Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?

On Sep 21, 8:25 pm, stevendaryl3...@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough)
wrote:
Alen says...

The 'contradiction' you keep seeing is due to your mis-applying the idea
that the 'clocks remain synchronized' to clocks that are no longer in their
original frame of reference.

Removal from THAT frame of reference 'breaks' the synchronization.

You say that without any justification beyond an
extrapolation from the original synchronisation process
viewed from a moving frame.

It *follows* from the assumed properties of clocks,
rods, light, etc. That's the way science works: you
make hypotheses about the way the world works, and
then you derive conclusions from those hypotheses
and test those conclusions. The way to *disprove*
a hypothesis is either (1) show that the hypothesis
is internally inconsistent, or (2) show that the
predictions made by the hypothesis are not born
out by experiment.

Your argument against Special Relativity doesn't
do either of these things. What argument does
is take Special Relativity, and add some *additional*
hypotheses about "clocks take their synchronizations
with them when they accelerate". Then you claim
to find a contradiction. But that just shows that
the combination of Special Relativity + your
new hypotheses is wrong. It doesn't show that
Special Relativity is wrong.

[...]

Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

My argument makes only two assumptions, that
are well known in physics:

1. The laws of physics are independent of location.

2. Simultaneous events have a spacelike relationship,
meaning that one cannot have any causal influence
on the other

These are all I need to show that length contraction
is impossible. Then I must think: does that contradict
the experimentally verified SR? At first sight, yes, but
then I recall that SR was derived dynamically, in terms
of sending a light beam along a moving rod. In this
sense I do not have to deny SR, because it says only
that LIGHT measures a moving rod to be length
contracted, and not that it simply IS length contracted,
without further qualification. It is not SR that says
length contraction exists without further qualification;
it is the Minkowski spacetime postulate that ADDS that
to the original SR, and is completely unproven.

Alen

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Ton of Bricks Paradox/Contradiction?
    ... that the 'clocks remain synchronized' to clocks that are no longer in their ... Removal from THAT frame of reference 'breaks' the synchronization. ... Your argument against Special Relativity doesn't ... The connection created by the synchronisation ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Is special relativity falsifiable?
    ... As no inertial frame can be found in the Universe, ... All three clocks are set to 0. ... observer A arrived at a distance d from B ... Object:Re: Is special relativity falsifiable? ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: An Interesting Occurrence in Circular Motion
    ... |> three inertial blind mice or what you had for breakfast, ... | You pointed out the transitivity of the synchronisation and how it ... I repeated what Einstein wrote. ... | in an inertial system with stationary clocks. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Special Relativity is Dead! (Third Proof)
    ... |> If I am well informed, constant velocity movement causes time delation, ... Acceleration causes also time ... | fact that special relativity can handle accelerated motion perfectly. ... |> Consider two clocks K and K' that are in orbit around some heavy body ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The real twin paradox.
    ... Set the electronics so that every time a tick is received, ... Does the Fizeau Experiment Really Test Special Relativity? ... Light clocks gave Einstein a simple way to derive the Lorentz equations. ... law of inertia is unsatisfactory ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast