Re: Absolute Frame

From: Ahmed Ouahi, Architect (ahmed.ouahi_at_welho.com)
Date: 07/21/04 

Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:43:05 +0300

http://tinypic.com/wqxg
http://tinypic.com/wqxk

http://tinypic.com/wqxu
http://tinypic.com/wqxw
http://tinypic.com/wqxx

http://tinypic.com/wqy0
http://tinypic.com/wqy8
http://tinypic.com/wqyc

http://tinypic.com/wqyd
http://tinypic.com/wqyh
http://tinypic.com/wqyp 

--
Ahmed Ouahi, Architect
Best Regards!
"Martin Miller" <mmtimber@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0ac0bee.0407210732.f350287@posting.google.com...
> Tom, the following proof requires neither a definition
> of "absolute clock synchronization" nor the notion of
> "motion through space," so you should have no more
> objections.
>
> (Disclaimer: I am not implying here that either of
> the two just-mentioned concepts are not allowed in
> physics. In fact, I properly pictured two absolutely
> synchronous clocks on paper, just as Einstein has for
> decades properly pictured his asynchronous clocks on
> paper, and I proved using two separate experiments
> that motion through space exists.)
>
> ==================================================
> Here is a simple physics experiment:
>
> Given:
>   1. Light source S
>   2. Rod A at rest wrt S
>   3. Rod B in motion wrt S
> [] = unstarted clock
> ~~~~~> = light from S
> ==================================================
> Note:
>   The procedure involved here is simply the
>   simplest version of Einsteinian synchronization,
>   i.e., the use of midpoint light signals to start
>   equidistant clocks on zero.
> ==================================================
>
> The Experiment:
>
> []----------------Rod A----------------[]
>                 c<~~S~~>c
> []----------------Rod B----------------[]-->v
>
>
> []----------------Rod A----------------[]
>       c<~~~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~~~~~>c
> ------[]----------------Rod B----------------[]-->v
>
> The Analysis:
>
> Point 1a:
> Just as in Einstein's train/embankment example, Rod B's
> left-hand clock moved _toward_ its light signal, and
> B's right-hand clock move _away_ _from_ its signal,
> whereas A's clocks moved neither toward nor away from
> their light signals; therefore, we must conclude that
> B's left-hand clock will meet its signal _earlier_
> than will A's left-hand clock, and B's right-hand clock
> will meet its signal _later_ than will A's right-hand
> clock. This clearly conflicts with Einstein's definition
> of "synchronization," which, of course, mandates the
> _same_ time (zero) for all four clocks (when they are
> started by their light signals).
>
> Point 1b:
> Again, just as in Einstein's train example where his two
> observers saw the left-hand light signal at different
> times, the two left-hand clocks above "see" the left-
> hand signal at different times, and the two right-hand
> clocks "see" the right-hand signal at different times,
> which is in harmony with Einstein's train example, but
> which is in direct conflict with his "synchronization"
> definition. (Note in particular Einstein's key phrase
> "earlier than" in his train example.)
>
> Point 2:
> Since Rod B's clocks do not remain symmetrical about S,
> there is no physical reason for making these two clocks
> read the same time; indeed, the asymmetry calls for
> _different_ readings, again in conflict with Einstein's
> "synchronization" definition.
>
> The Conclusion:
> Even if we give Einstein correct clock synchronization
> in the case of Rod A's clocks, we cannot give him this
> for Rod B's clocks or for the clocks of any other frames
> which move asymmetrically wrt the light source S. Thus,
> experiment tells us that Einstein's clocks are generally
> asynchronous (i.e., they are incorrectly related).
>
> The Ramifications of the Conclusion:
> Since Einstein's clocks are asynchronous, none of the
> results of his clocks are correct, including the one-way
> speed of light, the times t and t' (along with the speeds
> v and v') of Einstein's transformation equations, and each
> of the relativistic results (such as its "time dilation").
> Since special relativity is based solely on one-way light
> speed invariance/isotropy, we see that there is no basis
> either in fact or in theory for special relativity (SR).
>
> Further Explanation of the Ramifications:
> The following simple example covers all three of the
> relativistic effects (i.e., it covers SR's "time dilation,"
> "length contraction," and "mass increase."):
> Since the above simple experiment proved that Einstein's
> clocks are asynchronous (in general), it also proved that
> all of the results of Einstein's clocks are incorrect,
> including those of SR's "time dilation," etc. In the
> case of "time dilation," the asynchronousness of Einstein's
> clocks in each frame causes the observers to (incorrectly)
> find that a passing clock runs slower than their onboard
> clocks. This leads to the apparent absurdity that each
> frame's clocks run slower than the other's. However, as
> the diagram below shows, this reciprocity is merely a
> point-of-view effect, just as is the reciprocity in the
> case where two separating observers each see the other
> "grow smaller":
>
> ---------[6]passing clock
> ---------[6]---E-Frame A--[7]
>
> ------------------[6]passing clock
> [6]---E-Frame A---[7]
>
> As we can all see, none of the clocks ran slower; all 3
> ran at the same rate; but the Einsteinian observers in
> Frame A found that the passing clock "ran slower" than
> their own clocks, in direct conflict with reality and
> with physical possibility (because the observers in the
> frame of the passing clock would find that Frame A's
> clocks run slower, and it is not possible for _both_
> frames' clocks to run slower).
>
> There Is NO Experimental Evidence for SR:
> Special relativity does not pertain to real or intrinsic
> clock slowing, nor does it pertain to actual or physical
> length contraction or to intrinsic mass, so none of the
> corresponding experiments (e.g., the particle accelerator
> experiments) support or pertain to SR.  And, as we have
> seen, experiment actually conflicts with the very basis
> of SR, namely, Einstein's light postulate - which calls
> for one-way light speed isotropy/invariance between two
> same-frame clocks.
>
> Final Conclusions:
> SR is at best merely a stopgap definition of clock
> synchronization (to be used only until we can correctly
> synchronize clocks). SR says absolutely nothing nontrivial
> about the nature of Nature. (For example, it is a trivial
> fact that if one forces clocks to obtain one-way light
> speed invariance, then one will obtain one-way light speed
> invariance. For another example, it is also a trivial fact
> that if one uses asynchronous clocks, then one will obtain
> incorrect, irrelevant and trivial results such as the SR
> "time dilation" effect discussed above.) Since the basis
> of SR (Einstein's postulated one-way invariance) is false,
> SR itself is baseless. That motion exists that is not merely
> Einstein's frame-to-frame relative motion is proved by the
> two facts that (1) light rays move through space, and (2)
> so do all inertial objects (because observers in a closed
> lab can detect a change in their speed, which, in turn,
> proves the existence of such a speed (i.e., a speed that
> is not related to some passing inertial reference frame).
> We need SR like we need a hole in the head; what we really
> need are (truly) synchronous clocks. Given such clocks, we
> could determine our speeds through space, and we could also
> have Newton's absolute time.
>
> If Tom still believes that there is no such thing as motion
> through space, then let him explicitly deny the fact that
> light rays travel through space, and let Tom explicitly
> deny the fact that that which can change must exist (so
> a closed-lab-detected speed change proves the existence
> of such a speed, one that is unrelated to any passing
> reference frame). And if Tom still believes that Einstein's
> clocks are correctly related temporally, then let him
> prove this (at least on paper).

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... It involves the absolute constant c. ... rulers and clocks. ... to do with only the relative speeds of the fields, ... frames) synchronization, so we take what we have. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ABSOLUTE TRUTH ABOUT ABSOLUTE SPACETIME
    ... your synchronization scheme would lead to ... I'm just pointing out the important fact that if all inertial frames define ... mass, momentum, energy, electrodynamics, etc. E-synching clocks allows the ... > I interpret the PofR as a law of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... to do with the nature of space and the nature ... rulers and clocks. ... to do with only the relative speeds of the fields, ... frames) synchronization, so we take what we have. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Resubmittal: One-way Invariance Is Physically Impossible
    ... Nature uses no clocks, and clock synchronization is a purely ... ALL one-way speeds depend on one's clock ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The Value of Einsteins Mistakes
    ... if clocks are synchronized by slow clock ... different speeds have different atomic rates) ... "Einstein's synchronization procedure with light signals ... every one of their results to be proper parts of physics. ...
    (sci.physics)