Relativity Well and Truly Cornered.

In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by side
and mark adjacent points at each end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.

L__________________________L

The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.

The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:

c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v-

This is done.

When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical. The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)

The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.

If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.

Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.

Now, if, as some might argue, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
acccelerate both rods in opposite directions by the same amount. This does not
affect the synching procedure or principle.

However, if they are right and the rod does contract physically with speed, we
now have a way to measure the Lorentz contraction. We simply synch the clocks
initially when the lower rod moves at v, then we increase its velocity to say
10v and look for any differences in clock readings.

We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are not.
If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the rod
lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other hand,
the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length of
the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of relatively
moving observers.

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be absolute.



PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of this
nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe pairs
of space capsules.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by
side
and mark adjacent points at each end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both
clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.

L__________________________L

The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods
are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a
fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.

The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:

c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v-

This is done.

When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock
takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical.

How do you do that? By agreeing that they set their respective clocks to a
specific time when the light pulse hits the detector?

The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)

The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.

If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.

Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.

How do you set the third clock so that it is synchroneous with the two
already synchronized clocks?

Ken Seto



Now, if, as some might argue, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
acccelerate both rods in opposite directions by the same amount. This does
not
affect the synching procedure or principle.

However, if they are right and the rod does contract physically with
speed, we
now have a way to measure the Lorentz contraction. We simply synch the
clocks
initially when the lower rod moves at v, then we increase its velocity to
say
10v and look for any differences in clock readings.

We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing
the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are
not.
If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the
rod
lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other
hand,
the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length
of
the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of
relatively
moving observers.

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be
absolute.



PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
this
nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
pairs
of space capsules.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

If I had a dollar for every "refutation" of relativity....


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by
side
and mark adjacent points at each end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both
clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.

L__________________________L

The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods
are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a
fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.

The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:

c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v-

This is done.

When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock
takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical. The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)

The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.

If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.

Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.

Now, if, as some might argue, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
acccelerate both rods in opposite directions by the same amount. This does
not
affect the synching procedure or principle.

However, if they are right and the rod does contract physically with
speed, we
now have a way to measure the Lorentz contraction. We simply synch the
clocks
initially when the lower rod moves at v, then we increase its velocity to
say
10v and look for any differences in clock readings.

We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing
the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are
not.
If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the
rod
lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other
hand,
the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length
of
the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of
relatively
moving observers.

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be
absolute.



PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
this
nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
pairs
of space capsules.

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

Well, watching you and Seto discuss "science" is sort of like
seeing two ugly people holding hands.

But on to the point....

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by
side
and mark adjacent points at each end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both
clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.

L__________________________L

The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods
are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a
fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.

The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:

c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v-

This is done.

When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock
takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical. The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)

The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.

If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.

Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.

Now, if, as some might argue, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
acccelerate both rods in opposite directions by the same amount. This does
not
affect the synching procedure or principle.

However, if they are right and the rod does contract physically with
speed, we
now have a way to measure the Lorentz contraction. We simply synch the
clocks
initially when the lower rod moves at v, then we increase its velocity to
say
10v and look for any differences in clock readings.

We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing
the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are
not.
If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the
rod
lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other
hand,
the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length
of
the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of
relatively
moving observers.

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be
absolute.


Not a very original problem. There are many variations on this
which are standard university homework problems (you know, in
those classes you never took, Ralph).

The key point is that even if the clocks are synchronized, you
can not assume they will remain synchronized in their own frame
when they are accelerated. Solving for the accelerated system
is tricky, but it's easy if you remember that an accelerating
system is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field; i.e the
forward clock is effectively higher in the gravitational well.




PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
this
nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
pairs
of space capsules.


Yes, like most people who have never actually done an experiment,
you haven't any idea how hard it would be to do this one.

How fast do you think spaceships go, Ralph?

-Eric

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

In article ,
(HenriWilson) wrote:

In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.

I see you are starting with an assumption that is both inconsistent with
relativity and inconsitent with experimental observation. To wit, there
is no such thing as perfectly rigid rod. And the assumption that
perfectly rigid rods exist is equivalent to assuming relativity is
invalid.

big snip

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be absolute.

Bzzz... Try again. You cannot arrive at a valid refutation of relativity
when you start with an assumption known to be incompatible with
relativity.

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.

You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such thing
as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a false
assumption.

(yawn)

Minor Crank

"Minor Crank" wrote in message
news:IsS7b.416081$uu5.75160@sccrnsc04...
"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.

You have gone astray with your very first sentence. There is no such thing
as a "perfectly rigid rod." You cannot prove anything starting with a
false
assumption.

In case you don't understand what is wrong with perfectly rigid rods, your
opening statement is equivalent to saying, "Take two very long, identical
rods capable of propagating disturbances at infinite velocity."

Surely you agree that the speed of sound is less than infinite? Indeed, most
people would agree that the speed of sound is less than the speed of light.

Except possibly you.

Minor Crank

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 17:36:09 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by
side
and mark adjacent points at each end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both
clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.

L__________________________L

The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods
are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a
fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.

The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:

c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v-

This is done.

When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock
takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical.

How do you do that? By agreeing that they set their respective clocks to a
specific time when the light pulse hits the detector?

That's easy. Just subtract the difference in readings from the that is ahead.
It is assumed that the clocks are running at the same rate. Because they are at
rest, wrt each other, their rates can be directly compared. The synching
process can be repeated any time.


The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)

The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.

If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.

Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.

How do you set the third clock so that it is synchroneous with the two
already synchronized clocks?

You just repeat the experiment using the new clock and one of those which has
been already synched.


Ken Seto





Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 19:50:42 -0500, "Eric Prebys"
wrote:

Well, watching you and Seto discuss "science" is sort of like
seeing two ugly people holding hands.

Is that the most intelligent thing you can say Prebys?


But on to the point....

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods. Lay them side by
side
and mark adjacent points at each end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at these end points. Both
clocks
are equipped with minute photo-detectors.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers emitting very fine vertical beams.

L__________________________L

The positions of clocks and lasers are finely adjusted whilst the two rods
are
at rest and adjacent so that each laser beam is exactly aligned with a
fine
slits on the corresponding photocell.

The experiment involves moving the lower rod rapidly wrt the upper one
while both are parallel and in very close proximity:

c__________________________c
L__________________________L-------------v-

This is done.

When the L and R laser beams flash onto the respective clocks, each clock
takes
a reading. After the first run, the two clocks are adjusted so that their
readings are identical. The procedure is repeated to verify the
synchronization. (note: the time taken for the laser beam to travel to the
photocell can be ignored)

The next step is to vary the speed of the moving rod.

If, as anticipated, the rod's PHYSICAL length does NOT change with
movement,
the RH laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock when the
LH one
flashes into the LH cell, IRRESPECTIVE OF ROD SPEED.

Since both clocks are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received, then it can only be assumed that the
clocks are
in some kind of 'absolute synch'. By repeating this procedure ad
infinitum,
using ONE of the synched clocks and any other, a grid of 'absolutely
synched'
clocks can be set up throughout the universe so as to define a universal
'instant in time'.

Now, if, as some might argue, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity, then a simple way to eliminate such an effect is to
acccelerate both rods in opposite directions by the same amount. This does
not
affect the synching procedure or principle.

However, if they are right and the rod does contract physically with
speed, we
now have a way to measure the Lorentz contraction. We simply synch the
clocks
initially when the lower rod moves at v, then we increase its velocity to
say
10v and look for any differences in clock readings.

We now find ourselves in an interesting situation. Without even performing
the
experiment we know that its results can only reveal that either the clock
readings are always identical irrespective of lower rod speed OR they are
not.
If the former is true, then the clocks must be in absolute synch and the
rod
lengths do NOT physically alter with changes in speed. If on the other
hand,
the readings DO turn out to be dependent on rod velocity, then the length
of
the moving rod must have PHYSICAL changed.
That requires an absolute spatial reference, otherwise the magnitude and
direction of such a change would depend on an infinite number of
relatively
moving observers.

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be
absolute.


Not a very original problem. There are many variations on this
which are standard university homework problems (you know, in
those classes you never took, Ralph).

Oh! Really! Please tell me about them.


The key point is that even if the clocks are synchronized, you
can not assume they will remain synchronized in their own frame
when they are accelerated. Solving for the accelerated system
is tricky, but it's easy if you remember that an accelerating
system is equivalent to a uniform gravitational field; i.e the
forward clock is effectively higher in the gravitational well.

Whoever mentioned acceleration?
Why the hell would anyone want to accelerate a huge grid of clocks.
I can only assume you are getting desperate, Prebys.
The grid of clocks is set up in remote space. It is then used for light speed
experiments and for checking relativity arguments.





PS: just for the record, since rod lengths can be measured very accurately
using two-way light speed measurements, I suspect that an experiment of
this
nature can actually be performed using interferometry in the lab or maybe
pairs
of space capsules.


Yes, like most people who have never actually done an experiment,
you haven't any idea how hard it would be to do this one.

I don't have to do it prebys any more than Einstein had to arrange for
lightning to strike both ends of a train simultaneously.
Whatever the outcome of this experiment, SR is refuted.

Just the fact tat it can be conceived is enough to make a mockery of the whole
theory.


How fast do you think spaceships go, Ralph?

Henry to you Prebys. I'll pass on your messages to Rabbo if you wish. He's
returns to this area sometimes.





Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 03:21:40 GMT, Bill Rowe wrote:

In article ,
(HenriWilson) wrote:

In case you are unfamiliar with my recent 'Two-Rod Experiment', I will
retiterate:

Take two very long, identical and perfectly rigid rods.

I see you are starting with an assumption that is both inconsistent with
relativity and inconsitent with experimental observation. To wit, there
is no such thing as perfectly rigid rod. And the assumption that
perfectly rigid rods exist is equivalent to assuming relativity is
invalid.

big snip

So either way, relativity is refuted. Either SPACE or TIME must be absolute.

Bzzz... Try again. You cannot arrive at a valid refutation of relativity
when you start with an assumption known to be incompatible with
relativity.

Oh! Another desperate SRian looking for a way out!

Henri Wilson.

See my animations and physics book at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm