Re: Relativity IQ Test. Synching Clocks Absolutely.
From: Henri Wilson (h_at_..(Henri)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Myxococcus xanthus: "Re: OWLS Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt."
- Previous message: bobbyhaqq: "Re: GR Math Predicts a Black Hole At a Big Bang"
- 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: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 07:23:22 GMT
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:29:11 -0400, sal <pragmatist@nospam.org> wrote:
>On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 21:45:39 +0000, h wrote:
>
>>>>>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.
>
>Whoa -- you started by having B and C synced while together, _then_ moved
>apart. Let's stick with that, OK?
Many would argue that they might not now be in synch. There is no way of
checking. (or there wasn't)
>
>So after they're moved apart, EITHER they're still in sync, OR your
>postulated universe is even stranger than SR's.
SR says they might not be in 'reading synch'. It doesn't matter here anyway.
the main thing is that they are now 'rate synched'.
That can be checked while they are at rest wrt each other.
>
>And let's add one more thing: The operators at B and C have wristwatches
>(called B' and C'), and after B and C are moved, they set their watches to
>match B and C. SO, we now will have a record at location B and location C
>of what the original, _synchronized_ readings of B and C would have been,
>if you never fooled with them after moving them.
>
>OK so far?
only just.
>
>
>> 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.
>
>OK, now, to start with, they were not e-synced at all. They were just
>moved apart, after being put in sync while right next to each other.
>That's what you said in the original post, and I like that better than the
>E-syncing version -- it's more clear-cut.
I never mentioned E-synching. You did. The clocks are not E-synched anywhere.
>
>The wristwatches of the operators STILL are set to that original,
>colocation-synchronized time.
>
>How do you, Henri, think the final times on B and C after your "absolute
>syncing" will differ from the times shown on the B' and C' wristwatches?
I don't. SR does.
You wont know unless you move them to positions B and C and compare.
>
>I think they won't differ at all -- or, more precisely, (C - C') will be
>exactly equal to (B - B').
That's what the ballistic theory would say too.
>
>If you think they won't be equal, then please tell me in which direction
>they'll differ -- will B' be behind B, while C' is not behind C? Or will
>be C' be behind C, while B' will match B? Or what?
I say they will all be the same because they were originally absolutely in
synch when they were together and this experimental procedure has adjusted them
to also be in absolute synch even though they are now apart.
Aether theory and therefore SR say that they are not in absolute synch because
'absolute synch' doesn't exist.
>
>If they're still synced the way they were to start with, as it appears to
>me they will be, then the extra "average-syncing" step hasn't done
>anything that I can see.
It has if SR is true.
>
>
>> They are definitely not E-synched as you claim.
>
>Again, tell me what you expect the actual difference to be, in qualitative
>terms, between the readings on B and C and the readings on B' and C'.
>
>As far as I can see there won't be a difference.
>
>
>[ snip ]
>> The trouble with you SRians is that you seem to think TIME travels at
>> the speed of light.
>
>Yes, that summarizes it pretty well -- C is fixed, so if I see light
>"moving slowly" over where you're standing, I'd say time itself was
>running slower for you. That's what happens in a gravity well, for
>example.
>
>> It doesn't.
>> It doesn't travel at all.
>
>That's a good statement, too -- in the 4-dimensional geometric view of SR,
>_nothing_ _moves_. Everything is laid out on the 4 dimensional manifold
>and it just sits there, and we can measure distances and switch coordinate
>systems however we like. There's no actual motion of anything to worry
>about -- everything stays where you put it, and it's always in the same
>place, no matter how you look at it.
>
>If SR is a religion, then this should be its mantra:
>
> NOTHING MOVES
>
>(Actually, that's just for the geometric version -- in the 3+1
>view stuff still moves.)
that's true... that's why there has to be another time dimension.
We live in a 4D world and things move.
>
>> Each specific 'instant' is simultaneous
>> throughout the whole universe. It does not depend on the velocities of
>> any observers.
>
>Ah, but now you are expressing an opinion about reality. In the SR model,
>that statement isn't true.
I know. That's why SR is plain bull!!!!
It is based on the assumption that the properties of the universe are dependent
on the way humans view it, using light.
The universe functioned very well before any human set eyes on it.
>
>
>> Clocks B and C have been absolutely synched in all frames.
>
>Again, that's an opinion about reality -- you haven't _proved_ that in any
>way that I could see.
>
>
>>>> 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.
>
>I still don't see the difference, in effect, between what you did and
>simple slow-transport out from a central point, at which location the
>clocks were synchronized while they were adjacent.
>
>No exchange of light signals is necessary, and SR says the result is the
>same either way.
Not so. Clocks must be E-synched to make OWLS constant and therefore make any
reference to an aether unnecessary.
>
>[snip]
>>
>> Not so. Any careful transportation will retain absolute synch between
>> two clocks that were absolutely synched whilst together.
>
>AH HAH -- Now _that_ should be testable.
>
>Einstein says it is identical to E-syncing. It shouldn't be hard to sync
>them up, transport them far apart in opposite directions, and then use GPS
>or some other E-syncing proxy to see if their time still agrees.
>
>In fact, it may already have been done.
>
>> 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.
>
>Yes, for sure -- the only problem with it is that if SR is correct, then
>you've only synced them in one frame, just like slow-transport and
>E-syncing do.
Sal, this is NOT the same as E-sunching. nothing like it.
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: Myxococcus xanthus: "Re: OWLS Anisotropy Proven Beyond Doubt."
- Previous message: bobbyhaqq: "Re: GR Math Predicts a Black Hole At a Big Bang"
- 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
|
