Definitions (continued from the cosmology forum)

[Chrisc]

You still have not established that they "tell us" what you say they do. Specifically, you have still failed to substantiate your claim that the Lorentz transform leads to a situation where:

Is it necessary to substantiate empirical evidence?
Their meters sticks are identical length, their clocks have measured different total time.
I cannot substantiate the reason for following the only path available
if you have no intention to follow any path.

You claim that we blindly use the formulas and then suggest that the solution is for us to blindly trust you to tell us what the formulas really say with no better derivation than your repeated assertions.

I said "are often", not necessarily by you.
I have not asked you to blindly trust me.
I have stated what appears, according to the evidence, to be the only option.
If there are more please let me know, if there are none, then whether you consider
it mine or Einstein's, or anyone else's, it is the only option.
As I said above, the best derivation is that offered by Einstein, if my assertions
seem repetitive it is because you repeatedly ask me for a derivation other than Einstein's.

 

[Chrisc]

Chrisc:

You are saying there are two kinds of truth. This is woolly logic at best and meaningless at worst. What is your definition of 'truth' ?

Truth in as much as you've used it, is observer dependent.
It is true A measured one second.
It is true B measured one second.
It is true their clocks have marked different total time.
When both observers, observe the "truth" of the different times marked by their clocks,
the truth that they both measured the same quantity becomes relative.

How does a 'relative' measure differ from an 'absolute' measure ? Do you mean 'observer dependent' vs 'covariant' ?

A relative measure is a measure determined by relative mechanics.
An absolute measure is classical concept independent of relativity.
I'm not sure what you mean by "vs"

 

[JesseM]

Is it necessary to substantiate empirical evidence?
Their meters sticks are identical length, their clocks have measured different total time.

Are you assuming that because their meter sticks are identical length when they come to rest relative to one another, they must have been identical length when they were in motion relative to one another? If so, why?

 

[Dale]

I have stated what appears, according to the evidence, to be the only option.

You have not even shown that it is an option, let alone the only option. It is hard to take you seriously when you so obviously don't even understand what it means to derive your claim.

 

[Mentz114]

Chrisc,
thank you for trying to answer my questions. I suspect you have this idea that there's something going on that isn't described by physics. Something absolute perhaps. This is really a question for philosophers, because physics is constrained by what is measured, or can in principle be measured. Things that don't fall into this category are not the stuff of physics.

 

[Chrisc]

Sorry for the delay, it's been a busy week.

Chrisc,
thank you for trying to answer my questions. I suspect you have this idea that there's something going on that isn't described by physics. Something absolute perhaps. This is really a question for philosophers, because physics is constrained by what is measured, or can in principle be measured. Things that don't fall into this category are not the stuff of physics.

Far from philosophy, the fact that A's clocks marked less total time during the trip than B's clocks
is empirical evidence - the stuff of physics. Likewise the fact that A's ruler is identical to B's ruler is empirical evidence.
And finally the fact that both A and B measured light speed to attain the length of their rulers leaves the responsibility
of explaining this evidence of "physical change" firmly in the lap of physics - not philosophy.

You have not even shown that it is an option, let alone the only option. It is hard to take you seriously when you so obviously don't even understand what it means to derive your claim.

I understand what it means to derive my claim, but as you mentioned earlier you expect I should use Lorentz transformation to justify my claim.
My claim is not derivation requiring the use of Lorentz transformation, it is deduction, deduction made possible by the derivations of Einstein using Lorentz transfromations- i.e. bodies in constant linear motion experience time dilation and length contraction.
With this in mind, I will not derive time dilation or length contraction, but take them as viably derived and deduce a further consequence of their derivation.

A executes a round trip starting from and returning to B.
At the apogee of this trip A maintains a constant speed of .999c relative to B,
during which A constructs a 300,000km meter ruler by marking the emission point of a light signal
at a pre-arranged time and the extent of the signal along a stick coinciding with A's clocks marking one second.
This is accomplished by two physicists in A each with identical, synchronized clocks.
A's clocks are also identical to and synchronized with two clocks left at B where the same experiment is performed.
The physicists in A discover their light signal has traveled 300,000km when their clocks have marked one second after emission time.
The physicists in B discover their experiment produces the same results.
On their way back to B, the physicist in A phone ahead to B and exchange their results.
Both A and B conclude the constancy of the speed of light, i.e. it is independent of the speed of the source and observer.

Upon returning to B, the physicists lay their rulers side by side and confirm they are indeed exactly the same length.
But when they set their clocks side by side they notice that A's clocks are no longer synchronized with B's clocks.
A's clocks have lost 1-sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) seconds for every second marked by B's clocks while A was in motion.(where v is the speed of A relative to B)
They also notice that A's clocks are now, as they were before the trip, marking time at exactly the same rate as B's clocks.
All of the above has been derived by Einstein.

The evidence is -
1. - identical ruler lengths
2. - the speed of light in both labs was measured to be 300,000km/s
3. - A's clocks are no longer synchronized with B's clocks.

The Deductions are:
As the clocks in A were running at the same rate as the clocks in B before and after the trip, but have marked less total time than B's clocks,
the only point at which the clocks in A could have lost time was "during" the trip.
As it was "during" the trip that the physicists in A constructed their ruler, there now exists a logical conflict between the evidence
of the measures of A and B and the definition of speed, for two identical measures of speed attained over identical
measures of length, require each measure mark identical durations of time - a criteria that cannot be met when
the clocks in A run at different rates than the clocks in B.Taken together, the evidence requires we deduce that the magnitude of motion measured by A and expressed as a ratio of Length/Time
was less, due to the equality of length and inequality of time marked by A wrt that marked by B, than the magnitude of motion likewise measured by B.
The magnitude of motion measured by each was the motion of light, therefore the magnitude of the motion of light differs
between A and B while each is in motion wrt the other.
Because both length and time changed for A wrt B "WHILE" they made their measurements, (also derived by Einstein)the ratio of
Length/Time expressed by the measures of A and B remains the same or constant, therefore the ratio of Length/Time
that is the speed of light remains constant.

Are you assuming that because their meter sticks are identical length when they come to rest relative to one another, they must have been identical length when they were in motion relative to one another? If so, why?

No, I am deducing they were not.
I think my answer to DaleSpam above will explain what I am saying about the evidence of the length of their rulers.

 

[atyy]

From the time A began to move until the time A is back at rest with B, the total time marked by the clocks
in A differs from the total time marked by the clocks in B.
Unless you think the success of GPS is hand waving, I think you will agree such time dilation is well documented, empirical evidence.

If A has accelerated and decelerated relative to an inertial frame, then A's clock is not an inertial clock.

 

[Mentz114]

Chrisc:
Are you saying that the speed of light was 'actually different in the two frames' , and this is the only way to explain the clock and ruler evidence ?

That is not a physically meaningful statement because it is not falsifiable. Nor does it have any physical consequences. It makes no difference what the 'actual' value was. In fact, there's no such thing except to absolutists who never accept relativity and keep plugging on and on and on with their vague meaningless arguments.

 

[Dale]

You just don't get how to establish your claim. I'm sorry, but this is pointless.

The evidence is -

You should be able to take your scenario and use the Lorentz transform to do a step-by-step derivation of these measurements.

The Deductions are:

You should then be able to do a step-by-step derivation of your deductions from your "evidence".

Since I am now bored with this conversation I will go ahead and tell you where you are making your mistake. The key error is that you are treating time and space differently and thereby effectively mixing frames in order to reach your deduction. You note that the clock is running slowly when it is in motion, but fail to note that ruler is contracted when it is in motion: when you take both into account you get c. You also note that the ruler is the same length when at rest and then deliberately ignore that the clock is the same rate when at rest: when you take both into account you get c. In all of these ways you are treating time different from distance, so it is not surprising that you get a "change" in speed.

Finally, you worry about the fact that the clock has "accumulated" less time, but the accumulated time is a measurement of the total spacetime interval along the worldline of the clock. Since the clocks took different paths through spacetime your expectation that they show the same accumulated time seems strange to me. It is like expecting that the odometer of two cars show the same mileage on a trip from New York to Miami despite the fact that one went by way of Washington DC and the other went by way of Denver.

 

[Al68]

But yeah, it is fun to know that in SI units the speed of light constancy is a tautology ;-)

Many of the laws of physics are this way even going back to Newton. As one example of many, F=ma in an inertial frame, and an inertial frame by definition is a frame in which F=ma.

I think a lot of people would be surprised by how many of our "laws of physics" are true by definition or convention.

Al

 

[Dale]

Many of the laws of physics are this way even going back to Newton. As one example of many, F=ma in an inertial frame, and an inertial frame by definition is a frame in which F=ma.

I think a lot of people would be surprised by how many of our "laws of physics" are true by definition or convention.

You could also define an inertial frame as one in which Newton's 3rd law holds (thus eliminating frames with fictitious forces). Then Newton's 2nd law is not a tautology. Or you could formulate your mechanics in terms of frame-independent geometric quantities as in GR.

My point is that although under one particular set of definitions something may be tautological does not mean it is so in general. F=ma is one example, as is the constancy of c. They are not just true by definition, but they are so well established experimentally that they are often used in definitions of other things like the meter and inertial frames.

 

[Chrisc]

Since I am now bored with this conversation I will go ahead and tell you where you are making your mistake. The key error is that you are treating time and space differently and thereby effectively mixing frames in order to reach your deduction.

That is the key, but it is the mistake you are making not me.
You are mixing the evidence gathered between frames to reach your conclusions.

You note that the clock is running slowly when it is in motion, but fail to note that ruler is contracted when it is in motion:when you take both into account you get c.

No I did not fail to note the ruler is contracted when in motion I stated that quite clearly, and yes taking both into account you get c - while A is constructing their ruler - Not while A and B are at rest in B.

You also note that the ruler is the same length when at rest and then deliberately ignore that the clock is the same rate when at rest:

No, I did not deliberately ignore that the clocks run at the same rate at rest, again I stated that fact quite clearly.

when you take both into account you get c.

Yes when both are taken into account you get c, and this is where you are mixing the evidence of frames.
The length of A's ruler was "constructed" while A's clock WAS running slow, NOT while A is at rest in B where A's clocks
now run at the same rate as B's.

Finally, you worry about the fact that the clock has "accumulated" less time, but the accumulated time is a measurement of the total spacetime interval along the worldline of the clock.

Once again you are stating the formalism that let's you calculate the measures, but does not explain
why the measures are contradictory.

Since the clocks took different paths through spacetime your expectation that they show the same accumulated time seems strange to me.

It seems strange to you because you think I expect them to show the same accumulated time, I do not.
That time dilates and length contracts is not something I expect is wrong.
I expect those, who upon recognizing the power of the formalism to predict this very real change between frames, then realize it signifies something more than the formalism itself.
If you carried around a ruler that performed the transformations of space and time for you, would you do physics by ignoring
that you need the ruler to do physics? You seem to be of the opinion that as long as you can build this ruler of transformation
you should not concern yourself with the fact that you need to build it. Physics is not the act of measurement in and of itself.
Physics is also responsible for explaining the physical significance of those measures.

It is like expecting that the odometer of two cars show the same mileage on a trip from New York to Miami despite the fact that one went by way of Washington DC and the other went by way of Denver.

No it is like expecting the evidence of the odometers will not be contradicted by the drivers claiming they both maintained the same speed and arrived at the same time.
A and B both claim the same speed of light and both show the same length of ruler which is contradicted by
the time accumulated on A's clocks.

World lines define a very real changes between observers.
You cannot lay the world lines of A and B upon each other without transforming their time and space accordingly. That you must transform the time and space should tell you that time and space are transformed between A and B while they are in motion.
When time and space are transformed between them the definition of speed holds the speed of light
constant for both in their transformed dimensions of time and space, which makes it clear that the c of A is not the c of B
while they are in motion, unless and until and because their measures are transformed between them.

 

[matheinste]

Hello chrisc.

Like Dalespam and others, i am quite at a loss as to understanding your argument, but i add the proviso that that in itself does not make it incorrect, although i believe it is. In your last post#47 you say that "world lines define very real changes between observers". These changes are brought about as a consequence of the postulates of SR, one of them being, either implici or implied, that c remains the same in all inertial frames. Given this fact, you cannot then use it to prove the inequality of c in the two frames. In the "real" world what we measure as c is c. We cannot measure the value c as being the same in two inertial frames and then say it is not the real value one of them.

Matheinste.

 

[Dale]

Chrisc, at this point until you post a formal proof I am done because until you do so I apparently cannot show you your error. I have already told you where it is, but because you haven't actually done the math you don't realize that you have it backwards. So without a rigorous derivation it is pointless to continue.

 

[Chrisc]

The experiment consists of the construction of a ruler in A and in B, the length of which is to be determined by
marking the distance a light signal has traveled after one second from emission in each frame.
A and B are inertial frames equipped with identical, synchronized clocks.
Each frame is equipped with the equation of speed
L/T

(1)​

where L is a measure of dimension Length and T a measure of dimension Time.
Let A and B agree the equations of mechanics must hold good in their frames for the laws to be valid.
A moves away from B and maintains a speed of .999c for a period of time sufficient to prepare and perform the experiment.

Labeling the coordinate system of B (x,y,z,t) and that of A (x1,y1,z1,t1)
we find via Einstein's derivations the following transformations of measures
between A and B hold the speed of light constant as measures of L/T in each frame.

while in motion (i.e. conducting the experiment) -
for every measure of B's ruler in the direction of motion (x), A's ruler measures:
¥(x-vt)

(2)​

Where ¥ is the Lorentz factor = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2), x is the length measured by B, v is the velocity of A,
t the time measured by B and c the speed of light measured by B in kilometers per second.

while in motion (i.e. conducting the experiment) and for ever after evidenced by A's clocks -
for every measure of time on B's clocks, A's clocks measure:
¥(t-vx/c^2)

(3)​

A measure of speed in B is:
L/T = x/t

(4)​

A measure of speed in A is:
L/T = x1/t1

(5)​

substituting x1 from (2) and t1 from (3) in (4) a measure of speed in A as calculated by B is:
L/T = ¥(x-vt)/¥(t-vx/c^2)

(6)​

The ratios:
L/T = x/t = ¥(x-vt)/¥(t-vx/c^2)

(7)​

Therefore the ratio of L/T that is c is constant measure by A in A and by B in B.

but in the magnitudes of each dimension measured that comprise this constant ratio L/T
we find a variation between measures by B in B and by B in A where:
(I cannot find the html keystroke for "not equal" so please read n= as "not equal")
x/t n= x1/t1

(8)​

We can find this by entering the magnitude of B's measures of L/T in the units of B:
L/T = x/t = 300,000km/1s

(9)​

and the magnitude of B's measure of L/T in A in the units of B:
L/T = ¥(x-vt)/¥(t-vx/c^2) = 13,413.0735135km/0.044710245045s

(10)​

Since:
300,000 n= 13413.0735135

(11)​

and
1 n= 0.044710245045

(12)​

then although the ratios:
L/T = 300,000km/1s = 13,413.0735135km/0.044710245045s = c

(13)​

c n= 300,000km/0.044710245045s

(14)​

and
c n= 13,413.0735135km/1s

(15)​

Therefore in the magnitude of dimensions L and T measured by B and A respectively, B will find:
x/t n= ¥(x-vt)/¥(t-vx/c^2)

(16)​

Hence the different magnitudes of the dimensions L and T between A and B, result in a different magnitude of constant ratio
of their measures of L/T that is c. In other words, although a constant ratio of motion, the magnitude of motion that is speed of light changes
between A and B while they are in motion.

This is not a radical observation, it is why the physicists in A will age less than those in B. The mechanics of aging are not unique to physicists,
all mechanics are subject to the same relative change between frames in motion (assuming the acceleration of one wrt to the other).

For those who feel inclined to claim that this difference is irrelevant as physics can only deal with real measures, remember the dilation
of A's clocks is a real measure.

 

[Dale]

Hi Chrisc,

To be explicit you should write (2) and (3) as follows:
x1 = ¥(x-vt)

(2)​

t1 = ¥(t-vx/c^2)

(3)​

(7) is only true for the specific cases of x/t = c or v = 0. Since I don't believe you are interested the case v = 0 then to be explicit you should write:
c = x/t = ¥(x-vt)/¥(t-vx/c^2)

(7)​

Equation (8) is also an equality for the specific case of x/t = c and can be derived by substitution of (2) and (3) into (7):
c = x/t = x1/t1

(8)​

For clarity:
c = x/t = 300,000km/1s

(9)​

c = x1/t1 = ¥(x-vt)/¥(t-vx/c^2) = 13,413.0735135km/0.044710245045s

(10)​

And again, to be explicit:
c ≠ 300,000km/0.044710245045s = x/t1

(14)​

c ≠ 13,413.0735135km/1s = x1/t

(15)​

which makes it clear, as I said earlier, that you only get your inequality by mixing frames and by treating time differently from space.

 

[Chrisc]

...And again, to be explicit:
c ? 300,000km/0.044710245045s = x/t1

(14)​

c ? 13,413.0735135km/1s = x1/t

(15)​

which makes it clear, as I said earlier, that you only get your inequality by mixing frames and by treating time differently from space.

Hi DaleSpam
I'm afraid you are not making any sense.
You've essentially restated what I said and claimed your restatement somehow makes it clear I am mixing frames.

It appears you think that stating by c does not equal x/t1 and c does not equal x1/t helps your argument.
If you mean that it shows that x is of B and t1 is of A you are right.
But I hope you don't think that cross referencing the evidence is somehow a mistake?
How would you check the claims of equality in any frame if you did not cross reference their evidence?

If there were NOT any change in the magnitude of motion that is c in A and B as you claim
then the statements:
c = x/t = x1/t1 = x/t1 = x1/t = 300,000km/1s
would all be true.
That they are not and you agree that you've made this point in (14) you are then stating my point.

 

[atyy]

Not sure this works, nor that it will convince Chrisc, but let me try. A and B should mark off lengths on the *same* infinitely long ruler (instead of constructing a ruler, this way the we have a record of the *accumulated* length, just as we have a record of the *accumulated* time). This way A and B can cross check that though their clocks now tick at the same rate, and the lengths they are marking off are the same, neither the rate nor lengths were the same when they were in relative motion. ?

 

[Dale]

I'm afraid you are not making any sense.
You've essentially restated what I said and claimed your restatement somehow makes it clear I am mixing frames.

It appears you think that stating by c does not equal x/t1 and c does not equal x1/t helps your argument.
If you mean that it shows that x is of B and t1 is of A you are right.

Back in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2076072&postcount=47" you said that you were not mixing frames and that I was. What exactly do you think it means to "mix frames" if not to use expressions like x/t1 and x1/t?

 

[Chrisc]

Not sure this works, nor that it will convince Chrisc, but let me try. A and B should mark off lengths on the *same* infinitely long ruler (instead of constructing a ruler, this way the we have a record of the *accumulated* length, just as we have a record of the *accumulated* time). This way A and B can cross check that though their clocks now tick at the same rate, and the lengths they are marking off are the same, neither the rate nor lengths were the same when they were in relative motion. ?

Thanks atyy,
Unless I'm mistaken this is not the issue DaleSpam and others have with my claim.

 

[Chrisc]

Back in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2076072&postcount=47" you said that you were not mixing frames and that I was. What exactly do you think it means to "mix frames" if not to use expressions like x/t1 and x1/t?

In #47 I said you were mixing the evidence gathered between frames.
It appears I am wasting your time.
I'll keep it short, are you in agreement with the following?

I claim A measured the speed of light to be 300,000km/s
So do you.
I claim B measured the speed of light to be 300,000km/s
So do you
I claim A's ruler was shortened and A's clocks were dilated during their measuring.
So do you.
I claim this change in A's measuring devices reflects a change in what A measured wrt
what B measured - given both measured a constant.

You claim this change in A's measuring devices has no bearing on A's claim of c.

If this is the case, please explain how A's ruler and clocks can change without reflecting a change in what they measure.

 

[Mentz114]

You claim this change in A's measuring devices has no bearing on A's claim of c.

If the change in the measuring instruments is such as to give the same answer, it is possible.

 

[Dale]

In #47 I said you were mixing the evidence gathered between frames.

Right, and what did you mean by that?

Look Chrisc, I was very clear about what I meant: when I said you were mixing frames I meant that you were using expressions like x/t1. What did you mean by "mixing evidence gathered between frames"? What kinds of expressions does that involve?

The reason that mixing frames (e.g. x1/t) is incorrect is that it is not a velocity in any frame. You cannot take something that is not a velocity in either frame and use it to conclude that the speed of light changed between frames. You yourself derived the constancy of c, and the only way you got something that was not c was to mix frames to give something that was not a velocity in either frame.

If this is the case, please explain how A's ruler and clocks can change without reflecting a change in what they measure.

Because the measurement of the rulers and the clocks "changed" by the same amount such that the ratio c stayed constant. You derived this yourself in (7).

 

[Chrisc]

Right, and what did you mean by that?

You said because A's ruler was the same as B's and because
A's clock runs at the same rate as B's, taking both into account
A gets c = 300,000km/s.
I pointed out that although A's ruler is the same as B's
A's clock was not running at the same rate as B's when
A constructed their ruler.

Because the measurement of the rulers and the clocks "changed" by the same amount such that the ratio c stayed constant. You derived this yourself in (7).

You (and Mentz114)have misunderstood my question.
I do not want to know how the ratio of the quantities of what is measured remains unchanged, as you said I have already stated that myself.

I want you to explain how a ruler and a clock can change without that change representing a change in what rulers and clocks measure.

 

[Dale]

Chrisc, I have already answered that question several times and I am simply not masochistic enough to go down that road yet again with you.

I tried to communicate using English; I tried to communicate using math. I told you the same thing using both English and math, I clearly connected the two, and I pointed out your error both ways. You seem to have a very difficult time forming a cogent argument in either English or math. I am not the only one who has voiced this communication difficulty, so I don't think it is due to stolidness on my side.

The bottom line is that despite several pages of attempts you have simply failed to make your case that "they have little option but to conclude the speed of light differs between the labs when they are in motion". Every attempt to do so has involved taking an expression like x/t1 or x1/t and trying to pass it off as a velocity.

 

[atyy]

Thanks atyy,
Unless I'm mistaken this is not the issue DaleSpam and others have with my claim.

No, I'm trying to figure out why you have a problem with what eg. DaleSpam is saying. I can't figure out why you feel the need to take, as DaleSpam says, x1/t or x/t1. I guess you somehow feel that the clock presents evidence that it has changed rate, while the ruler doesn't present evidence that it has changed length? However, the quantity on the clock that shows the change is an integral - the final rate of A and B's clock is the same, but the integrated time is not. So I am suggesting you look at the integral of the measured length so that the "ruler" also presents evidence that it was different (maybe, I haven't really thought this through).

 

[Chrisc]

Chrisc, I have already answered that question several times and I am simply not masochistic enough to go down that road yet again with you.

I tried to communicate using English; I tried to communicate using math. I told you the same thing using both English and math, I clearly connected the two, and I pointed out your error both ways. You seem to have a very difficult time forming a cogent argument in either English or math. I am not the only one who has voiced this communication difficulty, so I don't think it is due to stolidness on my side.

The bottom line is that despite several pages of attempts you have simply failed to make your case that "they have little option but to conclude the speed of light differs between the labs when they are in motion". Every attempt to do so has involved taking an expression like x/t1 or x1/t and trying to pass it off as a velocity.

DaleSpam, I too am finding this an exercise in futility.
You are I think, quite aware of the meaning of my question.
Why you are avoiding it I don't know.

If you really do think that the evidence of clocks and rulers can change without
that change indicating a change in what clocks and rulers measure - Length and Time -
then this discussion certainly is futile.

I am grateful for your time and effort.

 

[Chrisc]

No, I'm trying to figure out why you have a problem with what eg. DaleSpam is saying.

I do not have a problem with what DaleSpam has said in general.
He is employing the convention of SR to show me that c is constant in all frames.
I do not disagree with that, I never have.
It is DaleSpam who has a problem with what I've said.

I can't figure out why you feel the need to take, as DaleSpam says, x1/t or x/t1.

Taking x1/t or x/t1 is simply a cross reference of L/T of A and B.

I guess you somehow feel that the clock presents evidence that it has changed rate,

Yes, it is evidence that A's clocks have changed rate wrt B's.

while the ruler doesn't present evidence that it has changed length?

I am not concerned that the ruler does not present evidence of changing length.
The evidence of c by A during the experiment is indication that Length did change.
If it did not A would not have found c = 300,000km/s.

 

[Dale]

Why you are avoiding it I don't know.

I didn't avoid it, I already answered it. The point is that you are the one making the unorthodox claim and so it is up to you to substantiate it, which you have failed to do.

 

[Chrisc]

I didn't avoid it, I already answered it. The point is that you are the one making the unorthodox claim and so it is up to you to substantiate it, which you have failed to do.

My claim is unorthodox?

You agree time dilates between frames in motion.
You agree speed requires a measure of time.
Yet you deny the time dilation will affect the measure of speed.
Why - because length contraction makes it impossible to detect.

Do you not see you are denying the existence of a deduced
state of physical dimension by inferring the validity of the deduction
precludes its own existence?
You claim Time dilation and Length contraction are physically real
effects of motion, yet deny any change of Time and Length because as
they change they make it impossible to detect that they have changed.

Are you familiar with the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?

 

[Mentz114]

Chrisc:

the discrepancy in the total time marked by their clocks leads them to reason the speed of light differs between their labs when in motion, but is constant wrt any "measure" of length/time in either lab.

This is your original assertion.

You seem to be saying that there is an underlying objective reality in which there is something called 'the speed of light'. This thing may vary between frames - but we never measure this thing, whenever we try we always come up with the same number, because nature conspires to alter our instruments to hide this difference.

If this were so, then the 'underlying speed of light' has no effect of the laws of physics, cannot be empirically falsified or detected, and so is irrelevant. The thing just contradicts itself - why are you so convinced it has any meaning ? Your arguments are mathematically naive - you cannot 'prove' that it exists after admitting it can't be measured.

You may be interested to know that there's a theory of gravity called PV gravity that postulates that matter changes $\epsilon_0$ and $\mu_0$ and thus the locally measured speed of light. There's an excellent summary here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polarizable_vacuum&oldid=56603531

 

[Dale]

My claim is unorthodox?

Yes.

Do you not see you are denying the existence of a deduced
state of physical dimension by inferring the validity of the deduction
precludes its own existence?

No, I don't see that, and you have failed to demonstrate it as indicated above.

Are you familiar with the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?

Yes, are you familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf?

 

[Chrisc]

Chrisc:

This is your original assertion.

You seem to be saying that there is an underlying objective reality in which there is something called 'the speed of light'. This thing may vary between frames - but we never measure this thing, whenever we try we always come up with the same number, because nature conspires to alter our instruments to hide this difference.

No, I am not the one claiming immeasurable mechanics. I am the one claiming the time dilation of A's clocks is VERY REAL, VERY MEASURABLE evidence of a change in the dimensions of A while in motion.
DaleSpam is claiming the dilation of A's clocks is evidence that should be IGNORED or worse considered proof of his claim that the dimensions of A were NOT CHANGED while A was in motion wrt B.
Think about that for a second. A physically real, measurable CHANGE in a fundamental dimension of physics should be IGNORED, or considered evidence of NO CHANGE.
Now explain to me why I'm the conspiracy theorist, why my arguments are naive, why I should suffer the burden of proving to reasonable people that a physically measurable change in a fundamental dimension is evidence of a physically measurable change in a fundamental dimension?

Thanks for the link.

 

[Chrisc]

No, I don't see that, and you have failed to demonstrate it as indicated above.

One last appeal to your ...
10/20 = 1/2
If I gave you 10 dollars over twenty days or 1 dollar over 2 days, I would in each case give you the same thing, a ratio of money/days that is a constant $0.50/day.
I think you will agree the ratio of money/days remains constant and if all you could ever look at was the money/day you would argue (as your are now) that there is no difference in the money/day in either case.
I am simply arguing that since you can look at more than the money/day in that you can see that the time of A is different than the time of B, you must consider the magnitude of the ratio they both agree on is different between them. One gets a total of 10 dollars, the other a total of 1 dollar.

Yes, are you familiar with the story of the boy who cried wolf?

I am, and I've enough confidence to leave it at that.
Again, I thank you for your time and hope someday you will see this beyond the math.

 

[Dale]

One last appeal to your ...
10/20 = 1/2
If I gave you 10 dollars over twenty days or 1 dollar over 2 days, I would in each case give you the same thing, a ratio of money/days that is a constant $0.50/day.
I think you will agree the ratio of money/days remains constant and if all you could ever look at was the money/day you would argue (as your are now) that there is no difference in the money/day in either case.
I am simply arguing that since you can look at more than the money/day in that you can see that the time of A is different than the time of B, you must consider the magnitude of the ratio they both agree on is different between them. One gets a total of 10 dollars, the other a total of 1 dollar.

I actually like this example quite a bit. The amount of money a worker earns divided by the amount of time that they worked is called the worker's wage. The fact that A earned $10 and B earned $1 does not in any way contradict the fact that they were paid the same wage of $0.50/day (must be a "sweat shop").

Additionally, the amount of money earned by A divided by the time worked by B is not a wage and vice versa. So the fact that those numbers are not equal to $0.50/day also does not in any way contradict the fact that they were paid the same wage. There is, in fact, no logical way for them to conclude that they were paid different wages, despite the fact that they earned different amounts of money.

All of your assertions in this thread have been based on this type of mistake as I have pointed out long ago.

I thank you for your time and hope someday you will see this beyond the math.

That "see beyond the math" is an interesting phrase. Math is the language of logic, so what that phrase means is that you hope I will just discard logic and blindly accept your claims.