Re: Simultaneity = TRICKERY ??


"THE_ONE" <floppy01@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1142365990.767801.156540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Here is a good question concerning simultaneity.
|
| What if you had a battery positioned at middle point A, and also had a
| light bulb at this middle point A.
|
| The ( + ) side of the battery is connected to a wire, and one terminal
| of the light bulb is also connected to another wire, and both these
| wires extend to the left for 300,000 kms.
|
| The ( - ) side of the battery is connected to a wire, and second
| terminal of the light bulb was also connected to another wire, and both
| these wires extend to the right for 300,000 kms.
|
| At the both ends of these wires extending to the left and the right, is
| a On/Off switch tied to the two wires.
|
| Now imagine that for one second, both of these switches were
| simultaneously closed, therefore creating a closed electrical loop,
| thus allowing the light bulb to light up for one second.
|
| QUESTION:
| Does this mean that from some other frame of view where the two
| switches do not appear to have been connected simutaeously, one must
| believe that to light up the light bulb for one second, one MUST close
| only one switch at a time, and therefore MUST NOT produce a closed loop
| to make electrons flow.
|

The issue of simultaneity and clock synchronization was pretty much
resolved by a student of mine who learned to think for himself after
many years of indoctrination.
He will never again be a relativist unless senile dementia takes over.
This is what he wrote and my reply:

"JanPB" <filmart@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1141974652.622647.97600@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
kk's postings about physical content of Einstein's postulates made me
look again at his 1905 paper and I noticed what I think is another
experimental assumption.


Good grief! More than one, huh?
I don't know what an "experimental" assumption is, to me an
assumption is just an assumption.


Recall Einstein's definition of synchronisation of two clocks A and B:
send a light pulse from A to B, reflect the light at B back to A,
register the emmission and the arrival times: t_A, t_B, and t'_A. The
clocks A and B are synchronised if:

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t_B (*)

Which is true if and only if there is no relative speed between A and B,
and in general, false.
SR is quite correct (and trivial) for v = 0.


(Equivalently, one can send two light rays, from A to B and from B to A
and then the requirement is that:

t_B - t_A = t'_A - t'_B, (**)

where t'_B is the second ray's emission time at B.)

He then says: "We assume that this definition of synchronism is free
from contradictions" and notes that the following two conditions are
satisfied (thus guaranteeing the "freedom from contradictions"):

"1. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at
A synchronizes with the clock at B.

True anyway, independently of signals by light, turtles, sound
or any other method.



2. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with
the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each
other."




This portion of the 1905 paper is frequently glossed over (I've never
seen it discussed on this NG) but the second condition is in fact
non-trivial and it demands that certain experiment yield certain
result. Otherwise Einstein's synchronisation of clocks is vacuous.

Discussion on this NG consists primarily of

A: "Einstein blundered."
B: "You are wrong, you are an idiot."
A: "No, you are the idiot".
B: "I'm not listening, *plonk*".

I've seven years of experience of that.
2AB/(t'A- tA) = c
Message-ID: <epWH2.1150$ww5.1665@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/4674b29449f08fb0?hl=en



Try to prove condition 2 yourself: sync clock at A with clock at B
(condition (*) or (**) satisfied), and also clock at A with clock at C
(ditto), and based on this try to prove that B is in sync with C
(again, this means that (*) or (**) must hold for B and C). While doing
this remember that A, B, C are in 3D space, i.e., not necessarily
colinear.

You'll see you cannot prove it unless you know that the following is
also true: the time it takes for a light ray to complete a triangular
roundtrip A-B-C-A equals the time it takes for a light ray to complete
the reverse triangular trip: A-C-B-A (imagine mirrors positioned at B
and C to make the light ray go around). This must be verified
experimentally, otherwise there is a chance the definition of Einstein
sync is vacuous.

I'm not going to prove anything to myself by imagination.
I'm satisfied that NASA-JPL is using UTC for Cassini's clock
and that Einstein's calculations will be 14 seconds in error come May.
28 seconds a year is an enormous error. Data says it all.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Synchronize/Synchronize.htm

You have however, proven by the triangle method so have a pat on the back.
Perhaps now you'll agree with me that Einstein was either an idiot or a
huckster.
Either way his rantings are nonsense.


The experiment in question was performed by Fizeau (and maybe others?)
around 1860 so Einstein certainly knew about it. BTW, note that only
one clock (at A) is used since a triangular *roundtrip* is what's being
timed, so no simultaneity issues arose here. (AFAIK Fizeau verified
this not just for triangles but for more general polygonal paths.)

As a footnote/corollary: it can be shown by an easy calculation that
ether wind (light-dragging by ether) makes the two triangular (or
polygonal) roundtrip times in Fizeau's experiment *unequal* (the
difference is of second order in v/c, where v=ether wind speed). So the
existence of consistently Einstein-synchronised clocks in all inertial
systems rules out ether wind under the SR regime using synchronised
clocks.

--
Jan Bielawski

Way too complicated.
Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler.

http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Copernicus.exe

Written for a '386 DX with math - coprocessor running at 40 MHz.
I scrapped the 1987 DOS version in a fit of pique because I imagined
it would not fit Algol.
Then in 1999 I almost scrapped it again:

Observation:
http://www.britastro.org/vss/gifc/00918-ck.gif

I kept it, though, and later found this.
http://www.ebicom.net/~rsf1/sekerin.htm (fig 3)

I didn't write a Mac version, but they have now gone over to iNTEL
now anyway.

A lot of people are going to eat crow in a hat.

Androcles.











.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Jan Bielawski has heretical thoughts.
    ... | Bielawski is uttering unclean heresies about the holy word of Einstein. ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... |> and C to make the light ray go around). ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Im Not Sure if this Worries Me or Not.
    ... you must divide the distance traveled by the travel ... So you don't know cosmic muons travel 62 miles in 2.2 usec. ... more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Where is the flaw?
    ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... |> Albert Phuckwit Einstein. ... just convince your fellow man you are ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: ABOUT THE COVARIANCE OF THE GENERAL LAWS OF THE NATURE
    ... If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, ... Try to prove condition 2 yourself: sync clock at A with clock at B ... roundtrip A-B-C-A equals the time it takes for a light ray to complete ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)