On 11 Sep 2003 18:16:01 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
You don't have to send signals between them.

All experiments are carried out using the clocks (ie, instantly) and the
results collated afterwards.
Thus, human observers and light's finite travel time are eliminated from all
experiments.

Yes, I agree with your method of syncing clocks but I'm referring to
it's implications for SR. One thing SR is about is light as the
fastest way signals can be sent and lights independence from source
speed. Nothing in your set-up shows instantaneous signalling. However,
it may provide a way to resolve some issues like the conventionality
of simultaneity (different from the relativity of simultaneity)
mentioned by Hans Riechenbak (sp?) and Einstein(?).

I don't claim that communication can be faster than light.
I just avoid the problem of using light for relativity type experiments.

Henri Wilson.

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

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
I don't claim that communication can be faster than light.

OK, I'll hold you to that.

I just avoid the problem of using light for relativity type experiments.

SR is about light and what about experiments like this:

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 and
place an observer in the middle. Both clocks have photodetectors with
fine slits or pinholes.

c____________O_____________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers with their very fine beams pointing
exactly at
slits on the clocks and place a second observer in the middle.

|____________O_____________|

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_____________O____________c
|____________O_____________|-------------v-

Now examine when the observer on the "clock frame" sees the laser
simultaneously hitting the clocks and compare that to what the
observer sees on the "laser frame". Henri is this light signalling not
worth considering?

On 11 Sep 2003 23:14:06 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
I don't claim that communication can be faster than light.

OK, I'll hold you to that.

I just avoid the problem of using light for relativity type experiments.

SR is about light and what about experiments like this:

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 and
place an observer in the middle. Both clocks have photodetectors with
fine slits or pinholes.

c____________O_____________c

On the lower rod, fix two lasers with their very fine beams pointing
exactly at
slits on the clocks and place a second observer in the middle.

|____________O_____________|

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_____________O____________c
|____________O_____________|-------------v-

Now examine when the observer on the "clock frame" sees the laser
simultaneously hitting the clocks and compare that to what the
observer sees on the "laser frame". Henri is this light signalling not
worth considering?

No. It is very simply explained by the fact that light takes time to travel
between points. What we 'see' is not real.

My setup is designed to eliminate the need to use EM for communication.
The universe is perceived as though communication is infinite.

Henri Wilson.

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

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:01:15 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


"HenriWilson" skrev i melding ...
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 23:35:00 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
[..]

In what you wrote, you talk about the 'stationary frame' and the 'rest frame'.
They are both the clock frame.

Wrong.

Well the only conclusion I can reach is that you are indeed a 'CLOSET
AETHERIAN'!!


Paul



Henri Wilson.

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

On 13 Sep 2003 10:42:26 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

Rod Ryker wrote in message ...
Rod: Oh? Why do you run from this argument?
Or is that drivel all you have to offer?
Just curious. GRIN

I see nothing in the set-up that provides a way to communicate at
faster than light speed. The best that any causal influences
propagates is the speed of light. Even synchronizing the clocks. Clock
L doesn't cause clock R to read the same at the same relative time.
The setting is due to prior causes, i.e, the propagation at light
speed of the portions of the light beam that "hit" the clocks.

You can arrange things the same way with a rod with pawls and ganged
clocks as discussed in Epsteins book pp 71-72. It also shows that
simultaneity is relative in this case. I don't have time now but I
will reproduce the pages here within a day or two.

I also found it strange that SR isn't about light or signalling.

You don't understand the significance.
No observations are made by anyone.

The 'absolutely synched' clocks make all the required readings. These are
collated at a later time.

Nowhere in such an experiment does the travel time of light enter into the
picture.

Here is an experiment.

We have two absolutely synched clocks.

............C__________________________C
O --v

Let an object move past them from left to right.

The readings on the clocks when the object is adjacent to them can be used to
determine the object's precise velocity.

That cannot be done using E-synched clocks.




Henri Wilson.

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

From pp 71 & 72 of "Relativity Visualized".


GANGED CLOCKS. The relationship between space and time would be easier
to appreciate if somehow a clock could be devised that would fill all
of space, rather than residing, as most clocks do, in one particular
location. Lacking such a grand timepiece, you will have to be
satisfied with clocks at different locations in space, ganged together
so that all read the same time. How can you gang separate clocks to
work synchronously?

Let the clocks be six-tooth gears. Each tooth represents an hour. (if
you think a 6-hour clock odd, just wait until the metric maniacs
compel you to live a 10-hour day.) The gears are mounted at equal
intervals on a long stationary bar. The gears are given one-sixth
turns periodically by pawls that are also located at equal intervals.
The pawls are attached to another bar that slides smoothly and
continuously to the right. The pawls are so spaced that they arrive at
and turn all clock gears in unison.

FIGURE 4-17

In making this mechanism, how far apart would you space the pawls?
Offhand you would answer, "The space between the pawls should equal
the space between the clocks." But remember that the pawls and the bar
to which they are attached are in motion, sliding to the right, and it
has been established that material things (as well as the spaces
between them) are measured as having shrunk in their direction of
motion. Thus, if you want the space between the pawls to match the
space between the clocks when the mechanism is running, that is, when
the pawl bar is sliding, you had better make the pawl bar so that the
space between the pawls is longer than the space between the clocks.
That way when the bar shrinks due to its motion, the pawl spacing can
come to be equal to the clock spacing.

FIGURE 4-18

Now consider how this mechanism would be measured by aliens, perhaps
ants, riding along on the pawl bar. To the aliens the pawl bar is
stationary. To the aliens the clock gears and the bar upon which they
are mounted are in motion. The thing is moving to the left at the same
speed you measure the pawl bar sliding to the right. But here comes
the cute stuff.

Since the pawl bar is stationary to the aliens, the aliens measure the
proper spacing between the pawls, which is larger than the proper
spacing between the clocks. Moreover, the aliens measure the space
between the clocks as shrunk, because they, along with their bar, are
in motion relative to the aliens, sliding to the left. There is no
way the aliens can measure all the pawls and all the clock gears ever
coming into coincidence together. As measured by the aliens the
clocks are therefore inexorably desynchronized. And these are the
very same clocks I ganged together so that all would turn in unison.
This example just recapitulates something you already know.

Another thing you already know also emerges. The aliens measure the
moving clocks not only as desynchronized but as running slow. It is
easy to see why. For a particular clock to pass from one o'clock to
two o'clock, that clock must slide through a distance equal to the
space between pawls. The aliens measure the clocks sliding between
the pawls at the same speed that you measure the pawls sliding between
the clocks. But the space between the pawls as measured by the
aliens--the proper space--is longer than as you measure it. So it
takes more time for the clock to get from pawl to pawl as measured by
the aliens than as measured by you. This means that when a clock is
perceived in motion, it is measured as taking more time to get from
one o'clock to two o'clock than when the clock is perceived at rest.

FIGURE 4-19

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
You don't understand the significance.
No observations are made by anyone.

The 'absolutely synched' clocks make all the required readings. These are
collated at a later time.

Nowhere in such an experiment does the travel time of light enter into the
picture.

Here is an experiment.

We have two absolutely synched clocks.

...........C__________________________C
O --v

Let an object move past them from left to right.

The readings on the clocks when the object is adjacent to them can be used to
determine the object's precise velocity.

That cannot be done using E-synched clocks.

For me their experimental significance is simply that you have
cancelled out or at least tried to control for the delay caused by the
speed of light at one end with the other end provided that you have
the symmetries of your set-up, near identical clocks, etc. If so and
with a more realistic situation, OWLS could be measured to some degree
of accuracy. Nevertheless, I see little theoretical significance of
all this to SR.

Mark Szlazak wrote:
Rod Ryker wrote in message ...

Rod: Oh? Why do you run from this argument?
Or is that drivel all you have to offer?
Just curious. GRIN


I see nothing in the set-up that provides a way to communicate at
faster than light speed.

Rod: Not necessary either.

The best that any causal influences propagates is the speed of light.

Rod: Yes indeed.

Even synchronizing the clocks. Clock
L doesn't cause clock R to read the same at the same relative time.

Rod: True, L has no power over R at all.
And relativity is irrelevant.
The times and lengths are ideal absolutes.

The setting is due to prior causes, i.e, the propagation at light
speed of the portions of the light beam that "hit" the clocks.

Rod: Yep. Henri should have the lasers on all the time.
Very good point!
How 'bout it Henri?

Rod Ryker...
It is reasoning and faith that bind truth.




You can arrange things the same way with a rod with pawls and ganged
clocks as discussed in Epsteins book pp 71-72. It also shows that
simultaneity is relative in this case. I don't have time now but I
will reproduce the pages here within a day or two.

I also found it strange that SR isn't about light or signalling.

On 14 Sep 2003 12:55:42 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

(HenriWilson) wrote in message . ..
You don't understand the significance.
No observations are made by anyone.

The 'absolutely synched' clocks make all the required readings. These are
collated at a later time.

Nowhere in such an experiment does the travel time of light enter into the
picture.

Here is an experiment.

We have two absolutely synched clocks.

...........C__________________________C
O --v

Let an object move past them from left to right.

The readings on the clocks when the object is adjacent to them can be used to
determine the object's precise velocity.

That cannot be done using E-synched clocks.

For me their experimental significance is simply that you have
cancelled out or at least tried to control for the delay caused by the
speed of light at one end with the other end provided that you have
the symmetries of your set-up, near identical clocks, etc. If so and
with a more realistic situation, OWLS could be measured to some degree
of accuracy. Nevertheless, I see little theoretical significance of
all this to SR.

Two clocks synched absolutely and connected by a long rod can determine whether
or not light always takes L/c seconds to travel the length of the rod.

This can involve a light source that is moving wrt the rod and emits a pulse of
light when it is exactly adjacent to one clock.

Henri Wilson.

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

On 13 Sep 2003 18:48:25 -0700, (Mark Szlazak) wrote:

From pp 71 & 72 of "Relativity Visualized".


GANGED CLOCKS. The relationship between space and time would be easier
to appreciate if somehow a clock could be devised that would fill all
of space, rather than residing, as most clocks do, in one particular
location. Lacking such a grand timepiece, you will have to be
satisfied with clocks at different locations in space, ganged together
so that all read the same time. How can you gang separate clocks to
work synchronously?

Let the clocks be six-tooth gears. Each tooth represents an hour. (if
you think a 6-hour clock odd, just wait until the metric maniacs
compel you to live a 10-hour day.) The gears are mounted at equal
intervals on a long stationary bar. The gears are given one-sixth
turns periodically by pawls that are also located at equal intervals.
The pawls are attached to another bar that slides smoothly and
continuously to the right. The pawls are so spaced that they arrive at
and turn all clock gears in unison.

FIGURE 4-17

In making this mechanism, how far apart would you space the pawls?
Offhand you would answer, "The space between the pawls should equal
the space between the clocks." But remember that the pawls and the bar
to which they are attached are in motion, sliding to the right, and it
has been established that material things (as well as the spaces
between them) are measured as having shrunk in their direction of
motion. Thus, if you want the space between the pawls to match the
space between the clocks when the mechanism is running, that is, when
the pawl bar is sliding, you had better make the pawl bar so that the
space between the pawls is longer than the space between the clocks.
That way when the bar shrinks due to its motion, the pawl spacing can
come to be equal to the clock spacing.

FIGURE 4-18

Now consider how this mechanism would be measured by aliens, perhaps
ants, riding along on the pawl bar. To the aliens the pawl bar is
stationary. To the aliens the clock gears and the bar upon which they
are mounted are in motion. The thing is moving to the left at the same
speed you measure the pawl bar sliding to the right. But here comes
the cute stuff.

Since the pawl bar is stationary to the aliens, the aliens measure the
proper spacing between the pawls, which is larger than the proper
spacing between the clocks. Moreover, the aliens measure the space
between the clocks as shrunk, because they, along with their bar, are
in motion relative to the aliens, sliding to the left. There is no
way the aliens can measure all the pawls and all the clock gears ever
coming into coincidence together. As measured by the aliens the
clocks are therefore inexorably desynchronized. And these are the
very same clocks I ganged together so that all would turn in unison.
This example just recapitulates something you already know.

Another thing you already know also emerges. The aliens measure the
moving clocks not only as desynchronized but as running slow. It is
easy to see why. For a particular clock to pass from one o'clock to
two o'clock, that clock must slide through a distance equal to the
space between pawls. The aliens measure the clocks sliding between
the pawls at the same speed that you measure the pawls sliding between
the clocks. But the space between the pawls as measured by the
aliens--the proper space--is longer than as you measure it. So it
takes more time for the clock to get from pawl to pawl as measured by
the aliens than as measured by you. This means that when a clock is
perceived in motion, it is measured as taking more time to get from
one o'clock to two o'clock than when the clock is perceived at rest.

FIGURE 4-19

No. That is nothing like my method. Lengths do not physically change due to
movement.

Contractions are visual illusions.

Henri Wilson.

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