Re: IRT: A New Theory of Relativity

From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 02/01/05 

Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2005 19:45:50 GMT

"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:41FC2F54.80901@mail.verizon.net...
>
>
> kenseto wrote:
>
> >Jesse,
> >Please remember the following on IRT:
> >1. Faa/Fab=gamma
> >2. Fab/Faa=1/gamma.
> >3. The light path length in A's frame for a 299,792,458 meters long rod
is 1
> >light second as measured using A's clock. A light second in A's frame has
a
> >different length than a light second in B's frame. Why? Because A's clock
> >second has a different duration (absolute time content) than B's clock
> >second.
> >4. The IRT equations are converted from the SR equations plus the
inclusion
> >of the fact that A can see that B's clock can run fast or slow compared
to
> >his clock and that A light path length for a meter stick can be longer or
> >shorter than B's meter stick..
> >5. The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> >light path length of rod(299,792,458m)/the absolute time content for a
clock
> >second co-moving with the rod.
> >6. Relative velocity between A and B is the vector difference of the
vector
> >component of A's absolute motion and the vector component of B's absolute
> >motion along the line joining A and B.
> >7. A clock second does not represent a constant interval of universal
time
> >in different frames. IOW, a clock second will contain a different
interval
> >of universal time (duration) in different states of absolute motion
> >(different frames).
> >
>
> OK, but again, I'm not interested in light path length for now,

If you are not inbterested in light path length then you are not interested
in IRT.

>I'm
> interested in what happens if each observer measures length and time and
> speed using rulers and synchronized clocks at rest relative to himself.

Each observer will have a different definition for a clock second (time).

> I know what the answer would be in SR, I want to know what it would be
> in your theory.

The answer in IRT is the same as SR except that the IRT answer includes the
idea that each observer is in a different state of absolute motion and thus
his clock second does not corresponds to a clock second moving wrt him. This
means that the passage of time (passage of clock second) in observer's clock
can be at a faster or slower rate compared to a clock moving wrt to him.
>
>
> >
> >
> >"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:41FAFFDD.7040806@mail.verizon.net...
> >
> >
> >>kenseto wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:41F70D72.5060407@mail.verizon.net...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>kenseto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jesse Mazer" <vze2ztqw@mail.verizon.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:41F5B120.90600@mail.verizon.net...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>NO....B doesn't do that. B thinks that his light path length for a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >meter
> >
> >
> >>>>>stick is 1 meter and he predicts that A's light path length for a
meter
> >>>>>stick is:
> >>>>>Lba=Lbb(Fbb/Fba) or Lba=Lbb(Fba/Fbb)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>OK, but can B define "light path length" in his frame by looking only
at
> >>>>the position and time the light was emitted, and the position and time
> >>>>the light hit the other end of the moving stick, with position and
time
> >>>>measured by rulers and clock at rest in *his own* frame?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>This definition by B is not the true light path length.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I didn't give a definition, I was just wondering if B could define
> >>"light path length" in terms of some function of these measurements. You
> >>can also add the light's frequency as measured by B's clocks and rulers
> >>if you like.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >B will measure his meter stick to have a light path length of
1/299,792,458
> >light seconds. However, his light second does not have the same duration
as
> >A's light second and thus A and B do not have the same light path length
for
> >a meter stick.
> >
>
> You didn't really answer my question. Can B measure "light path length"
> as some function of the following measurements?
>
> x1, t1 = position and time light was emitted at one end of moving stick,
> according to rulers and clocks at rest in B's frame
>
> x2, t2 = position and time light was detected at other end of moving
> stick, according to rulers and clocks at rest in B's frame
>
> f = frequency of light beam, as measured by rulers and clocks at rest in
> B's frame.
>
> If so, what would the function F(x1,t1,x2,t2,f) look like?

I don't understand your question. B makes measurements with his ruler and
clock and he uses the SR or IRT equations to predict what these measurements
represent in terms of A's clock and ruler.
>
> >
> >>If
> >>so, what procedure does B use to make a measurement of something in A's
> >>frame?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >B does not make any measurement of something in A's frame. The only
measure
> >ement he make is the mean frequency Fba.
> >
>
> But how does he measure or calculate "the mean frequency of an identical
> standard light source in A's frame"? Are you saying that doesn't mean
> what the frequency would look like in A's frame, but rather what B would
> hypothetically measure for the frequency of an identical source moving
> with the same velocity as A?

Yes B makes an actual frequency measurement of an identical light source in
A's frame.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Does he have to change velocities himself, or get the information
> >>from A, or just do a calculation to figure out what things would look
> >>like in A's frame based on measurements he made in his own frame?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >He calculates using IRT.
> >
>
> Are you saying he measures the mean frequency using his own rulers and
> clocks, then uses IRT to calculate the mean frequency in A's frame?

NO...B measures the mean frequency of his own light source and he MEASURES
the mean frequancy of A's light source.
BTW ....in order to predict the clock rate of A's clock or the "light path
length of A's rod" using IRT the masured mean frequency is used. To
transform the instantaneous coordinates of B's measurements to A's frame you
use the instanstantaneous Fbb and Fba measurements.

>Or
> are you saying he measures the frequency of a source at rest relative to
> himself, then uses IRT to calculate what he would measure as the
> frequency of an identical source moving at the same velocity as A in his
> own frame?

No...see above.

>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>In any
> >>of those cases, it seems like B can only define light path length by
> >>somehow figuring out what things will look like in A's frame...this is
> >>what I meant when I asked "Why would B choose to define 'light path
> >>length' by imagining what things would look like in A's frame?" It seems
> >>pretty weird for B to define "light path length" in his own frame in
> >>terms of frequency measurements in someone else's frame, this seems to
> >>go against the whole idea of what "B's own reference frame" usually
> >>means in the context of physics.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >B defines light path length using his clock to measure the flight time it
> >takes for light to traverse the length of the rod.
> >
>
> Again, can B define light path length using some function
> F(x1,t1,x2,t2,f) as defined earlier?

NO....x2 t2 are not in B's frame.
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>Where do you define the term "OWLS measurement"?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >OWLS=one-way light speed
> >
> >
> >
> >>Also, even if it's true
> >>in your theory that you wouldn't get the same value for light speed in
> >>different frames if you just measure the distance and time intervals
> >>between the light being emitted and the light being received, do you
> >>agree that if the time dilation and lorentz contraction formulas of SR
> >>are correct, then you would get the same value in all frames if you use
> >>this method?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Time dilation=a clock second containing a different amount of universal
time
> >in different frames.
> >Lorentz contraction =the light path length for a rod is longer.
> >The speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> >light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time content for a
> >clock second co-moving with the rod.
> >
> >
> >>Lorentz may have formulated them this way, but Einstein showed that if
> >>each observer measures coordinates in terms of rulers and clocks at rest
> >>relative to himself, and each observer synchronizes his own set of
> >>clocks based on the assumption that light travels at the same speed in
> >>all directions in his own frame, then the Lorentz transformation will
> >>work for *any* two frames, regardless of their velocity relative to the
> >>ether (which renders the ether superfluous).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Einstein also made the same assumption as Lorentz. Otherwise SR wouldn't
say
> >that the observer sees all clocks moving wrt to him are running at a
slower
> >rate compared to his clock. And that the observer sees all rods moving
wrt
> >to him are contracted (this is the same as they have longer light path
> >lengths).
> >
>
> You're wrong. SR does say that *every* inertial observer measures rulers
> in motion relative to himself to shrink, and measures clocks in motion
> relative to himself to slow down.

So why I am wrong? You are saying the same thing.

> It works out this way because
> different observers define simultaneity differently.

IRT disagrees with this assertion. This assertion violates the isotropy of
the speed of light in all inertial frames.

>Again, just look at
> the diagrams of the two ruler/clock systems moving in parallel that I
made:
>
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerAFrame.gif
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerBFrame.gif

These diagrams assumes rod contraction and time dilation in the moving syate
m. Clearly this is not correct if the observer who is doing the moving and
the observed relative motion is due to the observer's motions. So what is
your point? IRT says a rod moving wrt the observer is contracted (or a
longer light path length) but it also says that a rod moving wrt the
observer is expanded (or shorter light path length).
IRT says a cl*** moving wrt the observer is running slower than the
observer's clock but it also says that a clock moving wrt the observer is
running fast compared to the observer's clock.
>
> Do you agree that in the first diagram corresponding to ruler A's
> reference frame, all of ruler B's clocks are ticking at half the correct
> rate and all the markings on ruler B are squished to half the correct
> length?

You already assumed this when you make the iagrams so what is your point?

>Do you also agree that in the second diagram corresponding to
> ruler B's reference frame, all of ruler A's clocks are ticking at half
> the correct rate and all the markings on ruler A are squished to half
> the correct length? Do you agree that the way the readings on one
> ruler/clock system match up to the readings on the other ruler/clock
> system in these diagrams matches the predictions of the Lorentz transform?

Sure it matches the LT but it is incomplete. Why ? becasue it excludes the
possibility that it was the observer who is at a higher state of absolute
motion than the observed frame.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Yes. But PoR is valid only because a clock second will have different
> >universal time content in different state of absolute motion and that the
> >speed of light is a constant math ratio in all frames as follows:
> >Light path length of rod (299,792,458m)/the universal time contant for a
> >clock second co-moving with the rod.
> >
>
> I'm asking about how the PoR works in SR, not in your theory. Do you
> agree that the coordinate system assumed in the Lorentz transformation
> in SR is not based on "light path length",

It is based on light path length. Why? Because rod contraction is the same
as longer light path length with the rod remaining at the same physical
length.

>but just based on the
> measurements of rulers and clocks at rest with respect to each observer,
> with each observer synchronizing his clocks by making the assumption
> that light travels at the same speed in both directions relative to
himself?

I don't understand why an observer need to synchronized any clcoks at all.
All he need is one cl*** to make time interval measurements.
>
>
>
> >
> >
> >>How would it invalidate it? If A sees B's clocks running slow, then by
> >>definition their intrinsic rate cannot be the same.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If A sees B's clock is running slow then B cannot see A's cl*** is
running
> >slow unless they are running at the same intrsic rate and that what they
see
> >is an option illusion.
> >
>
> No, the reason both see the other's clocks running slow is that they
> have different definitions of simultaneity.

In IRT all observers have the same definition of simultaneity. In other
words simultaneity is absolute but simultaneity for two identical events in
different frames will occur at a different time interval. Although RoS
reaches the same end conclusion as IRT but RoS violates the isotropy of the
speed of light.

>Again, look at the diagrams
> I drew above to see how this works out. For example, in the diagram
> showing ruler A's frame at
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerAFrame.gif , look at the clock on
> the "-346.2 m" mark on ruler B. You can see that in the top part of the
> diagram, this clock reads a time t'=1 microsecond and is lined up with a
> clock on ruler A reading t=0 microseconds; then in the bottom part of
> the diagram, this clock reads a time of t'=2 microseconds and it's lined
> up with a clock on ruler A reading t=2 microseconds. So in ruler A's
> frame, this clock has only ticked forward 1 microsecond while 2
> microseconds have actually passed according to A's time-coordinates.

All this means is that a micro second in A's frame does not correspond to a
microsecond in B's frame. However, in terms of absolute time content
1 microsecond in B's frame=2 microseconds in A's frame.
>
> But now look at the same situation in ruler B's frame, in the diagram at
> http://www.jessemazer.com/images/RulerBFrame.gif ...if you look at the
> same clock on ruler B at "-346.2 m" in the middle and bottom part of the
> diagram, you again see that when this clock reads t'=1 microsecond, it's
> lined up with a clock on ruler A that reads t=0 microseconds (the one at
> the -173.1 m mark on ruler A) and when this clock reads t'=2
> microseconds, it's lined up with a clock on ruler A that reads t=2
> microseconds (the one at the 346.2 m mark on ruler A). However, from B's
> point of view this isn't because the clocks on ruler A are ticking
> faster, it's just because the clocks on ruler A are out-of-sync--in B's
> frame, the clock at the 346.2 m mark on ruler A is consistently 0.5
> microseconds ahead of the clock at the -173.1 m mark on ruler A (look at
> the top part of the diagram, for example). If you follow each of these
> clocks from one moment to the next in B's frame, you see that
> individually they do tick at half the rate of B's clocks, not twice the
> rate.

All these imaginary situations is pointless. If an observer wants to predict
the rate of a clock or the length of a rod moving wrt him he uses the LT or
IRT. The LT is incomplete because it assumes that the observer is at
absolute rest. The IRT is complete because it does not assume that the
observer is at absolute rest.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>supernova in 2005 that is 100 light-years away according to rulers at
> >>rest in my frame, then *if* I assume light travels at the same speed in
> >>all directions I can say the supernova took place in 1905 according to
> >>my time-coordinates...but other observers won't agree that light travels
> >>at the same speed in all directions relative to me in their frame (they
> >>will see the distance between me and a light beam shrinking faster if I
> >>am moving towards the source rather than away from it).
> >>
> >>
> >
> >That's because your clock second has a different duration (universal time
> >content) than other observers' clock second.
> >
> >
> >
> >>So having a
> >>series of clocks removes this disagreement between observers, since all
> >>observers will agree that the clock on my ruler that was next to the
> >>supernova when it occurred read "1905". Of course, this just leads to a
> >>different form of disagreement, since other observers won't agree that
> >>my clock at the location of the supernova is in sync with my clock at my
> >>own location, but at least it makes the physical meaning of each
> >>observer's coordinate system completely obvious and unambiguous.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Other observer will not agree that the super nova occur at 1905 because
> >their cl*** second has different universal time content than your clock
> >second.
> >
>
> Other observers will agree that *my* clock which was next to the
> supernova at the time it happened read "1905".

Sure he uses the LT and his measurements of the supernova to predict what is
the reading in your clock when the supernova will happen.

>But each observer will
> have his own series of clocks, and will assign a time-coordinate to the
> supernova by looking at the reading on the clock in *their own* system
> which was next to the supernova when it happened. Just by taking a
> picture of the location of the supernova, and looking at the reading on
> each observer's clock which was next to it at the moment it happened, I
> can see what time-coordinate each observer assigns to the
> supernova--this makes the physical meaning of each observer's
> coordinate-system completely transparent, as opposed to the case where
> each observer has to perform some mathematical calculations to figure
> out the time-coordinate of distant events based on measurements made at
> other places and times.

You can do all that without calculations using the LT or IRT??
>
>
>
> > The LT or IRT can calculate what each observer will see the super
> >nova using his own clock.
> >
>
> Yes, but this isn't as physically transparent as just looking at the
> reading on the clock in each observer's system which was right next to
> the supernova when it happened.

You can read what each clock says next to the supernova without
calculatations?
>
> >
> >

> >>
> >
> >There is no need for such a series of clocks. All you need to do is to
use
> >the LT or IRT.
> >
>
> Again, it's not as physically transparent that way. And when Einstein
> came up with the LT, he was *basing* it on this idea of what each
> observer would measure if they used a network of clocks throughout space
> like this, with time-coordinates assigned by looking at the reading on
> the clock which was right next to the event when it happened.
>
>
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>You may believe that there is objective truth about whose clocks are
> >>*really* running slow and whose rulers have *really* shrunk, but what
> >>Einstein showed was that even if there is a single ether frame where
> >>clocks run at the correct rate and rulers read the correct length, as
> >>long as the ticks of clocks moving at velocity v relative to the ether
> >>frame are extended by 1/squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2) and rulers shrink by
> >>squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2), then if each observer assigns coordinates using
> >>rulers and clocks at rest relative to themselves (and with each observer
> >>synchronizing clocks by *assuming* light travels at the same speed in
> >>all directions in their frame, even though this assumption would be
> >>'objectively' wrong for observers in motion relative to the ether), then
> >>each observer will *measure* every other observer's clocks to slow down
> >>and every other observer's rulers to shrink.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is true only if the observer is at rest wrt the ether.
> >
>
> No, see above. If each observer synchronizes his clocks based on the
> assumption that light travels at the same speed in all directions
> relative to himself (with speed defined in terms of what you called
> 'OWLS' above), then different observers will disagree about
> simultaneity, and it is this disagreement which allows *every* observer
> to measure that rulers moving relative to himself shrink, and clocks
> moving relative to himself slow down.

OWLS has never been measured. It is likely that OWLS is distance dependent.
The assumption that different observer disagree about simultaneity for
identical events is faulty. Simultaneity is absolute. But simultaneity for
identical events will occur at different absolute time interval. This
interpretaion will preserve the isotropy of the speed of light in all
frames.
>
>
>
> > In real life all
> >observers are moving in the ether. So some clocks and rods will run
slower
> >than the observer's clock and some will run faster than the observer's
> >cl***.
> >
>
> If you believe in ether that may be true "objectively", but it will
> nevertheless be true that each observer will *measure* all rulers moving
> relative to himself to shrink and all clocks moving relative to himself
> to slow down, if they make these measurements in the way that was
> specified by Einstein (a network of rulers and clocks at rest relative
> to the observer, with the clocks 'synchronized' using the assumption
> that light has the same speed in all directions relative to the
> observer, even if this assumption is 'objectively' wrong).

The problem with Einstein's net work of clocks and rulers is that he assumed
that these net works are at a state of absolute rest. With this bogus
assumption the will indeed measure any clocks moving wrt him is running slow
and any rod moving wrt him is contracted.
>
>
> > BTW that's the reason why SR is incpomplete. It assumes that the
> >observer is at rest in the ether because of the PoR postulate says that
all
> >frames are equivalent and this enables the observer to assume that he is
at
> >rest in the ether.
> ><snip>
> >
>
> No it doesn't--you're just not fully understanding the "relativity of
> simultaneity". Again, examine the diagrams I gave you carefully and you
> will see how this all works out.

I understand the relativity of simultaneity very well and I understand it is
based on the bogus assumption that the observer in the train is moving wrt
light.

>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>IRT is anologous to the LT. In it contains LT as a subset.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>It can't really contain LT as a subset if your procedure for assigning
> >>coordinates is completely different than those assumed in the derivation
> >>of the LT. The LT don't use any notion of "light path length", they just
> >>assign coordinates based on the local readings of rulers and clocks
> >>which are at rest in that reference frame.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >IRT does the same thing. The LT does use the notion of light path length.
> >rod contraction =longer light path length in IRT.
> >time dilation=a clock seconds contains more universal time in IRT.
> >
>
> No, the LT does not use the notion of "light path length". In the LT,
> the "length" of a moving rod is found just by comparing the position of
> the back end of the rod and the position of the front end of the rod "at
> the same moment", with the notion of "the same moment" defined to mean
> that the reading on the clock at the same position as the back end
> matches the reading on the clock at the same position as the front end,
> with the clocks at rest relative to the observer and "synchronized"
> using the assumption that light travels at the same speed in all
> directions relative to the observer (so that if a light flash is emitted
> at the midpoint of two clocks, the clocks should both read the same time
> when the light beam hits each one). Of course, this "synchronization"
> procedure guarantees that two clocks which are in-sync in their own rest
> frame will be out-of-sync when compared with a set of clocks in motion
> relative to them, so different observers will define simultaneity
> differently.

When you are using clocks to measure length you are measuring light path
length.
>
>
> >>But I'm not talking about light path length. I'm talking about what
> >>happens according to your theory if we try to measure length using the
> >>same procedure that's assumed in the Lorentz transformations, namely
> >>looking at the position of each end of the moving rod at a single time,
> >>according to my own set of clocks and rulers. For example, if the clock
> >>on the 1-meter mark of my ruler reads "10 seconds" at the moment the
> >>back end of the moving ruler passes the 1-meter mark, and the clock on
> >>the 3-meter mark of my ruler also reads "10 seconds" at the moment the
> >>front end of the ruler passes the 3-meter mark, then using this
> >>procedure I will say that the length of the moving ruler is 2 meters in
> >>my own coordinate system.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is not how the current physics measure length.. The current
procedure
> >is: you determine the flight time for light to traverse the rod and you
> >multiply the flight time by the speed of light to get the length of the
rod.
> >
>
> But this is how you are assumed to measure length according to the LT.
> Of course, you can then prove that if each observer does define length
> this way, and that if each observer also defines "simultaneity" in the
> way I've already discussed, then each observer will get exactly the same
> value for distance/time between the emission of a light beam and its
> detection. Based on this, you know that each observer is *also* free to
> define length as (time for light to travel between two ends of an
> object)*(speed of light), but this will only work for an object which is
> at rest relative to the observer. It is certainly not true that current
> physics would define the length of a *moving* object this way,

Length of a moving object is determined by the LT or IRT.

>since
> this would disagree with length measured according to the procedure
> assumed in the derivation of the Lorentz transformation. However, you
> could measure the length of an object moving at constant velocity v to
> be (time for light to travel from the back end to the front end of the
> object)*(c - v), since this will give the same answer as the procedure
> assumed in the derivation of the LT.
>
>
>
>
> >IRT also uses this procedure but it includes the fact that a clock second
in
> >the observer's frame will have different universal time content than a
clock
> >scond in other frames
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>Again, by "equivalent of the Lorentz transforms" I mean what happens
> >>*if* you assign coordinates using the same physical procedure as is
> >>assumed in relativity, using the measurements on rulers and synchronized
> >>clocks at rest in a given frame.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I assign corrdinates using the LT or IRT.
> >
>
> Again, by "assign coordinates" I'm talking about what physical
> measurements you must make to determine the coordinates of a given event.

The observer makes measurement with his clock and ruler to determine the
coordinates of the event and he uses the LT or IRT to transform these
coordinates to another frame.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>Even if this is not how *you* choose to
> >>assign coordinates, it's a physical question what measurements on one
> >>ruler/clock system will coincide with what measurements on another (just
> >>imagine taking a snapshot of a marking on one ruler as it passes by a
> >>marking on another, and noting the times on the clocks attached to each
> >>ruler's marking), so your theory should be able to answer it.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I don't understand why you are keep on harping at this. IRT makes the
same
> >prediction as the LT except that IRT is complete and that LT is not
> >complete.
> >
>
> The derivation of the LT assumes that all measurements are made by
> looking at local readings of rules and clocks which are at rest relative
> to the observer, with the clocks synchronized using the procedure I
> described--I can come up with plenty of references to prove this if you
> doubt my word. And again, I'm asking what measurements on one observer's
> set of rulers and clocks would coincide with what measurements on
> another observer's set of rulers and clocks, if all observers have a
> ruler/clock system like the one I've described. This is a physical
> question, so any complete theory of physics should be able to answer it.
>
>
>
> >
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>If the events occur simultaneously while he is at equal distance from
> >>>
> >>>
> >both
> >
> >
> >>>events then he will see the events to be simultaneous. That's because
the
> >>>speed of light is isotropic and that the speed of light is independent
of
> >>>the motion of the source or the receiver.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Yes, if they are simultaneous *in his frame*. But in SR different
> >>observers' coordinate systems won't agree on whether two events are
> >>simultaneous.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >The RoS of SR is bogus. It violate the isotropy of the speed of light in
the
> >train.
> >
>
> No, the RoS is *based* on the isotropy of the speed of light in each
> reference frame.

No RoS is not based on the isotropy of the speed of light. In Einstein's
train example he said that the train observer is runhing toward the light
front from the front of the train and he is receding away from the light
front from the back of the train. Clearly this means that the speed of light
in the train is not isotropic.

>Suppose the observer on the train has two clocks at
> either end of the train, and flashes a light at the exact midpoint of
> the train, then "synchronizes" the two clocks so that each clock has the
> same reading at the moment the light hits it (in other words, he assumes
> light must take the same amount of time to travel from the midpoint of
> the train to the clocks on either end, which means he's assuming it
> travels at the same speed in both directions in the train's rest frame).
> But from the point of view of the observer on the track, the back end of
> the train is moving towards the point in space where the flash of light
> was emitted, while the front end of the train is moving away from it, so
> if the observer on the track assumes that light travels at the same
> speed in all directions in *his own* frame, that guarantees that he will
> see the two clocks of the train-observer to be out-of-sync if the
> train-observer "synchronizes" them in this way.

The train observer doesn't care what the track observer sees. The train
observer will conclude that if he emits a pulse of light in both directions
simultaneously it will hit the ends of the train simultaneously.
Likewise the track observer doesn't care what the train observer sees. He
will sees both light pulses hit the ends of the train simultaneously.
>
>
>
> > Also it leads to the absurd conclusion that the transit time of an
> >observed rod is different in different directions.
> >
>
> No it doesn't.

Yes it does. I suggest that you check with other SRians.

>Again, the RoS is derived from the fact that each
> observer *assumes* light travels at the same speed in all directions in
> his own frame, and uses this assumption to synchronize his own clocks.
> If each observer synchronizes his clocks this way, and if there's at
> least one frame (the rest frame of the ether, perhaps) where a ruler
> moving at velocity v will shrink by squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2) and a
> clock's ticks will extend by 1/squareroot(1 - v^2/c^2), then it is
> possible to prove mathematically that the Lorentz transformations will
> work in *all* frames, and that all observers will measure moving rulers
> to shrink and moving clocks to slow down in exactly the same way. I can
> show this proof, if you don't believe me.

What is this got to do with my saying that RoS makes the bogus assertion
that the transit time for a moving rod is different in different directions?
>
>
>
> >>Again, this may be how it works in your theory, but I was just talking
> >>about what would be true if you assign coordinates using ruler/clock
> >>systems of the type assumed in SR, and if the SR formulas for Lorentz
> >>contraction and time dilation are correct.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This is how it works in both SR and IRT.
> >
>
> No, you're misunderstanding SR. If each observer assigns coordinates
> using the ruler/clock system I've described, then the train observer
> will indeed assign the two flashes different time-coordinates,

No it doesn't.
>From the track observer's point of view:
the time coordinate in the train frame for both flashes =t*gamma
>From the train observer's point of view:
The time coordinate in the train for both flashes=t'

>and they
> will have happened at different distances from the origin of his own
> coordinate system.

This is a bogus assumption. The flashes occurred simultaneously when the
train observer was at equal distance from both flashes.

>Just plug some numbers into the Lorentz
> transformation and you will see that this is true.

The LT does not confirm the validity of the RoS.

Ken Seto

Quantcast