0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Apologies.
A great deal of the trouble with communication between us is your refusal to specify the coordinate system you’re using. It would be OK if you consistently used only one, but you don’t, and you switch back and forth between them and think some fact that’s true in one coordinate system (the sync of clocks, the distance between them, etc.) will be the same, when they’re not.
It doesn’t help that you’ve picked an example that so completely local (only ~7 light hours between clocks) that the differences are immeasurable, but your proposal is to measure exactly that,
and you will fail because A) you haven’t computed what you expect to measure,
and B) You are not setting up the scenario using cosmological coordinates, but you switch to those coordinates when you want to assert something like this:Quote from: David Cooper on 04/06/2021 01:46:43They'll only fail to lag if the space isn't expanding.No coordinate system specified, so this metaphysical statement is ambiguous, and I didn’t assert otherwise. I said there would be no measured lag at the central point or wherever it is the measurements are being taken.
They'll only fail to lag if the space isn't expanding.
If you want to make a metaphysical assertion like that, be specific with a coordinate system, else we just keep going round in circles.
Your paper says the 3 clocks are stationary relative to inertial frame A (the paper just says 'frame A', but doesn't say inertial). An inertial coordinate system is a different coordinate system than the one with the lag. Same spacetime, but different ordering of events. It’s a purely abstract difference. What matters is what is measured. That’s not abstract. That’s empirical, and the clock in the center will get signals at regular intervals from the end clocks, not lagged at all. This, not being a metaphysical assertion, must be true regardless of coordinate system of choice.
If the one clock is 7 light hours (LH) away as measured in inertial coordinates, then using the cosmological coordinates, the separation between those clocks will be < 7LH, but increasing. The time it takes to get a signal from the distant clock will be >7 hours and decreasing. This is because space expands between them while the signal is in flight, so it has further to go. Yes, the clock lags, but since the travel time is decreasing, the measurement taken at the central clock will be exactly 1 second apart, exactly as predicted by all theories involved.
All t his would be far more apparent if you scaled up the experiment to significant distances so the difference isn’t all the way into the 40th decimal place (I didn’t work it out, my calculator doesn’t have enough digits).
QuoteWhy are you trying to synchronise them by any frame other than the one in which the central clock is at rest?Which frame would that be, the inertial one or the cosmological one? The central clock can be at rest in both of them. So still ambiguous. Be clear!
Why are you trying to synchronise them by any frame other than the one in which the central clock is at rest?
In cosmological coordinates, if two objects maintain separation distance at a given time (which is different than having identical velocity), then that constant separation distance will only be temporary, and they’ll start to move together and eventually meet. It would require proper acceleration of one or both of the objects to maintain this constant separation as measured in cosmological coordinates. This is one of the things I found out when working through the numbers.
QuoteQuoteBoth interpretations predict the exact same numbers. If you don’t get identical numbers, you’re making a mistake.They don't.Then either your proposal differs from LET, or you assert that LET is falsifiable. Somehow I don’t think your grasp of the theory is up to the latter, so you’re making up new stuff now.
QuoteBoth interpretations predict the exact same numbers. If you don’t get identical numbers, you’re making a mistake.They don't.
Both interpretations predict the exact same numbers. If you don’t get identical numbers, you’re making a mistake.
QuoteWhen you put the outer clocks in distant galaxies you can see that: they must tick much more slowly than the central clock.Depends on your choice of abstract coordinate system. You never specify it. Want me to count how many times in one post you do it? This is about 4 now.
When you put the outer clocks in distant galaxies you can see that: they must tick much more slowly than the central clock.
You put in in interstellar space just outside the solar system. That puts it in orbit about the galaxy, involving acceleration that will dwarf the sort of time differences you’re trying to measure. That’s why I put it in a universe completely free of gravity and dark energy. Your setup needs to be stationary and needs to stay that way without proper acceleration.
QuoteThe method to sync them is spelt out clearly: a signal is sent out from the middle clock.But are your outer clocks moving apart? In which coordinate system are they maintaining constant separation, because it can’t be both.
The method to sync them is spelt out clearly: a signal is sent out from the middle clock.
You didn’t specify how you accomplished it. In particular, no mention of coordinate system was made. Things were not ‘spelt out clearly’. It very much matters because constant separation in one coordinate system gives different empirical results than constant separation in a different coordinate system.
QuoteIn LET the ticking rates of clocks are governed by absolute speeds through spaceThat’s not an empirical measurement. It’s a metaphysical assertion. You seem not to know the difference at all.
In LET the ticking rates of clocks are governed by absolute speeds through space
QuoteSTR 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.STR makes no such assertion, and it certainly cannot be demonstrated from the premises.
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.
QuoteIt is sufficient to maintain the separation which has its length measured using the frame in which the central clock is at restIt’s at rest in both coordinate systems, so you still need to specify the coordinate system if you want to be clear.
It is sufficient to maintain the separation which has its length measured using the frame in which the central clock is at rest
Quotethat'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.That is an empirical prediction. Using cosmological coordinates, if you are stationary and there is a mirror out there held at a constant distance (as measured by said cosmological coordinates), the round trip times will shorten over time. The first one will take longer than the second one. Do you not know this? It’s kind of obvious if you think about it. Point is here, you can’t use such a method to maintain constant separation relative to that kind of coordinate system. It only works for inertial coordinates. Ditto with the granite slab.
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.
Travel time is an abstract concept is constant in this scenario only using inertial coordinates.
QuoteRemember 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. That makes no mention of travel time (a relationship dependent on one’s abstract coordinate system of choice). It mentions only what will be measured at one location, which is a coordinate system independent empirical claim. You really don’t know the difference.
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.
QuoteEdit:The problem of interference by gravity can be addressedIf you’ve no grasp of the ideal situation, it’s not time to try to deal with the real universe with its gravity and such.
Edit:The problem of interference by gravity can be addressed
I always spell it out.
When I talk about clocks being synchronised, I always say its done using the frame of reference in which the central clock is at rest
and then I refer how things are or might be moving relative to the local space where they are
Everything you need to know can be worked out from that with ease
You can imagine it at any size you like: the principle works the same way regardles of the size.
The objective is obviously to try to measure it as soon as the technology exists to do so
We set up the experiment without knowing what the cosmological coordinates are.
I start from not knowing how the apparatus is moving relative to space
That is indeed the aim: the middle clock just sits there sending out and receiving signals, and once it has those signals returning at the right times it is satisfied that the outer clocks are maintaining a constant distance from it.
If the central clock is sending out one ping per second, it should be getting back precisely one ping per second if the distance between the clocks is kept constant.
try to maintain exact one-second intervals in the timings, leading to them gradually moving closer to the central clock…You're free to scale it up to any size you like, such as having the end clocks in distant galaxies (while they move through them at relativistic speed in order to maintain their distance from us)
Let's maintain a huge separation though without any galaxies and have one of the end clocks be approximately at rest instead of the central one.
What happens to the signals that we get back now? We send them out from our central clock at a rate which we think is one beep per second.
The clock that's at rest receives them at a rate that it measures as one beep per second, but because it's ticking faster than our clock, it has to be moving away from us to maintain that, or rather we have to be moving away from it given that we're considering a case where it is at rest.
QuoteWhich frame would that be, the inertial one or the cosmological one? The central clock can be at rest in both of them. So still ambiguous. Be clear!When you synchronise clocks in a test of STR where you send out a signal from a central clock, you obviously use the inertial frame in which the middle clock is at rest.
Which frame would that be, the inertial one or the cosmological one? The central clock can be at rest in both of them. So still ambiguous. Be clear!
QuoteIn cosmological coordinates, if two objects maintain separation distance at a given time (which is different than having identical velocity), then that constant separation distance will only be temporary, and they’ll start to move together and eventually meet. It would require proper acceleration of one or both of the objects to maintain this constant separation as measured in cosmological coordinates. This is one of the things I found out when working through the numbers.That's strange. If you imagine a pipe/tube with another pibe inside it and you have the inner one being pushed out of the outer one at a constant relative speed for a constant expansion rate
a roller sitting on the inner pipe (away outer pipe) would have to rotate at a constant rate to stay the same distance from the first roller.
You established earlier that all the galaxies must be approximately at rest as any great speed they could have had in the early universe would have been lost by now
so you should be able to agree that clocks at rest in those distant galaxies are going to be ticking faster than our outer clocks which are racing through those galaxies at relativistic speed relative to them and therefore at relativistic speed relative to the local space they're passing through, so they must be ticking more slowly than those clocks at rest in those galaxies.
All that matters here is that we have three clocks spread out across a distance in expanding space.
What we find when we do that is that we will get different measurements for the different cases
Constant separation, going back to the method that tries to maintain that, has its standard meaning here: the clocks are not moving apart and the round trip distance for light signals is constant.
Constant separation is constant separation.
If you're using some kind of coordinate system in which the coordinates keep changing for two objects that are at a constant actual separation from each other
It appears to me that you're dragging in some weird coordinate system which makes out that things are at a constant separation when they're actually changing their separation
You still seem to be completely unaware that you’re doing it. As I said, we cannot communicate if statements are made that are only true in one coordinate system (or ‘CS’, I tire of typing it) and not another, but you are not explicit about which coordinate system that you think some non-empirical statement is true.
Yes, I know we’re probably not talking about some inertial frame in which everything is moving, or some rotating frame or something, but this clock is at rest in both of the CSs that we’re discussing regularly.
I pointed out this offense in several prior posts and yet you persist in doing it. I still don’t know which of the two coordinates you’re using.
Constant separation relative to a stationary object in {C} can only be maintained at peculiar velocities of about 0.76c and below.
QuoteWe set up the experiment without knowing what the cosmological coordinates are.Why not? All you have to do is look out the window.
You’re just trying (and failing) to find an empirical test to determine it from inside a box. The peculiar velocity of the solar system is well known and easily googled. OK, it is admittedly not known to the amazing precision you seem to want.
Your paper does not describe how the apparatus is moving relative to space.
It describes it relative to frame A, which is presumably an inertial frame just like frames B through H. That was about the only CS reference in the paper. Since you are assigning {C} as absolute, that means signals from the end clocks are not maintaining constant travel time in {C}, but you seem to presume they do.
If the separation distance is maintained relative to one CS, then it isn’t constant as measured by the other. I pointed this out in the prior post, and yet you say ambiguous statements like this. You’re seemingly not reading my replies at all.
QuoteIf the central clock is sending out one ping per second, it should be getting back precisely one ping per second if the distance between the clocks is kept constant.First of all. (3). You don’t say which coordinate system is used to describe the separation distance.
Second of all, what are these pings for? I thought there were clocks at the ends sending out signals every second. If they’re just echoing the pings from the center, then no clock is needed and you just need a mirror out there.
You're free to scale it up to any size you like, such as having the end clocks in distant galaxies (while they move through them at relativistic speed in order to maintain their distance from us)
QuoteWhat happens to the signals that we get back now? We send them out from our central clock at a rate which we think is one beep per second.That wording only makes sense in the {C} CS, but I’ll still ding you (7) for not being explicit about it. My reply just below assumes {C}.
QuoteThe clock that's at rest receives them at a rate that it measures as one beep per second, but because it's ticking faster than our clock, it has to be moving away from us to maintain that, or rather we have to be moving away from it given that we're considering a case where it is at rest.OK, the left clock is your stationary one, but the travel time between you and the left clock is always decreasing despite the steadily increasing separation distance, so the signals are received at the left every 1 second exactly despite your clock sending them less often than that.
The only empirical measurement is seemingly on the left now, not where you are. Of course you’ll measure signals from the left every second as well if it’s sending them, this time dominated by the steadily increasing separation distance between them. Yes, I agree that the objects are moving apart despite being bolted to a common slab of granite.
So the paper implies. Not sure why sync is necessary, but OK.
This procedure syncs the end clocks to each other relative to {I} but does not sync the middle one with either. I presume the objects are all stationary relative to {I}.
But that rate isn’t constant. It’s decreasing over time.
Quotea roller sitting on the inner pipe (away outer pipe) would have to rotate at a constant rate to stay the same distance from the first roller.Obviously not. In 13.8 billion more years, a roller at the same 50 AU distance will be rolling at half the rate it is now. Surely this much is intuitive, no?
QuoteYou established earlier that all the galaxies must be approximately at rest as any great speed they could have had in the early universe would have been lost by nowNo, I said that using {C}, the peculiar velocity of all galaxies is minimal. I would never have said the above without a frame reference since it just isn’t true using a different abstract choice of CS.
... so I would never agree to that.
OK, I presume {C} due to the mention of expanding space.
QuoteWhat we find when we do that is that we will get different measurements for the different casesYou’ve not established that.
Back it with numbers, else you’re just asserting guesses.
But the different CS defines what ‘actual separation’ is. ‘Actual separation’ is a metaphysical concept since it is a description of what is, not a description of what will be measured.
But it doesn’t correspond to constant ‘actual separation’ in your absolute universe you’re pushing, so you seem to be contradicting yourself.
Look at my example at the top with wildly changing separation in {C} and also wildly changing transit time to travel from one end to the other. But round-trip time is fixed as measured by either end, and that empirical measurement is all that matters.
You dragged in the ‘weird CS’ when you specified constant round-trip signal time. That’s the standard definition, and it uses {I}, not {C} which you are designating to be ‘actual’
It should be obvious enough which kind of coordinate system is being used when we're testing STR against LET by describing things in the way that is normal when dealing with those theories.
When I say we're using the frame in which the middle clock is at rest, that's the normal kind of frame used when discussing those theories.]
When I consider the possibility that the central clock is at rest in the local space, again that's using bog-ordinary frames in the normal coordinate system, and the expansion of space then means that if the outer clocks are at a fixed separation from the central ones, they will both be moving through space.
In the exotic coordinate system
If it's at rest in both of them, why do you need to be told which one of the two it is?
Given that I never use your weird coordinate system and no one else ever does when discussing experiments to test STR
It appears to me that you're dragging in some weird coordinate system which makes out that things are at a constant separation when they're actually changing their separation and where constant travel times are asserted to vary too.
QuoteConstant separation relative to a stationary object in {C} can only be maintained at peculiar velocities of about 0.76c and below.Clearly you've gone too extreme if you can't move the far clock fast enough to maintain the separation distance.
If you maintain constant distance between the outer clocks and the middle one, the signals from them will maintain a constant travel time in the frame used by the observer running the experiment from the central clock. He doesn't care what's happening in exotic frames which make it look as if constant lengths aren't constant.
I just can't see the relevance of your weird CS which can't handle constant lengths as constant lengths.
A CS that says otherwise is not describing a constant distance, but a constant value in a system where a distance has a continually changing value representing it. You should not be allowing such a system to confuse you about what a constant distance is.
If it's to be used at all, it's mishandling of length should not be brought into this to obfuscate action that is very simple.
Quote(3). You don’t say which coordinate system is used to describe the separation distance.I don't have to: it's perfectly clear that the signal must be travelling the same distance through space each time, so you can apply any CS you like to that.
(3). You don’t say which coordinate system is used to describe the separation distance.
QuoteSecond of all, what are these pings for?you still need continual round trips of signals in order to maintain a constant and exact separation distance between the clocks.
Second of all, what are these pings for?
My wording makes full sense in the {I} CS.
It looks as if I got the directions the wrong way round. If the outer clock is at rest, the middle one is ticking slower and is sending out beeps at less than one per real second, so it must be moving towards that outer clock rather than away from it
They aren't bolted to a common slab: they're separate and free to move relative to each other.
It's like measuring the speed of cars with a radar gun.
Synchronising them was needed with that version of the experiment in order to detect subsequent changes in synchronisation due to the clocks running at different rates.
if the pinged back signals arrive simultaneously at the middle clock after the right delay, then all three clocks will have been synchronised, the original signal being sent out early to antissipate the expected time taken for the signals to reach the outer clocks.
It takes a very long time to change, so it can be ignored.
In any case, when we switch to the new version of the experiment we no longer need to care about maintaining constant separation. Instead we look for whether clocks get closer together or further apart, and the speed of the change in their separation.
It does maintain the same rotation while it's on the same bit of tube though.
but for a constant expansion rate of a given length of space
Well, the problem with any alternative to that where they're moving away at high speed through space is that space would not be expanding.
we're understanding that a line of three clocks that are at a constant separation will always have at least two of them moving at different speeds through space
QuoteYou’ve not established that.Of course I've established it.
You’ve not established that.
The separation distance is either growing (if the central clock is at rest), constant (if both clocks are moving at the same speed through space, while moving through the space local to them in opposite directions), or it's reducing (if the left clock is at rest).
I've given you numbers: less and more.
We don't care what the actual separation is: it is sufficient for it to be constant
Well, I can't follow how your {C} works. I don't use it.
Had to split this topic since it is asserting inconsistent physics that supposedly “crack Relativity wide open”.
Quote from: David Cooper on 10/06/2021 04:52:42It should be obvious enough which kind of coordinate system is being used when we're testing STR against LET by describing things in the way that is normal when dealing with those theories.But it isn’t. The same middle clock is stationary in both CS.
Both intepretations support both CS, but LET goes so far as to call {C} ‘actual’, so you’re being self-contradictory when you say that the separation distance is both constant (using the {I} definition) and actually constant. It just cannot be both.
QuoteWhen I consider the possibility that the central clock is at rest in the local space, again that's using bog-ordinary frames in the normal coordinate system, and the expansion of space then means that if the outer clocks are at a fixed separation from the central ones, they will both be moving through space.That’s full of mixed CS references, making it baffling.
By ‘ordinary’ I’m just guessing inertial coordinates {I}, but in {I} there is no space expansion.
QuoteIf it's at rest in both of them, why do you need to be told which one of the two it is?Because you subsequently draw a conclusion or make some assertion that is only valid in one kind of CS and not the other.
QuoteGiven that I never use your weird coordinate system and no one else ever does when discussing experiments to test STRInertial coordinates are weird? Distances are measured with a tape measure or printed on the granite slab to which our clocks and mirrors are bolted. That’s not weird. That’s the most simple CS that everybody uses.
I will quote your definition of the ‘weird’ CS:Quote from: David Cooper on 08/06/2021 02:20:58It appears to me that you're dragging in some weird coordinate system which makes out that things are at a constant separation when they're actually changing their separation and where constant travel times are asserted to vary too.That ‘weird’ CS happens to be {I}: inertial coordinates, which everyone discusses in STR introductions.
Consider a galaxy currently 25 billion light years away as measured in {C}. How fast (peculiar velocity, or actual speed as you put it) would a rock there need to go in order to maintain constant proper distance from Earth? It would have to outrun light, so it cannot be done. Do you not know this simple tidbit? I’ve ‘gone to extreme’ when I point out simple things like this that are published in countless textbooks?
I thought you wanted my input, but you’re seemingly just here to bash anything I say, which is another reason for the thread to be moved to the ligher side. Suppose for a moment that I know at least a little about cosmological coordinates. Please don’t assume the roll of the troll.
So {C} is the exotic one now?
I gave a clear example that shows the length changing.
...inertial coordinates only are applicable to the special case that is free from distortions from gravity and dark energy.
The outgoing signal takes longer than the return one, but the round trip will be identical over time as measured by either end.
Again, this was illustrated in my example, something you’ve just ignored. Why? If my numbers are wrong, tell me where. If they’re not, they show many of the relationships I’ve been pointing out such as changing separation distance and signal travel times each way, all without needed scores of digits of precision.
The granite slab wasn’t enough?
Signals don’t maintain a distance.
This is readily apparent with the granite slab, the peculiar movement of which is slowing over time, and thus it loses length contraction, always getting closer to its proper length but never fully getting there.
But 1) the sync wasn’t done with the center clock. Only the two end clocks are synced (and only relative to {I}),
QuoteIt takes a very long time to change, so it can be ignored.You’re proposing an experiment that you assert is going to differ in only the 40th digit, and you’re choosing to ignore things that change over time. This is why I scaled it up, so you’re not tempted to ignore significant things.
QuoteIn any case, when we switch to the new version of the experiment we no longer need to care about maintaining constant separation. Instead we look for whether clocks get closer together or further apart, and the speed of the change in their separation.They’ll stay at a fixed distance relative to {I} if they start that way and no external forces act on them.
Quotewe're understanding that a line of three clocks that are at a constant separation will always have at least two of them moving at different speeds through spaceSorry, no. {I} assigns constant spatial coordinates to all the objects in the scenario. Nothing is moving through space in {I}. Expanding space is only a property of {C}.
When we're comparing LET with STR with the experiment, we're using the same {I} frame for both and we never use a {C} frame at all.
It isn't at all baffling. We are using {I} frames while also recognising that space is expanding
It simply means that light can't actually be moving at c
The whole point is that the result of the experiment will reveal what light is actually doing
We are testing STR against LET with an experiment where {I} frames are used at all times.
we can talk about other CSs if you like, and the expansion, but that's all in the meta.
The person carrying out the experiment simply performs it and makes measurements, and he finds that when he sets it up the same way but with the apparatus moving faster to the left or right relative to the first running of it, he gets different results each time, while STR insists that he should get the same result each time.
I did want your input, and it's been very useful. I have to thank you for putting in the time you have on it, and I'm getting much more useful feedback from you than from anywhere else, which reveals a lot about your quality. There's a reason why I've always rated you highly, regardless of how much we disagree about things. You have advanced this considerably.
{I} isn't the one I'm calling weird.
It appears to me that you're dragging in some weird coordinate system which makes out that things are at a constant separation
The weird CS is your {C} which makes out that constant separations as aren't constant.
Quote from: HalcI gave a clear example that shows the length changing.I couldn't work out what you were doing with it.
Inertial coordinates are absolutely applicable to a test of STR such as this experiment.
Where have you got changing separation?
In an example where the outer clocks are in distant galaxies but are moving through them at speeds such that they maintain distance from the middle clock, they clearly have constant separation.
QuoteThe granite slab wasn’t enough?I never used one. No practical experiment of any size can.
Signals enable adjustments to maintain separation.
Why have you got the slab slowing down if the central clock is at rest?
However, if I missed something about the middle clock not being the one at rest
… while the observer at the middle clock gets the bounced back signals returning to him at a lower frequency than they were sent out from there, and he also sees the outer clocks get smaller: there is no length contraction change for him to cancel out that sight of them moving away.
Shifting then to a case where the middle clock is moving
QuoteThey’ll stay at a fixed distance relative to {I} if they start that way and no external forces act on them.Not in the new version. They have ion drives or gas jets and actively adjust their speed to maintain a constant perceived beep rate from the central clock.
They’ll stay at a fixed distance relative to {I} if they start that way and no external forces act on them.
I'm picturing them in the same way. To maintain the expansion rate you actively have to accelerate each little tube as it moves away from where it set out
That suggests to me that there will be no slowing of the content of the universe through space, so if the galaxies had all started out moving in the same direction through space at relativistic speed, they'll still be doing so.
We are using {I} even though we're talking about space expanding.
It is becoming more clear that you have no desire to learn anything,...
But the continued unbacked and unquantified assertions seem to be your only tactic, and there seems to be no point in endlessly repeating how those assumptions are merely just that.
Quote from: David Cooper on 11/06/2021 06:41:02... we never use a {C} frame at all.You use it all the time, anytime you use the word ‘actual’. You assert that the far clock lags the (assumed) stationary near clock, which it doesn’t relative to {I}, but only relative to {C}. To say you never use {C} is to deny your favorite coordinate system.
... we never use a {C} frame at all.
QuoteIt isn't at all baffling. We are using {I} frames while also recognising that space is expandingNo. Expansion is a coordinate effect, and thus it isn’t expanding under {I}, only {C}.
Calling aether ‘space’ is misuse of an abstract term
QuoteIt simply means that light can't actually be moving at cSee? There’s that {C} reference.
There is zero empirical difference between the interpretations except apparently what it’s like to fall into a black hole.
QuoteWe are testing STR against LET with an experiment where {I} frames are used at all times.Then you will get {I} results in both theories,
I’m trying to show you how LET does not predict different measurements. Relativity supports {C} just as much as LET, but without the metaphysics. So some amateur comes in with a demonstrable misunderstanding of the mathematics, and thinks he’s spotted an inconsistency between two different abstract choices of event ordering and will not listen to corrections on his misconception.
You fail to back your claims.
Sorry, but I’m getting tired of being asked for help that is not wanted.
Thanks for that, but from your replies, it very much appears that my remarks are being ignored. You repeat the same mistakes over and over.
Quote{I} isn't the one I'm calling weird.Yes it is. I quoted your labeling of {I} as ‘weird’, here again:Quote from: David Cooper on 08/06/2021 02:20:58It appears to me that you're dragging in some weird coordinate system which makes out that things are at a constant separation
You set things up to be constant separation under inertial coordinates in your paper, and then name that very coordinate system 'weird' in bold above.
You verify this constant separation by regular measurement of round trip time, which only works in {I}. No claim is make by either of us that {I} is ‘actual’.
It is {C} that LET assigned the metaphysical status of ‘actual’.
The separation under {C} as you have set it up in your paper is not constant under {C}, so not ‘actually’ fixed separation, as you say. I illustrated that with my example numbers, which you did not contest.
QuoteThe weird CS is your {C} which makes out that constant separations as aren't constant.OK, so your actual coordinates are ‘weird’ now. You certainly are not familiar with the properties of such a CS, so your finding it weird comes as little surprise. You switched sides on your designation of ‘exotic’ as well.
Yes, LET would say that the actual separation is not constant the way you’ve set things up. The clocks are moving apart, as you should expect. I’ve repeatedly explained why this should be intuitive.
Then ask.
You said you seek understanding, and it is best had by working through some real numbers. My fixed proper inertial length of the granite slab was 4.95, but under {C} (with one end ‘stationary’) it started out at 2.3 and steadily increases in length, approaching but never reaching 4.95. Anyway, a separation in {C} of 2.3 growing to nearly 5 seemed to be a fairly clear example of the separation distance significantly changing.
{I}: When both clocks reads T=5.05 (age of universe if you will, and you said the clocks were to be in sync relative to {I}) and the length of our stationary granite slab being 4.95 light-units, a signal sent from the far end would be measured at T=10 at the center clock. I didn’t bother putting a 2nd object in the opposite direction.Same scenario using {C}: The light is emitted at time T=1 from our far clock (It reads 5.05 because the clocks are not in sync in {C}) moving at a peculiar velocity of .98c towards us from a distance of 2.3 units. It takes 9 units of time to reach the center clock. The distance to the far emitting object is 2.3 and growing over time. There is no way any object can be there and maintain that 2.3 separation distance. Constant separation relative to a stationary object in {C} can only be maintained at peculiar velocities of about 0.76c and below. A clock at the end of the granite slab ticks once per dilated second and those ticks will be measured at the origin at one per second starting at time 10.
In reality, gravity and dark energy render STR inapplicable except locally.
Part of any really long object like that is going to have significant absolute motion due to ‘space’ whizzing by it, so it will be length contracted.
As that absolute motion slows down (all without any proper acceleration)
QuoteIn an example where the outer clocks are in distant galaxies but are moving through them at speeds such that they maintain distance from the middle clock, they clearly have constant separation.No CS reference, so the statement is not even wrong. They maintain distance only in inertial coordinates, as you specified. Don’t omit that very important detail, because ‘actual’ separation (as you define it) is not being maintained. You didn’t set it up that way. You were quite clear about using the standard inertial definition of constant separation.
You’re evading the issue seemingly to maintain a blind eye to any flaw in your guesses, perhaps because you think of this as a contest instead of an opportunity to learn. Change the attitude.
Any adjustments are external force. If external force is applied to our system, it would invalidate any time discrepancy measured since STR would simply say the distance changed due to your application of external force to things. Your goal seemed to be to take down STR.
No clock appears to get smaller over time.
Also, any reflected signal comes back at the same frequency as it went out, not redshifted.
QuoteShifting then to a case where the middle clock is movingTo do that, all I do is consider measurements made at the moving end. They should both measure the exact same thing. All metaphysical effects are completely masked, since the only difference is choice of abstract coordinates. You claim otherwise, but only because you’re not working with numbers, and I cannot point out errors when your numbers are just guesses of ‘more and less’.
QuoteThey have ion drives or gas jets and actively adjust their speed to maintain a constant perceived beep rate from the central clock.If you’re applying proper acceleration like that, the {I} separation and the measured round trip time with it. Why would you want to do that? The round trip time will be fixed if you don’t mess with their inertial motion. Both interpretations predict this. It’s an empirical thing, not a metaphysical assertion.
They have ion drives or gas jets and actively adjust their speed to maintain a constant perceived beep rate from the central clock.
The tubes (representing aether) don’t accelerate. In {I} any given tube moves at constant speed relative to any inertial frame. In {C} they’re all stationary. No acceleration of aether in either case. Dark energy does that, but working that in is part of priority 2, and you’re still working out the special case.
You’ve seemed to have regressed. You’re back to asserting that peculiar velocity of an object is maintained in the absence of external forces on it? I really cannot help you then. Do a little research on your own for once. Do it on a decent site, and not a denier site.
My only concern is with correcting mistakes in science and stopping the propagation of misinformation
You yourself have helped to that by showing how things slow down until they are at rest in space
There are two levels to this and you keep mixing them up. The experiment is described and carried out using {I} and not {C}.
[Lower level]: We are using {I} frames [higher level]: while also recognising that space is expanding.
The higher level is the meta: the intelligent understanding beyond the simple experiment.
You know full well what I mean by space.
I'm talking about a space fabric
And all that stuff from you about constant distances in {I} not being constant in {C} was incorrect too, by the way. If a distance is constant in {I}, it's necessarily constant in {C}.
That caused a lot of confusion. What you were calling {I} on all those occasions was not {I} at all
light can't actually be moving at c
The predictions about the [empirical] results differ
I've already demonstrated with the clocks, watches and miniwatches made near the time of the big bang that they reveal clear information about their absolute speeds when they pass each other.
On the contrary, I prove them, but you reject them because you don't want them to be right.
I made it abundantly clear that I was talking about {C} being weird
If it's constant in a genuine {I}
The separations in my paper are constant in {I} and in {C}.
he bit about the clocks having to move faster than the speed of light then suggested that you were doing something totally irrelevant with them anyway.
you provided misleading statements about constant separations in {I} not being constant in {C}
not realising that your {I} was an accelerating frame
QuoteThen ask.I was planning to, but all this other stuff you keep dragging up and warping gets in the way.I will make a point to limit my responses to assertions without numbers. Helps keep the replies shorter at least.
I didn't realise back then that you had one end stationary rather than the middle clock, which is why it looked like nonsense. Here's the original version:-Quote{I}: When both clocks reads T=5.05 (age of universe if you will, and you said the clocks were to be in sync relative to {I}) and the length of our stationary granite slab being 4.95 light-units, a signal sent from the far end would be measured at T=10 at the center clock. I didn’t bother putting a 2nd object in the opposite direction.Same scenario using {C}: The light is emitted at time T=1 from our far clock (It reads 5.05 because the clocks are not in sync in {C}) moving at a peculiar velocity of .98c towards us from a distance of 2.3 units. It takes 9 units of time to reach the center clock. The distance to the far emitting object is 2.3 and growing over time. There is no way any object can be there and maintain that 2.3 separation distance. Constant separation relative to a stationary object in {C} can only be maintained at peculiar velocities of about 0.76c and below. A clock at the end of the granite slab ticks once per dilated second and those ticks will be measured at the origin at one per second starting at time 10.
Your {I} was not {I}, but {A}.
Accelerations don't have that effect when they're used to keep an object at a precise speed
in the case when the middle clock is at rest, the two outer clocks are moving away from it
QuoteYou yourself have helped to that by showing how things slow down until they are at rest in spaceSpace (and ‘at rest’) is a CS dependent value, and sans CS reference, your assertions are not even wrong. I said no such thing.
For instance, the measurement of the round trip signal time, being empirical, is a CS independent fact, and thus is predicted in both coordinate systems. If they’re not, then one of the coordinate systems is not self-consistent. Such seems to be your claim, but the discrepancy is due to your misapplication (or complete lack of) of the mathematics of sometimes both CSs.
You’ve not pointed out where I keep ‘mixing up’ two levels. Be specific. Level 1 seems to be choice of CS, which you rarely specify. Level to seems to be CS dependent relations like ‘at rest’, which are meaningful in my comments precisely because I remember my CS references
Quote[Lower level]: We are using {I} frames [higher level]: while also recognising that space is expanding.That is a deliberate misrepresentation of the mathematics. If we’re using {I} frames, then space is not expanding. It’s simply not a property of inertial frames.
If you posit a metaphysical thing, give it a different name than the word that already has a mathematical and very CS dependent meaning.
Space has a defined meaning, and to change that meaning is to deliberately obfuscate things.
These posts are so long because I spend ¾ of the space harping on being clear about the CS /references, and you making all these assertions that are meaningless without them.
QuoteAnd all that stuff from you about constant distances in {I} not being constant in {C} was incorrect too, by the way. If a distance is constant in {I}, it's necessarily constant in {C}.The numbers say otherwise. Numbers don’t lie. Unbacked assertions do. You’re essentially asserting that a moving rod is necessarily not length contracted, which is nonsense.
Quotelight can't actually be moving at cLight moves at c in both coordinate systems. It will be measured at c relative to any frame in {I}, and constant peculiar velocity in {C}.
QuoteThe predictions about the [empirical] results differI’m well aware of your persistent assertions, but the numbers don’t lie.
QuoteI've already demonstrated with the clocks, watches and miniwatches made near the time of the big bang that they reveal clear information about their absolute speeds when they pass each other.That can be done by clocks released from any event, not necessarily the big bang. If you do it right now from Earth, the exact same measurements will be had.
QuoteOn the contrary, I prove them, but you reject them because you don't want them to be right.And yet my numbers demonstrate my case and the lack of your numbers condemns your case. Numbers don’t lie.
QuoteI made it abundantly clear that I was talking about {C} being weirdFine. {C} is weird to you. My condolences. You’ve asserted that one to be the absolute one, but you seem oblivious to the properties of such a CS, so it is little surprise to me that you admit to finding it ‘weird’.
QuoteIf it's constant in a genuine {I}I don’t think ‘genuine’ is a physics term.
QuoteThe separations in my paper are constant in {I} and in {C}.I don’t recall the assertion in the paper, but the assertion here demonstrates your ignorance of basic hyperbolic coordinate properties.
Quotenot realising that your {I} was an accelerating frameAn accelerating frame is not inertial, so is not an {I} frame. This is your attempt to strawman a very basic coordinate system. My {I} is not accelerating. No forces act on the stationary clocks, which is why they maintain their constant separation.
QuoteYour {I} was not {I}, but {A}.I said inertial. There are no external forces, so no acceleration in {I}. {A} requires an external force to maintain proper acceleration, which would be empirically measured by an accelerometer. If you add accelerometers to the ends, they’ll all read zero.
Quote in the case when the middle clock is at rest, the two outer clocks are moving away from itYou’ve repeatedly denied this. So now you’re contradicting yourself.
There's the actual universe, which is not a metaphysical thing
If the official vocabulary of physics is deficient, that is not my fault. There is a real universe and it is not a mere decoration.
The rod loses contraction while the trailing outer clock moves nearer to the middle clock in the case where that outer clock is initially at rest (in {C}),
while in the case where the middle clock is at rest (in {C} throughout, there is no change to any part of the rod's state of contraction at any time
QuoteThe rod loses contraction while the trailing outer clock moves nearer to the middle clock in the case where that outer clock is initially at rest (in {C}), This statement seems self contradictory. Yay for the CS reference though. Regardless of which clock is stationary, how can the clocks move nearer to the middle if the rod to which they are all bolted is growing longer?
Quotewhile in the case where the middle clock is at rest (in {C} throughout, there is no change to any part of the rod's state of contraction at any timeNot true since the peculiar motion of the ends is always decreasing, and contraction in {C} is a function only of peculiar motion. You seem to have almost no familiarity with coordinate systems of this nature.
There seems to be no other discussion of actual physics in your last reply.
Of course, we want the middle clock to stay still, so it can't make instant adjustments to the positions of the outer clocks, so it would be better to have the outer clocks try to maintain exact one-second intervals in the timings, leading to them gradually moving closer to the central clock if they're ticking faster than it is or gradually moving further away from the central clock if they're ticking slower. The central clock would then be able to read the distances to them by how early or late the signals come back from them, and this would also be a measure of the relative ticking rates, so that then provides information about which of the clocks is/are moving through space fastest.
Now, in the latest version I'm allowing the outer clocks to move relative to the middle clock in order to maintain the arrival of beeps at a constant rate of one beep per second as measured by the receiving clock, but STR won't allow them to move relative to each other at all in this situation with this experiment because it demands that they'll all be ticking at the same rate. The real universe though will allow those clocks to move if the local space between them is expanding, and at least one of them will move relative to another of the clocks, thereby revealing the existence of absolute speeds and enabling us to work out when things are at rest. As soon as we know what's at rest, we know that a clock that's at rest is ticking faster than a clock that moves past it and that this is not a symmetrical relationship where it's just as valid to say that the clock moving past it is ticking faster than the one that's at rest: that relativity has been lost and we've replaced it with absolutes.
Of course I've established it. The new version's the one you should switch to as it makes it much easier to see that different measurements will be made in different cases. The emitting clock (my central one) plays the tune while the receiving clock(s) dance(s) to its tune. If the emitter is ticking slower than the receiver, the receiver must move towards it to hear what it measures as one beep per second. If the emitter is ticking faster than the receiver, the receiver must move away from it to hear what it measures as one beep per second.
In the case with the middle clock at rest, the outer clocks are moving through space (with that space moving out past them away from the middle clock), leading to them ticking more slowly than the middle clock. That will lead to them both having to move away from the central clock in order to receive the required perceived ticking rate, though as they do this they will also reduce their speed through the space that's local to them, so that leads to their clocks ticking faster, thereby suppressing the extent to which they have to move away from the central clock, but they will still both continually move away from it, and the result of doing so will be that the experiment will stretch to a longer length through space and amplify the speed of movement of the outer clocks away from the middle one while the observer at the middle clock gets the bounced back signals returning to him at a lower frequency than they were sent out from there, and he also sees the outer clocks get smaller: there is no length contraction change for him to cancel out that sight of them moving away.Shifting then to a case where the middle clock is moving through space but decelerating a little during the experiment due to the expansion of space, what happens now? At all times throughout the experiment it will be moving in a single direction, but the slight deceleration will result in its ticking rate increasing a little as the experiment runs. If we have one of the outer clocks at rest in its local space, then that outer clock is ticking at a faster rate than the middle clock, and in such a case, we have the central clock initially sitting with space moving out through it away from the outer clock that's at rest. We'll ignore the other outer clock for now and just call the clock that's initially at rest the outer clock. The middle clock is ticking slower than the outer clock, so the outer clock has to move towards it in order to maintain the required perceived beep arrival rate in the signal it's receiving from the middle clock, but as it does so, that movement leads to it ticking at a lower rate as it starts to move slowly through space, so that suppresses its speed towards the centre clock a bit, but because it will continue to have a lower speed through space than the middle clock, it's not going to stop or move backwards: it continues to move towards the middle clock throughout the experiment. As the middle clock decelerates though, it (middle clock) ticks faster, so that leads to a further reduction in the speed at which the outer clock moves towards it because the beeps are sent out at a higher rate than before, but again, so long as the middle clock continues to move in the same direction, the outer clock continues to move towards it. We have a distinct physical difference from the first case in that the outer clock is moving towards the middle one instead of away from it, although it's just possible that it might not look that way to the observer at the middle clock from the returning ping rate. The beeps are bounced back from the outer clock in such a way that they have a higher frequency than they were sent out with, but as the middle clock slows down its speed of movement through space (assuming that really happens), it sends beeps out faster (while always ticking more slowly than the outer clock and while the outer clock is always reducing the separation distance), but perhaps the returning pings could still come back to the middle clock at a lower frequency than they were sent out, thereby making it look as if the outer clock is moving away. The outer clock is always getting closer to it though in reality, so which effect wins out? I don't know: that's something that does need a set of specific numbers to be worked out for it, and maybe you've already done that and found complete masking of the difference between the two cases. Fortunately though, I don't need to rush to work out numbers because we can simply switch to a different method of measuring distance to settle the matter. With the middle clock slowing down, any length contraction on its parallax measurements of the distance to the outer clock will show the outer clock to be getting closer over time rather than further away, quite in addition to the fact that it is physically getting closer, so the observer sees it growing larger in his telescope, and the reduction of the distance between them is amplified for the observer as length contraction is lost - if there was a rod sticking out from the middle clock to the outer clock, for example, that rod would lengthen as the length contraction is removed, but the outer clock would not stay at the far end of the rod - the end of the rod and the outer clock would move away from each other with the outer clock continuing to get closer to the middle clock while the end of the rod extends further away. We thus still have a clear effect that is not being masked.So no, this reduction of the middle clock's speed through expanding space does not mask absolute speeds. We still get different measurements from the experiment depending on the speed of the apparatus through space and there is no escape route for STR. The content of the previous two paragraphs needs to be checked rigorously though to see if it contains any errors, so that's the key thing to focus on.
The bit about the rod stretching out to the clock that's at rest though still appears to evade the masking: the slowing of the middle clock will lead to lengthening of most of that rod, and the strongest lengthening will be at the end connecting to the middle clock. Any shortening of it will happen beyond the outer clock, so the rod will extend beyond the outer clock as the outer clock continues to reduce the distance to the middle clock. A rod going the opposite way to the other outer clock would lengthen along its whole length, so it might keep up with or overtake that clock even though that clock is moving away. (In the alternative scenario though where the middle clock is at rest, there would be no change in the length of the rods at all and both the outer clocks would move away from the middle clock.)That is what the discussion should be focusing on: the question as to whether there is an error leading to these different predictions for the outcomes of the two scenarios.
They do, because in the case when the middle clock is at rest, the two outer clocks are moving away from it and the length contraction on the middle clock and its view of the action does not undergo any contraction at any time. The outer clocks are both ticking more slowly and have to move further away from the middle clock continually, so they will be seen to get smaller.Now, when the middle clock isn't the one that's at rest and if you can manage to contrive there to be total masking of the difference, then both outer clocks must be seen to move further away in all runnings of the experiment. Also, if you have a rod sticking out to the outer clocks from that middle clock when it's at rest, that rod will not extend to keep the tips at the outer clocks: they will move away from the rods. The same would have to happen in all runnings of the experiment for there to be total masking, but that doesn't look possible in the case where one of the outer clocks is the one at rest. It has to move towards the central clock, while the deceleration of the central clock leads to the entire rod between the middle clock and the one that is initially at rest losing some length contraction and thereby becoming longer with the tip moving further away from the middle clock than the clock that was initially at rest.And all of that can be worked out and demonstrated just by using the numbers more and less (or words equivalent to them). You can make the deceleration any value you like and you can choose any value you like for the middle clock's speed: the description will fit all such cases. That is the power of using these special numbers in mathematics, and it's the way mathematicians think before the resort to the calculator, leading to them very rarely needing to pick one up when exploring things like this....We're using frequency of arrival of beeps. If the middle clock is decelerating, that will affect the times taken for the beeps to cross the divides between clocks, but in the version where that's happening, all we depend on is that the outer clock keeps positioning itself to receive the beeps at the right times, so when the middle clock decelerates, the outer clock decelerates accordingly while continuing to get closer to it, which it must do because it is still ticking faster than the middle clock. For example, if the middle clock's moving at 0.866c and ticking half as often as the outer clock, a deceleration of the middle clock to 0.8c would still leave it ticking 0.6 times as often as the outer clock if it wasn't closing the gap, so the outer clock still has to race into the signal while the rod extends to a greater length in the opposite direction. That's a difference that isn't being masked, and unless I've made some big mistake in this analysis, it shows that no one's ever worked through this adequately before.
In my paper I wasn't taking into account the decelerations that you say happen, so it was using {I} frames that behave differently from yours. That was the thing I didn't know about, and it's the thing that messes up the original version of the experiment because it makes it impossible to know if the separations are constant. Hence the shift to a version where the outer clocks move and just maintain a constant perceived rate of beep arrivals from the middle clock.That was your big contribution to this - you drove that change days ago, but it's taken you a long time to notice because you're still spending most of your time keeping arguments about an obsolete version going instead of switching attention to the key issue.
Quote from: D.CThe rod loses contraction while the trailing outer clock moves nearer to the middle clock in the case where that outer clock is initially at rest (in {C})Fair enough to bolt the middle clock to the rod, but the outer clocks are required to move either towards or away from the middle clock (or stay still) in order to receive a perceived beep arrival rate from the middle clock of one beep per second.
The rod loses contraction while the trailing outer clock moves nearer to the middle clock in the case where that outer clock is initially at rest (in {C})
We start with one of the outer clocks at rest {C}
while the middle clock has space moving through it in the direction away from that outer clock, so the outer clock (we can ignore the other outer clock for now) is ticking faster than the middle clock and has to move towards it until it receives the required perceived beep arrival rate from the middle clock of one beep per second, and then it tries to maintain that by continuing to move towards the middle clock.
If the middle clock somehow isn't decelerating in {C}
then the rod won't change length
If you have the middle clock decelerating in {C} though (which is what you say must happen), then the rod will lengthen in addition to the outer clock moving along it, so we have the tip of the rod moving away from the middle clock while the outer clock moves nearer to the middle clock.
Either way that's a measurable effect, and a very different one from the alternative situation in which the middle clock is at rest in {C}.
Everything's at a halt until you understand the actual experiment and stop trying to turn it back into the obsolete one in the paper.
This is actually empirical. So you’re saying that, in spacetime free of gravity and dark energy, if one bolts a clock (the one where the measurement takes place) to a rigid (admittedly super-long) rod (effectively just there as a tape measure) and a second clock is moving at just the right speed along that rod either outward or inward (you indicated inward in the enclosed quote), that a signal sent at one per second from that clock moving relative to the rod is going to be received at exactly 1 per second.
That’s a pretty remarkable claim and such an observation would indeed falsify both relativity and LET.
Accepted physics says any signal from the inbound clock will be blue shifted, as will any signal received from the bolted clock as measured at the inbound clock. This is regardless of what part of the rod, if any, is stationary relative to {C}.
You avoid discussing numbers because you know what they’ll show.
I will point out that using {C}, the one clock will need to move in to maintain constant separation distance. In my example, it started out at a distance of only 2.3 and is working its way up to over twice that. To maintain constant separation distance from the bolted clock, it would need to be moving in but accelerating (proper) outward. Such a pair of clocks would each appear blue shifted as observed by the other.
Yes, L ticks the fastest in {C}You’re planning to apply proper acceleration to it, which you claim will cause the observer at M to measure signals with no redshift.Just checking that I got it right. You know I disagree with the acceleration necessity.
QuoteIf the middle clock somehow isn't decelerating in {C}Then something is applying proper acceleration to it. Kind of invalidates the experiment if you do that.
QuoteIf you have the middle clock decelerating in {C} though (which is what you say must happen), then the rod will lengthen in addition to the outer clock moving along it, so we have the tip of the rod moving away from the middle clock while the outer clock moves nearer to the middle clock.Erm, in {C}, the tip will indeed increase its separation distance from M, but the outer clocks will not necessarily get nearer just because they’re moving inward along the rod.
They’d have to outpace the rate at which the rod is lengthening, else they’d still be getting further away, just at a lesser rate.
You’ve given no numbers as to what rate these outer clocks would have to move along the rod, or how you conclude a lack of blueshift from doing this. Clue: There a ton of calculus involved. I write programs to do the calculations for me.
Of course under LET, you get no redshift only if you leave all clocks bolted to the rod, and therefore the experiment measures the same thing regardless of initial motion of the rod in {C}. You on your own with these assertions. I cannot show your mistake with no numbers to critique.
It’s almost impossible to discuss your scenario since the precision required is insane, hiding properties that are made obvious at larger scales.
Why not discuss my case? It has actual numbers.
Quote from: Halc on 16/06/2021 04:07:49This is actually empirical. So you’re saying that, in spacetime free of gravity and dark energy, if one bolts a clock (the one where the measurement takes place) to a rigid (admittedly super-long) rod (effectively just there as a tape measure) and a second clock is moving at just the right speed along that rod either outward or inward (you indicated inward in the enclosed quote), that a signal sent at one per second from that clock moving relative to the rod is going to be received at exactly 1 per second.You're nearly there now, but the beeps are produced by the middle clock - the one the rods are attached to.
I'll let you explore that before describing other cases.
I just use wide-range versions of numbers, and if you pick any specific values within the stated ranges you will find that they fit with what I said applies to the entire range.
Each part of the rod in case 1 is in a constant state throughout with no change in the contraction applying to it
You don't need to do the ton of calculus
Several posts ago I suggested having L at rest and M moving at 0.866c through the space fabric
Thanks for your help, Halc: that bit about things slowing towards rest in {C} was crucial to getting to this point and revealing more about the extraordinary ability of the phenomenon of relativity to mask what's going on, except here it is only able to do it by revealing the absolute frame, and that's the most brilliant thing about it. The masking ultimately breaks itself. What a fantastic story it turned out to be.
So to answer the question, "Does this experiment disprove relativity?" Obviously not.
It is always so interesting to me that someone who is incapable of doing freshman physics problems, thinks they are smarter than all the physicist in the world. Just bizarre. It is like someone reads a few wiki pages on medicine and thinks they are now ready to perform brain surgery!