What’s Wrong With This Radiolocation Interpretation For Einstein’s SR?

Help? No, you need Feynman. But you can't reach him anymore, so let me read through this a few times and see what I come up with. While not a theoretical physicist by profession, it is an avocation of mine. Verrry interesting...

Hi Mac,

Maybe I can help after all by pointing out a flaw in your thinking.

Einstein's statement in his 1905 paper re time between two EM events A and B: "We have not defined a common "time" for A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A."

The only way the time from A to B will equal the time from B to A is if A and B are not moving relative to each other.

This assumption guarantees that synchronized clocks measure time between EM events independent of distance,

I don't see an assumption here. Einstein is stating a fact that moving objects have independent time scales. How do you synchronize clocks with different time scale involved?

S

S: Einstein was simply assuming that the time for an EM signal to travel between clocks fixed at two points "A" and "B" in any inertial frame is the same in both directions, an assumption that ensures synchronized clocks do in fact measure the time between EM events collocated with these clocks independent of their separation in distance. My point is that his own theory shows (as reflect by the LT) that the distance and time between EM events are not independent values. As a result, synchronized clocks give the "correct" time (consistent with SR) only for simultaneous EM events. (Of course, when one measures travel time of EM signals between any two points in any inertial frame independently in both directions they are always equal and Newtonian. This does not mean, however, that propagation times of signals from events to clocks at those points are equal in all inertial frames. My example of collocated EM events in one frame observed from a second moving frame illustrates this point.)

My whole point is that synchronized clocks by their very design ignore the dependency that Einstein's theory shows exists between distance and time between EM events measured by inertial observers. This issue is avoided in my "stopwatch" tool since the effect of observer motion on distances from observed events to measurement clocks, and thus on propagtion times of signals from those events, are derivable values. In this physics distance and time between EM events are dependent functions of more elemental SW values measured by clocks synchronized in rate only.

Moreover, it is clear that to satisfy spatial isotropy, observers of collocated EM events moving at the same speed but in different directions must measure the same distance and time between these events; i.e., that their clocks must be rate synchronous indpendent of their own relative motions.

Mac

Hi Mac,

You were asking for help, but every effort is met with resistance. You keep speaking of synchronisity and simultaneity. These are not simple concepts when relativistic speeds are concerned. In Einsteins book Relativity on page 23 he says: "That light requires the same time to traverse the path A→M as for the path B→M is in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the nature of light, but a stipulation I can make of my own free will in order to arrive at a definition of simultaneity."

You seem now to have your mind made up. By the way, what is your stopwatch tool? Is it something you are trying to sell?

S

My "stopwatch" (SW) tool is not for sale althought many billions of dollars have been spent in applying its physics in the form of GPS, radar, electronic reconnaissance "spy" satillites, radio astronomy, etc. My tool simply allows comparison of this now proven radiolocation physics with the Newtonian physics Einstein used to derive the Lorentz transforms (LT). As I show, assuming the validity of Einstein's two principles of SR, this physics leads to slightly different SW transforms wherein differences between observers of the same EM events come solely from differences in signal propagation times from those events, assuming that clock rates are the same for both observers.

This physics suggests that the pardoxes and seemingly unexplainable shifting clocks rates and rod lengths of the LT (and associated spacetime physics) might instead be assigned to signal propagation times of EM signals. Initial analysis shows that this physics predicts values for time-dilation and transverse Doppler shift that pass the Frisch-Smith and Ives-Stillwell tests.

While the real-world utility of this physics has been proven in practice, applying it to theoretical physics requires close scrutiny. I certainly agree with Einstein's definition for simultaneity of two separated events. However, in his 1905 paper he assumed--to justify use of time synchronized clocks to measure time between any two EM events--that signal propagation times are also equal for non-simultaneous events. Based on his own principles of SR, that show time and disance between EM events are dependent variables, and on modern radiolocation techniques that show these propagation times are not equal, it seems to me that it can be argued that this assumption holds only for simultaneous events.

I appreciate you attempts to help but must admit I fail to grasp the specific objections you have re these ideas.