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

[russ_watters]

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

There have been exactly zero tests of SR.

MM, I got to ask: why do you even bother posting here if all you are going to do is make this same baseless assertion over and over without backing it up? Why do you even bother? No doubt, you have seen the list of experiments posted. Are you ever actually going to make an argument regarding any of these experiments or should I stop wasting my time responding to your posts?

Your task, should you be bold enough to accept it,
is to show on paper and mathematically exactly how one-way invariance
and isotropy could occur in nature. (I won't be holding my breath!)

That is not something that can be proven mathematically. It is because it is (or if you prefer, because God made it that way). What can be shown is evidence of it. You are absolutely correct when you say that the constancy of C is a postulate and that any math based on it can't prove it. What you miss is that experiments based on that math aren't controlled by the math, they are, quite simply, whatever the universe makes them. Thus, when a GPS receiver assumes a constant C in making its calculations, it does not force the universe to have a constant C. Therefore, if C was not constant, the math applied to it by a GPS receiver would yield an incorrect position.

Until you accept the fact that the constancy postulate exists because C was first measured to be constant, you will continue to be very, very wrong.

 

[Martin Miller]

[Russ_Watters noted:]
[Martin Miller posted:]
There have been exactly zero tests of SR.

MM, I got to ask: why do you even bother posting here if
all you are going to do is make this same baseless assertion
over and over without backing it up? Why do you even bother?
No doubt, you have seen the list of experiments posted. Are
you ever actually going to make an argument regarding any of
these experiments or should I stop wasting my time responding
to your posts?

[MM replies:]
It is not a baseless assertion, and I have backed it up.
But you must have missed that, so here it goes again:
(But, come to think of it, you probably simply snipped it
because it was in the same message as the above quote.)

[As I said before:]
SR does not pertain to intrinsic masses, but only to
observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses." If you
believe otherwise, then tell us how SR measures [or at
any point even addresses] intrinsic masses.

[MM continues:]
The above simple paragraph eliminates _all_ the alleged support
for SR based on mass, momentum, etc.

[MM continues:]
SR does not pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms, but only to
observer-dependent, point-of-view "clock rhythms." If you
believe otherwise, then tell us how SR measures [or at
any point even addresses] intrinsic clock rhythms.

[MM continues:]
The above simple paragraph eliminates _all_ the alleged support
for SR based on muon lifetimes, Twins ages, clock slowing, time
dilation, and what not.

[MM continues:]
SR does not pertain to intrinsic rod lengths, but only to
observer-dependent, point-of-view "rod lengths." If you
believe otherwise, then tell us how SR measures [or at
any point even addresses] intrinsic rod lengths.

[MM continues:]
The above simple paragraph eliminates _all_ the alleged support
for SR based on "length contractions," of which, at present, there
are none of course.

[MM further explains, hopefully for the last time:]
[But of course, "Dear Brother Russ" will find a way to snip all
of the above, and again claim that I have not backed up anything!]
It is clear that SR cannot possibly pertain to intrinsic rod
length, intrinsic clock rhythm, or intrinsic mass because of the
simple _fact_ that SR observers find an infinite number of
_different_ "clock rhythms," an infinite number of _different_
"masses," and an infinite number of _different_ lengths for one and
the same passing clock, particle, and rod, respectively. No real
clock can have more than one intrinsic rhythm as it moves at any
given speed. No real rod can have more than one intrinsic length as
it moves at any given speed. No real particle can have more than one
intrinsic mass as it moves at any given speed. Ergo, SR does not even
address, much less physically pertain to, any rod's intrinsic length,
any clock's intrinsic rhythm, or any particle's intrinsic mass.

--------

[MM had written:]
Your task, should you be bold enough to accept it,
is to show on paper and mathematically exactly how one-way
invariance and isotropy could occur in nature. (I won't be
holding my breath!)

[Russ_Watters noted:]
That is not something that can be proven mathematically.

[MM replies:]
I did not ask for any such proof. Take a course in reading
comprehension.

[Russ_Watters noted:]
It is because it is (or if you prefer, because God made it that
way). What can be shown is evidence of it. You are absolutely
correct when you say that the constancy of C is a postulate and
that any math based on it can't prove it. What you miss is that
experiments based on that math aren't controlled by the math,
they are, quite simply, whatever the universe makes them. Thus,
when a GPS receiver assumes a constant C in making its calculations,
it does not force the universe to have a constant C. Therefore,
if C was not constant, the math applied to it by a GPS receiver
would yield an incorrect position.

Until you accept the fact that the constancy postulate exists
because C was first measured to be constant, you will continue to
be very, very wrong.

[MM replies:]
You don't understand the GPS anymore than you understand SR.
The GPS works only because of geometric corrections. It does not
depend on absolute clock synchronization because that does not
exist, according to your man Einstein.

[MM continues:]
If you think that the GPS clocks are absolutely synchronous,
then you must also think that SR has been disproved because
SR's prime claims are (1) relative simultaneity, not absolute
simultaneity, and (2) one-way light speed isotropy, not
anisotropy, as would be found by using truly or absolutely
synchronous clocks. (Try this on paper for yourself, if you
can.) [And of course, Einstein agrees:

"w is the required velocity of light with respect to the
carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c."]
[_Relativity_ Chap. 7]

(And, no, the principle of relativity does _not_ make light's
one-way speed invariant or isotropic. All it says is if one
frame's observers find isotropy/invariance, then all other
frames' observers must also find this.)

If you still are under the delusion that the GPS somehow has
by-passed SR and has absolute clock synchronization (or
absolute simultaneity), then perhaps you could back up this
claim by showing us how the GPS clocks were absolutely
synchronized.

 

[reilly]

MM -- My views on the anti-Einstein, anti-SR movement are spelled out in the Measuring the Relative Speed of Light thread in Theory Development (#165). All I'll say here is that I recall reading arguments similar to yours some 40 years ago -- you are perhaps just a bit more absolute and somewhat more blythly dismissive of experiments than many of your predecessors, none of whom are remembered today. It's probably good that I don't do physics anymore, given that I am so terribly wrong about the physics that I used to do. However, so far, none of my students have contacted me to complain about the physics I taught. But, nonetheless..

Would you be so kind as to explain the difference between intrinsic mass and "observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses."

As far as one-way invariance, goes it's rather basic. First, Maxwell's equations describe one way propegation of light. Second, Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare Group. And, Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic phenomena, classical and quantum, to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[geistkiesel]

Since geistkiesel has been inspired to repeatedly share his analysis of the Einstein train gedanken experiment (in several threads, mind you) it may bear yet another comment.

Note that the picture is a view from the stationary frame's viewpoint showing where geistkiesel thinks the moving observer is when she:

#1: detects a photon from B (what he labels B/t1), and
#2: detects a photon from A (what he labels A/t2)​

Note further that he thinks he's talking about measurements of time (t1 & t2) made by the moving frame--but he's not.

You are wrong. The times below the lines show the location of the moving observer when she was at the midpoint of he A and B photon sources. She is mantaininvg a running account of her position as measured by her clock and her velocity. You are being dishonmest again Doc Al, dishonest.

[quoye=Dpc Al]Again, he thinks he is going to show something about measurements made in the moving frame. But he really ends up showing (through some oddball calculation) that according to the stationary frame the photons from A and B are equidistant from M at the moment that event #1 occurs. But this is hardly noteworthy--since, in the stationary frame, the photons are emitted simultaneously and start out equidistant from the midpoint, thus they are always equidistant from the midpoint.[/quote]

Thank you. Yes A was located at a point -t1 from the midpoint, as measured from the moving frame. Yes, but this calculation was based on reasoning from the moving frame. The defining conditions of loss of simultaneity will still be satisfied even though the photons are going to arrive at M imultaneously. AS the moving observer knows her distance t1v where/when the B photon arrives, she also can determine the location of the midpoint of the A and B photons by keeping an observer at -tv (that is colocated with the midpoint of A and B in the stationary frame) until the B photon arrives. After that the photons from A and B will arive simultaneously at the midpoint in the stationary frame as measured by the t2v in the moving frame.

Now that's quite a piece of analysis. If it seems convoluted, it's because geistkiesel thinks he's doing something special with times measured in the moving frame (t2 - t1). But all he's doing is taking an oddball approach to "proving" what should have been obvious: Yes, as seen in the stationary frame the photons from A and B are always equidistant from the midpoint.

There is more to the analysis than your insult and corruption of what was said, but this is how you do business isn't it? Doc Al.

 

[Martin Miller]

[Reilly Atkinson asked:]
Would you be so kind as to explain the difference between
intrinsic mass and "observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses."

[MM replies:]
This is self-contradictory; you just claimed that my stuff was
given by others decades ago, and now you are saying that you do
not even understand my stuff, so how can you be so sure that what
I am saying now was also said 40 years ago?

[MM continues:]
Anyway, the (very simple) explanation is as follows:
If I look at a tall building in New York city, I may see it as
looking different than you if you happen to be looking at the
building from a different location. For example, the building
may look taller to me than it does for you. This has to do with
perspective, as every real-life painter knows. In contrast, the
actual building itself cannot have more than one physical height.
Similarly, a single atomic particle moving at a single steady
speed cannot possibly have more than one intrinsic or physical
or actual mass. Also similarly, SR observers in different frames
find "different masses" for one and the same passing atomic particle.
As I said, this simple fact proves that SR does not pertain to
intrinsic masses, but only to point-of-view masses, and the latter
are of no more importance to physics than are the various views of
a tall building in New York.

[Reilly Atkinson noted:]
As far as one-way invariance, goes it's rather basic. First,
Maxwell's equations describe one way propegation of light.
Second, Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare Group.
And, Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic phenomena,
classical and quantum, to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

[MM replies:]
Maxwell's equations say zilch about light's measured speed
between clocks. If you believe otherwise, then tell us how
he synchronized his clocks.

 

[geistkiesel]

[Reilly Atkinson asked:]
Would you be so kind as to explain the difference between
intrinsic mass and "observer-dependent, point-of-view "masses."

[MM replies:]
This is self-contradictory; you just claimed that my stuff was
given by others decades ago, and now you are saying that you do
not even understand my stuff, so how can you be so sure that what
I am saying now was also said 40 years ago?

[MM continues:]
Anyway, the (very simple) explanation is as follows:
If I look at a tall building in New York city, I may see it as
looking different than you if you happen to be looking at the
building from a different location. For example, the building
may look taller to me than it does for you. This has to do with
perspective, as every real-life painter knows. In contrast, the
actual building itself cannot have more than one physical height.
Similarly, a single atomic particle moving at a single steady
speed cannot possibly have more than one intrinsic or physical
or actual mass. Also similarly, SR observers in different frames
find "different masses" for one and the same passing atomic particle.
As I said, this simple fact proves that SR does not pertain to
intrinsic masses, but only to point-of-view masses, and the latter
are of no more importance to physics than are the various views of
a tall building in New York.

[Reilly Atkinson noted:]
As far as one-way invariance, goes it's rather basic. First,
Maxwell's equations describe one way propegation of light.
Second, Maxwell's equations are invariant under the Poincare Group.
And, Maxwell's equations describe electromagnetic phenomena,
classical and quantum, to an astonishing degree of accuracy.

[MM replies:]
Maxwell's equations say zilch about light's measured speed
between clocks. If you believe otherwise, then tell us how
he synchronized his clocks.

MM, Does an increase in mass with increase in velocity, hence an inevitable acceleration, seem reasonable as an an increase in frequency of the accelerated atom? Wave your finger from left to right and back. Get a feel for how long the finger is in anyone delta x. Now increase the frequency of the motion. More mass/(delta x)/time, right?

 

[Martin Miller]

['geistkiesel' wrote:]
MM, Does an increase in mass with increase in velocity ...

[MM replies:]
I presume that you are wondering about the physical cause
of (intrinsic) mass increase with speed through space; it
has been suggested that the cause is the Higgs field.
http://hepwww.ph.qmw.ac.uk/epp/higgs1.html

Since I specialize solely in SR per se, I am not too
concerned about this cause, and can live with the general
outlook that the nature of physical space somehow causes
both mass and mass increases.

(It has also been suggested that intrinsic clock slowing
is due to the above-mentioned intrinsic mass increase; a
clock's mechanism slows when it becomes more massive as
the clock's motion through space gets closer to the speed
of light through space.)

(I know of no suggested cause for intrinsic rod contraction,
but it must be due to the interaction of the rod material
with physical space.)

 

[reilly]

MM -- Given your provocative ideas about SR and mass, how do you account for the incredible success of SR kinematics in particle physics, in which the concept of SR mass plays a critical role?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

 

[Nereid]

MM -- Given your provocative ideas about SR and mass, how do you account for the incredible success of SR kinematics in particle physics, in which the concept of SR mass plays a critical role?
Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

IIRC, MM answered this before, either in this thread or another ... basically, you use the same equations, to get the same answers ... but you go through some hand waving first to convince yourself that you've come at these equations from a different direction than classic SR (a la Einstein).

Other critics of SR (and GR) either don't propose to account for the experimental and observational results at all, or (sometimes) say they'll be the same, or (very rare, but there are some) do propose situations where the differences can be brought to light (so to speak). Examples of members of this last, very exclusive club include Garth (his SCC alternative to GR predicts a distinctly different result from GPB than GR), wisp (he proposed a simple one-way test of the speed of light), and some folk who yogi mentions. Andrew Grey may also be a member of this club (it's been a while since I visited that thread).

Let's see what MM has to say ...

 

[geistkiesel]

mass increases.

IIRC, MM answered this before, either in this thread or another ... basically, you use the same equations, to get the same answers ... but you go through some hand waving first to convince yourself that you've come at these equations from a different direction than classic SR (a la Einstein).

Other critics of SR (and GR) either don't propose to account for the experimental and observational results at all, or (sometimes) say they'll be the same, or (very rare, but there are some) do propose situations where the differences can be brought to light (so to speak). Examples of members of this last, very exclusive club include Garth (his SCC alternative to GR predicts a distinctly different result from GPB than GR), wisp (he proposed a simple one-way test of the speed of light), and some folk who yogi mentions. Andrew Grey may also be a member of this club (it's been a while since I visited that thread).

Let's see what MM has to say ...

Very interesting, but I cannot see a reasonable ratio of math/physics in the explanation or the discussion.

MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me. I cannot deny the gamma correlation between mass increase and acelerated electrons, for example, but even here to look at m/(1 - v^2)^1/2 expression that does not evoke many physical intuitions. I can see that the gamma can be used effectivley as a measure of the apparent velocity limitation, or velocity state of the electron, but to slide into relativisitc convenience here seems like such a dreadful waste of effort

The mass of a particle can increase without an increase in mass, not to contradict myself, once you grasp the concept of "effective mass". Wave your finger back and forth a few cm side to side at 1hz. Notice how the mass of your finger spends a certain dt in measurable volumes, dvols, as the finger moves. Increase the frequency of the finger to 2hz and notice how the m[(dvols/dt)(2hz)] increases as the frequency increases. Now oscillate your finger at 500hz and notice the

m[(dvols/dt)(500hz)] increases.

Of course you can't move your finger to 500hz because the finger is frequency limited to absorbing, storing and using energy that inceases the frequency of the finger. You will never get your finger to move at 500hz so we could use this number as the corrollary to gamma, except we intuitively know that the true limit is much less than 500hz. You can most certainly, however, train your finger to go faster than its intrinsic limitations at this moment.

The moral of the story is that electrons become massive because they spend an ever increasing amount of time within any dvols/dt. If someone were to see what your 500hz finger felt like and actually touched the finger, they would proabbly lose theirs, or at least suffere some serious physical damage. The moving finger could punch holes in walls similar to rocks thrown against the wall, or bullets.

The effective mass I am suggesting is simply an increase in velocity and frequency of the accelerated particle. As the frequency reaches a certain constraining velocity, the efficiency of the energy exchange between the accelerating energy and the electron decreases. More energy is needed to simply onload and store the accelerating energy and less to actually increasing velocity. Velocity is increasing tremendously, to a point ~ c, but the slack is seen in frequency and M(f) increases.

One must eventually begin to look at the processes in all this physical stuff that is going on around us, but unfortunately the QM police always nab those who dast to peek behind the interference amplitude curtains, or even just a quick discreet glance under Mother Nature's hem.

Theerfore the effective mass is, Meff = M0 + M(dx/dt) + M(f), or the effective mass is the sum of the rest mass plus the mass as a function of velocity plus the mass as a function of frequency, brought about during the application of the force, d(mv)/dt = m(dv/dt) + v(dm/dt).

Gamma merely tells us the limited velocity state. Of course other inferences can be made form gamma, but the expression is essectially physics free.

Think abiut energy exchanges with the modulated frequency of the accelerating field and the frequency of the electron. Brute force .999c velocity is a measure of having exceeded a reasobnable return on the energy investment. You have to get off the mgamma curve if you are ever going to exceed the speed of light, and as a reminder, all that space out there? well we ain't going to get there from here the way we are going.

"The moving finger writes and having writ moves on, nor with all your piety nor wit shall ye lure it back to cancel even half a line."
Omar K.

 

[Alkatran]

Grounded has a very lucid post where he uses the analogy of relative velocity of two automobiles. If the observer determines a car passes by at 80.66 ft/sec and the car will pass by in 1/4 of a second the length of the car is 20.1 ft. Now if you go 14.6 ft/sec in the opposite direction our relative speed is 95.32 ft/sec., by adding the 80.66 and the 14.6 ft/sec.

Lets see what happens when we leave out the relative velocity of the observer. 80.66ft/sec with a frequency of 4.7 cars per second we get each car length of 17.1, which we know is wrong. Adding the 14.6/4.7 or 3.1. to the 17.1 we get the proper length of the automobiles.
Ciao

Yes, that's exactly right. But how is this an argument against SR? If you watch from the observer's frame the car is moving at 95.32 ft/sec anyways, and if you watch from another frame you aren't going to use half of his observations with half of your observations, are you? That would just be stupid. (Well, I saw him go by 50 but I was in a car 25 at the time... how many cars per sec did you have again? Wow... that's a pretty long car!)

 

[geistkiesel]

Yes, that's exactly right. But how is this an argument against SR? If you watch from the observer's frame the car is moving at 95.32 ft/sec anyways, and if you watch from another frame you aren't going to use half of his observations with half of your observations, are you? That would just be stupid. (Well, I saw him go by 50 but I was in a car 25 at the time... how many cars per sec did you have again? Wow... that's a pretty long car!)

Yes 95.32 ft/sec, but only if the velocities are added.
The other car, in the example was said to pass by in 1/4 sec, therefore his careis 20.165ft.or it passwes by every .2115 sec, for a frequency of 4,728/sec.. If we used only the 80,66 ft /s car we get a kength of 17.096 ft. an error, but adding the 10 mph or 14,76 ft/sec/4.728 = 3.12 feet + 17.096 =20.21 the correct length of the car. You can see here the need to include the observers velocity, which you did when you recognized the stationary observer sees them at 95,32 ft/sec.
It isn't against SR, it is merely a showing of the effect of adding the velocities in order to get correct resulkts in calculations. Simply swap the 80.66ft/sec car for 3x10^8m/s light and say.3 x10^8m/s for the moving obvserver and you've a relative velocity of 3.3x10^8m/s anmd fly!

 

[Martin Miller]

[reilly wrote:]
... how do you account for the incredible success of SR kinematics
in particle physics, in which the concept of SR mass plays a critical
role?

[MM replies:]
For most folk, clock rhythm is simpler than mass, so I will use
the former to explain the latter.

Explanatory Step 1:
It is an obvious fact that a single atomic clock moving at a single
steady speed cannot have more than one internal atomic rhythm.

Explanatory Step 2:
However, in SR, observers in different frames will find different
"rhythms" for one and the same steady-speed clock.

Explanatory Step 3:
Therefore, SR cannot and does not pertain to or address intrinsic
atomic clock rhythms.

Explanatory Step 4:
Although Step 3 is the final step needed, it may help to go on to
explain the cause of SR's observer-dependent, mere point-of-view
"time dilation"; this explanation begins with Step 5.

Explanatory Step 5:
The opposite of SR's relative simultaneity is absolute simultaneity;
since SR has only the former, Einstein's clocks cannot be, and thus
are not, absolutely synchronous.

Explanatory Step 6:
SR's lack of absolute synchronization is the direct physical cause
of SR's trivial and observer-dependent "clock slowing," which is
illustrated by the following simple diagram:

passing clock
--------[4]-->
--------[4]---Frame A---[5]

------------------[5]-->
[5]---Frame A---[6]

Explanatory Step 7:
Note that whatever causes real or actual or physical clock slowing
has been equally applied to both frames (on paper) so that in fact
all three clocks are running at the same intrinsic atomic rate.

Explanatory Step 8:
Therefore, all three clocks times moved up by the _same_ amount
(1 unit).

Explanatory Step 9:
However, thanks to SR's stupid, asynchronous clocks in Frame A,
that frame's SR observers make the stupendously trivial observation
that the passing clock seems to run slow when compared to their two
on-board clocks.

Explanatory Step 10:
Indeed, in stark contrast with real clock slowing, SR's is reciprocal,
with each frame claiming that the other's clock is slower!

Explanatory Step 11:
It should be perfectly clear to even a child that SR's "time dilation"
is of no more importance to space-time physics than is the fact that
each of two departing people sees the other as "getting smaller."

And the same argument applies to SR's "mass increase" and "length
contraction."

Why does the SR math seem to work? That is, why do the SR mass increase,
time dilation, and rod length contraction equations seem to match reality?
The answer is simple: Cheating.

For example, in the passing muon time dilation case, it is incorrectly
given that the Earth's speed is zero, with the muon doing all of the
moving, so the correct result is given even though the math is based on
a mere observer-dependent situation. Conveniently ignored are all of the
other answers from all of the other frames. As I said, reality says that
a passing muon cannot have more than one mass, but SR observers in various
frames find different masses for one and the same passing muon, as long
as the SR math is properly applied (sans any cheating).

 

[geistkiesel]

hear, hear. My favorite one is when the moving frame, saya railway train,"considers himself stationary and the train station is moving. It is the train that is seen to accelerate and it is the train passengers that feel the acceleration. It is the feel the breeze when they stick their hand into the passing air.

Take two photons emitted simultaneously in the stationary frame that are concluded to not being simultaneously emitted in the moving platform. On photon precedes the other, as SR tells us. Run the experiment changing only that one photon is emitted. Will the moving frame know that there is only one photon emitted? When two photons are emitted and there are observers located one wavelength from the simultaneously emitted photons Sr tells us the observers will not degtect the photons emitted simultaneously and that placing clocks with a resolutuion of 1/10^25 at the emitted sites will detect the photons were not emitted simultaneously.
Another favorite is put the photons on tghe moving frame at the same distane apart as when the emitters were in the stationary frame. Emit the photons. The Photon moving in a closiong tajectory to the observer at the midpoint of the moving frame still detects the on coming photon before the photon from the rear catches up, hence ,as Einstein says in "Relativity", the moving passebngers must conclude the photons were not emitted simultaneously in the moving frame as they were detected at different times, when they were emitted simultaneously in the moving frame.

So many still believe. Should we admire such tenacity in the retention of silly dogma?

 

[Martin Miller]

[geistkiesel wrote (in part):]
MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of
mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was
somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass
increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me.

[MM replies:]
But even you are seemingly entirely unconcerned about the causes
of the very similar things known as clock slowing (time dilation)
and length contraction.

[MM continues:]
Note also that the topic of this thread is the very important
question Why has no one simply used two clocks on a table
to measure light's one-way speed? This has nothing to do with
mass increase or its cause.

[MM continues:]
Here is more information re that critical query:

[1] We all know well that Einstein either predicted or assumed
the truth of one-way light speed invariance between two clocks.

[2] [1] is known as "the light postulate."

[3] The light postulate is the basis of SR.

[4] SR cannot exist sans the truth of the light postulate.

[5] Here is another way to state this postulate:

Light's speed measured between two clocks will be c wrt
all inertial coordinate systems.

[6] Oddly enough, this simple experiment has never been performed.

[7] Why is this?

[8] Because no one knows how to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

[9] Einstein's clocks are not synchronous because special relativity
does not have absolute simultaneity, which is required in order to
have absolute synchronization.

[10] Additionally, Einstein's clocks are forced via definition to obtain
his chosen value c for light's one-way speed. (This is _not_ the result
of an experiment; it is merely a circular, man-given result; i.e., if I
adjust clocks to obtain the value c by definition, then they will obtain
this value no matter what.)

[11] Only (truly) synchronous, unmanipulated clocks can correctly or
properly measure light's one-way speed.

[12] Ironically, Einstein himself stated that the absolutely synchronous
clocks of classical physics would _not_ find one-way light speed invariance.

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

[13] No, contrary to Einstein's next statement, the principle of relativity
does _not_ call for c invariance; the PR can only call for c in all frames
IF one frame has first found c, and that has yet to happen, so the PR does
not apply in this case.

[14] The Bottom Lines:
Even Einstein agrees that (truly) synchronous clocks will contradict his
light postulate, which, as we said, is the basis of special relativity.
Also, as we all know, only synchronous clocks can make correct measurements.

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be
searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

 

[geistkiesel]

[geistkiesel wrote (in part):]
MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of
mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was
somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass
increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me.

[MM replies:]
But even you are seemingly entirely unconcerned about the causes
of the very similar things known as clock slowing (time dilation)
and length contraction.

[MM continues:]
Note also that the topic of this thread is the very important
question Why has no one simply used two clocks on a table
to measure light's one-way speed? This has nothing to do with
mass increase or its cause.

[MM continues:]
Here is more information re that critical query:

[1] We all know well that Einstein either predicted or assumed
the truth of one-way light speed invariance between two clocks.

[2] [1] is known as "the light postulate."

[3] The light postulate is the basis of SR.

[4] SR cannot exist sans the truth of the light postulate.

[5] Here is another way to state this postulate:

Light's speed measured between two clocks will be c wrt
all inertial coordinate systems.

[6] Oddly enough, this simple experiment has never been performed.

[7] Why is this?

[8] Because no one knows how to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

[9] Einstein's clocks are not synchronous because special relativity
does not have absolute simultaneity, which is required in order to
have absolute synchronization.

[10] Additionally, Einstein's clocks are forced via definition to obtain
his chosen value c for light's one-way speed. (This is _not_ the result
of an experiment; it is merely a circular, man-given result; i.e., if I
adjust clocks to obtain the value c by definition, then they will obtain
this value no matter what.)

[11] Only (truly) synchronous, unmanipulated clocks can correctly or
properly measure light's one-way speed.

[12] Ironically, Einstein himself stated that the absolutely synchronous
clocks of classical physics would _not_ find one-way light speed invariance.

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

[13] No, contrary to Einstein's next statement, the principle of relativity
does _not_ call for c invariance; the PR can only call for c in all frames
IF one frame has first found c, and that has yet to happen, so the PR does
not apply in this case.

[14] The Bottom Lines:
Even Einstein agrees that (truly) synchronous clocks will contradict his
light postulate, which, as we said, is the basis of special relativity.
Also, as we all know, only synchronous clocks can make correct measurements.

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be
searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

I stand properly corrected. Please accept my humble apologies. I guess I don't know it all after all, damn!

geistkiesel.

 

[Nereid]

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

Or maybe they will be busy building a GPS system, a Galileo system, particle accelerators, ... Strange that a theory which (according to MM) has a fundamental flaw can be used to make gizzos (etc) which work exactly as advertised (and expected; truth in this advertising?) :surprise:

 

[Martin Miller]

[Nereid noted:]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Miller
Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists
should be searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

Or maybe they will be busy building a GPS system, a Galileo system,
particle accelerators, ... Strange that a theory which (according to
MM) has a fundamental flaw can be used to make gizzos (etc) which
work exactly as advertised (and expected; truth in this advertising?)

[MM replies:]
GPS works only because of its geometric corrections, not because
its clocks are absolutely or truly synchronous.

[MM continues:]
If the GPS clocks were correctly synchronized, then this would
give us absolute simultaneity, and this would of course run
counter to SR.

[MM continues:]
"a Galileo [Galilean] system" is antirelativistic, so I fail to
see why you brought this up.

[MM continues:]
SR does not pertain to the intrinsic masses of the particles in the
particle accelerators; only the extended Lorentzian theory pertains
to such masses; SR gets the correct answer by plugging in zero speed
for the Earth; there is no reason in SR for assigning a zero speed to
the Earth, and this works only because the Earth's actual speed through
space is indeed close to zero when compared to particles such as muons
which can move at near light speed through space. What would SR's answer
be if an Earth speed of .6c were plugged into the SR math? I dare say
that this answer would not match the results of the particle accelerator
experiments.

[MM continues:]
Nereid made the claim (above) that SR is a [scientific] theory.

[MM continues:]
I wish that Nereid would tell us (1) the physical basis of SR,
and (2) what it says or predicts about Nature.

[MM continues:]
SR says nothing about intrinsic masses, intrinsic lengths, or intrinsic
clock rhythms because these are mere point-of-view, observer-dependent
things in SR. SR says nothing about the experimental value of light's
one-way speed because SR merely forces clocks to obtain this value via
a definition given by man.

 

[Nereid]

http://www.esa.int/export/esaSA/GGGMX650NDC_navigation_0.html "will be Europe’s own global navigation satellite system, providing a highly accurate, guaranteed global positioning service under civilian control. It will be inter-operable with GPS and GLONASS, the two other global satellite navigation systems."

MM: we've been over this ground quite a few times before; there are rather many experimental tests of GR (and SR); AFAIK, none of these tests has shown any inconsistency (to the level of the experimental/obervational errors) with the clear, unambiguous predictions of GR/SR. You continue to maintain that these predictions are illegitimate (or the tests irrelevant); those who work with SR/GR on a daily basis (successfully, their GPS systems, accelerators, etc all work as advertised) don't share your view.

Perhaps, instead of beating up on GR/SR, you could lay out for us an alternative theory (or theories) which accounts for the experimental and observational results just as well as GR/SR?

 

[geistkiesel]

[geistkiesel wrote (in part):]
MM's statement that he wasn't too concerned about the cause of
mass incease and was content to conclude that mass increases was
somhow due to the "nature of space that somehow causes" [the mass
increase]. This sounds like complaceny to me.

[MM replies:]
But even you are seemingly entirely unconcerned about the causes
of the very similar things known as clock slowing (time dilation)
and length contraction.

Martin I spoke hastily and tried to make too much of a truly innocent statement.

Please let me refer you to a thread of mine that was closed by Tom_mattson. Among other claims I make there is that like in the Michelson Morely experiments a glaring error there is in considering that the light moving transverse to the direction of motion of the frame takes a triangular path. This is one reason for a time dilation. The photon that is directed perpendicular to the photon path parallel to the frame velocity should be seen as reflecting perpendcularly back along the same line as the downward directed photons.The reflected photon should overlay on the trajectory of the approach photon. Instead th experimentors use a side lobe radiation of the down ward directed photon stream in developing the triangular optical path. The experimentors have no rational reason to not consider the reflected anhd approaching beam in anyway or mode other than parallel. There may scattering effects at the photon mirrior interface but not nearly to the extent as using the side lobe radiation of the downward directed photons. In any event theses scatteing effects can be minimized to a level of physical insignificance.

Similarly I showed that the saw toothed trajectory (mattson's model) used in showng the physics of time dilation is a contrivance. Two parallel mirrors moving parallel to the surface of reflection do not drag the perpendicular relecting light along its motion through space [some surface scattering but not to the extent developed in time dilation construction]. Remember the speed, the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, though some scattering will occur at the photon/mirror surface interface. Like the MM mistake those that see the light in a saw toothed trajectory are using the side lobe radiation of the up and down reflected photons. Return the photon to a rational reflectuion mode, consistent whth the laws of the propagation of light.

Matson claimed the thread wasn't going anywhere. It was going somewhere: to where he didn't want to go because he couldn't handle the physics as it hadn't been in any texbook that he had memorized. Mattson panicked and he used the contrivance of an argument with ram1024 to close my thread.This is my current favorite whine.

Is it not true that experimental results show that C measured relative to a zero velocty Earth as an inertial frame can also be applied to measuring the relative velocity of any inertial frame? This in spite of the known sun orbitial velocity of 30km/sec? Therefore, the velocity of any arbitrary inertial frame with its velocity measured relative to the Earth plaform can be combined with a like relative velocty of light to determine a relative photon and inertial frame velocity without imposing the scientifically impossble and ficticious assumption that the moving frame is stationary?

The Bottom Lines:
Even Einstein agrees that (truly) synchronous clocks will contradict his
light postulate, which, as we said, is the basis of special relativity.
Also, as we all know, only synchronous clocks can make correct measurements.

Clearly, instead of teaching and preaching SR, physicists should be
searching for a way to (correctly) synchronize clocks.

The bottom line, I disagree with you on this. The bottom line is robotic thinking, but then, perhaps, our mutual bottom lines are equivalent?

 

[quantumdude]

Please let me refer you to a thread of mine that was closed by Tom_mattson. Among other claims I make there is that like in the Michelson Morely experiments a glaring error there is in considering that the light moving transverse to the direction of motion of the frame takes a triangular path. This is one reason for a time dilation.

Is the Michelson-Morley experiment also responsible for the time dilation observed in muon decay?

The photon that is directed perpendicular to the photon path parallel to the frame velocity should be seen as reflecting perpendcularly back along the same line as the downward directed photons.The reflected photon should overlay on the trajectory of the approach photon. Instead th experimentors use a side lobe radiation of the down ward directed photon stream in developing the triangular optical path.

No, they didn't. The mirrors were tilted at 45 degrees. The light coming through perpendicular to the original beam is literally half the radiation, not some second-order side effect.

The experimentors have no rational reason to not consider the reflected anhd approaching beam in anyway or mode other than parallel.

Of course they have a rational reason: Angle of incidence equals angle of reflection. This is just a simple consequence of conservation of momentum.

There may scattering effects at the photon mirrior interface but not nearly to the extent as using the side lobe radiation of the downward directed photons. In any event theses scatteing effects can be minimized to a level of physical insignificance.

The intensity of the perpendicular beam is 50% of the intensity of the original. That cannot be considered insignificant by any stretch of the imagination.

Similarly I showed that the saw toothed trajectory (mattson's model) used in showng the physics of time dilation is a contrivance.

No, you didn't. You simply asserted it. Unless you're referring to a cryptic proof cleverly hidden in the story about Wiley Coyote.

Two parallel mirrors moving parallel to the surface of reflection do not drag the perpendicular relecting light along its motion through space [some surface scattering but not to the extent developed in time dilation construction]. Remember the speed, the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source, though some scattering will occur at the photon/mirror surface interface.

I think I misunderstood your setup before. My response regarding the trajectory of the light was under the assumption that the light was moving up and down in the moving mirrors. In that case, then a person standing by on the ground would certainly observe a sawtooth pattern. But if the light pulse was sent to a mirror, and then the mirrors started moving, then I would agree that the light (for the most part) moves straight up and down in the frame of the guy on the ground. But that still doesn't get you out of the "time dilation construction" as you put it.

Like the MM mistake those that see the light in a saw toothed trajectory are using the side lobe radiation of the up and down reflected photons. Return the photon to a rational reflectuion mode, consistent whth the laws of the propagation of light.

"The angle of incidence equals the angle of reflection" is a law of the propagation of light, and MM uses it.

Matson claimed the thread wasn't going anywhere. It was going somewhere: to where he didn't want to go because he couldn't handle the physics as it hadn't been in any texbook that he had memorized. Mattson panicked and he used the contrivance of an argument with ram1024 to close my thread.This is my current favorite whine.

The thread certainly was not going anywhere. All you wanted was a soap box to preach your religion, and to dismiss out of hand anyone who disagrees with you.

Is it not true that experimental results show that C measured relative to a zero velocty Earth as an inertial frame can also be applied to measuring the relative velocity of any inertial frame? This in spite of the known sun orbitial velocity of 30km/sec? Therefore, the velocity of any arbitrary inertial frame with its velocity measured relative to the Earth plaform can be combined with a like relative velocty of light to determine a relative photon and inertial frame velocity without imposing the scientifically impossble and ficticious assumption that the moving frame is stationary?

This is your main mental deficiency right here. You still fail to understand that any inertial observer can consider himself at rest. I'm sorry that you are unable to think in these terms, but it really is the source of a lot of your errors. There is simply no such thing as absolute inertial motion, or absolute rest. You need to give it up.

 

[Martin Miller]

[Tom Mattson claimed:]
There is simply no such thing as absolute inertial motion...

[MM replies:]
Here is a 'counterfact':
That which can change must exist.
An observer in closed lab - with no reference to any outside
observers - can easily detect a change in his velocity;
such detected changes prove the existence of velocities
which have nothing do to with the merely relative velocities
of Einstein's special relativity.

[Tom Mattson wrote:]
Is the Michelson-Morley experiment also responsible for
the time dilation observed in muon decay?

[MM replies:]
I would replace the word "responsible" with the words
"related to."
Had Michelson had an atomic clock, he would have been able
to time light's round-trip speed, and he would have found
it to be invariant as well as isotropic, and this null result's
cause would have been intrinsic time dilation, which, of course,
is the same thing involved in muon decay.

[MM continues:]
However, the key point here is that special relativity does not
pertain to intrinsic clock slowing or to a muon's actual age.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, a given clock moving at a
steady speed cannot have more than one intrinsic rhythm, and
yet SR's observers find an infinity of different "rhythms"
for one and the same steady-speed clock.

[MM continues:]
Since the above simple proof has been simply ignored here,
with some folk still insisting that SR pertains to actual
time dilation (along with actual mass variance and actual
rod contraction), I must assume that the given proof has
yet to be grasped, despite its utter simplicity.

 

[quantumdude]

[Tom Mattson claimed:]
There is simply no such thing as absolute inertial motion...

[MM replies:]
Here is a 'counterfact':
That which can change must exist.
An observer in closed lab - with no reference to any outside
observers - can easily detect a change in his velocity;
such detected changes prove the existence of velocities
which have nothing do to with the merely relative velocities
of Einstein's special relativity.

No, his ability to detect a change in his velocity means that there is an acceleration according to every frame. And even the magnitude of the acceleration won't be the same.

There is no way to define the inertial motion or non-motion of anybody in the universe without making reference to another body.

[Tom Mattson wrote:]
Is the Michelson-Morley experiment also responsible for
the time dilation observed in muon decay?

[MM replies:]
I would replace the word "responsible" with the words
"related to."
Had Michelson had an atomic clock, he would have been able
to time light's round-trip speed, and he would have found
it to be invariant as well as isotropic, and this null result's
cause would have been intrinsic time dilation, which, of course,
is the same thing involved in muon decay.

I would say "related to" as well, because muons and interferometers all live in the same spacetime, and time dilation is a feature of that spacetime. But that's where the similarity ends. Muon decay is regulated by the weak interaction, which is certainly not responsible for interference phenomena with light.

[MM continues:]
However, the key point here is that special relativity does not
pertain to intrinsic clock slowing or to a muon's actual age.

But it does pertain to it. The muon's "actual" age (didi you mean lifetime?) in every frame is whatever it is measured to be. And these measurements are perfectly in accord with SR.

As I have repeatedly pointed out, a given clock moving at a
steady speed cannot have more than one intrinsic rhythm, and
yet SR's observers find an infinity of different "rhythms"
for one and the same steady-speed clock.

You can "point it out" till you're blue in the face, it doesn't make it true. And it is in fact not true. Muon's don't have some absolute intrinsic lifetime. It has what is called a proper lifetime, but there is nothing special about that, other than that it is measured in the rest frame of the decaying muon.

[MM continues:]
Since the above simple proof has been simply ignored here,
with some folk still insisting that SR pertains to actual
time dilation (along with actual mass variance and actual
rod contraction), I must assume that the given proof has
yet to be grasped, despite its utter simplicity.

Your proof is so simple, you must have forgotten type it. Where is it?

 

[Martin Miller]

[Tom Mattson claimed:]
No, his ability to detect a change in his velocity means that
there is an acceleration according to every frame. And even
the magnitude of the acceleration won't be the same.

There is no way to define the inertial motion or non-motion
of anybody in the universe without making reference to another
body.

[MM replies:]
I just did, and you agreed with me above via your phrase
"change in his velocity." No matter how much you may try
to bring in acceleration, the fact remains that a mere
velocity changed, and this is direct proof that such a
velocity exists.

You overlooked the fact that a speed change can be detected
in a closed lab, without reference to any outside view or
frame of ref.

Additionally, the simple fact that light rays move through
space contradicts your above conclusion; i.e., light's movement
through space does not involve any inertial reference frame.

-----

[MM continues:]
However, the key point here is that special relativity does not
pertain to intrinsic clock slowing or to a muon's actual age.

[Mattson replied:]
But it does pertain to it. The muon's "actual" age (didi you
mean lifetime?) in every frame is whatever it is measured to be.
And these measurements are perfectly in accord with SR.

[MM replies:]
Just like you, a muon cannot have more than one physical
lifetime, regardless of how many different "lifetimes"
are found by Einsteinian observers in various frames using
their asynchronous clocks.

Events are observer-independent, and there are only two events
surrounding any physical lifetime, and these two events tell us
that there is only one physical lifetime for anything that has
a lifetime.

-----

[MM had written:]
As I have repeatedly pointed out, a given clock moving at a
steady speed cannot have more than one intrinsic rhythm, and
yet SR's observers find an infinity of different "rhythms"
for one and the same steady-speed clock.

[Mattson noted:]
You can "point it out" till you're blue in the face, it doesn't
make it true. And it is in fact not true. Muon's don't have some
absolute intrinsic lifetime. It has what is called a proper
lifetime, but there is nothing special about that, other than
that it is measured in the rest frame of the decaying muon.

[MM replies:]
See my above. Also, why don't you tell us exactly how many atomic
rhythms a steady-speed atomic clock has. I claim that it has only
one. What do you claim?

[MM had continued:]
Since the above simple proof has been simply ignored here,
with some folk still insisting that SR pertains to actual
time dilation (along with actual mass variance and actual
rod contraction), I must assume that the given proof has
yet to be grasped, despite its utter simplicity.

[Mattson replied:]
Your proof is so simple, you must have forgotten type it.
Where is it?

[MM replies:]
Since you seem to be incapable of catching things on first
read, I will repeat it here:

It is a simple fact that any steady-speed atomic clock cannot
possibly have more than one internal atomic vibrational rhythm;
this fact conflicts directly with SR's claim that such a clock
has an infinite number of "atomic rhythms" (one for each utterly
stupid and completely incorrect Einsteinian frame).

It is a simple fact that any steady-speed rod or ruler cannot
possibly have more than one intrinsic length; this fact conflicts
directly with SR's claim that such a rod or ruler has an infinite
number of different "lengths" (one for each utterly stupid and
completely incorrect Einsteinian frame).

It is a simple fact that any steady-speed inertial object cannot
possibly have more than one physical or intrinsic mass; this fact
conflicts directly with SR's claim that such an object or particle
has an infinite number of different "masses" (one for each utterly
stupid and completely incorrect Einsteinian frame).

The above three simple facts tell us directly that SR cannot and
therefore does not pertain to actual, physical, intrinsic masses,
lengths, or clock rhythms.

They also tell us that Einstein's clocks are incorrectly related
temporally because they yield the above-mentioned incorrect results.

If you still insist otherwise, then all you have do to is to prove
that Einstein's clocks are correctly related, and that any given
steady-speed atomic clock can have more than one atomic rhythm.