Re: Motion Through Space Is Meaningful

PD wrote:
>2ndPostulateDude wrote:
>>SR's "prediction" of one-way light speed invariance is
>>fully circular because the "invariance" is given up front
>>(via a mere definition), so it must be the "result."

>That's correct. It is not a prediction at all and is
>irrelevant to the set of predictions that SR makes.

Then why did you use it below in your list of "SR
predictions"? And why is it called Einstein's
light postulate? (A postulate in physics is a
prediction - it is a claim that something should
be that way - and in this case, it was Einstein's
prediction that light's speed between two clocks
should be invariant.)

>>SR's "prediction" of "clock slowing" does not pertain
>>to actual or physical clock rhythms, so is trivial.

>Define actual or physical clock rhythms. That is, define
>*exactly how* you would measure the physical duration of
>some process.

You seem to think that this is problematic; it is not.
Here is a very simple definition of "intrinsic clock
rhythm":

Given atomic clocks, let

(1) internal atomic transition = (1) time unit.

Given this definition, there can be no ambiguity re the
physical meaning of "intrinsic clock rhythm" because we
have the following simple physical identity:

Readings = Rhythms

That is, the above requirement directly relates a clock's
current reading with its total number of atomic vibrations.

And it's equally easy to measure the actual (physical)
duration of a process:

Measure light's passing speed using a pair of (absolutely
or truly) synchronous clocks. Since, per the MMx, clocks
run slow, and rods shrink in a known way, we can use the
result to determine our speed through space. We can then
tell if a given clock is really slowed, and by how much.

>You're right, since SR in fact says that physical clock
>rhythms do not have any physical meaning outside of the
>*measurement* made, then it makes no predictions at all
>about any slowing of a physical clock rhythm, nor does
>it pretend to.

It doesn't pretend to address physical phenomena because
it is not a scientific theory.

>>And the same goes for SR's "predictions" of length
>>"contractions" and "mass" "increases."

>Define actual or physical lengths. That is, define
>*exactly how* you would measure the physical length
>of some object.

No problem. You first determine your speed through space
as given above, and then you will know by how much your
ruler is physically contracted.

>>SR did not predict round-trip light speed invariance or
>>isotropy - SR merely incorporated these as experimental
>>results.

>You're right, this was built in as an assumption, not as
>a prediction. Gee, you really think that's all SR had to say?

It wasn't a meant as mere assumption, but as an experimental
fact (given by the MMx).

>How about the following?

>1. The measured spacetime interval ....

The space-time interval has no physical meaning, so it is
irrelevant to physics.

>2. The measured momenergy ....

Since SR pertains not to any actual or intrinsic energy or to
any intrinsic or absolute momentums, this, too, is irrelevant
to physics.

>3. Velocities do not add algebraically ....

You apparently forgot that SR's composition of velocities
equation is based entirely on Einstein's light postulate,
which you yourself (above) agreed was a mere triviality
as far as physics goes, and, indeed, was not even important
to SR. Circularities and trivialities abound in SR!

>4. Applying a constant force to an object will produce a
>steady increase in the momentum of the object, but not
>a steady increase in the velocity of the object; the
>momentum is not bounded, but the velocity is (by c).
>This is directly testable.

SR does not predict a real max velocity, only a measured
max velocity, and this is due entirely to Einstein's
light postulate. (It forces clocks to be unable to measure
a speed >c.)

>This is just a sample of some of the basics. You apparently
>are not aware of what SR says and what it does not.

Hmmmmm....

--
2nd Postulate Dude

.

Quantcast