On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:01:45 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Sep 2003 15:19:18 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(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.

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.

You forgot that the laser will diffract when it pass through the fine slits.

Ken, the rods can be LY's in length and the slits nanometers from the lasers.
Besides , both beams will behave identically. The path length is virtually zero
anyway. The lasers are used purely for locations.

BTW why are you coming up with such a non-doable experiment when SR says
that you can absolute synch two clocks by slow clock transport in the
opposite directions? You don't seem to get it that two absolutely synched
clock will not give the measured OWLS to be c. That's why Einstein invented
the e-synched clock to get c.

I understand and agree with that Ken. This is an alternative method of
absolutely synching clocks. It makes SR look quite stupid. An 'instantaneous
universe' CAN BE achieved.
However people like Paul cannot get into their heads that the universe is not
designed the way they would like it. Simultaneity is absolute and not relative.
Space is not dependent on human observers using light for communication for its
existence.

Ken Seto



Henri Wilson.

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

On 9 Sep 2003 07:17:37 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(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.

No it isn't because the timing of all events is made with the local clocks and
not just one central observer. There is always a clock close to an event. Its
reading coincides with all other clocks as though communication between them is
infinitely fast.
Only one grid of clocks is needed. Each clock can have a 3D positional index if
you like. The grid velocity is irrelevant. Any moving observer can use them and
analyse their data afterwards. In an instantaneous universe, frame movement
does not affect the outcome even though the origin of the spatial axes and
velocities relative to observers will differ.. I have called this new concept
'relative absolutism'.

Henri Wilson.

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

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 08:33:18 -0700, Russell Blackadar wrote:

Mark Szlazak wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..

[snip]

Note: if, as some SRians seem to think, the physical length of a rod DOES
change with velocity,

Ralph Rabbidge (aka HenriWilson) has no clue what physicists
(the apparent referent of his silly term "SRians") really
think. He presents a strawman, and a confused one at that.

Btw "Henri" will probably try to deny that he and Ralph Rabbidge
are one and the same. Such protestations are implausible when
one considers that Henry (before he became Henri) once claimed
to have published certain engineering papers, apparently forgetting
that they can be verified to bear the name Rabbidge as coauthor,
not Wilson.

Russell I am quite aware that when all else fails, SRians will resort to the
most outlandish diversionary tactics they can think up.
This is a prime example. I can only assume that you realise I am correct.

I told you, Rabbo gave these NGs away several years ago because, quote, "he was
too busy to waste his life arguing with brainwashed academic dickheads who have
no creative ability whatsoever".


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.

Right you are. But you will never in 1000 years get Rabbidge
or his alter ego to understand this.

Rabbidge seeks to prove SR inconsistent, but he does so by
assuming what he wishes to prove. His response, when you point
this out, is to say that he makes no assumptions at all. If he's
for real, the word to describe him is "blind".

I commend you for your effort to engage Rabbidge in a meaningful
exchange, but I think eventually you will find you have to give
up, and just ignore him like the rest of us do.

Russell, instead of romancing in fairyland, why don't you tell me what is wrong
with my experiment.

If the clocks are NOT absolutely synched by this method, what would you call
it?

Henri Wilson.

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

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:06:53 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"kenseto" skrev i melding ...

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.

Such a splendid explanation makes everything perfectly clear ... I suppose.

But by some reason your statement:
"the train observer will see the strikes to be
simultaneous at a later time than the track observer."
make me burst out in uncontrollable laughter rather than understand.
That probably is because I am stupid.
Don't you too think so, Ken?

Paul


You are both wrong.

If this experiment is analysed using my grid of universally synched clocks then
the whole thing becomes trivial.

Henri Wilson.

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

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

"kenseto" skrev i melding
...

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.

Such a splendid explanation makes everything perfectly clear ... I
suppose.

But by some reason your statement:
"the train observer will see the strikes to be
simultaneous at a later time than the track observer."
make me burst out in uncontrollable laughter rather than understand.

It's moronic to laugh at your own stupidity.

That probably is because I am stupid.
Don't you too think so, Ken?

Yes.

Ken Seto

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
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.

No it isn't because the timing of all events is made with the local clocks and
not just one central observer. There is always a clock close to an event. Its
reading coincides with all other clocks as though communication between them is
infinitely fast.
Only one grid of clocks is needed. Each clock can have a 3D positional index if
you like. The grid velocity is irrelevant. Any moving observer can use them and
analyse their data afterwards. In an instantaneous universe, frame movement
does not affect the outcome even though the origin of the spatial axes and
velocities relative to observers will differ.. I have called this new concept
'relative absolutism'.

Henri, thanks again for spending your time to go into all this. Your
right, your set-up is not quite analogous to the train and station
idea. Also, your making a believer out of me! I'll think more on it
but the responses from others so far have not really helped in
countering your claim and I see my previous blunders as well. I might
flip back again if I find or think up something good. In the mean time
.... GOOD JOB!

On 10 Sep 2003 00:23:59 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
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.

No it isn't because the timing of all events is made with the local clocks and
not just one central observer. There is always a clock close to an event. Its
reading coincides with all other clocks as though communication between them is
infinitely fast.
Only one grid of clocks is needed. Each clock can have a 3D positional index if
you like. The grid velocity is irrelevant. Any moving observer can use them and
analyse their data afterwards. In an instantaneous universe, frame movement
does not affect the outcome even though the origin of the spatial axes and
velocities relative to observers will differ.. I have called this new concept
'relative absolutism'.

Henri, thanks again for spending your time to go into all this. Your
right, your set-up is not quite analogous to the train and station
idea. Also, your making a believer out of me! I'll think more on it
but the responses from others so far have not really helped in
countering your claim and I see my previous blunders as well. I might
flip back again if I find or think up something good. In the mean time
... GOOD JOB!

Thankyou.
There is no doubt in my mind that this thought experiment refutes SR
completely.

It is possible to create an instantaneous universe.

Henri Wilson.

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

"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:56:30 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding
.. .

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'.

If anybody wonder what kind of "synchronization" this leads to
in the real world where the Lorentz transform apply, here it is:

Let the proper lengths of the rods be L.
The right clock will show a time (L/v)*(1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
less than a clock which is e-synched to the left clock..
If you measure the speed of light with those clocks, it will be anisotropic.
And you can make the anisotropy to be anything you want by
selecting the speed and direction of the synchronizing rod.

Paul as you know, the physical lengths of the rods DO NOT change with velocity.
Nor do physical clock rates.
The fact that ytjhey are observer\d to change makes no difference to this
procedure.

Anyway, if you insist on introducing your LTs, a simple way around that problem
is to accelerate the lower rod one way and the upper one by an identical amount
in the opposite direction.
Then, even if you apply your fictitious (observational) transforms, the clocks
will still end up absolutely synched.

The derivation above wasn't meant for you, Henry.
Your opinion about it is of no interest whatsoever,
because, as your naive assertion above demonstrates,
you have no idea of what the Lorentz transform leads to.
You don't understand it and are unable to use it.

Isn't it strange that different sets of "absolutely synched" clocks
can give widely different values of the OWLS of the same light beam? :-)

Only if one is a closet aetherist - which is obviously what you are.


Shut up, Henry.
This is not for you, you understand nothing related to SR.

What would I want to go through life trying to understand something that is
completely wrong from the first paragraph.
I don't go in for self-delusion.

Thanks for confirming that you don't understand SR.

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.

... as you so vividly demonstrates here. :-)

Paul, if both rods DID, by some magic, physically contract according to the
LT's, then they would surely both contract by the same amount if they received
identical accelerations in opposite directions. That is plainly obvious because
of the 'v^2' term.
Therefore when the LH laser is directly adjacent to the LH clock, the RH pair
will also be exactly lined up.

The following is not for you, Henry.
As we agree, you don't understand it anyway.

Let's find out how the clocks are synched by this approach.
Still according to SR, of course.
As observed in the stationary frame, both ends of the rods would line
up simultaneously. And if both clocks were set to the same value
at that instant, they would be synchronous in the stationary frame.
Nothing "absolute" about that, of course.
But in the rest frame of the clocks, the right clock would show
a time L*u/c^2 less than an e-synched clock, where u is the speed
of the clocks in the stationary frame, and L the proper length of the rods.
The relative speed between the rods, v, is given by:
v = (u+u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
u = (c^2/v)*(1 - sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2))
Thus the right clock will show a time (L/v)*(1 - sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
less than a clock which is e-synched to the left clock.
The same as calculated above.
Of course the synchronization of the clocks is independent
on which frame the scenario is described in.

THIS is for you, Henry:
You say that you don't understand SR.
So why do you make a fool by yourself by asserting what
SR predicts?

Paul

"HenriWilson" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 09:01:45 -0400, "kenseto" wrote:


"HenriWilson" wrote in message
.. .
On 8 Sep 2003 15:19:18 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(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.

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.

You forgot that the laser will diffract when it pass through the fine
slits.

Ken, the rods can be LY's in length and the slits nanometers from the
lasers.
Besides , both beams will behave identically. The path length is virtually
zero
anyway. The lasers are used purely for locations.

OK lets take 3 stationary clocks and they are not running and all are set at
zero. When the moving rod moves into position between the first two clocks
they are now running and they now absolutely synchroneous. Now the move rod
moves into position between the second and the third clock Now how do you
set the third clock so that it is synchroneous with the second
clock?....remember that the second clock is already running.

Ken Seto

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
... reading coincides with all other clocks as though communication between them is...

There is no doubt in my mind that this thought experiment refutes SR
completely.

It is possible to create an instantaneous universe.

I can hesitantly believe that you've shown how to globally sync clocks
no matter what the speed of their "frame", but it's all done with
signals that aren't instantaneous. If you sync/hit a pair at the same
time once then the fastest speed you can hit them again with the laser
beams is still the speed of light. So the speed of sending signals
will not be instantaneous. They'll both get the start and end of the
signal simultaneously but the signal will have duration. Maybe SR is
fine but the notions about relative simultaneity aren't.