Re: Motion Through Space Is Meaningful

PD wrote:
>I think you meant "can never be proven". The way you have
>defined OWLS measurement (that is, following Einsteins clock
>synch procedure exactly), you are absolutely right, and this
>is precisely why there hasn't been a flurry of OWLS measurements.
>HOWEVER, if it were wrong, then a number of the other experimental
>predictions of SR would also fail.

As I have shown clearly, there are exactly zero SR "predictions"
that are noncircular and nontrivial, including Einstein's
"prediction" of one-way, two-clock light speed invariance.

>>Therefore, Einstein's light postulate is neither a prediction
>>nor an "axiom" in any sense of either word.

>It is not a prediction, that is correct. It is an axiom, though
>you fail to understand that axiom does NOT imply "verifiable by
>experiment".

What does "axiom" mean to you, physically speaking?
Please provide all physical details. (I have already
done this, so you can just copy & paste.)

---

>Before going on, define this procedure. I want to synchronize
>two clocks that are 10 m apart. How do you do that?

You send out clock-starting entities from midway between the
clocks, and you make sure that the entities move at truly
equal speeds relative to the clocks. (Note that this does not
necessitate quantifying a speed, but involves only a mere
speed comparison, which is nonproblematic because it does
not require clock synchronization, but uses only one clock.)

>Ah! "Simultaneously!" Now let's see if any two inertial
>observers will agree that two events are simultaneous.

Arrghh! You overlooked my word "absolutely."

---

>No, the interval is a combination of the time difference
>and the spatial difference between two events.

So, can you prove that any given time difference or any
given spatial difference has been correctly measured?

--
2nd Postulate Dude

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... any kind of particle-particle interaction. ... clock has a different rate when moving than when it ... You don't know how SR produces these predictions? ... one of those common sense intuitions that turns out ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... the same predictions, ... The *rate* of a clock is not an intrinsic property of the clock, ... inertial observers looking at the *same* clock ... you seem not to want to let measurements dissuade you of it. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: A puzzle
    ... IOW, you point to motion ... You say a clock tells time. ... >> charge and gravity and many other properties of nature. ... >> time dilates and some predictions are made on this basis while others ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Consistancy of the speed of light.
    ... predictions correctly using it's math and such. ... The clock did malfunction according to SR prediction. ... and not a time changing rate reality. ... Once the actual fault of the clock is found, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: What is the science for SR and LET?
    ... predictions, but SR makes wider predictions that LET doesn't touch. ... mathematical physics it's therefore the same theory. ... similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical ... inertial observers looking at the *same* clock would have to discern ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)