Michelson and Morley solved, relativity gone

[2clockdude]

russ_watters wrote:
"That's his postulate, not a prediction.
The predctions based on SR are extremely broad in scope."

You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:

Postulate (verb):
a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
b : to assume as a postulate or axiom (as in logic or mathematics)

Axiom (noun):
a statement accepted as true

How can a statement be "accepted as true" or "assumed to
be true" when it makes a physically impossible claim?

Einstein's light postulate is his claim that "The law in
the one-way, two-clock light speed case is invariance."

SR is based entirely upon Einstein's light postulate.

However, as I hinted at above, there cannot be such a
postulate because it calls for that which cannot happen.

That is, it calls for nature to give us the natural or physical
law in the one-way, two-clock case, but this, as anyone should
be able to see, simply cannot be.

If you think otherwise, then please tell me how - given two
clocks which are not even started - nature can give us her
law in the one-way case. Indeed, I will even let you give her
started clocks, as long as you don't force them to obtain
what you think should be the result (as did Einstein).

Einstein's clock synchronization involves forcing clocks to
obtain one-way invariance and isotropy. This is not a result
from nature. This is a mere convention.

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.

Man's input is disallowed because this controls the output.

Only Nature's input is allowed because we are looking for
the natural law when we experiment.

russ_watters wrote:
"And the methodology of the test you suggest is self-evident:
synchronize two clocks on a table and fire a laser between them.
Simple."

Simple but wrong. Try again!

 

[russ_watters]

You are extremely confused here.
You don't even know the meaning of the word postulate.
Let me clue you in, sir:

Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:

In fact, who has ever tested Einstein's light postulate?

Perhaps you use the two interchangeably. There is a difference.

Simple but wrong. Try again!

Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few actual arguments.

 

[2clockdude]

russ_watters wrote:
"Heh - you used the word correctly in the very next sentence:"

Let me go over it in more detail, as follows:
A statement that is accepted as true is a definition of a
postulate. Of course, if that which has been (properly)
postulated has yet to occur and involves science, then the
postulate is a scientific prediction. However, if that which
has been (allegedly) postulated simply cannot possibly occur,
then we have a problem; i.e., there cannot be a scientific
postulate or prediction of that which cannot happen.

russ_watters wrote:
"Care to elaborate on why? A common theme in all of these
threads is you guys make a lot of assertions but very few
actual arguments."

If you had fully read my last post, then you would have had
what you just asked for.

I 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.

As I also explained, only if nature can give us her result
during an experiment will the result be a law of nature.
Which part of this do you not understand?

I also explained that man cannot be allowed to interfere in
any critical way (no input from man) or we will not have
a law of nature, but a law tainted by man. (This is what
would happen if man sawed off the end of one of the rods
in the Michelson-Morley experiment during the experiment.)

It is an SR claim that two clocks will experimentally yield
light speed invariance as a law of nature. I don't care if you
call this claim an axiom, a postulate, a hunch, a wild guess,
a hypothesis, a theory, or a corn dog; it doesn't matter because
this claim calls for that which is impossible.

I hope you know the meaning of the word "impossible."

 

[elas]

UK newspapers are laughing at a recent schools football league ruling that no team shall be allowed to win by more than 14-0 (to avoid humiliation). So the team that won 29-0 was recorded at 14-0.
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Elas, I think you're on to an idea that deserves more attention and study.

 

[Nereid]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record ... a bunch of dudes and dudettes go to uni, learn about SR and GR. They get jobs working for EDO Corporation, Lockheed, etc. These companies win contracts to build and maintain the GPS system. The dudes and dudettes work hard for many months, the GPS satellites are tested, launched, tested, etc. The FAA (or whoever) pays EDO, Lockheed etc lots of $$ for delivering on their contracts; the dudes and dudettes keep their jobs, some even get paid bonuses.

Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.

Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.

Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.

Is there a better theory/theories of physics than SR/GR? Depends what 'better' means:
-> if 'within its domain, gives predictions that match observations and experiments more closely than GR does in its (and the two domains overlap significantly)', then we're all waiting to hear;
-> if 'has a domain broader than GR's, and defaults to something very close to GR in the limit of GR's applicability' then several approaches may become such (e.g. String/M Theory, LQG), but they've a long way to go.

Lots of Greeks and Egyptians in the world today.
(Edit: fixed formats)

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
All our experiments are conducted using particles or the waves created when photons collide with electrons. But over the vast distances of inter-galatic space the photons disperse leaving the released wave to travel through the gravity frame or graviton field, indendently of electromagnetic particles. Hence the problems of inter-galatic light transmission.

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

The inter-galactic medium (IGM) isn't empty, just has a very low electron, proton, etc density. There are a number of predictions from this low density - e.g. a mean free path of charged cosmic ray particles, inverse Compton scattering of the CMBR - many of which can, in principle, be tested (and several have been). Does elas have a prediction re what may be observed? Perhaps distant point-sources will appear different at different wavelengths (anywhere from radio to ~>1 TeV gammas)? Perhaps there will be differential travel times from distant objects, depending on wavelength, or maybe smeared images of such objects as seen through gravitational lenses (again, depending on wavelength)?

And why limit ourselves to the IGM? One effect of supernovae, esp in a young cluster, is to blow a giant bubble in the ISM (inter-stellar medium), inside that bubble the electron density may be lower than that in the IGM. Then too there are the radio lobes of QSOs and AGNs, which are also enormous regions of ultra-low density gas ...

 

[zoobyshoe]

Personally my mind is boggled at the fact that if I were to be traveling at 99% the speed of light I would still meaure a ray of light passing me to be passing me at c.

I do not know enough about SR and GR to know if you would have to contradict them to explain this. I would, however, like to know why it is.

 

[Antonio Lao]

I think, one way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.

$$ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2$$

as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As one's speed approaches .99c, one's mass approaches infinity and one's physical dimension approaches zero. But if one becomes pure energy in the form of light, no such restrictions are imposed.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think the way to explain this is by the following invariant spacetime interval.

$$ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 - c^2 dt^2$$

as your speed increases to .99c, your ds approaches zero so that you become light itself because only light (photon) has ds=0 exactly.

The equation looks simple enough that I might be able to make some sense out of it. What do all the variables stand for?

 

[Antonio Lao]

The x-y-z stands for a Cartesian coordinate system. the t stands for time coordinate. The c is the speed of light in vacuum.

The equation is a four dimensional quadratic form for the determination of a four-dim distance ds. This form is Lorentz invariance. It is the same in any coordinate system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Do me a favor and show me what it would look like with some real numbers plugged into all the variables.

 

[Antonio Lao]

It's not going to be easy for me since there are more equations needed for a complete description.

I can refer some books on special relativity if it's easier for you?

But we can start by saying that ds=0, therefore

$$dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2 = c^2 dt^2$$

and

$$dr^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2$$

so that

$$dr^2 = c^2 dt^2$$

and

$$\frac {dr}{dt} = c$$

 

[zoobyshoe]

Formulas and equations generally mean little to me until I plug numbers into them and try them out. I had good luck with this when I plugged some actual numbers into the lorenz transforms in SR, and came away with a much more concrete understanding of the slower clocks and shorter rods. I'm not sure what would be realistic, useful values to plug into the equation you gave. Chroot and Ambitwistor spent some time once explaining the importance of the spacetime interval to me, but I haven't ever worked one out, so it remains too vague for me to understand how it applies to the situation where going at 99% of the speed of light, I would still measure light passing me in the same direction to be passing me at c.

 

[Antonio Lao]

As you already have done, if you replace all v's in the Lorentz transformation equations for a Cartesian system with .99c and then calculate the spacetime interval you will not get a value of zero for the interval.

 

[elas]

]Nereid

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.

Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.

My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?

 

[russ_watters]

So your explanation fits observation better even though you don't know what the problems are with the accepted explanation? Hmm...

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

The speed of light c is only locally proven, it might just change outside of our solar system, we do NOT know yet...

As for MM, there is an experiment that can be conducted that rectifies this appearance of a problem...

BTW it was a Janitor who came up with it!

 

[Antonio Lao]

After reading a book on entanglement, I am not so sure whether the photons we detected by our astronomical instruments are the original photons that transmitted the information.

Entangled photons are verified by experiments to propagate beyond light speed but still cannot send a message faster than light. Entanglement is controlled by a property of no-choice. No one can choose the resulting quantum state of the photon but only the input direction for the spin or polarization. The moment one photon takes a state, the other entangled photon although light-years away, instantly takes the "opposite" state.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

BTW paulanevill@fsmail.n I find your Idea of someones intellect as being a measuable function from their employ(s), rather silly, childish, and especailly & intently ignorant...

 

[Nereid]

]Nereid

What 'problems of inter-galactic light transmission'?

According to Encyclopedia Britainica one of the outstanding unsolved problems of light is the transmission of light between galaxies. It does not give details.

Perhaps you give the reason yourself in your reply "There are a number of predictions from this low density". Do they all give the same answer? If not there is a problem.

My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?

I have no idea what the Encyclopedia Britainica is referring to! Without any specific problems identified, let's assume there are no problems.

The 'low density' predictions refer to different phenomena, and AFAIK there are no inconsistencies nor observations that don't match theory. Later I'll post a few more details.

Maybe I missed your explanation (I'll read this thread again); are there *predictions* from this explanation which differ from 'the standard explanations'? If there are, and if those predictions are inconsistent with observations, then your explanation is unacceptable.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Well there is a problem intergalactically, sorta, closer to home two of the probes that were sent out, to explore the outer planets, have been leaving our solar system, and it is being remarked upon that they appear to be slowing down...

This begs a great question, is this appearance of slower motion simple a reality of the speed of light actually being different as we progress away from the Sun's gravitational field, or is the Sun's gravitational field somehow more active, or stronger, as you get farther away from it?...is it lightspeed changing, or gravity getting stronger? (or both?)

 

[Nereid]

*SNIP
My main interest is in finding an explanation that fits the observation rather than accepting that the transmission of light is belond explanation or an act of magic. I usually get reffered to the standard explanations but, to date no one has been prepared to state why my explanation is unaceptable. Surely a debate should do more than repeat current teaching?

Here's the only elas explanation that I found on this thread:

*SNIP
Now consider all the debates about the speed of light and assume that our instruments are not allowed to record a greater speed than X; if all light traveled at a speed of 2x or greater, then all instruments will record a speed of X regardless of direction. This will not alter the red shift, so the distance calculations using red shift will remain the same, but any use of the measurements to calculate time will be open to question.
Next assume that light traveling in particle form is restricted to speed X (the maximum speed of particles) and light traveling in a purely wave form does so at a speed of 2X or greater and you have a possible explanation to the behaviour of light.

I really don't follow this explanation.

Let's go back to a time way before Einstein and Maxwell, to the 17th century.
Olaus Roemer calculated the speed of light by measuring a time difference and a (calculated) distance difference. Similar methods, of the kind

(calculated) speed = known distance/measured time

gave reasonable values for the speed of light, again well before Einstein or the publication of Maxwell's equation. Notice: no 'instrument' measures the speed, so the idea that any such is 'not allowed to record a greater speed than X' is meaningless, IMHO.

I also cannot follow the second part of your explanation - Young's double slit experiment shows that light has both a wave and particle nature. If, under your assumption that light has two forms - wave, and particle - which travel at different speeds, how to account for the results of the Young double slit experiment?

 

[wisp]

2clockdude:
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.

Agree. This is how the GPS works and it is not proof that the speed of light one-way is invariant.

Nereid:
Does the GPS system work as advertised? Yes.

Did the dudes and dudettes who designed, built and maintain it use GR and SR in their work? Yes.

Did they use some alternative theory/theories instead? No.

Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way light speed test? No.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

Agree. This is how the GPS works and it is not proof that the speed of light one-way is invariant.

If we aren't allowed to set up the initial conditions of the experiment, then no experiment we ever do has any meaning.

Have any of these dudes and dudettes done a 2 clocks one-way light speed test? No.

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.

 

[paulanevill@fsmail.n]

BTW paulanevill@fsmail.n I find your Idea of someones intellect as being a measuable function from their employ(s), rather silly, childish, and especailly & intently ignorant...

Don't get me wrong, I'm really alright. It's just a case of the only way to motivate the intellectual is to wind him or her up a little. It was all done on purpose. Sorry folks.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Don't get me wrong, I'm really alright. It's just a case of the only way to motivate the intellectual is to wind him or her up a little. It was all done on purpose. Sorry folks.

Hummm so you assume that everyone' intellect needs "winding up"...and if your wrong, then people react to your "winding up" attempt and not to the actual question/answer needs, good dodge (I suppose) but I really do not believe that that is why you did that, but have 'no proof', soooooo...have a nice life!

 

[petrichor]

No journal submission?

If your idea is really all that great, why are you harassing people on an internet forum, rather than submitting a detailed paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Even Einstein as a patent clerk submitted papers.

 

[russ_watters]

If your idea is really all that great, why are you harassing people on an internet forum, rather than submitting a detailed paper to a peer-reviewed scientific journal?

Even Einstein as a patent clerk submitted papers.

Good inisight for a newbie (to this forum anyway). Welcome to the site.

 

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

I tried that once...sorta... (sorry bout that 'Guys' didn't always know my own stength, kinda easier with that feedback impairment y'all gots)...getting published in a Journal? Nah, I was a...Uhmmm, Truck driver at that time, Nope! I was self employed?...uhmmm, maybe it was that other guy I was working for, or at that other place? anyways...don't even recall (right this second/minute) what Job I had, Hee hee heeeeeeee !

 

[2clockdude]

["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.)

 

[zoobyshoe]

2clockdude,

I think your post is very interesting.

I would like to correct one error I noticed. You said that Einstein "firmly believed that his one-way light speed law of nature was invariance"

In fact, though, Einstein was not proceeding from any such belief. He said:

"That light requires the same time to traverse the path A to M as for the path B to M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light, but a stipulation[/] which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."

From Chapter VIII, ON THE IDEA OF TIME IN PHYSICS, SR

Einstein stipulated the speed of light as constant in order to have a tool to explore the greater point he was working toward about the Relativity of Simultaneity. Apparently he hadn't heard about the Michelson-Morley experiment at the time he wrote SR.

I don't know if this changes your interesting train of thought at all, but I thought you should know.

-Zooby

 

[2clockdude]

[zoobyshoe wrote, in part:]
Einstein stipulated the speed of light as constant in order to
have a tool to explore the greater point he was working toward
about the Relativity of Simultaneity. Apparently he hadn't heard
about the Michelson-Morley experiment at the time he wrote SR.

I don't know if this changes your interesting train of thought at
all, but I thought you should know.

[2clockdude replies:]
Hey, we're really making progress here! Yes, 'Zooby,' I am well aware
of Einstein's two different versions of light's one-way speed!
One version was that one-way invariance/isotropy is a LAW of nature
per experiment, and the other was that it was merely a _stipulation_
given only by mere man, which means that it would have exactly nothing
to do with physics (or with the nature of nature).

How do I know for sure that Einstein had _two_ versions; well, I
know for sure that he claimed to use the principle of relativity,
and I also know for sure that he claimed to have a scientific
theory called special relativity, and these two facts alone tell
us in no uncertain terms that Einstein was talking about a LAW
of nature in the one-way light speed case. (The principle of
relativity pertains _only_ to laws of nature, and any scientific
theory must of course pertain to the nature of nature.)

Furthermore, take a quick look at the title of Chapt. VII in
Einstein's book _Relativity_:

"The Apparent Incompatibility of the LAW of propagation of light
with the Principle of Relativity"

We know that here he was speaking of the one-way light speed LAW
because he gave a math formula showing that this LAW is c - v
in the Galilean case (for a departing light ray).

And, as I said above, since he was talking about the principle of
relativity, he had to have been talking about some sort of LAW of
nature. (Not to re-mention the fact that he claimed to have a
scientific theory based on a scientific postulate about the one-way
speed of light per two clocks.)

[Before I proceed to clear up the "two versions" theme, I should
address your claim that Einstein apparently had not heard of the
MMx when he created SR; please ponder the following from the first
page of Einstein's 1905 SR paper: "Examples of this sort, together
with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth
relatively to the 'light medium,' suggest that ..."]

[I would also like to say that even though I was aware of the two
versions prior to my last post, I deliberately ignored the mere
definition (or mere stipulation) version in order to focus on the
more important version (re SR), namely, Einstein's claim that there
is a LAW in the one-way light speed case, and that SR was based on
this LAW being invariance.]

Well, there can be no doubt that Einstein had two entirely different
stories regarding one-way light speed invariance/isotropy, but the
problem for Einstein is this: Neither version has any real value for
or any relevance to science!

Here is the problem with Version One ("the one-way, two-clock light
speed law not only exists, but is invariance/isotropy"):

Since nature cannot synchronize clocks, and since there cannot be a
one-way, two-clock law without two synchronized clocks, it is clear
that there cannot be such a law, and it follows that there cannot be
a scientific postulate regarding such a law, and it further follows
that there cannot be a scientific theory based on such a postulate;
therefore, special relativity cannot be a scientific theory. (It says
absolutely nothing about nature that is not based 100% upon a mere
man-given definition of clock synchronization because 100% of the math
of special relativity is derived using Einstein's clocks in all frames.)

Here is the problem with Version Two ("one-way, two-clock light speed
invariance/isotropy is purely a mere stipulation given in order to have
a working definition of 'simultaneity."):

As the twin SR phrases "relative time" and "relative simultaneity"
tell us, Einstein's time and Einstein's simultaneity are not absolute,
but are merely relative. But I dislike the use of the terms "relative"
and "absolute"; for clarity, they should be replaced with the terms
"incorrect" and "correct."

In other words, Einstein's stipulation produced incorrectly-related
(i.e., absolutely asynchronous) clocks.

Therefore, Einstein's definition of synchronization (i.e., his stipulation
of one-way light speed invariance/isotropy) gives us _incorrect_ clocks.

So here are the bottom lines for Einstein:

Bottom Line 1:
[one-way "law" case:]
Einstein has no scientific theory because there cannot be a law of
nature in the one-way, two-clock light speed case.

Bottom Line 2:
[definition of clock synchronization (stipulation) case:]
Clocks which are baselessly and arbitrarily forced to obtain one-way
light speed invariance/isotropy will not be correctly related.
(Of course, over relatively small distances and for measuring relatively
slow speeds, Einstein's clocks will suffice because their error of
synchronization in such cases is very small due to the very rapid speed
of light through space, but as far as theory goes, clocks which are
asynchronous are simply asynchronous clocks, period.)

In either case, Einstein loses in a big way.

 

[zoobyshoe]

2clockdude,

I googled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" and I agree that the sentence you quoted strongly indicates Einstein must have been aware of MM, since he was aware of "...the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relatively to the `light medium'..."

I happened to notice, just below this, the following:

"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the `Principle of Relativity') to the status of a, postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. These two postulates suffice for the attainment of a simple and consistant theory of the electrodynamics of moving bodies based on Maxwell's theory for stationary bodies."

Here Einstein describes both the Principle of Relativity and the invariance of c as postulates. I don't see him asserting that one or the other (or both) is a law of nature.