0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Imagine lots of clocks being made immediately after the big bang which are then separated from each other by the expansion of space …If those clocks existed, this would provide us with a means to pin down the absolute speeds of motion of the clocks, and once we have those, measuring the one-way speed of light relative to a host of different types of apparatus (and knowing that you're getting the correct answer) becomes trivial..
Imagine that when the clocks are created right back at the time of the big bang, they all send out watches in two opposite directions. Set A of these watches are all moving in the same direction as each other and at the same speed, while set B of watches were sent out at the same speed but in the opposite direction.
If a set A watch meets a set B watch, they will agree with each other about the time, but if any watch meets a clock, the time on the watch will lag behind the time on the clock due to its speed of movement through space. How can I prove that?
Well, in a case where a set-A watch passes a clock, then passes a set-B watch later on, and then the set-B watch passes the clock later still, we have the twins paradox experiment being carried out by those three timers.
Yes, per RoS, a rigid rotating cylinder will be twisted relative to a frame in which it has linear motion along its axis of rotation, which is not immediately intuitive.
There is no space at the big bang, so no concept of speed. The watches will just be right by some other clock going in the same direction, and thus none of them will have any peculiar velocity.So let’s change it just a tiny bit and wait one second.
This is what I mean by its speed (relative to the cosmological frame) degrading over time. ... Nothing can have retained high speed from long ago.
So any object today with significant peculiar velocity has to have been accelerated somewhat recently. Nothing can have retained high speed from long ago.
If they were ejected say one second after the big bang, then yes, they’d meet clocks but the time difference will be off by less than a second. It was moving at a significant speed for such a very short time and had no real time to accumulate any serious dilation.
Well, if that second statement was correct, you'd have identified another way of pinning down absolute speed in an expanding universe because all the clocks would automatically slow down until they're at rest.
we could give it a year or more to put some space between all the clocks
You would eventually reach a point where the clocks are so spread out that none of them can pass each other any more as they aren't able to close the gaps faster than the spaces between them are expanding
but you've missed something important: they still have their initial speeds of motion through space, and if we go back to an earlier time when they are still able to pass each other, set A watches will continue to pass set B watches at the same relative speed as they did early on
for all those ancient speeds to have been lost while the clocks are still able to pass each other, they would have to have slowed to a lower absolute speed, all homing in on being at rest.
With set A watches moving at 0.866c relative to the clocks, and set B watches doing the same in the opposite direction and with those relative speeds always being maintained ...
But suppose I'm wrong. Light loses energy to expansion and gets red shifted - it doesn't slow down, but it loses energy.
The physics community calls it peculiar velocity. If it makes you happy to call it absolute speed, go for it.
Quotebut you've missed something important: they still have their initial speeds of motion through space, and if we go back to an earlier time when they are still able to pass each other, set A watches will continue to pass set B watches at the same relative speed as they did early onNo they don’t. Their peculiar velocities drop quickly, as I’ve pointed out in prior posts.
Quotefor all those ancient speeds to have been lost while the clocks are still able to pass each other, they would have to have slowed to a lower absolute speed, all homing in on being at rest.I perhaps cannot convince you of this, but your mistake seems to be applying Newtons laws of inertial motion to a non inertial coordinate system. How do you defend this assertion?
I see it now. If I roll a ball along an expanding track where the track expands at a particular point - let's make it telescopic - the ball runs up to the place where the expansion occurs and it's going at a certain rate relative to the track, then it moves onto the part that's coming out from inside and it's now moving at a lower speed relative to the part of the track it's gone onto, so its speed relative to that has gone down.
So, if that's the mechanism, then with an expanding track all balls rolling along it will end up at rest relative to the local track.
So, the content of expanding space (ignoring radiation) will end up close to being at rest, and that means that when a particle in a particle accelerator is made to move at 0.99c relative to us, it really is moving close to the speed of light and there is no possibility that we are the ones moving at close to the speed of light while that particle is at rest.
The problem here is that this already rules out STR. For STR to be viable, that slowing down of material until it's all close to being at rest simply could not happen.
The set A and set B watches have slowed down and ended up at rest relative to the clocks
or alternatively, if the set A watches were stationary to begin with, then the clocks and set B watches have slowed down instead with the set B watches slowing most. In these two rival cases, there would be different timing differences which would tell you which ones were closest to being at rest initially.
They might now be essentially at rest and no longer passing each other, but you could still find out what the timing differences are by comparing different timers near to each other.
I win both ways
it still reveals that there are absolute speeds
apart from the small amount being jetted out of quasars and the like at relativistic speed.
So, we have a theoretical method for pinning down absolute speed regardless
STR makes no mention of a cosmological frame or peculiar velocity, and you know this
Agree, the unaccelerated clocks will always show more time than the accelerated ones. Just not much.
My example had 8 months difference after all 3 clocks met after 13 billion years. Even less if they’re ejected before the one year mark. The longer you wait to eject them, the longer they take to slow down.
The experiment you describe at the end of your post would take many millions of years, when the thing it is trying to detect is already known and readily measured.
Ah, It’s a win/lose thing with you. I kinda suspected. Science isn't about winning. It's about making useful predictions. What useful prediction does your philosophy make?
This has been known since Hubble’s time. You’re just now getting on that bandwagon?
It fails to order all events (such as those inside black holes), and times are relative to Earth time, which would not be agreed upon by said non-communicating distant observer.
One could measure time relative to a clock at the average gravitational potential (which isn’t constant over time), but then some clocks would be dilated faster, not slower. Without an absolute clock, there are not absolute speeds.
QuoteSo, we have a theoretical method for pinning down absolute speed regardlessWe have a much more practical method than a mere thought experiment.
Look at the web. Our peculiar velocity is around 390 km/sec, much slower than it was when the T-rex was around.
The point is though that STR is not compatible with this universe.
It's a thought experiment in which we could add a scientist who reads the times on the clocks without having to wait billions of years. The results would show up within seconds of the clocks and watches being created and sent out because some of them would be ticking half as often as others, and it would take a long time for that difference to reduce.
It's about winning an argument.
Science is very much philosophy, but the relevant distinction here is between good philosophy and bad philosophy, and when it tolerates contradictions it becomes the latter.
QuoteIt fails to order all events (such as those inside black holes)But the events in black holes fit with it perfectly: you simply use a theory that makes incorrect predictions about what's going on inside black holes, and that's what creates problems for you as you imagine that stopped clocks continue to tick and that their proper time never runs slow.
It fails to order all events (such as those inside black holes)
QuoteTimes are relative to Earth time, which would not be agreed upon by said non-communicating distant observer. One could measure time relative to a clock at the average gravitational potential (which isn’t constant over time), but then some clocks would be dilated faster, not slower. Without an absolute clock, there are not absolute speeds.That distant observer would simply convert between the two times and adjust for minor accelerations, so it's not an issue.
Times are relative to Earth time, which would not be agreed upon by said non-communicating distant observer. One could measure time relative to a clock at the average gravitational potential (which isn’t constant over time), but then some clocks would be dilated faster, not slower. Without an absolute clock, there are not absolute speeds.
Without an absolute clock, the universe would fall apart through event-meshing failures in an instant.
express it as a proportion of c.
STR covers the special case of Minkkowskian spacetime. With the exception of physical singularities, the universe is Minkowskian only locally, and the theory does not assert otherwise.
STR never claims to cover the general case, and yet you never seem to rag on GR which does. Is your case so pathetic that the only way you can bring it down is suggest out that the universe as a whole obviously has gravity in it when STR asserts that it does not?
STR in fact makes no metaphysical assumptions or conclusions, and all your arguments seem to be based on metaphysical assumptions, not empirical ones.
So if you with to continue foaming on about STR being wrong, be a little explicit about what observations you think it predicts and what actually will be observed. Our little thought experiment has gravity and dark energy removed, so it is actually Minkowskian as a whole. STR would cover such a simplified universe, so we can refer to that example if you wish. But the real universe has gravity and such, making GR the applicable theory.
The scientist can only read the clocks once when they pass by him. And the accelerated ones will be behind, exactly as STR predicts.
Then suggest an empirical test in a universe without gravity and such that STR predicts incorrectly. Can’t do that?
But STR doesn’t make any philosophical assertions. It’s all empirical.
So you’re asserting physics is locally measurably different at different potentials? You’d notice time slowing? Seriously? How about at speed then? If I move at .99c, will I notice everything moving slow? Just wondering where you stand on this.
You misunderstand. I’m talking about time as measured by clocks at Earth potential and a different potential (neither at zero potential) of the distant observer. Both are stationary relative to the comoving coordinate system. We’re both measuring the ‘absolute’ speed of some mutually visible object, and getting different numbers because our clocks (neither of which has ever accelerated) tick at different rates. Clearly speed is relative if we’re getting different answers. Where’s the absolute clock that measures the time it takes the object to go distance X?
QuoteWithout an absolute clock, the universe would fall apart through event-meshing failures in an instant.I would just have said that absolute speeds are meaningless without such a clock, but if you want the universe to fall apart due to your assertions, who am I to argue?
Quoteexpress it as a proportion of c.Light doesn’t move at c in your absolute universe. It only moves at c at zero potential. This has been demonstrated. Relativity would say that it empirically moves at c ‘here’, using local rulers and clocks, but at least one of those is wrong in your interpretation.
STR it denies the existence of absolute time and absolute speeds of motion…[STR] asserts that there's no absolute time and that absolute speeds of motion don't exist.
We have a clock and a watch sitting near each other which the scientist look at and travel to and fro between them to confirm what they're doing
The ones that were moving fast early on have slowed to a near halt now
When you compare that set of watches with one set of miniwatches though, which ones are behind with their times and were accelerated?
STR can't handle that precisely because both these cases can happen in the same system, and if in the first case you have the watches recording less time than the clocks after being accelerated away from them, in the second case you will have the miniwatches record more time than the watches after being accelerated away from the watches: the accelerated ones end up ticking faster in this second case. That result is fully compatible with LET, but not with STR.
That's precisely what I set out in my paper: a test which would show two identical sets of apparatus set up identically but with them moving relative to each other and where they produce different measurements due to their different absolute speeds of motion. Gravity or the lack of it wouldn't change the results.
What I'm saying is that nothing that's going on out there is incompatible with absolute time. It could be measured locally if you know how fast you're moving and how deep you are in the collective gravity wells that can influence the place where you are. You would never notice time slowing when time never slows: if you move at 0.99c you will have your functionality slowed down and you'll notice everything else happening fast (after adjusting for Doppler shift).
There doesn't have to be an absolute clock to measure that. There only needs to be absolute time to govern it, and while absolute time can be referred to as a clock of a kind, that doesn't guarantee that anyone can ever read it or determine exactly how fast it ticks.
clocks that are ticking at the same rate as each other due to their similarly low speed and similar depth in the local collective gravity wells
or they would be at different depths in gravity wells (which they could assess by measuring the amount of material affecting them gravitationally and the degree to which it is doing so).
There are two key things that matter here. (1) If accelerated watches tick slower than unaccelerated clocks
(2) If two sets of identical apparatus set up the same way at the same location but moving at a different speeds don't produce a null result like the MMX, STR is making incorrect predictions
while if the local space is expanding, there cannot be a null result.
Quote from: David Cooper on 30/05/2021 02:00:28STR ... asserts that there's no absolute time and that absolute speeds of motion don't exist. Where does it do that? Quote the 1905 paper please. That would indeed constitute a metaphysical claim. I don't see how that could be demonstrated from the premises.
STR ... asserts that there's no absolute time and that absolute speeds of motion don't exist.
QuoteWe have a clock and a watch sitting near each other which the scientist look at and travel to and fro between them to confirm what they're doingClocks not in each other’s presence cannot be unambiguously compared. If they’re near each other and millions of years apart, then either they were never in sync or the slow one has been accelerated towards the faster one and will eventually meet it, in which case said scientist would not need to travel between them. You seem to be making up wrong numbers. How did they get millions of years apart if they’re ‘near each other?’ Is one continuously accelerating back and forth or something?
QuoteThe ones that were moving fast early on have slowed to a near halt nowThis language seems to assume absolute speeds. If you want to prove your interpretation, you can’t beg it up front. Only relative to this cosmological coordinate system do inertial things slow down over time, and I can assign such coordinates to any preferred event in spacetime, meaning that frame references are still necessary.
QuoteWhen you compare that set of watches with one set of miniwatches though, which ones are behind with their times and were accelerated?Acceleration is absolute. There is no question about which ones have done this.
Sorry, but I cannot parse what you’re trying to convey. It sounds like an empirical result claimed incompatible with STR, but I cannot follow it. What is a ‘same system’ as opposed to a different system? No systems were defined.
But the miniwatch will forever be slow by time T then relative to the clock in its presence.
That’s all I got from your description. STR doesn’t predict anything different, but I think there was more to it.Please be specific about when things happen and what change of speed is done.
I don’t remember the paper. I remember something about an experiment performed just outside the solar system, which will very much be affected by gravity, so you’re lying to yourself if you suggest otherwise.
Pick a specific example then. On Jan 1 (noon, absolute time, to which your watch is set), you jump towards a very large black hole (one large enough that tidal forces aren’t a bother even after 10 subjective minutes inside).
After one day (your watch, noon Jan 2), you cross the event horizon, noticing nothing different. At 10 minutes past noon (your watch), what absolute time is it?
I know I didn’t give all the specifics like the actual mass. Not looking for some fancy calculation. I claim the question is unanswerable, and that makes it indeed incompatible with absolute time. Your hand-wave assertion to the contrary shows me only that you don’t have an answer.
Absolute time cannot be ‘measured locally’. Our falling guy has no defined speed or gravity depth. These things are not defined under your proposed coordinate system. He has exited your chosen coordinate system. That’s my point.
So just another thing that is there, but functionally inaccessible.
Gravity well depth is absolute. It isn’t a local thing.
At what point do you decide to cut this off? Very distant star X affects my gravitational potential, but star Y one AU further away does not. Seems fishy, especially since the distant objects contribute more to the potential than the nearby ones do.
QuoteThere are two key things that matter here. (1) If accelerated watches tick slower than unaccelerated clocks Begging statement, meaningless under relativity. Try harder. Use empirical language. Don’t say what rates things tick. Say what will be measured at specific events.
Quote(2) If two sets of identical apparatus set up the same way at the same location but moving at a different speeds don't produce a null result like the MMX, STR is making incorrect predictionsGalilean PoR says both apparatus (each in motion relative to the other) will measure the same local thing. You’re weren’t real specific about what you want measured.
And why does it take 20 posts to get the specifics of this non-null result? So far all I have is accelerated watches that are slow by exactly the amount predicted by relativity.
QuoteI remember something about an experiment performed just outside the solar system, which will very much be affected by gravity, so you’re lying to yourself if you suggest otherwise.If you had actually read the paper carefully and understood it, you would know that gravity does not prevent it from producing good results.
I remember something about an experiment performed just outside the solar system, which will very much be affected by gravity, so you’re lying to yourself if you suggest otherwise.
If you were to move the apparatus along at 0.866c
the expansion of space between the two outer clocks would lead to light signals from them to the central clock taking extra time to reach the central clock
Hold it right there. LET predicts that the functionality of a clock halts at the event horizon
Of course [gravity well depth is] local
QuoteUse empirical language. Don’t say what rates things tick. Say what will be measured at specific events.In the thought experiment with the clocks being created near the time of the big bang, we see that accelerated watches are ticking slower than unaccelerated clocks because we can look at the photos that show their times when they encounter each other and show that the clocks have registered more time passing.
Use empirical language. Don’t say what rates things tick. Say what will be measured at specific events.
Quote from: David Cooper on 31/05/2021 04:54:31If you had actually read the paper carefully and understood it, you would know that gravity does not prevent it from producing good results.OK, so you’re lying to yourself. Has anybody with any physics knowledge actually reviewed this? Do you dismiss any review that points out errors? For one, you seem to assume that gravity somehow just shuts off ‘outside the solar system’.
If you had actually read the paper carefully and understood it, you would know that gravity does not prevent it from producing good results.
You put two relatively stationary objects in interstellar space, the local stars around it will usually tend to pull the two objects apart.
... This is all simple orbital mechanics, having nothing to do with relativity.
Trying to measure expansion within a bound object is like trying to do it by tracking the distance between a pair of buildings over time. Such motion has been measured, but it’s continental drift, not space expansion that explains it.
So let’s at least be reasonable and put this setup in deep space between galaxy clusters in a place with minimal gravity gradient. Otherwise the gravity effects will totally dwarf any claimed expansion effects.
The paper talks about putting two objects in space, relatively stationary. If they’re separated by some distance, then they’ll have different peculiar velocities. If the near end has zero peculiar velocity, the far end will have a peculiar velocity in the direction of the near end. Space might expand past it, but that object will remain a fixed distance from the near end over time unless a force (gravity say) accelerates it. So the two ends will remain a fixed separation indefinitely. Your paper seems to naively assume that expansion is a force that somehow accelerates things, like there’s some kind of drag with the aether or something. That nobody has pointed this out seems to indicate that nobody has actually reviewed the paper.
QuoteIf you were to move the apparatus along at 0.866cNo frame reference. If you’re not begging your conclusion, then a speed is meaningless without a reference.
I will assume a peculiar velocity of .866c, and I’ll take a guess that it is along the line separating the two ends, but that also isn’t specified.
I shouldn’t have to assume all these things. You should specify them.
You should also put the objects much further apart like a megaparsec so these things I’m pointing out become more obvious.
Quotethe expansion of space between the two outer clocks would lead to light signals from them to the central clock taking extra time to reach the central clockThat would be remarkable… I deny this claim unless there are external forces involved accelerating things.
You’ve described clocks synced relative to their own inertial frame, and if that inertia is maintained (no acceleration), then the proper separation between the two ends will be maintained and the measurement taken in the middle will get signals simultaneously from either end.
You’re describing a local test in supposedly gravity-free conditions (which interstellar space isn’t). The cosmological frame cannot be detected by a local test.
QuoteHold it right there. LET predicts that the functionality of a clock halts at the event horizonThat seems to be an awful mark against LET then.
It’s like looking at a flat map of Earth (like google maps) and noting that Greenland appears larger than Brazil despite the fact that it’s about a quarter the size of Brazil...
Local spacetime at the event horizon is perfectly Minkowskian, and thus physics goes on as normal, as evidenced by a simple choice of a different abstract coordinate system such as the local inertial one of the guy falling in, or something non-local like Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates.
So LET acknowledges and runs away from the problem with hands on the ears, whereas relativity has no trouble with it. Defeated by confusing the map for the territory. So sad.
I’m saying that the difference in depth between two events is not frame dependent. Your comment comparing very distant events (say outside each other’s visible universe) seemed to suggest otherwise.
Much better. Clocks are being compared in each other’s presence. No mention of tick rates which require a frame reference. The photo seems hardly necessary. The measurement can be logged and emailed for later comparision. No actual scientist need be present.
If the space is expanding between the two clocks and we are actively maintaining the distance between them, we are moving them through the amount of new space that has appeared between them, and that affects their timings.
Ideally that's what we would do, but it could take millions of years to get it there.
If the central clock is at rest, both the outer clocks will be moving through space
There is no force acting on the outer clocks unless we apply one to keep them at the right separation if they drift away from that
What will cause the clocks to run slow in this case is their speed through space which is not zero if it is zero for the central clock.
[.866c, no reference] has a very clear meaning in LET and we're talking about measuring absolute speeds, so you shouldn't have any difficulty understanding what it means.
The difference in results for the two sets of apparatus that you have to get in expanding space
Indeed you shouldn't have to assume them: they are all spelt out clearly in the paper.
think about how when you try to separate two clocks very slowly, you end up with the same synchronisation as if you separated them very quickly to the same distance apart.
Now, transfer that understanding to the experiment: we have two clocks moving at speeds through space that may only be a little different, but they move through space at different speeds for the same length of time as each other with one of them moving through more space than the other. That leads to a change in their synchronisation.
Spacetime is just a contrived abstraction.
It would really help if you actually put some numbers to what you expect to happen.
I see 100 au expanding by 50m in a month. That’s an actual computation. Care to show how you got 50m? I got about twice that.
Are you asserting that the relatively stationary objects are going to move apart 50m in a month? I might agree with that only because the pull of the nearby stars might do that. Absent gravity and such, they stay 100 au apart relative to the inertial frame in which they were initially stationary, all per Newton’s first law of motion, which still applies.
We’re doing this without gravity or dark energy, so they won’t drift.
You seem to not so much be interested in keeping them relatively stationary as much as computing their time dilation due to their peculiar motion? But your clocks were never synced in that coordinate system, so no comparison can be made. All clocks will stay in sync forever in the inertial frame in which all of them are stationary.
To measure that, you’d have to sync the clocks relative to the cosmological frame, and you haven’t done that.
The experiment will behave the same. All clocks will stay in sync relative to the interial frame in which all clocks are stationary. Even LET does not suggest otherwise. It make the exact same empirical predictions (except for the experience of crossing into a black hole apparently).
QuoteThe slowing of clocks isn't about accelerations, but about absolute speeds through space.Fine, but you’re not measuring the absolute time of the signals with your setup. You’re measuring the time relative to the inertial frame in which you synced all the clocks. The signal travel time will remain fixed for all eternity relative to that frame.
The slowing of clocks isn't about accelerations, but about absolute speeds through space.
Quotethink about how when you try to separate two clocks very slowly, you end up with the same synchronisation as if you separated them very quickly to the same distance apart.Umm… no. You yourself say that it’s all about speed. Doing it fast results in a sync different from a slow transport. Neither method is a valid synchronization method.
QuoteSpacetime is just a contrived abstraction.Then LET apparently gives physical meaning to a contrived coordinate abstraction if it denies reality beyond said contrived abstraction.
I then switched to maintaining the original distance between them so that the extra space being generated between them pushes extra space through them instead. That removed all the problems that the original idea suffered from. We then have a system in which if there's no expansion, all three clocks will remain in sync throughout the entire duration of the experiment, but if the space is expanding and the central clock is at rest, the two outer clocks will still remain in sync with each other throughout the experiment but will both lag behind the middle clock
and the amount by which they lag behind will be the same time that it takes for light to travel 50m.
This is precisely why I wanted to run the paper past you before publishing it
an opportunity for someone else to get in first
QuoteWe’re doing this without gravity or dark energy, so they won’t drift.Of course they'll drift.
QuoteYou seem to not so much be interested in keeping them relatively stationary as much as computing their time dilation due to their peculiar motion? But your clocks were never synced in that coordinate system, so no comparison can be made. All clocks will stay in sync forever in the inertial frame in which all of them are stationary.The whole point is that they can't all be stationary because of the expansion of space: they have to be moving at different speeds through the expanding space in order to maintain their separation distances, and clearly that's going to show.
All you do is send out a signal from the central clock to the outer ones, and then they send signals back to the central clock many times. You keep sending signals both ways, of course, to maintain the same separation between them
No: LET predicts that the clocks are moving through space at different speeds and that they will tick at different rates as a result.
STR predicts that they are all moving at the same speed relative to each other and that they will all tick at the same rate.
The travel time for the signals does indeed remain constant
QuoteQuotethink about how when you try to separate two clocks very slowly, you end up with the same synchronisation as if you separated them very quickly to the same distance apart.Doing it fast results in a sync different from a slow transport. .If instead, from the same starting point [equidistant between two end points], you send two synchronised watches out with one covering the distance to one clock in an hour and the other taking a day to get to the other clock, and then when those transferred watches read a particular time you set the two destination clocks to zero, you have sychronised them for the same frame as before.
Quotethink about how when you try to separate two clocks very slowly, you end up with the same synchronisation as if you separated them very quickly to the same distance apart.Doing it fast results in a sync different from a slow transport. .
But they won’t lag, for the reasons I repeatedly pointed out, and that you will not see because you’re too busy knowing that you’re right.
If the clocks had been synced relative to what you call the absolute frame, the lag will be a month of time dilation from the blistering motion of a millimeter per minute.
Both interpretations predict the exact same numbers. If you don’t get identical numbers, you’re making a mistake.
A thing in orbit cannot be inertial.
QuoteQuoteYou seem to not so much be interested in keeping them relatively stationary as much as computing their time dilation due to their peculiar motion? But your clocks were never synced in that coordinate system, so no comparison can be made. All clocks will stay in sync forever in the inertial frame in which all of them are stationary.The whole point is that they can't all be stationary because of the expansion of space: they have to be moving at different speeds through the expanding space in order to maintain their separation distances, and clearly that's going to show.This is what I mean. I tell you what’s wrong, and you don’t hear it. Actually read what I say and don’t just assume I’m wrong.
You didn’t sync your clocks ‘with space’, so it doesn’t show what you’re trying to show. If you did sync them that way (no proposed method to do this is mentioned in the paper, which is probably good since clocks ticking at different rates cannot be meaningfully synced)...
and this lag is exactly predicted by relativity as well, so it doesn’t falsify either interpretation.
Sending signals does not help maintain separation.
After that, any subsequent signals will be received by the center in exact normal rate with no additional lag at all, even under your interpretation. You seem entirely unaware of this.
That’s a metaphysical assertion, not an empirical prediction. LET does not make different empirical predictions
QuoteSTR predicts that they are all moving at the same speed relative to each other and that they will all tick at the same rate.STR makes no such metaphysical assertions, and you’ve declined to provide a reference where it does. STR only predicts what will be measured at specific events. Do you understand the difference?
Your experiment can only be based on measurements, not on assertions. You can’t directly measure the separation between two things because you can’t be at both ends at once, so be very specific about how you’re going to know the separation of things and which coordinate system is used to express the result.
QuoteThe travel time for the signals does indeed remain constantHave you computed that or is this just another guess?
Using the cosmological coordinate system, the distance between clocks is always shorter than 50 AU due to length contraction of the moving ends. The proper separation of those clocks is increasing due to that motion slowing down over time.
They'll only fail to lag if the space isn't expanding.
Why are you trying to synchronise them by any frame other than the one in which the central clock is at rest?
QuoteBoth interpretations predict the exact same numbers. If you don’t get identical numbers, you’re making a mistake.They don't.
When you put the outer clocks in distant galaxies you can see that: they must tick much more slowly than the central clock.
With an aeroplane moving at 500 mph we have a loss of 3 millionths of a second per month.
Edit: … So, for every division of the speed by ten, we need a hundred times more resolution with the timers.
QuoteA thing in orbit cannot be inertial.We don't allow the clocks to follow orbital paths.
The method to sync them is spelt out clearly: a signal is sent out from the middle clock.
In the paper I described how it does. The clocks are inside boxes which shield them from gas and dust
These boxes can be buffeted about a bit while using the continual series of signals to maintain the right separation, transferring energy to the clock inside to make it maintain that separation with greater accuracy by shooting photons at it.
QuoteThat’s a metaphysical assertion, not an empirical prediction. LET does not make different empirical predictionsIt most certainly does. In LET the ticking rates of clocks are governed by absolute speeds through space
STR is absolutely clear about what will happen to the three clocks which are not moving relative to each other - it does not allow them to tick at different rates.
It is sufficient to maintain the separation which has its length measured using the frame in which the central clock is at rest
that's a trivial thing to measure as you can just ping a light pulse out to the ends and back and time that round trip.
QuoteQuoteThe travel time for the signals does indeed remain constantHave you computed that or is this just another guess?Why would you argue against that when you've made the same claim yourself?
Remember this: "After that, any subsequent signals will be received by the center in exact normal rate with no additional lag at all, even under your interpretation.
Edit:The problem of interference by gravity can be addressed