["2clockdude" wrote:]
No matter how man may synchronize the two clocks, this step
is interference by man, and is not allowed during a proper
scientific experiment because clock synchronization controls
the result.
[Russ W replied:]
If we aren't allowed to set up the initial conditions of the
experiment, then no experiment we ever do has any meaning.
[2clockdude notes:]
That comment is much better than the standard "Hey, you silly
crank, don't you know that SR's right as rain!"
Let's see if we can go forward from here.
It is clear that setting up the initial conditions cannot involve
rigging the outcome; however, in the case of light's one-way speed,
man _must_ rig the outcome by relating the clocks his way because
clock synchronization is a necessary part of any two-clock case,
and only man can synchronize clocks.
For example, if man forces clocks (as did Einstein) to obtain
one-way light speed invariance/isotropy, then of course they will
obtain this, but this result was not given by nature, it was given
only by man, so it is not a law of nature.
For another example, if man were to somehow absolutely synchronize
clocks, then they will obtain one-way light speed variance/anisotropy,
but this result would not be given by nature, so it would be a law of
nature.
If that which is critical to the output is controlled by man, then
the output (or result) cannot be a law of nature or a natural result.
Only if that which is critical to the output is fully controlled by
nature will the output (or result) be a law of nature or a natural
result.
This is why there could be a law of nature in the round-trip, one-
clock case. In that case, unlike the one-way, two-clock case, there
is not only _no_ synchronization, but nature herself fully controls
all of the critical parts of the experiment, namely, the clock's
intrinsic rhythm, and the rods' intrinsic lengths.
By slowing the clock and contracting the rods of the round-trip
experiment, nature was able to cause the outcome to be null; thus,
the law of nature in the round-trip case is invariance/isotropy.
Contrastingly, since the one-way, two-clock case calls for clock
synchronization, and since nature cannot synchronize clocks, it is
impossible to obtain a law of nature in the one-way case. This is
exactly why no one has ever performed the one-way Michelson-Morley
experiment.
Here is the only way that such an experiment could be performed:
Step 1: Nature conceives of a clock synchronization definition.
Step 2: Nature starts and relates two spatially-separated clocks
in accordance with Her synchronization definition.
Step 3: Nature uses the clocks to measure the one-way speed of a
passing light ray.
I hope that everyone can now clearly see that Nature cannot give us
Her result (or a law of nature) in the one-way case.
However, it is clear to me that Einstein did not see this at all
because of the following three steps he took:
[a] Einstein took it for granted that a one-way light speed law
of nature existed.
Einstein firmly believed that this one-way light speed law of
nature was invariance.
[c] Accordingly, Einstein based all of his special relativity solely
upon his firm belief that the "law of nature" in the one-way case is
"invariance."
But, as we know, there cannot be a law of nature in the one-way case,
so there cannot be a one-way postulate or any scientific theory based
upon such a postulate; ergo, special relativity is not a scientific
theory.
Special relativity makes no predictions that are not entirely based
upon a mere definition given by man, namely, Einstein's definition of
clock synchronization (which forces light speed invariance/isotropy
in the one-way case.)
Therefore, special relativity makes no scientific predictions about
the nature of nature.
For a prime example, once more consider the critical case of the
one-way speed of light per two clocks:
Einstein's invariance of this speed was/is due only to his clock
synchronization definition, which, as we said, simply forces clocks
to obtain one-way invariance, so this is certainly not a scientific
prediction, but is a mere man-given (rigged) result.
For another example, consider the case of special relativity's so-
called "time dilation"; all that happens in this case is that due
to the asynchronousness of Einstein's clocks, one observer will see
another observer's clock apparently run slow when it is compared
with the two clocks in the first observer's frame.
This last example is much easier to see pictorially, as follows:
[4]-->
[4]----Frame A-----[3]
......[5]-->
[5]----Frame A-----[4]
As is _forced_ by Einstein's definition of clock synchronization,
the observers in Frame A see the passing clock "run slow." This is
a result that was not given by nature, so it is not a law of physics;
indeed, it has nothing whatsoever to do with real time dilation (or
with real or intrinsic clock rhythms).
["wisp" noted:]
Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way
light speed test? No.
[Russ W replied:]
Every person who has ever turned on a GPS reciever has done a
1 way speed of light test, an SR time dilation test, and a GR
time dilation test all at the same time.
Question:
How did these persons synchronize their clocks?
(The only known method for synchronizing clocks is Einstein's
definition of synchronization, but this, as we know, merely
forces one-way invariance/isotropy, and so is _not_ a law of
nature.)(Also, since Einstein has only relative simultaneity,
it is clear that his clocks are not absolutely synchronous,
but are asynchronous, so they are incorrectly related.)(Of
course, no one in GPS cares because of their error corrections;
they openly state that such corrections can even override the
deliberate governmental barrier for civilian usage.)
And as far as the part about a SR time dilation test goes, how
can SR say anything about actual clock rhythms when each SR
frame's observers find _different_ "rhythms" for one and the
same passing clock? (I say that it is physically impossible for
a single (steady-speed) clock to have more than one atomic
rhythm.)
!