Re: Michelson-Morley interferometer without a length contraction.

rbwinn wrote:
On Jun 5, 8:03 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jun 4, 1:04 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
On Jun 3, 7:16 am, Bryan Olson <fakeaddr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
rbwinn wrote:
Well, you will just have to look at the clock in S then. A t'=t clock
in S' would say exactly the same thing.
As I asked before, Robert, in your theory how does an observer
at rest in S' tell which of the infinitely many other inertial
frames is the the distinguished frame S, in which clocks
actually measure time? You did not answer that, but wrote
abut time being arbitrary. That's your theory failing.
Relativity, on the other hand, which seems to accurately
predict how time works in the real universe.
S is the one that has the clock with the time of t.
Robert, you realize that doesn't work, don't you? We'd need to
know t to determine S, and to find t from S' you just said "you
will just have to look at the clock in S".

Well, you have your slower clock. Why don't you figure it from that?
I was asking about *your* theory, Robert, which yet again turns
out not to work. Well, maybe it works to fulfill some fantasy
of yours.





� �Now, scientists say that they have an identical clock to the one in
S, but it is running slower.
That's dumbed-down too far from what the good scientists say.
Reasoning from dumbed-down versions leads to folly and failure.
Well, I have not run into any good scientists yet. Either the clock
is running slower the way scientists say it is or it is not. Is it
running slower?
In S, the clock at rest in S' is running slower. In S', the
clock at rest in S is running slower. Two identical clocks,
each considered in its own rest frame, run at the same rate
(but that's by definition). If the answer is not as
simple-minded as you want, too bad. Simpler answers fail to
describe the physical universe.
OK, we are in S. Our clock gives the time of t. So we have an actual
scientist, you, who says that a cesium clock in S' is going slower
than our cesium clock that shows time t in S. Therefore, in using the
Galilean transformation equations, we cannot call time on a cesuim
clock in S' by the variable t' because t'=t.
No, t' is *defined* as time in S'. If the actual measurement of time
in S' turns out not to be equal to t, then the universe disagrees
with the theory that said t'=t.

Sorry, t'=t. So what are you calling actual measurement of time in
S'?

The reading of the clock at rest in S' is the actual measurement
of time in S'.

I say t'=t is an actual measurement of time. Is there some
reason why you are saying t'=t is not an actual measurement of time?

Because clocks measure time and equations do not.

A slower clock will not give a time of t'.
And thus the Galilean transform turns out not to describe the real
universe.
[...]
n' is defined by scientists to be the time in
S' which shows light to be traveling at 300,000 km/sec.
What scientists, specifically, are you citing that to, Robert?
Einstein for one, and also Michelson and Morley. They said according
to a clock in S', light was traveling at 300,000 km/sec.
But where did they define n' to be what you said?
They didn't.
You claimed they did.
That was why they could not get the Galilean
transformation equations to work. I was the one who defined n'. n'
is the time on a clock in S' which shows the speed of light to be
300,000 km/sec.
And yet, Robert, you wrote, "n' is defined by scientists to be...".
Do even care whether what you write is true?
Scientists did not define n'. They do not even acknowledge that n'
exists.

That's right Robert. You made it up, but wrote, "n' is defined by
scientists to be [...]". Why act like that?

Well, are you saying that scientists have a copyright or patent on
what they said about what a cesium clock in S' would read?

Again Robert, there's no point in you making up nonsense and asking
me if I'm saying it.

I said
that n' is what a cesium clock in S' would read, scientists said a
cesium clock in S' would read this certain amount.

Robert, you wrote both:

"n' is defined by scientists to be the time in S' which shows
light to be traveling at 300,000 km/sec."

and:

Scientists did not define n'. They do not even acknowledge
that n' exists.

You seem to be
trying to accuse me of patent infringement or copyright violation.

Where do you get this stuff?

However, I believe that you will find that all of this information was
in the public domain.
Now as far as actual measurement of time, time can be measured
many different ways. Probably the earliest measurement of time was by
the position of the sun. Then devices were invented to measure
passage of time. There were hourglasses, sundials, clocks, digital
watches, transitions of cesium isotope molecules, etc. Then there are
other things we can consider, rotations, orbits, phases, etc., in
astronomy. So which of these things do you object to as actual
measurements of time?
t'=t just means that the same measurement of time is made in two
different frames of reference. In other words, the rotation of the
earth is used as the measurement of time in S and S'. It will be the
same in both frames of reference.

Because you say so? The universe says otherwise.

Two clocks running at different
speeds will give two different measurements of time.

True, but dumbed-down far to much to be relevant to the issue here.


--
--Bryan
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Circular motion in SR
    ... about the NIST standard for the SI second. ... you say that a clock in a satellite is ... when a most straightforward measurement shows that nature ... Scientists in Newton's time told him that he had left nothing to be ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... indicate that there is a common measurement of time in S and S'. ... Note that Galilean transforms say that what is read on one clock is t ... So I think scientists should do their research any way ... We do not have any evidence that dinosaurs had clocks. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Galilean transformation equations
    ... indicate that there is a common measurement of time in S and S'. ... Note that Galilean transforms say that what is read on one clock is t ... by transitions of a cesium isotope molecule, then time in S' does not ... So I think scientists should do their research any way ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: velocity
    ... reference clock on Earth. ... where a single reference clock on Earth will not ... attaching "....difficult for scientists to understand" to every ... But the astronauts say they have a clock on board the space shuttle ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Is time a measurement?(actually in search of edification)
    ... |>many recognized scientists holding high positions today. ... The ruler measures length; a clock ... kilogram as if that somehow defined the measurement of length or mass. ... ratio is always unity. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)