Joan-Claude van Dirk Helps to Trivialize Special Relativity
in [Relativity]
|
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 21 Mar 2005 14:07 Before I touch on your latest goofs, here are some very simple burden-of-proof items for you to consider: [1] Prove that SR says anything predictive about intrinsic or physical clock rhythms. [2] If it does, then tell us what it says. [3] Tell us the physical SR explanation for the MMx. [4] Tell us the physical SR explanation for the 3-clock "paradox" result. [5] Prove that SR can correctly measure any relative speeds, clock times, or ruler distances. [6] Prove that two same-frame, spatially-separated clocks cannot be correctly or absolutely synchronized. ====================== > > 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." > And that invariance is ASSUMED in SR. It is taken as an > (informed) postulate. To assume means to assume the truth of. How can it be true? How could it happen in the real world? How could it happen experimentally? How could any experiment show the invariance of light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks? If it cannot possibly happen experimentally, then it cannot be validly postulated in physics. ====================== [U wrote] > There is a difference between "assumed-to-be-absolutely- > synchronous clock of classical physics" and the synchronized > clocks at rest in a particular observers frame. You assume > that synchronicity is an inherent property of two clocks. > It's not. Einstein assumed the same thing when he mathematically derived his formula w = c - v for the carriage frame. And what is the physical difference between "assumed-to-be- absolutely-synchronous clock[s] of classical physics" and the synchronized clocks at rest in a particular observers frame? ======================== > Uhhh... how do they measure Ta and Tb without clocks? How do > they measure X without rulers? They didn't measure times. They compared times. Can't you read? They didn't measure X, they were given equal distances via the experiment itself. Can't you read? ========================= > > Upon which part of SR, specifically and physically, is > > GR based? > Ummm....Lorentz invariance. That's not a specific answer. As even you had to admit, it's a mere meta-law. Experimentally prove that light's one-way speed is Lorentz invariant. (Or just show on paper how it could be proved.) And don't forget that one-way light speed invariance is the sole basis of SR.
From: Daryl McCullough on 21 Mar 2005 15:53 cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com says... >Daryl McCullough wrote: >> cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com says... >[snip] >> >Cut it down to just one atomic clock and then tell >> >us if this clock is intrinsically slowed or not. >> >> That is not an observable. Your original complaint >> was that Special Relativity did not make any empirical >> predictions. Predicting the result of comparing two >> clocks that take different paths is an empirical prediction. >> Saying whether a clock is intrinsically slowed or not >> is not an empirical prediction, because there is no >> experiment that can tell whether you are right or not. > >You are now repeating your errors. > >As I noted, you have not proved that SR pertains >to intrinsic clock rhythms. I don't have any idea what that even means. SR makes predictions about the outcomes of experiments, and that's all that a scientific theory needs to do. -- Daryl McCullough Ithaca, NY
From: PD on 21 Mar 2005 17:36 cadwgan_gedr...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Before I touch on your latest goofs, here are some very simple > burden-of-proof items for you to consider: > > [1] Prove that SR says anything predictive about intrinsic > or physical clock rhythms. SR does not say anything predictive about intrinsic clock rhythms, as far as I know, nor does it claim to. Intrinsic clock rhythms are governed by physical laws, which must be Lorentz-invariant. However, this does NOT mean that physical clock rhythms are reflected in time measurements. > > [2] If it does, then tell us what it says. > > [3] Tell us the physical SR explanation for the MMx. Explanation of what? Why the result is no interference shift? What explanation other than "the speed of light is constant" is required to explain it? > > [4] Tell us the physical SR explanation for the 3-clock > "paradox" result. > > [5] Prove that SR can correctly measure any relative speeds, > clock times, or ruler distances. This is actually done routinely. Every high energy particle experiment is a validation of each of these. > > [6] Prove that two same-frame, spatially-separated clocks cannot > be correctly or absolutely synchronized. Synchronized in that frame, sure. Synchronized so that any other frame would say they are synchronized, no way. What does "absolutely" mean to you? > > ====================== > > > > 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." > > > And that invariance is ASSUMED in SR. It is taken as an > > (informed) postulate. > > To assume means to assume the truth of. > How can it be true? > How could it happen in the real world? Umm, measurement? How about measurement of light from binaries? How about synchrotron radiation detectors? > How could it happen experimentally? > How could any experiment show the invariance of light's > one-way speed between two same-frame clocks? > > If it cannot possibly happen experimentally, then it > cannot be validly postulated in physics. But it does happen experimentally! In a synchrotron radiation facility, a tightly focussed bunch of electrons pass through wiggler magnets at precisely known times at very high speeds (in fact, close to c). Photons are radiated from those electrons while the electrons are traveling at high speed. The fact that they are emitted from the electrons at c with respect to the electrons is known from the fact that the angular distribution is physically identical to the distribution at lower velocities. However, it is also quite feasible (and routinely done) to time the flight of the radiated photons to the detectors down the tangential beamline. In the lab, the speed is also c. A similar kind of time-of-flight measurement is done for massive particles emerging from particle interactions. This is experimentally verified all the time, your incredulity notwithstanding. > > ====================== > > [U wrote] > > There is a difference between "assumed-to-be-absolutely- > > synchronous clock of classical physics" and the synchronized > > clocks at rest in a particular observers frame. You assume > > that synchronicity is an inherent property of two clocks. > > It's not. > > Einstein assumed the same thing when he mathematically derived > his formula w = c - v for the carriage frame. He did not assume *absolute synchronicity". Explicit reference, please, preferably a quote from the paper. > > And what is the physical difference between "assumed-to-be- > absolutely-synchronous clock[s] of classical physics" and the > synchronized clocks at rest in a particular observers frame? > > ======================== > > > Uhhh... how do they measure Ta and Tb without clocks? How do > > they measure X without rulers? > > They didn't measure times. They compared times. Can't you read? And how do they compare times without clocks. You don't get the fact that what is simultaneous to one observer will NOT be simultaneous to another observer, your incredulity notwithstanding. > They didn't measure X, they were given equal distances via the > experiment itself. Can't you read? > > ========================= > > > > > Upon which part of SR, specifically and physically, is > > > GR based? > > > Ummm....Lorentz invariance. > > That's not a specific answer. As even you had to admit, it's > a mere meta-law. Yup, but GR must obey it, and so it is built in. If you abandon Lorentz-invariance, then you have to explain why GR seems to obey it for no good reason. > > Experimentally prove that light's one-way speed is Lorentz > invariant. (Or just show on paper how it could be proved.) I just did with a synchrotron radiation facility. Read up. > And don't forget that one-way light speed invariance is the > sole basis of SR. That's right, there's not much assumed in SR. But it does have some fundamental implications. Like synchronicity being observer-dependent. PD
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 22 Mar 2005 09:09 Daryl McCullough wrote: > cadwgan_gedrych(a)yahoo.com says... > >You are now repeating your errors. > > > >As I noted, you have not proved that SR pertains > >to intrinsic clock rhythms. > > I don't have any idea what that even means. SR makes > predictions about the outcomes of experiments, and > that's all that a scientific theory needs to do. If you admittedly do not know what something means, then it's very poor policy to go ahead and comment on it, especially when making bold claims. Here is what it means: Intrinsic atomic clock rhythm = 1 time unit per 1 atomic vibration. Therefore, clocks which when directly compared have different readings when they once had identical readings with no acceleration involved must have different intrinsic clock rhythms. And the same goes for intrinsic aging of people. See next paragraph. In the Triplet Paradox case (given by Throop at http://mentock.home.mindspring.com/twins.htm), the only SR explanation for the different ages at the end is "they were in different frames." But this is not an explanation unless SR can tell us why simply being in different frames can cause people to age differently. As I said, SR does not pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms or to intrinsic aging of people. All SR can do is to offer the non-explanation that the clocks and/or people were in different frames. In order for SR to pertain to intrinsic clock rhythms or to intrinsic aging, SR must be able to provide a physical cause for the Triplet Paradox. However, if that happens, then SR will have contradicted itself because the only possible physical cause is motion through space, otherwise known as "absolute" motion. Similarly, SR does not pertain to either intrinsic rod lengths or to intrinsic masses. In short, as I have repeatedly stated, SR does not pertain to anything physical except in trivial, circular, and incorrect ways, and you have yet to prove otherwise.
From: cadwgan_gedrych on 22 Mar 2005 09:45
PD wrote: > cadwgan_gedr...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > [1] Prove that SR says anything predictive about intrinsic > > or physical clock rhythms. > > SR does not say anything predictive about intrinsic clock rhythms, as > far as I know, nor does it claim to. Intrinsic clock rhythms are > governed by physical laws, which must be Lorentz-invariant. However, > this does NOT mean that physical clock rhythms are reflected in time > measurements. Sorry, but your last sentence tells me that this conversion must end now. You are too far off the wall for me. |