On 3/4/07, Stephen A. Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I will let you have the last shot; I won't be replying on this topic in this mailing list after this message.
Fine with me, but you'd better read what I wrote as it took too long to type to be ignored. John Berry wrote:
> On 3/3/07, *Stephen A. Lawrence* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > John Berry wrote: > > > It is the only possible model as SR is illogical > > Well, that sure shoots down SR. > > > SR has many logical inconsistencies <snip> To learn relativity is to understand it, and if you did that, then you would see that it's not internally inconsistent. However, that takes a lot more effort than just calling it "illogical".
I spent years learning it, believed it, looked for holes and failed to find any. Then when I saw them I was shocked at how obvious they were. Here is a simple one, it's called the twin paradox for a reason. If you have 2 twins and one stays on earth and the other one travels to a distant star and returns then SR states that the traveling twin still has youthful good looks while the other has long been pushing up daises after dying of old age. Now what if these twins had some form of instantaneous communication between them, then we could easily measure the different rates of time each twin experiences, we could even find the stationary reference frame. Of course SR says that you can't have instantaneous communication and relies on the doppler effect which will effect any light based communication attempts, but doppler time shift is not time dilation but a separate effect, you could very well calculate the doppler effect and reconstruct the real rate of passage of time the other twin is experiencing. SR then says 'no no no, it's not the velocity difference it is the acceleration one twin faces that makes the difference'. And yes the twin who stays home may easily go under more acceleration by being on s spinning body orbiting a star, driving everywhere. Also the thing about thought experiments is they aren't limited to what is comfortable or practical only what is technically possible in order to exaggerate something to make a point. So the traveling twin may accelerate based on either twins clocks to the final velocity (let's say .99c) in a mere fraction of a second. Furthermore there are a number of ways to have instantaneous communication. (or near instantaneous communication that has no Doppler time shift) One way is to have two parallel almost infinatly long trains in space, they start of stationary with the twins in opposite carriages, but first a few details. Each cabin has a clock (which as designed to be easily read by those of the other train even at relativistic speeds), it is generally accepted that there are many ways by which a number of observes at a distance in the same reference frame may synchronize their watches Also each cabin how it's own propulsion unit and again it is able to reach near lightspeeds in under a second by any observers watch. Now one of the twins accelerates, each can keep an eye on the rate of time the other train is observing, if they each sees the other as experiencing time slower then themselves then when the trains are stopped each will have different expectations, they simply can't match. There is another way however, you can have one twin stay of earth and the other twin orbit the earth at near light speed. You see the twin paradox always assume the twins are moving away from each other but in the case of orbit where they can constantly communicate or for that matter merely flying by where they get a moment to observe the rate of time the other experience and communicate without Doppler distortion. There are yet more problems. Let's say we now have 3 parallel close trains with open beds, we'd better put them on earth so no one suffocates. We will have 2 flash bulbs of each train, each a set distance apart and an observees on each train positioned in the middle of the 2 flash bulbs, if the bulbs go off at the same time the short sharp photon pulse reach the observes and he sees a single bright flash. Now let the middle train not move, let the bulbs flash at 12:00 and at 12:01 (it's slow light ok ;) the observer on that train see a bright flash from each bulb simultaneously. However at 12:00 as the bulbs go off the train to the right was moving down the track, at that exact moment the observer on the right train passes the observer on the middle stationary train. The observer on the right train expects to see the bulbs flashes simultaneously because he was in the middle when they went off (and if there were a bunch of censors along the right train they would demand to see the pulses from each bulb advance from detector detector and hence must meet in the middle). Furthermore in case you are unsure you could have (different colour?) bulbs on the moving right train that go off simultaneously and right next to the bulbs on the middle train, obviously the observer on the right train would insist on seeing the bulbs on it's own train similtaniously. Now here is the really tricky part, if that didn't convince you SR is flawed as it require the same pulses to pass each other multiple times, in different places depending on the reference frame. Now in the above example where the right train sees the impulses from the stationary frames bulbs simultaneousness, as does the observer on the stationary frame (but not a second observer on the stationary frame/train where the observer on the right train does experience the pulses simultaneously), indeed we could have the left train we have ignore until now also moving. Now what happens when just as the observer on the left train detects the simultaneous pulses the train stops (or the observer jumps) and finds them right next to a second observer on the stationary train, this observer would have recieved the pulse from the closer bulb but not yet the more distant one. So now we have to observers in the same place and frame, one who has seen 2 pulses one who has seen just one, so when the always stationary observer sees the second more distant bulbs pulse what of the previously moving observer does he see this pulse a second time? BTW I am well aware of length contraction also however it doesn't effect any of the above experiments, it might require there to be different sets of bulbs or trains to be replaced by individual vehicles. Ok, so you got me to reply. SR may be wrong -- which is something to be determined by experiment --
but it is not inconsistent. because if you did you would > agree rather than quip. > > > > > If so, how you do you account for the results of the > Michelson-Morley > > and Sagnac experiments in your model? These two brought down the > > "classical" aether theories, along with the ballistic > theory. (Or do > > you deny that MMX actually got a null result?) > > > > > > Oh boy, do your own research. > > OK, I guess that answers the question. > > > I guess you didn't read the next part where I did in fact go over the > reasons why the MMX in no way disproves an entrained aether. Oh, yes, you said "maybe" their result wasn't really null, "maybe" their experiment was highly flawed, and "maybe" "many" "better" experiments give a nonnull result. AFAIK the last "maybe" is flatly false; their experiment has been repeated many times in a number of forms and the results are consistently null. The first "maybe" -- that their original result was nonnull -- is also false, in that their result was null to within their error bars. You also said an "entrained" ether predicts a null result -- that's true, but a fully dragged ether runs into trouble with the Sagnac experiment. Sagnac requires Fresnel dragging, which is a very particular form of partial entrainment, to be consistent with an aether, but that, in turn, is inconsistent with the null result of MMX. (And the Sagnac effect is used in commercial devices; there's no debate at all about the result of that particular experiment. Your sloppy notion of some kind of entrainment which would just happen to be consistent with MMX in a basement doesn't make it in the face of the Sagnac results.) Alternatively, you can explain both experiments with a Lorentz ether, but then you find yourself with a theory which matches SR in every testable prediction. > > You seem to be more interested in cheap shots than science or truth. You misunderstand. I'm interested in science and math, as well as truth. IMO your position isn't based on any of those.
