Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity
From: greywolf42 (mingstb_at_marssim-ss.com)
Date: 06/28/04
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Ballisticus: "Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 2004 12:11:04 -0700
Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:cb7iuo$gls@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> greywolf42 wrote:
> > Tom Roberts <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:SotBc.26826$eH1.12464085@newssvr28.news.prodigy.com...
> >>OWLS can only be measured after one DEFINES what "simultaneous" means,
> >
> > OWLS can easily be defined without simultaneous.
>
> Exercise for greywolf42: do so.
See the original measurement of the speed of light using Jupiter's moons.
> >>so one can synchronize the two clocks necessary for an OWLS measurement.
> > One does not need synchronized clocks to measure variations in OWLS.
>
> Sure. But now elevate your eyes to what I wrote above. I was not talking
> about variations, I was talking about measuring OWLS.
Now, elevate *YOUR* eyes to the subject of this thread. Which speaks to
measurement of variations in the speed of light transmission.
> >>But one can DEFINE it however one likes, and obtain different values for
> >>OWLS.
> > Only if one uses SR's redefinition of time and space. Which is not
> > simply a definition of simultaneous.
>
> Not true. Do the exercise above to find out why.
I see you couldn't dispute the point. Not surprising, since Einstein 1905
admits to redefinition of time and space.
> >>TWLS is independent
> >>of human choices (except for units), OWLS depends upon an arbitrary
> >>human choice for clock synchronization (in addition to the same choice
> >>of units).
> > Not true. SR (and you) simply wish to hide behind e-synching to obviate
> > possible disproof.
>
> This has nothing whatsoever to do with e-synching.
Recall your prior quote: "If one uses light to synchronize clocks then it is
quite clear that measuring the one-way speed of light in an inertial frame
to be c is is a tautology (because the method of synchronization essentially
puts it in by hand)."
Note the first prepositional phrase. *ONLY* e-synching contains that
limitation. Only a fool would use that which you are trying to measure to
set your clocks.
> This has to do with
> using two clocks to make a measurement, which INHERENTLY requires that
> those two clock must have their values related in some conventional
> manner. We call that "synchronization".
Nope. Adjusting the clocks is what is called synchronization. It is a
different concept that 'simultenaity' -- except in SR.
> Nobody is under any compulsion
> to use Einstein's method. But note that ANY 1-way measurements of speed
> will be affected (including a 100-meter sprint).
Only a fool would use that which you are trying to measure to set your
clocks.
> Do the above exercise.
I don't bother with vapid, rhetorical demands.
> >>Einstein's second postulate is really two things for the price of one: a
> >>definition of clock synchronization,
> > The definition of clock synchronization is not contained in Einstein's
> > second postulate. Einstein is explicit about it.
>
> This is getting so repetetive -- go READ HIS PAPER!!!!!
I've read his paper. His second postulate does not contain
e-synchronization. Einstein is specific that his method redefines space and
time (which is not contained within his second postulate).
> > Einstein's e-synch is an explicit redefintion of *time*.
>
> Say, rather, that it is a more precise definition of "time", so that the
> old-fashoned notions of "time" that were sufficient before ~1900 could
> remain valid with the improved technology and theoretical understanding
> that was developing then.
That *IS* a redefinition of time. So, we did not need all your sturm and
drang about reading Albert's 1905 paper, now did we?
> >>His postulate of source motion independence could be, but
> >>hasn't been refuted to date.
> > It cannot be refuted if you insist upon e-synching. That's the function
> > of e-synching.
>
> If e-synching is really so all-powerful as you seem to think, that it
> guarantees isotropy in the one-way speed of light, then WHAT IS SO BAD
> ABOUT THAT?
Recall your prior quote: "If one uses light to synchronize clocks then it is
quite clear that measuring the one-way speed of light in an inertial frame
to be c is is a tautology (because the method of synchronization essentially
puts it in by hand)."
And that is precisely why it is "so bad." Because it is a mathematical
tautology, it cannot be part of the scientific method -- because it cannot
be disproved.
> Note, please, that it does so only in the class of theories
> in which the round-trip speed of light is isotropically c in
> every inertial frame. But yes, for every theory in that class
> e-synching your clocks will ensure that you measure the
> 1-way speed of light to be isotropically c, regardless of your
> frame's motion wrt the ether. This will, incidentally, also
> ensure that the velocity dependence of kinetic energy is also
> isotropic, that F=ma is isotropic, etc. <shrug>
Contrary to your statement above, utilizing the e-synch method will yield a
"measurement" of isotropy in *ANY* lightspeed theory. Including ballistic
particles.
--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}
- Next message: Androcles: "Re: Distance-dependent time contraction"
- Previous message: greywolf42: "Re: Idiot Proof Aether Drift Experiment (OWLS)"
- In reply to: Tom Roberts: "Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity"
- Next in thread: Ballisticus: "Re: Experimental disproof of the theory of Relativity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
