"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

A while ago a program was presented on NOVA in which a
physicist described an experiment. In this experiment he used two identical
atomic clocks and transported one of them around the world in a jet
aircraft. He
observed that the transported clock recorded less elapsed time than the
identical clock that remained in place. He concluded from this that time
slowed
down as a result of the aircraft's velocity. He asserted that "as far as he
was
concerned, time is what clocks measure". It is the purpose of this posting
to
examine the validity of his belief.

Suppose we consider an experiment in which we measure the
price of gasoline in two different locations (reference frame #1 and
reference
frame #2) using the units of measurement existing at those locations and
denoted
as dollars and gallons in both. In reference frame #1 we observe that
gasoline
costs $1/gallon and in reference frame #2 we also observe that gasoline
costs
$1/gallon. We can assert from this that the price of gasoline is "a
constant"
(1$/gallon) between those locations that, for this example, are only 10
miles
apart. Can we rigorously assert that the price of gasoline does not change
("is
constant"} between those locations? The answer is that we cannot without
further
information. Suppose one of the locations was in Windsor, Ontario, Canada
and
the other location is across the river in Detroit, Michigan, USA? At the
Canadian location, the price of gasoline would be measured in terms of
Canadian
dollars and Imperial Gallons while at the US location; the price of gasoline
would be measured in US gallons and US dollars. Since the Imperial Gallon is
25%
larger than the US gallon, the price of gasoline, while being "a constant"
(invariant) between those locations, would not be "constant" between them
except
for the case where the Canadian dollar was worth 1.25 US dollars. In this
experiment, in order to draw a legitimate conclusion it is necessary to take
in
consideration the relative sizes of the units of measurement for fluid and
money
at the two locations (reference frames) even though they have the same
names.

The same requirement is incumbent on an experimenter who is
making measurements between reference frames (elevation or velocity). Before
we
can draw any conclusion as to what is actually occurring between two
reference
frames which differ in elevation or velocity, we must first determine how
the
appropriate units of measurement are affected by the difference in reference
frame and correct the readings made locally appropriately. (This is no
different
than the technique used by land surveyors when they correct their
measurements
of distance for the effects of ambient temperature on their steel tapes. I
would
assert that the science of physics should be at least as rigorous as the
more
mundane field of land surveying.) The information needed to make the
corrections
for reference frames that differ in velocity were provided in 1903 by
Fitzgerald, Larmor, and Lorentz and are collectively known as the Lorentz
Transformations. The resultant theory was denoted as the Lorentz
Transformation-Aether Theory. Using these transformations, one finds that
the
effects of velocity are quite reasonable in terms of classical Newtonian
Physics, THERE IS NO MYSTERY. In 1905 Dr. Einstein derived Special
Relativity
using mathematics applied to accepted physical laws. If one examines both
theories one finds that they are actually the same theory since one may be
derived from the other, with the Aether Relativity Theory being a special
case
solution of STR in which one of the infinite number of solutions that STR
allows
between the limits of +/- C represents the Aether but we are prevented from
measuring that velocity with respect to it by the Lorentz Transformations
and
the velocity limit on communications imposed by the velocity of light.

When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide
between one of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of
whether
that velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one
part of
its trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the total
elapsed
time was consistent with the observation. The other interpretation was that
the
velocity made the rate of passage of time itself change due to its movement
through space-time. In order to distinguish between the possibilities, it is
necessary only necessary to consider the effects of a change in reference
frame
occurring when the observations are made and these observations are made at
the
same location and at the same velocity reference and, as a result, we must
conclude that it was not time which slowed during the trip, it was the speed
of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels at
a
constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical
clocks
with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the time
difference. Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of the
measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same
for
both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed its
speed
and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is
naive. "Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock has
been corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for time
resulting from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the
clock
caused its scale factor to change. there are sound and easily understood
physical reason as why this occurs.) Larmor was intelligent enough to
provide
the necessary correction factor (the Lorentz Transformation for Time and Dr.
Einstein was considerate enough to derive it rigorously from basic
principles.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax/hoax.htm ("The Einstein Hoax" {1997});
http://einsteinhoax/gravity.htm; ("Gravity" {1987}); and
http://einsteinhoax/relcor.htm ("Corrections to Special Relativity" {1997}).
EVERYTHING WHICH WE ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE
WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND
IT MUST BE MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm .

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not
monitored on a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the
same
courtesy as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of
our
parts, please do not raise objections that are not related to material that
you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:-

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for
over 5 years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF
THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals
who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without questioning it.
If
anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be objectively answered,
the
material at the Website will be withdrawn. Challenges to date have revealed
only
the responder's inadequacy with one exception for which a correction was
provided.

Cdr wrote:
"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

....
In 1905 Dr. Einstein derived Special
Relativity using mathematics applied to accepted physical laws.

This is not correct. In 1905, physicists lived with a schiziod notion
of what a "physical law" meant: On the one hand was the traditional
meaning of a Galilean-covariant law, which had the same form for all
inertial frames of reference, and on the other hand was the Lorentz
interpretation of the laws of E&M being true only in the very special
rest frame of the ether. The former interpretation of physical laws
could be called the "traditinal values" of what physical laws meant.

Ironically, E&M, interpreted mechanically, seemed to propose a
tremendous challenge to the harmony of physical laws: Einstein asked
himself if there could not be found a single principle which could be
used to harmonized the notions of the laws of mechanics and the laws of
Maxwell's equations. He found that there is! He re-organized Lorentz's
E&M so that the Galilean-Newtonian PoR could be extended to include
both mechanical and E&M phenomena: The laws of both mechanics and E&M
will present themselves to us in a Lorentz-covariant form. This was
used as a heuristic in practice, with the condition that the laws of
the new theory for the motion a point-mass particle will reduce to
those of Newton when v c.)


When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide
between one of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of
whether
that velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one
part of
its trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the total
elapsed
time was consistent with the observation. The other interpretation was that
the
velocity made the rate of passage of time itself change due to its movement
through space-time. In order to distinguish between the possibilities, it is
necessary only necessary to consider the effects of a change in reference
frame
occurring when the observations are made and these observations are made at
the
same location and at the same velocity reference and, as a result, we must
conclude that it was not time which slowed during the trip, it was the speed
of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels at
a
constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical
clocks
with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the time
difference.

Why? The clock "at rest" still ticks away during this turn around. I
can see you subtracting off this time interval on both clocks if you
want to determine \gamma from the data.

Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of the
measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same
for
both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed its
speed
and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

Let me see if I have your thought experiment down right (a simplified
version, anyway): You want two clocks, A and B, initially synchronized:
Clock A is at some fixed point in a frame S, which is rigidly attached
to the earth's surface. And the other, clock, B, is fixed inside a car
that will drive around in S, starting from the same position that clock
A holds, and then it returns after a long time to the starting point
where clock A has remained. So, you want to see if clock B is behind
clock A (admittedly, this is a bit simpler experiment than you setup).
This is doable. But having enough fuel for the car so that the
experiment can run long enough for the effect to be measurable is the
question. Maybe the car will have to come to a stop and get refueled
many times before the experiment is concluded. Obviously, we will
ignore the non-inertiality of frame S to begin with.

When you say that "Spacetime is not involved in this analysis," you
make me believe that you haven't any idea what spacetime is. You might
as well say that one is better off making a long cross-country trip
without the use of a map. Or say that, One shouldn't draw free-body
diagrams in Newtonian mechanics, because they convolute things. Or say,
I prefer not messing-up classical mechanics with phase space, which
might interfer with the measured values. Or you might as say tell an
engineer not to use flow charts, as they could interfere with the
equipment. It's just ignorant. Spacetime is just an analytical aid. The
analytical tool used does not change the experiment.

Free-body diagrams, phase space, maps, flow charts, and spacetime are
all merely analytic aids. Period.



The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is
naive. "Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock has
been corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for time
resulting from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the
clock

Of course! It's the theory one operates under that tells you
(interprets for you) what you are observing. The same is true for
people who believe in absolute time. The phrase "time is what clocks
measure" is an operationalist viewpoint. One can formulate some other
viewpoint, however, one must still relate theoretic time to simple
clock readings somehow.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Cdr wrote:
"The Making of Observations in Relativistic Systems"

...
In 1905 Dr. Einstein derived Special
Relativity using mathematics applied to accepted physical laws.

This is not correct. In 1905, physicists lived with a schiziod notion
of what a "physical law" meant: On the one hand was the traditional
meaning of a Galilean-covariant law, which had the same form for all
inertial frames of reference, and on the other hand was the Lorentz
interpretation of the laws of E&M being true only in the very special
rest frame of the ether. The former interpretation of physical laws
could be called the "traditinal values" of what physical laws meant.

Ironically, E&M, interpreted mechanically, seemed to propose a
tremendous challenge to the harmony of physical laws: Einstein asked
himself if there could not be found a single principle which could be
used to harmonized the notions of the laws of mechanics and the laws of
Maxwell's equations. He found that there is! He re-organized Lorentz's
E&M so that the Galilean-Newtonian PoR could be extended to include
both mechanical and E&M phenomena: The laws of both mechanics and E&M
will present themselves to us in a Lorentz-covariant form. This was
used as a heuristic in practice, with the condition that the laws of
the new theory for the motion a point-mass particle will reduce to
those of Newton when v c.)


When one examines the atomic clock experiment one must decide
between one of two interpretations. One must consider the possibility of
whether
that velocity of the trip caused the moving clock to speed up during one
part of
its trip around the world and to slow up on the part so that the total
elapsed
time was consistent with the observation. The other interpretation was
that
the
velocity made the rate of passage of time itself change due to its
movement
through space-time. In order to distinguish between the possibilities, it
is
necessary only necessary to consider the effects of a change in reference
frame
occurring when the observations are made and these observations are made
at
the
same location and at the same velocity reference and, as a result, we
must
conclude that it was not time which slowed during the trip, it was the
speed
of
the clock. (This conclusion may be made easier to accept when one
recognizes
that the experiment could have been set up, in principle, in a form akin
the
auto speed tests on the Bonneville Salt Flats in which the clock travels
at
a
constant rate of speed and in a straight line in one direction and then
is
stopped and reversed indirection and returns to its starting point along
the
same straight line. All of the measurements would be made by identical
clocks
with the time required to turn the vehicle around subtracted from the
time
difference.

Why? The clock "at rest" still ticks away during this turn around. I
can see you subtracting off this time interval on both clocks if you
want to determine \gamma from the data.

Spacetime is not involved in this analysis.) Since all of the
measurements of the actual experiment were made at the same location and
velocity reference frame, the actual elapsed time must have been the same
for
both clocks one must conclude that it was the moving clock that slowed
its
speed
and not a reduction of the actual passage of time.

Let me see if I have your thought experiment down right (a simplified
version, anyway): You want two clocks, A and B, initially synchronized:
Clock A is at some fixed point in a frame S, which is rigidly attached
to the earth's surface. And the other, clock, B, is fixed inside a car
that will drive around in S, starting from the same position that clock
A holds, and then it returns after a long time to the starting point
where clock A has remained. So, you want to see if clock B is behind
clock A (admittedly, this is a bit simpler experiment than you setup).
This is doable. But having enough fuel for the car so that the
experiment can run long enough for the effect to be measurable is the
question. Maybe the car will have to come to a stop and get refueled
many times before the experiment is concluded. Obviously, we will
ignore the non-inertiality of frame S to begin with.

When you say that "Spacetime is not involved in this analysis," you
make me believe that you haven't any idea what spacetime is. You might
as well say that one is better off making a long cross-country trip
without the use of a map. Or say that, One shouldn't draw free-body
diagrams in Newtonian mechanics, because they convolute things. Or say,
I prefer not messing-up classical mechanics with phase space, which
might interfer with the measured values. Or you might as say tell an
engineer not to use flow charts, as they could interfere with the
equipment. It's just ignorant. Spacetime is just an analytical aid. The
analytical tool used does not change the experiment.

Free-body diagrams, phase space, maps, flow charts, and spacetime are
all merely analytic aids. Period.



The physicists assertion that "time is what clocks measure" is
naive. "Time is what clocks measure after the assumed speed of the clock
has
been corrected for the change in size of the units of measurement for
time
resulting from velocity". (In other words, changing the velocity of the
clock

Of course! It's the theory one operates under that tells you
(interprets for you) what you are observing. The same is true for
people who believe in absolute time. The phrase "time is what clocks
measure" is an operationalist viewpoint. One can formulate some other
viewpoint, however, one must still relate theoretic time to simple
clock readings somehow.


You are just ignorant.
You might say
"
[quote]
we establish by definition that the "time" required by a turtle to travel
from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A.
[end quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

[quote]
For velocities greater than that of a turtle our deliberations become
meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of a
turtle in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great
velocity.
[quote]
Ref: http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Nothing can go faster than a turtle.
"
and you'd be just stupidly ignorant as the the psychotic Einstein.

Oops!... Did I say 'a turtle'? Sorry...'light'.
Same phuckwit math, though.
Einstein lived with a schizoid notion of what a physical law meant, so he
made up his own. Go back to sleep and and have another wet dream.

Androcles.