V.3 No 1

3

On clocks synchronisation

We really have materials on structures transformation but, as I said you before, there is no unified transformation in the weighty matter. In each case the shrinkage is different. The same, the life time of a twin, as I also wrote, will be more determined by the physiological affection of such transformation, and this is today incalculable. This is a large work of large teams, not in our circumstances. Even that what is calculable we still have no where to calculate finally. And, as far as we can see the attitude to the results already having been published, this is not a good time to publish these materials now. They give a way to the future which we must not trust to these unprincipled relativists and profiteers from science. If we have an opportunity, next year we will try to publish the solution of wave-particle dualism in frames of classical formalism.

Physicists will have to work in Galilean reference frame and in Euclidean 3D metric - i.e. so as it is done in wave physics. If the Galilean absolute frame was violated at least partially, we will lose all control points referring us to dynamics and have no right to solve any problems, be they particular or general, even about a body moving along the equipotential lines of warped space-time. There are no stable regularities out of the basic Galilean Absolute frame. And we cannot approach to the problem virtually - by way of mathematical transformation of time intervals. And, as I also wrote you before, dependently on the way you check your clocks you will have different results. Of course, if you put the researcher to a black box, take from him all instruments and beat his brain off, as Einstein and his followers did with their experimental rabbits (guinea-pigs), the researcher naturally will not know, where is he, what happens. But then he will not be a researcher. He will be an experimental rabbit. In the physical experiment, it is not a merit to obtain a correlation in experimental data and abstractly-virtual guess-work, as relativists impose. Here also one from Kharkov Institute of Cryogenic Engineering proposed me: "Let us work together, I will be your theoretician, and you will be the experimenter". But when I told him to prove some theoretical points, he has failed. Well, what will we check experimentally? Flying microwave ovens after Kushelev? No, we have to select the scheme for the experiment so that we could avoid all masking effects and obtain the nut of phenomenon, not some correlation for our thoughts. On the contrary, our thoughts have to correlate with the experiment and to do not subordinate ourselves the experimental scheme. We can easily show it with the help of the same Einsteinian clock-check gedanken experiment. Einstein is known to base the geometry of his SR on the constancy of 4D measure: "Let us think time in the system being measured in such units that the speed of light in this system is equal to one (oops! He thinks, he is so wile. As it will be clear below, he introduced it in order to mere visually introduce a likeness in the standard record of 3D interval and his 4D interval, but the dimension of time will anyway be different from the measure of length. - S&O K.). Then we can confine ourselves to an infinitesimal vicinity of space-time points and write an equation of spherical surface expanding with the light velocity from an arbitrary space-time point, as follows:

(is not it like? - S&O K). The same surface in the system K has to be described by an equation

So the relation equations have to be so that both equations of surface to be equivalent. Given

this last requirement comes to the following relation

[Einstein. The speed of light in the statical gravitational field. Collection of scientific works, v. 1, p. 190].

We can mark, a special value of this citation is that in it Einstein equalises the time-like intervals for the very general case, including also non-inertial frames. Thus, he was sure that his system works both in inertial and non-inertial frames. This confidence followed from a circumstance: Lorentz from whose work Einstein had primitively "copied" this transformation used it for power fields - and Einstein hoped that with his rotten postulates such correlation will also work. This is his personal scientific character. But we are interesting to compare the time intervals in the view of features of Einsteinian gedanken experiment.

Well, let us consider his model - for example, after his basic work of 1905:

If the clock was located at the point A of space, the observer located at A can establish the time of events, being immediately close to A, by way of observing the clock arms position simultaneously to these events. If at another point B of space there also is a clock (we would add - "the same clock as at A"), then immediately close to B an observer located at b also can estimate the time of events. But it is impossible without further premises to compare in time any event at A with an event at B; we still have determined only the "time A" and "time B", not the "time" common for A and B. We can establish this last, introducing the definition that "time" the light needs to pass from A to B is equal to the "time" needed the light to pass from B to A. Let at the instant t_A by "A-time" a beam of light emerges from A to B, reflects at the moment t_B by "B-time" from B to A and returns to A at the moment t'_A by "A-time". Clocks at A and B will go synchronously, in accordance with the definition, if

We will assume that this definition of synchronism can be given in a non-controversial way, and with it for however many points and that, thus, the following statements are true..." [Einstein. Collection of scientific works, v. 1, p. 9].

A trivial rule of commutativity and transitivity follows it. But what for did Einstein need it? Having written so long and rhetorically, he actually did not counterpoise an inconvenient for him experiment to that convenient. If in the inconvenient experiment there would take place a clock check, in the convenient for him experiment everything is based on the idea that the clocks already have been timed! Well, what to check if clocks were stationary as to each other? Simultaneity? In case when both observers are immovable as to each other, there is not and cannot be a problem with simultaneity. For it we even do not need to establish the light velocity constant in all reference frames. It is enough to know the light velocity in the given frame and time which light takes to pass the distance between observers.

Einstein had another idea which he did not prove and did not substantiate, but he needed it for the future. Here it is:

"In accordance with experience, assume also that the value

is an universal constant (light velocity in the void)" [ibidem, p. 10].

To which experience? In your previous posts you multiply referred that just a trustworthy experiment is absent. At those times the more. There was only the results distortion of some basic experiments - and no more. But again, Einstein did not care about it. In the next item Einstein already directly uses the relativity principle and tries to prove that synchronous clocks on the moving rod will show different times for the accompanying and stationary frames. And again he has not a direct synchronisation, though he would have to begin namely with it. Should the problem be just and exceptionally the simultaneity, there will be no direct necessity in SR. The point in SR was - different tempos of time, and this issue is in direct dependence on the observers' ability to synchronise their clocks in mutually moving frames, not whether the events are simultaneous. Any two events that occur in some interrelation, even near each other, are not simultaneous. Even a way to check the clocks on the hand which Einstein suggested is not simultaneous in the view of rigorous formalism. When you indicated 2 afternoon, this time has already passed by a value equal to the time which light needs to come to your eyes. So we can repeat, the problem is not simultaneity but just the synchronisation, which needs a sequence of pulses synchronising the clocks, not the quantity of time as such. And here the main problem relates to the classical Doppler effect and difference in delay phases of sequentially coming timing signals. To avoid this difficulty correctly means to solve the problem of timing, and the way, how this problem will be solved, will determine, which timing conditions have we to put into the physical models - not the abstract coefficients of time tempo. Let us walk a little on this path.