Re: But Russell said SR is easy

Mike wrote:
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Mike wrote:
karandash2000@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Mike wrote:

I asked you before, have any experiments being done where the speed of
the source was a good fraction of the speed of light?

Mike


I doubt that you can read (or comprehend) but here is ONE example of
high speed light source in the FACK list:

2. Alvaeger F.J.M. Farley, J. Kjellman and I Wallin, Physics Letters
12, 260 (1964).
Measured the speed of gamma rays from the decay of fast pi0 (~0.99975
c) to be c with a resolution of 400 parts per million.

Is 0.99975 c close enough to c for you?
It is going to be interesting to see where you go next, crackpots never
ever give up.
I agree, even the "crackpot" Galileo did not give up even under house
arrest and in the court he wishspered "it moves".
40 points on the crackpot index!
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

Next.
I do not expect you to understand the fundamental flaw of the paper you
mentioned because you are so prejudiced about the subject.

Yes, these papers involve such a fundamental mistake that it is
embarishing to even mention it and also wonder why nobody challenges
them.

Mike
And the fundamental flaw is?

This is the proper way to respond and I will try to answer. The
fundamental flaw is that due to the limitations in the measuring
devises and exeprimental setup, the maximum speed that can be measured
is the speed of light. Do not forget that for a proper measurement TWO
clocks must be synchronized and if the synchronization speed does not
exceed c then the maximum speed recorded in all cases will be c withing
the experimental error which they attribute to k.

This is indeed very trivial and this is also the reason the OWSL cannot
be measured unless one knows of a FTL controlled way of synchronizing
clocks.

This is trivial nonsense.

Look:
scintillator scintillator
| |
-> particle | |
| |
------ ------
| |
Instrument

Two scintillators.
Cables of equal length to the time measuring instrument.
Do I have to explain it further?

What's wrong with this?
The "clock synchronization" is simply that the cables
are of equal length. This is basic knowledge for anybody
who has ever measured short delays in a lab.

It is trivially simple to measure the speed of light in a lab.
It is trivially simple to measure speeds beyond c in a lab.
It's to measure it with extremely high precision that is hard.



What all these experiments that claim to place bounds on the OWSL
measure is an upper limit on synchronizing clocks using the speed of
light (or EM waves) in the synchronization, which is of course a
constant and the experiments do not prove it is source dependent, just
that it is a constant withing some experimental error.

Example: Do you rememebr how in the old times police used to determine
whether a driver exceeded the speed limit? By placing two marks on the
road and measuring the speed using stowatches. How that worked? the
policemen had a radio and when the car would pass the first mark he
policeman standing next to it would signal the other one to start his
clock. This is the synchonization method. then, when the car passed the
second mark he stopped the clock. Since the distance was known they
estimated the speed of the car using a table.

Or much better - have two detectors detecting the car
(could be mechanical, optic - or anything. Doesn't matter as long as
the delays in the detectors are equal within the precision of
the time measurement), and two coax cables of equal length
to a time measuring device (like an oscilloscope).
You could easily measure the speed of a superluminal car that way.
No problem.

This type of syncronization depends on the speed of EM waves to
syncronize thta clocks. In the case of a car v/c << 1 and the estmate
is very close to the actual speed.

Now, assume that we are measuring something that moves at a speed close
to c and it has a light source on it. We will use the same terminology
ujst to compare. Our car now is the beam sent by a light source moving
close to c. When it passes the first mark the "policeman" sends an EM
signal to inform the source passed by. This signal travels at c. When
it reaches the second mark, NOT MATTER WHAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS,
whether source dependent of not, the reading will be c within
experimental error. But If the signal is sent from the source itself,
i.e. the same signal that we are trying to measure its speed is used as
the synchronization signal then the measured speed will be zero plus
the speed of light. Thus, in every case the speed measured is c withing
the experimental errror due to the experiment setup.

Sure.
Your experimental set-up doesn't work because it's stupid and thus
never used by experimental physicists.

But the set-up I explained above works perfectly, and it is this set-up
(or an equivalent variant) that is used for these kind of experiments.

Paul
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... It involves the absolute constant c. ... rulers and clocks. ... to do with only the relative speeds of the fields, ... frames) synchronization, so we take what we have. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... to do with the nature of space and the nature ... rulers and clocks. ... to do with only the relative speeds of the fields, ... frames) synchronization, so we take what we have. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Resubmittal: One-way Invariance Is Physically Impossible
    ... Nature uses no clocks, and clock synchronization is a purely ... ALL one-way speeds depend on one's clock ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: The Value of Einsteins Mistakes
    ... if clocks are synchronized by slow clock ... different speeds have different atomic rates) ... "Einstein's synchronization procedure with light signals ... every one of their results to be proper parts of physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Length Contraction Fully Explained
    ... So you finally agree that Galileo's clocks are ... relative speeds, ... loaded terms to concepts and assumptions that belong to philosophy) ... lack of absolute synchronization ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Loading