Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerPost by PythonThis stuff about aliens is idiotic Thomas. Synchronizing clocks mutually
at rest make sense in the context of some experiments made by a single
person, a single team or cooperating teams accross one or more labs
or devices. To begin with identical clocks, using the same unit are
supposed to be used everywhere.
No.
SRT is not about 'some epxeriments'!!!
SRT is a main part of theoretical physics and influences, what we
think about how nature functions.
Python was writing about a theoretical experiment when he wrote "some
experiment". Say measuring something happening on Alpha Centauri and
needing accurate time measurements of the events for the data to be
useful. You'd want synchronized clocks for that.
I wrote, that 'time dilation' and relativist length contraction and so
forth make more sense in cosmology.
Therefore I use distances, which are a little larger than those, that
you could place in a laboratory.
Our nearest star Alpha Centaury and a hypothetical planet there, which
is inhabited by aliens with clocks is my usual setting.
This makes the required procedures for synchronisation a little more
obvious then an experiment in a lab could do.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerSo. Einstein wrote not about certain experiments, but about the nature
of space and time.
The question is, whether or not his method makes sense.
Since relativity has never failed when GR/SR are used within their
domains, then yes it does make sense.
I'm actually not discussing SRT per se, but a certain text, which
Einstein wrote (called 'On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies').
(I personally think, that Einstein actually mocked his audience, because
he used an encoded message in the title, which actually means 'sex'.)
So, I cannot tell you, wether or not other versions of SRT make more
sense, because that was not my subject.
I meant: the prodecure, which Einstein described in his text, would not
enable humans to synchronize clocks with Alpha Centaury.
Since the requirement to synchronize clocks there with our clocks is
rather mild (it is actually our closest star), I cannot agree, that SRT
would not fail cosmology.
Sure, most likely such a scenario was not intended by Einstein.
But what else did he want to do with his theory, if it is not applicable
in cosmology?
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas Hegerno SRT is a piece of garbadge, which is seemingly intentionally
created, to prevent people from doing exactly that: thinking about the
nature of space and time.
Scientists don't care what you think. Scientists care whether it makes
accurate predictions and is consistent with existing results. As I
stated, relativity hasn't failed so far, nor is there anything better
yet. But you must be popular with the anti-relativity cranks.
No. You are talking about your own profession and call that 'science',
even if you are not doing any research in nature.
I'm also not an 'anti-relativity crank', because I have based my own
'book' on relativity (but not on SRT).
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerIf he wanted to tell about the local time at a remote location and how
that would be perceived by remote observers, than a discussion of the
distortion of such measurements by relative motion and by distance
would have been mandatory.
The "distortion" is Einstein's relativity!
No.
I think, that Einstein erroneously ascribed the effects of relative
motion to the 'far end' of the observation, while he should have
researched the effect of motion on the perception on the 'near side'.
The effect of movement on vision is closely related to the Doppler effect.
This would make things look distorted, while the thing itself is not.
The reason is, that the IMAGE is distorted, not the thing observed.
So the effects occur on the side of the observer, while the observed
thing is not affected, because a thing can simply ignore observers
passing by at a distance.
But Einstein wrote about real length contraction, which apparently meant
the observed thing itself, which should become shorter.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerBut in fact he ascribed the effects of relative motion erroneously to
the real behaviour of objects on the remote side.
No, on the relative motion of both sides.
???
'Length contraction' is depending of 'length', which is an attribute of
an object, but 'relative motion' is not an object, hence cannot get shorter.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerBut that is not even nonsense, but pure bunk, because the objects on
the remote side cannot possibly be affected by relative motion of a
remote observer
???
Relative motion can affect the observation of an observer, but not
possibly the observed thing itself, if that is far away.
Post by Michael MoroneyRelative to what, the local observer?
I usually use a scheme, where the observer is halted and regarded as not
moving, while the observed thing is moving.
The opposite is also possible, but less practical.
So I always halt the observer and let the observed thing move.
That is just a possible setting, but one, which makes sense.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerPost by PythonPost by Thomas HegerThis remote clock there is in synch with Earth time by definition.
Not necessarily. You take for granted something that is NOT until
you have a common procedure to check if it is the case. Einstein
wrote part I.1 for this simple and fundamental reason.
No, things do not exist, because we can see them.
Also invisible things can be real. Therefore you need to drop the
requirement, that something real must also be visible.
It must be visible for us to know about the real thing.
Sure. But whether you regard something real or not is irrelevant at the
remote side.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerAnd: in fact we could synchronize clocks in cosmological distances
only, if we had communication partners there.
But the required procedure would not function like Einstein wrote it
would function.
Einstein erroneously assumed, that time is universal and remote
observers could measure the same absolute time,
There is no absolute time in relativity!
Post by Thomas Hegerhence only velocity (also meant as relative to the universe) would
make a difference.
But in fact only local time makes sense and we have neither absolute
time, nor absolute space, against which velocity could eventually be
measured.
Velocity is relative, between the observer and observed.
Post by Thomas HegerSo, we had to communicate with someone remote. And I assumed
three-legged aliens.
(But you can assume whatever you like.)
Now we send signals and receive answers.
Why are the three legged aliens necessary? We send signals and receive
answers from the Moon without any aliens there. (Except us, when Apollo
missions planted the laser reflectors we're still using)
That's is why we don't know the time, when the signal arrives on the Moon.
We only assume, they arrive in the middle between sending them out and
receiving the reflected signal.
That is a very plausible guess, but not exactly knowledge.
So, in fact we don't know the local time of arrival of a signal on the
Moon. Instead we calculate the middle between emission and return time
with our own clocks, while possible clocks on the Moon are not involved.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerTo synchronize clocks, we first need to negotiate the meaning of the
term 'clock' and how that should look like.
Now we cannot assume, that processes here on Earth have the same
frequency as processes at that remote location.
Clocks are what measure time.
Post by Thomas HegerWe cannot even assume, that future for us is future there, too.
????
It is actually possible, that remote systems have a future, where we
have our past.
IOW: the arrow of time does not point into the same direction everywhere
(in the universe).
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerSo we need to find out the relation of frequency in equivalent processes.
First Postulate states the laws of physics and the processes are
identical both here and there.
Sure, but the environment is different.
Think about 'Gullivers travels'.
Gulliver could feel big or small, depending on the environment and its
inhabitants, without any change of his own body.
If you allow different timelines, then also similar processes can be
looking much faster in our view, then how they are perceived there.
Also processes may be observed, which run backwards in our
understanding, while we do in the understanding of observers there.
Now this would make synchronization of clocks in cosmological distances
very difficult, because the remote side could have such a 'tilted axis
of time' in their local environment, even if the laws of nature are the
same there.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerThat could eventually be a certain frequency of a gas, which we could
identify as similar. From this we could built a clock, on which both
sides could agree.
No "both sides" needed. In Einstein's work, the clocks are assumed
identical. In reality they need to have the same accuracy and tick the
same units.
sure. But how could you get our clocks to Alpha centaury?
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerThen we needed to estimate the distance and relative velocity of the
remote system.
We could do that by sending a signal there, which is immidiatly
retransmitted there.
As the Apollo laser reflectors do.
Post by Thomas HegerThen we could measure the delay and calculate the distance.
Next we need to fix a certain reference point in time, from where the
birth of Christ, there: ???).
Irrelevant. We use our time.
If you do NOT want to negotiate the synchronization procedure with
remote observers in cosmolgical distances, you could als leave that and
do other things, that are more relevant to you (like e.g. playing soccer).
But I was talking about procedures, which were required, to synchronize
clocks in cosmological distances.
Post by Michael MoroneyPost by Thomas HegerWe could also measure Doppler shift and calcule relative motion.
Yes.
Actually not, because prior to that calculation we need to figure out,
whether or not same processes here tick at the same rate in the remote
system.
...
TH