Re: Roberts destroys SR

From: shevek (shevek4_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/10/05 

Date: 9 Jan 2005 21:21:43 -0800

cadwgan_gedrych@yahoo.com wrote:
> [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?
>

I say he does damn good job, but that doesn't mean he can do it alone.

> 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.

I disagree with your criteria for scientific theory. I find Euclid to
be quite scientific for example.. also the TCP/IP protocol
specification.

>
> 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
>

Several problems here. First, both the observers have assumed they are
at rest, at least in the frame they are calculating the light speed in.
Otherwise, the light would not have traveled distance X, but some
different distance such as X - va*Ta.

Second, you failed to specify any way the two observers (at motion)
could measure and agree on the distance X.

Third, your lack of unit specification forces me to think you are using
something like meters for X and seconds for Ta and Tb. If so, well,
look them up in the dictionary and you will see the problem.

> 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.

Wrong. Cosmic ray produced muons do reach the earth. An
electromagnetic clock is affected by the ram pressure of the ether.

>
> 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.

SR addresses it quite well, with its common sense approach that the
intrinsic rhythm of such a clock is a good way to measure the passage
of time. Good enough for flat space at least.

Cheers-

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Roberts destroys SR
    ... >> about clock synchronization because it is simply physically ... 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