Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely.
From: Henri Wilson (h_at_..(Henri)
Date: 08/25/04
- Next message: Peter Kinane: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Previous message: Marcus Wellpoth: "Re: Time Physics"
- In reply to: sal: "Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely."
- Next in thread: sal: "Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely."
- Reply: sal: "Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:45:39 GMT
On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 08:29:45 -0400, sal <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:19:49 +0000, h wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:53:55 -0400, sal <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>[ snip chop hack cut elide ]
>>>
>>>The result of syncing by averaging differences they way you have proposed
>>>will be, according to SR, identical to simply E-syncing them to start
>>>with.
>>
>> Now here we differ.
>> E-synching and 'absolute-synching' are very different animals.
>
>You would need to demonstrate that with an experiment. As I said, SR
>predicts the results will be identical.
>
>So does Ritz/Fox emission theory, for that matter.
Let's make it clear what we are talking about here.
1) B and C are moved L units apart and their rates synchronized.
2) A moves at v from left to right and B and C are adjusted to A's time when A
is adjacent.
3) without changing any settings, A is moved at the same relative speed from
right to left. B and C read A's clock when it is adjacent.
*****************************
Let's assume that SR is correct.
Let A's and B's readings be set to zero when A is adjacent to B.
A will run slower than B and C by 1/gamma.
In L/v secs, B reads L/v and A reads (L/v)/gamma
So C's reading will lag B's by (L/v)*(1-(1/gamma))
*****************************
With the same reasoning, when the experiment is repeated with A's direction
reversed, A's reading when passing C will be (L/v)*(1-(1/gamma)) ahead of its
reading when it passes B.
Let the difference between A's and C's reading be X.
Since C's clock has been set to lag B's by the interval (L/v)*(1-(1/gamma)) and
since A again takes L/v secs to reach B, the difference between B's and A's
clock readings when A is adjacent to B, will be X + 2*(L/v)*(1-(1/gamma))
*****************************
How do B and C use this knowledge?
Subtract X from this latter equation and half it.
Advance C's reading by that amount.
B and C are now absolutely synched.
They are definitely not E-synched as you claim.
>
>
>>>Note, however, that if another clock comes flying by and checks the
>>>times on B and C as it sails past, it will appear to that clock that B
>>>and C are _not_ in sync. You've only managed to sync them up within
>>>their shared inertial frame of reference.
>>
>> According to SR.
>> Not according to me.
>> With this method I can absolutely synch them while they are apart . SR
>> can only E-synch them when they are apart. That is entirely different.
>
>Again, using SR to find the expected results, there will be no difference
>between averaging the times as you have proposed and E-syncing, and there
>is also no difference between E-syncing and moving the clocks apart at
>equal speeds in opposite directions -- in all cases they end up in sync in
>one inertial frame. Again, that's according to SR.
After checking the above, do you still make this claim?
>
>There's no contradiction in the predictions here; the picture is
>consistent. If you think reality isn't like that, you'd need to
>demonstrate that with an experiment.
>
>
>>>> Therefore simultaneity is also absolute.
>>>
>>>You've only demonstrated that simultaneity is well defined within a
>>>single inertial frame.
>>>
>>>
>>>> 'NOW' here is 'NOW' everywhere.
>>>
>>>Within a single inertial frame -- where everybody is moving at the same
>>>velocity -- that's absolutely correct.
>>
>> How can the movement of observers affect time itself?
>
>Ask God. I don't do "how" questions.
>
>Or find someone who can channel Einstein, and ask him, if God doesn't have
>anything to say about it.
The trouble with you SRians is that you seem to think TIME travels at the speed
of light.
It doesn't.
It doesn't travel at all. Each specific 'instant' is simultaneous throughout
the whole universe. It does not depend on the velocities of any observers.
Clocks B and C have been absolutely synched in all frames.
>
>
>> You don't understand the significance of E-synching.
>
>You exchange time signals with the assumption that the speed of light is
>isotropic, and use that to set the clocks. If SoL isn't really isotropic
>it might be possible to find some way of syncing the clocks that produced
>a different result.
Precisely. It is called absolute synching.
This also provides a way to measure OWLS.
>
>In particular, according to SR, slow transport should produce identical
>results to E-syncing. If SoL actually varies in different directions then
>slow transport would produce different results. AFAIK no such discrepancy
>has ever been observed but I don't know how hard anyone's tried to look
>for it.
Not so. Any careful transportation will retain absolute synch between two
clocks that were absolutely synched whilst together.
********
Now, let's go back to the original question and assume SR is wrong. In this
case, A's rate is not affected by velocity and remains the same as that of both
B and C.
The result of the experiment is now pretty obvious.
After B and C are set to A's reading as it passes to the right, they will both
be in absolute synch.
On the reverse transit, there should be no difference between the readings of A
and C or of A and B ......and therefore of B and C (in the absolute sense).
********
The interesting conclusion is that clocks B and C can be synched in exactly the
same absolute manner by this experiment, WHETHER OR NOT SR IS CORRECT.
Henri Wilson.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
See proof that light speed is source dependent.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variablestars.exe
- Next message: Peter Kinane: "Re: The physical paradox of the twins."
- Previous message: Marcus Wellpoth: "Re: Time Physics"
- In reply to: sal: "Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely."
- Next in thread: sal: "Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely."
- Reply: sal: "Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
