- #1
rqr
- 17
- 0
Primary Goals of Thread:
(1) Eliminate all unnecessary concepts
(2) Focus solely on the physics
Tom and Bill are floating in space (that is, they are
moving inertially). Let Bill meet Tom as they pass
each other. They notice that they are both about
the same age. After Bill and Tom have separated, Bill
turns around and again passes Tom. However, during
this second meeting, they notice that Bill is much
older than Tom.
No clocks = no definition of simultaneity
No rulers = no definition of measurement
No need to mention coordinate systems
The only physical difference between the two
people (Tom and Bill) are Bill's accelerations
during his turnaround.
However, this is a difference without a
distinction because accelerations have no
effect upon either aging or clock rhythms.
[Reference:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html
(sighted words from cited site:
"... it has been verified experimentally up
to extraordinarily high accelerations, as
much as 10^18 g in fact ...")]
Therefore, current physics has no absolutely
no physical explanation for the age difference.
But there is a very good reason for this major
sin of omission, namely, the simple fact that
current theory incredibly denies all meaning to
the notion of motion through space, and yet such
motion is the only possible cause of the given
age difference.
I said "incredibly" because there has always
existed a simple and effective absolute frame
in the form of any light ray.
Despite the utter failure of the Michelson-Morley
experiment, the fact remains that all light rays
always move at the known speed c through space.
And all that is required of an absolute frame is
for it to have a constant and known speed through
space.
Why, then was the Michelson-Morley experiment utterly
unable to utilize the given absolute frame? The answer
is simple, and Lorentz gave it long ago - one ruler
contracted during the experiment. And if a clock is
added, then it will physically run slow during the
experiment. Given distorted instruments, one must
obtain a distorted result, namely, a null result,
despite the given absolute reference frame.
Had Michelson & Morley used an uncontracted ruler
(and/or an unslowed clock), then they would have
obtained a positive result.
Even though we have no means of finding an unslowed
clock or an unshrunken ruler, we need not despair
because we still have the one-way experiment.
As of today, no one has yet performed the one-way
version of the Michelson-Morley experiment. That
is, no one has measured light's speed between two
fixed points, despite special relativity theory's
strong-but-wrong implication that the result should
or would or could be null.
I said "implication" because, surprisingly to most,
special relativity does not scientifically predict
what will happen if we measure light's one-way
speed between two fixed clocks. ("Fixed" means
nonrotated and nontransported.)
This is because special relativity does not believe
in absolute simultaneity (absolute synchronization).
But not believing in something does not prove that
it cannot exist.
And given correctly related clocks (or absolutely
synchronous clocks), and given our absolute frame
(aka light), we must obtain a nonnull or positive
result in the one-way light speed case.
rqr
(1) Eliminate all unnecessary concepts
(2) Focus solely on the physics
Tom and Bill are floating in space (that is, they are
moving inertially). Let Bill meet Tom as they pass
each other. They notice that they are both about
the same age. After Bill and Tom have separated, Bill
turns around and again passes Tom. However, during
this second meeting, they notice that Bill is much
older than Tom.
No clocks = no definition of simultaneity
No rulers = no definition of measurement
No need to mention coordinate systems
The only physical difference between the two
people (Tom and Bill) are Bill's accelerations
during his turnaround.
However, this is a difference without a
distinction because accelerations have no
effect upon either aging or clock rhythms.
[Reference:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html
(sighted words from cited site:
"... it has been verified experimentally up
to extraordinarily high accelerations, as
much as 10^18 g in fact ...")]
Therefore, current physics has no absolutely
no physical explanation for the age difference.
But there is a very good reason for this major
sin of omission, namely, the simple fact that
current theory incredibly denies all meaning to
the notion of motion through space, and yet such
motion is the only possible cause of the given
age difference.
I said "incredibly" because there has always
existed a simple and effective absolute frame
in the form of any light ray.
Despite the utter failure of the Michelson-Morley
experiment, the fact remains that all light rays
always move at the known speed c through space.
And all that is required of an absolute frame is
for it to have a constant and known speed through
space.
Why, then was the Michelson-Morley experiment utterly
unable to utilize the given absolute frame? The answer
is simple, and Lorentz gave it long ago - one ruler
contracted during the experiment. And if a clock is
added, then it will physically run slow during the
experiment. Given distorted instruments, one must
obtain a distorted result, namely, a null result,
despite the given absolute reference frame.
Had Michelson & Morley used an uncontracted ruler
(and/or an unslowed clock), then they would have
obtained a positive result.
Even though we have no means of finding an unslowed
clock or an unshrunken ruler, we need not despair
because we still have the one-way experiment.
As of today, no one has yet performed the one-way
version of the Michelson-Morley experiment. That
is, no one has measured light's speed between two
fixed points, despite special relativity theory's
strong-but-wrong implication that the result should
or would or could be null.
I said "implication" because, surprisingly to most,
special relativity does not scientifically predict
what will happen if we measure light's one-way
speed between two fixed clocks. ("Fixed" means
nonrotated and nontransported.)
This is because special relativity does not believe
in absolute simultaneity (absolute synchronization).
But not believing in something does not prove that
it cannot exist.
And given correctly related clocks (or absolutely
synchronous clocks), and given our absolute frame
(aka light), we must obtain a nonnull or positive
result in the one-way light speed case.
rqr