How clueless can you be when discussing this physics. Claiming that measurements of the local coordinate speed of light are frame dependent. At the same time expect people interested in the science to take your analysis serious.
Is relativity of simultaneity measurable?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
How clueless can you be when discussing this physics. Claiming that measurements of the local coordinate speed of light are frame dependent. At the same time expect people interested in the science to take your analysis serious.
And so is slow clock transport, meaning that Ros is untestable under any synchronization convention, something that I have been showing you for the past 100 posts.
...which is exactly what post 95 has showed you. It is refreshing that after 100+ posts you are finally understanding.
False, you forget about $$a,b,d$$
False, you forget about $$a,b,d$$.
Besides, the "Lorentz transforms, which clearly show RoS" is NOT a test, you are confusing theory with experiment. Both you and Neddy Bate make this repeated mistake by considering the Lorentz transform a "test". Ever ran an experiment, Fednis?
Here you are mixing (again) the testing of Ros (untestable, as explained multiple times) with the testing of OWLS anisotropy (testable, as explained multiple times). The two aren't the same thing, you need to come to grips with this fact.
Please do so, it isn't very difficult to understand their claims.
I already explained that several times, by combining the testable fact that OWLS is isotropic (within the error bars of $$10^{-17}$$) with the fact that TWLS is isotropic by construction, (and obviously measurable) experimentalists arrived to the obvious conclusion that the two are equal. This is how the [exact value 299,792,458 has been assigned to OWLS. You need to get in the lab more.
This was OnlyMe's false claim relative to the two cited papers, not my claim, so you should erase the post to me and re-direct to him:
OnlyMe said:
Apologies for the blunder much?
You're not claiming that the local coordinate speed of light is frame dependent so I was referring to who made that assertion. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough.
I should have been more clear. I was talking about theories that match experimental results; experiments restrict the values of a, b, and d, so if we further restrict e by convention, there are no more free parameters.
I've been making it clear in my discussions with OnlyMe that the Lorentz transform isn't a test of RoS. What I'm trying to say is the following: it's entirely possible to show experimentally that E-synched clocks in different frames can disagree on whether two events are simultaneous. This does not prove relativity of simultaneity, because there is no way to validate the E-synching. But if we assume by convention that E-synching is right, it does show relativity of simultaneity-as-defined-by-E-synched-clocks. In SR thought experiments, like the ones that spawned this thread, relativity of simultaneity-as-defined-by-E-synched-clocks is an important thing to consider.
I get all that. The part that confuses me is how you can say that OWLS is known but E-synching cannot be experimentally validated. According to the "conventionality of simultaneity" page you linked, the correctness of E-synching and the isotropy of OWLS are equivalent. Please explain to me how you can think that one is testable but the other is not.
You still do not understand the fact that the experiments simply set boundaries on the parameters doesn't make the free parameters go away. This is the whole principle of the theory, you start with a parametric representation of the transforms and you use various experiments to place constraints on the free parameters. Placing numerical constraints on the free parameters doesn't make them any less "free", the next set of tests will constrain the parameters even further. Besides, most tests do not constrain individual parameters but combinations of thereof, I just showed you this. You should stop arguing the RMS theory until after you have read it. The way you are arguing shows that you are making up arguments as you go, in the absence of any knowledge of what the theory actually says or does.
Yet, in your answer to me, you claimed exactly the opposite.
You keep making this unsubstantiated claim. Yet, you cannot point at any experiment supporting your claim. There is no such experiment.
We aren't dealing with "though" experiments, the origin of this thread is , as the title says : "Is Ros measurable?". I challenged to find a way of measuring RoS, there is no such experiment. The best you could come up with was a deeply flawed thoght experiment, "eram's experiment", the one that I debunked in a few lines. Aside from not being a physically realizable experiment, "eram's experiment" is also flawed on the theoretical level since it took only two lines of math to prove that the RoS being "measured" is exactly....zero!
You keep repeating the same false interpretation of what you have been told, OWLS isn't measured (your "known" is a very unscientific term), it is inferred from the TWLS measurements and from the anisotropy measurements, both types of measurements being part of mainstream physics. This is how OWLS got its assigned value. You really need to learn theory of experiment, you clearly do not understand the very basics and this is blocking your understanding.
It's not my problem if you can't understand this. What I said: "How clueless can you be when discussing this physics. Claiming that measurements of the local coordinate speed of light are frame dependent. At the same time expect people interested in the science to take your analysis serious.". You never claimed the local coordinate speed of light is frame dependent so I wasn't referring to you. Stuff it.
But you cited my post instead of citing the offending post, you addressed me instead of addressing OnlyMe so it makes you look as if you agree with the fringe claim made by OnlyMe. So, I think that you need to correct your obvious blunder instead of being rude to me. It makes your post look goofy, as if you are the one who doesn't understand the issue.
I guess instead of saying there "there are no remaining free parameters", I should have said "all remaining parameters can be determined to arbitrary precision given strong enough experiments".
I certainly didn't intend to. I misspoke and/or your misunderstood me. Ever since I figured out what the parameter e meant, I've maintained that RoS is fundamentally untestable (or at least I've tried to).
So you really do think that no experiment could show that E-synched clocks in different frames disagree on the simultaneity of events. I'll cover this in a bit, when I have more time, but I'm quite convinced it's wrong.
I've told you twice now that you're looking for RoS in the wrong places in eram's experiment. If you consider the timing of the launches rather than the objects reaching the gate, it shows relativity of simultaneity-according-to-E-synch.
Whether OWLS are "measured" or "inferred", you maintain that we can experimentally determine their value to whatever experimental precision technology allows. But you also maintain that E-synch cannot be experimentally verified to arbitrary precision. How do you reconcile these views, given that your own sources say the isotropy of OWLS and the validity of E-synch are equivalent?
LOL
No, there isn't any "still that class of theories" for the mere reason that the papers use exactly "that class of theories" (specifically RMS and SME) in order to get the constraints on anisotropy. You did not read the papers, did you?
Besides, I just realized that you do not understand what "in principle indistinguishable" means. Out of curiosity, what do yo think it means?
You didn't read the whole rebuttal, you are still wrong.
Then, we are done, you are agreeing with what I've been telling you and there is nothing left to argue about.
You just contradicted yourself, which one is it, Fednis, A or B? It is either measurable or it isn't, make up your mind.
Err, fail. The point is that the AND gate shows a step function (from 0 to 1) so your "experiment" is incapable of measuring anything. If you could make it show a glitch (to zero) of width $$\frac{\gamma Lv}{c^2}$$ then you'd have a prayer for measuring RoS. As is, you are measuring $$T'_A-T'_B=0$$. In all frames. The key is measuring , you need to come to grips with the fact that real experiments measure, they don't "show". You know, if you could pull off the feat of measuring RoS with your "eram experiment", you'd be at par with Michelson and Morley, you'd be in line for the Nobel prize for having devised the experiment capable of measuring the ever elusive RoS.
Last edited:
Then, we are done, you are agreeing with what I've been telling you and there is nothing left to argue about.
...
You just contradicted yourself, which one is it, Fednis, A or B? It is either measurable or it isn't, make up your mind.
Two sets of E-synched clocks in different frames can be measured to disagree with each other regarding whether a pair of events is simultaneous. This would not technically be a measurement of RoS, for the sole reason that E-synching cannot be experimentally verified. There's no contradiction there.
I really have no idea what you're talking about. In particular, saying that "real experiments measure, they don't 'show'." is literally a meaningless statement, as far as I can tell. What do you consider to be the difference between an experiment "measuring" a given effect and an experiment simply "showing" that effect?
Also, you dropped the last part of my post. Whether OWLS are "measured" or "inferred", you maintain that we can experimentally determine their value to whatever experimental precision technology allows. But you also maintain that E-synch cannot be experimentally verified to arbitrary precision. How do you reconcile these views, given that your own sources say the isotropy of OWLS and the validity of E-synch are equivalent?
Like OnlyMe said, at least in the first paper you cited, they say in their introduction that they're improving the results of "modern Michelson-Morley experiments" by an order of magnitude. They don't make any claims about measuring any effects that were in principle un-measurable by Michelson-Morley. In particular, the Wikipedia page on RMS points out that there is a certain class of theories that make identical predictions for all experiments, so no test (including the ones you cited) could disprove any of them.
In the sense being discussed here, two theories are "in principle indistinguishable" if they make identical predictions for the results of all experiments. This means that there is no experiment, even in principle, that could support one while disproving the other.
Good enough, you have agreed that "RoS is fundamentally untestable", we're done.
To make it clear: the laughable experiment that you put together cannot measure anything but a zero value for RoS, i.e. no RoS while you kept claiming that "eram's experiment" "shows" RoS. That was the point.
I have already answered this question three times.
The point that you missed is that there aren't any other theories, the theories used by the experiments are all there is.
Good, you are getting this. The point is that while RMS and SME have a different formalism than SR, by virtue of being parametrized, by constraining their parameters via experiment they become indistinguishable from SR. As such, they are as valid as SR. Earlier you argued the opposite.
The positive thing is that you finally came out and admitted that "RoS is fundamentally untestable", as a matter of fact you claimed that you "maintained this this all along". We're done here.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Tach,
Can you please explain Einstein's thought experiment to me? Here is a link to it:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
I would like you to explain what is going on there. If RoS is not being measured, then what is being measured? Thanks.
Can you please explain Einstein's thought experiment to me? Here is a link to it:
http://www.bartleby.com/173/9.html
I would like you to explain what is going on there. If RoS is not being measured, then what is being measured? Thanks.
"Measuring" implies "measuring devices" taking "measurements". The mere fact that you ask the question demonstrates that you don't understand what measurement means. In the thought experiments like the one you posted, nothing is being measured.
There are no measuring devices in the thought experiment, you need to get in the lab and learn how to do real experiments. Thought experiments don't count. One more thing, for your information: contrary to your previously expressed misconceptions, the Lorentz transforms don't count as measuring devices. One last thing, such that you don't come back with a continuation of this utterly embarrassing post, RoS is not measurable. I suggest that you go back and you read the last 5 pages or so.
Neddy Bate
Valued Senior Member
Thanks for answering. What would your answer be if I were to rephrase my question like this, "If RoS is not being demonstrated, then what is being demonstrated?"
Not much use if you cannot measure what you want to "demonstrate", it means that you are stepping into metaphysics, you aren't doing physics.
It is equivalent to saying "We know that aliens visited the Earth but they had left no trace behind that we can identify".