Re: einstein started a joke, QT continues it


PD ha scritto:

On May 1, 3:53 pm, beda pietanza <beda-pieta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 1 Mag, 13:40, PD <TheDraperFam...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Apr 30, 2:22 pm, beda pietanza <beda-pieta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Bill Hobba ha scritto:

"beda pietanza" <beda-pieta...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1177888727.118634.103590@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Einstein started a joke by playing with 3D space and time substituting
them with a surrogate inexistent Spacetime.

You only think its a joke because you don't understand it.

Let'us take this on that is easy: take some differently inertially
moving rulers that all meet so that at a given moment one end of them
all are coincident in one point in space, the other ends are not
(since we assume they are everyone contracted differently), the clocks
carried along the rulers are according to the Esynch procedure all set
differently.

This situation is a mixture of a possible real fact (the contraction
of the ruler lenght) and a arbitrary manipulation of the clocks.

This condition of rulers and clocks that is at the base of Spacetime
is indeed well described in the 3d Space plus separate Time.

No, it certainly is not.

Some people think that the SR arrangement has solved lots of problems
while some, like me, think that it has too much of a cost for the
conceptual confusion that has arised.

Unfortunately, it is not a matter of choice. If nature is confusing to
us, that's our problem, not nature's. It's our job to describe nature
*as it is*, not in a way that appeals to our common sense.

Common sense is our default in case of disagreement.

Not at all. Experiment is the decider in the case of disagreement.

Unfortunately many crucial experiments are of uncertain interpretation
so we need to default to common knowledge in order to communicate
sense safely.




I agree on the attempt to describe Nature *as it is*, so:
If you use a ruler and a single clock to do measurements, then there
is Nature at work.

And you can use a ruler and a single clock and observer both time
dilation and length contraction. I don't know why you think you can't.

With a ruler and a single clock you can only do a two ways measure,
upon
which we all agree.



If you use a ruler and two clocks then the measurements you make
depend on your clock synchronizzation choise, then there is Nature at
work *and your tampering with clocks* .

I don't know why you would consider synchronization to be tampering.
You have to do something when you use two clocks to make sure that
they are synchronized. Whether you need two clocks is another matter.
You often do not. If you happen to *choose* to use two clocks, then
you have to decide on *some* synchronization scheme.

Two clocks are needed if you want a one way measurement.
The two clocks must be synchronized, Esych is used to ensure one way
speed of light to be C.
But you should know that in space light moves independently of the
movement of the source and of the movement of the observer. Therefore
for a moving observer
light travels forewards at C-V and backwards at C+V, since we don't
know
V (observer speed) synchronizzation is impossible.
Einstein stepped in solving the problem with a trick: the Lorentz
factor provides that the source and the observer are interchangeable
and using light to set the distant clock we are able to ensure that
one way light speed is "forced" to be C.
So what ??? we still don't know the observer speed versus space nor
versus light itself, we have not gained anything.

But the real reason for me to discard SR is that I'am convinced that
different material rulers don't contract the same and different clocks
don't dilate the same; SR is too fumous conceptually to be of any help
on this.



If you use light to (E)synch the clocks you may obtain SR scheme.

That's incorrect. Any synchronization procedure that follows the SR
prescription, whether using light or not, will work. Walking from one
clock to the other clock and back again is a perfectly acceptable
synchronization procedure, as long as you take care to ensure that
your rate of walking is the same both to and fro. Sound will work, as
long as you take care to ensure that the speed of sound is the same
both to and fro. A wind-up duckie will work, as long as you take care
to ensure that ... well, you get the idea. Einstein just *chose* light
for his signal to and fro, because he *posited* that the speed of
light was the same to and fro. (And then he worked out the
implications.) If you don't want to use light, then fine -- use
something else. Einstein would be perfectly happy, and so would I, and
you'd *still* end up with Lorentz length contraction and time
dilation. And this would be an *experimental* result, not something
decided by common sense.


If you use an other method to obtain the two clocks show the same time
(referred to a chosen third inertial clock) then your results would be
different

None of the possible methods has a priviledge status, only I can say
is:
whatever you do the games are played in the 3D space plus time.

And it is *still* 3D space + time. But the space and time are not
independent. Which is what you learn when you use one clock and one
ruler, or one ruler and two clocks(synchronized however you like) and
make an actual *measurement*.

What was your problem with this again?

I don't have any problem with this, it is you that seem not to know
that
different synch procedure lead to different results and quite a bit
different.
Ei. A absolute synch procedure requires the acceptance of some
assumpitions and a careful, yet, for a certain extend arbitrary choice
of a absolute reference system: this would give a lot different
results.

The original intend of my post was about QT where some more bizarre
ideas are brought about to add new mysteries to the old ones

This is the way the world goes: the relevance of a idea is not the
truth that
contains but the amount of illusions that generates.

Is this the only possible way or we (you and I) can be a little
smarter than that ?????

best regards

beda pietanza

.

Quantcast