Cranks on the endangered species list
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: The spinor nature of spacetime - Fictitious motion in a Minkowski spacetime
Next: QCD Meson Mass Paper -- Full Draft
From: PD on 12 Dec 2008 16:52 On Dec 12, 3:05 pm, ni...(a)4sure.com (bjones) wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 06:31:34 -0800 (PST),PD <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > --------------------------snip--------------------------------------- > > >On Dec 12, 2008, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote: > >> >A refutation of relativity would be reproducible experimental evidence > >> >in direct contradiction with the predictions of relativity. To date, > >> >nothing of that sort has been provided, and nothing else will suffice.. > > >> There is plenty.... and it is obvious. You are too blind to see it. > > >Just one example, please. One. > > 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. > (Do _not_ use clocks related per Einstein's definition because > they have been baselessly forced to get "c"; "synchronous" > here means "absolutely synchronized.") > > 2. Perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with an unshrunken ruler. > > 3. Perform the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with an unslowed clock. > > 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more than > one frame. For example, use two frames, A and B. Let A carry the light > source S at A's origin. Let both distant clocks be the same > (ruler-measured) distance from each frame's origin clock, and let S > emit a light ray toward the distant clocks when the origin clocks are > adjacent and read zero. According to Einstein, the two distant clocks > must both be preset to read X/c, where X is is the distance from the > each origin to each distant clock. However, when this experiment is > performed, ALL observers in ALL frames will SEE that the distant > clocks are started at (absolutely) different times by the light > ray (because these clocks are spatially _separated_, and a light ray > cannot reach separated clocks at the same time - in an absolute sense, > as is required for correct or absolute synchronization). Sorry, these are all experimental *proposals*. These are not experimental results. When you can point to a single, reproducible experimental *result* that is in conflict with relativity, then we'll talk. I do find it remarkable that you claim to know the outcomes of your experimental proposals before actually running the experiment. Where I come from, that is a remarkably unsound scientific practice. The purpose of running an experiment is to *test* whether your ideas are in concert with the way nature really works or not. > > Why do all of these experiments refute relativity theory? > The answer should be obvious - light is an _absolute frame_. (It has > the required attributes, viz., (i) it has an unchanging speed in > space, and (ii) this speed is known (via Maxwell). > > /bjones/
From: bjones on 12 Dec 2008 17:54 On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:52:06 -0800 (PST), PD <TheDraperFamily(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >Just one example, please. One. >> >> 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. >> (Do _not_ use clocks related per Einstein's definition because >> they have been baselessly forced to get "c"; "synchronous" >> here means "absolutely synchronized.") >> >> 2. Perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with an unshrunken ruler. >> >> 3. Perform the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with an unslowed clock. >> >> 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more than >> one frame. For example, use two frames, A and B. Let A carry the light >> source S at A's origin. Let both distant clocks be the same >> (ruler-measured) distance from each frame's origin clock, and let S >> emit a light ray toward the distant clocks when the origin clocks are >> adjacent and read zero. According to Einstein, the two distant clocks >> must both be preset to read X/c, where X is the distance from the >> each origin to each distant clock. However, when this experiment is >> performed, ALL observers in ALL frames will SEE that the distant >> clocks are started at (absolutely) different times by the light >> ray (because these clocks are spatially _separated_, and a light ray >> cannot reach separated clocks at the same time - in an absolute sense, >> as is required for correct or absolute synchronization). > >Sorry, these are all experimental *proposals*. These are not >experimental results. When you can point to a single, reproducible >experimental *result* that is in conflict with relativity, then we'll >talk. > >I do find it remarkable that you claim to know the outcomes of your >experimental proposals before actually running the experiment. Where I >come from, that is a remarkably unsound scientific practice. The >purpose of running an experiment is to *test* whether your ideas are >in concert with the way nature really works or not. > I realize that I am talking to a doorknob here, but I have to ask What do you think will happen if observers in two frames try to apply Einstein's clock-setting definition? Why would it be any different from the experiment I laid out above? And the same goes for the one-way light speed measurement experiment. >> >> Why do all of these experiments refute relativity theory? >> The answer should be obvious - light is an _absolute frame_. (It has >> the required attributes, viz., (i) it has an unchanging speed in >> space, and (ii) this speed is known (via Maxwell). >> >> /bjones/ And why is light _not_ an absolute frame? It certainly was prior to the MMx, and it has not changed. You need a brain transplant. /bjones/
From: PD on 12 Dec 2008 18:17 On Dec 12, 4:54 pm, ni...(a)4sure.com (bjones) wrote: > On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 13:52:06 -0800 (PST), PD > > > > <TheDraperFam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> >Just one example, please. One. > > >> 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. > >> (Do _not_ use clocks related per Einstein's definition because > >> they have been baselessly forced to get "c"; "synchronous" > >> here means "absolutely synchronized.") > > >> 2. Perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with an unshrunken ruler. > > >> 3. Perform the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with an unslowed clock. > > >> 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more than > >> one frame. For example, use two frames, A and B. Let A carry the light > >> source S at A's origin. Let both distant clocks be the same > >> (ruler-measured) distance from each frame's origin clock, and let S > >> emit a light ray toward the distant clocks when the origin clocks are > >> adjacent and read zero. According to Einstein, the two distant clocks > >> must both be preset to read X/c, where X is the distance from the > >> each origin to each distant clock. However, when this experiment is > >> performed, ALL observers in ALL frames will SEE that the distant > >> clocks are started at (absolutely) different times by the light > >> ray (because these clocks are spatially _separated_, and a light ray > >> cannot reach separated clocks at the same time - in an absolute sense, > >> as is required for correct or absolute synchronization). > > >Sorry, these are all experimental *proposals*. These are not > >experimental results. When you can point to a single, reproducible > >experimental *result* that is in conflict with relativity, then we'll > >talk. > > >I do find it remarkable that you claim to know the outcomes of your > >experimental proposals before actually running the experiment. Where I > >come from, that is a remarkably unsound scientific practice. The > >purpose of running an experiment is to *test* whether your ideas are > >in concert with the way nature really works or not. > > I realize that I am talking to a doorknob here, but I have to ask > What do you think will happen if observers in two frames try to apply > Einstein's clock-setting definition? Why would it be any different > from the experiment I laid out above? Now you're asking me to explain something to you. The point at hand is whether there is any reproducible experimental result that is in conflict with relativity. So far, you haven't mustered much, other than some notion of what you *expect* will happen if you do so and so. Science isn't based on plausible explanations and logical convincing, Brian. It's based on comparison with real measurement, in which you find out how nature *really* behaves, independent of what you think is plausible or not. > > And the same goes for the one-way light speed measurement > experiment. > > > > >> Why do all of these experiments refute relativity theory? > >> The answer should be obvious - light is an _absolute frame_. (It has > >> the required attributes, viz., (i) it has an unchanging speed in > >> space, and (ii) this speed is known (via Maxwell). > > >> /bjones/ > > And why is light _not_ an absolute frame? > It certainly was prior to the MMx, and it has not changed. > You need a brain transplant. > > /bjones/
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Dec 2008 18:38 bjones wrote: > 1. Use synchronous clocks to measure light's one-way speed. First you need to define what you mean by "synchronous". In particular, you must specify precisely how to set two identical clocks separated by some distance so they are "synchronous". As I have pointed out many times, this is not going to be very useful, because the accuracy of atomic clocks is insufficient to your purpose. > 2. Perform the Michelson-Morley experiment with an unshrunken ruler. That experiment uses no ruler at all. > 3. Perform the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment with an unslowed clock. That experiment uses no clock at all. > 4. Try to apply Einstein's "synchronization" definition to more than > one frame.[...] That definition cannot possibly be applied to clocks at rest in different frames. There's no hope of your doing anything relevant to physics while you remain so willfully ignorant of experiments, definitions, and theories. Tom Roberts
From: Tom Roberts on 13 Dec 2008 11:01
GSS wrote: > On Dec 12, 12:06 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> YOU seem to need faith, because you seem to insist that physical >> theories have a logical foundation. That's silly -- this is SCIENCE, not >> logic. > Yes, I do insist that physical theories must have logical foundation. > That is not silly. > It is silly to declare that physical theories need not have logical > foundation. When you take my statement out of context, you force the reader to interpret it on his/her own terms. This is fraught with error, as there is a clear and obvious PUN available -- "logical foundation" could be interpreted in at least two ways: A) the theory must be logically self-consistent. B) the postulates of the theory must be true. (A) is true -- theories must be logically self-consistent; (B) is false -- we can never know whether certain statements about nature are "true". In stating that a "logical foundation" is not possible for physical theories, I of course meant (B), not (A). It is indeed silly to attempt to apply the concept "true" to a physical theory, because we mere humans can never know what nature is actually doing, we can only MODEL what nature is doing. Our models cannot be "true" or "false", they can only be VALID or INVALID, as determined by experiment. Within its domain of applicability, relativity is quite clearly VALID. How can I apply "true" and "false" to (A) and (B) above? Because they are statements about THEORIES, not about nature. Note also that "theory" == "model". Until you LEARN what science actually is, you will remain mystified. Part of this is realizing that humans are not Gods, and understanding that some boundaries apply to all possible knowledge. Tom Roberts |