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.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=H2qYCvw1UiE&list=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 stationary >>>>>> clock. >>>>>> >>>>>> In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity >>>>>> >>>>>> to be a universal constant--the velocity of light in empty space. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in >>>>>> the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to the >>>>>> stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system." >>>>>> >>>>>> from >>>>>> https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2. On the Relativity of Lengths and Times >>>>> >>>>> The following reflexions are based on the principle of relativity and >>>>> on the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light. These two >>>>> principles we define as follows:-- >>>>> >>>>> The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are >>>>> not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the >>>>> other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion. >>>>> Any ray of light moves in the "stationary" system of co-ordinates with >>>>> the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or >>>>> by >>>>> a moving body. Hence >>>>> >>>>> where time interval is to be taken in the sense of the definition in § >>>>> 1. >>>>> >>>>> Let there be given a stationary rigid rod; and let its length be l as >>>>> measured by a measuring-rod which is also stationary. We now imagine the >>>>> axis of the rod lying along the axis of x of the stationary system of >>>>> co-ordinates, and that a uniform motion of parallel translation with >>>>> velocity v along the axis of x in the direction of increasing x is then >>>>> imparted to the rod. We now inquire as to the length of the moving rod, >>>>> and >>>>> imagine its length to be ascertained by the following two operations:-- >>>>> >>>>> (a) The observer moves together with the given measuring-rod and the >>>>> rod to be measured, and measures the length of the rod directly by >>>>> superposing the measuring-rod, in just the same way as if all three were >>>>> at >>>>> rest. >>>>> (b) By means of stationary clocks set up in the stationary system and >>>>> synchronizing in accordance with § 1, the observer ascertains at what >>>>> points of the stationary system the two ends of the rod to be measured are >>>>> located at a definite time. The distance between these two points, >>>>> measured >>>>> by the measuring-rod already employed, which in this case is at rest, is >>>>> also a length which may be designated "the length of the rod." >>>>> >>>>> In accordance with the principle of relativity the length to be >>>>> discovered by the operation (a)--we will call it "the length of the rod in >>>>> the moving system"--must be equal to the length l of the stationary rod. >>>>> >>>>> The length to be discovered by the operation (b) we will call "the >>>>> length of the (moving) rod in the stationary system." This we shall >>>>> determine on the basis of our two principles, and we shall find that it >>>>> differs from l. >>>>> >>>>> Current kinematics tacitly assumes that the lengths determined by >>>>> these two operations are precisely equal, or in other words, that a moving >>>>> rigid body at the epoch t may in geometrical respects be perfectly >>>>> represented by the same body at rest in a definite position. >>>>> >>>>> We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are >>>>> placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is >>>>> to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the "time of >>>>> the >>>>> stationary system" at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are >>>>> therefore "synchronous in the stationary system." >>>>> >>>>> We imagine further that with each clock there is a moving observer, >>>>> and that these observers apply to both clocks the criterion established in >>>>> § 1 for the synchronization of two clocks. Let a ray of light depart from >>>>> A >>>>> at the time4 , let it be reflected at B at the time , and reach A again at >>>>> the time . Taking into consideration the principle of the constancy of the >>>>> velocity of light we find that >>>>> >>>>> where denotes the length of the moving rod--measured in the stationary >>>>> system. Observers moving with the moving rod would thus find that the two >>>>> clocks were not synchronous, while observers in the stationary system >>>>> would >>>>> declare the clocks to be synchronous. >>>>> >>>>> So we see that we cannot attach any absolute signification to the >>>>> concept of simultaneity, but that two events which, viewed from a system >>>>> of >>>>> co-ordinates, are simultaneous, can no longer be looked upon as >>>>> simultaneous events when envisaged from a system which is in motion >>>>> relatively to that system. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 7:54 PM, John Berry >>>>>> <berry.joh...@gmail.com>wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.neoclassicalrelativity.org/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are 6 simple videos showing arguments against various parts of >>>>>>> Special Relativity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://www.youtube.com/user/NeoclassicRelativity >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
