Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 18 Mar 2005 11:16 Daryl McCullough wrote: > SR pertains to *all* physical processes. [snip] > If you have some cyclic, self-contained system (such as > a vibrating crystal, or a mass oscillating on a spring), > you can measure the period in your frame. Call that T. > Now you set the system in motion at some speed v. The > relativity principle tells you that, as measured in the > new rest frame, the period will again be T. Einstein's > theory predicts that the period will be T/gamma as > measured in the original frame (using E-synched clocks). [snip] Slow down. None of the above pertains to physical processes. ````````````````````````````````````````````````````` T is not a physical or atomic clock rate because such rates cannot be determined or measured in SR. v is not the physical movement of a physical object through space because such motions cannot be measured in SR. Also, v is of no use to physics because it is an incorrect measurement made by Einstein's asynchronous clocks. Furthermore, although a passing atomic clock cannot have more than one physical speed at a time, SR observers in various frames will find an infinite number of "v's" or "velocities" for one and the same passing clock. (To which of these were you referring above?) Similarly, T/gamma is not a physical clock rate. As you yourself admitted, T/gamma is merely a measured rate, measured by Einstein's asynchronous clocks, and, as I state below, each SR observer finds a different "rate" for one and the same passing clock. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` It is easy to see that SR does not pertain to an atomic clock's internal atomic rate because such a clock moving steadily cannot possibly have but one such rate, and yet SR's observers in various frames find MANY different "rates" for one and the same passing atomic clock. And as I said at the start of this simple thread (or, at least it was simple until folks such as you started messing around with this thread), It is easy to see that SR does not pertain to an atomic clock's internal atomic rate because two such clocks cannot possibly both be slower than each other, and yet SR's observers in two frames each find the other's atomic clock to be "running slow." (Remember that key word ----->>RECIPROCAL<<-----) In order for SR to pertain to an atomic clock's internal atomic rate, SR must admit to that which controls such rates, i.e., motion through space. But, as I said, SR has not even gone to the trouble of proving that its own clocks (E-synched clocks) are NOT slowed physically and differently due to their definitely (or absolutely) different speeds through space. SR (as an alleged scientific theory) cannot pertain to any physical processes because of all of the above reasons.
From: Daryl McCullough on 18 Mar 2005 15:20 cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com says... > >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> SR pertains to *all* physical processes. >[snip] >> If you have some cyclic, self-contained system (such as >> a vibrating crystal, or a mass oscillating on a spring), >> you can measure the period in your frame. Call that T. >> Now you set the system in motion at some speed v. The >> relativity principle tells you that, as measured in the >> new rest frame, the period will again be T. Einstein's >> theory predicts that the period will be T/gamma as >> measured in the original frame (using E-synched clocks). >[snip] > >Slow down. > >None of the above pertains to physical processes. > >````````````````````````````````````````````````````` >T is not a physical or atomic clock rate because such >rates cannot be determined or measured in SR. > >v is not the physical movement of a physical object >through space because such motions cannot be measured in SR. Okay, let's get very specific. Suppose we have two identical atomic clocks. Each clock produces a periodic signal, which we will call a "tick" of the clock. We let clock 1 remain at rest in some inertial frame F, and we put clock 2 aboard a rocket. This rocket starts off at clock 1, travels far away at some tremendous speed, and then comes back. Let N_1 be the number of "ticks" on clock 1 for the round trip, and let N_2 be the number of "ticks" on clock 2. Measure a quantity that we will call L(i) as follows: Let the rocket blast off from clock 1, and wait i ticks of clock 1. Then send a light signal from clock 1 to the rocket and back. Let L(i) be 1/2 the number of "ticks" of clock 1 required for this round-trip. Define dL(i) to be L(i+1) - L(i). Compute a quantity that we will call v(i) as follows: v(i) = dL(i)/(1+dL(i)) Next, compute a quantity F(i) as follows: F(i) = square-root(1 - v(i)^2) Finally, compute a quantity S to be sum from i=1 to N_1 of F(i) The prediction of SR is that S = N_2 (at least in the limit in which the acceleration is small enough that v(i) will be approximately the same as v(i+1)). -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 18 Mar 2005 15:57 cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com wrote: > PD wrote: > > cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > > > Here is an example of its blatant circularity/triviality: > > > > > > SR sez: > > > "If we manually force all clocks in all frames to > > > obtain the same one-way light speed, then, by George, > > > all clocks in all frames will obtain the same one-way > > > light speed." > > > > > > Can you, even your blinded eyes, see the silly circularity? > > > > You confuse a conclusion with an assumption. Read the 1905 paper. It > > states at the outset that the constancy of the speed of light is an > > *assumption* of the theory, not a conclusion of the theory. > > See my response to Daryl. (It cannot be an assumption because it is > given up front via definition.) > > > Now, if you have any experimental evidence that the speed of > > light is NOT constant for all inertial frames, then let's have > > that, because that would be a truly interesting result (and it > > would immediately dispense with a whole bunch of physics, > > including SR, GR, the Dirac equation, quantum field theory, > > QED, QCD, the standard model Lagrangian, nuclear physics, etc.). > > > > PD > > (The proper word is "invariant," not "constant." These things matter > when discussing the in's and out's of physics.) > > The only "physics" that one-way invariance would "blow away" would > be SR. Forgot to respond to that little tidbit. You are perhaps unaware that GR is based on and consistent with SR, that the Dirac equation is explicitly built on SR, that quantum field theories like QED and QCD are all based on the Dirac equation, the standard model Lagrangian has QED and QCD embedded in it, and so on... So in your zeal to denounce SR, remember that SR is specifically vindicated by the experimental success of those other theories which rely on it. Likewise, replacing SR with an alternate theory would require either replacing the others, or explicitly showing that the alternate serves the same role in those other theories without modification. PD > > And, ironically, Einstein himself told us exactly how to have > one-way variance. In his little popular book "Relativity," he > stated mathematically that if the assumed-to-be-absolutely- > synchronous clock of classical physics were used, then light's > one-way speed would be c +/- v in all frames. > > But I do not need such clocks to answer your challenge to > provide experimental evidence that the speed of light is NOT > constant [sic] for all inertial frames because all I need is > the following simple experiment: > > Let two observers meet in passing as a light ray approaches > them. > > (Oa = Observer A and Ob = Observer B) > > ........Oa > ......................................<~~~~~~~~~light ray > ........Ob > > When the two observers briefly meet, they know that the light > ray's tip is equidistant from them because they are at a single > point in space, and the ray's tip is also at one point in space. > We can qualitatively label this distance "X". > > After the observers separate, the light ray will reach one of > them, as shown below: > > ...Oa > ............<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~light ray > ...........Ob > > Since the tip of the light ray cannot be in two places at once, > the observers will see it sequentially at absolutely different > times. (Here is a down-to-earth example: If I see the real you > in both Texas and New York, then this proves that I saw you at > absolutely different times because you cannot be in two places > at once.) > > We can - again purely qualitatively - label the ray's absolutely > different arrival times "Ta" and "Tb." (All we care about here > is the fact that these times are absolutely different.) > > The observers can now compare one-way light speeds. (Having no > rulers or clocks, they must do this qualitatively.) Here are > their extremely simple results: > > Light's speed wrt Oa = X/Ta > > Light's speed wrt Ob = X/Tb
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 19 Mar 2005 10:53 Daryl McCullough wrote: > cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com says... [snip] > Okay, let's get very specific. Suppose we have two identical > atomic clocks. Each clock produces a periodic signal, which > we will call a "tick" of the clock. Not nearly specific enough. Cut it down to just one atomic clock and then tell us if this clock is intrinsically slowed or not. If you cannot prove that the clock is NOT slowed (intrinsically), then you cannot prove that SR's clock-measured quantities are correct. Similarly, If you cannot prove that any given ruler is NOT contracted (intrinsically), then you cannot prove that SR's ruler-measured quantities are correct. Using accelerated rockets and round trips merely tosses up a smoke cloud of obfuscation.
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 19 Mar 2005 11:45
From: "" <cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com> Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2005 08:39:36 -0800 PD wrote: > Reread the paper. He cites it as a "postulate". A postulate is > something that is assumed to be true, not something that is proven > to be true. [Here is the posting history:] [Cadman wrote] > > > SR sez: > > > "If we manually force all clocks in all frames to > > > obtain the same one-way light speed, then, by George, > > > all clocks in all frames will obtain the same one-way > > > light speed." [PD responded] > > You confuse a conclusion with an assumption. Read the 1905 paper. As anyone can plainly see, I was talking about something very specific, namely, light's one-way speed per two clocks in two or more frames. And the specific word for that is "invariance." [repeating PD's above] > Reread the paper. He cites it as a "postulate". A postulate is > something that is assumed to be true, not something that is proven > to be true. Question: How can one assume invariance to be true when one *gives it* via definition (*prior to* any experimentation)? As even Daryl had to admit, Einstein's "invariance" is merely a silly convention (or definition), and such things have nothing to do with physics. [snip] [Cadman wrote] > > And, ironically, Einstein himself told us exactly how to have > > one-way variance. In his little popular book "Relativity," he > > stated mathematically that if the assumed-to-be-absolutely- > > synchronous clock of classical physics were used, then light's > > one-way speed would be c +/- v in all frames. [PD wrote] > Which conflicts with observation, which is why the synchronous > clock of classical physics is a poor assumption. What, precisely, is wrong with correctly synchronized clocks? Enquiring minds would like to know. > > But I do not need such clocks to answer your challenge to > > provide experimental evidence that the speed of light is NOT > > constant [sic] for all inertial frames because all I need is > > the following simple experiment: [snip body of world's simplest physics experiment] > > The observers can now compare one-way light speeds. (Having no > > rulers or clocks, they must do this qualitatively.) Here are > > their extremely simple results: > > > > Light's speed wrt Oa = X/Ta > > > > Light's speed wrt Ob = X/Tb > > And they know their clocks are synchronized with respect to each > other how? > > PD Uhhh... what clocks? See above. No clocks were used & no rulers, either. Only by clearing away that which is irrelevant can the truth be shown. -------------------------------------------------------------------- start separate-but-related PD post -------------------------------------------------------------------- [Cadman wrote] > > The only "physics" that one-way invariance would "blow away" > > would be SR. [PD wrote] > Forgot to respond to that little tidbit. You are perhaps unaware > that GR is based on and consistent with SR, .... Upon which part of SR, specifically and physically, is GR based? In fact, why don't you just go ahead and forget about all of that irrelevant stuff (GR, Dirac equations, etc. etc.) and simply tell us what SR itself says physically and specifically about any part of physics? Could it be that you have *nothing* to say about that (because SR says absolutely nothing physically about any part of physics?) (At least SR says nothing that is nontrivial, noncircular, and/or correct, as I have repeatedly-yet-irrefutably stated) |