Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity? On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left takes only .5 seconds. B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was constant. Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods of synchronization. Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for testing the constancy of the speed of light. If another method is used Relativists
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity? Yes, provided you don't mean personally: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) Obtaining the raw data and seeing how it fails to comply to SR would be far beyond my mathematical abilities and probably my raw data acquiring abilities. Apparently the Navy also echos that it does not conform to SR. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Here is a snippet from the Navy: Quote: In principle, the critics of GPS in the relativity debate have not been completely wrong. The neglected 7 factor could hurt us. The OCS software should be reformulated. Nevertheless, in practice, neglect of relativity does not now contribute measurably to the GPS error budget, as the OCS software is currently configured.
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
http://ivanik3.narod.ru/GPS/Hatch/relGPS.pdf And it is here that the Sagnac effect runs into trouble with the special theory. The special theory by postulate and definition of time synchronization requires that the speed of light always be isotropic with respect to the observer. And this is where the special theory is in error--the Sagnac effect illustrates that error. It maybe that the direction of magnetic filed lines in space time imposed the Sagnac effect On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:30 AM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity? Yes, provided you don't mean personally: http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.) Obtaining the raw data and seeing how it fails to comply to SR would be far beyond my mathematical abilities and probably my raw data acquiring abilities. Apparently the Navy also echos that it does not conform to SR. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 1:24 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light
RE: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
I believe that was covered in Galilean Electrodynamics many many years ago. -mark From: Axil Axil [mailto:janap...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2014 11:05 PM To: vortex-l Subject: Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity Has anyone looked into the details of the global GPS satellite system with regards to how that system does not follow the laws of general and special relativity?
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect method to synchronize clocks - case (A). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiElist=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this thought experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame cannot be synchronized with events in a moving frame. The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't actually matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) Harry **1. Definition of Simultaneity Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system. If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time. We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, I mean something like this: The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.3 It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of time by substituting the position of the small hand of my watch for time. And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch. We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought. 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 the 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 neighbourhood 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 definitionthat the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the A time from A towards B, let it at the B time be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the A time . In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:-- If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other. Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of simultaneous, or synchronous, and of time. The time of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a specified
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Sorry, I should have included section 1 _and_ 2 from Einstein's paper. The second section is added below. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect method to synchronize clocks - case (A). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiElist=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this thought experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame cannot be synchronized with events in a moving frame. The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't actually matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) Harry **1. Definition of Simultaneity Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system. If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time. We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, I mean something like this: The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.3 It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of time by substituting the position of the small hand of my watch for time. And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch. We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought. 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 the 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 neighbourhood 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 definitionthat the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the A time from A towards B, let it at the B time be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the A time . In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:-- If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other. Thus with the help of certain imaginary physical experiments we have settled what is to be understood by synchronous stationary clocks located at different places, and have evidently obtained a definition of simultaneous, or
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
John, Forget these videos. I just realized they are not a fair critique of special relativity because they don't factor in the the postulate of the constancy of light speed. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I should have included section 1 _and_ 2 from Einstein's paper. The second section is added below. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect method to synchronize clocks - case (A). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiElist=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this thought experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame cannot be synchronized with events in a moving frame. The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't actually matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) Harry **1. Definition of Simultaneity Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system. If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to what we understand by time. We have to take into account that all our judgments in which time plays a part are always judgments of simultaneous events. If, for instance, I say, That train arrives here at 7 o'clock, I mean something like this: The pointing of the small hand of my watch to 7 and the arrival of the train are simultaneous events.3 It might appear possible to overcome all the difficulties attending the definition of time by substituting the position of the small hand of my watch for time. And in fact such a definition is satisfactory when we are concerned with defining a time exclusively for the place where the watch is located; but it is no longer satisfactory when we have to connect in time series of events occurring at different places, or--what comes to the same thing--to evaluate the times of events occurring at places remote from the watch. We might, of course, content ourselves with time values determined by an observer stationed together with the watch at the origin of the co-ordinates, and co-ordinating the corresponding positions of the hands with light signals, given out by every event to be timed, and reaching him through empty space. But this co-ordination has the disadvantage that it is not independent of the standpoint of the observer with the watch or clock, as we know from experience. We arrive at a much more practical determination along the following line of thought. 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 the 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 neighbourhood 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 definitionthat the time required by light to travel from A to B equals the time it requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the A time from A towards B, let it at the B time be reflected at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the A time . In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if We assume that this definition of synchronism is free from contradictions, and possible for any number of points; and that the following relations are universally valid:-- If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the clock at C, the clocks at B and C
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left takes only .5 seconds. B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was constant. Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods of synchronization. Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for testing the constancy of the speed of light. If another method is used Relativists (some anyway) will agree that the speed of light over a portion of the loop will not be C. One such scheme is synchronization from the center. This means the speed of light could be found to be unequal in a portion of a Sagnac loop. And if another scheme of synchronization must be accepted since Einstein's method is rigged, then this would also apply to a spaceship that is moving in a very subtle arc, an arc that would make a circle of any size even larger than a galaxy. Since all real world motion is not perfectly straight, then even a momentary subtle arc would have to behave as if it were part of a giant Sagnac loop that. This quickly turns into the speed of light not being constant outside of completely perfect inertial frames that do not exist in reality. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:32 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Forget these videos. I just realized they are not a fair critique of special relativity because they don't factor in the the postulate of the constancy of light speed. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I should have included section 1 _and_ 2 from Einstein's paper. The second section is added below. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect method to synchronize clocks - case (A). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiElist=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this thought experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame cannot be synchronized with events in a moving frame. The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't actually matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) Harry **1. Definition of Simultaneity Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good.2 In order to render our presentation more precise and to distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally from others which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the stationary system. If a material point is at rest relatively to this system of co-ordinates, its position can be defined relatively thereto by the employment of rigid standards of measurement and the methods of Euclidean geometry, and can be expressed in Cartesian co-ordinates. If we wish to describe the motion of a material point, we give the values of its co-ordinates as functions of the time. Now we must bear carefully in mind that a mathematical description of this kind has no physical meaning unless we are quite clear as to
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left takes only .5 seconds. B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was constant. Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods of synchronization. Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for testing the constancy of the speed of light. If another method is used Relativists (some anyway) will agree that the speed of light over a portion of the loop will not be C. One such scheme is synchronization from the center. This means the speed of light could be found to be unequal in a portion of a Sagnac loop. And if another scheme of synchronization must be accepted since Einstein's method is rigged, then this would also apply to a spaceship that is moving in a very subtle arc, an arc that would make a circle of any size even larger than a galaxy. Since all real world motion is not perfectly straight, then even a momentary subtle arc would have to behave as if it were part of a giant Sagnac loop that. This quickly turns into the speed of light not being constant outside of completely perfect inertial frames that do not exist in reality. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:32 AM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Forget these videos. I just realized they are not a fair critique of special relativity because they don't factor in the the postulate of the constancy of light speed. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:53 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Sorry, I should have included section 1 _and_ 2 from Einstein's paper. The second section is added below. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 12:39 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: Of the six videos, this one is the most important one... [ The Neo-classical Theory of Relativity ] Einstein's incorrect method to synchronize clocks - case (A). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2qYCvw1UiElist=UUek3dPxFThe8FLl-ONbOeVw ...because it uses the same thought experiment described by Einstein his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies.** The video shows that Einstein was wrong to conclude from this thought experiment that simultaneous events in a stationary frame cannot be synchronized with events in a moving frame. The criticisms in other videos could/will be ignored on the grounds that they don't include relativistic corrections. (Whether or not the corrections are sufficient to address all the criticisms doesn't actually matter as long as one can say there aren't any.) Harry **1. Definition of
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left takes only .5 seconds. B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was constant. Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods of synchronization. Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for testing the constancy of the speed of light. If another method is used Relativists (some anyway) will agree that the speed of light over a portion of the loop will not be C. One such scheme is synchronization from the center. This means the speed of light could be found to be unequal in a portion of a Sagnac loop. And if another scheme of synchronization must be accepted since Einstein's method is rigged, then this would also apply to a spaceship that is moving in a very subtle arc, an arc that would make a circle of any size even larger than a galaxy. Since all real world motion is not perfectly straight, then even a momentary subtle arc would have to behave as if it were part of a giant Sagnac loop that. This quickly turns into the speed of light not being constant outside of completely perfect inertial frames that do not exist in reality. John On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 6:32 AM,
Re: [Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 10:28 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, but you will have fun trying to visualize this with SR. SR assumes that each sees the other as length contracted, as clock A and A' pass an observer on each frame at A and A' would disagree as to how long the other is, and hence both would insist that the other ship is shorter ad view that B and B' are not aligned, but each would disagree as to which was off. Another observer in a neutral frame (both have the same relative velocity to this intermediate frame) would see that they line up just fine! Let's call it relational simultaneity to indicate that it is different from Einstein's relative simultaneity. Since relational simultaneity does not begin with a clock synchronization scheme in a stationary (and isolated) frame of reference we are not beholden to apply the transform rules of the special theory of relativity. This is how SR wins, by making a reality so absurd you get tempted to give up on the while thing as you try to make sense of it's contradictions and paradoxes. Let me Quote Wikipedia: Albert Einstein http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed. In other words a one way speed of light measurement becomes a 2 way speed of light measurement due to the clock sync scheme, and as such it is invalid for measuring a deviation from C, by design it won't. If you measured the speed of sound in a wind tunnel under this scheme you would come to the same conclusion that the speed of sound is not relative to the air. So an honest one way speed of light measurement requires a method of clock synchronization that is nothing like classic clock synchronization methods. Harry On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 2:58 PM, H Veeder hveeder...@gmail.com wrote: John, Einstein's conception of simultaneity follows a procedure. The first step in this procedure is to establish clock synchronization in one frame of reference in isolation from a moving system. However, it occurred to me that this first step is not necessary. Instead it is possible to imagine a method of clock synchronization that requires contact with a moving system. Imagine four clocks which are wound up but not ticking. Two clocks A and B are separated by a given distance in a stationary frame and the other two clocks A' and B' are separated by the same distance in a moving frame aligned along a closely parallel axis. When the pairs of clocks brush past they all start ticking. Harry On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.comwrote: I agree that video is not terribly useful. Here is an argument against Einstein's scheme of synchronization. Please correct me if you think I am misrepresenting it. We have 3 points in a straight line labelled A, B and C with an equal distance between B and it's 2 neighbours. A pulse of light from B travels to A and C, A and C are not considered synchronized as far as B is concerned, if they both send a light pulse B will see the light from them at the same moment. Why it is invalid: The method works fine for some purposes, but not for the purpose of seeing if the speed of light is actually C, since the method of setting clocks in sync uses light and includes any delay. Let's say the light too 0.5 seconds to move left from B to A, and 1.5 seconds to move the same distance toward the right from B to C. Now the clock at C would be 1 second out of sync compared to A. Next each sends a light pulse back in this faulty sync scheme idea of the same moment, so light leaves A a second earlier, but now that light takes longer, 1.5 seconds to get to B, but the light from C moving to the left takes only .5 seconds. B sees the light from both at the same time and would conclude the synchronization scheme was sound, and the speed of light was constant. Indeed we could do this test with sound in a wind tunnel, you would end up with silly sync results and the idea that the speed of sound was constant. Other sync methods must be used if the speed of light is to be tested such as testing the speed of light in a Sagnac loop. Light in a Sagnac loop is known to take more or less time as the loop is rotated, the claim of SR is that while the time light takes to make a full loop will vary and even exceed C from the rotating frames perspective, if measured over a portion it will be found to be C under Einstein's methods of synchronization. Well, I do agree, but only because the method entirely unsuited for testing the constancy of the speed of light. If another method is used Relativists (some anyway) will agree that the speed of light over a portion of the loop will not be C. One such scheme is synchronization from the center. This means the speed of light could be found to be unequal in a portion of a Sagnac loop. And if
[Vo]:Neo-Classical Relativity
http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/ There are 6 simple videos showing arguments against various parts of Special Relativity. http://www.youtube.com/user/NeoclassicRelativity
