1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.The second postulate is not a claim the one-way speed is c. It claims the velocity is "independent of the source velocity." In your experiment, everyone agrees it would be c for both. It is only a claim the one-way speed is c regardless of source
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
The second postulate is not a claim the one-way speed is c.
... One-way speed of light is directly observed by the Doppler shift...
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:40:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:inertial frames of reference."
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
The second postulate is not a claim the one-way speed is c.Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
There is no way to measure light speed because the measuring device is never at
rest and we do not know its motion in the unmarked.
On 11-Sept-23 11:51 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
There is no way to measure light speed because the measuring device is never atWe can measure the speed relative to the measuring device.
rest and we do not know its motion in the unmarked.
On 11-Sept-23 11:51 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:stop them at distance L away from O.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06?PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light
between OB. If Einstein's P2 is wrong then The one-way speed of light
between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
There is no way to measure light speed because the measuring device is never at rest and we do not know its motion in the unmarked.
We can measure the speed relative to the measuring device.
When it was found that this ratio could be measured more accurately
than the length unit could be realised in practice
the ratio c was defined, and the length unit was abolished.
(as a fundamental unit of the SI)
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:40:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:Really? Does it claims that the one-way speed of of light is isotropic in all frames???
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
The second postulate is not a claim the one-way speed is c.
Really?inertial frames of reference."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all
postulate.... One-way speed of light is directly observed by the Doppler shift...
Really?
You cannot measure the speed of light using the Doppler shift, that only tells you about the change in both frequency and wavelength as you observe light from a moving source. The speed of light remains c, a constant... as proclaimed in the second
This is high-school freshman stuff, first week in the course. Apparently you either have never taken a course in physics or you have forgotten everything that was taught to you. Read a dang textbook and quit embarrassing yourself with rank beginnermistakes!
On 10-Sept-23 5:27 am, Ken Seto wrote:My experiment only testing the isotropy of the one-way speed of light.
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
Measuring the one way speed of light requires a model of space time, but
in your proposed experiment you can avoid that just be appealing to
symmetry instead.
I suggest you spend the required amount of money to test this. No one
else is going to do it for you.
Sylvia.
On 11-Sept-23 11:51 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
There is no way to measure light speed because the measuring device is never atWe can measure the speed relative to the measuring device.
rest and we do not know its motion in the unmarked.
Sylvia
On Sunday, 10 September 2023 at 06:25:15 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:inertial frames of reference."
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 8:40:10 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions 4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
The second postulate is not a claim the one-way speed is c.Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity
"2. Second postulate (invariance of c)
As measured in any inertial frame of reference, light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c that is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body. Or: the speed of light in free space has the same value c in all
Most of your fellow idiots are denying that. Well,Relativity is like a hydra with many heads because it is totally inconsistent nonsense.
nobody should expect a bunch of fanatic clowns
to be able to detemine a common version of
anything.
It is make believe physics...
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is make believe physics...Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience.
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
On Sunday, September 10, 2023 at 11:29:04 PM UTC-7, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 11-Sept-23 11:51 am, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06 PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:We can measure the speed relative to the measuring device.
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
There is no way to measure light speed because the measuring device is never at
rest and we do not know its motion in the unmarked.
Sylvia
How do you measure the relative that shows it is not an absolute
order instead sylvia?
Mitchell Raemsch
Relativity is like a hydra with many heads because it is totally inconsistent nonsense.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is make believe physics...Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
On 9/12/23 10:48 AM, Ken Seto wrote:
The principles of physics are derived from postulates and postulatesThose postulates are used for mathematical derivations of useful
are assumed statements.
equations.
The principles of physics are derived from postulates and postulates
are assumed statements.
No one-way speed of light ever been measured.
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51?AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is make believe physics...
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience.
Of course, the induction is
always incomplete, e.g., in every closed system we've ever observed,
momentum is conserved, but we can never observe every closed system for
all time, so when constructing a physical theory we assume the principle
of momentum conservation, but this is not an arbitrary or conventional assumption, it is the most firmly of all empirically-founded propositions.
Similarly for the principle of relativity, which leaves only a single
degree of freedom in the relationship between the standard inertial coordinate systems (operationally established), and that degree of freedom
It is make believe physics...
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience.
Yes, and so what?
Of course, the induction is always incomplete, e.g., in every closed system
we've ever observed, momentum is conserved, but we can never observe
every closed system for all time, so when constructing a physical theory we
assume the principle of momentum conservation, but this is not an arbitrary
or conventional assumption, it is the most firmly of all empirically-founded
propositions.
So you need to postulate it.
Similarly for the principle of relativity, which leaves only a single degree of freedom in the relationship between the standard inertial coordinate systems (operationally established), and that degree of freedom
And a postulate is needed there too.
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and stop them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 2:27:34 AM UTC-4, Bill wrote:closed system for all time, so when constructing a physical theory we assume the principle of momentum conservation, but this is not an arbitrary or conventional assumption, it is the most firmly of all empirically-founded propositions. Similarly for the
On Monday, September 11, 2023 at 2:47:51 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:Not at all, The principles of physics are derived from postulates and postulates are assumed statements.
It is make believe physics...Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
For example: P2 is an assumed statement, No one-way speed of light ever been measured.
. .>https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:25556228-4404-3c67-b0cb-3d04d2636aaeOf course, the induction is always incomplete, e.g., in every closed system we've ever observed, momentum is conserved, but we can never observe every
Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The synchronisation
is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity
at a distance, there is only a useful convention for that). This is probably worth posting about in more detail sometime soon.
--
Jan
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
And a postulate is needed there too.
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02 PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
have done.
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of
spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to
have done.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims toHuh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with: ====================================================================== KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
have done.
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame \Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
in free space with constant speed c. ======================================================================
So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
of space-time geometry from experiment,
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to have done.Huh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with: ====================================================================== KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame \Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
in free space with constant speed c. ======================================================================
So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
of space-time geometry from experiment,
Jan
(Who holds that you cannot 'derive' anything at all from experiment.
The best you can do is to build theories that are empirically adequate)
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 4:29:33?AM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 3:54:02?PM UTC-5, J. J. Lodder wrote:
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
Nothing new of course, Euclid and Plato already knew that,
Unless I am misreading his paper, the derivation of the geometry of spacetime from experiment is precisely what Robertson (1949) claims to have done.Huh? You must indeed be misreading. Robertson starts out with: ====================================================================== KINEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1061896/files/RevModPhys.21.378.pdf
We --postulate-- [emp. Robertson] that there exists a reference frame \Sigma--Einstein's "rest system"-- [again, emp. Robertson]
in which light is propagated rectilinearly and isotropically
in free space with constant speed c. ======================================================================
So whatever he does, it is not a postulate-free 'derivation'
of space-time geometry from experiment,
Jan
(Who holds that you cannot 'derive' anything at all from experiment.
The best you can do is to build theories that are empirically adequate)
You are misreading what I wrote. I did -not- write that Robertson
was "postulate-free".
On Tuesday, September 12, 2023 at 1:54:02?PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
It is make believe physics...
to believe that relativity can be derived from experiments.
(or at least could have been derived, in principle)
It can't, a postulate of some kind is needed.
Not at all. The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity, are all derived from experience.
Yes, and so what?
You said relativity couldn't be derived from experiments, and I pointed
out that you were mistaken, and explained why. You're welcome.
Of course, the induction is always incomplete, e.g., in every closed system we've ever observed, momentum is conserved, but we can never observe every closed system for all time, so when constructing a
physical theory we assume the principle of momentum conservation, but this is not an arbitrary or conventional assumption, it is the most firmly of all empirically-founded propositions.
So you need to postulate it.
If by "postulate" you are referring to the fundamental process of
incomplete induction on which all empiricism and indeed all rational
thought is based, then your assertion is self-contradictory, because you
are saying principles of physics can't be derived from experiment, whereas the very meaning of "derived from experiment" is the process of incomplete induction.
We always observe that momentum is conserved, and from this we
infer the principle of conservation of momentum, which we have thereby derived from experience. If, on the other hand, you are just saying solipsism can't be disproven, well, grow up.
Similarly for the principle of relativity, which leaves only a single degree of freedom in the relationship between the standard inertial coordinate systems (operationally established), and that degree of freedom
And a postulate is needed there too.
Nope, not in any grown-up meaningful sense. You just don't understand special relativity.
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
I've not asserted anything about "geometry". I've pointed out that we can operationally construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at
rest and inertially synchronized, and then by direct observation we can determine that the readings on two such grids are related by a Lorentz transformation. This is an operational procedure with specific
operational results.
Of course, we can't do this infinitely many times in infinitely many
places, etc., but we can do it enough times in enough places to become as convinced as it is possible to be of anything that this is a general
result, which is what grown-ups call deriving Lorentz invariance from experience.
If you do not call this deriving from experience, then you
are denying that deriving from experience has any meaning, and you just
are a juvenile solipsist.
On Saturday, September 9, 2023 at 12:27:06?PM UTC-7, Ken Seto wrote:
1. Three clocks A, B and O are co-located in one spot.
2. Synchronize them.
3. Physically measure a distance L from O in the opposite directions
4. Send A and B in the opposite directions at equal speed mechanically and s
top them at distance L away from O.
5 Measure the one-way speed of light as follows:
-- One-way speed of light between O and A.
--One-way speed of light between O and B then
If Einstein's P2 is correct then
The one-way speed of light between OA = The one-way speed of light between OB.
If Einstein's P2 is wrong then
The one-way speed of light between OB =/ The one-way speed of light between OA..
Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The synchronisation
is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no such thing as simultaneity at a distance, there is only a useful convention for that). This is probably worth posting about in more detail sometime soon.
JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> wrote:
Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The
synchronisation is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no
such thing as simultaneity at a distance, there is only a useful
convention for that). This is probably worth posting about in more
detail sometime soon.
Indeed. That is part of the didactics.
My take on it: One can wonder what the flash of insight was that
seems to have hit Einstein, sometime in spring 1905. (after worrying
about it all for about ten years)
My personal guess is that Einstein's flash of insight was that the
answer to the question: In which inertial system are Maxwell's
equations valid? must be: All of them! (and hence an entirely new
and original view of space-time)
It is 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' with good reason,
(and not 'On laying out rulers and synchronising clocks')
On 9/13/23 3:51 PM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
JanPB <fil...@gmail.com> wrote:
Most people here don't know that special relativity does not
require any clock synchronisation for its definition. The
synchronisation is merely a convenience (in relativity there is no
such thing as simultaneity at a distance, there is only a useful
convention for that). This is probably worth posting about in more
detail sometime soon.
Indeed. That is part of the didactics.I think it goes deeper than that -- without clock synchronization, what
does 'moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c' mean without being able to measure it (which
requires synchronized clocks)?
My take on it: One can wonder what the flash of insight was that
seems to have hit Einstein, sometime in spring 1905. (after worrying
about it all for about ten years)
My personal guess is that Einstein's flash of insight was that the
answer to the question: In which inertial system are Maxwell's
equations valid? must be: All of them! (and hence an entirely new
and original view of space-time)
Yes, Stated differently, his insight was that Maxwell's equations are a
law of physics, and thus subject to the PoR.
And his genius was that
this requires a complete revision of how we view space and time.
It is 'On the electrodynamics of moving bodies' with good reason,
(and not 'On laying out rulers and synchronising clocks')
Yes.
The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity,
are all derived from experience.
Yes, and so what?
You said relativity couldn't be derived from experiments, and I pointed out that you were mistaken, and explained why. You're welcome.
You are playing false.
What you said was 'derived from experience'.
If by "postulate" you are referring to the fundamental process of incomplete induction on which all empiricism and indeed all rational thought is based, then your assertion is self-contradictory, because you are saying principles of physics can't be derived from experiment, whereas the very meaning of "derived from experiment" is the process of incomplete induction.
So you -are- a naive empiricist. A very naive one even.
We always observe that momentum is conserved, and from this we
infer the principle of conservation of momentum, which we have thereby derived from experience. If, on the other hand, you are just saying solipsism can't be disproven, well, grow up.
You really should learn to avoid those straw men of yours.
There just is no way in which you can -derive-
the geometry of spacetime from experience.
(or any other geometry, for that matter)
I've not asserted anything about "geometry". I've pointed out that we can operationally construct a grid of standard rulers and clocks mutually at rest and inertially synchronized, and then by direct observation we can determine that the readings on two such grids are related by a Lorentz transformation. This is an operational procedure with specific
operational results.
How are you going to do that without postulating something?
Of course, we can't do this infinitely many times in infinitely many places, etc., but we can do it enough times in enough places to become as convinced as it is possible to be of anything that this is a general result, which is what grown-ups call deriving Lorentz invariance from experience. If you do not call this deriving from experience, then you are denying that deriving from experience has any meaning, and you just are a juvenile solipsist.
I don't mind, being in good company, such as Einstein 1905,
On Wednesday, September 13, 2023 at 1:51:11 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
The principles of physics, including the principle of relativity,
are all derived from experience.
Yes, and so what?
You said relativity couldn't be derived from experiments, and I pointed out that you were mistaken, and explained why. You're welcome.
You are playing false.What falseness are you referring to? Are you struggling with the fact that experiments are experience? Or with the English meanings of "derive"?
What you said was 'derived from experience'.
Relativity is like a hydra with many heads because it is totally
inconsistent nonsense.
On 9/11/23 1:23 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
Relativity is like a hydra with many heads because it is totally inconsistent nonsense.Not true.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 312 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 15:54:49 |
Calls: | 6,983 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 12,416 |
Messages: | 5,452,220 |
Posted today: | 1 |