This is the quote from 'Einstein et al' from my records - I've been working on something completely different (fiction) in which Einstein has relevance.
If at the point A of space there is a clock, an observer at A can determine the time values of events in the immediate proximity of A by finding the positions of the hands which are simultaneous with these events. If there is at point B of space another clock in all respects resembling the one at A, it is possible for an observer at B to determine the time values of events in the immediate neighborhood of B. But it is not possible without further assumption to compare, in respect of time, an event at A with an event at B. We have so far defined only an "A time" and a "B time." We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition [Einstein's italics don't show here] that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. (pp: 39-40.) Just as a matter of interest, our old friend Descartes once wrote of the ancient and medieval belief in which light was generally believed to travel at infinite speed, that "for me this was so certain that if it could be proved false, I should be ready to confess that I know absolutely nothing about philosophy" (Holton, Gerald, Introduction to Concepts and Theories in Physical Science. 2nd ed., revised and with new material by Stephen G. Brush (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1973): 385-6. Warm up the time machine! Nothing like proving a Frenchman wrong! Very recent experiments have fired lasers in all directions (in apparatus on a bed of air) and confirmed 'c' at 10 to the minus 20 for 10 of 18 or so criteria - this equipment may be improved to be able to detect the possible influences of dark matter on light speed. On MM I can only say I have found scores of work that assumes the perpendicular beams and round trip speed. It seems unlikely Einstein would have said the above if he did not think this was the case. My guess is the one way speed of light is a dead duck now, but it wasn't once. The problem of distant simultaneity or somesuch, as my fading memory allows. Maybe Socratus' 'hidden ether' can turn us to ideas of whatever spins in dark matter? Carlos will have the 'address' ... Anyway, chin chin - I have two cans of Foster's in the fridge as a gift for repairing an old neighbour's television. My ancient soldering iron managed the slow clock trip of my legs to her house and I presume the 'amber nectar', though an Australian lie, has similarly survived the trip back. Did you know they don't use valves in tvs these days Georges? It was some shock to me, I can tell you! Had I been more rigorous in approach, I need not have had the back off the set, as I ended-up replacing the fuse trip-switch after I noticed the kettle for my tea was not working either. On 2 Jan, 23:38, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no doubt on the aether 'testing' failure stuff. Didn't we send > up some kind of 'evacuated lead balloon' some time ago to confirm some > kind of 'curved space drag'? (gleaned from cleaning my car's windows > with New Scientist) - none of this is about 'bringing back old > physics'. I'll see what I can codge together, but will say again, for > tonight, what I've put forward is about learning and how sound a > philosophical base we can put science on - and perhaps later any role > this has in actual science. In Socratus' context, I may be on about > what we might make of the term 'hidden ether', without just dismissing > it. > > On 2 Jan, 21:33, Georges Metanomski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > --- On Sat, 1/2/10, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Einstein, Albert, et al, The > > > Principle of Relativity (New York: Dover > > > Publications) page 40 in my motheaten edition - on the > > > reference you > > > demand. Are we to take it you have taken up reading? > > > ============ > > G: > > I don't have this book. Could you, pls, quote the few lines about > > points A and B? I'm really interested. > > ================== > > Neil:> One experiment, amongst many on these 'dilettante' lines > > > was this: > > > (J. G, Small and R. E. Phelps) - a 'new' > > > version of the Michelson-Morley experiment (1970s). Instead > > > of > > > comparing > > > round-trip speeds, as the original experiment did, > > > =============== > > G: > > There were no "round-trips" in MM experiment. It was supposed to > > prove the Aether wind by sending, reflecting and comparing two > > beams, one parallel and one perpendicular to the earth surface, > > thus to the alleged wind. The experiment failed giving the C > > identical in both directions (within experimental error) thus > > killing the Aether hypothesis and providing first solid support > > to the SR. All improved versions of the experiment failed to > > prove the Aether and confirmed the invariance of C. > > > Many new and fantastic things happen in science. Why bother about > > obstinate trials to revive the Aether, or entangled acausality > > allegedly demonstrated by Aspect, whose technologically impressing > > experiment is totally meaningless. > > > Cheers > > Georges. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
