Author: Jones, BD
<bdjon@worldnet.att.net>
Abstract: A new definition and
classification of motion is presented and elaborated herein along with a method of clock
synchronization. Additionally, Einstein's clocks are shown to be asynchronous.
The impact of this on special relativity theory and oneway light isotropy is discussed.
Keywords: special relativity, time, light, synchronization, Einstein.
Introduction
The postulation that light's unidirectional speed is isotropic is based on
the assumptions that clocks of different frame of reference cannot be synchronized and
that any synchronization attempt will result only in "standard synchronization."
Standard synchronization being the specific "synchronization" of special
relativity theory [SRT] that by design yields oneway light speed isotropy. This condition
is at times referred to as "the conventionality of distant simultaneity,"^{1}
which is a much more accurate label than "standard synchronization," which (not
surprisingly) has misled many to believe that Einstein's clocks (in an arbitrary frame)
are synchronous.
Since synchronous clocks would disprove SRT, it is obviously important to realize that
Einstein's clocks are asynchronous. Since this fact is unknown to many relativists, I will
first prove the asynchronicity of Einstein's clocks and subsequently present a clock
synchronization procedure (i.e., a oneway test of SRT).^{2} This proof is based
upon a concept of which Einstein was aware but did not explicitly state, much less label,
thereby making it all too easy to overlook this critical concept, which I will call
"frame independency." I will discuss further in three parts: I)Defining the
Three Categories of Motion, II)Proof That Einstein's Clocks Are Asynchronous, and
III)Method for Determining Distant Simultaneity.
Part I  The Three Categories of Motion
Although everyone knows that light and
sound somehow differ motionwise, no one has ever explicitly defined (much less labeled)
the specific physical cause of this difference. Source independency is insufficient
because both light and sound possess this attribute. Only this new concept of "frame
independency" allows us to distinguish between the motions of light and sound and is
best outlined with the following single axis examples.
There are three types of movement:
[a] Sourcedependent, framedependent motion (inertial object). Given two frames
traveling at different velocities with respect to a wall, as the frames pass, an observer
in each frame fires a gun towards the wall. The fact that the bullets reach the wall at
different times proves the source dependent nature of inertial objects. Source dependency
is obvious as any two different objects propelled will be dependent upon the source, such
as firing a gun versus throwing a baseball.
[b] Sourceindependent, framedependent motion (sound wave). Given two frames
moving at different velocities relative to a wall, as the frames pass, an observer in each
frame yells towards the wall. The fact that the sound waves reach the wall at the same
time proves the sourceindependent nature of sound waves. Though sound is source
independent, it is also medium dependent.
[c] Sourceindependent, frameindependent motion (light). Given two frames
moving with respect to a wall at different velocities, as the frames pass, an observer in
each frame fires a laser towards the wall. The fact that the light photons reach the wall
at the same time proves the sourceindependent nature of light waves. Like sound, light is
sourceindependent, but it is not mediumdependent for its existence/travel. Sound waves
are the movement of a medium (e.g., air) which is carried along with Earth, but light
waves have no need for a medium to exist/propagate and are therefore not carried along by
the Earth, but instead move independently of it. That is, light waves are not only
sourceindependent, but also frameindependent.
The key result of light's frame independency is the fact that a light source in any
given frame is equivalent to a light source in any other frame as far as the speed of the
emitted light is concerned. This fact is the basis for my proof that Einstein's clocks are
asynchronous. It is also worth noting that light's frame independency leads to frame
movement relative to light, which in turn leads to Einstein's relativity of simultaneity,
and thus we have for the first time revealed the direct physical cause of this uniquely
Einsteinian or relativistic phenomenon.
Part II  Proof That Einstein's Clocks Are
Asynchronous
Given a long table A with a clock at each
end, and a light bulb in the middle, we want to start the clocks by using light signals
emitted by the bulb. Accepting the commonly held belief that this procedure (Einstein's
definition of synchronization) will synchronize the clocks, we will assume this to be the
outcome in this case. Although this will be the only frame whose clocks are synchronized
by Einstein's procedure, many are not able to see this because they invariably use
separate light sources for each frame, which in itself is not improper, but certainly can
mislead one into thinking that the use of more than one frame is redundant and can tell us
nothing new. But all this has been changed given our new concept, and the best way to see
that each case is unique, is to simply let all frames use the same light source.
Continuing with our example, let a second table B roll past the first table. This table B
has its own clocks at each end, but will significantly and enlighteningly depart from
tradition by using the light from the table A's source to start its clocks. According to
all observers in all frames, table B's rear clock will be started before table A's rear
clock, and table B's front clock will be started after table A's front clock, so if table
A's clocks were started simultaneously, table B's cannot be. For example, if table A's
clocks start at high noon, then table B's rear clock would start at 11 am, whereas its
front clock would start at 1 pm.
Einstein of course was aware that his clocks were not synchronized, but this is
obviously not something one would advertise about one's theory, so Einstein never
explicitly stated (at least not publicly) that his clocks are not synchronized.
Ironically, there is nothing improper, inconsistent, or illogical about Einstein's use of
asynchronous clocks; he simply extrapolated oneway isotropy from experimental evidence of
roundtrip isotropy as given by the MichelsonMorley experimental null result. The problem
is that in SRT, Einstein assumed that nature will always be able to prevent us from
synchronizing any given single frame's clocks (based solely on past failures).
This seemingly innocuous statement of SRT has farreaching ramifications. It tells us
that, contrary to popular belief, none of the following have anything to do with SRT
itself: (a) Einstein's definition of "synchronization"; (b) the relativistic
transformation equations; (c) the "aether"; (d) the null results of the
"aetherdrift" experiments; (e) Maxwell's equations. Also, and most importantly,
it tells us that SRT has yet to be tested, despite the claims that that it has been tested
many times and has passed all tests with flying colors! As we have seen, SRT pertains only
to two comoving (i.e., sameframe) clocks and the assumed impossibility of synchronizing
them. This renders Ole Roemer's oneway experiment irrelevant because it involved clocks
in different frames. In short, if we can synchronize clocks, light's oneway speed will
vary with frame velocity, thereby disproving SRT. (See "Appendix" for a
mathematical version of the above proof that Einstein's clocks are asynchronous.)
Part III  Simple Method For Determining Distant
Simultaneity
All working parts of my clockstarting
apparatus lie on the same axis thereby avoiding any perpendicularity problems. Intrinsic
clock slowing is allowed because all that is required is a steady clock rhythm, slowed or
not. Intrinsic length contraction is allowed because the clockstarting entities are
attached only after any contractions/expansions have occurred.
The apparatus consists of a two conveyor belts which will transport the clockstarting
entities at equal speeds relative to the clocks. Note that this does not mean "equal
speeds as measured by two asynchronous Einsteinian clocks," nor does it mean
"equal 'absolute' speeds." We can best understand this by contrasting my
clockstarting signals with Einstein's: He uses light signals whose speeds relative to a
clock vary with the clock's speed, so his signals do not move at equal speeds relative to
the clocks, and will not synchronize them. This was shown by our table example above, and
it was also shown by Einstein's train/lightning flashes example where observers have
different speeds relative to the approaching light rays (and therefore see the rays arrive
differently). As we know, this is all due to light's frameindependent nature, which
causes each frame to have a different speed relative to a given light ray (or, to be
precise, with respect to the ray's frameindependent emission point).
The two practically touching (edgetoedge) conveyor belts are friction driven along
smooth tables by two shafts whose faces practically touch. One shaft's rotation rate is
monitored by a single clock at the top of the shaft's (circular) face. The other shaft,
oppositely rotating, is kept in sync with the first by the use of timing marks. After the
belts have been in motion for a while, it is possible that one belt may have
(intrinsically) contracted more than the other; however, as mentioned above, this can be
ignored because any and all points on either belt must travel at the same speed as the
belt, and it turns out that our clockstarting entities are nothing more than points on
the belts.
As we stated earlier, all working parts lie in a single axis: the monitor clock, the
timing marks on the drive shaft's (touching) faces, the edges of the two conveyor belts,
and the two clocks which are to be started by the clockstarting entities, shall be simply
the two "halves" of a single point placed on the line (the belt's touching
edges) at the origin after the belts have been moving for a while.
To guard against possible belt slippage, we can place a sentry clock beside each belt
to monitor the passage of equallyspaced marks placed on each belt. It matters not that
these marks may be more closely spaced on one belt than on the other; all that matters is
that they are equally spaced for the belt upon which they are located.
Unlike Einstein's light signals where frame movement relative to the signals prevents
the clocks from starting simultaneously, there is no known reason why the clocks will not
be synchronized by our belttransported clockstarting marks. All that is needed are
constant and equal belt speeds relative to the clocks, and this is guaranteed by the fact
that the timing marks (on the shafts' perimeters) travel equal distances in equal times
(per the same clock) with the coincident shaft faces being equal distances.
Diagram of the test apparatus:


Summary As I mentioned at the start, a pair of sameframe synchronous clocks would
disprove SRT because the light's oneway speed for such clocks would vary directly with
frame velocity, and SRT predicts that no optical experiment's results can be used to
distinguish frames. And as the previously referenced article^{2} implied, no one
has yet properly measured light's oneway speed. Therefore, Einstein's special relativity
theory has yet to be tested let alone proved.

Bibliography
1. Peter Ohrstrom, Conventionality in Distant
Simultaneity, Foundations of Phys. Vol. 10, No. 3/4, pp. 33343 (1978)
2. D. G. Torr and P. Kolen, Misconceptions in Recent Papers on Special Relativity
and Absolute Space Theories, Foundations of Phys. Vol. 12, No. 3, pp. 26584 (1982)
Appendix
Mathematical proof of the asynchronicity of Einstein's clocks
(Intrinsic length contraction ignored for
simplicity) 


Journal Home Page 