OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: kenseto on 2 Jun 2005 10:36 <rotchm(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:1117679071.561516.200620(a)o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com... > >Here's a valid synchronization procedure: > >Two touching and synchronized clocks and move them > >simultaneously in the opposite directions at the same > >speed and then come to a stop > >simultaneously. SR would say that these two clocks > >will remain synchronized .Ken Seto > > Ken, just to mention that yes its a synch procedure. However that > procedure implicitly has the cancelling effect of two way light speed. No it does not. > If that synch procedure were done then as one of the clocks indicates > say 30 seconds and sends a light signal to the other clock, then the > other clock will also indicate 30 seconds on reception of the light > signal. This is wrong. See below. >This is what SR and ether theories predict. So that synch > procedure will not invalidate SR. No.....if you have two synchronized clocks and if you send a signal from one of the clock at 12:00 and the signal arrive at the other clock at 12:01 then the flight time is (12:01-12:00).....which is one second. Then you measure the distance between the two clocks with a physical ruler (L). The OWLS is equal to L/(12:01-12:00). If SR is correct then L/(12:01-12:00) should be equal to c. Ken Seto
From: rotchm@gmail.com on 2 Jun 2005 14:04 > >If that synch procedure were done then as one of the clocks indicates > >say 30 seconds and sends a light signal to the other clock, then the > >other clock will also indicate 30 seconds on reception of the light > >signal. >This is wrong. See below. In my statements, I used an offset of L/c. In your terms then I restate what I meant: Two clocks are together at the position x=0. When they start ticking, they travel in oposite directions with a same speed.These speeds can be measured by a thought observer fixed at x=0, or the speeds can be measured by both clocks wrt the point x=0 or whatever.) When each clocks indicate, say 12:00h, they stop their movement but continue to tick. We wait a litlle while.... at 13:00h, the clock to the right sends a light signal to the other clock. (or vice-versa) Is this the synch procedure you are talking about? If so, according to SR and ether theories, the receiving clock will receive the signal when its clock indicates 13:00 + L/c, where L is the distance between both clocks (measured with a ruler or measured with twls technique) and c is the value 299792458 ( the result obtained by a twls measurement). >No.....if you have two synchronized clocks and if you send a signal from one >of the clock at 12:00 and the signal arrive at the other clock at 12:01 then >the flight time is (12:01-12:00).....which is one second. Then you measure >the distance between the two clocks with a physical ruler (L). The OWLS is >equal to L/(12:01-12:00). If SR is correct then L/(12:01-12:00) should be >equal to c. No. The procedure you propose is not really a owls measurement. It implicitly has the twls involved. The twls effect is in the "same speeds" of the clocks during their movement. The measurement process involved in measuring the speeds v (acording to ether theories) creates an offset that cancells out the effect you look for and hence, as often happens, SR and ether theory conclude the same thing for that experiment. You would need to specify a way to measure the speeds of the clocks that does not involve twls.
From: shevek on 2 Jun 2005 14:27 Jerry wrote: > Paul Stowe wrote: > > If the aether exists, the CMBR illuminates the rest frame. > > Why do you think this? > > What makes you so sure that the aether constitutes an > absolutely rigid backdrop for the propagation of EM waves? > Can there not be streams and rivers flowing in the aether? > Can not the aether rotate and swirl, form vortices? Can the > aether not be entrained by the passage of matter? > > As you know, many of the early aether theories postulated > such properties for the aether. > > So... > What in heck is so special about the CMBR, such that you > postulate that it "illuminates" the universal rest frame, > when many aether theories implicitly deny such a role > by postulating a dynamic, flowing, entrainable aether? > Very good point Jerry! Indeed, if the magnetic vetor potential is proportional to the bulk velocity vector of the aether there are certainly large streams and rivers in the ocean. However the aether is not very entrained by the passage of neutral matter.. the amount of the entraining is described exactly by maxwell's equations (for charged particles) and the equations of general relativity (for charged and neutral particles). Defining a bulk velocity in any medium requires specification of a volume over which to integrate over. If a volume large enough is taken, the bulk velocity will be the CMBR. For a volume described by the Earth, there is no reason to believe a priori the bulk velocity will be that of the CMBR. Cheers - shevek
From: shevek4@yahoo.com on 2 Jun 2005 14:37 Tom Roberts wrote: > Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote: > >>You cannot measure the one way speed of light without > >> making assumptions about clock synchronisation. > > > > I see no reason why the one-way speed of light can't be > > measured in principle with only ONE clock, and signals coming back from > > two gates (triggered by two gamma photons from an annihilation, say). > > It simply is not possible to measure any sort of one-way speed using a > single clock. No matter what you do you must arrange for the start and > stop signals to both reach the clock, and that necessarily involves a > closed path for the signals. > Would such a thing be possible if you had knowledge (from another source) of the local rest state of the aether?
From: Paul Cardinale on 2 Jun 2005 15:50
kenseto wrote: > "Jerry" <Cephalobus_alienus(a)comcast.net> wrote in message > news:1117672045.562429.47700(a)f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > kenseto wrote: > > > > > Sigh....all these are two-way experiments. The one-way value with two > > > spatially separated and synchronized clocks was never determined. They > > > performed experiments that confirms the one-way isotropy. But the > one-way > > > value for those experiments were not reported. Why? Because the one-way > > > value for those experiments was not c. > > > > If OWLS is isotropic, then OWLS must be equal to TWLS. > > OWLS is observed to be isotropic. > > Therefore, OWLS is equal to TWLS. > > That's an assumption. The kenseto demonstrates that it can't comprehend the difference between a conclusion and an assumption (note: it's unlikely that the kenseto can comprehend any 3-syllable words). Paul Cardinale |