Relativity question

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rush</i>
<br />Do you have any reference about Lorentzian Relativity like in a peer-revewed journal?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">LR is a favored topic in such journals as <i>Apeiron</i>, <i>Galilean Electrodynamics</i>, and the <i>Meta Research Bulletin</i>. My latest "speed of gravity" paper also dealt with LR in passing. See Foundations of Physics 32:1031-1068 (2002). A coming article in <i>Infinite Energy</i>'s January issue is a primer on LR and compares it to SR. The same article may appear in a future MRB issue.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Have you tried to publish the theory of elysium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The two publications with the most detail are:
** my chapter “Gravity”, in <i>Pushing Gravity: New Perspectives on Le Sage's Theory of Gravitation</i>, M. Edwards, ed., Apeiron Press, Montreal, 93-122 (2002).
** “21st century gravity: a deeper understanding of why apples fall from trees”, J.Wash.Acad.Sci. 90#3, 108-125 (2004).

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">if light cannot be measured in a one-way travel (because that would depend upon the definition of simultaneity) how can they say that the experiment proved the second postulate of Einstein's relativity? How they managed to get the clocks synchronized in that experiment?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It was not realized until the 1970s, and is often still not fully appreciated today, that using a traveling atomic clock to synchronize other clocks is equivalent to Einstein synchronization. For many years, it was thought to be an independent way to synchronize, and therefore a way to test SR. We now know better. -|Tom|-

First, thanks for all references in your above post.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
...using a traveling atomic clock to synchronize other clocks is equivalent to Einstein synchronization.-|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can you elaborate in full details or give me some reference where I can also reach that conclusion? Einstein's synchronization means that you first send a light signal from point A to point B (being both in the same inertial reference frame), read time with a clock at B, then send the signal back to A and read time with a clock at A. If both got the same result, then the clocks are synchronized. Of course first of all the clocks must be set to "zero". I've read that once you use Einstein's syncrhonization you will always, no mather what, get c if you are measuring the speed of light...I can't see why...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
Only linear motion is relative. Acceleration is absolute, and can be immediately detected by watching for changes in the doppler shifts of all stars....-|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Coordinate measurements cannot be used to determine relative state of motion. Only local measurements can be used for that purpose but then only local relativity can be asserted.

There can be no experiment to disprove dynamic relativity based on measurement of relative spatiotemporal quantites. Thus, heliocenric and geocentric systems are bot kinematically and dynamically equivalent in the sense of relational dynamics.

Any indication of a preference of heliocentric over geocentric system from the point of view of dynamic leads to the adoption of a prefered reference frame, something that fails verification.

Makis

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by rush</i>
<br />Einstein's synchronization means that you first send a light signal from point A to point B (being both in the same inertial reference frame), read time with a clock at B, then send the signal back to A and read time with a clock at A. If both got the same result, then the clocks are synchronized.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I would prefer different wording. To be Einstein-synchronized, the average of A's two clock readings, one at initial transmission and the other at final reception of a light signal, must equal B's clock reading at the instant of signal bounce at B. A and B do <i>not</i> have to be in the same inertial frame.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've read that once you use Einstein's syncrhonization you will always, no mather what, get c if you are measuring the speed of light...I can't see why...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The above process assumes that the signal transit time from A to B is the same as the signal transit time from B to A. So if the signal transit time is the same, and the distance the signal travels is the same, then the speed of the signal (distance divided by transit time) will always be the same.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Can you elaborate in full details or give me some reference where I can also reach that conclusion [that slow clock transport is the same as Einstein synchronization]?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">This Message Board's text-orientation does not make a mathematical derivation easy to show. But in outline form, the proof involves showing that, in the Lorentz transformations, the changes in a moving clock are just what Einstein synchronization predicts, whether the clock is moved from A to B at a high speed for a short time, or at a low speed for a long time. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
This Message Board's text-orientation does not make a mathematical derivation easy to show. But in outline form, the proof involves showing that, in the Lorentz transformations, the changes in a moving clock are just what Einstein synchronization predicts, whether the clock is moved from A to B at a high speed for a short time, or at a low speed for a long time. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Any reference about the mathematical derivation would bem welcome to me.

I've doing a research on the internet and found this article, wrote by Clifford Will:

prola.aps.org/pdf/PRD/v45/i2/p403_1
"Clock syncrhonization and isotropy of the one-way speed of light".

What do you think about it?

The link you provided requires a password. My opinions about special relativity may be found in my two articles about it:
metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp and in metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/gps-twins.asp
The present status is that SR is experimentally falsified by "speed of gravity" experiments [Foundations of Physics 32, 1031-1068 (2002)]. But there is nothing wrong with its logic, given its anti-intuitive premises. -|Tom|-