On 7 Sep 2003 08:53:50 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

\(formerly\)" 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.

You didn't understand the experment. See my other reply.

Henri Wilson.

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

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:47:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"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?

Well in actual fact, the technique is probably quite achieveable. It is more
than just a thought experiment. I should not have suggested that it was.

Can you give any reason why clocks cannot be universally synched in this way?



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.

The rod is still exactly the same rod that it was before it was moved.

If it is moved past the clocks at speed 'v' and the clocks synched accordingly,
then if it is moved at say 10v, the clocks will still record identical time
readings when the laser pulses move past them.

Now that is probably quite a feasible experiment also.

But as you will agree, nothing physiclly happens to rods when they move - so
there is no point in performing the experiment since it would only reveal what
we already know.


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?

The fact that nothing physical happens to rods and clocks when they move - as
you and all SRians know and as is conclusively proven in my demo:
contractions.exe


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.

My 'quite practical' experiment can do a lot more than that. It can make a
mockery of SR - as it has already done.


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!

Well please go ahead and perform the experiment. Then we will clear up this
mess once and for all.


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, my definition of 'absolute synch' is that which might be achieved if time
signals between clocks were to travel at infinite speed.

Do you see anything wrong with that as a concept, even if we have no known way
of achieving same?


Paul



Henri Wilson.

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

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:47:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"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?

Well in actual fact, the technique is probably quite achieveable. It is more
than just a thought experiment. I should not have suggested that it was.

Can you give any reason why clocks cannot be universally synched in this way?



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.

The rod is still exactly the same rod that it was before it was moved.

If it is moved past the clocks at speed 'v' and the clocks synched accordingly,
then if it is moved at say 10v, the clocks will still record identical time
readings when the laser pulses move past them.

Now that is probably quite a feasible experiment also.

But as you will agree, nothing physiclly happens to rods when they move - so
there is no point in performing the experiment since it would only reveal what
we already know.


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?

The fact that nothing physical happens to rods and clocks when they move - as
you and all SRians know and as is conclusively proven in my demo:
contractions.exe


If you use the postulates of SR as premises,
your conclusion is wrong.
So your premises (or assumptions) are obviously different.

Read this again:
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.

My 'quite practical' experiment can do a lot more than that. It can make a
mockery of SR - as it has already done.

And this:
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!

Well please go ahead and perform the experiment. Then we will clear up this
mess once and for all.

It is cleared up.
The conclusion of your thought experiment (clocks can be absolutely synched)
is drawn from premises which are proven false by a number of experiment.
It is thus experimentally falsified.

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, my definition of 'absolute synch' is that which might be achieved if time
signals between clocks were to travel at infinite speed.

Do you see anything wrong with that as a concept, even if we have no known way
of achieving same?

Enough nonsense!
I have said what I had to say about your thought experiment.
Read it again, I am not going to repeat it.

Paul

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:45:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 10:47:19 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"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?

Well in actual fact, the technique is probably quite achieveable. It is more
than just a thought experiment. I should not have suggested that it was.

Can you give any reason why clocks cannot be universally synched in this way?



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.

The rod is still exactly the same rod that it was before it was moved.

If it is moved past the clocks at speed 'v' and the clocks synched accordingly,
then if it is moved at say 10v, the clocks will still record identical time
readings when the laser pulses move past them.

No answer Paul ????

Very significant.



Now that is probably quite a feasible experiment also.

But as you will agree, nothing physiclly happens to rods when they move - so
there is no point in performing the experiment since it would only reveal what
we already know.


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?

The fact that nothing physical happens to rods and clocks when they move - as
you and all SRians know and as is conclusively proven in my demo:
contractions.exe


If you use the postulates of SR as premises,
your conclusion is wrong.
So your premises (or assumptions) are obviously different.

Read this again:
It is in fact glaringly obvious what your assumption is.
It is that time is absolute, or that the Galilean transform apply.

My experiment makes no assumptions. It is a perfectly straightforward exercise.

You are well and truly beaten and you know it.


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

My 'quite practical' experiment can do a lot more than that. It can make a
mockery of SR - as it has already done.

And this:
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!

If you read my definition of 'absolute synch' you will see that it does NOT
require absolute TIME.

If you like, I will use the term 'universal time' in future.


Well please go ahead and perform the experiment. Then we will clear up this
mess once and for all.

It is cleared up.
The conclusion of your thought experiment (clocks can be absolutely synched)
is drawn from premises which are proven false by a number of experiment.
It is thus experimentally falsified.

My conclusion merely conflicts with Einstein's concocted RoS proof based on
lightning just happening to strike both ends of a train simultaneously.

My experiment is at least capable of being performed.

Are you stupid enough to deny that the clocks will record the same readings
when they receive their respective laser flashes, irrespective of the speed of
the lower rod?



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, my definition of 'absolute synch' is that which might be achieved if time
signals between clocks were to travel at infinite speed.

Do you see anything wrong with that as a concept, even if we have no known way
of achieving same?

Enough nonsense!
I have said what I had to say about your thought experiment.
Read it again, I am not going to repeat it.

Paul


You are wrong.
I have provided a perfectly straightforward way to synchronize all clocks
anywhere throughout the universe.

They will all subsequently record the same time for any event that occurs
anywhere.
RoS is dead.
If your stubborness will not allow you to make any reply other than mumbo jumbo
then I can only feel very sorry for you.



Henri Wilson.

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

On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:51:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"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.

Not quite. The SR postulates implies that simultaneity is absolute. Einstein
derive the RoS concept based on the bogus idea that the train observer is
moving relative to light.

Quite.
But due to my inability to comprehend, I don't comprehend that.

Indoctrination is a well known barrier to comprehension.


Paul



Henri Wilson.

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

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
You didn't understand the experment. See my other reply.

That maybe. Would you elaborate more on a small part of your test
set-up?
Since you say that the lasers could be replaced by rods, how about
just skipping the lasers for now and just using the ends of the
original rod and only two clocks. Please describe how you go about
setting up one clock and get it to react to one end of the rod and
then how you place the other clock a rods distance away from the first
and getting it to react to the other end of the rod. I'm still feeling
skeptical so maybe this might help with understanding the situation
better.

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:45:28 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Read this again:
It is in fact glaringly obvious what your assumption is.
It is that time is absolute, or that the Galilean transform apply.

My experiment makes no assumptions. It is a perfectly straightforward exercise.

Quite.
Henry Wilson draws his conclusions from no premises..
That says it all.

You are well and truly beaten and you know it.

Sure, Henry.
You always beat me.

Paul, beaten

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2003 22:51:17 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

The SR postulates implies that simultaneity is absolute. Einstein
derive the RoS concept based on the bogus idea that the train observer is
moving relative to light.

Quite.
But due to my inability to comprehend, I don't comprehend that.

Indoctrination is a well known barrier to comprehension.

I note with interest that Ken's words make sense to you
who are not burdened by indoctrinated knowledge.
Maybe you even can explain them?

Paul

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...

"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.

Not quite. The SR postulates implies that simultaneity is absolute.
Einstein
derive the RoS concept based on the bogus idea that the train observer
is
moving relative to light.

Quite.
But due to my inability to comprehend, I don't comprehend that.

I know you can't comprehend. So I will explain. SR postulates say that the
speed of light is isotropic in the train and in the track. Einstein
stipulated that the lightning strikes occur simultaneously when the train
observer and the track observer are at equal distance from the lighning
strikes. The consequences of these two facts is that both the track and
train observers will see the lightning strikes to be simultaneous. However,
the train observer is in a higher state of absolute motion than the track
observer therefore the train observer will see the strikes to be
simultaneous at a later time than the track observer. Why? Because the light
path length of a rod in the train is longer than that in the track.
The concept of RoS is based on the bogus idea that transit time in the train
is affected by observed relative motion.

Ken Seto

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
The experimental setup is quite simple.

Take two identical rods. Lay them side by side and mark adjacent points at each
end.

|__________________________|
|__________________________|

On the upper rod, fasten two clocks exactly at the end points. Both clocks have
photodetectors with fine slits or pinholes.

c__________________________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers with their very fine beams pointing exactly at
slits on the clocks.

|__________________________|

These positions are finely adjusted while the two rods are at rest and adjacent
so that the beams are aligned exactly with the two slits.

The experiment requires that the lower rod is moved rapidly (wrt the upper one)
along its axis while both are parallel and in very close proximity (for
instance along a 'mini-mono-rail').

c__________________________c
|__________________________|-------------v-


Since no REAL PHYSICAL length change is experienced by the moving rod, the RH
laser should always be aligned exactly with the RH clock slit when the LH one
flashesinto the LH cell, irrespective of rod speed. (The time taken for the
laser beam to travel to the photocell can be ignored)

If both clock readings are empirically adjusted so that they always read the
same when flashes are received on subsequently repetitions of the procedure,
then it can only be assumed that the clocks are in some kind of 'absolute
synch'.

Note: if, as some SRians seem to think, 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.

Thank you for the detail. OK, I'll bite and say you have simultaneity.
But isn't this only local and not global? It's simultaneuos from the
frame of reference of the "page" not for an observer "riding" with the
lasers or clocks if they're going to be moving. This sounds like
Einstein's train and train station example of relative simultaneity.
It's not absolute.