And based upon my extensive research I am a porn star. I just haven’t done any movies.
well, duh - of course.
mythoughts vs. FXMastermind
A battle of wits. OK, half a battle.
Einsteinian clock synchronization.
Everything I can find seems to indicate Einstein’s method of clock sync is based on light signalling.
I believe the following experiment would be a fair description.
Points A, B and C are in a straight line with an equal distance between B and it’s 2 neighbours.
B flashes which sends light to A and C, A and C then considered synchronized according to B.
If A and C send a pulse of light at the same time under this synch scheme, B will see the light from A and C simultaneously.
This is seen as simultaneous to B, but would not be seen as simultaneous to other observers.
I believe that is a fair description of Einstein’s primary method, please correct me if you think I am wrong.
Why the method doesn’t work.
This method is useless for establishing differences in the speed of light since this method would always show the speed of light to be C simply because the sync method employs light and includes any deviation from C inherently.
Since this method only works if the speed of light is actually C in both directions it is useless if we are testing to see if the speed of light really is C.
If the speed of light were not C this would be an invalid scheme that would still tend to inform us that the speed of light is C.
If light took .5 seconds to get to A from B, and 1.5 seconds to get from B to C because the speed of light is faster moving toward the left.
Then the return ‘synchronized’ pulse would leave 1 second earlier from A, but now take a second longer than the later signal from C that takes only .5 of a second travelling to the left.
Clearly this method of synchronization is wholly invalid to test if the speed of light is C.
If we tried this same test in a wind tunnel with sound, we would get the conclusion that the speed of sound was constant and there would be even larger non-simultaneity issue.
So obviously we can’t use Einstein’s method in the Sagnac loop.
So if we are rotating the Sagnac loop at near the speed of light, what we could use as a rough form of synchronization is to send a light pulse from one clock both ways (CW and CCW) from clock A positioned on the rotating frame at say the 3 O’clock position. (please avoid being confused with the 3 different ways clocks are being used here, for direction of rotation, position as the military uses and actual time keeping, these are all unrelated and co-incidental)
Let’s say the loop is rotating clockwise, the clockwise synch signal is barely making ANY progress since the loop is rotating at near the speed of light.
And counter clockwise signal however has a speed of almost twice the speed of light.
So the CCW timing signal reaches clock B at the 5 o’clock position (despite going the long way) far sooner than the CW photon reaches it.
Now we can say our clocks are very vaguely in sync.
If clock B at the 5 o’clock position sends a pulse in each direction, we would certainly find that the shorter distance wins this time, when going the other way it was the slowest!
If you do not comprehend this, it is likely you do not understand the undisputed facts of the Sagnac effect which is accepted by SR and used in guidance systems…
Take a light loop consisting of mirrors, or fibre optic cable that makes a circular path for light.
If we inject photons to go CW and CCW in a non-rotating loop they will take an equal amount of time predicted by the speed of light to complete the loop (full 360 degrees).
If we rotate the loop and not the lab, then the laboratory frame which is primarily not rotating will still see the light to take the same time to go CW and CCW according to the Lab’s opinion of a full loop.
However if we are on the disk we see the photons meet up again on time where they would have had we not moved the finish line.
If we ignore the stationary frame and only consider our rotating frame then what we see is one photon seeming to complete the loop faster.
Special Relativity accepts that according to the observer on the rotating frame, the speed of light around the whole loop is unequal, and indeed that is faster than C in one direction from the rotating frames perspective.
Only it argues for a synchronization method that is wholly rigged to never observe any variation in the speed of light since it is desynchronized by any such variation and hence compensates for it.
This means that other sync methods such as the above, or central sync suggested by Ronald Raygun are indeed fair.
Additionally slow clock transportation is also fair, but first I would need to see why it is considered to be equivalent to Einstein’s method and prove otherwise.
If we’re using math and multiplying, then it’s a quarter of a battle.
Experimentally verified not to happen. This has actually been done, you know. You can’t say, “If we put five one pound apples on a scale, they would add up to six pounds!” Thousands and thousands of grocers have done this, for thousands of years.
But that’s exactly what you’re doing.
Get your thumb off the scale, Mr. Miggle.
That’s being extremely generous to FX.
Fair enough, lol.
"And to everyone else involved: I am deeply disappointed. Shame on you. "
I know. Sometimes, no matter how loudly my frontal cortex is yelling “It’s Chinatown, Jake!”, some other little voice is saying “there’s still hope!”
The ‘some other little voice’ should probably be rendered as Homer Simpson…
:smack:
You are missing the point.
If the speed of light were not C, the sync scheme would still seem to tell us that it is.
Because the synchronization scheme would then be based on a faulty assumption.
You can’t test the speed of light with a synchronization scheme that would be invalid if the speed of light were not C, because the result would be rigged.
You aren’t making sense.
No experiment has shown light to exceed c. If you’re whining that no experiment can show this, because it’s somehow “rigged,” then you’re acting foolishly. There is no operational difference between these kinds of propositions. Maybe light only goes faster than c when nobody is looking. That’s not going to be experimentally verified; it is exactly the same as saying light never goes faster than c.
How do you propose to measure light’s speed without…measuring light’s speed?
“You are missing the point” has worn threadbare by now. Everyone here gets the point except you.
Firstly the Sagnac experiment does show the speed of light to exceed C around the complete loop in one direction as the rotating frame sees it.
This is not even debated by Special Relativity, it accepts it.
Secondly to insist that all experiments say the speed of light is C without actually seeing what the experiments are saying is obviously faulty.
There are essentially no one way speed of light measurements, at least none that I can understand that would both have a synchronization scheme SR would accept without being subject to the error SR’s scheme has.
The point is that there are essentially zero one way speed of light measurements, and SR can’t even explain the one way constancy of the speed of light.’
The 2 way speed of light measurements (which clocks synced by light still are) is no evidence for the constancy of the speed of light.
Hence zero relivant experiments and no theoretical basis for saying the speed of light is C.
I am not saying no experiment can, I am saying no experiment other than Sagnac can without running into conflicts with clock sync schemes that SR would approve of. If a non Einsteinian clock sync scheme is used the speed of light will be measured to be other than C as Ronald Raygun stated. At least in a portion of a Sagnac loop.
I merely propose to use a synchronization scheme that is not imbalanced by the very speed of light difference that would be measured.
One option is to use the central sync scheme Ronald suggested, consisting of synchronizing clocks around a Sagnac loop from the center of rotation.
The same scheme could be used in a fractional Sagnac loop.
Various other means do exist.
No, do you notice how you were not actually able to find any fault in any of the points I made?
You are either unable to follow the points, unwilling or unable to find an argument against them.
Quoting Wiki: Albert Einstein chose a synchronization convention (see Einstein synchronization) that made the one-way speed equal to the two-way speed.
The method of synchronization literally forces the one way speed of light measurement to be a 2 way speed of light measurement.
Hence clearly as I pointed out, the Einsteinian method can not be used for a one way speed of light measurement since the clock synch scheme actually makes it a 2 way speed of light measurement.
So any experiment for the one way speed of light needs to firstly use an alternative method (one that works), and secondly provide a circumstance in which a speed difference should be expected which generally requires swift motion of the measuring platform in close proximity to a preferred frame, or rotation would do as in the Sagnac effect.
But my point was made already, it has been admitted that the speed of light over a portion of the loop if Einstein’s method is not used.
And you claim you’re never dishonest? This is dishonesty of the first water. I did actually find fault with the points you made.
You’re just sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending not to hear.
You have zero ethical credibility here.
I must have missed it, please show my precisely which point you found fault with.
Oh I think you meant “first order” 
BTW I have a beginner argument as to why slow clock transportation would not be equivalent to Einsteinian clock sync.
First let’s make the case with sound in a wind tunnel, by Einstein’s sync method no matter how fast the air moved below the speed of sound in air, the sync method explained by Einstein would have the clocks synced such that an attempt at a one way speed of sound experiment would yield the same result for the speed of sound up wind or down.
This is because the signalling method also uses sound so the sync is actually off.
So if we were to try slow clock transport in the wind tunnel, send 2 extra clocks from B towards A and C, would the slowly transported clocks agree with the clocks set by the speed of sound test? Obviously not.
Hence there are 2 possibilities I can see.
Firstly SR might be simply assuming the signalling synch method worked from blind faith in it’s postulate that the speed of light is C. This would be a rigged conclusion.
OR slow clock sync would not work due to different velocities relative to a preferred reference frame, such that the clock moving B to A would experience more relative motion to the aether, and hence more time dilation than the clock being transported in the other direction.
I can’t ascertain if the second argument would make slow clock transport equivalent or not, that would require math above my skill level. Or if I could cobble it together with online calculators, beyond my patience.
So certainly slow clock transport sync COULD give different results to Einstein’s methods, but it is hard to say if it would definitely do so.
First water. A term from commercial gemology.
Never heard it before, it sounds like someone said ‘first order’ with a funny accent and it stuck.
Asking around none have heard it before, I guess I have lack of gemmologists in my life.
Oh, you’re just being modest. Since you are not familiar with the term, it is much more likely that gemologists don’t really use that term, and if they do, they are probably using it incorrectly.
Again, please quote the exact lines you disagree with, and please point out what you see as incorrect.
I didn’t see any specific criticism, just general school yard stuff. If I missed a point of logic you addressed please point it out.