"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 5 Sep 2003 13:28:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

It's not worth a serious response.

There you go again - no intelligent comment.

That usually means you know I am correct.

What I have proposed completely annihilates SR.

As always, you are obviously right, Henry.
The real reason why I stated the above is that I am
quite unable to find any errors in your ingenious way to
"Absolutely Synchronise Clocks".
I am dazzled by your obviously superior intellect, and must
humbly admit that I am not worthy of criticizing the genius
who has revolutionized physics.

You have indeed thoroughly annihilated SR.

Paul, dazzled

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 15:55:46 -0400, funk420 wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 23:08:39 GMT, (HenriWilson) wrote:

Because no PHYSICAL change occurs in the rod due to motion, (as all SRians will
surely agree) the rod always retains its length of 100 m.


I doubt we all would agree.

HEY PAUL!!!! DID YOU READ THIS?

Indeed.
I will strengthen it:
NOBODY knowing SR will agree in your statement.

- According to SR, the moving rod does NOT retain its length
of 100 m when measured in the stationary frame.

- According to SR, the intrinsic, physical, proper length
of the rod does NOT change by being measured by an arbitrary
moving observer.

There is no dispute among people knowing SR about these
two statements.

Did you think it were, Henry? Why?

I know why, of course.
It is because your very limited mind is unable to fathom
that my two statements above are not contradictory.
So when you see someone stating one of them, you insist
that he has stated the opposite of the other.

And will keep insisting.

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message ...
"Perfectly Innocent" wrote:
Theorem 1:
Any two inertial frames of reference have a Galilean synchronization.

That means that events as recorded in the two frames of reference are
connected by the Galilean transformation:

x'=x-uT
T'=T

That's what's Galilean about a Galilean synchronization.

In other words, there is no such thing as
"Galilean synchronized clocks" in the real world.

Paul

Of course there is. Not only do I prove Theorem 1
( http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity )
but I use that result to derive the Lorentz transformation.

See http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity for details.

Eugene Shubert

[snip]

Anyway, lets take v/c 1 for your sync.
and move on..

No physical change occurs in rods when they change speed.


This is a non-essential element of your construction, which looks to
me very similar to the slow-transport method of synchronizing clocks,
a good idea but like most not a new one.


Therefore it follows that the LH end of the rod will be aligned with one clock
at exactly the same 'instant in absolute time' as the RH one is aligned with
the next clock.

By subsequently adjusting each adjacent pair of clocks and repeating this in
sequence along the line, it is thus possible to synchronise them all
absolutely.


Absolutely? Use a better word, or leave that word out. Nothing is
absolute. I can always define my own time system different from
yours.. clocks have errors.. etc..

These clocks are synchronised so taht there measurements dfine an instantaneous
universe.
If that isn't absolute what is?
What is more, they are absolutely synched in all frames.


Well, temperature and rotation are more absolute, for starters. And
abstract arithmetic such as "1+1=2". Even there however you cannot
have completeness. By "absolutely synched" you really mean "synched"
or "somewhat better synched for a OWLS experiment". Its simply a word
best avoided in this context.
[snip]


A true OWLS experiment is now possible using these absolutely synched clocks.

Not quite... how did you measure the speed of the rod?

You are very confused.

The accuracy of the rod speed doesn't matter for the purpose of absoutely
synching the clocks. That is the beauty of my method.


Yeah, I'm confused all right
How much time elapsed between the laser hitting clock 1 and clock 2?
Isn't that important for your construction? Otherwise you have only
synchronised n groups of clocks (not all of them), where n is the
number of clocks in the rod distance.


However a null result will not reveal anything because a true OWLS experiment
requires that the source and observer move relative to each other.


Or motion of both together w.r.t. the "aether frame"...

Also, isn't the rod always varying in size in any inertial frame from
its atomic/molecular inherent processes. What degree of error does
this introduce in trying to get simultaneous measures?

Dear Mark Szlazak:

"Mark Szlazak" wrote in message
om...
Also, isn't the rod always varying in size in any inertial frame from
its atomic/molecular inherent processes. What degree of error does
this introduce in trying to get simultaneous measures?

This is an effect ignored in SR treatises (such as his clock
synchronization). Most quantum effects are. As well as secular
variations, internal energy changes, etc. This is strictly length, time,
velocity, and to some extent, mass.

David A. Smith

\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message news:gyx6b.46439$Qy4.28700@fed1read05...
Dear Mark Szlazak:

"Mark Szlazak" wrote in message
om...
Also, isn't the rod always varying in size in any inertial frame from
its atomic/molecular inherent processes. What degree of error does
this introduce in trying to get simultaneous measures?

This is an effect ignored in SR treatises (such as his clock
synchronization). Most quantum effects are. As well as secular
variations, internal energy changes, etc. This is strictly length, time,
velocity, and to some extent, mass.

David A. Smith

OK, I'll ignore those. Even so, the more I think about the work
required before hand to set up this test, the more I see problems.
From manufacturing the rods and clocks, or even the equipment to make
the rod and clocks, to aligning up pairs of clocks with the ends of
the rod when setting them in a row, all use processes where causes
propagate much less than the speed of light or at best at the speed of
light. The argument/test seems to presupposes instantaneous process in
it's set up before the test even gets going.

Dear Mark Szlazak:

"Mark Szlazak" wrote in message
m...
\(formerly\)" dlzc1.cox@net wrote in message
news:gyx6b.46439$Qy4.28700@fed1read05...
....
This is an effect ignored in SR treatises (such as his clock
synchronization). Most quantum effects are. As well as secular
variations, internal energy changes, etc. This is strictly length,
time,
velocity, and to some extent, mass.

OK, I'll ignore those. Even so, the more I think about the work
required before hand to set up this test, the more I see problems.
From manufacturing the rods and clocks, or even the equipment to make
the rod and clocks, to aligning up pairs of clocks with the ends of
the rod when setting them in a row, all use processes where causes
propagate much less than the speed of light or at best at the speed of
light. The argument/test seems to presupposes instantaneous process in
it's set up before the test even gets going.

Its one of those things that just doesn't smell right up front, and gets
progressively smellier? I agree. I don't see how he is going to get all
those lasers to fire at the "same" time. And in who's frame is that
observed to occur?

Way to keep sharp!

David A. Smith

On 6 Sep 2003 11:44:56 -0700, (luke) wrote:

[snip]

Anyway, lets take v/c 1 for your sync.
and move on..

No physical change occurs in rods when they change speed.


This is a non-essential element of your construction, which looks to
me very similar to the slow-transport method of synchronizing clocks,
a good idea but like most not a new one.

It's not related in the slightest.



Therefore it follows that the LH end of the rod will be aligned with one clock
at exactly the same 'instant in absolute time' as the RH one is aligned with
the next clock.

By subsequently adjusting each adjacent pair of clocks and repeating this in
sequence along the line, it is thus possible to synchronise them all
absolutely.


Absolutely? Use a better word, or leave that word out. Nothing is
absolute. I can always define my own time system different from
yours.. clocks have errors.. etc..


You are very confused.

The accuracy of the rod speed doesn't matter for the purpose of absoutely
synching the clocks. That is the beauty of my method.


Yeah, I'm confused all right
How much time elapsed between the laser hitting clock 1 and clock 2?
Isn't that important for your construction? Otherwise you have only
synchronised n groups of clocks (not all of them), where n is the
number of clocks in the rod distance.

Listen, this is a thought experiment. It isn't any more practical than Einstein
arranging for lightning to strike both ends of a train simultaneously. It
doesn't have to be practical to prove the point.

C----------------------------1LY-----------------------------------C
|----------------------------1LY-----------------------------------|

Two identical rods separate both the clocks and the lasers. The rods can be a
long as you want to make them and they can move as fast as you like.

They are set up while together (at rest wrt each other) so that each laser
points exactly at a couple of pinholes on a clock.
In the experiment, the lower rod is made to move past the upper one. There is
0 space between the lasers and the clocks.

When a laser passes a clock, the clock's photo-detector senses a very brief
pulse of light. It records its time reading when this happens.

Since the physical length of the lower rod does not change with speed (as every
SRian knows, according to Paul Anderson), When the LH laser is adjacent to the
LH clock the RH laser will ALWAYS be exactly adjacent to the RH clock.

To synch the clocks absolutely, (ie as would be achieved using instantaneous
communication) The clock readings simply have to be adjusted so they are the
same when the flashes are detected.

Any number of clocks can be synched in the same way until the whole universe is
filled with absoutely synched clocks which are then used to carry out all
experiments and observations.



However a null result will not reveal anything because a true OWLS experiment
requires that the source and observer move relative to each other.


Or motion of both together w.r.t. the "aether frame"...


Henri Wilson.

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

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On 6 Sep 2003 11:44:56 -0700, (luke) wrote:
Listen, this is a thought experiment. It isn't any more practical than Einstein
arranging for lightning to strike both ends of a train simultaneously. It
doesn't have to be practical to prove the point.

Quite.
But a though experiment doesn't prove anything.
A thought experiment illustrates the consequences of a set of assumptions.
Einstein's "train thought experiment" illustrates that a consequence
of the postulates of SR is that simultaneity is relative.
It's simple logic. Given the postulates as premises, the inevitable
conclusion is relativity of simultaneity.
Of course a thought experiment doesn't prove that the assumtions are
correct.

So the question is, Henry.
What set of assumptions does your thought experiment
illustrate the consequences of?


C----------------------------1LY-----------------------------------C
|----------------------------1LY-----------------------------------|

Two identical rods separate both the clocks and the lasers. The rods can be a
long as you want to make them and they can move as fast as you like.

They are set up while together (at rest wrt each other) so that each laser
points exactly at a couple of pinholes on a clock.
In the experiment, the lower rod is made to move past the upper one. There is
0 space between the lasers and the clocks.

When a laser passes a clock, the clock's photo-detector senses a very brief
pulse of light. It records its time reading when this happens.

Since the physical length of the lower rod does not change with speed (as every
SRian knows, according to Paul Anderson),

Indeed.
According to SR, the intrinsic, physical, proper length of the rod
doesn't change. The rod is unaffected by being measured by
observers moving relative to the rod.
Of course nobody knowing SR will dispute this.

When the LH laser is adjacent to the
LH clock the RH laser will ALWAYS be exactly adjacent to the RH clock.

This is a conclusion.
What are the premises which this conclusion is based on?

If you use the postulates of SR as premises,
your conclusion is wrong.
So your premises (or assumptions) are obviously different.
It is in fact glaringly obvious what your assumption is.
It is that time is absolute, or that the Galilean transform apply.

Remember that all your thought experiment can do, is to
illustrate the consequences of your assumptions.

It should be no surprise to anyone that if you assume the existence
of absolute time, then the conclusion is that simultaneity is absolute,
and it is possible to absolutly synchronize clocks.

As always, you seem to think that if you show (in a thought experiment
of a computer simulation) that the consequences of an assumption is
contrary to SR, then you have proven the assumption to be true,
and that SR is inconsistent.
Wilsonian logic!

I don't know why I bother to respond seriously, though.
Your thought experiment can be summed up as:
"I insist that time is absolute. I have thus proven that it
is possible to absolutely synchronize clocks".
Stupidities like that doesn't deserve to be commented.

Paul