Re: The Value of Einstein's Mistakes

kk wrote:
Although Weinberg practically ignored Hans C.
Ohanian's reply, I did not. I e-mailed Ohanian
the following, to which he has yet to reply,
but no news is good news in this case!

========================================

[Your statement:]
"Furthermore, if clocks are synchronized by slow clock
transport or by some other mechanical procedure, then
measurements of the one-way speed of light are not
logically circular, and those measurements provide an
unambiguous experimental test of the constancy of this
speed."

[My reply:]
Setting aside for a moment the issue of Einstein's alleged
logical circularity, it seems to me that the above-mentioned
experimental tests are improper in that the experimenters
did not

[a] prove that their clocks were synchronous*
[b] prove that their clocks were unslowed**
[c] prove that their rulers were uncontracted.***

(*meaning "absolutely synchronous" because only
truly (or absolutely) clocks can correctly measure
any one-way speed, including light's)

(**experiment has shown that atomic clocks moving at
different speeds have different atomic rates)

(***it is impossible to show the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment on paper sans a real (or
physical) rod contraction)

(And, of course, even if these three barriers did not
really exist, the experimenters would still bear the
three burdens of proof, viz., [a], [b], and [c].)

[Your statement:]
"[Einstein] should have recognized that the constancy
of the speed of light had to be established by experiment,
not by stipulation."

[My reply:]
Even though the (for-all-practical-purposes) definitive
round-trip experiment was performed way back in 1887,
the _fact_ remains that no one has yet performed the
definitive one-way experiment, not even on paper (using
ideal rulers and clocks, but with all steps shown)! This
definitive experiment is the simple and direct measurement
of light's one-way speed between two same-frame clocks.

[You wrote:]
"Einstein's synchronization procedure with light signals
is thus superfluous - it plays no fundamental role and
is merely the most convenient of several possible
synchronization procedures."

[My reply:]
Einstein was well aware of the fact that light's one-way
speed would vary if absolutely synchronous were used,
so the only way he could obtain his desired one-way null
result was to set clocks a certain way. In other words,
Einstein was really saying that clocks are _properly_
set (i.e., properly related temporally) IFF they always
obtain a full null result in the one-way light speed case.

We are certain that Einstein believed that his clocks
are properly related because he considered each and
every one of their results to be proper parts of physics.
(For example, he considered his composition of velocities
formula to be the proper one. He also considered his
transformation equations to be acceptable.)

But Einstein (as I mentioned) knew that his clocks were
not absolutely synchronous (thus my phrase "properly
related," and not "correctly synchronized"). He was
forced to reject the truly synchronous clocks of
classical physics because they did not (as was noted
above) yield a one-way null result.

[My counterarguments re Einstein's positions:]
Contrary to Einstein's firm basal belief, nothing at all
in the round-trip case called for a null result in the
one-way case (because the two cases - as evidenced by
the fact that no one has yet performed the one-way
experiment - differ fundamentally).

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to reject the
absolutely synchronous clocks of classical physics.

Contrary to Einstein's conclusion, clocks are _not_
properly related in special relativity. Indeed, SR's
clocks are also slowed, and its rulers contracted.
(The latter is easily proved by the fact that if
SR's rulers were not physically contracted, then
they could be used to absolutely synchronize clocks
by sliding one past two clocks after it had been cut
to fit between them whilst at rest wrt them.)

Contrary to Einstein's firm basal belief (i.e., his
belief that null results must always occur), not even
the Michelson-Morley experiment really had a null
result. If the rod had not physically contracted,
then the correct result would have been obtained,
and it would have been positive.

[Bottom line:]
We don't need special relativity; we do need truly
synchronous clocks. How about them apples!

--kk--


Your argument falls apart for any relative velocity... the magnitude
of the effect is often not measurable, so Newton's mechanics is
sufficient in those cases. However, SR becomes important in many high
technology timing applications such as the Global Positioning System.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... It involves the absolute constant c. ... rulers and clocks. ... to do with only the relative speeds of the fields, ... frames) synchronization, so we take what we have. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: The Value of Einsteins Mistakes
    ... if clocks are synchronized by slow clock ... different speeds have different atomic rates) ... "Einstein's synchronization procedure with light signals ... every one of their results to be proper parts of physics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: ABSOLUTE TRUTH ABOUT ABSOLUTE SPACETIME
    ... your synchronization scheme would lead to ... I'm just pointing out the important fact that if all inertial frames define ... mass, momentum, energy, electrodynamics, etc. E-synching clocks allows the ... > I interpret the PofR as a law of physics. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: What happened between Newton and Einstein?
    ... to do with the nature of space and the nature ... rulers and clocks. ... to do with only the relative speeds of the fields, ... frames) synchronization, so we take what we have. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Resubmittal: One-way Invariance Is Physically Impossible
    ... Nature uses no clocks, and clock synchronization is a purely ... ALL one-way speeds depend on one's clock ...
    (sci.physics.research)
Loading