> < The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link and
down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A and B,but without relying on the wave properties of light. >
Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and reflect therefrom back to A. As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K, the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1 secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other. given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A to b as plotted by stationary cs k. HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/ sec as plotted by K. Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1 second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)
p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of - vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself, and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light moves at c.
> > < The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute > motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link > and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A > and B,but without relying on the wave properties of light. >
> Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken > as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis > of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x > direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and > reflect therefrom back to A. > As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis > coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K, > the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus > takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1 > secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the > moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each > way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right > triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other. > given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as > measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as > measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A > to b as plotted by stationary cs k. > HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow > by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their > horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths > remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above > stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes > and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure > the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y > or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/ > sec as plotted by K. > Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks > of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it > would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back > again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would > have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1 > second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted > by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such > deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE > c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined > method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)
> p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let > lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the > direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the > first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and > down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have > emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k > and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the > stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY > the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of - > vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance > between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself, > and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its > speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light > moves at c.
> glird
Why should any spatial length SHRINK or EXPAND when a 'photon' or an 'observer' passes by? I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or expansion of a spatial length always induces a strain field in the region and that all strain fields are subjected to certain physical constraints like continuity of associated displacements and equilibrium of associated stresses.
Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?
Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively. Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse propagation from B to A.
As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary in that reference frame (Tu = Td). But when the two clocks are moving along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu <> Td). However, when the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time. If you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?
> On Nov 5, 3:56 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote: >> On Nov 3, 10:20 am, GSS wrote:
>> > < The proposed experiment is designed to detect the absolute >> motion of earth through measurement of tiny differences in up-link >> and down-link signal propagation times between two fixed points A >> and B,but without relying on the wave properties of light. >
>> Let light be a disturbance moving at c through a local space taken >> as stationary. Let A and B be two points 1 unit apart on the Y axis >> of system K that is moving through this space at .6c in the x >> direction. At t = 0 let a ray of light emit from A toward B and >> reflect therefrom back to A. >> As plotted by a system k' at rest in this space, with its X' axis >> coinciding with X of K and its vertical axes parallel to those of K, >> the ray moves up Y at c' = qc, where q = sqrt of (1 - v^2/c^2), thus >> takes t' = 1.25 seconds each way. In order for K to measure this as 1 >> secodn each way, thus to let c' = 1 as plotted by K, clocks of the >> moving system have to run slow by q, wherefore t = qt = .8 x 1.2 each >> way. (Note that the path of the beam is on the hypotenuse of a right >> triangle, of which Y is one side and vc is the length of the other. >> given that B is 1 unit from A on Y, then AB = 1 is the length of Y as >> measured by both systems; and the hypotenuse is 1.2 units long as >> measured by k; which is WHY ittakes a ray 1.25 seconds to get from A >> to b as plotted by stationary cs k. >> HOWEVER!! There is no reason to let moving systems clocks run slow >> by q or for their vertical axes to remain undeformed while their >> horizontal axis shrinks by q. Suppose, for instance, that lengths >> remain constant in the direction a system is moving through the above >> stationary space. If its lengths EXPAND by 1/q in the vertical axes >> and its clocks run slow by q = q^2 = (c^2-v^2), then it would measure >> the light's time from A to B and from B to A, thus up and then down Y >> or Z as t = 1 second, and the speed of light would remain c = 1 unit/ >> sec as plotted by K. >> Suppose that lengths in the vertical axes SHRINK by q. then clocks >> of moving systems could keep identical rates as stationary ones and it >> would still take 1 second for a ray to travel up 1 unit on y and back >> again. (If that happens, then lengths in the direction of motion would >> have to shrink by Q in order to measure the round-trip time as 1 >> second per unit of length, thus for c to remain equal to 1 as plotted >> by the moving systems. As to the one way times per unit length of such >> deformed systems, unless clocks of each such system is set to MEASURE >> c = 1 in all directions - i.e. to be esynched via Einstein's defined >> method which he called "synchronized" - they won't.)
>> p.s. If we let moving systems deform as per the LTE - thus let >> lengths remain constant in the vertical axes and shrink by q in the >> direction of motion, with clocks running q slow - and consider the >> first case discused above, then even though rays would travel up and >> down Y in 1 second each way as plottted by k, the ray would have >> emitted from x=y=x'=y'=0 and would return to x=y=y'=0 as plotted by k >> and k; but would NOT have returned to x' = 0 as plotted by the >> stationary system k! It would return to x' = 0 + 2vt'; which is WHY >> the moving clocks on X have to have a Voigtian local time offset of - >> vx/c^2 seconds per successive clock, in which x is the distance >> between two such clocks as measured by the given moving system itself, >> and v - which doesn't have to be known by the esyching cs - is its >> speed in the 'empty space" in which Einstein postulated that light >> moves at c.
>> glird
> Why should any spatial length SHRINK or EXPAND when a 'photon' or an > 'observer' passes by? I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or > expansion of a spatial length always induces a strain field in the > region and that all strain fields are subjected to certain physical > constraints like continuity of associated displacements and > equilibrium of associated stresses.
> Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary > reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) > flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn > respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will > actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the > witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity?
> Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and > separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks > at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a > laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link > pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and > reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively. > Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse > propagation from B to A.
> As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED > to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any > stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary > in that reference frame (Tu = Td). But when the two clocks are moving > along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal > propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu <> Td). However, when > the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab > frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the > up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be > required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time. If > you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and > unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft?
expansion of a spatial length always induces a strain field in the region and that all strain fields are subjected to certain physical constraints like continuity of associated displacements and equilibrium of associated stresses. >
In his 1904 paper Lorentz showed that the opposite is correct, i.e. that objects shrink in order to ELIMINATE what would otherwise have been a strain in the local material field.
> < Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn)flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity? >
No; I would call it defective semantics. (The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.
> < Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks
at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively. Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse propagation from B to A.
IF we assume that Earth is a stationary system and that A and B are perpendicular to Earth's (flat) surface, and IF we ignore the effects of the different strength of gravity at A compared to at B, then Tu would be equal to Td.
> < As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any
stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary in that reference frame (Tu = Td). >
The two times WOULD be equal if the clocks were at rest in any stationary ystem regardless of the direction of a line joining the two.
> < But when the two clocks are moving along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu <> Td). >
That's right, although it is wrong. (If you find that ambiguous, note that so is your "absolute synchronization". If you use Einstein's method of setting clocks then stationary clocks WOULD measure Tu as identical to Td. But if you esynch clocks of a moving system, i.e. set them to MEASURE the speed of light as identical in any and all directions, they will do so even though the actual times are not equal.
> < However, when the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab > frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time.
"Simultaneously" as measured by who, and how? If you mean "at the same instant", then yes; Tu will be equal to Td as plotted by an esynched moving system even though they won't be equal as plotted by a differently moving system. Indeed that is the entire meaning of Einstein's long equation immediately prior to his setting x' "infinitesimally small".
> < If you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft? >
Yes. And No. (It depends on what you mean by "at the 'same time'" :-).
> > < I hope you are aware that any shrinkage or > expansion of a spatial length always induces > a strain field in the region and that all > strain fields are subjected to certain > physical constraints like continuity of > associated displacements and equilibrium of > associated stresses. >
> In his 1904 paper Lorentz showed that the opposite is correct, i.e. > that objects shrink in order to ELIMINATE what would otherwise have > been a strain in the local material field.
That is not quite correct. Consider the boundary surface of a solid object in its normal state when it is free from all strains and stresses. Once you alter or deform the shape of this boundary surface in any way, internal strains are bound to develop with in the body of that object. However, if instead of deforming the boundary surface, you induce internal strains within the body by either temperature changes or through the action of body forces, then the internal stresses will tend to get partially dissipated through induced alteration in the boundary surface. But once the boundary surface gets deformed from its normal 'strain-free' state, internal body strains will always be present (unless the body undergoes plastic deformation).
> > < Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity? >
> No; I would call it defective semantics. > (The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of > which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as > measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.
You have made an important point that length L of the steel rod will not "actually become" L1, L2 etc. but will only APPEAR to become L1, L2 etc. That means the length L is the "actual" or proper length of the steel rod and the lengths L1, L2 etc. are the APPARENT lengths as seen by W1, W2 etc.
It is said that appearances can be deceptive. Similarly apparent values of physical parameters can also be deceptive. For example we see the sun rise from east and set in the west, apparently traversing a circular arc of about 150 million km radius in 12 hours. Thus the sun 'appears' to move in the sky with an apparent speed of about 10000 km/s which is quite misleading. Further, the moon 'appears' to be much bigger in size than any of the stars. These apparent sizes of the moon and the stars are obviously quite misleading. Naturally if someone makes use of apparent values of physical parameters to develop a theory, such a theory is bound to be misleading. As per your own statement, L1, L2 etc. in the above example are only apparent values. Thus the Lorentz transformation which deals with such apparent values of physical parameters should obviously be branded as misleading. Shouldn't therefore SR too be branded as misleading?
>> < Now consider two point A and B fixed on the surface of earth and > separated by distance D. Let us position two identical atomic clocks > at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. When we send a > laser pulse from location A to B, we can arrange to record the up-link > pulse propagation time Tu from the instantaneous transmission and > reception time readout of the atomic clocks A and B respectively. > Similarly we can record the down-link time Td for the pulse > propagation from B to A.>
> IF we assume that Earth is a stationary system and that A and B are > perpendicular to Earth's (flat) surface, and IF we ignore the effects > of the different strength of gravity at A compared to at B, then Tu > would be equal to Td.
> > < As per Relativity, the up-link signal propagation time Tu is SUPPOSED to be equal to the down-link signal propagation time Td in any stationary reference frame when the two clocks A and B are stationary in that reference frame (Tu = Td). >
> The two times WOULD be equal if the clocks were at rest in any > stationary system regardless of the direction of a line joining the > two.
> > < But when the two clocks are moving along AB with a common velocity U, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times will no longer be equal (Tu <> Td). >
> That's right, although it is wrong. > (If you find that ambiguous, note that so is your "absolute > synchronization". If you use Einstein's method of setting clocks then > stationary clocks WOULD measure Tu as identical to Td. But if you > esynch clocks of a moving system, i.e. set them to MEASURE the speed > of light as identical in any and all directions, they will do so even > though the actual times are not equal.
I have already stated above that "Let us position two identical atomic clocks at A and B and ensure their absolute synchronization. " Perhaps you did not read my earlier post dated Nov 3, carefully because I have already ruled out Einstein synchronization in the proposed experiment. Therefore, let me reproduce it again,
[For proper conduct of the proposed experiment, the precision atomic clocks located at fixed points A and B are required to be in 'absolute synchronization' rather than the 'Einstein synchronization'. However, achieving 'absolute synchronization' for the spatially separated precision atomic clocks is rendered difficult, firstly by the inherent clock drift and secondly by the same absolute motion which is intended to be detected by the proposed experiment. But the 'plus' point of this very situation is that once we establish the absolute motion of earth in space, 'absolute synchronization' of spacecraft atomic clocks will become practically feasible in future.]
[The first option in the present case is to use two precision atomic clocks which are initially synchronized at one common place and then positioned at the fixed locations A and B. For the success of this method, the inherent drift in each of the two clocks must be within one nanosecond over 24 hour period.]
[For the second option, consider two Rubidium atomic clocks A and B, each connected through an optical fiber link to a Master atomic clock C such that the optical length of the fiber link from C to A is the same as that from C to B. Let the two clocks A and B be perfectly synchronized with master clock C with a timing resolution of about one nanosecond. Here the term 'perfectly synchronized' implies that when the clock C reads UTC time t1, the clocks A and B will also read t1. Therefore, it is obvious that the clocks A and B can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute terms as long as they are both perfectly synchronized with a common master clock C, even if the master clock C does not depict the perfect UTC time.]
[For the third option, we may replace the master clock C with the GPS synchronized time. Therefore, we can use two Rubidium atomic clocks A and B, each synchronized to the GPS time within one nanosecond resolution. Once the clocks A and B get perfectly synchronized to the GPS time, they can be regarded as mutually synchronized in absolute terms, regardless of the inherent limitations or inaccuracies of the GPS timing system. I consider the third option to be practically most suitable for the proposed experiment.]
> > < However, when the two clocks A and B are SIMULTANEOUSLY at rest in the local or Lab frame and in motion in the BCRF and the Galactic reference frames, the up-link and down-link signal propagation times Tu and Td will be required to be simultaneously equal and unequal at the same time.>
> "Simultaneously" as measured by who, and how?
The term "simultaneously" is used here in the usual sense as conveyed by the following illustrations:
The earth moves in its orbital motion around the sun while it "simultaneously" rotates about its axis.
The sun is almost fixed in the Barycentric Celestial Reference Frame (BCRF) while it is "simultaneously" in motion in the Galactic Reference Frame.
> If you mean "at the same instant", then yes; Tu will be equal to Td as > plotted by an esynched moving system even though they won't be equal > as plotted by a differently moving system. Indeed that is the entire > meaning of Einstein's long equation immediately prior to his setting > x' "infinitesimally small".
Again I am not referring to any "esynched" clocks. I am referring to digital readouts of instantaneous timing events, as recorded in the system computers. The up-link (Tu) and down-link (Td) signal propagation times are recorded in computer memory in real time and these values correspond to unique physical parameters.
What you seem to be unable to understand is that while the clocks A and B are seen to be at rest in the local or the Lab frame, they are "simultaneously" seen to be in motion in BCRF. When Tu and Td are supposed to be equal in the Lab frame (as per SR), they are "simultaneously" required to be un-equal in the BCRF (as per SR) since they are in motion in BCRF.
> > < If you can make two physical measurements Tu and Td to be equal and unequal at the same time, will you call it Relativity or Witchcraft? >
> Yes. And No. (It depends on what you mean by "at the 'same > time'" :-).
> glird
Well, if you say Yes and No at the same time, you must be a Relativist!!
> On Nov 6, 6:57 am, glird <gl...@aol.com> wrote: .... >>> < Consider a steel rod of length L laid along X-axis of a stationary reference frame K. Suppose there are n 'witches' (W1, W2, W3, ..., Wn) flying along the X-axis at uniform velocities of V1, V2, V3,...,Vn respectively. If we assume that the length L of the steel rod will actually become L1 for witch W1, L2 for W2, L3 for W3 and Ln for the witch Wn, will you call it Witchcraft or Relativity? >
>> No; I would call it defective semantics. >> (The length of a stationary rod won't "actually become" a function of >> which witch is looking at it; it will only APPEAR to be deformed as >> measured with the help of esynched clocks of each witch's system.
> You have made an important point that length L of the steel rod will > not "actually become" L1, L2 etc. but will only APPEAR to become L1, > L2 etc. That means the length L is the "actual" or proper length of > the steel rod and the lengths L1, L2 etc. are the APPARENT lengths as > seen by W1, W2 etc.
> It is said that appearances can be deceptive. Similarly apparent > values of physical parameters can also be deceptive. For example we > see the sun rise from east and set in the west, apparently traversing > a circular arc of about 150 million km radius in 12 hours. Thus the > sun 'appears' to move in the sky with an apparent speed of about 10000 > km/s which is quite misleading. Further, the moon 'appears' to be much > bigger in size than any of the stars. These apparent sizes of the moon > and the stars are obviously quite misleading. Naturally if someone > makes use of apparent values of physical parameters to develop a > theory, such a theory is bound to be misleading. As per your own > statement, L1, L2 etc. in the above example are only apparent values. > Thus the Lorentz transformation which deals with such apparent values > of physical parameters should obviously be branded as misleading. > Shouldn't therefore SR too be branded as misleading?
However, Relativity experts will still wriggle out of this embarrassing situation regarding misleading nature of Relativity. As per them, the length L of the steel rod, in a stationary reference frame K, does not "actually become" L1 but only "APPEARS to become" L1 when "MEASURED" by a moving observer W1.
This stance of Relativity experts needs to be critically examined. When we measure the length L of a steel rod, we get the result of measurement in certain length units, say 3 meters. If we use some standard length unit Lu (like a meter rod or a foot ruler) to measure the given length L of the steel rod, then the result of the measurement will be stated as "n Lu" where n is a real number. That is to say, length L is equal to n times Lu, where n = L/Lu .... (1) This measurement process can even be automated with some robotic system and the result of measurement "n" can be recorded in the system computer.
Now consider the situation where a moving observer W1 finds that the length L of the steel rod APPEARS to have become L1, such that L1=q.L . Obviously however, when L appears to become q.L, the standard length unit Lu will also appear to become q.Lu, so that the standard measurement process will again yield the same measure number n as, n = q.L/(q.Lu) .... (2) This shows that, had the moving observer W1 experienced a simple "apparent reduction" in length of the stationary steel rod, then a similar "apparent reduction" in the standard length unit (say a meter rod) would have left the final "measurement reading" n, of the length of the steel rod, totally unaffected.
But this is not what is intended in Relativity. So the Relativity experts then introduce a special "MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE" which yields a reduction in "measurement reading" when the length of the steel rod fixed in a stationary reference frame is "measured" by a moving observer W1. As per this special "measurement procedure" the moving observer W1 will have to use a standard length unit Lu which is "co- moving" with the observer (or at rest in the observer's local frame) to effect the measurement of the steel rod of length L in the stationary reference frame K. This special measurement process will yield a different measure number n' as, n' = q.L/(Lu) = q.n ...... (3) This special "measurement procedure" to be used by the moving observer W1, turns out to be fully compatible with the mathematical structure of Relativity.
However, such a special "measurement procedure" in which a moving observer "measures" the length of a stationary steel rod by using a "moving" length unit Lu, is practically not feasible, even with the use of modern cutting edge technology. It is a fact that such a special "measurement procedure", in which the length of a stationary steel rod could be measured by using a "moving" length unit Lu, has neither been actually used nor can ever be used even in principle. At the most such a special "measurement procedure" could be described as hypothetical.
Hence the Special theory of Relativity (SR), which employs such special "measurement procedures" can at the most be regarded as a hypothetical mathematical model and not a physical theory.
|
