Resubmittal: One-way Invariance Is Physically Impossible

[[Mod. note -- I believe the author's contention (that special
relativity is internally inconsistent) is wrong. However, I'm
approving this posting in the hopes that it will spark interesting
discussion and a broader understanding of the foundations of
special relativity. -- jt]]

In order for special relativity to be correct, light's
measured speed must be invariant in all cases, including
the one-way case. However, as this little thesis should
clearly show, it is physically impossible for light's
one-way speed to be invariant experimentally.
 
The key to understanding this is the fact that clock
synchronization is not a natural process. This sounds
odd only because no one has pointed it out until now,
but if it is contrasted with other things which _are_
natural processes, then it will make more sense.
 
As we all know, the atomic rhythms of clocks _are_
natural phenomena. Similarly, the spaces between the
atoms of a ruler are due to nature, not man. And since
Nature is in full control of both the intrinsic rhythms
of clocks and the physical lengths rulers, it is of
course possible for Nature to physically distort each
of these physical properties.
 
For example, if Nature slows intrinsic clock rhythms
and shrinks rulers, then She can cause null results
in the round-trip light speed cases (MMx,KTx).
[See Wheeler ref. below.]
 
The question is Is it possible for Nature to cause a
null result in the one-way light speed case?
 
The answer hinges entirely on another question, namely,
Is it possible for Nature to synchronize clocks?
 
Since this question has never been asked before, perhaps
a little explanation will help: Picture a couple of clocks
which are light-years apart. They are not yet started, but
they are preset to read zero. If the clocks are left alone,
how long would it take for Nature to not only start them
but to start them in a certain way (or synchronize them)?
 
Here is the answer: Forever and a day.
 
Since Nature has no means of starting the clocks, She
certainly cannot start them in any particular way. We can
see clearly that Nature cannot temporally relate clocks;
that is, She cannot synchronize clocks.
 
Since clock synchronization is a critical part of the
one-way light speed case, we see that it is not possible
for Nature to cause a null result in this case. Indeed,
without clock synchronization, there can be no natural
law (or a law given by Nature) in the one-way case, either
null or non-null!
 
In order for there to be a non-null one-way natural law
of physics, Nature would have to not only understand or
know about absolute synchronization, but She would also
have to apply it to clocks, and She obviously cannot do
either of these things.
 
In order to give us a null result in the one-way case,
Nature would have to set clocks Einstein's way. Since
many people do not seem to know exactly what his way is,
here is a clear and authoritative explanation:
 
The following is from Wheeler & Taylor's book
_Spacetime Physics_, 1963 edition, page 18:
 
[Wheeler's "latticework" = standard coordinate system]
"... We assume that every clock in the latticework,
whatever its construction, has been calibrated
in meters of light-travel time."
  "How are the different clocks in the lattice to be
synchronized with one another? As follows: Pick one
of the clocks in the lattice as the standard of time
and take it to be the origin of an x, y, z coordinate
system, Start this reference clock with its pointer
at t = 0. At this instant let it send out a flash of
light that spreads in all directions. Call this flash
of light the reference flash. When the reference flash
gets to a clock 5 meters away, we want that clock to
read 5 meters of light-travel time. So an assistant
sets that clock to 5 meters of time long before the
experiment begins, holds it at 5 meters, and releases
it only when the reference flash arrives. When [the]
assistants at all the clocks in the lattice have
followed this procedure (each setting his clock to
a time in meters equal to his own distance from the
reference clock and starting it when the light flash
arrives), the clocks in the lattice are said to be
synchronized."
 
As Einstein said (in his 1905 relativity paper),
"Any ray of light moves in the "stationary"' system of
co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the
ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.
Hence
 
velocity = light path/time interval
 
where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the
definition in § 1."
 
Since the definition in § 1 forces clocks to obtain the
value "c" (see above from John A. Wheeler) for light's
one-way speed (by presetting them to read the same time
x/c for both one-way trips purely by stipulation), it is
clear that this "invariance" is no theoretical postulate
or assumption, but merely a convention such as like the
rather trivial convention that 12"= 1'.
 
It is highly ironic that even though Einstein did not
grasp the simple (but subtle) fact that Nature does not
"do" clock synchronization, he still _was_ forced to do
it himself (with no help from Mama Nature)! Although he
said that he had found the "most natural" definition of
time, we can see that there is nothing natural about it
(as his own word, "definition," should have told him)!
 
Only man can synchronize clocks. Nature cannot.
Thus, to reiterate, there can be no natural law in the
one-way light speed case.
 
The best that can happen in the one-way case is that
we can have a "conditional law," and it will be partly
artificial and partly natural.
 
For example, _if_ we are given the condition that man
has set clocks Einstein's way, then we will of course
obtain Einstein's own "null result," but then man is
in full control of the critical clock synchronization,
and Nature "only" sets the speed of light in space.
 
Given another condition, absolute synchronization, we
will obtain a "non-null result," which, oddly enough,
will be the correct result, even though it will not be
a fully natural law. (It will be correct due to the use
of truly synchronous clocks.) Even the "relative-motion
man" himself explicitly admitted that using the absolutely
synchronous clocks of classical physics would yield a
non-null one-way result. [See Einstein ref. below.]
 
Since there can be no law of nature in the one-way
light speed case there can be no scientific postulate
in the one-way case.
 
And since even Galilean relativity contains the first
postulate of special relativity, we see that the
so-called theory of special relativity is actually
not a scientific theory, but is merely a definition
of clock synchronization, and not even a good one,
at that! (Einstein's clocks are not absolutely or
truly synchronous, and can run slow; also, his rulers
can contract, so none of his measurements can be
correct. E.g., we have those physically impossible
reciprocal relativistic effects, where, for example,
my clock is running slower than yours, whilst your
clock is running slower than mine! Cannot happen!)
 
In other words, even were special relativity to be a
scientific theory, all of its measurements would still
be incorrect due to time dilation, ruler contractions,
and its use of absolutely asynchronous clocks.
 
Note: Due to Einstein's upfront (prior to his creation
of special relativity) acceptance of experimental
round-trip invariance, he also accepted that which
physically caused this invariance, namely, intrinsic
rod contraction and intrinsic clock slowing. However,
Einstein declared as "meaningless" that which had to
cause these distortions, namely, motion in space.
This placed special relativity in the unenviable position
of implicitly accepting absolute motion (along with its
resulting physical distortions) while at the same time
denying any and all meaning to such motion. (Of course,
this denial does not deny the existence of absolute
motion, but states only its "uselessness" to physics.
It would be silly to deny any meaning to that which
does not even exist!)
 
Given all of the above, we can only conclude that the
so-called second postulate of special relativity is
_not_ a scientific postulate because it pertains to
that which cannot happen (experimentally).
 
Now we can understand why no one has ever performed
the one-way version of the Michelson-Morley experiment:
There is no one-way version. There is no one-way law.
There cannot be a one-way law.
 
But, fortunately, and as we noted above, there _can_
be a _correct_ measurement of light's one-way speed,  
and this will tell us our speed through space. All we
need are a pair of (absolutely) synchronous clocks,
but we won't get them from special relativity; we must
find them ourselves. (Fortunately, no one can prove a
negative, so Einstein was not able to prove that truly
synchronous clocks cannot exist!)
 
-kk-
========================================================
Wheeler ref.:
The following quotes are from John A. Wheeler's book:
[_Spacetime Physics_ ©1963, 1966, p. 80]
"... when Kennedy & Thorndike made their measurements in
1932, two alternatives to the Einstein theory were open
to consideration (designated here as Theories A and B)."
[b jones capitalized "theory" and made it plural]
 
"Both [Theory] A and [Theory] B assumed the old idea of
absolute space, or 'ether,' [b jones objects by saying
that no ether is needed in Lorentz's view because light
needs no medium] in which light has the speed c. Both A
and B _explained_ [my emphasis] the zero fringe shift in
the Michelson-Morley experiment by saying that all matter
that moves at the velocity v relative to "absolute space"
undergoes a [physical] shrinkage of its space dimensions
in the direction of motion to a new length equal to
sqr[1-v^2/c^2] times the old length ...."
 
"The two theories differed as to the effect of 'motion
through absolute space' on the running rate of a clock.
Theory A said, no effect. Theory B said that a standard
seconds clock moving through absolute space at a velocity
v has a time between ticks of sqr[1-v^2/c^2] seconds."
 
"Thus the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment ruled out Theory A
(length contraction alone) but allowed Theory B (length
contraction plus time contraction) - ...."
==========================================================
Einstein ref.:
[Quoting Einstein:]
"w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have
 
            w  = c - v.
 
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative
to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c.
 
But this result comes into conflict with the principle
of relativity.... For, like every other general law of
nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo
must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when
the rails are the body of reference."      
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
 
(This has nothing to do with any closing velocities
because such velocities cannot conflict or even
apparently conflict with the principle of relativity.)
============================================================
 



 
.