Call for a Paradigm Shift in Fundamental Physics

On Sep 30, 12:33*pm, GSS wrote:
On Sep 30, 9:02*pm, glird wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:53*am, GSS wrote:
In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame.


It was neither postulate 1 or 2; it was Einstein's method of setting clocks to MEASURE the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A to B and back again the same each way. *THAT method of esynching clocks (which he defined as "synchronism") is why the time of a given system is dependent on the position of a clock in a given system and the state of motion (whether known or not) of that system.

No, in my opinion, Einstein's synchronization procedure was defined
that way in order to sustain the second postulate.

Agreed. Even so, it wasn't the postulate that light travels at c in
empty space, it was that method of setting clocks that "rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame."

glird

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT), GSS
wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:02*pm, glird wrote:
On Aug 31, 9:53*am, GSS wrote: In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is

an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference
frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame.

* It was neither postulate 1 or 2; it was Einstein's method of setting
clocks to MEASURE the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A
and b and back again the same each way. *THAT method of esynching
clocks (which he defined as "synchronism") is why the time of a given
system is dependent on the position of a clock in a given system and
the state of motion (whether known or not) of that system.

glird

No, in my opinion, Einstein's synchronization procedure was defined
that way in order to sustain the second postulate.

He knew he could get away with it because Ritz had convinced him that there was
no aether and light was ballistic....but Ritz died and Einstein made more money
by selling his own crappy theory to a bunch of opportunistic idiots like those
who support him here.

GSS


Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

On Sep 30, 7:46 pm, funkenstein wrote:
On Sep 29, 7:43 pm, GSS wrote:
....
Friends,
On the issue of detection of absolute motion in space,

I assume that by "absolute motion in space" you mean "motion relative
to the space-time medium". Motion is ALWAYS relative so "absolute" is
the wrong word to use.

There is no such physical entity as space-time medium. The notion of
spacetime continuum, as used in Relativity, is only a mathematical
construct. In this regard kindly refer to my original post under this
thread and also refer to:
http://sites.google.com/a/fundamenta...attredirects=0

through
measurement of tiny differences in the up-link and down-link signal
propagation times between two 'fixed' points, I had prolonged
discussions with Craig Markwardt. Apart from a few 'harsh' comments,
the discussions were generally pleasant and useful. The fact that he
did not refute my final arguments on the issue implies that he
conceded my viewpoint regarding invalidation of second postulate of
SR.

Any Relativity expert who does not agree with my viewpoint presented
in my last post of Aug 31, is welcome to give a detailed justification
for any disagreement.

During my discussions with Craig, I got the impression that a lot of
confusion prevails in Relativity regarding the notion of instantaneous
time readouts of digital atomic clocks, especially when these clocks
are "stationary" or in "motion" in different reference frames.

Regarding the notion of *stationary system* Einstein makes it clear in
the opening part of his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies".
[Let us take a system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good. In order to render our presentation
more precise and to *distinguish this system of co-ordinates verbally
from others* which will be introduced hereafter, we call it the
''stationary system.'' ]

As per Relativity, all Inertial Reference Frames (IRF) in relative
uniform motion, constitute a Group of equivalent reference frames. No
particular member of this group can be considered special or preferred
or unique. Hence, out of this group of IRF in relative uniform motion,
there is no particular IRF which is designated as ''stationary
system.'' On the other hand, as per the term used by Einstein, while
comparing two or more IRF, any one of the IRF could be *called* the
''stationary system'' to distinguish it verbally from others.
Therefore, as per Einstein's usage of the term, at any time, any one
of the BCRF, GCRF and the Galactic Reference Frame could be *called*
the ''stationary system''.

Further, as per Einstein,
[We have so far defined only an ''A time'' and a ''B time.'' We have
not defined a common ''time'' for A and B, for the latter cannot be
defined at all unless we establish by *definition* that the ''time''
required by light to travel from A to B equals the ''time'' it
requires to travel from B to A. Let a ray of light start at the ''A
time'' t_A from A towards B, let it at the ''B time'' t_B be reflected
at B in the direction of A, and arrive again at A at the ''A time''
t'_A. ]

[In accordance with definition the two clocks synchronize if
t_B - t_ A = t'_A - t_B.]

[It is essential to have time defined by means of stationary clocks in
the stationary system, and the time now defined being appropriate to
the stationary system we call it "the time of the stationary system."]

This notion of "time of the stationary system" implies the fixed
location of identical clocks at all points of space and synchronized
in accordance with Einstein synchronization convention.

Let us designate the "stationary system" defined above as inertial
reference frame K, in which the two clocks located at points A and B,
separated by constant distance D, are "stationary". Therefore, as per
the definition of the time of the stationary system K,
t_B - t_ A = t'_A - t_B

However, in relativity, most often the symbol t is used to depict the
instantaneous time of a "stationary" clock and t' is used to depict
the instantaneous time of a "moving" clock. To avoid any ambiguity in
subsequent discussions, we shall use the symbol T (in place of t') to
depict the instantaneous time of a "moving" clock. Further, in such
time depiction, we shall also include the notation of the IRF in which
the position and velocity of the clock is referenced, such as t(K) or
T(K) for the times of stationary and moving clocks in reference frame
K.

Now consider two spacecraft A and B, separated by distance D, and
moving in reference frame K with a common velocity U along AB. Let us
assume that both spacecraft are fitted with ultra-stable identical
precision atomic clocks, which have been perfectly synchronized to UTC
time standard. Let a signal pulse be transmitted from spacecraft A
(moving clock) at time T_A(K) towards B. Let this pulse reach B at
time T_B(K) and get reflected back to reach A at time T'_A(K). Then
the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td) signal propagation times are given
by,
Tu = T_B(K) - T_A(K) ........ (1)
Td = T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ......... (2)
Considering the fact that during up-link signal propagation time Tu,
the spacecraft B moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we get the total up-
link signal path as,
D + U*Tu = c*Tu ......... (3)

Similarly, considering the fact that during down-link signal
propagation time Td, the spacecraft A moves ahead by distance U*Tu, we
get the total down-link signal path as,
D - U*Td = c*Td ......... (4)
Subtracting equation (4) from (3), we get
c*(Tu - Td) = U*(Tu + Td) .... (5)
Or (Tu - Td) = (U/c)*(Tu + Td) .... (6)
and U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)

It is important to note here that T_A(K) and T_B(K) are the
instantaneous time readouts of atomic clocks A and B which are
"moving" in reference frame K with a velocity U along direction AB.
Since these are the readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-link and down-
link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by equations (1) and (2)
are not expected to be equal. As per Relativity, the instantaneous
time readouts of "moving" clocks can be transformed to the
corresponding time readouts of "stationary" clocks in reference frame
K, through Lorentz Transformation (LT).
t_A(K) = LT{T_A(K)}
t_B(K) = LT{T_B(K)}
t'_A(K) = LT{T'_A(K)} ...... (8)

Now in accordance with Einstein convention for synchronization of
"stationary" clocks
t_B(K) - t_ A(K) = t'_A(K) - t_B(K) ...... (9)

We can attach an inertial reference frame K1 with the two spacecraft A
and B, which are moving in reference frame K, such that their
separation distance D remains constant. In K1 frame the two spacecraft
clocks can be regarded as fixed or "stationary" and their
instantaneous time readouts corresponding to T_A(K), T_B(K) and T'_A
(K) can be written as t_A(K1), t_B(K1) and t'_A(K1) respectively.
Again as per Relativity, the instantaneous time readouts of
"stationary" clocks in inertial reference frame K1 can be transformed
to the corresponding time readouts of "stationary" clocks in reference
frame K, through Lorentz Transformation.
t_A(K) = LT{t_A(K1)}
t_B(K) = LT{t_B(K1)}
t'_A(K) = LT{t'_A(K1)} ...... (10)

However, the Lorentz Transformations (8) and (10) correspond to the
same physical situation in which the instantaneous digital time
readouts of clocks A and B are transformed to the corresponding
timings of the "stationary" clocks in reference frame K. That implies
the identity of instantaneous digital time readouts of the clocks
considered "moving" in reference frame K and "stationary" in reference
frame K1. As such,
T_A(K) = t_A(K1)
T_B(K) = t_B(K1)
T'_A(K) = t'_A(K1) ........ (11)

Further, as per Einstein's *definition* of time in a "stationary
system", the up-link and down-link signal propagation times are
*assumed* to be equal in reference frame K1. Therefore,
t_B(K1) - t_ A(K1) = t'_A(K1) - t_B(K1) ...... (12)

As noted earlier, for the time readouts of "moving" clocks, the up-
link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td given by
equations (1) and (2) are not expected to be equal.
T_B(K) - T_A(K) T'_A(K) - T_B(K) ..... (13)
Or Tu - Td 0
And U/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) .... (7)

Equations (11), (12) and (13) bring out a devastating contradiction
that the signal propagation times Tu and Td are supposed to be equal
(equation (12)) when the clocks A and B are considered "stationary" in
reference frame K1 but are supposed to be un-equal (equation (13))
when the same clocks are viewed as "moving" in reference frame K.

Not so. You need to be more specific what you mean by D. It looks
like you want to use a Lorentzian relativity in which the space-time
medium is specifically considered, and calculations are carried out
from the rest frame of said medium, in which the speed of light is c.
If so, the distance D' between these spacecraft in the rest frame of
the medium is a function of the distance measured in the moving frame

Distance D between points A and B is assumed to be constant during the
period of test. For example distance D between two mobile
communication towers can be considered as constant or fixed. For the
proposed test, we don't need to make any measurement of this distance.

Even if you wish to employ the notion of Lorentz contraction of length
in different inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion, it
will make no difference to the computations given above. For the sake
of argument, assume that distance D in the local or the laboratory
frame *becomes* or *appears to be* D' in reference frame K such that
we can write D' = D(K). Now, when the clocks A and B are viewed as
"moving" clocks in reference frame K, if we replace the term D in
equations (3) and (4) above with D(K), the result given by equations
(6) and (7) will still remain the same. That is because the terms D or
D(K) get canceled out and do not affect the result of the proposed
experiment.

GSS

(using a light reflection) and also on the speed through the medium.
You'll find that in the end the speed of the medium will cancel out
and is not detectable. This medium is indeed superfluous in such
relativistic calculations, including it also works to match
predictions but is clumsy and adds work.

Cheers -

Henry Wilson DSc wrote:

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 09:33:31 -0700 (PDT), GSS
wrote:


On Sep 30, 9:02 pm, glird wrote:

On Aug 31, 9:53 am, GSS wrote: In classical physics, the notion of time, as a measure of change, is

an absolute measure independent of position coordinates or reference
frames. However, in relativity the second postulate has rendered the
notion of time as a relative measure, dependent on the position
coordinates as well as the state of motion of the reference frame.

It was neither postulate 1 or 2; it was Einstein's method of setting
clocks to MEASURE the time it takes a ray of light to travel from A
and b and back again the same each way. THAT method of esynching
clocks (which he defined as "synchronism") is why the time of a given
system is dependent on the position of a clock in a given system and
the state of motion (whether known or not) of that system.

glird

No, in my opinion, Einstein's synchronization procedure was defined
that way in order to sustain the second postulate.


He knew he could get away with it because Ritz had convinced him that there was
no aether and light was ballistic....but Ritz died and Einstein made more money
by selling his own crappy theory to a bunch of opportunistic idiots like those
who support him here.

Ralph is back to lies on this thread.



GSS



Henry Wilson...www.scisite.info/index.htm

Einstein...World's greatest SciFi writer..

On Oct 3, 10:34 am, ASS wrote:

In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them,

Imbecile. Persistent.

On Oct 4, 1:27 am, "Dono." wrote:
On Oct 3, 10:34 am, GSS wrote:
....
In this regard I have already shown that out of a group of inertial
reference frames in relative uniform motion, the speed of light
propagation c can be an isotropic constant in only one of them,
.....
A digital atomic clock, which is "stationary" in its local or
laboratory reference frame (say K1) on earth, can be viewed as in
"motion" in BCRF (say K2) as well as in the Galactic reference frame
(say K3). If at any instant we obtain a digital time readout of t1,
then this physical measurement will correspond to the instantaneous
reading of a "stationary" clock in reference frame K1 as well as the
instantaneous reading of a "moving" clock in reference frames K2 and
K3. Similarly, when we measure the up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td)
signal propagation times between two clocks A and B, which are
"moving" at velocity U2 along AB in reference frame K2, then it can be
easily shown that,
U2/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ....... (1)

But the same two clocks can be simultaneously viewed as "moving" at
velocity U3 along AB in reference frame K3, and hence it can be easily
shown that,
U3/c = (Tu - Td)/(Tu + Td) ...... (2)

However, equations (1) and (2) cannot both be valid simultaneously
because U2 U3. This contradiction brings us to the conclusion that
the speed of light propagation c cannot be an isotropic constant in
more than one inertial reference frames in relative uniform motion.
And the reference frame in which the speed of light propagation is an
isotropic constant is referred as absolute or universal reference
frame. For detailed analysis on this issue, kindly refer to sections 2
and 3 of the following article.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...attredirects=0

GSS