Re: Roberts destroys SR

cadwgan_gedrych_at_yahoo.com
Date: 01/07/05 

Date: 7 Jan 2005 07:15:04 -0800

[Cadwgan wrote]
>> Indeed, the use of the word "choice" implies "man's choice,"
>> not Nature's, so merely using that word is a wrong step.
>> But overlooking that, let me say that not only has Nature not
>> told us via experiment that said choice was correct, but, as
>> I tried to get across, Nature **cannot** tell us *anything*
>> about clock synchronization because it is simply physically
>> impossible for Nature to synchronize two same-frame clocks
>> (beginning with unstarted clocks).

[Bill Hobba wrote]
> The theory never claimed you could. And I suppose when using
> Einstein's choice of synchronization the fact SR is fully in
> accord with experiment then nature has told us nothing?
> Specifically what it has told us is that choice of sync is
> in accord with experiment.
snip
> ... those equations are in accord with experiment for that
> particular synchronization - and that is what science is about.
> SR is more than the tautological consequence of a definition of
> synchronization - it is based on for example the validity of
> the POR as well.

[Cadwgan replies]
If Tom Roberts couldn't defend SR, what makes you think that
you can?

Let's look at your first claim first:
> The theory never claimed you could.
Unless SR is talking about experimental results, it is not
a scientific theory, and the prime result of which it speaks
is one-way light speed invariance. If this is not supposed
to be a law of physics per SR, then SR is not talking about
physical laws, and is therefore not a scientific theory.
Instead, it is a mere definition of clock synchronization;
one of many, but, alas, not the correct one, which is, of
course, absolute synchronization. Clock synchronization
cannot be a law or a scientific theory.

Let's now look at your next claim:
> And I suppose when using Einstein's choice of synchronization
> the fact SR is fully in accord with experiment then nature has
> told us nothing?

Einstein's synchronization directly conflicts with the following
simple experiment (unless you can pinpoint any specific error):

Let two observers meet in passing as a light ray approaches
them.

(Oa = Observer A and Ob = Observer B)

........Oa
......................................<~~~~~~~~~light ray
........Ob

When the two observers briefly meet, they know that the light
ray's tip is equidistant from them because they are at a single
point in space, and the ray's tip is also at one point in space.
We can qualitatively label this distance "X".

After the observers separate, the light ray will reach one of
them, as shown below:

...Oa
............<~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~light ray
...........Ob

Since the tip of the light ray cannot be in two places at once,
the observers will see it sequentially at absolutely different
times. (Here is a down-to-earth example: If I see the real you
in both Texas and New York, then this proves that I saw you at
absolutely different times because you cannot be in two places
at once.)

We can - again purely qualitatively - label the ray's absolutely
different arrival times "Ta" and "Tb." (All we care about here
is the fact that these times are absolutely different.)

The observers can now compare one-way light speeds. (Having no
rulers or clocks, they must do this qualitatively.) Here are
their extremely simple results:

Light's speed wrt Oa = X/Ta

Light's speed wrt Ob = X/Tb

Finally, let's examine your final claim:
> SR is more than the tautological consequence of a definition
> of synchronization - it is based on for example the validity
> of the POR as well.

No, the PR does not support SR. The PR is a meta-law, or a mere
rule about laws, and is not a law itself, so it can't specifically
support any theory, not to mention the fact that SR is not a
scientific theory because it makes utterly no predictions other
than those trivial results of Einsteinian synchronization such as
the following silly and wholly observer-dependent "time dilation":

.........passing clock
.............[3]->
...........<-[3]------frame A-------[4]

.........................[4]->
<-[4]------frame A-------[5]

Even though all three clocks run at the same intrinsic atomic
rate, the silly SR observers in frame A find that the passing
clock "runs slow." And SR observers in other frames will find
other "rhythms" for this same steady-speed passing clock.
Clearly, SR's "time dilation" has nothing to do with the actual
time of an actual atomic clock.

Who cares how observers using asynchronous clocks see a passing
clock? What really matters is an atomic clock's intrinsic atomic
rhythm, and SR does not address that because SR has no means of
measuring it.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Roberts destroys SR
    ... and is therefore not a scientific theory. ... it is a mere definition of clock synchronization; ... > When the two observers briefly meet, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A SINGLE CLOCK CANNOT HAVE TWO READINGS IN A SINGLE FRAME.
    ... CANNOT HAVE MORE THAN ONE READING NO MATTER HOW MANY DIFFERENTLY MOVING ... OBSERVERS LOOK AT IT ... Let there be a large clock somewhere in space that everyone can see. ... same synchronization in that frame of time but their both identical or ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A SINGLE CLOCK CANNOT HAVE TWO READINGS IN A SINGLE FRAME.
    ... CANNOT HAVE MORE THAN ONE READING NO MATTER HOW MANY DIFFERENTLY MOVING ... OBSERVERS LOOK AT IT ... Let there be a large clock somewhere in space that everyone can see. ... same synchronization in that frame of time but their both identical or ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Hafele & Keating, Einstein, Dingle,Cocke, and Scott Murray
    ... > observers which are not truly inertial. ... > sun just as the observer at the equator is rotating about the pole. ... >>Acceleration of a clock is not supposed to affect the rate of that clock. ... > mass against the pull of gravity you get gravitational potential energy. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • time coordinates in general relativity and cosmology (was: Re: Constraints on spatial flatness.)
    ... You then only need one clock, the observer's, to describe the dynamism ... of the observable universe, relative to that observer. ... | clocks we have to start with are at the center of the earth, ... observers A, B, and C, all in different places in a curved spacetime. ...
    (sci.physics.research)
Loading