Wondering about clock transport

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by timewarp, Oct 22, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    ...meaning that you cannot use the limiting approach since \(t(du+dv)->\infty . 0\)
    This underscores a serious weakness in your proof.
    Now, before you rush to try fixing it, let me point out that your second claim is falsified by experiment: the atomic clocks making up the UTC, though separated by different distances and though moving at different (and variable speeds, so you cannot claim that they are at rest wrt each other or that they have ever been at rest wrt each other because there is no such frame where they are at rest wrt each other) are in synch in the ECI frame. You will need to reflect on this fact.

    ...because you have a lot of errors and holes in your explanation. Over these 80 posts, I have shown you several of the. Please don't attack me, I am not attacking you, I am simply pointing out the errors in your claims and proofs.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2011
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    The concept and purpose of separating synchronized clocks at an "infinitely slow" velocity is well known even by non-physicists and doesn't need a rigorous proof here. The OP was asking about the purpose of it, and the answer is that it allows a stationary clock and its synchronized partner to be separated while remaining arbitrarily close to staying in synch.

    Tach, I find you unnecessarily rude and abrasive. Also, if you're going to be nit-picking and pedantic you cannot also change previous posts to wipe out your own errors in order to pretend they did not happen. You are guilty of this more than anyone on this forum that I know of. If your maturity level catches up with your math skills you'll be a fine contributor around here.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Precisely. What Pete and I were discussing is a certain claim that he made which proved to be false.


    I do not see you contributing anything (outside a personal attack). Nor do I see why are you lying about any post editing. So, I must conclude that you have some older grudge for showing you wrong in the past and that you are simply trolling.

    It must be some grudge, I don't remember last time I proved you a fake. Can you tell me what axe you are grinding? When did I last proved you wrong? Otherwise, if you have nothing of value to contribute, please let me continue with Pete, we have interesting business to settle.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I don't believe we've ever crossed paths, and I have no axe to grind, just offering up some advice. You're trying to corner Pete into admitting a mistake (which may or may not exist; the topic doesn't interest me and it also isn't pertinent to the OP) while you personally have such a problem with doing so that you'll rewrite history and hope no one notices.

    Be careful here, because if you press the issue I'll go searching for references to threads in which your mistakes are quoted yet do not exist in your (edited) post. I'm certain I'm not the only one here that has seen this happen.
     
  8. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    In translation: you don't know what Pete and I are discussing.

    So, you are just trolling.
     
  9. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,136
    I don't think I'm trolling, just trying to improve the atmosphere of the forum. Pedantic hypercriticism tends to shy people away from contributing. I'm the third person to point this out to you in this thread.
     
  10. timewarp Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    Repeating my diagram:
    Frame A
    -------[0]--------------- -->
    --------S~~>light
    ---<--[0]--------------------
    Frame B

    Frame A
    ------------[?]-----90m-------[300ns] -->
    -------S-------------------------->light
    [?]------------150m-----------[500ns]
    Frame B

    Thanks for your comments. (BTW, regarding the subject of this thread, I just wanted to get someone to admit that the grand purpose of very slow transport is to preserve the initial absolute synchronization.)

    Re your above, I might ask you about said clocks How does merely being in different frames justify different readings on clocks that are hit by the light ray at absolutely the same time? The clocks are in the same universe, aren't they?

    Re the second part of your above, I think you are a bit confused; only the two origin clocks had a unique zero-matching moment (when the light was emitted at S).

    I must still insist that two touching clocks must not read different times under any and all circumstances. If they do, then they are conflicting with reality.

    Maybe it will help to show the "opposite" case pictorially.

    The origin clocks start on zero as the light ray is emitted from source S.

    (As shown, B moves to the right relative to A.)

    (It is not critical that the two distant clocks be exactly side-by-side as shown; all that matters is that both observers find the same distance x between their own clocks, and this is a given.)

    Frame A
    clock starts clock (unstarted)
    [0]--------x------[x/c]
    S~~>light
    [0]--------x------[x/c] -->
    clock starts clock (unstarted)
    Frame B

    In order to obtain Einstein's c invariance, we will now let each distant clock start when it is "hit" by the light ray. In our next diagram, we show this happening to A's distant clock:

    Frame A clock starts
    [?]-------x------[x/c]
    S------------------>light
    --------[?]-------x------[x/c] -->
    Frame B clock (unstarted)

    At this point, we see that Einstein's clocks will conflict with reality by being forced to read the same time x/c at absolutely different times.

    Note that light-like events have an absolute before-and-after time order, and the two clock-starting events are light-like. So not only do we know for certain that the clocks were actually started at absolutely different times, but A's clock was actually started absolutely _before_ B's.

    Therefore, not only is there _no_ justification whatsoever for placing the same time "x/c" on _any_ frame's distant clock, much less on the clocks of _all_ frames, but doing this directly conflicts with the simple reality that the clocks in all frames are started _absolutely_ _sequentially_ by the light ray.

    Einstein's second "postulate" conflicts with reality by forcing clocks that are started at truly different times to read the same time and by forcing clocks that are "hit" by a light ray at the same time to read different times when hit.

    Such silly shenanigans will not happen with truly synchronous clocks.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. timewarp Registered Member

    Messages:
    30
    I wrote:
    This is the only way to show one-way invariance on paper. However, it forces two adjacent clocks to read different times, and this, as we have seen, is a no-no.

    The fact that they are not synchronized is the reason for the no-no. Asynchronous clocks are a no-no. And since Einstein's c invariance calls for asynchronous clocks, his postulate is also a no-no.

    I wrote:
    As we have seen, Einstein's assumed "c invariance" cannot happen even on paper because it causes clocks to conflict with reality.

    It's not only about absolute synchronization, but it is about the simplest of facts that two touching clocks must always read the same time in order to be properly related. If two people are born in the same hospital near each other, such as twins, then everyone readily admits that were born at absolutely the same time. (This same-place, same-time deal is the basis for the twin paradox case, just as it is for the clock transport case.)

    If two touching clocks do not read the same time, then one of them is lying.
    And science should not embrace lying clocks, should it?

    As I said just above, it is not only about absolute synchronization.
    But your question here is a bit strange; we all agree that two touching clocks can easily be absolutely synchronized, and that makes absolute synchronization a part of reality, not to mention the fact that two spatially-separated clocks could be truly synchronized if only by sheer accident. Then truly synchronized separated clocks would be a part of reality.

    You got that right. However, this is no excuse for not only settling for less, but demanding that we settle for less, as did Einstein. He gleefully tossed aside truly synchronous clocks, and just as gleefully replaced them with his asynchronous clocks.

    We need to find a way to (truly) synchronize clocks. How long have you searched so far? (I have searched long enough to think that I have found a way.)
     
  12. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,303
    But that in itself already conflicts with reality.
    It's probably impossible to synchronise two mechanisms "absolutely"; we can get quite close for practical purposes. Beyond atto- and femtoseconds an interval of time starts to lose meaning.

    As the resolution gets smaller or finer, the synchronisation problem gets bigger. Your condition seems unreasonable if not impossible.
    I don't think that's an accurate description of Einstein synchronisation. He discusses quite clearly in his original paper what it means to synchronise clocks to the same time; he doesn't claim that light travels at infinite speed either. That must mean he understood that the synchronisation process has to account for the time it takes light to move between clocks.

    Let's see it. If you have, then you're ahead of the game for sure. You've out-Einsteined Einstein.
     
  13. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Hi timewarp,
    I don't understand what this diagram is demonstrating.

    Do you understand that this is wrong, that slow transport does not preserve absolute synchronization?

    For clocks in different places, we just can't tell if they are synchronized unless we first know have fast they are moving.
    And there's a catch, catch 22:
    We just can't tell how fast something is moving unless we first have synchronized clocks in different places.

    This universe just doesn't seem to rely on absolute synchronization.

    Any clock shows elapsed time in arbitrary units from some initial condition.
    Since there is no universal initial condition or universal standard that all clocks must adhere to, it's no surprise that we regularly find clocks with different readings:
    • The watch on my arm show the number of hours elapsed since local midnight.
    • The stopwatch in my hand shows the number of seconds since I pushed the button.
    • The internal timer in my PC records the number of ticks (100 nanoseconds) since 1 January 1601 00:00:00 UT.

    You got this diagram from a textbook, right?
    I don't think it means what you think it means. I can't make much sense of what you're saying at all.

    The only way to tell if something "conflicts with reality" is to try it for real and see.

    Unfortunately, "truly synchronous clocks" seem to be mythical beasts... and even if we found them, how would we recognize them?
     
  14. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    Mainstream scientists have already found (at least) two methods: the one employed by UTC and the one employed by GPS. Before you start claiming that you devised your own, it would be useful for you to study the existent schemes.
     
  15. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    You might not like it, but that doesn't make it a 'no-no'. You don't dictate reality.

    No. Touching clocks can be synchronized, but there is no must about it. See previous post.

    My stopwatch says it's 10 seconds since I pushed the button.
    My clock says it's 9 hours since midnight.
    Which one is lying?

    No, because those touching clocks are only synchronized with each other, not necessarily with any other clock.
    Could they?
    How would you be able to tell?

    Reality dictates that we settle for real clocks.

    Tell us about it.
     
  16. Pete It's not rocket surgery Moderator

    Messages:
    10,166
    Yes, it would certainly be useful for timewarp to study those schemes.
    But, I think he's claiming to be able to absolutely synchronize clocks, not just according to a particular reference frame.
     
  17. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Not necessarily.
     
  18. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
  19. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Where did you get that quote Emil. It sounds more like a debate tactic than anything to do with science.
     
  20. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Just to add some levity here and in jest...

    The best way to insure that two clocks are always synchronized is to set them once and never install a the batteries.
     
  21. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,789
    Try googling "Proof by Absurdity or Contradiction"
     
  22. Tach Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,265
    If this is what he thinks, then he needs to start by studying more elementary stuff first, like basic SR. I doubt he will.....
     
  23. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Seems even the people who used it, believe it is out of date... Circa Aristotle?

    Proof of Contradiction http://www.personal.kent.edu/~rmuhamma/Philosophy/Logic/ProofTheory/proof_by_contradiction.htm
    Underlying the reducio ad absurdum validity is a slightly controversial law of logic, known as the law of the excluded middle, that, like syllogism, also dates back to the time of Aristotle.....*Mathematicians... feel that a logical basis for mathematics should not rely on the unrestricted use of the "law of the excluded middle," essentially because this is a principle originating in antiquity where it was used only to apply to statements about finitely many things.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page