Why Haven't Two Clocks on a Table Been Used to Measure Light's One-Way Speed?

[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]

Was Einstein really a genius?

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 traveling 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 website 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

 

[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 argument 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]

Was Einstein really a genius?

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 website 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 possesses 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.