Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- From: "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Mar 2007 13:14:35 -0800
On Mar 2, 1:18 pm, "kk" <mr_kurt_kings...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
---Maxwell's equations---
[kk wrote:]
Maxwell did not measure light's round-trip speed.It involves the absolute constant c.
Nothing in Maxwell's equations tell us anything
about either light's one-way or round-trip speed.
It says that light's speed will be c.
You may believe what you are saying, but you
will have to prove it because just saying it
doesn't make it so.
No, I don't have to prove it. Maxwell's equations are a proposed model
for how electromagnetic interactions work. It replicates
electromagnetic behavior superbly, and so the model is given a lot of
credence. There is not one stitch of evidence that Maxwell's equations
are wrong. Moreover, Maxwell's equations *also* say that the speed of
light will be c -- period. One does not have to prove exhaustively
that this is correct. A theory is not proven correct. A theory is
*disproven* if there is any evidence contrary to the theory. There is
not one stitch of evidence that the speed of light is not always c in
a vacuum, regardless of the motion of the source or of the observer.
You may not like it, but this is how science works. When you have
*experimental evidence* that the speed of light is not c, because of
the motion of the source or of the observer, then you will have
demonstrated that Maxwell's equations are wrong. Until that time, your
disbelief or your desire for proof is irrelevant.
I will give you two unslowed and absolutely
synchronous ideal clocks (on paper), along
with an unshrunken ideal ruler (on paper),
and we will see if you can get your c for
either light's round-trip or one-way speed.
Have at it. And how will you demonstrate that what you write on paper
has any resemblance to what *really happens*?
---Einstein's explicit MMx acknowledgement---
Sorry, leading the witness.
You need to tell us what Einstein meant by his
tell-tale phrase "in agreement with experience."
It is clear to anyone that his 2AB/(t'a-ta) = c
means the round-trip speed of light per a single
clock over the distance AB.
As I said, you are leading the witness and attempting to convict a
dead man of perjury. Einstein said in his letters he was referring to
something else, not the MMX.
Maxwell did not measure light's round-trip speed,
so he could not have gotten the specified result
of 2AB/(t'a-ta). He did not have the times t'a
and ta, and he did not use the distance 2AB.
What??? Do you have any idea how the velocity appears in a wave
equation and why? Do you not know where a distance and a time appear
in a wave equation? Do you have any idea how when he found *a*
velocity popping out of his equations, he *recognized* the value of
that velocity as being that of light? Did you not know that he didn't
KNOW that the speed that came out was that of light until he saw the
value? Now, tell me, if the value were not *measured* before his
realization, how do you think he *recognized* the number that came out
as being the speed of light?
As Maxwell well knew, his c pertains only to
the speed of light's propagation through space.
This is the same for all frames because it has
to do with the nature of space and the nature
of light. It is not a measured speed using
rulers and clocks.
Maxwell knew that his equations had to match *meausurements*. How do
you measure the speed of light?
Maxwell's c is frame-independent simply because
the interactions of electric and magnetic fields
are frame-independent. These interactions have
to do with only the relative speeds of the fields,
so are entirely unrelated to any inertial frame.
---Einstein's "synchronization" definition---
Note that this definition works for *any* signal
that you can guarantee travels at the same speed
from B to A as from A to B.
The fact that Einstein chose light does not mean
that it is restricted to light. Are you reading
more into it than what's there?
First, since you admit that Einstein's clocks are
not synchronous, what does it matter what is used
to set them? Asynchronous clocks are of no use.
I didn't say they weren't synchronous. They are perfectly synchronous
to the observer that synchronized them, and they will *continue* to be
synchronized for that observer. The fact that they aren't synchronous
for an observer moving relative to the clocks doesn't mean they aren't
synchronous at all.
Second, Einstein had to use light because only
light is source-independent.
Nonsense. My walking from one clock to the other is not source-
dependent! The rate at which I walk has nothing to do with whether the
clock is moving.
Only that which is
source-independent can possibly reveal our motion
through space, so Einstein had to have a null result
for light. Therefore, he specifically set his
clocks to obtain this result.
It could be said that Einstein was saying that
only clocks set to get c are properly related,
even though they are asynchronous.
However, there can be no such thing as "properly
related" clocks because that would mean "clocks
chosen by Nature," and yet Nature has no clock
preferences.
Also, even if Nature did prefer (and cause)
asynchronous clocks, they would still be
asynchronous, and therefore not suitable for
correct measurements.
The best we can do is to completely _ignore_
Einstein's clock-setting definition, and to
find a way to get our clocks synchronized.
They *are* synchronized. Oh, you must mean "absolutely synchronized,
for all observers." I don't believe that's possible. You are free to
prove me wrong by actual demonstration.
-----PD on Einstein's "synchronization"-----
Nor does he claim he's getting an absolute
synchronization. He's just using a prescription
that works ... .
But it _doesn't_ work. It cannot lead to correct
time measurements. We need synchronous clocks.
Sure it works. If I walk from clock A to clock B and I see that the
reading on clock B is 17 seconds later than my earlier reading of
clock A, and then I walk at the same rate from clock B to clock A
again, and I see that the reading of clock A is now 17 seconds later
than what clock B read, then I *know* the clocks are synchronized.
It's a really simple test.
There is no workable synchronization procedure
that generates an absolute (across all reference
frames) synchronization, so we take what we have.
If you had proof that there's no workable
procedure, then we would indeed be screwed;
however, you have no such proof, and I, on
the other hand, have warts, I mean, proof
that clocks can be absolutely synchronized.
Then you can certainly produce a physical demonstration of that, and
prove me wrong, and win a Nobel Prize. Congratulations! Where is it? I
can hardly wait!
PD
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Constructing Baryons.
- Next by Date: Can the absolute speed of the earth relative to the big bang be determined?
- Previous by thread: Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- Next by thread: Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
