Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
From: kenseto (kenseto_at_erinet.com)
Date: 03/06/05
- Next message: habshi: "Re: Star that looks like a planet"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments??"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2005 13:53:18 GMT
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:3bff5641.0503051218.61f47bc4@posting.google.com...
> "kenseto" <kenseto@erinet.com> wrote in message
news:<dgkWd.9703$3t3.3841@fe2.columbus.rr.com>...
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts@lucent.com> wrote in message
> > news:ZaaWd.16578$hU7.8514@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> > > kenseto wrote:
> > > > 1. Two touching and synchronized cesium clocks A and B and slow
> > transport
> > > > them in the opposite directions at a rate of separation 20m/day for
a
> > total
> > > > separation of 100m. SR agrees that these two clocks will remain
> > > > synchronized.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. But if we add the following stipulations:
> > > 1. before the transport begins the initial "touching" clocks are
> > > at rest in inertial frame S (let this define S)
> > > 2. the "opposite directions" and 20m/day are measured relative to S
> > > 3. at the end of 5 days[#] measured in S they come to rest again in
S
> > > 4. all motion is smooth with respect to S (i.e. any accelerations
> > > are within the manufacturer's specifications for the clocks)
> > > then in frame S these clocks will remain synchronized WITH EACH
OTHER[%].
> > >
> > > [#] "day" is a unit of time, and not a number of rotations
> > > of the earth, because S is inertial. This is a gedanken.
> >
> > I agree. A day is a unit of time and represents 86,400 seconds. However,
> > this is not meant to be a gedanken. It is a very doable experiment.
>
> To do it on earth, you should add a few more stipulations such as on
> the equator with motion perpendicular to the earth's rotation, and in
> principle the gravitational potential causes a GRT deviation (but I
> guess below the resolution of the clocks).
This is irrelevant. The experiment can be performed anywhere.
>
> > > [%] They will not remain perfectly synchronized with clocks
> > > that rmemain at rest in S, but the difference is predicted
> > > to be well below the resolution of any existing clocks.
> >
> > I agree.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2. All distance measurements are made with a physical ruler.
> > >
> > > Let me stipulate that this ruler remains at rest in frame S whil
ebeing
> > > used to make measurements, and all of the following computations use
> > > measurements made after the clocks come to rest in S.
> >
> > I agree. The clocks are at rest in S frame after a separation of 100 m
is
> > reached.
> > >
> > >
> > > > 3. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
> > > > clocks from A's location.
> > > > 4. Do the one-way measurement of light speed with these two
synchronized
> > > > clocks from A's location..
> > > > 5. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from A's location.
> > > > 6. Do the two-way measurement of light speed from B's location.
> > > > What are the SR predictions for these experiments??
> > >
> > > Let me mention that light speed is not measured, it is computed from
the
> > > measured distance between the clocks (and implicitly co-located light
> > > sources and detectors, and mirrors for 5&6) and the measured
> > > time-of-flight for a light pulse between the clocks' respective
detectors.
> > >
> > > SR predicts that all of these light speed computations will obtain the
> > > same value, and for standard clocks and rulers it will be c. This
> > > implicitly assumes the clocks and rulers are ideal, in practice there
> > > will be nonzero resolutions and possibly instrumentation effects
involved.
> >
> > I agree that TWLS measrements are c and isotropic. Also, I agree that
OWLS
> > measurements in both directions are isotropic.
>
> I am amazed - almost flabbergasted - about so much agreement,
> specially between Ken Seto and Tom Roberts (and yes I also agree).
> Does this mean there still is hope?
Why are you amazed? That's what my model predicts.
>
> > However, I don't agree that OWLS measurements has the value c.
>
> Ken, didn't you read what Tom wrote? He stressed that the
> "measurement" of OWLS is little else than *calculation* - from
> OWLS=TWLS/2.
Ah....Why do we need to calculate OWLS from TWLS when we have the actual
OWLS measurement?? Besides, OWLS=TWLS/2 is wrong. The actual OWLS
measurement as described includes the effect of absolute motion of the
distant clock and that's why it will not give the correct ratio c for such
an measurement.
>
> > If OWLS as measured is equal to c why
> > haven't you SRians do such a measurement to silence the aetherists?
Why no answer for this??
Ken Seto
- Next message: habshi: "Re: Star that looks like a planet"
- Previous message: Wolf Kirchmeir: "Re: Epistemology 201: The Science of Science"
- In reply to: Harry: "Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments??"
- Next in thread: Tom Roberts: "Re: What are the SR predictions for these experiments??"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
