Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

@layman,

Quote:

that the premises of SR are correct

Not quite what I mean. I only hope to reconcile Al and Newt

Quote:

Physicists argued back and forth, ....

I'm not sure however they considered my prop: That in measuring c, any point in the Universe can be considered at 'now,' with any other point in the future, depending on its distance. This doesn't contradict SR, merely provides a way of looking at the controversy that surprisingly explains to the satisfaction of our instinct, why an object changes so funny at high speed. A relative way of lookin' at c, hence Relative Relativity

[It's just another way of interpreting 'Time at a Distance,' which seems to assume, like SR, (?) that it's the same time everywhere always]

Maybe I'm nuts but it sure works out neatly

Quote:

he didn't think ANY of the previously proposed "solutions" were well-taken.

I don't know whether my RR was one of 'em but I'd hope somebody who knows about this kinda stuff would tell me

Quote:

... use a Lorentzian type of relativity with absolute simultaneity, then all "paradoxes" disappear ['cause] SR is self-contradictory

I hafta tke your word for that, Lay, 'cause don't know enuf. However RR is a bit 'Lorenzian' since it provides a new way to look at c without all those apparent magic changes to the movin' object. However it's also a bit " 'SR'ian' " inasmuch as it makes light speed also relative

Quote:

1. A says ....B's clock has slowed down.
2. B says ... A's clock has slowed down.
...Is it even possible, logically, that BOTH of them are correct, as SR would have you believe?

I can't argue as I've said, since I'm so puzzled about all that 'frame' stuff. My RR resolves this prop also, very neatly I think. So wish somebody woujld show me where I'm so wrong

0 Replies

It looks like A2K no longer has any defenders of special relativity. That's certainly understandable, because it's indefensible as a theory of physics (i.e. pertaining to "objective reality"). It is mathematically consistent sure, but that's not saying much. Any absurdity can be treated in a mathematically consistent manner.

This is in sharp contrast to a couple of years ago when I started a thread about special relativity (which has since been deleted in it's entirety by the moderators). That thread ended up being hundreds of pages long, and "defenders" were omnipresent.

I put "defenders" in scare quotes, because the objectors rarely even tried to address the arguments rationally. They were, with some rare exceptions, merely loud cheerleaders for "science" and Einstein, making unsupported claims about how special relativity had been PROVEN to be correct, while ceaselessly and repetitively asserting that anyone doubting that was ignorant, crazy, or both.

Times have changed. In this thread I have made some very basic, easy to understand, criticisms of SR. These points were supported by fact, acknowledged authorities, and elementary logic. Despite most of my posts getting multiple "downvotes," no one has presented a single relevant counter-argument addressing the substance of those posts.

1 Reply

SHEILA: Hey Bruce ! That drongo's back again...yer know,the one who doesn't understand what 'upside down' means !

BRUCE: Streuth ! Even these bloody sheep have got more sense. Give him a tinnie and tell him to go and play with Dale.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

no one has presented a single relevant counter-argument

Lay that's my reaction too. They all tell me I'm wrong but nobody has refuted my RR

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Well, Dale, I've already told you that I think it's utter nonsense, and spelled out a few of the reasons I came to that conclusion. But I suspect that you could hear that 1,000,000 times from 100,000 people, and never consider a word of what was being said to you, eh?

Actually, before ever making the post cited below, I knew it was a complete waste of time. But I had no pressing affairs to attend to, and didn't worry about killing some time, so....

https://able2know.org/topic/391613-3#post-6443758

I never did see you make any substantive response to these criticisms either. Your "responses" simply ignored virtually everything I had said.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I'll offer a brief objection or two to your theory for you to consider, Dale. Here's one of your propositions, as I understand it.

Lay thank you for the link

Quote:

If we consider a clock at a distance of (just for example) one light year from us and then
1.posit that clock there is currently exactly one calendar year behind ours, and then
2. emit a light signal in that direction, then
3. When it arrives, the clock there will read the same as ours did at the time the signal was sent, and therefore
4. We can say that it arrived at the very same time it was sent. So...
5. We can now say that the transmission was "instantaneous" and that the speed of light is, in essence, infinite.

I don't understand your objection, Lay, In essence you're repeating what I had said, and yes, you might 'consider' it infinite

Quote:

1. It would still take a year to get there.

No, no not at all what I had said. By RR the time to reach Marty can be thought of as 5 min to instantaneous

Quote:

What we "say" about clocks does not alter that in the least.

Well Lay, yes it sorta does. In another posting Isiad it can't 'really be' infinite, but that it might be 'looked at' as very high, many many times c. It's like relativity, you can 'consider' the object passin' by to be goin' at any speed you like

Quote:

2. The fallacy of equivocation is obvious. You can't treat two different "times" on two different clocks as identical when they were never synchronized to begin with.

I thot I had covered that. What I had suggested was to synchronize the two clocks using 'present' methods. But then I also suggested that one problem with Al's theories they 'subconsciously' do assume a sort of simultaneity, while with regard to underestimating the traveler's speed I look at time-at-Mars as indeterminate, that is, now plus or minus 5 min

Quote:

3. On what conceivable physical basis could you possibly justify arbitrarily saying that a clock 5 light minutes from you is five minutes slower, one 10 light minutes away is 10 minutes slower, etc.? The answer: None whatsoever that I can see.

That's not what I said. Marty'\s clock can be looked at as now plus or minus 5 min. In the case where we're discussing changes in the moving object, we can consider it readin' 5 minutes later; thus the trip might be considered instantaneous at an 'inifinite' speed; or at least, very fast

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Your "responses" simply ignored virtually everything I had said.

For example, I said this...

layman wrote:

What we "say" about clocks does not alter that in the least...The fallacy of equivocation is obvious. You can't treat two different "times" on two different clocks as identical when they were never synchronized to begin with.

....and your response is this:

dalehileman wrote:

Precisely. After 'synchronizing' the classical way, at noon here we can say it's noon there plus or minus 5 min

I said this:

layman wrote:

On what conceivable physical basis could you possibly justify arbitrarily saying that a clock 5 light minutes from you is five minutes slower, one 10 light minutes away is 10 minutes slower, etc.? The answer: None whatsoever that I can see.

and you say this:

dalehileman wrote:

Since my rockets have such incredible power, then, it's perfectly okay of me to report back, in addition, that my velocity was many times c

So YOU have rockets that travel at "many times c," and that's your "physical justification," eh?

It's non-sensical, Dale, sorry.

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

I could go on and on, Dale, but, as I said at the beginning, you're just falling into the same trap that Einstein did.

If "mars" is 3 light minutes away, and if it's clock could be "said" to be 3 light minutes behind ours, then how about the reverse?

Is our clock 3 minutes behind Mars', too, when it sends a signal our way? Is every single clock in the universe simultaneously both faster and slower than every other clock, so that things can work out "just right," in your theory, too?

The logical contradiction just multiply themselves.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

You can't treat two different "times" on two different clocks as identical when they were never synchronized to begin with

I don't think I exactly said that. Our clock and Marty's we had 'synchronized' earlier (than noon our time, as I 'mem') by the usu method, Lay, eg, by radio. So not 'identical' but 'Relatively Relative'

Quote:

On what conceivable physical basis could you possibly justify arbitrarily saying that a clock 5 light minutes from you is five minutes slower

The example I had used is when we're on Earth and I take off, unknownst to us Marty had left home 5 min 'earlier', so he's passing us in the opposite direction just as I take off. So his clock will appear to you 5 min earlier.

In other words by RR he's justified in considering his trip (almost) instantaneous

Quote:

So YOU have rockets that travel at "many times c," and that's your "physical justification," eh?

Ag'n Lay purty close but not 'zactly. What I said was that RR doesn't dispute either Al or Newt., that in the way we look at t-a-a-d so that it's okay to posit a change in the speed of light; that we had been underestimating it

Thus, eg, the reason we formerly thought it impossible to reach c is not that my body and ship change so drastically but 'cuz I'd hafta reach an 'infinite' velocity

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

Quote:

The example I had used is when we're on Earth and I take off, unknownst to us Marty had left home 5 min 'earlier', so he's passing us in the opposite direction just as I take off. So his clock will appear to you 5 min earlier.

Why in the hell would it "appear" that way, and if it did "appear" that way, would that make it factually true?

If your house is 5 minutes from mine, and you walk to mine and appear at my front door, then I can deduce that you left 5 minutes ago. But would your wristwatch "appear" to be 5 minutes slower than mine? What the hell is the connection?

If your watch just coincidentally happened to be set five minutes slower than mine, would I suddenly conclude that your travel was instantaneous?

No, I would just say that at least one of our clocks was wrong, that's all.

3 Replies

@layman,

I will say this, Dale. IF the speed of light were actually infinite, then we'd be right back to straight-forward Galilean relativity. In that framework t and t' are always the same.

There would be absolutely no reason to formulate, as Lorentz did, a mathematical formula to express how varying time rates affect out measurements. None of these "relativity" questions would have ever arisen in the first place.

The problem is that a countless number of experiments have repeatedly proved that the speed of light is finite, contrary to your premise.

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Why in the hell would it "appear" that way

Sorry Man if I wasn't clear, it's a diffi subj. You and I are on Earth. At noon I take off. But at that very instant Marty is passing by in his super vehicle, and when you look up you note that in spite of his speed, that his clock seems to be 'stuck' at 11:55

But would your wristwatch "appear" to be 5 minutes slower than mine?

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Why in the hell would it "appear" that way

Sorry Man if I wasn't clear, it's a diffi subj. You and I are on Earth. At noon I take off. But at that very instant Marty is passing by in his super vehicle, and when you look up you note in spite of his speed, that his clock seems to be 'stuck' at 11:55

Thus RR lets ya assume it's not a specific time back there, but only that it's 'tween 11;55 AND 12:05

Quote:

But would your wristwatch "appear" to be 5 minutes slower than mine?

Not 'less I walk real fast

Quote:

What the hell is the connection?

Sorry 'gin Lay, I'm not sure what you mean by that 'cause I wasn't entirely clear

Somebody, help me...

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

Somebody, help me...

At this point I think the best I can do is refer you back to my original suggestion, Dale, to wit:

https://able2know.org/topic/391613-3#post-6444312

0 Replies

BRUCE: Hey Sheila..that wasn't a normal Fosters tinnie was it !

SHEILA: Nah...I slipped a bit of donk in it.

BRUCE: Goodonya Girl !

0 Replies

@layman,

layman wrote:

fresco wrote:

Have you considered for example that mathematically a Geocentric model of the solar system is equivalent to a Heliocentric one...

You make a claim about what is "mathematically" true. Even assuming you're right (physicists deny this), this just goes to demonstrate (as Einstein and many others have noted) that mathematics, standing alone, can tell us nothing whatsoever about physical reality. It's irrelevant, so why try to pretend otherwise?

An observation:

I have frequently encountered people, including a fair number on A2K, who really think that physics IS mathematics. They seem to think that mathematical formulas make physical objects behave as they do. They do NOT seem to understand that math tells you absolutely NOTHING about physical reality.

Like logic, math is simply a tool, which was invented a priori. A syllogism can be perfectly "valid" yet utterly "unsound" and empirically absurd, for example:

1. All elephants are pink.
2. This animal is an elephant.
3. Therefore, this animal is pink.

That's impeccable logic, but again, logic tells you NOTHING about external reality.

Math is no different. It is merely "applied logic." You can take the most absurd physical proposition and create "impeccable" math to apply to it. So what?

Yet many seems to think that if they have mechanically performed some math calculation, then the result they arrive at PROVES the truth of proposition it is applied to. Oddly, many of those are self-proclaimed "scientists" who profess to "understand science."

What's up with that?

0 Replies

SHEILA: Hey Dale’s just phoned. The drongo’s still making a fool of himself round there.

BRUCE : The poor bugger’s got nothing better to do. Maybe we should send Wally round to sort him out with his big club !

SHEILA: Ah…ya mean the one with ‘elegance and predictive power’ written on it?

BRUCE: Too right !

2 Replies

@fresco,

It's pretty obvious who the "Sheila" is in these meaningless fictitious dialogues you keep postting, eh, Fresky?: YOU.

For those who may not know, "Shelia" is australian slang for an effeminate homosexual, eh?

0 Replies

BRUCE: The drongo thinks we're fictitious and that you're a bloke!

SHEILA: Bloody cheek ! Everybody knows that the only bent one round here is Barry. Even the sheep don't hang about when he's around.

BRUCE: Yeh - he must have flipped after Wally put the screws on him - very likely if ya don't know what 'upside down' means.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

drongo’s still making a fool of himself

Flattering to be named adter Australian racehorse

https://www.google.com/?client=safari&channel=mac_bm#channel=mac_bm&q=drongo

Quote:

got nothing better to do

Oh but I do, my Evening Brew

If someone woud ask an intelligible q I'd try an intelligent reply. No guarantee however

0 Replies

Fibre-linked atomic clocks put special relativity to the test

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know