I will not (as of now) bother to edit.

Let the ringlaser be at the North Pole of Earth, and let there be no motion relative to ether space otherwise. Then

2\pi = (\frac{c}{R} - \omega_e)T_+

2\pi = (\frac{c}{R} + \omega_e)T_-

Rearrangement leads to this equation:

T_+ - T_- = 4\pi \frac{R}{c}\frac{\omega_e\frac{R}{c}}{1-(\omega_e\frac{R}{c})^2}

[Nereid]

That is a very cool set of experiments outandbeyond2004! :cool:

I particularly like the idea of a 'new' instrument/technique - ring lasers - being used to test GR (and be of use in other areas of physics and geophysics too).

The webpage has a 1997 date on it; do you know if they have published much of their results yet?

[outandbeyond2004]

By honey, I didn't know it was that old! I sort of assumed that it was much more recent than that. I looked up the list of collaborators, and guess what, Okla State University Hans R. Bilger is my thesis prof! I will write him as soon as I get his address. i am sorry to say that we have been out of touch for decades.

Incidentally, if anyone wants a copy of my PhD thesis, The Generalized Sagnac Effect in the PPN [Parameterized Post Newtonian] Formalism, just pm me. Gravitational effects on the ringlaser, published 1976.

Thank you, Nereid, for your kind remarks.

[wisp]

Outandbeyond2004

All the work I have done on mathcad relates to a circular ring laser on the earth's surface, in which light is forced into a circular path. Because of this, the effects of jiggle and time dilation cancel each other out, and I believe that the change in the result cause by ether flow is too small to be detected.
Your last link show four mirrors arranged in a square, and so the path light takes is dependent on the velocity of the ether flow. In this case the jiggle and time dilation effects should not fully cancel out.
I will rework my mathcad equations and see if it produces a change that can be detected experimentally.
With SR there is no difference between a square and circular paths. But things should be different for ether theories. And I believe there is a difference in results between circular and square laser devices.
:smile:

[outandbeyond2004]

Not only do we have to apply a time dilation factor for the velocity of the beat detector relative to the central irf, we have to apply another for the centrifugal force + gravitational force on the detector (General Relativity "gravitational redshift") as well.

People using mathematics more sophisticated than that in my PhD thesis have come up with General Relativity formulas for the Sagnac Effect, which are claimed to be experimentally verified. Since I already have shown ether theory yields a formula different from GenR, . . .

[meemoe_uk]

Hi there guys, sorry I took so long getting here. Acording to meemoe_uk's time theory, the clocks will behave in accordance with SR even if the trip is one way. Glad I could clear up any uncertaintys you had about it.

[Ray Tomes]

Because you must first synchronise the two clocks and then move them apart. This process of motion causes a discrepancy which means that you are always measuring half of the two way effect.

[outandbeyond2004]

Ray Tomes, is that a summary of what meemoe's theory really is? If it always makes the same predictions that SR does, why should we be interested in it?

[meemoe_uk]

No it isn`t. People should be interested in my theory because it's a quantum theory of relativity aimed at the layman.

[outandbeyond2004]

mee_moe, I am mildly curious, but I am skeptical because you say it is aimed at the layman! Not ducking the real pros, are we? Theory Development is a free for all anyway, so feel free to expound on your theory here or just start a new thread. And, wisp & you ought to get together sometime, you are fellow theorizing countrymateys.

[outandbeyond2004]

Readers know already that a irf theoretically consist of a rigid lattice of clocks, one at each point of the rf. The problem is, what procedure should the experimentalist follow to ensure that all these clocks are synchronized, especially in the light (pun not intended) of Einstein's conclusion in SR that there is no such thing as universal time? The following paper disucsses this problem and gives two conditions.
http://faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/Synch.pdf
As far as I can tell, the paper is sound. Still, I would appreciate your reading it for errors.

If an experiment that should be affected by the anisotropy of light propagation is analyzed in SR with irfs set up as prescribed in the paper and yet shows no evidence of anisotropy beyond experimental uncertainity, I would consider it evidence that Martin Miller is wrong, even if we should be yet unable to meet his demand for direct one-way speed of light measurements.

[Eyesaw]

Readers know already that a irf theoretically consist of a rigid lattice of clocks, one at each point of the rf. The problem is, what procedure should the experimentalist follow to ensure that all these clocks are synchronized, especially in the light (pun not intended) of Einstein's conclusion in SR that there is no such thing as universal time? The following paper disucsses this problem and gives two conditions.
http://faculty.luther.edu/~macdonal/Synch.pdf
As far as I can tell, the paper is sound. Still, I would appreciate your reading it for errors.

If an experiment that should be affected by the anisotropy of light propagation is analyzed in SR with irfs set up as prescribed in the paper and yet shows no evidence of anisotropy beyond experimental uncertainity, I would consider it evidence that Martin Miller is wrong, even if we should be yet unable to meet his demand for direct one-way speed of light measurements.


He made some errors in his referencing to the equations and I can't figure out what he's trying to say in the last paragraph. I like his way of synchronizing the two clocks using one way light flashes- the process is basically a way to ensure the two clocks are at rest with respect to one another. If light is source independent though, and propagates at c relative to the vacuum, I don't see how it's possible for him to synchronize the clocks using equation 1 or 3 if the two clock-system were moving relative to the vacuum in which light propagates at a constant c. tp-to will never equal to tp'-to' since light will have travelled a longer path from one clock to the other in one direction than the trip back. Einstein called this effect "the relativity of simultaneity"- this is actually anisotropy inside an inertial frame (moving relative to the vacuum) due to light being source independent.

[Martin Miller]

[outandbeyond2004 noted:]
If an experiment that should be affected by the anisotropy of
light propagation is analyzed in SR with irfs set up as prescribed
in the paper and yet shows no evidence of anisotropy beyond
experimental uncertainity, I would consider it evidence that
Martin Miller is wrong, even if we should be yet unable to meet
his demand for direct one-way speed of light measurements.

[Martin Miller replies:]
The cited work actually pertains experimentally only to light's
round-trip speed, which, as we all know, is invariant & isotropic.

Here is what the author himself stated:
Conversely, the results of these experiments provide strong
motivation for our definition of "synchronized" clocks: if
the twoway speed of light has always the same value, what
could be more natural than to _define_ "synchronized" clocks
so that the one-way speed has always this value?
[from page 4 of the cited paper][my quotes][my underscore]

Not only has no experiment shown one-way isotropy/invariance, but
it is easy to show that experiment proves just the opposite, as
in the case of the following extremely simple experiment:

Inertial observers Oa and Ob meet in passing as a single
light ray approaches them.

-----Oa
------------------------------------<~~~~~light ray
-----Ob

----------Oa
-----------<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ob

For simplicity, we let each observer be at his frame's origin.
Given this, anything at any point common to both frames' X axis as
the observers meet in passing will be the same distance from both
observers in terms of each observer's own ruler. In other words, as
the observers meet in passing, the tip of the approaching light ray
must be the same frame distance X from both observers per their own
on-board rulers. (Xa = Xb = X)

However, since nothing, including the leading edge of a light ray,
can be in two places at once, it is clear that the ray arrives at
the observers at absolutely different times. We can (qualitatively)
label these times Ta and Tb.

Here are the experimental results:

Light's one-way speed per Oa = X/Ta

Light's one-way speed per Ob = X/Tb

This very simple experiment shows that light's one-way speed varies
directly with frame velocity, contrary to Einstein's claim of one-way
invariance, which of course was the basis of SR.

[russ_watters]

This very simple experiment shows that light's one-way speed varies
directly with frame velocity, contrary to Einstein's claim of one-way
invariance, which of course was the basis of SR. Certainly, if you don't conform to the theory, it is simple to prove it doesn't work. Try the math again using the framework of relativity and see if the results make any sense. Even better, get some experimental evidence and see that the math you did wouldn't fit the data collected in a real experiment.

[Martin Miller]

[russ_watters noted:]
Certainly, if you don't conform to the theory, it is simple
to prove it doesn't work. Try the math again using the
framework of relativity and see if the results make any sense.
Even better, get some experimental evidence and see that the
math you did wouldn't fit the data collected in a real experiment

[MM replies:]
Hmmm...
Uhhhh....
Ehhhh...
Duhhhh...
Well, yes, if you use clocks which have been forced by
Einstein's definition to obtain one-way invariance, then,
by George, I agree that you will certainly obtain one-way
invariance, but, as my simple experiment showed, one does
not even need clocks to simply qualitatively compare light's
one-way speed in different frames.

For those who may be lost, my above paragraph is making fun of
watters' absurd demand that I "conform to the theory" in order
to have a valid disproof of it.

And as for his claim that my experiment is not a "real" one,
which part of it does he think is not real?

[russ_watters]

Well, yes, if you use clocks which have been forced by
Einstein's definition to obtain one-way invariance, then,
by George, I agree that you will certainly obtain one-way
invariance, but, as my simple experiment showed, one does
not even need clocks to simply qualitatively compare light's
one-way speed in different frames.

Einstein's relativity does not even enter into the design project of an atomic clock.

My point was that you used Newtonian physics in your calculation to disprove Relativity. You can't use a theory to counter another theory, you need to use data collected in an experiment to see if they match the calculations.
And as for his claim that my experiment is not a "real" one,
which part of it does he think is not real? If it is a real experiment, please post the data you have collected.

And my point on that was that if you actually did this experiment, you would find that the data you collect would match Relativity, not Newtonian physics.

[russ_watters]

To be more specific, this statement is the issue For simplicity, we let each observer be at his frame's origin.
Given this, anything at any point common to both frames' X axis as
the observers meet in passing will be the same distance from both
observers in terms of each observer's own ruler. In other words, as
the observers meet in passing, the tip of the approaching light ray
must be the same frame distance X from both observers per their own
on-board rulers. (Xa = Xb = X). This is true in Newtonian physics but not true in Relativity. Which is correct? Do the experiment and find out.

[WWW]

If we use two groups of clocks (not just two clocks) for the clocks experiment and compare between the average results of each group, can we get better results?

[russ_watters]

If we use two groups of clocks (not just two clocks) for the clocks experiment and compare between the average results of each group, can we get better results? Meaning two clocks sitting next to each other in each frame? Unnecessary: for the purpose of the thought experiment, a clock is assumed to have absolute precision and accuracy. For a real experiment, the experiment will be set up so that the clock has at least the required precision and accuracy for showing the phenomenon intended to be measured.

[Martin Miller]

[russ_watters wrote:]
(Re the simple fact that even in SR anything that is at a
single point is certainly equidistant from any coincident
frame origins:)
This is true in Newtonian physics but not true in Relativity.
Which is correct? Do the experiment and find out.

[MM replies:]
Well, it's a darn good thing that you posted your specific
complaint, because my experiment was flawless, which means
that I would not have been able to pinpoint your area of
contention sans your help.

Since you have made the incredible counterclaim that it is
not true in SR, we would all love to see your proof of same,
but you can't produce proof because you are wrong; however,
just out of curiosity, what is your version of SR's version
of the two distances?

Re your request that I do the experiment and find out, this
shows that you haven't a firm grasp of SR because you are
blissfully unaware of that fact that SR's relativity of
simultaneity was based on the same experiment.

Specifically, it was based on Einstein's famous thought
experiment (which everyone who believes in SR accepts as
being as good as an actual experiment) involving the
observers on the embankment and the train.
[See Chap. IX of Einstein's _Relativity_]
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html

Even more specifically, we note that Einstein's two observers
in this experiment _both_ considered themselves to be _midway_
between the two events. Thus, they also considered themselves
to be equidistant from either event. Therefore, each observer
used the _same_ value X as the frame distance (in his own frame)
from either event when the events occurred.

So even Einstein agrees with me that when two observers meet in
passing as a light ray approaches that the tip of the ray is at
the same frame distance X from both observers.

Any more complaints?

[Doc Al]

For simplicity, we let each observer be at his frame's origin.
Given this, anything at any point common to both frames' X axis as
the observers meet in passing will be the same distance from both
observers in terms of each observer's own ruler. In other words, as
the observers meet in passing, the tip of the approaching light ray
must be the same frame distance X from both observers per their own
on-board rulers. (Xa = Xb = X)

Imagine that each observer's frame has a huge ruler extending along the x axis. You seem to be assuming that just because the two observers agree that the origins of their respective frames (x = x' = 0) are at the same place at the same time, that that somehow implies that they would agree that all points on their rulers (for example, ruler markings x = 10 meters) are simultaneosly coincident. Not true at all!

[russ_watters]

So even Einstein agrees with me.... Einstein's experiment and yours are different. Since you have made the incredible counterclaim that it is
not true in SR, we would all love to see your proof of same,
but you can't produce proof because you are wrong; however,
just out of curiosity, what is your version of SR's version
of the two distances? Since its your experiment and your claim, why don't you do the derivation instead of just asserting it over and over again?

Or are you suggesting that SR and Newtonian physics are mathematically equivalent?

[DrChinese]

So even Einstein agrees with me that when two observers meet in passing as a light ray approaches that the tip of the ray is at
the same frame distance X from both observers.

From your cited reference of Einstein:

"Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time; unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no meaning in a statement of the time of an event."

Seems pretty simple. Einstein says that simultaneity is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, observers in different reference frames may see simultaneity or they may not. Perhaps you can construct examples in which they do. Fine. That wouldn't change Einstein's conclusion one iota, nor would it invalidate anything about SR. Clearly, he says that you need to know information about the observer's reference frame to determine the times of 2 events. And just as clearly, there are reference frames in which the timing of the lightning strikes will change in order. SR accounts for this, and classical notions do not.

[Martin Miller]

[russ_watters claimed:]
Einstein's experiment and yours are different.

[MM replies:]
How do they differ?

[russ_watters asked:]
Since its your experiment and your claim, why don't you
do the derivation instead of just asserting it over and
over again?

[MM replies:]
Because you keep raising your silly, irrelevant objection
over and over.

But I can easily close this simple case, as follows:

Let Observer A be at the origin of Frame A.
Let Observer B be at the origin of Frame B.
Let these two frames' x axes be parallel.
When these two frames' origins meet in passing,
let an explosive event occur at some point along
these frames' positive x axes. In the context of
SR, this explosion will occur at the same frame
point in both frames, which means that Xa = Xb,
which means that we can simply call this point X
for both frames. Indeed, since this explosive event
left its mark in each frame, the observers in each
frame can easily check where the event occurred after
the fact by looking for the burn marks left behind,
and these marks will be at the same x location in
each frame.

Case closed.

[DrChinese]

But I can easily close this simple case, as follows:

Let Observer A be at the origin of Frame A.
Let Observer B be at the origin of Frame B.
Let these two frames' x axes be parallel.
When these two frames' origins meet in passing,
let an explosive event occur at some point along
these frames' positive x axes. In the context of
SR, this explosion will occur at the same frame
point in both frames, which means that Xa = Xb,
which means that we can simply call this point X
for both frames. Indeed, since this explosive event
left its mark in each frame, the observers in each
frame can easily check where the event occurred after
the fact by looking for the burn marks left behind,
and these marks will be at the same x location in
each frame.

Case closed.

Not so fast.

Same example, add a couple of observers: C in A's frame at -X, D in B's frame at +X. Now C sees the explosion at a different time than A & B, as well as D. This is because the times in each reference frame are different. Besides, even in your example A & B witness the X explosion occurring at different times because one of them sees the event before the other (since they are in relative motion, they will not be co-located at each others' origin).

This effect is called the relativity of simultaneity, because the only way to get everyone to agree on the timing of events is to have them share information about each other's reference frames. If this were not necessary, then we would have absolute simultaneity - which we don't.

Case closed.

[Martin Miller]

[DrChinese noted:]
Not so fast.
Same example, add a couple of observers: C in A's frame at -X,
D in B's frame at +X. Now C sees the explosion at a different
time than A & B, as well as D. This is because the times in each
reference frame are different. Besides, even in your example
A & B witness the X explosion occurring at different times because
one of them sees the event before the other (since they are in
relative motion, they will not be co-located at each others' origin).
This effect is called the relativity of simultaneity, because the
only way to get everyone to agree on the timing of events is to have
them share information about each other's reference frames. If this
were not necessary, then we would have absolute simultaneity - which
we don't.
Case closed.

[MM replies:]
Ironically, you just confirmed the temporal portion of my little
experiment, even though no one was quibbling about that.

If you look back at my experiment, you will see that I was
counting on the _times_ being different.

But the _distances_ are the _same_.

Thus, light's speed in each frame was different, contrary to SR.

Case still closed, my way.

[DrChinese]

...Thus, light's speed in each frame was different, contrary to SR.

Case still closed, my way.

Why are you on this board if your purpose is to ignore facts? It has been demonstrated to you amply that in your example, it requires the observers to share information about their reference frames to get the anwer you desire. This would not be necessary in a world of absolute time. You are aware that the speed of light is always measured experimentally to be the same in any reference frame, and yet you make statements like the one above.

I would agree the case is closed, your way... because why would I want to waste my time going around in circles on a subject you don't want to learn about? Please enjoy your ego trip and the chance to make statements "your way". Revel in the thought that you are brilliant, and your line of reasoning is original. And by all means, please note that the physics establishment is blind and trying to keep your Nobel-worthy insights from seeing the light of day.

[geistkiesel]

ahrkron wrote:
"Once you have the two clocks' terminal connected to the same source,
you just send the signal. Each will receive half the current, but
they will start prompted by the same pulse."

There are only two problems with this, namely, you have yet to
prove that the pulses travel at equal speeds wrt the clocks, and
you have yet to provide a means of verifying absolute synchronicity.

And, as I said, but as you seemingly ignored, _if_ you had actually
discovered a means of absolutely synchronizing clocks, then you
would be the first.
[Ref: for some others who have tried, see the following:
"Conventionality in Distant Simultaneity," wherein three
proposals for absolute synch are shot down.
Peter Ohrstrom, Found. Phys. 10, 333 (1978).]


Pardon this abrupt intrusion, but when reading the thread Iwas compelled to respond with the the following regarding synchronicity and verification of same:

Synchronizing clocks
What about the following synchronizing model: Two identical electronic clocks with any necessary resolution, or measured accuaracy, to what ever is level necessary to satisfy the constraints of the problem, are attached to two moving platforms on a steel track that is laser light engineered flat for 2000 km in each direction. The platforms begin to move in opposite directions from each other where the velocities are held constant by identical control pulses to each clock. The instantaneous location is measured within a wavelength of the light photons being emitted simultaneously in the stationary platform. The relativistic implication of length shortening and clock speed dilation are measurably zero at say 1 cm/second for a full journey time of 200,000 seconds for each clock.

Now sending a '0' signal along the attached wire start the clocks ticking. The output channels containing the measured clocks' readings are sent to the origin at regular intervals and both clocks send identical clocktimes in response to a single instance of two pulses directed at both clocks. That the clocks are running at the same speed is demonstrated by their synchronous output measured at the origin.

If this doesn't satisfy synchronicity and verification of the same, then at some instance a photon is directed at both clocks instantaneously from the origin. These photons arrive simultaneously back at the origin to within a wavelength of light after simply reflecting from mirrors on both clock platforms.We even have some calibrating to do perhaps to set the clocks such that the origin is their mutual midpoint. This procedure establishes the exact location of the clocks with respect to the origin which is guaranteed to be located at the midpoint of the clocks.

The fact of the constant velocity of light in what ever frame measured assures us the test photons are moving at the same velocity and travel the same distance in equal durations of flight time. What else is needed, contant temperature housings, correlations of signal during any direction the 4000 km track is pointing, atmospheric conditions minimized, what? :smile:

[geistkiesel]

Yes, there are a lot of them, aren't there? Which ones have you performed? It's not a question of 'bias', it's a question of results. You're the one proposing that SR is invalid (in some way), I'm challenging you to tell us which of the dozens of experiments which are consistent with SR are, in fact, not. That's precisely what I'm asking* you to do, show us the flaws in the experiments. Experimental or observational results which show this, please!

*For the avoidance of doubt (and at the risk of being painfully repetitious), please look at the experiments on the lists, and for each *you* answer these questions:
1) was a specific prediction from SR made?
2) was that prediction made correctly (e.g. no screw-up in the math)?
3) did the researchers do the experiment/make the observation?
4) were the results consistent with the prediction?

Having done that, please tell us which of the experiments, in your mind, have "NO" as the answer to *any* question.


1) Yes, If an Einstein gedunken experiment described in "Relativity" page 25 - 27 counts as an experiment then I can answer unambiguously Yes to 1). SR through the derived consequences of simultaneity loss predicts such loss for a moving platform that passes the midpoint of two photons emitted simultaneously from A and B with the movng platform located at the midpoint M of A nad B. The moving platform by detecting the light from the B source then the A source is hereby shown to necessitate the discarding of the concept of "simultaneity". The different arrival times lead the observer to conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneously.

2) No the prediciton was not correct.This is not the only possibility the moving observer can intitally make. She could observe that if she were moving the difference in the photons arrival on the moviong platform could result from the motion of the platform. Working backwards we can show the fallacy of this conclusion by clicking here. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)

Basically, the moving platform observer zeros her clock when passing the midpoint and measures t1', the instant the B photon arriives, and t2' the instant the A photon arrives. By making the assumption, to be tested, that she passed the midpoint of two emitted photons at M (where her clocks were zeroed) she ultimatey arrives at an expression t1' = (c-1)/2 = k. Comparing k with the measurd t1' proves simultaneity if t1' = k and one or the other photons was emitted first depending on the difference in t1' and k.

3)It is a gedunken experiment discussed in the literature with some repititon and depth.

4) No, see the link above.

[Martin Miller]

[DrChinese declared:]
You are aware that the speed of light is always measured
experimentally to be the same in any reference frame, and
yet you make statements like the one above.

[MM replies:]
Who's wasting whose time?

[MM continues:]
I say you are unless you can back up your above claim
with a date and names re the alleged experiment which
allegedly measured light's one-way speed between two
clocks.

[MM continues:]
Some Chinese doctors can sure cop an attitude.

[Martin Miller]

[geistkiesel wrote:]
Synchronizing clocks

What about the following synchronizing model: Two identical
electronic clocks with any necessary resolution, or measured
accuaracy, to what ever is level necessary to satisfy the
constraints of the problem, are attached to two moving platforms....

[MM replies:]
Clocks in different frames will almost certainly run at
different rates, and the difference will matter when
measuring light's speed.

Not to mention the fact that we need the synchronous clocks
to be in a single frame so we can use them to measure light's
one-way speed between them.

Did you know that no one has ever used two clocks in one
frame to measure light's speed? Have you ever wondered
why this is so?

[russ_watters]

Did you know that no one has ever used two clocks in one
frame to measure light's speed? Have you ever wondered
why this is so? It would surprise me if it hasn't been done, but if it hasn't, there's a simple reason: its redundant since both clocks say exactly the same thing.

[wisp]

It would surprise me if it hasn't been done, but if it hasn't, there's a simple reason: its redundant since both clocks say exactly the same thing.

Not so, if this test is done by a professional body it will kill off Einstein's SR in one go.
I can't think of anything more embarrassing than to find the fundamental pillar upon which modern physics bases many of its theories, has a dirty great crack in it.
The sooner this experiment is done the better. It is the most important challenge that SR has to face. I hope SR passes, but I think it will prove to be its undoing.

[ahrkron]

Physics experiments are currently taking care of much more delicate business. SR has been tested continuously and detailedly since 1905. Despite the wish of many that would like to "uncover the truth about SR", the theory is extremely well established due to its excellent agreement with experiment.

Currently, experimental physics is geared towards much different problems. SR is not an issue anymore. Current efforts have to do with many other aspects of the models we have for nature (CP violation, quark-hadron duality, high temp superconductors, dark matter, supersymmetry, etc.). The type of discrepancies between theory and experiment are clearly not coming from something as basic as SR. If that was the case, the discrepancies would be all over the place, QFT (which is based on SR) would not work, the Standard Model of particle physics wouldn't be able to predict with an 11-digit accuracy, and nobody would be able to hide it.

[russ_watters]

Not so, if this test is done by a professional body it will kill off Einstein's SR in one go.
I can't think of anything more embarrassing than to find the fundamental pillar upon which modern physics bases many of its theories, has a dirty great crack in it.
The sooner this experiment is done the better. It is the most important challenge that SR has to face. I hope SR passes, but I think it will prove to be its undoing. Why would two identical clocks sitting next to each other in the same frame show different times and what would that say about SR (besides 'we need better clocks to test SR...')?

[Martin Miller]

[Martin Miller wrote:]
Did you know that no one has ever used two clocks in one
frame to measure light's speed? Have you ever wondered
why this is so?

[russ_watters wrote:]
It would surprise me if it hasn't been done, but if it hasn't,
there's a simple reason: its redundant since both clocks say
exactly the same thing.

[MM replies:]
It has not been done, but not because of your reason; the real
reason is the fact that no physicist knows how to correctly
synchronize clocks.

-------------

[ahrkron declared:]
Physics experiments are currently taking care of much more delicate
business. SR has been tested continuously and detailedly since 1905.

[MM replies:]
Shall this urban legend never die?
Which part of SR has been tested?
Who has tested the basis of SR, namely, the light postulate?

No part of SR is testable because all parts of it are based
100% on a definition.

Every result of SR is a result of Einstein's definition of
synchronization, a mere convention given by man, and having
zilch to do with nature or physics.

For example, SR's "time dilation" or "clock slowing" is
merely an effect of Einstein's definition which relates
clocks incorrectly which in turn causes observers to see
a passing clock "run slow."

Here is how this happens, for those who need pictures:

passing clock
[3]-->
[3]------Frame A------[4]


------------------------[4]-->
[4]------Frame A------[5]

Although all three clocks really run at the same rate,
observers using Einstein's asynchronous clocks "see the
passing clock run slow."

SR per se has nothing to do with actual or real or physical
or intrinsic clock slowing because it does not even know how
to measure it. Also, Einsteinian observers in different frames
find different "rhythms" for the _same_ clock, whereas it is
physically impossible for one clock moving inertially to have
more than one intrinsic rhythm, so we know that SR does not
address or pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms.

And it is impossible to overstate the importance of getting
two clocks correctly related because all two-clock measurements
depend upon this, including light's one-way speed.

[russ_watters]

It has not been done, but not because of your reason; the real
reason is the fact that no physicist knows how to correctly
synchronize clocks. Sorry I asked and I should have guessed - your objections are (of course) based on misunderstandings of the theory and definitions of the terms involved. That your thought experiment is wrong is easily demonstrated by flipping on a GPS receiver.

Synchronizing clocks is trivially easy and is done all the time (quite literally).

[Martin Miller]

[russ_watters claimed:]
Synchronizing clocks is trivially easy and is done all the
time (quite literally).

[MM replies:]
So how do the GPS scientists obtain absolute simultaneity
(or absolute synchronization) in violation of Einstein's
relative simultaneity?

(You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the GPS
works not because of synchronous clocks but because of
geometric corrections which can even override the US
military's deliberate data degradation.)

[russ_watters]

[russ_watters claimed:]
Synchronizing clocks is trivially easy and is done all the
time (quite literally).

[MM replies:]
So how do the GPS scientists obtain absolute simultaneity
(or absolute synchronization) in violation of Einstein's
relative simultaneity?

(You do not seem to be aware of the fact that the GPS
works not because of synchronous clocks but because of
geometric corrections which can even override the US
military's deliberate data degradation.) Absolute simultaneity? Who said anything about that? All I said was they synchronize the clocks.

Geometric corrections? You are aware that GPS satellites contain clocks, right? You are aware that the signals sent from the satellites to the recievers are time-coded signals, right? You are aware that the satellite clocks are monitored and corrected by clocks in ground stations, right?

I know you think you're being clever/coy by changing/ignoring definitions and throwing in irrelevant words as if they were important, but it really doesn't help you here: to argue against scientists about a scientific theory, you (whether you like it or not) have to follow their rules. Not following them just makes your arguments look silly.

[ahrkron]

Shall this urban legend never die?
Which part of SR has been tested?
Urban legend? now that is funny.

Pretty much all of SR has been thoroughly tested. this page (http://www.weburbia.demon.co.uk/physics/experiments.html) has a good compilation of references to serious physics articles about experimental tests of SR.

The following is a quote from that page:
Physics, as a natural science, is based on empirical facts. Physical theories cannot be based just on speculation or suspicion. On the other hand it is always reasonable to have doubts concerning established theories. Reading the posts in sci.physics.relativity I have got the impression, that the huge experimental support for this theory is sometimes not well known. The list of experiments below shows that the SRT is really tested very well. Hypotheses which claim, that SRT is just "wrong" have to show that all the experiments mentioned below had errors or that their interpretation is not correct.

There is a lot of redundancy in these experimental tests. There are also a lot of indirect tests of SRT which are not included in the list shown below. This list of experiments is NOT complete! I cannot guarantee, that the literature list has no mistakes. If I get a positive feedback, I am willing to update the list shown below and to correct all possible errors.

For those seriously concerned about this subject there is an essential new reference book: "Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundation" by Yuan Zhong Zhang, World Scientific (1996).


(the color emphasis is mine)


Who has tested the basis of SR, namely, the light postulate?
Look at section VII in that page.

No part of SR is testable because all parts of it are based 100% on a definition.

Every result of SR is a result of Einstein's definition of
synchronization, a mere convention given by man, and having zilch to do with nature or physics.

"100% definition". Can you point out the what definition you are talking about, and how it affects the measurement of speeds, masses, energies and electromagnetic fields? Please take into account that, when doing an experiment to test SR, the readings are not obtained from SR, but from the actual detectors (which, of course, are not "programmed with SR equations").

[wisp]

Pretty much all of SR has been thoroughly tested. this page has a good compilation of references to serious physics articles about experimental tests of SR.

None of these tests compensate for the lack of one-way light speed measurements. The one-way tests that have been done are not accurate enough to prove or disprove SR.
And it is not necessary for all these tests to fail to prove SR false. It only takes one test to fail a theory. Much of the relativistic effects used by SR can be supported by absolute ether theories.
If a one-way test using two clocks shows that the speed of light is not constant because of the motion of the clocks' frame relative to the ether, then relativity is false.

[Martin Miller]

[russ_watters asked:]
Absolute simultaneity? Who said anything about that?
All I said was they synchronize the clocks.

[MM replies:]
You did, "dummy." Absolute synchronization is
synonymous with absolute simultaneity, and one
would assume that your "synchronize the clocks"
means "absolutely synchronize the clocks," or
else, why bother.

This conversation has obviously reached its
limits; you merely assert unsubstantiated stuff
over and over, whilst completely ignoring any
and all challenges such as "How can two clocks
be correctly related?" and "How do the GPS folk
actually absolutely synchronize clocks?"

BTW, I think that if you really dig into the GPS
system, you will soon find that even their clocks
are related per Einstein's definition of clock
synchronization, a definition that merely dictates
one-way light speed invariance/isotropy. (This has
to be true because there is no other definition of
synchronization available, sir.)

[Martin Miller]

[ahrkron wrote:]

Originally Posted by Martin Miller
Who has tested the basis of SR, namely,
the light postulate?

Look at section VII in that page.

[MM replies:]
It is you who needs to look at Section VII because
that section says zilch about light's one-way speed
between two clocks. (All it talks about is the fact
of light's source-independent nature.)

If you are silly enough to still insist that Sect VII
pertains to light's one-way speed per two clocks, then
please let us know how the clocks were synchronized.

Quote:
No part of SR is testable because all parts of it are based
100% on a definition.
Every result of SR is a result of Einstein's definition of
synchronization, a mere convention given by man, and having
zilch to do with nature or physics.

"100% definition". Can you point out the what definition you
are talking about, and how it affects the measurement of speeds,
masses, energies and electromagnetic fields? Please take into
account that, when doing an experiment to test SR, the readings
are not obtained from SR, but from the actual detectors (which,
of course, are not "programmed with SR equations").

[MM replies:]
'Round and 'round we go, where we'll stop, no one knows.

And here you are trying to discuss SR sans a knowledge of
its basis, Einstein's definition of clock synchronization.

And you are wrong about the "detectors" not being programmed
with SR equations -- the only detectors used in SR are clocks,
and every clock has been related to every other clock (in any
given frame) by Einstein's definition, a convention given only
by man, and which dictates one-way invariance/isotropy.

That is how the programming affects the speed of electromagnetic
fields which are moving through space (i.e., light waves).

And here is how this programming affects all other two-clock
**speed** measurements in SR:

[1] Since Einstein's clocks are asynchronous, all two-clock
measurements in SR are incorrect.
[2] Since Einstein's clock are forced by mere definition from
man to obtain c in all frames for light no matter how a frame
may move through space, the two-clock speeds of any other rapidly-
moving entities are distorted downward.

And here is how this programming affects all two-clock
**mass** measurements in SR:

Since the only tools (or instruments) in SR are clocks and
rods, all mass measurements must involve clocks and rods, and
therefore all mass measurements are incorrect due to the
asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks. For example, despite
the simple and obvious fact that a given object moving at
a single velocity cannot have more than one physical mass,
SR observers in different frames find _different_ masses for
one and the same passing object. This proves that SR does not
pertain to intrinsic or actual masses.

And here is how this programming causes **time dilation**
in SR:

passing clock
[3]-->
[3]------Frame A------[4]


------------------------[4]-->
[4]------Frame A------[5]

Although all three clocks really run at the same rate,
observers using Einstein's asynchronous clocks "see the
passing clock run slow."

SR per se has nothing to do with actual or real or physical
or intrinsic clock slowing because it does not even know how
to measure it. Also, Einsteinian observers in different frames
find different "rhythms" for the _same_ clock, whereas it is
physically impossible for one clock moving inertially to have
more than one intrinsic rhythm, so we know that SR does not
address or pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms.

Any more questions from the unknowledgeable?

[ahrkron]

Let me recap:

Martin Miller asked:
Who has tested the basis of SR, namely, the light postulate?
To which I said:
Look at section VII in that page.
Then, his answer is
It is you who needs to look at Section VII because that section says zilch about light's one-way speed between two clocks. (All it talks about is the fact of light's source-independent nature.)

i.e, you accept (in blue) that the site talks about light's source-independent nature. Your not having posted anything on that respect seems to imply that you either have no problem with that part, that you cannot deny the experimental support showed in the articles refered to in that page, or that you concede the point.

Now, you need to make clear for us what is the connection between the light postulate (which is well supported experimentally, as you seemingly accepted), and your idea of "light's one-way speed between two clocks".

You need to do so in a way that does not contradict the experiments reported in that page. And, of course, that does not mean just the little mention on the webpage, but the actual peer-reviewed articles.

I'm not able to do much this weekend, but I'll try to look for the articles later on the week. If I find them, I'll try to post at least the abstracts, so we can make this a real discussion.

[Martin Miller]

[ahrkron wrote:]
Now, you need to make clear for us what is the connection between
the light postulate (which is well supported experimentally, as you
seemingly accepted), and your idea of "light's one-way speed between
two clocks".

You need to do so in a way that does not contradict the experiments
reported in that page. And, of course, that does not mean just the
little mention on the webpage, but the actual peer-reviewed articles.

[MM replies:]
The problem here is the fact that you are confused re Einstein's
light postulate.

The following site contains the following definition:
http://www.physics.cornell.edu/courses/p101-102/p102/16/concepts/

The Speed of Light Postulate
"The speed of light in vacuum, measured in any inertial reference frame,
always has the same value of c, no matter how fast the source of light
and the observer are moving relative to each other."

Did you notice the key word "measured"?

It means "measured by using two clocks."
(We don't need a postulate for light's round-trip, one-clock speed
because it has long been c per direct experiment, but, as I have
said, there has been no corresponding one-way experiment.)

In other words, Einstein's light postulate does not pertain to the
source-independency of light, but to the measured one-way speed of
light per two clocks in any given frame.

Do you see the light now?

[Nereid]

1) Yes, If an Einstein gedunken experiment described in "Relativity" page 25 - 27 counts as an experiment then I can answer unambiguously Yes to 1). SR through the derived consequences of simultaneity loss predicts such loss for a moving platform that passes the midpoint of two photons emitted simultaneously from A and B with the movng platform located at the midpoint M of A nad B. The moving platform by detecting the light from the B source then the A source is hereby shown to necessitate the discarding of the concept of "simultaneity". The different arrival times lead the observer to conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneously.

2) No the prediciton was not correct.This is not the only possibility the moving observer can intitally make. She could observe that if she were moving the difference in the photons arrival on the moviong platform could result from the motion of the platform. Working backwards we can show the fallacy of this conclusion by clicking here. (http://frontiernet.net/~geistkiesel/index_files/)

Basically, the moving platform observer zeros her clock when passing the midpoint and measures t1', the instant the B photon arriives, and t2' the instant the A photon arrives. By making the assumption, to be tested, that she passed the midpoint of two emitted photons at M (where her clocks were zeroed) she ultimatey arrives at an expression t1' = (c-1)/2 = k. Comparing k with the measurd t1' proves simultaneity if t1' = k and one or the other photons was emitted first depending on the difference in t1' and k.

3)It is a gedunken experiment discussed in the literature with some repititon and depth.

4) No, see the link above.Perhaps I should have been more clear; 'experiments' refers to real experiments, not 'gedunken's.

Thought experiments play a useful role in the development of a new idea; they can bring potential inconsistencies into sharp focus (so the folk developing the theories can make refinements, or scrap the theory), and they can suggest experiments which, if carried out, should yield a clear result - either consistency with the theory, or inconsistency.

However, by and in themselves, thought experiments don't tell you anything about the real world; only stuff done in a lab - with equipment - or the field - with detectors etc - can test an idea or theory.

So, can you provide details of an experiment - done in a lab, in the field, or with telescopes (etc) - whose results are inconsistent with SR?

Perhaps an example by contrast would help: "Are there any experiments - done in a lag, in the field, or with telescopes (etc) - whose results are inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity?" The answer is, of course, yes! Dozens and dozens of them, from the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, to the bending of EM by the Sun's mass (and the Shapiro effect) as observed recently with the Cassini spaceprobe, to observations of binary pulsars.

[loseyourname]

It means "measured by using two clocks."
(We don't need a postulate for light's round-trip, one-clock speed
because it has long been c per direct experiment, but, as I have
said, there has been no corresponding one-way experiment.)

In other words, Einstein's light postulate does not pertain to the
source-independency of light, but to the measured one-way speed of
light per two clocks in any given frame.

Do you see the light now?

What you are proposing isn't possible. Even in principle, there is no way to measure the one-way speed of light using only one clock. The constancy of the speed of light is the reason we get the Lorentz coordinate transformations rather than Galilean transformations, which assume absolute time and a variable speed of light. Therefore, any experiment that confirms the Lorentz transformations confirms the absolute nature of the speed of light and hence confirms SR. I'm aware that there exist other explanations given, but SR is the parsimonious theory.

[reilly]

[QUOTE=Martin Miller]Nereid noted:
"Einstein's theories ... have been tested in the
crucible of experiment and observation, and have
passed with flying colours."

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Mr. Nereid," but as
far as Einstein's special relativity goes, your
above is purely an urban legend.

There have been exactly zero tests of SR.
***************
You must be joking.

We must live in alternate universes. SR is tested, for example in every high energy particle experiment-relativistic kinematics, using momentum and enrgy rather than space and time- has yet to be found wanting, and it is as basic as it gets in much of today's physics. The Dirac equation, QED, the Standard Theory all SR based, do pretty well, and all are key to today's physics. Why even radar can help test SR. SR is used in the design of accelerators. The arguments are ultimately "preponderance of evidence arguments", and for SR this means many thousands of experiments.

Also be aware that the various arguments/discussions of clocks, measuring rods, time dilation and so forth are simply designed to help make the math more understandable. The verbal arguments can, if not handled with care, lead to problems. The math of SR is as close to perfect as theory can be. You want to discredit SR, go for the hard stuff, like particle physics. Like, show that the Thomas Precession is fake, or something like that.

If this is all an urban myth, then most physicists live in a huge city.

Reilly Atkinson

[geistkiesel]

Perhaps I should have been more clear; 'experiments' refers to real experiments, not 'gedunken's.

Thought experiments play a useful role in the development of a new idea; they can bring potential inconsistencies into sharp focus (so the folk developing the theories can make refinements, or scrap the theory), and they can suggest experiments which, if carried out, should yield a clear result - either consistency with the theory, or inconsistency.

However, by and in themselves, thought experiments don't tell you anything about the real world; only stuff done in a lab - with equipment - or the field - with detectors etc - can test an idea or theory.

So, can you provide details of an experiment - done in a lab, in the field, or with telescopes (etc) - whose results are inconsistent with SR?

Perhaps an example by contrast would help: "Are there any experiments - done in a lag, in the field, or with telescopes (etc) - whose results are inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity?" The answer is, of course, yes! Dozens and dozens of them, from the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, to the bending of EM by the Sun's mass (and the Shapiro effect) as observed recently with the Cassini spaceprobe, to observations of binary pulsars.

If there is a consistently generated flaw in SR then SR will be SR whatever and however tested. I will suggest you look at Groubnded's thread for some up to date informtion. Also, if Eibnsteing proposes a Gebndunken, you cannot complain because others discuss that gedunken can you?

Try this one for size: Virtually all experiments discussed where there is a stationary platform and a moving platform make a huge error ion logic. Stationary means stationary, ie. v = 0. Therefiore, when making a conmparison with a moving frame and there is the ineviable claim that each frame is equivalent such that the moving and styationary frames can be exchanged, is physically inpossible to do. Again, "stationary frame" means v = 0, or said in other words, the stationary frame is assumed as an absolute v = 0, from which all measurements are ultimately measured.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
All moving frame values are non-primed with the exception of M’, the consistent location of the observer O in the moving frame.

At no time is there an inference that M’ was at the midpoint of the A and B photons emitted in the stationary frame.

To demonstrate the following:

Einstein’s moving train calculation indicating when the oncoming B photon is detected at t1 the A photon was located at a position consistent with –t1. Said in other words, as t1 is determined from t0 which locates M’ at t0, the A and B were equidistant to M’(t0) when t = t1.

Proof:
A moving observer located at M’ on a moving frame passes through the midpoint M of photon sources located at A and B in the stationary frame just as A and B emit photons. M’ is moving along a line connecting A and B, toward B.

At this instant the moving source t = t0. Later the moving observer detects the photon from B at t1, and later the photon from A at t2. The observer has measured her velocity wrt the stationary frame as v. Determine the position of the A photon at tx in terms of t0, t1, t2, and v when the B photon was detected at t1.

The photon from A must reach the position of M’ when t = t2. Therefore, the distance traveled by the A photon during Δt = t2 – t1, is Δtc. This is equal to the distance cΔt = vΔt + vt1 + vtx . Now we rearrange somewhat to arrive at, vtx = vΔt – cΔt + –vt1. Now as vΔt - cΔt is just -vtx - vt1

vtx = -vtx - vt1 – vt1

2tx = -2t1

tx = -t1

Therefore, in the moving frame the photon from A and the photon from B were equidistant from M’(t0) at t1.

[geistkiesel]

[ahrkron wrote:]

Originally Posted by Martin Miller
Who has tested the basis of SR, namely,
the light postulate?

Look at section VII in that page.

[MM replies:]
It is you who needs to look at Section VII because
that section says zilch about light's one-way speed
between two clocks. (All it talks about is the fact
of light's source-independent nature.)

If you are silly enough to still insist that Sect VII
pertains to light's one-way speed per two clocks, then
please let us know how the clocks were synchronized.

Quote:
No part of SR is testable because all parts of it are based
100% on a definition.
Every result of SR is a result of Einstein's definition of
synchronization, a mere convention given by man, and having
zilch to do with nature or physics.

"100% definition". Can you point out the what definition you
are talking about, and how it affects the measurement of speeds,
masses, energies and electromagnetic fields? Please take into
account that, when doing an experiment to test SR, the readings
are not obtained from SR, but from the actual detectors (which,
of course, are not "programmed with SR equations").

[MM replies:]
'Round and 'round we go, where we'll stop, no one knows.

And here you are trying to discuss SR sans a knowledge of
its basis, Einstein's definition of clock synchronization.

And you are wrong about the "detectors" not being programmed
with SR equations -- the only detectors used in SR are clocks,
and every clock has been related to every other clock (in any
given frame) by Einstein's definition, a convention given only
by man, and which dictates one-way invariance/isotropy.

That is how the programming affects the speed of electromagnetic
fields which are moving through space (i.e., light waves).

And here is how this programming affects all other two-clock
**speed** measurements in SR:

[1] Since Einstein's clocks are asynchronous, all two-clock
measurements in SR are incorrect.
[2] Since Einstein's clock are forced by mere definition from
man to obtain c in all frames for light no matter how a frame
may move through space, the two-clock speeds of any other rapidly-
moving entities are distorted downward.

And here is how this programming affects all two-clock
**mass** measurements in SR:

Since the only tools (or instruments) in SR are clocks and
rods, all mass measurements must involve clocks and rods, and
therefore all mass measurements are incorrect due to the
asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks. For example, despite
the simple and obvious fact that a given object moving at
a single velocity cannot have more than one physical mass,
SR observers in different frames find _different_ masses for
one and the same passing object. This proves that SR does not
pertain to intrinsic or actual masses.

And here is how this programming causes **time dilation**
in SR:

passing clock
[3]-->
[3]------Frame A------[4]


------------------------[4]-->
[4]------Frame A------[5]

Although all three clocks really run at the same rate,
observers using Einstein's asynchronous clocks "see the
passing clock run slow."

SR per se has nothing to do with actual or real or physical
or intrinsic clock slowing because it does not even know how
to measure it. Also, Einsteinian observers in different frames
find different "rhythms" for the _same_ clock, whereas it is
physically impossible for one clock moving inertially to have
more than one intrinsic rhythm, so we know that SR does not
address or pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms.

Any more questions from the unknowledgeable?

Martin Miller: I thought you would be intrested in the following regarding SR and simultaneity. It is the Einstein train experiment, looked at slightly differently.

All moving frame values are non-primed with the exception of M’, the consistent location of the observer O in the moving frame.

At no time is there an inference that M’ was at the midpoint of the A and B photons emitted in the stationary frame.

To demonstrate the following:

Einstein’s moving train calculation indicating when the oncoming B photon is detected at t1 the A photon was located at a position consistent with –t1. Said in other words, as t1 is determined from t0 which locates M’ at t0, the A and B were equidistant to M’(t0) when t = t1.

Proof:
A moving observer located at M’ on a moving frame passes through the midpoint M of photon sources located at A and B in the stationary frame just as A and B emit photons. M’ is moving along a line connecting A and B, toward B.

At this instant the moving source t = t0. Later the moving observer detects the photon from B at t1, and later the photon from A at t2. The observer has measured her velocity wrt the stationary frame as v. Determine the position of the A photon at tx in terms of t0, t1, t2, and v when the B photon was detected at t1.

The photon from A must reach the position of M’ when t = t2. Therefore, the distance traveled by the A photon during Δt = t2 – t1, is Δtc. This is equal to the distance cΔt = vΔt + vt1 + vtx . Now we rearrange somewhat to arrive at, vtx = vΔt – cΔt + –vt1. Now as vΔt - cΔt is just -vtx - vt1

vtx = -vtx - vt1 – vt1

2tx = -2t1

tx = -t1

Therefore, in the moving frame the photon from A and the photon from B were equidistant from M’(t0) at t1.

[Nereid]

If there is a consistently generated flaw in SR then SR will be SR whatever and however tested. I will suggest you look at Groubnded's thread for some up to date informtion.Er, um, ... I'm not really following this ... if leseiktsieg proposes that, for masses of 1g to 10^30 g, and distances of 1mm to 10^15 mm, the gravitational force between two masses goes as the inverse cube of the distance between their respective centres of mass, it's pretty easy to test that proposal. Similarly, if SR predicts that pions' observed decay rate will have a certain dependency on their observed speed, it's quite easy to test.

In both cases the experiments and observations are what they are, and proposals or theories are either consistent with the observational data, or not.Also, if Eibnsteing proposes a Gebndunken, you cannot complain because others discuss that gedunken can you? Einstein may or may not have proposed a gedunken experiment, but a discussion of any such - no matter how interesting or who proposed it - carries no weight whatsoever against real experiments, competently done.Try this one for size: Virtually all experiments discussed where there is a stationary platform and a moving platform make a huge error ion logic. Counter (1): as has been shown many times here on PF, and in many books and papers, claims of such 'huge error ion logic' reflect misunderstanding or SR, misinterpretation, or their own errors.

Counter (2): You take the equations, you plug in the parameters, you crunch the numbers ... and you come up with predictions. You go to the lab, you do the experiments, you get the data. Compare predictions with data, and what do you find? Consistency.

[geistkiesel]

Perhaps I should have been more clear; 'experiments' refers to real experiments, not 'gedunken's.

Thought experiments play a useful role in the development of a new idea; they can bring potential inconsistencies into sharp focus (so the folk developing the theories can make refinements, or scrap the theory), and they can suggest experiments which, if carried out, should yield a clear result - either consistency with the theory, or inconsistency.

However, by and in themselves, thought experiments don't tell you anything about the real world; only stuff done in a lab - with equipment - or the field - with detectors etc - can test an idea or theory.

So, can you provide details of an experiment - done in a lab, in the field, or with telescopes (etc) - whose results are inconsistent with SR?

Perhaps an example by contrast would help: "Are there any experiments - done in a lag, in the field, or with telescopes (etc) - whose results are inconsistent with the Newtonian theory of gravity?" The answer is, of course, yes! Dozens and dozens of them, from the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, to the bending of EM by the Sun's mass (and the Shapiro effect) as observed recently with the Cassini spaceprobe, to observations of binary pulsars.

I do not deny your experimental results, I deny the propriety of the way the speed of light is determined, the wave length, the frequency. Your error is consistent.

No theory is set in concrete. All theories must end. Prepare yourself for the inevitable.

[Nereid]

I do not deny your experimental results, I deny the propriety of the way the speed of light is determined, the wave length, the frequency. Your error is consistent.

No theory is set in concrete. All theories must end. Prepare yourself for the inevitable.So how do you propose that the wavelength and frequency of EM radiation be determined?

Please try to be a specific as possible, highlighting differences between the methods used in the lab and field today.

[geistkiesel]

So how do you propose that the wavelength and frequency of EM radiation be determined?

Please try to be a specific as possible, highlighting differences between the methods used in the lab and field today.
I suggest you look at Grounded's thread. It takes a while to go from "essay" to the nitty gritty", but in outline it goes like this. In measuring frequency one counts the number of full wave length segments passing through the eye/sec.
There is no denying doppler effects, but one should not consider that moving againt the incoming photon stream compresses the wave lenth, nor does movong away from the photon stream stretch the wavelength.

Using de Sitter's finding that the speed of light is not a funcion of the velocity of the sources one can measure one's speed realative to the the speed of light, which is constant;

relative velocity(to source) is fL - c
where f is the frequency and L the wave length.

measuirng frequency (c + V(observed rel to source))/L

L (relative to the universe) V (obs wrt source)/ f (measured)

Change in frequency = (distance per second relative to source)/L

b3efore you come unglued by this you must look at Grounded's thread. If nothing else you will admit it is uniques and cleverly devised. SR suffers tremendously in its agonizing process of extinguishment.

Absolutes take on a real meaning.

[geistkiesel]

So how do you propose that the wavelength and frequency of EM radiation be determined?

Please try to be a specific as possible, highlighting differences between the methods used in the lab and field today.

I suggest you look at Grounded's thread. It takes a while to go from "essay" to the nitty gritty", but in outline it goes like this. In measuring frequency one counts the number of full wave length segments passing through the eye/sec.
There is no denying doppler effects, but one should not consider that moving againt the incoming photon stream compresses the wave length, nor does movong away from the photon stream stretch the wavelength.

Using de Sitter's finding that the speed of light is not a funcion of the velocity of the sources one can measure one's speed realative to the the speed of light, which is constant; Again, i am echoing Grounded with out as firm a grasp as zI would like, so don't go ballistic until you too have a "grasp" OK?

relative velocity(to source) is fL - c
where f is the frequency and L the wave length.

measuirng frequency (c + V(observed rel to source))/L

L (relative to the universe) V (obs wrt source)/ f (measured)

Change in frequency = (distance per second relative to source)/L

b3efore you come unglued by this you must look at Grounded's thread. If nothing else you will admit it is uniques and cleverly devised. SR suffers tremendously in its agonizing process of extinguishment.

Absolutes take on a real meaning. I know, heresy, at its worst.
____________________________________________

And while we are on the subject of 'possible contradictions' here is a simple Einstein moving train scenario for your calculations. The moving observer O located at M' in the moving frame passes through M the midpoint of photon sources at A and B just as the sources emit photons. SR predicts the moving frame will not determeine the emitted photons were simultaneous in the moving frame.

So here is the problem:

All moving frame values are non-primed with the exception of M’, the consistent location of the observer O in the moving frame.

At no time is there an inference that M’ was the midpoint of the A and B photons emitted in the stationary frame.

To demonstrate the following:

A_______A_?_______M______|B_____|A________B
t0 t1 t2

Whee the moving frame is below the line and all points noted by time (referenced in the moving frame) also indicate the location of M' , the observer. So at t0 M' was colocated with M the midpoint of the emitted photons in the stationary frame.

Einstein’s moving train calculation indicating when the oncoming B photon is detected at t1 the A photon was located at a position consistent with –t1. Said in other words, as t1 is determined from t0 which locates M’ at t0, the A and B were equidistant to M’(t0) when t = t1.

Proof:
A moving observer located at M’ on a moving frame passes through the midpoint M of photon sources located at A and B in the stationary frame just as A and B emit photons. M’ is moving along a line connecting A and B, toward B.

At this instant the moving source t = t0. Later the moving observer detects the photon from B at t1, and later the photon from A at t2. The observer has measured her velocity wrt the stationary frame as v. Determine the position of the A photon at tx in terms of t0, t1, t2, and v when the B photon was detected at t1.

The photon from A must reach the position of M’ when t = t2. Therefore, the distance traveled by the A photon during Δt = t2 – t1, is Δtc. This is equal to the distance cΔt = vΔt + vt1 + vtx . Now we rearrange somewhat to arrive at, vtx = vΔt – cΔt + –vt1. Now as vΔt - cΔt is just -vtx - vt1

vtx = -vtx - vt1 – vt1

2tx = -2t1

tx = -t1

Therefore, in the moving frame the photon from A and the photon from B were equidistant from M’(t0) at t1.

[Nereid]

I suggest you look at Grounded's thread. It takes a while to go from "essay" to the nitty gritty", but in outline it goes like this. In measuring frequency one counts the number of full wave length segments passing through the eye/sec.How does one 'count the number of full wave length segments passing through the eye/sec.'?

[geistkiesel]

How does one 'count the number of full wave length segments passing through the eye/sec.'?

Whatever the device that detects the wave as you are heading into it, each complete wave length that passes through the eye, or detector, is a wave length. Grounded makes the point that the reason the wave length seems to change and hence the .constant speed of light measurment which is obvious,, is the failure to account for the speed of the 'eye'., which is neglected in SR theory. The number of these complete wave lengths per second passing through a point would be the frequency.Using Maxwells equations where the product of frequency and wavelength always calculates to c we neglect the observers relative velocity. Adding the detectors velocty the wavelength do not change when "detected".

Doppler shifts are not a compressing of the wave length when moving against the stream.

Grounded has a very lucid post where he uses the analogy of relative velocity of two automobiles. If the observer determines a car passes by at 80.66 ft/sec and the car will pass by in 1/4 of a second the length of the car is 20.1 ft. Now if you go 14.6 ft/sec in the opposite direction our relative speed is 95.32 ft/sec., by adding the 80.66 and the 14.6 ft/sec.

Lets see what happens when we leave out the relative velocity of the observer. 80.66ft/sec with a frequency of 4.7 cars per second we get each car length of 17.1, which we know is wrong. Adding the 14.6/4.7 or 3.1. to the 17.1 we get the proper length of the automobiles.
Ciao

[Nereid]

I had a read of quite a few of the posts on this topic, esp by you and Grounded. My conclusion is that, if you are seeking to understand SR and the nature of light (and fully understand how and why Grounded's posts miss the mark*), you may find the best approach is to sign up for a Physics course delivered by a good teacher. Next best would be an online physics course, and third a good textbook.

The challenge, as I see it from the posts, is that this medium of learning (Physics Forums) isn't really working for you two; you need to interact with a good teacher in a richer setting - blackboard/real-time/etc.

Perhaps some PF members could recommend good courses/teachers? textbooks?

Good luck! :smile:

*this is not to say that Tom et al haven't done a good job of trying; they obviously know their stuff and their explanations seem clear and cogent to me.

[Doc Al]

Since geistkiesel has been inspired to repeatedly share his analysis of the Einstein train gedanken experiment (in several threads, mind you) it may bear yet another comment.
And while we are on the subject of 'possible contradictions' here is a simple Einstein moving train scenario for your calculations. The moving observer O located at M' in the moving frame passes through M the midpoint of photon sources at A and B just as the sources emit photons. SR predicts the moving frame will not determeine the emitted photons were simultaneous in the moving frame.

So here is the problem:

All moving frame values are non-primed with the exception of M’, the consistent location of the observer O in the moving frame.

At no time is there an inference that M’ was the midpoint of the A and B photons emitted in the stationary frame.

To demonstrate the following:

A_______A_?_______M______|B_____|A________B
t0 t1 t2

Note that the picture is a view from the stationary frame's viewpoint showing where geistkiesel thinks the moving observer is when she:
#1: detects a photon from B (what he labels B/t1), and
#2: detects a photon from A (what he labels A/t2)
Note further that he thinks he's talking about measurements of time (t1 & t2) made by the moving frame--but he's not.
Whee the moving frame is below the line and all points noted by time (referenced in the moving frame) also indicate the location of M' , the observer. So at t0 M' was colocated with M the midpoint of the emitted photons in the stationary frame.

Einstein’s moving train calculation indicating when the oncoming B photon is detected at t1 the A photon was located at a position consistent with –t1. Said in other words, as t1 is determined from t0 which locates M’ at t0, the A and B were equidistant to M’(t0) when t = t1.
Again, he thinks he is going to show something about measurements made in the moving frame. But he really ends up showing (through some oddball calculation) that according to the stationary frame the photons from A and B are equidistant from M at the moment that event #1 occurs. But this is hardly noteworthy--since, in the stationary frame, the photons are emitted simultaneously and start out equidistant from the midpoint, thus they are always equidistant from the midpoint.

Proof:
A moving observer located at M’ on a moving frame passes through the midpoint M of photon sources located at A and B in the stationary frame just as A and B emit photons. M’ is moving along a line connecting A and B, toward B.

At this instant the moving source t = t0. Later the moving observer detects the photon from B at t1, and later the photon from A at t2. The observer has measured her velocity wrt the stationary frame as v. Determine the position of the A photon at tx in terms of t0, t1, t2, and v when the B photon was detected at t1.
Note again that he thinks he's using times measured in the moving frame, but when you see what he actually does with those times you'll realize that they must be times measured in the stationary frame.
The photon from A must reach the position of M’ when t = t2. Therefore, the distance traveled by the A photon during Δt = t2 – t1, is Δtc. This is equal to the distance cΔt = vΔt + vt1 + vtx . Now we rearrange somewhat to arrive at, vtx = vΔt – cΔt + –vt1. Now as vΔt - cΔt is just -vtx - vt1

vtx = -vtx - vt1 – vt1

2tx = -2t1

tx = -t1

Therefore, in the moving frame the photon from A and the photon from B were equidistant from M’(t0) at t1.
Now that's quite a piece of analysis. If it seems convoluted, it's because geistkiesel thinks he's doing something special with times measured in the moving frame (t2 - t1). But all he's doing is taking an oddball approach to "proving" what should have been obvious: Yes, as seen in the stationary frame the photons from A and B are always equidistant from the midpoint.

[Martin Miller]

[Reilly Atkinson wrote:]

[Martin Miller wrote:]
"Einstein's theories ... have been tested in the
crucible of experiment and observation, and have
passed with flying colours."

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Mr. Nereid," but as
far as Einstein's special relativity goes, your
above is purely an urban legend.

There have been exactly zero tests of SR.

***************

[Reilly Atkinson replied:]
You must be joking.

We must live in alternate universes. SR is tested, for example in
every high energy particle experiment-relativistic kinematics, using
momentum and enrgy rather than space and time- has yet to be found
wanting, and it is as basic as it gets in much of today's physics.

[MM replies:]
Wrong. SR does not pertain to intrinsic masses, but only to observer-
dependent, point-of-view "masses." If you believe otherwise, then
tell us how SR measures intrinsic masses.

And your missing the mark so badly with your opening gambit does not
bode well for the remainder of your "arsenal."

[but Reilly Atkinson continued anyway:]
The Dirac equation, QED, the Standard Theory all SR based, do pretty
well, and all are key to today's physics. Why even radar can help test
SR. SR is used in the design of accelerators. The arguments are
ultimately "preponderance of evidence arguments", and for SR this means
many thousands of experiments.

[MM replies:]
Wrong again. Since SR says only one thing, namely, one-way light speed
invariance/isotropy, anything that is "SR based" must also say one-way
light speed invariance; however, none of the things which you mentioned
above say that.

(Further explanation: All SR results {usually called "relativistic
effects} depend on measurements made by two or more clocks in each
frame, and, as we all know, all clock pairs in SR are related via
Einstein's definition of clock synchronization, which of course is
Einstein's demand that clocks obtain one-way light speed invariance.)

[Reilly Atkinson continued:]
Also be aware that the various arguments/discussions of clocks,
measuring rods, time dilation and so forth are simply designed to help
make the math more understandable. The verbal arguments can, if not
handled with care, lead to problems. The math of SR is as close to
perfect as theory can be. You want to discredit SR, go for the hard
stuff, like particle physics. Like, show that the Thomas Precession
is fake, or something like that.

[MM replies:]
Wrong once more. SR's math is totally bogus. The times (t and t') of
SR's math are admittedly incorrect due to the lack of absolute clock
synchronization in SR, and the distances (x and x') of SR's math have
not been proved to be correct because no one has shown that rulers
do not physically contract. (In fact, the Michelson-Morley experiment
showed the opposite.)

[Reilly Atkinson continued:]
If this is all an urban myth, then most physicists live in a huge city.

[MM replies:]
You seem to have forgotten that Einstein himself (supposedly) "blew
away" the majority of physicists in his day.

Here is a little math exercise for you, since you seem to think that
math is so great for physics:

It is well known that Einstein's assumption of one-way light speed
invariance/isotropy was the basis of SR. (This is often called his
light postulate.) Your task, should you be bold enough to accept it,
is to show on paper and mathematically exactly how one-way invariance
and isotropy could occur in nature. (I won't be holding my breath!)

[russ_watters]

Sorry to burst your bubble, "Mr. Nereid," but as
far as Einstein's special relativity goes, your
above is purely an urban legend.

There have been exactly zero tests of SR. MM, I gotta ask: why do you even bother posting here if all you are going to do is make this same baseless assertion over and over without backing it up? Why do you even bother? No doubt, you have seen the list of experiments posted. Are you ever actually going to make an argument regarding any of these experiments or should I stop wasting my time responding to your posts? Your task, should you be bold enough to accept it,
is to show on paper and mathematically exactly how one-way invariance
and isotropy could occur in nature. (I won't be holding my breath!) That is not something that can be proven mathematically. It is because it is (or if you prefer, because God made it that way). What can be shown is evidence of it. You are absolutely correct when you say that the constancy of C is a postulate and that any math based on it can't prove it. What you miss is that experiments based on that math aren't controlled by the math, they are, quite simply, whatever the universe makes them. Thus, when a GPS receiver assumes a constant C in making its calculations, it does not force the universe to have a constant C. Therefore, if C was not constant, the math applied to it by a GPS receiver would yield an incorrect position.

Until you accept the fact that the constancy postulate exists because C was first measured to be constant, you will continue to be very, very wrong.

[Martin Miller]

[Russ_Watters noted:]
[Martin Miller posted:]
There have been exactly zero tests of SR.

MM, I gotta ask: why do you even bother posting here if
all you are going to do is make this same baseless assertion
over and over without backing it up? Why do you even bother?
No doubt, you have seen the list of experiments posted. Are
you ever actually going to make an argument regarding any of
these experiments or should I stop wasting my time responding
to your posts?

[MM replies:]
It is not a baseless assertion, and I have backed it up.
But you must have missed that, so here it goes again:
(But, come to think of it, you probably simply snipped it
because it was in the same message as the above quote.)

[As I said before:]
SR does not pertain to intrinsic masses, but only to
observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses." If you
believe otherwise, then tell us how SR measures [or at
any point even addresses] intrinsic masses.

[MM continues:]
The above simple paragraph eliminates _all_ the alleged support
for SR based on mass, momentum, etc.

[MM continues:]
SR does not pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms, but only to
observer-dependent, point-of-view "clock rhythms." If you
believe otherwise, then tell us how SR measures [or at
any point even addresses] intrinsic clock rhythms.

[MM continues:]
The above simple paragraph eliminates _all_ the alleged support
for SR based on muon lifetimes, Twins ages, clock slowing, time
dilation, and what not.

[MM continues:]
SR does not pertain to intrinsic rod lengths, but only to
observer-dependent, point-of-view "rod lengths." If you
believe otherwise, then tell us how SR measures [or at
any point even addresses] intrinsic rod lengths.

[MM continues:]
The above simple paragraph eliminates _all_ the alleged support
for SR based on "length contractions," of which, at present, there
are none of course.

[MM further explains, hopefully for the last time:]
[But of course, "Dear Brother Russ" will find a way to snip all
of the above, and again claim that I have not backed up anything!]
It is clear that SR cannot possibly pertain to intrinsic rod
length, intrinsic clock rhythm, or intrinsic mass because of the
simple _fact_ that SR observers find an infinite number of
_different_ "clock rhythms," an infinite number of _different_
"masses," and an infinite number of _different_ lengths for one and
the same passing clock, particle, and rod, respectively. No real
clock can have more than one intrinsic rhythm as it moves at any
given speed. No real rod can have more than one intrinsic length as
it moves at any given speed. No real particle can have more than one
intrinsic mass as it moves at any given speed. Ergo, SR does not even
address, much less physically pertain to, any rod's intrinsic length,
any clock's intrinsic rhythm, or any particle's intrinsic mass.

--------

[MM had written:]
Your task, should you be bold enough to accept it,
is to show on paper and mathematically exactly how one-way
invariance and isotropy could occur in nature. (I won't be
holding my breath!)

[Russ_Watters noted:]
That is not something that can be proven mathematically.

[MM replies:]
I did not ask for any such proof. Take a course in reading
comprehension.

[Russ_Watters noted:]
It is because it is (or if you prefer, because God made it that
way). What can be shown is evidence of it. You are absolutely
correct when you say that the constancy of C is a postulate and
that any math based on it can't prove it. What you miss is that
experiments based on that math aren't controlled by the math,
they are, quite simply, whatever the universe makes them. Thus,
when a GPS receiver assumes a constant C in making its calculations,
it does not force the universe to have a constant C. Therefore,
if C was not constant, the math applied to it by a GPS receiver
would yield an incorrect position.

Until you accept the fact that the constancy postulate exists
because C was first measured to be constant, you will continue to
be very, very wrong.

[MM replies:]
You don't understand the GPS anymore than you understand SR.
The GPS works only because of geometric corrections. It does not
depend on absolute clock synchronization because that does not
exist, according to your man Einstein.

[MM continues:]
If you think that the GPS clocks are absolutely synchronous,
then you must also think that SR has been disproved because
SR's prime claims are (1) relative simultaneity, not absolute
simultaneity, and (2) one-way light speed isotropy, not
anisotropy, as would be found by using truly or absolutely
synchronous clocks. (Try this on paper for yourself, if you
can.) [And of course, Einstein agrees:

"w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c."]
[_Relativity_ Chap. 7]

(And, no, the principle of relativity does _not_ make light's
one-way speed invariant or isotropic. All it says is if one
frame's observers find isotropy/invariance, then all other
frames' observers must also find this.)

If you still are under the delusion that the GPS somehow has
by-passed SR and has absolute clock synchronization (or
absolute simultaneity), then perhaps you could back up this
claim by showing us how the GPS clocks were absolutely
synchronized.

[reilly]

MM -- My views on the anti-Einstein, anti-SR movement are spelled out in the Measuring the Relative Speed of Light thread in Theory Development (#165). All I'll say here is that I recall reading arguments similar to yours some 40 years ago -- you are perhaps just a bit more absolute and somewhat more blythly dismissive of experiments than many of your predecessors, none of whom are remembered today. It's probably good that I don't do physics anymore, given that I am so terribly wrong about the physics that I used to do. However, so far, none of my students have contacted me to complain about the physics I taught. But, nonetheless..

Would you be so kind as to explain the difference between intrinsic mass and "observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses."

As far as one-way invariance, goes it's rather basic. First, Maxwell's equations describe one way propegation of light. Second, Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare Group. And, Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic phenomena, classical and quantum, to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

[geistkiesel]

Since geistkiesel has been inspired to repeatedly share his analysis of the Einstein train gedanken experiment (in several threads, mind you) it may bear yet another comment.

Note that the picture is a view from the stationary frame's viewpoint showing where geistkiesel thinks the moving observer is when she:
#1: detects a photon from B (what he labels B/t1), and
#2: detects a photon from A (what he labels A/t2)
Note further that he thinks he's talking about measurements of time (t1 & t2) made by the moving frame--but he's not.

You are wrong. The times below the lines show the location of the moving observer when she was at the midpoint of he A and B photon sources. She is mantaininvg a running account of her position as measured by her clock and her velocity. You are being dishonmest again Doc Al, dishonest.

[quoye=Dpc Al]Again, he thinks he is going to show something about measurements made in the moving frame. But he really ends up showing (through some oddball calculation) that according to the stationary frame the photons from A and B are equidistant from M at the moment that event #1 occurs. But this is hardly noteworthy--since, in the stationary frame, the photons are emitted simultaneously and start out equidistant from the midpoint, thus they are always equidistant from the midpoint.[/quote]

Thank you. Yes A was located at a point -t1 from the midpoint, as measured from the moving frame. Yes, but this calculation was based on reasoning from the moving frame. The defining conditions of loss of simultaneity will still be satisfied even though the photons are going to arrive at M imultaneously. AS the moving observer knows her distance t1v where/when the B photon arrives, she also can determine the location of the midpoint of the A and B photons by keeping an observer at -tv (that is colocated with the midpoint of A and B in the stationary frame) until the B photon arrives. After that the photons from A and B will arive simultaneously at the midpoint in the stationary frame as measured by the t2v in the moving frame.


Now that's quite a piece of analysis. If it seems convoluted, it's because geistkiesel thinks he's doing something special with times measured in the moving frame (t2 - t1). But all he's doing is taking an oddball approach to "proving" what should have been obvious: Yes, as seen in the stationary frame the photons from A and B are always equidistant from the midpoint.

There is more to the analysis than your insult and corruption of what was said, but this is how you do business isn't it? Doc Al.

[Martin Miller]

[Reilly Atkinson asked:]
Would you be so kind as to explain the difference between
intrinsic mass and "observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses."

[MM replies:]
This is self-contradictory; you just claimed that my stuff was
given by others decades ago, and now you are saying that you do
not even understand my stuff, so how can you be so sure that what
I am saying now was also said 40 years ago?

[MM continues:]
Anyway, the (very simple) explanation is as follows:
If I look at a tall building in New York city, I may see it as
looking different than you if you happen to be looking at the
building from a different location. For example, the building
may look taller to me than it does for you. This has to do with
perspective, as every real-life painter knows. In contrast, the
actual building itself cannot have more than one physical height.
Similarly, a single atomic particle moving at a single steady
speed cannot possibly have more than one intrinsic or physical
or actual mass. Also similarly, SR observers in different frames
find "different masses" for one and the same passing atomic particle.
As I said, this simple fact proves that SR does not pertain to
intrinsic masses, but only to point-of-view masses, and the latter
are of no more importance to physics than are the various views of
a tall building in New York.

[Reilly Atkinson noted:]
As far as one-way invariance, goes it's rather basic. First,
Maxwell's equations describe one way propegation of light.
Second, Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare Group.
And, Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic phenomena,
classical and quantum, to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

[MM replies:]
Maxwell's equations say zilch about light's measured speed
between clocks. If you believe otherwise, then tell us how
he synchronized his clocks.

[geistkiesel]

[Reilly Atkinson asked:]
Would you be so kind as to explain the difference between
intrinsic mass and "observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses."

[MM replies:]
This is self-contradictory; you just claimed that my stuff was
given by others decades ago, and now you are saying that you do
not even understand my stuff, so how can you be so sure that what
I am saying now was also said 40 years ago?

[MM continues:]
Anyway, the (very simple) explanation is as follows:
If I look at a tall building in New York city, I may see it as
looking different than you if you happen to be looking at the
building from a different location. For example, the building
may look taller to me than it does for you. This has to do with
perspective, as every real-life painter knows. In contrast, the
actual building itself cannot have more than one physical height.
Similarly, a single atomic particle moving at a single steady
speed cannot possibly have more than one intrinsic or physical
or actual mass. Also similarly, SR observers in different frames
find "different masses" for one and the same passing atomic particle.
As I said, this simple fact proves that SR does not pertain to
intrinsic masses, but only to point-of-view masses, and the latter
are of no more importance to physics than are the various views of
a tall building in New York.

[Reilly Atkinson noted:]
As far as one-way invariance, goes it's rather basic. First,
Maxwell's equations describe one way propegation of light.
Second, Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare Group.
And, Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic phenomena,
classical and quantum, to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

[MM replies:]
Maxwell's equations say zilch about light's measured speed
between clocks. If you believe otherwise, then tell us how
he synchronized his clocks.

MM, Does an increase in mass with increase in velocity, hence an inevitable acceleration, seem reasonable as an an increase in frequency of the accelerated atom? Wave your finger from left to right and back. Get a feel for how long the finger is in any one delta x. Now increase the frequency of the motion. More mass/(delta x)/time, right?

[Martin Miller]

['geistkiesel' wrote:]
MM, Does an increase in mass with increase in velocity ....

[MM replies:]
I presume that you are wondering about the physical cause
of (intrinsic) mass increase with speed through space; it
has been suggested that the cause is the Higgs field.
http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs1.html

Since I specialize solely in SR per se, I am not too
concerned about this cause, and can live with the general
outlook that the nature of physical space somehow causes
both mass and mass increases.

(It has also been suggested that intrinsic clock slowing
is due to the above-mentioned intrinsic mass increase; a
clock's mechanism slows when it becomes more massive as
the clock's motion through space gets closer to the speed
of light through space.)

(I know of no suggested cause for intrinsic rod contraction,
but it must be due to the interaction of the rod material
with physical space.)

[reilly]

MM -- Given your provocative ideas about SR and mass, how do you account for the incredible success of SR kinematics in particle physics, in which the concept of SR mass plays a critical role?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

[Nereid]

MM -- Given your provocative ideas about SR and mass, how do you account for the incredible success of SR kinematics in particle physics, in which the concept of SR mass plays a critical role?
Regards,
Reilly AtkinsonIIRC, MM answered this before, either in this thread or another ... basically, you use the same equations, to get the same answers ... but you go through some hand waving first to convince yourself that you've come at these equations from a different direction than classic SR (a la Einstein).

Other critics of SR (and GR) either don't propose to account for the experimental and observational results at all, or (sometimes) say they'll be the same, or (very rare, but there are some) do propose situations where the differences can be brought to light (so to speak). Examples of members of this last, very exclusive club include Garth (his SCC alternative to GR predicts a distinctly different result from GPB than GR), wisp (he proposed a simple one-way test of the speed of light), and some folk who yogi mentions. Andrew Grey may also be a member of this club (it's been a while since I visited that thread).

Let's see what MM has to say ...

[geistkiesel]

IIRC, MM answered this before, either in this thread or another ... basically, you use the same equations, to get the same answers ... but you go through some hand waving first to convince yourself that you've come at these equations from a different direction than classic SR (a la Einstein).

Other critics of SR (and GR) either don't propose to account for the experimental and observational results at all, or (sometimes) say they'll be the same, or (very rare, but there are some) do propose situations where the differences can be brought to light (so to speak). Examples of members of this last, very exclusive club include Garth (his SCC alternative to GR predicts a distinctly different result from GPB than GR), wisp (he proposed a simple one-way test of the speed of light), and some folk who yogi mentions. Andrew Grey may also be a member of this club (it's been a while since I visited that thread).

Let's see what MM has to say ...
Very interesting, but I cannot see a reasonable ratio of math/physics in the explanation or the discussion.

MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me. I cannot deny the gamma correlation between mass increase and acelerated electrons, for example, but even here to look at m/(1 - v^2)^1/2 expression that does not evoke many physical intuitions. I can see that the gamma can be used effectivley as a measure of the apparent velocity limitation, or velocity state of the electron, but to slide into relativisitc convenience here seems like such a dreadful waste of effort

The mass of a particle can increase without an increase in mass, not to contradict myself, once you grasp the concept of "effective mass". Wave your finger back and forth a few cm side to side at 1hz. Notice how the mass of your finger spends a certain dt in measurable volumes, dvols, as the finger moves. Increase the frequency of the finger to 2hz and notice how the m[(dvols/dt)(2hz)] increases as the frequency increases. Now oscillate your finger at 500hz and notice the

m[(dvols/dt)(500hz)] increases.

Of course you can't move your finger to 500hz because the finger is frequency limited to absorbing, storing and using energy that inceases the frequency of the finger. You will never get your finger to move at 500hz so we could use this number as the corrollary to gamma, except we intuitively know that the true limit is much less than 500hz. You can most certainly, however, train your finger to go faster than its intrinsic limitations at this moment.

The moral of the story is that electrons become massive because they spend an ever increasing amount of time within any dvols/dt. If someone were to see what your 500hz finger felt like and actually touched the finger, they would proabbly lose theirs, or at least suffere some serious physical damage. The moving finger could punch holes in walls similar to rocks thrown against the wall, or bullets.

The effective mass I am suggesting is simply an increase in velocity and frequency of the accelerated particle. As the frequency reaches a certain constraining velocity, the efficiency of the energy exchange between the accelerating energy and the electron decreases. More energy is needed to simply onload and store the accelerating energy and less to actually increasing velocity. Velocity is increasing tremendously, to a point ~ c, but the slack is seen in frequency and M(f) increases.

One must eventually begin to look at the processes in all this physical stuff that is going on around us, but unfortunately the QM police always nab those who dast to peek behind the interference amplitude curtains, or even just a quick discreet glance under Mother Nature's hem.

Theerfore the effective mass is, Meff = M0 + M(dx/dt) + M(f), or the effective mass is the sum of the rest mass plus the mass as a function of velocity plus the mass as a function of frequency, brought about during the application of the force, d(mv)/dt = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt).

Gamma merely tells us the limited velocity state. Of course other inferences can be made form gamma, but the expression is essectially physics free.

Think abiut energy exchanges with the modulated frequency of the accelerating field and the frequency of the electron. Brute force .999c velocity is a measure of having exceeded a reasobnable return on the energy investment. You have to get off the mgamma curve if you are ever going to exceed the speed of light, and as a reminder, all that space out there? well we ain't gonna get there from here the way we are going.

"The moving finger writes and having writ moves on, nor with all your piety nor wit shall ye lure it back to cancel even half a line."
Omar K.

[Alkatran]

Grounded has a very lucid post where he uses the analogy of relative velocity of two automobiles. If the observer determines a car passes by at 80.66 ft/sec and the car will pass by in 1/4 of a second the length of the car is 20.1 ft. Now if you go 14.6 ft/sec in the opposite direction our relative speed is 95.32 ft/sec., by adding the 80.66 and the 14.6 ft/sec.

Lets see what happens when we leave out the relative velocity of the observer. 80.66ft/sec with a frequency of 4.7 cars per second we get each car length of 17.1, which we know is wrong. Adding the 14.6/4.7 or 3.1. to the 17.1 we get the proper length of the automobiles.
Ciao

Yes, that's exactly right. But how is this an argument against SR? If you watch from the observer's frame the car is moving at 95.32 ft/sec anyways, and if you watch from another frame you aren't going to use half of his observations with half of your observations, are you? That would just be stupid. (Well, I saw him go by 50 but I was in a car 25 at the time... how many cars per sec did you have again? Wow... that's a pretty long car!)

[geistkiesel]

Yes, that's exactly right. But how is this an argument against SR? If you watch from the observer's frame the car is moving at 95.32 ft/sec anyways, and if you watch from another frame you aren't going to use half of his observations with half of your observations, are you? That would just be stupid. (Well, I saw him go by 50 but I was in a car 25 at the time... how many cars per sec did you have again? Wow... that's a pretty long car!)
Yes 95.32 ft/sec, but only if the velocities are added.
The other car, in the example was said to pass by in 1/4 sec, therefore his careis 20.165ft.or it passwes by every .2115 sec, for a frequency of 4,728/sec.. If we used only the 80,66 ft /s car we get a kength of 17.096 ft. an error, but adding the 10 mph or 14,76 ft/sec/4.728 = 3.12 feet + 17.096 =20.21 the correct length of the car. You can see here the need to include the observers velocity, which you did when you recognized the stationary observer sees them at 95,32 ft/sec.
It isn't against SR, it is merely a showing of the effect of adding the velocities in order to get correct resulkts in calculations. Simply swap the 80.66ft/sec car for 3x10^8m/s light and say.3 x10^8m/s for the moving obvserver and you've a relative velocity of 3.3x10^8m/s anmd fly!

[Martin Miller]

[reilly wrote:]
... how do you account for the incredible success of SR kinematics
in particle physics, in which the concept of SR mass plays a critical
role?

[MM replies:]
For most folk, clock rhythm is simpler than mass, so I will use
the former to explain the latter.

Explanatory Step 1:
It is an obvious fact that a single atomic clock moving at a single
steady speed cannot have more than one internal atomic rhythm.

Explanatory Step 2:
However, in SR, observers in different frames will find different
"rhythms" for one and the same steady-speed clock.

Explanatory Step 3:
Therefore, SR cannot and does not pertain to or address intrinsic
atomic clock rhythms.

Explanatory Step 4:
Although Step 3 is the final step needed, it may help to go on to
explain the cause of SR's observer-dependent, mere point-of-view
"time dilation"; this explanation begins with Step 5.

Explanatory Step 5:
The opposite of SR's relative simultaneity is absolute simultaneity;
since SR has only the former, Einstein's clocks cannot be, and thus
are not, absolutely synchronous.

Explanatory Step 6:
SR's lack of absolute synchronization is the direct physical cause
of SR's trivial and observer-dependent "clock slowing," which is
illustrated by the following simple diagram:

passing clock
--------[4]-->
--------[4]---Frame A---[5]

------------------[5]-->
[5]---Frame A---[6]

Explanatory Step 7:
Note that whatever causes real or actual or physical clock slowing
has been equally applied to both frames (on paper) so that in fact
all three clocks are running at the same intrinsic atomic rate.

Explanatory Step 8:
Therefore, all three clocks times moved up by the _same_ amount
(1 unit).

Explanatory Step 9:
However, thanks to SR's stupid, asynchronous clocks in Frame A,
that frame's SR observers make the stupendously trivial observation
that the passing clock seems to run slow when compared to their two
on-board clocks.

Explanatory Step 10:
Indeed, in stark contrast with real clock slowing, SR's is reciprocal,
with each frame claiming that the other's clock is slower!

Explanatory Step 11:
It should be perfectly clear to even a child that SR's "time dilation"
is of no more importance to space-time physics than is the fact that
each of two departing people sees the other as "getting smaller."

And the same argument applies to SR's "mass increase" and "length
contraction."

Why does the SR math seem to work? That is, why do the SR mass increase,
time dilation, and rod length contraction equations seem to match reality?
The answer is simple: Cheating.

For example, in the passing muon time dilation case, it is incorrectly
given that the Earth's speed is zero, with the muon doing all of the
moving, so the correct result is given even though the math is based on
a mere observer-dependent situation. Conveniently ignored are all of the
other answers from all of the other frames. As I said, reality says that
a passing muon cannot have more than one mass, but SR observers in various
frames find different masses for one and the same passing muon, as long
as the SR math is properly applied (sans any cheating).

[geistkiesel]

hear, hear. My favorite one is when the moving frame, saya railway train,"considers himself stationary and the train station is moving. It is the train that is seen to accelerate and it is the train passengers that feel the acceleration. It is the feel the breeze when they stick their hand into the passing air.

Take two photons emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame that are concluded to not being simultaneously emitted in the moving platform. On photon precedes the other, as SR tells us. Run the experiment changing only that one photon is emitted. Will the moving frame know that there is only one photon emitted? When two photons are emitted and there are observers located one wavelength from the simultaneously emitted photons Sr tells us the observers will not degtect the photons emitted simultaneously and that placing clocks with a resolutuion of 1/10^25 at the emitted sites will detect the photons were not emitted simultaneously.
Another favorite is put the photons on tghe moving frame at the same distane apart as when the emitters were in the stationary frame. Emit the photons. The Photon moving in a closiong tajectory to the observer at the midpoint of the moving frame still detects the on coming photon before the photon from the rear catches up, hence ,as Einstein says in "Relativity", the moving passebngers must conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame as they were detected at different times, when they were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.

So many still believe. Should we admire such tenacity in the retention of silly dogma?

[Martin Miller]

[geistkiesel wrote (in part):]
MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of
mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was
somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass
increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me.

[MM replies:]
But even you are seemingly entirely unconcerned about the causes
of the very similar things known as clock slowing (time dilation)
and length contraction.

[MM continues:]
Note also that the topic of this thread is the very important
question Why has no one simply used two clocks on a table
to measure light's one-way speed? This has nothing to do with
mass increase or its cause.

[MM continues:]
Here is more information re that critical query:

[1] We all know well that Einstein either predicted or assumed
the truth of one-way light speed invariance between two clocks.

[2] [1] is known as "the light postulate."

[3] The light postulate is the basis of SR.

[4] SR cannot exist sans the truth of the light postulate.

[5] Here is another way to state this postulate:

Light's speed measured between two clocks will be c wrt
all inertial coordinate systems.

[6] Oddly enough, this simple experiment has never been performed.

[7] Why is this?

[8] Because no one knows how to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

[9] Einstein's clocks are not synchronous because special relativity
does not have absolute simultaneity, which is required in order to
have absolute synchronization.

[10] Additionally, Einstein's clocks are forced via definition to obtain
his chosen value c for light's one-way speed. (This is _not_ the result
of an experiment; it is merely a circular, man-given result; i.e., if I
adjust clocks to obtain the value c by definition, then they will obtain
this value no matter what.)

[11] Only (truly) synchronous, unmanipulated clocks can correctly or
properly measure light's one-way speed.

[12] Ironically, Einstein himself stated that the absolutely synchronous
clocks of classical physics would _not_ find one-way light speed invariance.

Quote:
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we
have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage
thus comes out smaller than c."

[13] No, contrary to Einstein's next statement, the principle of relativity
does _not_ call for c invariance; the PR can only call for c in all frames
IF one frame has first found c, and that has yet to happen, so the PR does
not apply in this case.

[14] The Bottom Lines:
Even Einstein agrees that (truly) synchronous clocks will contradict his
light postulate, which, as we said, is the basis of special relativity.
Also, as we all know, only synchronous clocks can make correct measurements.

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be
searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

[geistkiesel]

[geistkiesel wrote (in part):]
MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of
mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was
somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass
increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me.

[MM replies:]
But even you are seemingly entirely unconcerned about the causes
of the very similar things known as clock slowing (time dilation)
and length contraction.

[MM continues:]
Note also that the topic of this thread is the very important
question Why has no one simply used two clocks on a table
to measure light's one-way speed? This has nothing to do with
mass increase or its cause.

[MM continues:]
Here is more information re that critical query:

[1] We all know well that Einstein either predicted or assumed
the truth of one-way light speed invariance between two clocks.

[2] [1] is known as "the light postulate."

[3] The light postulate is the basis of SR.

[4] SR cannot exist sans the truth of the light postulate.

[5] Here is another way to state this postulate:

Light's speed measured between two clocks will be c wrt
all inertial coordinate systems.

[6] Oddly enough, this simple experiment has never been performed.

[7] Why is this?

[8] Because no one knows how to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

[9] Einstein's clocks are not synchronous because special relativity
does not have absolute simultaneity, which is required in order to
have absolute synchronization.

[10] Additionally, Einstein's clocks are forced via definition to obtain
his chosen value c for light's one-way speed. (This is _not_ the result
of an experiment; it is merely a circular, man-given result; i.e., if I
adjust clocks to obtain the value c by definition, then they will obtain
this value no matter what.)

[11] Only (truly) synchronous, unmanipulated clocks can correctly or
properly measure light's one-way speed.

[12] Ironically, Einstein himself stated that the absolutely synchronous
clocks of classical physics would _not_ find one-way light speed invariance.

Quote:
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we
have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage
thus comes out smaller than c."

[13] No, contrary to Einstein's next statement, the principle of relativity
does _not_ call for c invariance; the PR can only call for c in all frames
IF one frame has first found c, and that has yet to happen, so the PR does
not apply in this case.

[14] The Bottom Lines:
Even Einstein agrees that (truly) synchronous clocks will contradict his
light postulate, which, as we said, is the basis of special relativity.
Also, as we all know, only synchronous clocks can make correct measurements.

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be
searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

I stand properly corrected. Please accept my humble apologies. I guess I don't know it all after all, damn!

geistkiesel.

[Nereid]

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.Or maybe they will be busy building a GPS system, a Galileo system, particle accelerators, ... Strange that a theory which (according to MM) has a fundamental flaw can be used to make gizzos (etc) which work exactly as advertised (and expected; truth in this advertising?) :tongue2: :confused: :surprise:

[Martin Miller]

[Nereid noted:]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Miller
Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists
should be searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

Or maybe they will be busy building a GPS system, a Galileo system,
particle accelerators, ... Strange that a theory which (according to
MM) has a fundamental flaw can be used to make gizzos (etc) which
work exactly as advertised (and expected; truth in this advertising?)

[MM replies:]
GPS works only because of its geometric corrections, not because
its clocks are absolutely or truly synchronous.

[MM continues:]
If the GPS clocks were correctly synchronized, then this would
give us absolute simultaneity, and this would of course run
counter to SR.

[MM continues:]
"a Galileo [Galilean] system" is antirelativistic, so I fail to
see why you brought this up.

[MM continues:]
SR does not pertain to the intrinsic masses of the particles in the
particle accelerators; only the extended Lorentzian theory pertains
to such masses; SR gets the correct answer by plugging in zero speed
for the Earth; there is no reason in SR for assigning a zero speed to
the Earth, and this works only because the Earth's actual speed through
space is indeed close to zero when compared to particles such as muons
which can move at near light speed through space. What would SR's answer
be if an Earth speed of .6c were plugged into the SR math? I dare say
that this answer would not match the results of the particle accelerator
experiments.

[MM continues:]
Nereid made the claim (above) that SR is a [scientific] theory.

[MM continues:]
I wish that Nereid would tell us (1) the physical basis of SR,
and (2) what it says or predicts about Nature.

[MM continues:]
SR says nothing about intrinsic masses, intrinsic lengths, or intrinsic
clock rhythms because these are mere point-of-view, observer-dependent
things in SR. SR says nothing about the experimental value of light's
one-way speed because SR merely forces clocks to obtain this value via
a definition given by man.

[Nereid]

Galileo (http://www.esa.int/export/esaSA/GGGMX650NDC_navigation_0.html) "will be Europe’s own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control. It will be inter-operable with GPS and GLONASS, the two other global satellite navigation systems."

MM: we've been over this ground quite a few times before; there are rather many experimental tests of GR (and SR); AFAIK, none of these tests has shown any inconsistency (to the level of the experimental/obervational errors) with the clear, unambiguous predictions of GR/SR. You continue to maintain that these predictions are illegitimate (or the tests irrelevant); those who work with SR/GR on a daily basis (successfully, their GPS systems, accelerators, etc all work as advertised) don't share your view.

Perhaps, instead of beating up on GR/SR, you could lay out for us an alternative theory (or theories) which accounts for the experimental and observational results just as well as GR/SR?

[geistkiesel]

[geistkiesel wrote (in part):]
MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of
mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was
somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass
increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me.

[MM replies:]
But even you are seemingly entirely unconcerned about the causes
of the very similar things known as clock slowing (time dilation)
and length contraction.

Martin I spoke hastily and tried to make too much of a truly innocent statement.

Please let me refer you to a thread of mine that was closed by Tom_mattson. Among other claims I make there is that like in the Michelson Morely experiments a glaring error there is in considering that the light moving transverse to the direction of motion of the frame takes a triangular path. This is one reason for a time dilation. The photon that is directed perpendicular to the photon path parallel to the frame velocity should be seen as reflecting perpendcularly back along the same line as the downward directed photons.The reflected photon should overlay on the trajectory of the approach photon. Instead th experimentors use a side lobe radiation of the down ward directed photon stream in developing the triangular optical path. The experimentors have no rational reason to not consider the reflected anhd approaching beam in anyway or mode other than parallel. There may scattering effects at the photon mirrior interface but not nearly to the extent as using the side lobe radiation of the downward directed photons. In any event theses scatteing effects can be minimized to a level of physical insignificance.

Similarly I showed that the saw toothed trajectory (mattson's model) used in showng the physics of time dilation is a contrivance. Two parallel mirrors moving parallel to the surface of reflection do not drag the perpendicular relecting light along its motion through space [some surface scattering but not to the extent developed in time dilation construction]. Remember the speed, the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, though some scattering will occur at the photon/mirror surface interface. Like the MM mistake those that see the light in a saw toothed trajectory are using the side lobe radiation of the up and down reflected photons. Return the photon to a rational reflectuion mode, consistent whth the laws of the propagation of light.

Matson claimed the thread wasn't going anywhere. It was going somewhere: to where he didn't want to go because he couldn't handle the physics as it hadn't been in any texbook that he had memorized. Mattson panicked and he used the contrivance of an argument with ram1024 to close my thread.This is my curent favorite whine.

Is it not true that experimental results show that C measured relative to a zero velocty earth as an inertial frame can also be applied to measuring the relative velocity of any inertial frame? This in spite of the known sun orbitial velocity of 30km/sec? Therefore, the velocity of any arbitrary inertial frame with its velocity measured relative to the earth plaform can be combined with a like relative velocty of light to determine a relative photon and inertial frame velocity without imposing the scientifically impossble and ficticious assumption that the moving frame is stationary?

The Bottom Lines:
Even Einstein agrees that (truly) synchronous clocks will contradict his
light postulate, which, as we said, is the basis of special relativity.
Also, as we all know, only synchronous clocks can make correct measurements.

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be
searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

The bottom line, I disagree with you on this. The bottom line is robotic thinking, but then, perhaps, our mutual bottom lines are equivalent?

[Tom Mattson]

Please let me refer you to a thread of mine that was closed by Tom_mattson. Among other claims I make there is that like in the Michelson Morely experiments a glaring error there is in considering that the light moving transverse to the direction of motion of the frame takes a triangular path. This is one reason for a time dilation.


Is the Michelson-Morley experiment also responsible for the time dilation observed in muon decay? :rolleyes:


The photon that is directed perpendicular to the photon path parallel to the frame velocity should be seen as reflecting perpendcularly back along the same line as the downward directed photons.The reflected photon should overlay on the trajectory of the approach photon. Instead th experimentors use a side lobe radiation of the down ward directed photon stream in developing the triangular optical path.


No, they didn't. The mirrors were tilted at 45 degrees. The light coming through perpendicular to the original beam is literally half the radiation, not some second-order side effect.


The experimentors have no rational reason to not consider the reflected anhd approaching beam in anyway or mode other than parallel.


Of course they have a rational reason: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. This is just a simple consequence of conservation of momentum.


There may scattering effects at the photon mirrior interface but not nearly to the extent as using the side lobe radiation of the downward directed photons. In any event theses scatteing effects can be minimized to a level of physical insignificance.


The intensity of the perpendicular beam is 50% of the intensity of the original. That cannot be considered insignificant by any stretch of the imagination.


Similarly I showed that the saw toothed trajectory (mattson's model) used in showng the physics of time dilation is a contrivance.


No, you didn't. You simply asserted it. Unless you're referring to a cryptic proof cleverly hidden in the story about Wiley Coyote.


Two parallel mirrors moving parallel to the surface of reflection do not drag the perpendicular relecting light along its motion through space [some surface scattering but not to the extent developed in time dilation construction]. Remember the speed, the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, though some scattering will occur at the photon/mirror surface interface.


I think I misunderstood your setup before. My response regarding the trajectory of the light was under the assumption that the light was moving up and down in the moving mirrors. In that case, then a person standing by on the ground would certainly observe a sawtooth pattern. But if the light pulse was sent to a mirror, and then the mirrors started moving, then I would agree that the light (for the most part) moves straight up and down in the frame of the guy on the ground. But that still doesn't get you out of the "time dilation construction" as you put it.


Like the MM mistake those that see the light in a saw toothed trajectory are using the side lobe radiation of the up and down reflected photons. Return the photon to a rational reflectuion mode, consistent whth the laws of the propagation of light.


"The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection" is a law of the propagation of light, and MM uses it.


Matson claimed the thread wasn't going anywhere. It was going somewhere: to where he didn't want to go because he couldn't handle the physics as it hadn't been in any texbook that he had memorized. Mattson panicked and he used the contrivance of an argument with ram1024 to close my thread.This is my curent favorite whine.


The thread certainly was not going anywhere. All you wanted was a soap box to preach your religion, and to dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.


Is it not true that experimental results show that C measured relative to a zero velocty earth as an inertial frame can also be applied to measuring the relative velocity of any inertial frame? This in spite of the known sun orbitial velocity of 30km/sec? Therefore, the velocity of any arbitrary inertial frame with its velocity measured relative to the earth plaform can be combined with a like relative velocty of light to determine a relative photon and inertial frame velocity without imposing the scientifically impossble and ficticious assumption that the moving frame is stationary?


This is your main mental deficiency right here. You still fail to understand that any inertial observer can consider himself at rest. I'm sorry that you are unable to think in these terms, but it really is the source of a lot of your errors. There is simply no such thing as absolute inertial motion, or absolute rest. You need to give it up.

[Martin Miller]

[Tom Mattson claimed:]
There is simply no such thing as absolute inertial motion....

[MM replies:]
Here is a 'counterfact':
That which can change must exist.
An observer in closed lab - with no reference to any outside
observers - can easily detect a change in his velocity;
such detected changes prove the existence of velocities
which have nothing do to with the merely relative velocities
of Einstein's special relativity.

[Tom Mattson wrote:]
Is the Michelson-Morley experiment also responsible for
the time dilation observed in muon decay?

[MM replies:]
I would replace the word "responsible" with the words
"related to."
Had Michelson had an atomic clock, he would have been able
to time light's round-trip speed, and he would have found
it to be invariant as well as isotropic, and this null result's
cause would have been intrinsic time dilation, which, of course,
is the same thing involved in muon decay.

[MM continues:]
However, the key point here is that special relativity does not
pertain to intrinsic clock slowing or to a muon's actual age.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, a given clock moving at a
steady speed cannot have more than one intrinsic rhythm, and
yet SR's observers find an infinity of different "rhythms"
for one and the same steady-speed clock.

[MM continues:]
Since the above simple proof has been simply ignored here,
with some folk still insisting that SR pertains to actual
time dilation (along with actual mass variance and actual
rod contraction), I must assume that the given proof has
yet to be grasped, despite its utter simplicity.

[Tom Mattson]

[Tom Mattson claimed:]
There is simply no such thing as absolute inertial motion....

[MM replies:]
Here is a 'counterfact':
That which can change must exist.
An observer in closed lab - with no reference to any outside
observers - can easily detect a change in his velocity;
such detected changes prove the existence of velocities
which have nothing do to with the merely relative velocities
of Einstein's special relativity.


No, his ability to detect a change in his velocity means that there is an acceleration according to every frame. And even the magnitude of the acceleration won't be the same.

There is no way to define the inertial motion or non-motion of any body in the universe without making reference to another body.


[Tom Mattson wrote:]
Is the Michelson-Morley experiment also responsible for
the time dilation observed in muon decay?

[MM replies:]
I would replace the word "responsible" with the words
"related to."
Had Michelson had an atomic clock, he would have been able
to time light's round-trip speed, and he would have found
it to be invariant as well as isotropic, and this null result's
cause would have been intrinsic time dilation, which, of course,
is the same thing involved in muon decay.


I would say "related to" as well, because muons and interferometers all live in the same spacetime, and time dilation is a feature of that spacetime. But that's where the similarity ends. Muon decay is regulated by the weak interaction, which is certainly not responsible for interference phenomena with light.


[MM continues:]
However, the key point here is that special relativity does not
pertain to intrinsic clock slowing or to a muon's actual age.


But it does pertain to it. The muon's "actual" age (didi you mean lifetime?) in every frame is whatever it is measured to be. And these measurements are perfectly in accord with SR.


As I have repeatedly pointed out, a given clock moving at a
steady speed cannot have more than one intrinsic rhythm, and
yet SR's observers find an infinity of different "rhythms"
for one and the same steady-speed clock.


You can "point it out" till you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. And it is in fact not true. Muon's don't have some absolute intrinsic lifetime. It has what is called a proper lifetime, but there is nothing special about that, other than that it is measured in the rest frame of the decaying muon.


[MM continues:]
Since the above simple proof has been simply ignored here,
with some folk still insisting that SR pertains to actual
time dilation (along with actual mass variance and actual
rod contraction), I must assume that the given proof has
yet to be grasped, despite its utter simplicity.

Your proof is so simple, you must have forgotten type it. Where is it?

[Martin Miller]

[Tom Mattson claimed:]
No, his ability to detect a change in his velocity means that
there is an acceleration according to every frame. And even
the magnitude of the acceleration won't be the same.

There is no way to define the inertial motion or non-motion
of any body in the universe without making reference to another
body.

[MM replies:]
I just did, and you agreed with me above via your phrase
"change in his velocity." No matter how much you may try
to bring in acceleration, the fact remains that a mere
velocity changed, and this is direct proof that such a
velocity exists.

You overlooked the fact that a speed change can be detected
in a closed lab, without reference to any outside view or
frame of ref.

Additionally, the simple fact that light rays move through
space contradicts your above conclusion; i.e., light's movement
through space does not involve any inertial reference frame.

-----

[MM continues:]
However, the key point here is that special relativity does not
pertain to intrinsic clock slowing or to a muon's actual age.

[Mattson replied:]
But it does pertain to it. The muon's "actual" age (didi you
mean lifetime?) in every frame is whatever it is measured to be.
And these measurements are perfectly in accord with SR.

[MM replies:]
Just like you, a muon cannot have more than one physical
lifetime, regardless of how many different "lifetimes"
are found by Einsteinian observers in various frames using
their asynchronous clocks.

Events are observer-independent, and there are only two events
surrounding any physical lifetime, and these two events tell us
that there is only one physical lifetime for anything that has
a lifetime.

-----

[MM had written:]
As I have repeatedly pointed out, a given clock moving at a
steady speed cannot have more than one intrinsic rhythm, and
yet SR's observers find an infinity of different "rhythms"
for one and the same steady-speed clock.

[Mattson noted:]
You can "point it out" till you're blue in the face, it doesn't
make it true. And it is in fact not true. Muon's don't have some
absolute intrinsic lifetime. It has what is called a proper
lifetime, but there is nothing special about that, other than
that it is measured in the rest frame of the decaying muon.

[MM replies:]
See my above. Also, why don't you tell us exactly how many atomic
rhythms a steady-speed atomic clock has. I claim that it has only
one. What do you claim?

[MM had continued:]
Since the above simple proof has been simply ignored here,
with some folk still insisting that SR pertains to actual
time dilation (along with actual mass variance and actual
rod contraction), I must assume that the given proof has
yet to be grasped, despite its utter simplicity.

[Mattson replied:]
Your proof is so simple, you must have forgotten type it.
Where is it?

[MM replies:]
Since you seem to be incapable of catching things on first
read, I will repeat it here:

It is a simple fact that any steady-speed atomic clock cannot
possibly have more than one internal atomic vibrational rhythm;
this fact conflicts directly with SR's claim that such a clock
has an infinite number of "atomic rhythms" (one for each utterly
stupid and completely incorrect Einsteinian frame).

It is a simple fact that any steady-speed rod or ruler cannot
possibly have more than one intrinsic length; this fact conflicts
directly with SR's claim that such a rod or ruler has an infinite
number of different "lengths" (one for each utterly stupid and
completely incorrect Einsteinian frame).

It is a simple fact that any steady-speed inertial object cannot
possibly have more than one physical or intrinsic mass; this fact
conflicts directly with SR's claim that such an object or particle
has an infinite number of different "masses" (one for each utterly
stupid and completely incorrect Einsteinian frame).

The above three simple facts tell us directly that SR cannot and
therefore does not pertain to actual, physical, intrinsic masses,
lengths, or clock rhythms.

They also tell us that Einstein's clocks are incorrectly related
temporally because they yield the above-mentioned incorrect results.

If you still insist otherwise, then all you have do to is to prove
that Einstein's clocks are correctly related, and that any given
steady-speed atomic clock can have more than one atomic rhythm.