Sensational Demo. The SR explanation of constant C.
Henry Wilson
see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at 'photons.exe'. It
takes only a few seconds to download.
Eric Prebys
Yeah, right, like I'm really going to download an executable from a
well known nutcase (eh, excuse me "great social thinker").
Try again.
-Eric
Stewart Gordon
news:3c6317f2...@news.bigpond.com...
> To see how SR explains why photons travel at the same speed through space,
> see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at 'photons.exe'. It
> takes only a few seconds to download.
I take it you've just posted this message to coax everyone into thinking
you're actually learning something?
ANSWER 1: The fact that they were emitted together in the same direction and
the value of c. Einstein's second postulate. No.
ANSWER 2: Photons don't "experience" Doppler shift. The wavelength is
dependent on the frame of reference. In any inertial frame, the wavelength
of a photon remains the same as it is travelling through space.
Let's call the two sources A (the 'faster' one) and B, and the two 'photons'
A* and B*.
If both photons have the same wavelength in the rest frames of their
respective sources, then in B's frame, A* will have a greater wavelength
than B*. A* will also have a greater wavelength than B* in the frame of
your external observer.
In short, the two photons are identical only in the rest frames of their
respective sources. The speed of light isn't source dependent, but the
wavelength of light is.
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the
'group where everyone may benefit.
Henry Wilson
You don't have to download it. You run it from site. Anyway it cannot hurt
your machine. plenty of others have seen my demos and they are all
harmless.
Not harmless to SR though!
>
> -Eric
Stewart Gordon
news:3c643596...@news.bigpond.com...
<snip>
> You don't have to download it. You run it from site.
In order for a computer or software to display or run anything off the
Internet, it has to be downloaded. By definition. When I point my browser
at your page http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm, the browser
downloads the HTML document located at this address. If it didn't, it
wouldn't have a copy of the HTML document to display, and so it wouldn't be
able to display it.
Eric Prebys
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:04:29 -0600, Eric Prebys <pre...@fnal.gov> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Henry Wilson wrote:
> >>
> >> To see how SR explains why photons travel at the same speed through space,
> >> see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at 'photons.exe'. It
> >> takes only a few seconds to download.
> >
> >Yeah, right, like I'm really going to download an executable from a
> >well known nutcase (eh, excuse me "great social thinker").
> >
> >Try again.
>
> You don't have to download it. You run it from site. Anyway it cannot hurt
I see your knowledge of science is only exceeded by your knowledge of
computer!
> your machine. plenty of others have seen my demos and they are all
> harmless.
> Not harmless to SR though!
Oh, jeez, grow the fuck up.
> >
> > -Eric
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> strung together random words in message
>news:3c643596...@news.bigpond.com...
><snip>
>> You don't have to download it. You run it from site.
><snip>
>
>In order for a computer or software to display or run anything off the
>Internet, it has to be downloaded. By definition. When I point my browser
>at your page http://www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm, the browser
>downloads the HTML document located at this address. If it didn't, it
>wouldn't have a copy of the HTML document to display, and so it wouldn't be
>able to display it.
>
>Stewart.
Well it takes only ten seconds and cannot hurt your computer.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:3c6317f2...@news.bigpond.com...
>> To see how SR explains why photons travel at the same speed through space,
>> see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at 'photons.exe'. It
>> takes only a few seconds to download.
>
>I take it you've just posted this message to coax everyone into thinking
>you're actually learning something?
>
>ANSWER 1: The fact that they were emitted together in the same direction and
>the value of c. Einstein's second postulate. No.
NO. Light speed is simply added 'relativistically' to the source speed.
Then the second postulate is unnecessary.
>
>ANSWER 2: Photons don't "experience" Doppler shift. The wavelength is
>dependent on the frame of reference. In any inertial frame, the wavelength
>of a photon remains the same as it is travelling through space.
Accoding to this demo, all photons in space are moving at the same speed.
Doppler shifts occur instantly, as soon as they are emitted.
>
>Let's call the two sources A (the 'faster' one) and B, and the two 'photons'
>A* and B*.
>
>If both photons have the same wavelength in the rest frames of their
>respective sources, then in B's frame, A* will have a greater wavelength
>than B*. A* will also have a greater wavelength than B* in the frame of
>your external observer.
According to this correct interpretation of SR, the wavelengths changes
occur instantly, on emission.
Now where have I seen that before?
>
>In short, the two photons are identical only in the rest frames of their
>respective sources. The speed of light isn't source dependent, but the
>wavelength of light is.
Steewart, in writing this animation, I had to find a reason why each pulse
moved at a different speed wrt its source yet moved at the same speed as
the other wrt the screen. Each pulse is obviously source dependent.
However, if I used straight (c+v), it doesn't work.
So I tried the SR equation and it DID work.
Now either you accept that all photons travel through space at the same
speed AND light speed is source dependent OR you must accept that OWLS is
NOT constant.
My conclusion to all this is that SR is either self proving or self
contradictory.
Stewart Gordon
> >ANSWER 1: The fact that they were emitted together in the same direction
and
> >the value of c. Einstein's second postulate. No.
>
> NO. Light speed is simply added 'relativistically' to the source speed.
> Then the second postulate is unnecessary.
No it isn't. From Einstein's postulates, we derive the Lorentz
transformation. From the Lorentz transformation, we derive the velocity
addition formula. From the velocity addition formula, we can extract
Einstein's second postulate. We are not *deriving* constant lightspeed from
the velocity addition formula; we are simply *confirming* that the formula
is consistent with the second postulate. If it wasn't, we'd know that we
had made an error in deriving the equations.
> >ANSWER 2: Photons don't "experience" Doppler shift. The wavelength is
> >dependent on the frame of reference. In any inertial frame, the
wavelength
> >of a photon remains the same as it is travelling through space.
>
> Accoding to this demo, all photons in space are moving at the same speed.
> Doppler shifts occur instantly, as soon as they are emitted.
Doppler shifts don't "occur". They just are. They are the difference
factors between the measurements of wavelengths in different frames of
reference.
<snip>
> Steewart, in writing this animation, I had to find a reason why each pulse
> moved at a different speed wrt its source
Incorrect. Or is that a typo?
> yet moved at the same speed as the other wrt the screen.
Correct.
> Each pulse is obviously source dependent.
> However, if I used straight (c+v), it doesn't work.
> So I tried the SR equation and it DID work.
Correct.
> Now either you accept that all photons travel through space at the same
> speed
Correct.
> AND light speed is source dependent
Incorrect.
> OR you must accept that OWLS is NOT constant.
I can't remember ... what is OWLS?
> My conclusion to all this is that SR is either self proving or self
> contradictory.
According to your version of logic.
Phil
Netscape asks if I want to save the file, and then does nothing. Is there
something
obvious I am overlooking? I am curious as to what you have to say, but at
present
I have no way of knowing what that is.
Thanks,
Phil
Etherman
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:32:56 -0000, "Stewart Gordon"
<smjg...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:3c6317f2...@news.bigpond.com...
> >> To see how SR explains why photons travel at the same speed
through space,
> >> see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at
'photons.exe'. It
> >> takes only a few seconds to download.
> >
> >I take it you've just posted this message to coax everyone into
thinking
> >you're actually learning something?
> >
> >ANSWER 1: The fact that they were emitted together in the same
direction and
> >the value of c. Einstein's second postulate. No.
>
> NO. Light speed is simply added 'relativistically' to the source
speed.
> Then the second postulate is unnecessary.
No, the second postulate is needed to derive the relativistic velocity
addition formula.
--
Etherman
AA # pi
EAC Director of Ritual Satanic Abuse Operations
AMTCode(v2): [Poster][TÆ][A5][Lx][Sx][Bx][FD][P-][CC]
Bilge
Re: Sensational Demo. The SR explanation of constant C. to usenet:
The three most obvious reasons not to download it are:
(1) henry obviously doesn't understand anything about viruses and
how they get transmitted, and probably runs any executable
he encounters so that he can't tell that his executable is
safe, even if he didn't write it to be malicious himself
and he probably didn't considering:
(2) he has no idea how computers function and no idea of what roundoff
errors are and how to create algorithms that minimize them as he
demonstrated with the beesel function routine he was given, and
(3) he can't provide any explanation of the algorithm he does use,
making it no better than a (really) badly conceived random
number generator.
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>
>> Accoding to this demo, all photons in space are moving at the same speed.
>> Doppler shifts occur instantly, as soon as they are emitted.
>
>Doppler shifts don't "occur". They just are. They are the difference
>factors between the measurements of wavelengths in different frames of
>reference.
Yes Yes
>
><snip>
>> Steewart, in writing this animation, I had to find a reason why each pulse
>> moved at a different speed wrt its source
>
>Incorrect. Or is that a typo?
No it was not a typo.
The pulses from both lasers moved together THROUGH SPACE.
What determined their common speed?
That was the speed I had to determine in the animation. It was dependent on
the source velocity but in such a way that it ended up the same for both.
>
>> yet moved at the same speed as the other wrt the screen.
>
>Correct.
>
>> Each pulse is obviously source dependent.
>> However, if I used straight (c+v), it doesn't work.
>> So I tried the SR equation and it DID work.
>
>Correct.
See you agree that the source speed was important and had to be taken into
account.
>
>> Now either you accept that all photons travel through space at the same
>> speed
>
>Correct.
Even though my demo is based on this fact, I don't wish to give the
impression that I accept it.
>
>> AND light speed is source dependent
>
>Incorrect.
I have added c and v - the photon speed to the speed of its source. Isn't
that the definition of source dependency.
>
>> OR you must accept that OWLS is NOT constant.
>
>I can't remember ... what is OWLS?
plural of OWL.
be careful in the dark
>
>> My conclusion to all this is that SR is either self proving or self
>> contradictory.
>
>According to your version of logic.
SR also proves that space is absolute.
Henry Wilson
>Henry,
>
>Netscape asks if I want to save the file, and then does nothing. Is there
>something
>obvious I am overlooking? I am curious as to what you have to say, but at
>present
>I have no way of knowing what that is.
OK. Sorry, IE5 asks if you want to run it from site, as well.
You can download it. It is a simply little program and definitely has no
viruses.
Stewart Gordon
<snip>
> No it was not a typo.
> The pulses from both lasers moved together THROUGH SPACE.
> What determined their common speed?
> That was the speed I had to determine in the animation. It was dependent
on
> the source velocity but in such a way that it ended up the same for both.
How do you work out that it is dependent on the source velocity?
<snip>
> I have added c and v - the photon speed to the speed of its source. Isn't
> that the definition of source dependency.
By "added" do you mean added in the normal arithmetical sense, or added
using the SR velocity addition formula?
<snip>
> SR also proves that space is absolute.
Oh, so in your version of logic, Einstein's first postulate can prove itself
false????
Phil
Okay, I was finally able to run the thing. Question 1: Up to the point where you
say "there is no evidence of that" I follow you and you are completely correct.
The two photons remain together, traveling at the same speed, independent of the
velocities of their two sources. Does sound a lot like the old ether theory,
doesn't it? By "there is no evidence of that" do you mean that officially, there
is no evidence that light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to the
medium of space?
Question 2: Suppose that we are looking at the two lasers, and that when they
emit light in a direction (as seen by us) that causes Doppler shifts to neither
increase nor decrease their energy, the emitted photons have the same wavelength.
This assumption is implicit in your argument, although you do not specifically
state it. In that case, when they emit photons in the same direction they are
moving, Doppler shifts will indeed affect the wavelength of the photons. The
laser with the greatest velocity (as seen by us) will emit photons with a
wavelength that is shorter (more energetic) than the photons of the slower laser.
When seen by another observer, he will be able to conclude that either the
photons were emitted at different frequencies, or that the lasers emitting the
photons were moving at different speeds, or both. The "labeling" of the photons
does exist, but it is a little more vague than you imply, unless you assume that
the observer knows that when not affected by Doppler shifts, the photons have the
same energy.
To get to the real heart of your questions, you have to realize or remember that
both the principle of relativity and the laws of relativity can be expressed in
either the current, accepted manner, in which the velocities of events are
referenced to an inertial observer, or they can be expressed in a different
manner, in which the velocity of light does indeed travel at a constant velocity,
c, relative to the medium of space, and both the mass and time-rate of an object
vary as a function of the object's velocity relative to the medium of space, its
"absolute velocity". When solving problems, you get exactly the same answers
regardless of which convention you use. The reason physicists don't want to use
"absolute" terminology is because it places them in a situation equivalent to
saying that "there is a small red dragon behind you, which disappears every time
you try to look at him." Who can say yes or no to such a concept, and why would
anyone care? In the case of relativity, the "dragon" is the fact that c is
relative to space. Yes, it is probably true, but we cannot directly observe that
fact because the results of our experiments are unaffected by our velocity
relative to the medium of space. In other words, we can assume that any
particular inertial observer is motionless relative to the medium of space, use
him as a "base reference," and still correctly predict the outcome of
experiments. The absolute velocity of our experiments makes no difference in the
outcome of those experiments, and since physicists are loath to use concepts that
make no difference in the actual results of events, they declare that all
concepts tied to absolute velocity are meaningless, and use the convention in
which everything is relative to an inertial observer instead.
Are there any exceptions? Depends on what you mean by "exceptions." When it comes
to the results of experiments, the answer is no, nothing has been found that
varies as a function of absolute velocity. Of course, we have no way of
confirming what the results of all future experiments will be, so a belief in the
principle of relativity is itself an article of faith, a "small red dragon."
However, if we view it as a guide or overwhelming tendency, a general description
of how the laws of nature were constructed, rather than as some Divine Law which
cannot even be questioned, let alone occasionally (albeit extremely rarely)
broken, then we will be on solid ground. On the other hand, are there any
indirect indications that, say, the velocity of light is indeed relative to the
medium of space, or that absolute velocity affects the processes, if not the
results, of experiments? Oh yes! Your example is one of many.
The decision to view everything as being relative to an inertial observer, rather
than to the medium of space, is what I call "the philosophy of relativity," as
opposed to either the principle of relativity or the laws of relativity. It is a
choice, one which carries its own problems and areas of confusion. One example is
the second postulate, which states that light travels at a constant velocity, c,
independent of the light's source (and this is NOT equivalent to saying that the
measured velocity of light is the same in all inertial reference frames, which is
simply a specific example of the first postulate, the principle of relativity). I
would argue that a careful examination of the second postulate shows that it is
simply a restatement of the old ether theory, that relativity in fact assumes
that light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative to the medium of space,
and that it is this assumption that in turn leads to the conclusions that lengths
and time-rate change as a function of velocity. The alternative, which is to
believe that the velocity of light is relative to a non-universal object (the
laser), could also easily fall under the principle of relativity, but it would
mean that lengths and time-rate then could not change as a function of velocity.
Overall, therefore, we are not be able to directly observe that we are traveling
at some velocity relative to the medium of space, at least by observing changes
in our experiments. The cosmic background radiation is an outside reference which
we believe to be motionless relative to the medium of space, and this does give
us a fairly reliable indication of our absolute velocity (about 370 km/s), but
since this does involve changes in our experiments, it does not contradict the
principle of relativity. However, there are other reasons for rejecting the
philosophy of relativity, using instead an interpretation which does make use of
absolute velocity, mainly because of the elimination of unnecessary confusion,
but also because of the greater understanding and therefore power that such an
interpretation provides.
Your example does not provide a contradiction of the core aspects of relativity,
namely the principle of relativity or its laws, but it point out real problems
with the philosophy of relativity. If we say that light travels at a constant
velocity, c, relative to the medium of space, as claimed by the ether theory and
(in my opinion) the second postulate, then everything falls neatly into place. If
we try to declare that the velocity of light is actually relative to an observer,
something which is at least somewhat implied by the philosophy of relativity (an
example of confusion), then we have to ask how these "prescient photons" manage
to achieve this, and how they know which observer will see them, so that they can
move at the "proper velocity," thereby always appearing to move together,
regardless of the velocities of their sources.
Henry, I don't think you are accurate on every single point, or that your
understanding is total and complete (although this applies to all of us), but I
like how you think, and I respect you for stating your thoughts and opinions
publicly!
Philip Yates
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> strung together random words in message
>news:3c65c58e...@news.bigpond.com...
><snip>
>> No it was not a typo.
>> The pulses from both lasers moved together THROUGH SPACE.
>> What determined their common speed?
>> That was the speed I had to determine in the animation. It was dependent
>on
>> the source velocity but in such a way that it ended up the same for both.
>
>How do you work out that it is dependent on the source velocity?
I assume you have run the program.
You will have noticed that the two lasers are moving at different speeds
when the pulses are emitted simulataneously.
We are told - and will accept - that both pulses move away at the same
speed.
WHAT SPEED?
The point is, in the screen frame, whatever speed is chosen must be
different relative to each laser. So why is this and how does one get
around it?
If source velocities are not involved, the reason why the two pulses move
together must have something to do with a property of space itself. It can
be easily explained using the aether concept but I don't want to use that
any more than you do.
I was very pleased to eventually find a very satisfactory solution, which
was, as I have stated.
I assume source dependency - but add the two velocities according to the SR
equation.
>
><snip>
>> I have added c and v - the photon speed to the speed of its source. Isn't
>> that the definition of source dependency.
>
>By "added" do you mean added in the normal arithmetical sense, or added
>using the SR velocity addition formula?
adding according to SR gives the right answer. no matter how many lasers
and no matter which way the lasers are moving.
So contrary to what Bilgey says, computer simulations are useful after all.
><snip>
>> SR also proves that space is absolute.
>
>Oh, so in your version of logic, Einstein's first postulate can prove itself
>false????
Actually I admit I was stirring a bit here. It is really only 'absolute'
wrt a particular observer. I am now working on a new animation to compare
how the laser pulses moving in the frames of two differently moving
observers.
Jonas Thörnvall
make a rather flat impression on *reality* if light is source dependent.
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3C66D7E4...@jump.net...
Bilge
>I assume you have run the program. You will have noticed that
>the two lasers are moving at different speeds when the pulses
>are emitted simulataneously. We are told - and will accept - that
>both pulses move away at the same speed.
If I send 1 laser pules into each of your ears,
(1) what is the average number of reflections that
occur before the pulses emerge?
(2) Define an analyzing power L-R/L+R. Is your skull
parity violating?
(3) Design your own personal light clock from this
information.
>WHAT SPEED?
It stimulant.
>The point is, in the screen frame, whatever speed is chosen must be
>different relative to each laser. So why is this and how does one get
>around it?
Veer left, then quickly cut back right.
>If source velocities are not involved, the reason why the two pulses move
>together must have something to do with a property of space itself.
Yes. One pulse escorts the other.
> It can
>be easily explained using the aether concept but I don't want to use that
>any more than you do.
Go ahead henry. The fumes have already taken their toll.
>I was very pleased to eventually find a very satisfactory solution, which
>was, as I have stated.
Where did you state it was stupid?
>I assume source dependency - but add the two velocities according to the SR
>equation.
It's obvious that if you don't turn the source on, you won't get any
light.
Henry Wilson
>Henry,
>
Phil, I haven't seen your name on this NG before so assume you are fairly
new.
We have quite a lot of fun here, in between the serious stuff.
My attitude is that SR tells us virtually nothing even if it IS a correct
mathematical analysis of the universe as defined by Einstein's postulates.
I understand what you say and appreciate your manner - which conflicts with
the usual dogma we get from many of the dedicated SRians here. You sound as
though you are more of an aetherist than SRian.
The problem I faced when compiling this demo was that, after assuming the
two pulses really DO move together (something I am not actually prepared
to accept) I couldn't work out how their common velocity should relate to
the individual velocities of the two moving lasers.
No matter what value I used, it was obvious that, in the screen frame, the
common velocity relative to each laser would be different. The same would
apply no matter how many lasers were present.
Since space is assumed NOT to be absolute, none of the lasers has any
priority over any other. Therefore to assign ANY common velocity seemed
nonsensical. How could it possibly be determined if space did not have some
kind of overriding influence.
It was only after a good deal of serious thought that I hit upon the idea
that the pulse speed was indeed 'source dependent' but in a funny sort of
way. The classical (c+v) had to be replaced by the SR formula before it
made any sense.
However, I see this as a purely circular piece of maths.
It is only natural that every prediction of theory should be consistent
with its set of postulates.
So in reality, we are no closer to finding IF and WHY the two pulses move
together through space, even if we DO accept SR.
Eric Prebys
Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:32:56 -0000, "Stewart Gordon" <smjg...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >news:3c6317f2...@news.bigpond.com...
> >> To see how SR explains why photons travel at the same speed through space,
> >> see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at 'photons.exe'. It
> >> takes only a few seconds to download.
> >
> >I take it you've just posted this message to coax everyone into thinking
> >you're actually learning something?
> >
> >ANSWER 1: The fact that they were emitted together in the same direction and
> >the value of c. Einstein's second postulate. No.
>
> NO. Light speed is simply added 'relativistically' to the source speed.
> Then the second postulate is unnecessary.
This statement is wrong. I'll say this slowly one more time. I'll try
to use small words that even you can understand, but please feel to ask
for
clarification of any that still confuse you...
(1) The relativistic addition of velocities was *derived* based on
the second postulate of special relativity, therefore it
cannot be used to *prove* the second postulate of special
relativity.
(2) The derivation is done in every single physics textbook which
covers special relativity that I have ever seen.
(3) Your silly example (of plugging in "c") is also done in most of
these textbooks and/or assigned as a homework problem.
(4) The fact that this comes as news to you is evidence (as if more
were needed) that you have never *read* a physics textbook which
covered special relativity.
>> (...snipped several even dumber Wilson statements...)
Phil
> Phil, I haven't seen your name on this NG before so assume you are fairly
> new.
Brand new, although I have been studying relativity for over 13 years now. Originally
I wanted to explain to my doubting friends why it was true, but like many on this
list, I soon ran into problems. Over those years I have tried to find the answers to
those problems, and just recently finished, although just for SR, not GR. I actually
have those answers in book form, but I have not yet tried to contact a publisher, and
I am rapidly finding out how difficult it is to get a physicist to even look at it!
Fortunately there are some VERY nice guys at the local university, and one or two of
them are currently trying to find the time to look at at least parts of it.
> We have quite a lot of fun here, in between the serious stuff.
> My attitude is that SR tells us virtually nothing even if it IS a correct
> mathematical analysis of the universe as defined by Einstein's postulates.
>
> I understand what you say and appreciate your manner - which conflicts with
> the usual dogma we get from many of the dedicated SRians here. You sound as
> though you are more of an aetherist than SRian.
Thanks for the kind words, I just hope I can act decently and without dogma to both
sides (if I succeed, it will be proof that an asshole can change!). As for the
ether/SR thing, it depends on which part of SR you are talking about (see below).
> The problem I faced when compiling this demo was that, after assuming the
> two pulses really DO move together (something I am not actually prepared
> to accept) I couldn't work out how their common velocity should relate to
> the individual velocities of the two moving lasers.
>
> No matter what value I used, it was obvious that, in the screen frame, the
> common velocity relative to each laser would be different. The same would
> apply no matter how many lasers were present.
In the current version of SR, all velocities must be referenced to a single inertial
observer, otherwise you get the wrong answers. In other words, given several observers
(or lasers) moving at different velocities, only one of them is permitted to be
motionless relative to light's reference frame. (I find it convenient to declare that
regardless of what object c is "actually" relative to, whether it be an inertial
observer, or the medium of space, or whatever, "light's reference frame" is defined as
being attached to that object, so that light ALWAYS travels at a constant velocity, c,
relative to light's reference frame, regardless of anything else we may believe about
light.) All other observers are in motion relative to light's reference frame, meaning
that their time-rates and lengths will be affected.
Why do this? Because there are only three choices for the velocity of light. It can be
relative to (1) the source. Wrong, because binary stars would appear to speed up and
slow down in their orbits, and they don't, (2) the observer. Wrong, because this
requires "prescient photons," capable of foreseeing future events, such as "Who will
see me? Ah yes, him, I must adjust my speed accordingly," or (3) a reference frame
which is independent of all the objects in the problem. Annoying, because although it
always works in terms of getting the correct answer, it uses an "absolute reference,"
i.e., something which is independent of all the (normal) objects in the problem.
Examples of absolute references are the inertial reference frames of Newtonian
mechanics, and the absolute reference frame/ether frame for light. Physicists hate
absolute references, not because they don't work, but for philosophical reasons. In
order to avoid this, they tie light's reference frame to an observer, but in a way
that avoids prescient photons. They use a single inertial observer, so that all other
observers are not motionless relative to light's reference frame.
Of course, a little thought shows that this still leaves us with your dilemma. To say
that the velocity of photons, c, is relative to a single inertial observer (although
you can initially pick any observer and get the right answers) is very similar to
saying that c is relative to the medium of space, or at least to a single inertial
reference frame, and there still in no indication of why this is so.
> Since space is assumed NOT to be absolute, none of the lasers has any
> priority over any other. Therefore to assign ANY common velocity seemed
> nonsensical. How could it possibly be determined if space did not have some
> kind of overriding influence.
The honest answer is that it can't. Space MUST have an overwhelming influence, period.
The idea that the laws of the universe mystically orient themselves around one
inertial observer's ass is ridiculous. Let that one observer shift to a different
inertial reference frame (as in the clock paradox), and suddenly these laws must shift
to a different observer, one who just happens to be in the same inertial reference
frame that the first observer was originally in. Pick any other inertial reference
frame -- oops!, I mean observer, of course -- and you get the wrong answer, as the
clock paradox demonstrates. The laws of physics MUST be tied to a single inertial
reference frame throughout the experiment if we are to correctly predict the results
of experiments. And this is just as true of GR as it is of SR, as Wolfgang Rindler and
others have, admittedly indirectly, pointed out. How can that be, if both velocity and
acceleration relative to the medium of space truly have no meaning?
> It was only after a good deal of serious thought that I hit upon the idea
> that the pulse speed was indeed 'source dependent' but in a funny sort of
> way. The classical (c+v) had to be replaced by the SR formula before it
> made any sense.
>
> However, I see this as a purely circular piece of maths.
> It is only natural that every prediction of theory should be consistent
> with its set of postulates.
Agreed, we can say that c is relative to the source in a particular way, but if that
way just happens to produce answers that are exactly the same as the answers you get
when saying that c is relative to a reference frame that is independent of the objects
in the problem, then you have really just hidden your true assumption under smoke and
mirrors, under a "circular piece of maths."
> So in reality, we are no closer to finding IF and WHY the two pulses move
> together through space, even if we DO accept SR.
Agreed again. The current version of relativity does not tell us why the pulses move
together. Well, actually it does, but only if you dig very deeply and draw a series of
conclusions that necessarily follow from several of the basic statements of
relativity. One of these "hidden conclusions" is that the velocity of light, c, is a
constant relative to the medium of space. This fact, combined with the principle of
relativity (which is actually a law of laws, a description of how the laws of nature
were created), is what allows us to deduce that time-rate and length vary as a
function of velocity. Assume that c is relative to either the source or the observer
and you wind up concluding that time-rate and length do not very as a function of
velocity, which in turn leads to the wrong answers for experiments.
The thing that I think physicists need to do is simply this. First, take the fact that
there is not one single problem that can be solved in the current version of SR, where
light's reference frame is tied to an inertial observer, that cannot also be solved by
tying light's reference frame to the medium of space. Not one. The reasons for
choosing the current version over an "absolute version" are therefore philosophical in
nature, rather than pragmatic or experimental. So, simply use BOTH versions,
especially in areas where confusion exists (such as the clock paradox), and see if by
having access to two points of view, rather than just one, we don't get a better
understanding of the whole picture.
Philip Yates
Bilge
>Why do this? Because there are only three choices for the velocity of
>light. It can be relative to (1) the source. Wrong, because binary stars
>would appear to speed up and slow down in their orbits, and they don't,
>(2) the observer. Wrong, because this requires "prescient photons,"
>capable of foreseeing future events, such as "Who will see me? Ah yes,
>him, I must adjust my speed accordingly," or (3) a reference frame which
>is independent of all the objects in the problem. Annoying, because
>although it always works in terms of getting the correct answer, it uses
Wrap lines to <= 72-80 chars
>an "absolute reference," i.e., something which is independent of all the
>(normal) objects in the problem. Examples of absolute references are the
>inertial reference frames of Newtonian mechanics, and the absolute
>reference frame/ether frame for light. Physicists hate absolute
>references, not because they don't work, but for philosophical reasons. In
>order to avoid this, they tie light's reference frame to an observer, but
>in a way that avoids prescient photons. They use a single inertial
>observer, so that all other observers are not motionless relative to
>light's reference frame.
You are confused. In special relativity, the speed of light is the
same for _all_ observers. Light has _NO_ reference frame. If light had
a reference frame, you could perform a lorentz transform to that frame
and have the light at "rest". So, it has no frame.
>Of course, a little thought shows that this still leaves us with your
>dilemma.
Henry can only solve his dilemma by regularly attending trolls
anonymous meetings and following a solid 12-step troll rehabilitation
program, which won't happen until he wants to stop not thinking. It
has nothing to do with relativity. Pretending otherwise only enables
his not thinking to continue.
> To say that the velocity of photons, c, is relative to a single
>inertial observer (although you can initially pick any observer and get
>the right answers) is very similar to saying that c is relative to the
>medium of space, or at least to a single inertial reference frame, and
>there still in no indication of why this is so.
This is wrong. As noted above, c is not taken relative to a single
inertial observer. It's c for every observer. You don't have to "pick
one".
>The honest answer is that it can't. Space MUST have an overwhelming
>influence, period. The idea that the laws of the universe mystically
>orient themselves around one inertial observer's ass is ridiculous.
That's the reason for using relativity. The laws of physics are
written to be observer independent. For example, p^2 = (mc)^2 is true
regardless of what frame I choose.
>Let
>that one observer shift to a different inertial reference frame (as in the
>clock paradox), and suddenly these laws must shift to a different
>observer, one who just happens to be in the same inertial reference frame
>that the first observer was originally in.
What a bizarre idea.
> Pick any other inertial
>reference frame -- oops!, I mean observer, of course -- and you get the
>wrong answer, as the clock paradox demonstrates. The laws of physics MUST
>be tied to a single inertial reference frame throughout the experiment if
>we are to correctly predict the results of experiments.
No they don't. They have to be tied to instruments from by people
can measure things in a way people understand in order for people to
make sense of the answers.
[...]
>Agreed, we can say that c is relative to the source in a particular way,
>but if that way just happens to produce answers that are exactly the same
No, _we_ cannont say that. You could say that, but then you would
be wrong.
>Agreed again. The current version of relativity does not tell us why the
>pulses move together.
Mainly because relativity tells you that pulses don't "move" together.
Take the scalar product of their 4-momenta. For that matter, take the
scalar product of the four momenta of either light ray with itself.
[...]
>nature, rather than pragmatic or experimental. So, simply use BOTH
>versions, especially in areas where confusion exists (such as the clock
>paradox), and see if by having access to two points of view, rather than
>just one, we don't get a better understanding of the whole picture.
The confusion exists with you, so I don't think adopting "both
points of view" will be any more helpful for anyone else.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C680D22...@jump.net...
[snip]
> Why do this? Because there are only three choices for the
> velocity of light. It can be relative to (1) the source. Wrong,
> because binary stars would appear to speed up and slow
> down in their orbits, and they don't, (2) the observer.
> Wrong, because this requires "prescient photons," capable
> of foreseeing future events,
A bullet's speed can't be relative to the victim because it would
require foreseeing future events from the bullet's part?
> such as "Who will
> see me? Ah yes, him, I must adjust my speed accordingly,"
> or (3) a reference frame which is independent of all the
> objects in the problem. Annoying, because although it always
> works in terms of getting the correct answer, it uses an
> "absolute reference," i.e., something which is independent
> of all the (normal) objects in the problem.
So, light speed must be relative to source, observer, or whatever it
is that you try to define as "light's reference frame". How would you
practically define a frame where all the distances in one direction
reduce to 0?
And why should light speed be relative to something?
Apparently it just isn't, so why bother, unless as an attempt to confuse
our dearest Henry even more?
> Examples of absolute references are the inertial reference frames
> of Newtonian mechanics, and the absolute reference frame/ether
> frame for light. Physicists hate absolute references, not because
> they don't work, but for philosophical reasons.
What about practical reasons, like, despite major efforts they never
have been detected, and we don't even need them to create a highly
successful and consistent theory in the first place?
Dirk Vdm
Phil
> "Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C680D22...@jump.net...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why do this? Because there are only three choices for the
> > velocity of light. It can be relative to (1) the source. Wrong,
> > because binary stars would appear to speed up and slow
> > down in their orbits, and they don't, (2) the observer.
> > Wrong, because this requires "prescient photons," capable
> > of foreseeing future events,
>
> A bullet's speed can't be relative to the victim because it would
> require foreseeing future events from the bullet's part?
Well I would certainly hope that the bullet does not speed up or slow down
relative to the gun depending on the velocity of its victim. That's actually
what I am trying to say about photons, although I obviously wasn't very clear
about it.
> > such as "Who will
> > see me? Ah yes, him, I must adjust my speed accordingly,"
> > or (3) a reference frame which is independent of all the
> > objects in the problem. Annoying, because although it always
> > works in terms of getting the correct answer, it uses an
> > "absolute reference," i.e., something which is independent
> > of all the (normal) objects in the problem.
>
> So, light speed must be relative to source, observer, or whatever it
> is that you try to define as "light's reference frame". How would you
> practically define a frame where all the distances in one direction
> reduce to 0?
Uh ... Flat? I suspect I am missing your point here. . .
> And why should light speed be relative to something?
> Apparently it just isn't, so why bother, unless as an attempt to confuse
> our dearest Henry even more?
No, velocity by definition involves one object relative to another object. The
idea of a velocity that is not relative to anything whatsoever is meaningless.
If the velocity of light is to be a constant then that velocity MUST be
relative to something, period. Nor can that something be imaginary. Although
we could (for example) say that c is relative to the absolute reference frame,
this absolute reference frame MUST be tied to something that actually exists,
whether that be matter, energy, or even some characteristic of space, in order
for this particular example of velocity to have any physical meaning
whatsoever.
> > Examples of absolute references are the inertial reference frames
> > of Newtonian mechanics, and the absolute reference frame/ether
> > frame for light. Physicists hate absolute references, not because
> > they don't work, but for philosophical reasons.
>
> What about practical reasons, like, despite major efforts they never
> have been detected, and we don't even need them to create a highly
> successful and consistent theory in the first place?
Practical reasons are fine, and if you have them then they do indeed provide
good reasons to avoid absolute references. Of course, there could also be good
reasons to use absolute references, in which case we have to decide between
the advantages and the disadvantages, which is what I am suggesting. When it
comes to the fact that absolute references "have never been detected,"
however, I would suggest that this is not a problem in terms of predicting the
results of normal experiments. Again, there are no experiments that can be
solved by tying light's reference frame to an observer that cannot also be
solved by tying light's reference frame to an inertial reference frame or to
the absolute reference frame. Your objection is not that they cannot be used
to solve problems, but rather that they at least appear to be unobservable.
That is a philosophical objection, rather than an objection based on the
inability of absolute references to predict the results of actual experiments.
Mind you, I believe that the principle of relativity is at least 99.9999%
correct -- given the number of experiments which have not yet been performed
by humans, I think it is irresponsible to claim that it is 100% correct -- and
I believe in all the laws of relativity, but it does not necessarily follow
that since these things are true, that the idea of an acceleration or a
velocity relative to the medium of space is therefore meaningless. Really, the
best approach is to examine situations using both conventional and absolute
interpretations of relativity, and then see if any new and useful insights
appear. From personal experience I can promise you that you won't be
disappointed.
Philip Yates
> Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
> Really, the best approach is to examine situations using both
> conventional and absolute interpretations of relativity, and
> then see if any new and useful insights appear. From personal
> experience I can promise you that you won't be disappointed.
>
Please name one such "useful insight".
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Phil
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
>
> > Really, the best approach is to examine situations using both
> > conventional and absolute interpretations of relativity, and
> > then see if any new and useful insights appear. From personal
> > experience I can promise you that you won't be disappointed.
> >
>
> Please name one such "useful insight".
>
> Stephen
> s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Hmmm, well I was sort of hoping you would check that out and see for
yourself. However, since you ask for a specific example, I'll see what I
can do. Part of the problem is that this kind of examination leads to
other questions, which then provide most of the insights, and I really
don't have either the time or the space to cover all of that. Well,
enough excuses ...
The clock paradox: (Almost) everyone knows that when you use an earth
observer, thereby effectively tying light's reference frame to the
earth, you get the right answer. The problems arise when we try to use
the spaceship observer. The standard defenses of relativity in this
situation are also well known, and will be temporarily ignored. I am
sure everyone here is familiar with this paradox, but for the sake of
clarity regarding terms and the numbers I will use, here is a brief
summary.
The spaceship leaves for 20 years by earth clocks, 10 years in each
direction, traveling at 0.866c, giving it a time-rate of 0.5 as seen by
earth observers, and causing the spaceship observers to age just 10
years. This is how the earth observers would see the problem, and this
is the correct answer. Now, tie light's reference frame to a spaceship
observer, and for 5 years the earth recedes at 0.866c, giving the earth
observers a time-rate of 0.5, and causing them to age by 2.5 years. At
this point the spaceship fires its engines, and accelerates until the
earth appears to approach at 0.866c (for arithmetical convenience, we
will assume that the acceleration took negligible time). It takes
another 5 years for the earth to return, causing the spaceship observers
to age 10 years, and the earth observers just 2.5 + 2.5 = 10 years,
which is of course the paradox.
When tying light's reference frame to the earth's inertial reference
frame, thereby using an absolute reference, the conclusions are the same
as when using an earth observer; not surprising, since the earth did not
change from one inertial reference frame to another in the middle of the
experiment. Furthermore, during the spaceship's outward journey, when
light's reference frame is tied to the spaceship's inertial reference
frame, the conclusions are again the same; the spaceship observers age 5
years, and the earth observers just 2.5 years. As soon as the spaceship
accelerates to a new inertial reference frame, however, things change.
This time we will not change light's reference frame from one inertial
reference frame to another in the middle of the experiment, something
which is unavoidable when tying light's reference frame to the observer.
The earth will continue to recede at a velocity of 0.866c, with a
time-rate of 0.5. The spaceship will therefore accelerate to the speed
at which it appears, when seen by both the spaceship and earth
observers, to be returning to earth at 0.866c. As seen by a "reference
observer," someone moving with light's reference frame, this is 0.9897c,
corresponding to a time-rate of 1/7. It will take 35 years for the
spaceship to return to the earth as seen by a reference observer. During
this time the spaceship observers will age 5 years, for a total of 10
years as required. The earth observers will age 17.5 years, for a total
of 20 years, also as required.
As long as light's reference frame is attached to a single inertial
reference frame, any inertial reference frame, during the experiment,
there is no paradox. The spaceship can constantly accelerate among
infinitely many inertial reference frames, and SR can still correctly
predict the outcome. No need for a metric tensor, which inherently uses
an inertial reference frame (I think -- not sure on this one), no need
to use a space-time diagram, which definitely inherently uses a single
inertial reference frame (try to make two diagrams using two different
inertial reference frames and see if you can paste them together to get
the right answer -- hah!). Remember, the fact that some technique does
not publicly announce, "Beware, I am using an inertial reference frame!"
doesn't mean that it isn't using one. We have to deliberately check for
these things.
And the insights, or at least the questions which lead to those
insights? Exactly what are inertial reference frames, these "ghosts
which act but cannot be acted upon," as Einstein described them? Is it
really possible for relativity to solve problems without using absolute
references such as inertial reference frames, or are we just phrasing
our theories in a way that appears to be free of them, a situation
depressingly similar to those children who cover their eyes and then
declare that since they can't see us, we're not here? If our
acceleration and/or velocity relative to the medium of space does affect
events, then why does our initial absolute velocity appear to have no
effect on the results of experiments, and why is it that any subsequent
changes, such as changing light's reference frame from one inertial
reference frame to another in the middle of the experiment, do affect
the results? One insight, of course, is that SR can easily deal with
observers moving among many inertial reference frames, although there is
at least some awareness that that is the case even in conventional
relativity.
The really interesting thing that all of this leads to, however, is a GR
version of the clock paradox. For this one, the spaceship will orbit the
earth at a distance of 0.728 light-years at a velocity of 0.866c. At
this distance the engines will have to constantly push the spaceship
towards the earth with a force of exactly 1 g in order to maintain a
circular orbit. Since the spaceship's velocity is 0.866c, its time-rate
is again 0.5. However, the fact that the distance from the earth to the
spaceship does not change means that there are no Doppler shifts, and
signals from the spaceship to the earth and vice-versa have a constant
delay, year after year and century after century. As seen by earth
observers, the spaceship observers walk, talk, and live at half speed.
But it is unavoidable that as seen by the spaceship observers, the earth
observers walk, talk, and live at twice normal speed. The only way to
avoid this would be for the photons coming from the earth to "go
mystic," and slow down on their way to the spaceship, thereby causing
the spaceship observers to think that the earth observers are actually
living at half the speed of the spaceship observers, and building an
ever increasing cloud of mystic photons between the two. Whether it is a
spaceship orbiting the earth, or an SR-71 orbiting Hawaii, the results
will be the same; the central observer will see the orbiting observer's
clocks as running slower than his own, while the orbiting observer will
see the central observer's clocks as running faster than his own.
So how is GR supposed to solve this while tying light's reference frame
to the spaceship observer? It can't be gravity or acceleration, because
the acceleration felt by the spaceship observers is exactly the same as
the (gravitational) acceleration felt by the earth observers (besides,
acceleration has no relativistic effects, and the effects from 1g are
negligible, equivalent to an increase in the spaceship's velocity of
just 60 cm/s). The answer is that it can't, because even when using GR,
light's reference frame MUST be tied to a single inertial reference
frame throughout the experiment in order to correctly predict the
answers. In other words, we are just as dependent on absolute references
now, after the theories of relativity, as we were before.
So does this violate relativity in general? No, because even if you move
the earth at some velocity relative to light's reference frame, and then
orbit the spaceship around the earth at a velocity that appears to be
0.866c when seen by the earth or spaceship observers, everyone will see
the same thing; the earth observers appear to be living at double speed,
while the spaceship observers appear to be living at half speed. This is
true and constant even when the spaceship's orbit is parallel to the
earth's motion, although the numbers are MUCH easier to calculate when
the orbit is perpendicular to the earth's motion. Don't like the idea of
"the earth's motion?" No problem, just give the earth a velocity
relative to a third inertial observer, and you'll get the same answers.
In other words, the results of this experiment are independent of the
earth's initial absolute velocity, just as required by the principle of
relativity. It is, however, a blatant contradiction of the current
philosophy of relativity, which says that every observer not in an
extremely powerful gravitational field should see all other observers as
being slower, not faster, than himself. That's because the philosophy of
relativity is full of crap.
Why is that? Is the philosophy of relativity even based on the principal
of relativity? These are some of the insights and questions that the GR
version leads to, and I assure you that to find the GR version, it was
mandatory to first look at the SR clock paradox while using absolute
references.
Now for the bad news: Although I know the answers to all of these
questions (they are in my book), I can't tell all of them here, for
several reasons. One, it would simply take too much time. Two, I really
want to get this thing published, and I really want to give the local
guys a chance to use it and help me introduce the ideas with at least
SOME grace and elegance -- two things that I probably cannot provide on
my own! And finally, in a few hours I go to my weekly cancer treatment,
and it often takes several days for my brain to start functioning again.
In other words, for most of the questions you may have about the points
I have raised here, you are on your own! Hint, if you feel like you
really must ask me a question, I won't be bothered or offended, but you
should make them EASY questions. At least until the weekend. Hope this
at least somewhat answers your question and provides some interesting
reading.
Philip Yates
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C685C17...@jump.net...
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> > "Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C680D22...@jump.net...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Why do this? Because there are only three choices for the
> > > velocity of light. It can be relative to (1) the source. Wrong,
> > > because binary stars would appear to speed up and slow
> > > down in their orbits, and they don't, (2) the observer.
> > > Wrong, because this requires "prescient photons," capable
> > > of foreseeing future events,
> >
> > A bullet's speed can't be relative to the victim because it would
> > require foreseeing future events from the bullet's part?
>
> Well I would certainly hope that the bullet does not speed up or slow down
> relative to the gun depending on the velocity of its victim. That's actually
> what I am trying to say about photons, although I obviously wasn't very clear
> about it.
The bullet's speed *is* relative to the victim, and there is
no foreseeing. Why would light speed's relativity to the
observer require foreseeing? That is what you say in:
| > > > relative to .........., (2) the observer.
| > > > Wrong, because this requires "prescient photons," capable
| > > > of foreseeing future events,
> > > such as "Who will
> > > see me? Ah yes, him, I must adjust my speed accordingly,"
> > > or (3) a reference frame which is independent of all the
> > > objects in the problem. Annoying, because although it always
> > > works in terms of getting the correct answer, it uses an
> > > "absolute reference," i.e., something which is independent
> > > of all the (normal) objects in the problem.
> >
> > So, light speed must be relative to source, observer, or whatever it
> > is that you try to define as "light's reference frame". How would you
> > practically define a frame where all the distances in one direction
> > reduce to 0?
>
> Uh ... Flat? I suspect I am missing your point here. . .
Can you just practically *define* the frame so we won't miss
each other's point?
> > And why should light speed be relative to something?
> > Apparently it just isn't, so why bother, unless as an attempt to confuse
> > our dearest Henry even more?
>
> No, velocity by definition involves one object relative to another object. The
> idea of a velocity that is not relative to anything whatsoever is meaningless.
> If the velocity of light is to be a constant then that velocity MUST be
> relative to something, period.
Apparently it has the *same value* in *every* inertial frame, so
it is in fact relative to *nothing* or just plain absolute, whatever
you fancy. It just is c, period.
> Nor can that something be imaginary. Although
> we could (for example) say that c is relative to the absolute reference frame,
> this absolute reference frame MUST be tied to something that actually exists,
> whether that be matter, energy, or even some characteristic of space, in order
> for this particular example of velocity to have any physical meaning
> whatsoever.
"MUST be tied to something that actually exists"... see below.
>
> > > Examples of absolute references are the inertial reference frames
> > > of Newtonian mechanics, and the absolute reference frame/ether
> > > frame for light. Physicists hate absolute references, not because
> > > they don't work, but for philosophical reasons.
> >
> > What about practical reasons, like, despite major efforts they never
> > have been detected, and we don't even need them to create a highly
> > successful and consistent theory in the first place?
>
> Practical reasons are fine, and if you have them then they do indeed provide
> good reasons to avoid absolute references. Of course, there could also be good
> reasons to use absolute references, in which case we have to decide between
> the advantages and the disadvantages, which is what I am suggesting. When it
> comes to the fact that absolute references "have never been detected,"
> however, I would suggest that this is not a problem in terms of predicting the
> results of normal experiments. Again, there are no experiments that can be
> solved
What kind of experiment would need to be *solved*?
Can you describe and give examples of experiments
needing to be or getting solved?
> by tying light's reference frame to an observer that cannot also be
> solved by tying light's reference frame to an inertial reference frame or to
> the absolute reference frame.
Can you physically and *precisely* explain what you mean with:
"tying light's reference frame to a reference frame"?
2.1) " ... to an inertial reference frame"
2.2) " ... to the absolute reference frame"
And then explain how this would *solve* experiments?
> Your objection is not that they cannot be used
> to solve problems, but rather that they at least appear to be unobservable.
Unobservable and most of all: Not Needed At All.
Observers observe in their own reference frame.
That is *pure* practicality, not philosophy.
> That is a philosophical objection, rather than an objection based on the
> inability of absolute references to predict the results of actual experiments.
I think the philosophical thinking is entirely yours.
> Mind you, I believe that the principle of relativity is at least 99.9999%
> correct -- given the number of experiments which have not yet been performed
> by humans, I think it is irresponsible to claim that it is 100% correct -- and
> I believe in all the laws of relativity, but it does not necessarily follow
> that since these things are true, that the idea of an acceleration or a
> velocity relative to the medium of space is therefore meaningless. Really, the
> best approach is to examine situations using both conventional and absolute
> interpretations of relativity, and then see if any new and useful insights
> appear. From personal experience I can promise you that you won't be
> disappointed.
I have read that "useful insight" in your other reply. If that is an example
of examining a situation using both conventional and absolute
interpretations of relativity, then I must say that I am disappointed.
To me it seems more like a personal misunderstanding of SR from
your part.
I hope you are not planning on taking this in your book.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C68BE26...@jump.net...
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
> >
> > > Really, the best approach is to examine situations using both
> > > conventional and absolute interpretations of relativity, and
> > > then see if any new and useful insights appear. From personal
> > > experience I can promise you that you won't be disappointed.
> > >
> >
> > Please name one such "useful insight".
> >
> > Stephen
> > s...@compbio.caltech.edu
>
> Hmmm, well I was sort of hoping you would check that out and see for
> yourself. However, since you ask for a specific example, I'll see what I
> can do. Part of the problem is that this kind of examination leads to
> other questions, which then provide most of the insights, and I really
> don't have either the time or the space to cover all of that. Well,
> enough excuses ...
>
> The clock paradox: (Almost) everyone knows that when you use an earth
> observer, thereby effectively tying light's reference frame to the
> earth, you get the right answer. The problems arise when we try to use
> the spaceship observer. The standard defenses of relativity in this
> situation are also well known, and will be temporarily ignored.
There is nothing to be "defended".
There are standard "explanations", and they should not be
ignored, not even temporarily, unless you want to make a
mistake of course.
> I am
> sure everyone here is familiar with this paradox, but for the sake of
> clarity regarding terms and the numbers I will use, here is a brief
> summary.
>
> The spaceship leaves for 20 years by earth clocks, 10 years in each
> direction, traveling at 0.866c, giving it a time-rate of 0.5 as seen by
> earth observers, and causing the spaceship observers to age just 10
> years. This is how the earth observers would see the problem, and this
> is the correct answer. Now, tie light's reference frame to a spaceship
> observer, and for 5 years the earth recedes at 0.866c, giving the earth
> observers a time-rate of 0.5, and causing them to age by 2.5 years. At
> this point the spaceship fires its engines, and accelerates until the
> earth appears to approach at 0.866c (for arithmetical convenience, we
> will assume that the acceleration took negligible time). It takes
> another 5 years for the earth to return, causing the spaceship observers
> to age 10 years, and the earth observers just 2.5 + 2.5 = 10 years,
> which is of course the paradox.
2.5 + 2.5 = 5 (but that's a typo - no problem)
This is not the "Twin Paradox" or "Clock Paradox".
This is the "Frame Jumping Error".
Having a very close look at
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/twin_paradox.html
and specially at
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~physics/sci.physics/faq/twin_gap.html
might give you a hint as where you went wrong.
If not, it has been explained on this group at least 358 times, so
have a look at (for instance):
http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&q=author%3Amccullough+twin+paradox
There is no paradox. Only when you make a mistake, it
might *seem* like one.
Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson
>
>
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 8 Feb 2002 20:32:56 -0000, "Stewart Gordon" <smjg...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>> >news:3c6317f2...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >> To see how SR explains why photons travel at the same speed through space,
>> >> see www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm. Have a look at 'photons.exe'. It
>> >> takes only a few seconds to download.
>> >
>> >I take it you've just posted this message to coax everyone into thinking
>> >you're actually learning something?
>> >
>> >ANSWER 1: The fact that they were emitted together in the same direction and
>> >the value of c. Einstein's second postulate. No.
>>
>> NO. Light speed is simply added 'relativistically' to the source speed.
>> Then the second postulate is unnecessary.
>
>This statement is wrong. I'll say this slowly one more time. I'll try
>to use small words that even you can understand, but please feel to ask
>for
>clarification of any that still confuse you...
>
> (1) The relativistic addition of velocities was *derived* based on
> the second postulate of special relativity, therefore it
> cannot be used to *prove* the second postulate of special
>relativity.
So the fact that it DOES prove the second postulate says something, doesn't
it?
> (2) The derivation is done in every single physics textbook which
> covers special relativity that I have ever seen.
> (3) Your silly example (of plugging in "c") is also done in most of
> these textbooks and/or assigned as a homework problem.
I am quite aware of that. It is done purely to show why the velocity c
cannot be exceeded. The point I am making has never been presented before.
It gives trhe physical connection between the SR maths and space.
> (4) The fact that this comes as news to you is evidence (as if more
> were needed) that you have never *read* a physics textbook which
> covered special relativity.
I seem to understand it better than all of you people do.
Henry Wilson
<jon...@bredband.net> wrote:
>Don't care that much about the lil red aether dragon, but your speech would
>make a rather flat impression on *reality* if light is source dependent.
>
Well look at this example.
According to SR, how would a person on the pavement calculate the velocity
of a bullet from a moving car.
Let's say the bullet travels at v from the gun and the car travels at u
along the road. We could use plain old u+v at these low speeds because
uv/c^2 is minute - but whatever we use, there is no denying the speed of
the bullet relative to the road is dependent on the velocity of the car.
IT IS SOURCE DEPENDENT! EVEN IF IT MOVES AT .9999999999c!!!!!
What is the difference if we replace the bullet with a pulse of light?
We are merely looking at the limit situation.
Henry Wilson
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>
>> Phil, I haven't seen your name on this NG before so assume you are fairly
>> new.
>
>Brand new, although I have been studying relativity for over 13 years now. Originally
>I wanted to explain to my doubting friends why it was true, but like many on this
>list, I soon ran into problems. Over those years I have tried to find the answers to
>those problems, and just recently finished, although just for SR, not GR. I actually
>have those answers in book form, but I have not yet tried to contact a publisher, and
>I am rapidly finding out how difficult it is to get a physicist to even look at it!
>Fortunately there are some VERY nice guys at the local university, and one or two of
>them are currently trying to find the time to look at at least parts of it.
Well Phil, it is good to have some new blood here, particularly someone why
knows all about the subject but is not so indoctrinated as to be blind to
the alternatives.
There are many true SR experts on this NG and plenty who think they are. I
don't profess to being one of the former although it is becoming pretty
obvious that I know a hell of a lot more about the subject than many of the
latter. Actually, I would never want to become an expert about something
that was flawed from the first paragraph.
>> No matter what value I used, it was obvious that, in the screen frame, the
>> common velocity relative to each laser would be different. The same would
>> apply no matter how many lasers were present.
>
>In the current version of SR, all velocities must be referenced to a single inertial
>observer, otherwise you get the wrong answers. In other words, given several observers
>(or lasers) moving at different velocities, only one of them is permitted to be
>motionless relative to light's reference frame. (I find it convenient to declare that
>regardless of what object c is "actually" relative to, whether it be an inertial
>observer, or the medium of space, or whatever, "light's reference frame" is defined as
>being attached to that object, so that light ALWAYS travels at a constant velocity, c,
>relative to light's reference frame, regardless of anything else we may believe about
>light.) All other observers are in motion relative to light's reference frame, meaning
>that their time-rates and lengths will be affected.
So we are told.
As I said in my previous post, the speed of a bullet fired from a moving
car is unquestionably dependent on the gun velocity. As this is increased,
the dependence remains - even when the speed is .999999c, the bullet's
speed is still source dependent.
The speed 'c' is merely the limit case. The fact that the bullet's speed
wrt the gun approaches that wrt the road, as v ->c, doesn't alter the fact
that it is source dependent.
>
>> So in reality, we are no closer to finding IF and WHY the two pulses move
>> together through space, even if we DO accept SR.
>
>Agreed again. The current version of relativity does not tell us why the pulses move
>together. Well, actually it does, but only if you dig very deeply and draw a series of
>conclusions that necessarily follow from several of the basic statements of
>relativity. One of these "hidden conclusions" is that the velocity of light, c, is a
>constant relative to the medium of space. This fact, combined with the principle of
>relativity (which is actually a law of laws, a description of how the laws of nature
>were created), is what allows us to deduce that time-rate and length vary as a
>function of velocity. Assume that c is relative to either the source or the observer
>and you wind up concluding that time-rate and length do not very as a function of
>velocity, which in turn leads to the wrong answers for experiments.
>
>The thing that I think physicists need to do is simply this. First, take the fact that
>there is not one single problem that can be solved in the current version of SR, where
>light's reference frame is tied to an inertial observer, that cannot also be solved by
>tying light's reference frame to the medium of space. Not one. The reasons for
>choosing the current version over an "absolute version" are therefore philosophical in
>nature, rather than pragmatic or experimental. So, simply use BOTH versions,
>especially in areas where confusion exists (such as the clock paradox), and see if by
>having access to two points of view, rather than just one, we don't get a better
>understanding of the whole picture.
>
>Philip Yates
>
Phil, I can see you are going to have a lot of fun here! You will soon
learn who's who! You must ask Ken Seto for his list of 'good guys'.
Keep posting.
Eric Prebys
The only one asserting that it proves the second postulate is you.
Yes, it does prove something. It proves your a scientifically
ignorant and mathematically illiterate moron, but since you established
that a long time ago, no one is all that excited.
> > (2) The derivation is done in every single physics textbook which
> > covers special relativity that I have ever seen.
> > (3) Your silly example (of plugging in "c") is also done in most of
> > these textbooks and/or assigned as a homework problem.
>
> I am quite aware of that. It is done purely to show why the velocity c
> cannot be exceeded. The point I am making has never been presented before.
> It gives trhe physical connection between the SR maths and space.
>
No, it doesn't. It merely shows that the math gives the answer that
it's supposed to give.
When I taught this subject, I made my students work it out for
a frame moving at *arbitrary velocity* v AND an *arbitrary* angle
\theta relative to the light in the lab frame, just to drive the
point. Guess what? The magnitude of the velocity comes
out "c", INdependently of the choice of v and \theta.
Of course, since the students had watched the derivation of
the velocity transformation equations, this came as no surprise
to them.
> > (4) The fact that this comes as news to you is evidence (as if more
> > were needed) that you have never *read* a physics textbook which
> > covered special relativity.
>
> I seem to understand it better than all of you people do.
Based on the fact that you've blissfully redescovered and
misinterpreted something that most college sophomores know?
I think not.
Stephen Speicher
sent it to me privately, so I hope others have seen it too.]
On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
> >
> > > Really, the best approach is to examine situations using both
> > > conventional and absolute interpretations of relativity, and
> > > then see if any new and useful insights appear. From personal
> > > experience I can promise you that you won't be disappointed.
> > >
> >
> > Please name one such "useful insight".
> >
>
> [snip -- PhD dissertation]
Dear Mr. Phil,
Thank you for submitting your PhD dissertation to us. Though we
find your work to be interesting, none of it applies to the
subject with which we previously agreed your disseration would be
addressing. We therefore, respectfully, return your dissertation.
Should you care to address our agreed upon subject matter at a
later date, please feel free to resubmit your dissertation to our
committee again.
Thank you,
Stephen Speicher
Administrator, IDC (Internet Dissertation Committee)
---------------------------------------------------
All kidding aside, Phil, you wrote a couple of thousand words
which never directly addressed what I asked for. In the process
of writing, however, you did seem to reveal that rather than
writing a book to explain relativity to others, you could benefit
from reading a good introduction to the subject yourself. I
would recommend you start with Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime
Physics_, which will give you a clear modern perspective using
terminology with which you can better communicate with others.
You might also want to consult the FAQ for this group,
specifically the somewhat detailed explanations of the so-called
Twin paradox you referred to. You can find the FAQ at URL:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/
As to the question above: I think it may be so that one can
benefit from looking at relativity from, as you say, both the
"conventional and absolute interpretations of relativity,"
however I am not at all convinced that "any new and useful
insights appear." I am open to be convinced otherwise, but you
will need to address the issue directly and succinctly if you so
choose to try to give a specific example, again.
p.s. Good luck with the treatment you mentioned.
Phil
Well done! After a very long day, I needed a good laugh, even if it's at
my expense. I appreciate the suggestions, and we will see if I can start
to provide some obviously useful stuff.
But it will take a while, so don't hold your breath (not that you were
planning to anyway!).
Phil
Henry Wilson
>Stephen,
>
>Well done! After a very long day, I needed a good laugh, even if it's at
>my expense. I appreciate the suggestions, and we will see if I can start
>to provide some obviously useful stuff.
>
>But it will take a while, so don't hold your breath (not that you were
>planning to anyway!).
>
>Phil
Phil, you shouldn't take Speicher too seriously. He is just an arrogant
prick, who thinks he knows everything. He is completely devoid of creative
ability. He actually failed Physics 1 and has been reading sci fi for years
trying to kid himself he is a real physicist.
He works as a cleaner in a science research lab.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6aceca...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:44:30 -0600, Phil <tu...@jump.net> wrote:
>
> >Stephen,
> >
> >Well done! After a very long day, I needed a good laugh, even if it's at
> >my expense. I appreciate the suggestions, and we will see if I can start
> >to provide some obviously useful stuff.
> >
> >But it will take a while, so don't hold your breath (not that you were
> >planning to anyway!).
> >
> >Phil
>
> Phil, you shouldn't take Speicher too seriously.
Apparently Phil is taking himself seriously now. He seems to have
learned something.
> He is just an arrogant
> prick, who thinks he knows everything. He is completely devoid of creative
> ability. He actually failed Physics 1 and has been reading sci fi for years
> trying to kid himself he is a real physicist.
>
> He works as a cleaner in a science research lab.
Now, honestly, that is *exactly* what I always have been suspecting
of you. You have stopped working now and spent a significant part
of your life as some sort of cleaner, or *perhaps* as something just
a little bit higher up the hierarchy - technician or janitor perhaps, just
enough to be able look down upon the cleaners - in some science
research lab. Your entire attitude and lack of basic scientific
knowledge is pregnant of it.
Don't correct me if I'm wrong: I could be right just as well. Right?
Dirk Vdm
Phil
> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message >
> > Phil, you shouldn't take Speicher too seriously.
>
> Apparently Phil is taking himself seriously now. He seems to have
> learned something.
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk,
Better wait until you see what I come up with next before you decide whether I have learned
anything! That's okay, as the saying goes, time will tell (but I did buy a copy of Spacetime
Physics today).
Phil
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C6ADB39...@jump.net...
Which is enough proof that you *have* learned something :-)
Good for you. See you around
[but please make your lines a bit shorter to make
replying and quoting somewhat easier? - thanks]
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
>
> Better wait until you see what I come up with next before you
> decide whether I have learned anything! That's okay, as the
> saying goes, time will tell (but I did buy a copy of Spacetime
> Physics today).
>
Well, good for you, Phil. It will be interesting to see how you
respond to the book. Remember, it is an _introductory_ text, but
it offers as clear and precise a conceptual understanding of
standard relativity as you will find anywhere.
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6aceca...@news.bigpond.com...
> > He is just an arrogant prick, who thinks he knows
> > everything. He is completely devoid of creative ability. He
> > actually failed Physics 1 and has been reading sci fi for
> > years trying to kid himself he is a real physicist.
> >
> > He works as a cleaner in a science research lab.
>
> Now, honestly, that is *exactly* what I always have been
> suspecting of you.
It is fascinating, psychologically, to see Henry striking at this
level; he feels the need to manufacture stories in an attempt to
demean me, just as he manufactured stories about himself in an
attempt to feel elevated. In posts to others he portrayed
himself as an experimental/research physicist who worked
(alternatively) 20 or 30 or 45 years in the field.
> You have stopped working now and spent a significant part of
> your life as some sort of cleaner, or *perhaps* as something
> just a little bit higher up the hierarchy - technician or
> janitor perhaps, just enough to be able look down upon the
> cleaners - in some science research lab. Your entire attitude
> and lack of basic scientific knowledge is pregnant of it.
>
Yes, Henry's lack of even a high school level understanding of
physics was enough for all to see what a truly pathetic creature
he is. He pretends that his silly little programs are a threat to
relativity, a subject of which he has not even a basic
understanding.
> Don't correct me if I'm wrong: I could be right just as well.
> Right?
>
I have noticed recently that Henry's posting rate is increasing
along with an ever-growing deluded expression of self-importance.
I think Henry is feeding on all the attention he has been
getting, even though such attention mainly consists of
knowledgeable people identifying him as a deluded idiot. Henry is
a perfect example of what is described in that wonderful article
"Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing
One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
published in the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_.
http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C6ADB39...@jump.net...
Phil, I forgot to mention:
You *very definitely* should also read, preferably even before
you start Spacetime Physics, "General Relativity from A to B"
by Robert Geroch.
Little book, not expensive, text only, first part can be considered
as about Special Relativity. In fact it's about "All Relativities".
Absolutely brilliant. I.m.o. the Very Best.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102021...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> >
> > "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6aceca...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > He is just an arrogant prick, who thinks he knows
> > > everything. He is completely devoid of creative ability. He
> > > actually failed Physics 1 and has been reading sci fi for
> > > years trying to kid himself he is a real physicist.
> > >
> > > He works as a cleaner in a science research lab.
> >
> > Now, honestly, that is *exactly* what I always have been
> > suspecting of you.
>
> It is fascinating, psychologically, to see Henry striking at this
> level; he feels the need to manufacture stories in an attempt to
> demean me,
We know your credentials as "Head Panhandler", like you
recently explained to Len Gaasenbeek on:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Pine.LNX.4.10.102011...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu
I had quite a good time with that one :-))
> ... just as he manufactured stories about himself in an
> attempt to feel elevated. In posts to others he portrayed
> himself as an experimental/research physicist who worked
> (alternatively) 20 or 30 or 45 years in the field.
And with a second degree in psychology and genetics.
And with years of experience in mathematics of course.
Or something.
> > You have stopped working now and spent a significant part of
> > your life as some sort of cleaner, or *perhaps* as something
> > just a little bit higher up the hierarchy - technician or
> > janitor perhaps, just enough to be able look down upon the
> > cleaners - in some science research lab. Your entire attitude
> > and lack of basic scientific knowledge is pregnant of it.
> >
>
> Yes, Henry's lack of even a high school level understanding of
> physics was enough for all to see what a truly pathetic creature
> he is. He pretends that his silly little programs are a threat to
> relativity, a subject of which he has not even a basic
> understanding.
>
> > Don't correct me if I'm wrong: I could be right just as well.
> > Right?
> >
>
> I have noticed recently that Henry's posting rate is increasing
> along with an ever-growing deluded expression of self-importance.
> I think Henry is feeding on all the attention he has been
> getting, even though such attention mainly consists of
> knowledgeable people identifying him as a deluded idiot. Henry is
> a perfect example of what is described in that wonderful article
> "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing
> One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments"
> published in the _Journal of Personality and Social Psychology_.
>
> http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html
Exactly.
Poor, but entertaining guy.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
>
> "Stephen Speicher" <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote in message
> news:Pine.LNX.4.10.102021...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu...
> > On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6aceca...@news.bigpond.com...
> > > > He is just an arrogant prick, who thinks he knows
> > > > everything. He is completely devoid of creative ability. He
> > > > actually failed Physics 1 and has been reading sci fi for
> > > > years trying to kid himself he is a real physicist.
> > > >
> > > > He works as a cleaner in a science research lab.
> > >
> > > Now, honestly, that is *exactly* what I always have been
> > > suspecting of you.
> >
> > It is fascinating, psychologically, to see Henry striking at this
> > level; he feels the need to manufacture stories in an attempt to
> > demean me,
>
> We know your credentials as "Head Panhandler", like you
> recently explained to Len Gaasenbeek on:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=Pine.LNX.4.10.102011...@photon.compbio.caltech.edu
> I had quite a good time with that one :-))
>
Yes, and I am happy to say that business has picked up quite
substantially on my street corner since I started to hand out CDs
with Windows programs disproving relativity, with each
contribution made. Poor Henry. Here he is giving away his
magnificent ideas for free, while I am earning the big bucks
combining them with my panhandling work.
>
> > ... just as he manufactured stories about himself in an
> > attempt to feel elevated. In posts to others he portrayed
> > himself as an experimental/research physicist who worked
> > (alternatively) 20 or 30 or 45 years in the field.
>
> And with a second degree in psychology and genetics.
> And with years of experience in mathematics of course.
> Or something.
>
He actually claimed _another_ degree in mathematics.
Henry is a real Renaisance man.
And if he played his cards right I could offer Henry a job on the
street corner diagonally opposite mine. Sally the Slick has
retired to work on her theory of everything, so this would be a
very good spot for Henry to step in. Hey, it would keep him off
the internet!
Bilge
>on science:
Re: Sensational Demo. The SR explanation of constant C. to usenet:
>On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 00:44:30 -0600, Phil <tu...@jump.net> wrote:
>
>>Stephen,
>>
>>Well done! After a very long day, I needed a good laugh, even if it's at
>>my expense. I appreciate the suggestions, and we will see if I can start
>>to provide some obviously useful stuff.
>>
>>But it will take a while, so don't hold your breath (not that you were
>>planning to anyway!).
>>
>>Phil
>
>Phil, you shouldn't take Speicher too seriously. He is just an arrogant
Henry, had you bothered to read phil's original post, you would
have realized he wan't trolling and doesn't need a creativity pointer
on trolling to try and reel respondants. He's a little confused about
special relativity, for which you have nothing to contribute that would
make phil less confused. Leave science to the professionals and go do
some work on your bridge.
David Evens
Why is your inability to use the equations of SR a paradox? The error
yuou made is explained not only in the FAQ for this newgroup (which
you have obviously not read) but also in every physics textbook that
covers SR (which you have also obviously not read).
You keep pretending that light has a reference frame for some (very
stupid) reason. Had you any understanding of light, you could not
avoid knowng that this is not possible.
[Further mistakes based on the same weird error deleted.]
David Evens
That puts you about 6 places ahead of Henry and Ken. They don't even
seem to know what a physics book IS.
Phil
> >The spaceship leaves for 20 years by earth clocks, 10 years in each
> >direction, traveling at 0.866c, giving it a time-rate of 0.5 as seen by
> >earth observers, and causing the spaceship observers to age just 10
> >years. This is how the earth observers would see the problem, and this
> >is the correct answer. Now, tie light's reference frame to a spaceship
> >observer, and for 5 years the earth recedes at 0.866c, giving the earth
> >observers a time-rate of 0.5, and causing them to age by 2.5 years. At
> >this point the spaceship fires its engines, and accelerates until the
> >earth appears to approach at 0.866c (for arithmetical convenience, we
> >will assume that the acceleration took negligible time). It takes
> >another 5 years for the earth to return, causing the spaceship observers
> >to age 10 years, and the earth observers just 2.5 + 2.5 = 10 years,
> >which is of course the paradox.
>
> Why is your inability to use the equations of SR a paradox? The error
> yuou made is explained not only in the FAQ for this newgroup (which
> you have obviously not read) but also in every physics textbook that
> covers SR (which you have also obviously not read).
I was simply reviewing what the paradox is, not how to obtain the correct
answers (although I typoed the 2.5 + 2.5 = 10 instead of 5). Your conclusion
that I have not read my copies of Relativity and Common Sense (Bondi), or The
Special Theory of Relativity (Bohm), or Einstein's Revolution (Zahar), or Was
Einstein Right? (Will), or The Evolution of Physics (Einstein), or The
Principle of Relativity (Einstein), or Einstein's Theory of Relativity
(Born), not to mention several other books and god knows how many checked out
from the Austin College, City of Sherman, City of Austin, and University of
Texas libraries does not *necessarily* follow from the fact that I have
posted the clock paradox in its traditional form. I expect that this
oversight was due to many previous encounters in which the individual had in
fact not read anything, and you figured I was "another one of those."
I am going to have to send a post on this one subject alone (but it will be a
while), because there is obviously a lot of confusion on this subject. Very
briefly, each inertial observer assumes that light travels at a constant
velocity, c, relative to himself. "Light's reference frame" is simply the
term I use to describe the reference frame which observer A uses when
calculating the results of his own experiments, and his predictions of what
he will see when looking at other observers who are moving relative to
himself (to observer A). In both cases, observer A must assume that light's
reference frame is motionless relative to himself (tied to observer A), or
his calculations will not match his actual observations, especially his
observations of other observers. These other observers appear to be
undergoing effects from length and time contraction *as a result* of their
motion relative to light's reference frame, or if you prefer, their motion
relative to observer A. Observer A will perceive these other observers as
being slower and shorter than himself, and the only way to predict this is to
assume that these other observers are *not* motionless relative to light's
reference frame. If both observer A and the moving observers were motionless
relative to light's reference frame, then there would be no reason for their
clocks to slow down or for their lengths to contract, and they would appear
completely normal (after correcting for Doppler shifts) to observer A. Yes,
the other observers assume that they are motionless relative to LRF when
looking at observer A, and *perceive* that he is the one with contracting
lengths and time, but they also must assume that observer A is not motionless
relative to LRF in order to *predict* this.
I also notice that none of you are dealing with my "orbiting clock paradox."
Let me see if I can help all of you out on that, using an alternative
version. Assume that we particles with a half-life of 1 minute. We get 1,000
particles, quickly accelerate them to 0.9998611c, and then run them in a
circular track 5 m in diameter. After one hour, we decelerate them to a
velocity of zero and quickly count them, and find that only 500 of them have
decayed. The reason for this is that at a velocity of 0.9998611c, their
time-rate is just 1/60 of normal, meaning that for the particles, just 1
minute has passed. Now for the "thought experiment." Suppose an observer
could shrink down to the size of the particles and move with them, what would
he see? Assuming that the circular track is transparent, for 60 minutes
photons will bounce off the room, the scientists moving in the room, and the
clocks on the walls, and in *nanoseconds* those photons will reach the
observer. The observer will perceive 60 minutes of events, including the
hands on the clocks moving around, in a period of time that him, is just 1
minute. Again, unless the photons *go mystic* and decide to stay away from
the observer, there is no way for this not to happen. Nor can we say that
this is due to the massive acceleration experienced by the particles, for two
reasons. One, as the FAQ says, acceleration has no relativistic effects, and
two, if it really bothers us, then we can go back to the orbiting spaceship
at 0.728 light-years, which has an acceleration of just 1 g, the same as
earth observers. The spaceship observers still see, on a continuous basis,
two minutes worth of earth events for every 1 minute of their own time, and
this occurs century after century.
Now, I happen to know that the ability to see other observers as having
time-rates much higher than our own in no way contradicts the principle of
relativity, but it damn sure contradicts the current dogma, which says that
unless we are deep in a gravitational well, all other observers moving at
high speeds relative to ourselves must appear to have time-rates less than
our own. There are even books which claim that a witch, moving in circles on
her broomstick, would see everyone as having a lower time-rate! Unbelievable.
Exactly how photons from 60 minutes worth of events are *not* going to reach
the particles circling in the lab, no one wants to say.
Don't misunderstand me. The fact that I believe that the dichotomy between
the ether theory and SR is a false one, because SR in fact incorporates the
ether theory via the second postulate, does not mean that I do not believe in
the principle or the laws of relativity. I may draw different conclusions as
to what does and does not *necessarily follow* from the principle and laws of
relativity, but that's all.
Now, just a brief word on responses. I will (usually) not respond to
arguments based on the premise that so-and-so is brilliant, or is an idiot.
If Adolf Hitler says that 2 + 2 = 4 (hopefully no typo...), are we to go out
and get a new system of mathematics? I don't care if someone is a saint or a
devil, qualified or unqualified, what matters to me is simply this: do
his/her/its arguments have a good alignment with reality? Do they necessarily
follow from the most basic truths? If so, they are valid, and if not, then
they are not, period. In other words, arguments which say to ignore something
because the speaker is an idiot belong to the realm of debate, not science,
and I have neither any interest in nor any respect for them.
Second, I don't want to hear (although I will ...) arguments which say, you
are wrong because this other sequence of thoughts, although it does not
address any of the points you made, says that we always see others as having
a slower time-rate than ourselves, and it's internally consistent and widely
accepted, so it must be true. It is a little appreciated fact that the
internal consistency of an argument tells us *nothing* about the argument's
alignment with reality. For example, there are at least 6 internally
consistent theories about what caused the dinosaur's denise, but their
internal consistency tells us nothing about which, if any of them, is
actually correct. Unless someone can tell how the photons will not reach the
particles, I have to conclude that they do, and the delusion that we all see
others as having a slower time-rate is just that, a delusion. Claiming that
they "just don't" because so-and-so is widely respected and says they don't,
brings us back into the realm of debate, where the standing of the people
talking and the internal consistency of their arguments means something. To
reality, those things mean nothing, and they mean nothing to me. If rejecting
the use of debate techniques is not acceptable to someone, then I would have
to conclude that he and I have a different standard of what is and is not
valid science, and we probably have nothing further to discuss. Actually, I
am sure that (almost) no one here would deliberately use debating techniques
instead of true science, but since all of us use the rules of debate for the
social and political arena, and the rules of science when trying to
understand how something works, it is very easy to occasionally mix the two,
so it *is necessary* to point it out when any of us throws a debating
technique into the middle of a scientific argument/discussion.
David, I actually do appreciate getting your thoughts on the matter, and if I
have been a little heavy-handed here, then I apologize. I would claim that I
am just ill-tempered from the cancer treatments, but the truth is that it is
my natural state of being! Oh well, if the shoe fits ... Anyway, I really
would like to hear the (scientific) thoughts from anyone out there on my
thought experiment with the particles.
Phil
Bilge
>I am going to have to send a post on this one subject alone (but it will
>be a while), because there is obviously a lot of confusion on this
>subject. Very briefly, each inertial observer assumes that light travels
>at a constant velocity, c, relative to himself.
Which is simply the second postulate of special relativity.
> "Light's reference frame"
>is simply the term I use to describe the reference frame which observer A
>uses when calculating the results of his own experiments, and his
>predictions of what he will see when looking at other observers who are
>moving relative to himself (to observer A).
But, light has _NO_ reference frame and if you invent terminology
which contradicts the same terminology as it is used in special relativity,
you are certainly going to have to put up with being corrected, since
no one else knows what you mean and the fact that you have chosen such
terminology indicates you probably weren't aware that there was a problem
with light having a reference frame in special relativity.
> In both cases, observer A must
>assume that light's reference frame is motionless relative to himself
Not at all. Observer A must assume (by the second postulate) that
a coordinate transformation to any other inertial frame must preserve
the speed of light. Any inertial frame in which light was motionless
could not preserve the speed of light, hence, there is no inertial
frame for light.
>(tied to observer A), or his calculations will not match his actual
>observations,
The value 'c' is "tied" to every observer, not some frame in which
light is motionless (since such a frame does not exist). You've
spent a lot of effort restating the second postulate incorrectly.
[...]
>A, and *perceive* that he is the one with contracting lengths and time,
>but they also must assume that observer A is not motionless relative to
>LRF in order to *predict* this.
They must assume only that a transformation between inertial frames
preserves the speed of light.
[...]
>will reach the observer. The observer will perceive 60 minutes of events,
>including the hands on the clocks moving around, in a period of time that
>him, is just 1 minute.
No he won't "perceive 60 minutes of events, including the hands on the
clock moving around". He will "perceive 60 minutes of events" (to use your
terminology), but the clock is not in his reference frame and does not
keep time in his reference frame. You are commiting multiple errors.
[...]
>Don't misunderstand me. The fact that I believe that the dichotomy between
>the ether theory and SR is a false one, because SR in fact incorporates the
>ether theory via the second postulate, does not mean that I do not believe in
>the principle or the laws of relativity. I may draw different conclusions as
>to what does and does not *necessarily follow* from the principle and laws of
>relativity, but that's all.
You believe incorrectly. The entire premise of special relativity is
that euclidean geometry is wrong, minkowski geometry is correct and so
there is no need for an ether to "fix" the euclidean geometry. Since
those two theories are based upon spacetimes with mutually exclusive
geometries, by hypothesis, they cannot both be correct. The most compatible
the two can be is indistinguishable.
[...]
>address any of the points you made, says that we always see others as having
>a slower time-rate than ourselves, and it's internally consistent and widely
>accepted, so it must be true. It is a little appreciated fact that the
>internal consistency of an argument tells us *nothing* about the argument's
>alignment with reality. For example, there are at least 6 internally
>consistent theories about what caused the dinosaur's denise, but their
>internal consistency tells us nothing about which, if any of them, is
>actually correct.
Internal consistency is the best you can do. Once you run out of tests
that distinguish between two theories, the theories are equivalent.
>Unless someone can tell how the photons will not reach the
>particles, I have to conclude that they do, and the delusion that we all see
>others as having a slower time-rate is just that, a delusion. Claiming that
>they "just don't" because so-and-so is widely respected and says they don't,
OK. I'll just claim the photons do reach the particles, as it were, and
the problem is with your interpretation.
Henry Wilson
Naturally it would. The theory was formulated on the assumption that this
is what physically happens.
>
>Of course, since the students had watched the derivation of
>the velocity transformation equations, this came as no surprise
>to them.
In other words it is meaningless circular drivel.
>
Henry Wilson
I'll post a photo of my two degrees if you like Speicher.
Does anyone object to a small .jpg on this ng?
>>
>
>He actually claimed _another_ degree in mathematics.
>Henry is a real Renaisance man.
It is quite normal to study maths in parallel with physics, Speicher - but
you wouldn't know that because you didn't get past the first couple of
weeks of physics1.
Phil
> >> And with a second degree in psychology and genetics.
> >> And with years of experience in mathematics of course.
> >> Or something.
>
> I'll post a photo of my two degrees if you like Speicher.
> Does anyone object to a small .jpg on this ng?
> >>
> >
> >He actually claimed _another_ degree in mathematics.
> >Henry is a real Renaisance man.
>
> It is quite normal to study maths in parallel with physics, Speicher - but
> you wouldn't know that because you didn't get past the first couple of
> weeks of physics1.
> >
Henry,
I'ld like to see those. If I had had discipline, time, and money, those are the two subjects I would have liked to get
degrees in. I'll just tinker with the name a bit and then print them out ... :-)
Oh, and I appreciate the support concerning the criticism from others, but don't worry, I'm taking the good stuff and
ignoring the slams. Actually, I like their suggestions on books!
Phil
Stephen Speicher
>
> I am going to have to send a post on this one subject alone
> (but it will be a while), because there is obviously a lot of
> confusion on this subject. Very briefly, each inertial observer
> assumes that light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative
> to himself.
More properly, in special relativity Einstein enunciated his
second postulate, the "principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light," which is, in effect, that the speed of light is
constant as measured by an observer in any inertial reference
frame, regardless of the relative motion between light source and
observer.
> "Light's reference frame" is simply the term I use to describe
> the reference frame which observer A uses when calculating the
> results of his own experiments, and his predictions of what he
> will see when looking at other observers who are moving
> relative to himself (to observer A).
As long as you make your definitions clear and precise, you are
certainly free to denote them by any name that you please. If,
however, your goal is to communicate with others who are
knowledgeable in the field of relativity, it would behoove you to
learn the standard definitions used in that body of knowledge.
This will facilitate better communication all around.
For instance, your choice of term "light's reference frame" would
be considered an abomination since it denotes an invalid concept
in relativity. In standard relativity light cannot have its own
reference frame, for reasons which are clear and well-understood
by theorists in the field.
The term you are seeking, in the standard language of relativity,
is simply the inertial reference frame in which the observer
makes all of his measurements. By "observer" is meant the entire
array of synchronized clocks and standard rods which record the
location and time of events which occur.
Note further your use of "what he will see." What we "see" with
our eyes is different from what is measured by an observer. When
one refers to an "observation" of an object made with one's eyes,
one means the entire collection of light rays which converge upon
one's eyes. The use of "observation" in this manner is completely
different from the meaning of "observer" as described above.
So yes, as you say, there _is_ "a lot of confusion on this
subject," and a good place to start in eliminating such confusion
is to agree upon common terminology used in relativity. That
will, undoubtedly, facilitate communication.
> In both cases, observer A must assume that light's reference
> frame is motionless relative to himself (tied to observer A),
> or his calculations will not match his actual observations,
> especially his observations of other observers.
This is so loosely formulated that it is impossible to know what
you really want to say. Leaving aside "light's reference frame,"
what does it mean to say that "his calculations will not match
his actual observations?" Observations are measurements, and if
his calculations are not based on his measurements, then upon
what are they based?
[snip several other notions which likewise need more careful
definition and explanation in order to be understood.]
>
> Now, I happen to know that the ability to see other observers
> as having time-rates much higher than our own in no way
> contradicts the principle of relativity,
Do you know what the "principle of relativity" is?
> but it damn sure contradicts the current dogma, which says that
> unless we are deep in a gravitational well, all other observers
> moving at high speeds relative to ourselves must appear to have
> time-rates less than our own. There are even books which claim
> that a witch, moving in circles on her broomstick, would see
> everyone as having a lower time-rate! Unbelievable.
You _really_ need to reduce the level of your haughtiness and
first learn some more about relativity. In this context, I
suggest you read Tom Roberts excellent posting titled "Speed of
Light in an Accelerated System ," which you can get to from URL:
>
> Don't misunderstand me. The fact that I believe that the
> dichotomy between the ether theory and SR is a false one,
What dichotomy are you referring to? There are many ether
theories, but there exists a group of theories similar to the
Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which are experimentally
indistinguishable from standard relativity.
> because SR in fact incorporates the ether theory via the
> second postulate,
SR does nothing of the kind. Just because you assert it does not
make it true.
> does not mean that I do not believe in the principle or the
> laws of relativity.
At this point I suspect that you are really unclear as to what
such principles and laws actually are, at least according to
standard relativity.
> I may draw different conclusions as to what does and does not
> *necessarily follow* from the principle and laws of relativity,
> but that's all.
>
You have yet to draw any valid conclusions here since you have
yet to present any valid arguments. I strongly suggest that you
study the book which you got, _Spacetime Physics_, before you
invest more time in presenting "alternative" views of relativity.
Before you can present an alternative view, you should be
exceptionally clear about what it is an alternative to.
Oriel36
> You believe incorrectly. The entire premise of special relativity is
> that euclidean geometry is wrong, minkowski geometry is correct and so
> there is no need for an ether to "fix" the euclidean geometry. Since
> those two theories are based upon spacetimes with mutually exclusive
> geometries, by hypothesis, they cannot both be correct. The most compatible
> the two can be is indistinguishable.
Bilge,
How content you may be with spacetime as a concept and the demise of
euclidean geometry,you would do well to return to basics and consider
the limitations relativity imposes by according too much influence to
the observer at the expense of a realistic interpretation of motion
between cosmic objects which can be expressed in euclidean terms.The
limitation of relativity is so easy to spot and fundamental in nature
that it would be an injustice to call it a subtlety,nevertheless what
begins with a limitation ends with one and unless a thorough
examination of the initial spacetime concept is dealt with,any premise
built upon it as a observational limitation becomes an outright
error,multiverses and wormholes are an acute examples in the absense
of recognotion of its limitation.Normally,such ideas would send
investigations back to the basics but as yet this has not occured and
the outragious claims are allowed to run amok.
It is much more difficult to present an argument against spacetime as
an observational limitation than an outright error,the advantage
shifts to the point of view that while combining time and space is
possible and there is little wrong with it , by not conditioning it to
include the motion of the Earth that does not rely on observation it
becomes an error.The Earth is turning and we are turning with it,we
are not observationally aware of the rotation except through reference
points such as the motion of stars or the sun,the compromise is that
we can attribute a flow to time which objectively is just distance
covered through rotation.The example of the concorde exceeding the
speed of the Earth's rotation is an example where you subjectively
lose an hour when travelling from London to New York,objectively it
has nothing to do with time ,it recognises only that the distance
covered exceeded the planets rotation.
Einstein combined the subjective with the objective and called it
spacetime,in doing so he split the observer away from independent
motion which is calculated in distance and can be described in terms
of 3D geometry.Everything is now dependent on our independent motion
on the planet and none of it is allied with the fact that we are not
independent of planetary rotation and therein lies the error in not
keeping and eye on the independant motion of the Earth,the solar
system,the galaxy in what the observer 'thinks' he sees,if he does not
see directly the planet's rotation neither should he force the
remaining cosmos to follow suit.
The implications of considering spacetime as a limitation is that is
possible to discern a geometric approach to causes where the
limitations become acute without having to appeal or rely on QM.The
boundaries between infinte and finite values are the extreme
conditions of applying the subjective 'time flow',but spacetime now
becomes an obstacle and it is nessecary to seperate geometry from the
limitations (observer's perception of time flow) and deal with the
extreme conditions without including time as a factor.Black holes
should not be exempt from geometric treatment no more than a visible
object is,currently,if no one has noticed,it is only described in
terms of observer and time.
If the gravitation of an object effects the visible cosmos why
should'nt it be attributed a geometric cause,much as it is novel to
dance around the object with observers and flashlights,it is far more
substantive to attempt to discern its geometric links with 3D
structures from whenc it previously existed.In my view,on one side it
reins in the outrageous speculation that emerges from not recognising
the limitation of spacetime,on the other it asks more questions than
it answers.
Anyone who believes that they fully understand relativity must also
recognise that it accords too much influence to the observer and this
creates awful consequences when left to its own devices.The upside is
that it should not be reconciled with QM for although relativity has
lead to the contradiction of infinite density/zero volume it does not
attempt to reconcile the contradiction and there lies its advantage.
If a small effort was given to how space and time were combined for
convenience,while serving a purpose it split the observer off from
actually discerning true motion.A programm last night was discussing M
theory where a physicist was gleefully proposing the creation of a
Universe in the lab to the wide-eyed amazement of the other people I
was with.The willingness to bypass the singularity condition creates
these wild speculations and so far not many are willing to go back and
have a look at the spacetime concept as a limitation where presently
it is not considered as such.
Bilge
Re: Sensational Demo. The SR explanation of constant C. to usenet:
>>
>> You believe incorrectly. The entire premise of special relativity is
>> that euclidean geometry is wrong, minkowski geometry is correct and so
>> there is no need for an ether to "fix" the euclidean geometry. Since
>> those two theories are based upon spacetimes with mutually exclusive
>> geometries, by hypothesis, they cannot both be correct. The most
>> compatible the two can be is indistinguishable.
>
>
>Bilge,
>
>How content you may be with spacetime as a concept and the demise of
>euclidean geometry,you would do well to return to basics and consider
>the limitations relativity imposes by according too much influence to
>the observer at the expense of a realistic interpretation of motion
>between cosmic objects which can be expressed in euclidean terms.The
as a notational convenience, not necessity and is not peculiar to
relativity. sheeesh.
Henry Wilson
Phil, two suggestions.
1) don't waste your time answering Evens.
2) keep your messages short or no-one will find time to read them.
Henry Wilson
They know their textbook physics very well. You will be bombarded with
endless quotes from standard texts. It is only when one introduces
something novel that they react and shudder with fear.
I don't bother reading about SR because it is based on a misconception in
the very first paragraph. Vertical light beams do no appear diagonal to a
moving observer. The pythagoras bit doesn't happen. There is no 'gamma'!
Life is too short to spend time studying the intricacies of fairyland.
>
>Phil
>
Henry Wilson
<s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
>On Thu, 14 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
>
>>
>> I am going to have to send a post on this one subject alone
>> (but it will be a while), because there is obviously a lot of
>> confusion on this subject. Very briefly, each inertial observer
>> assumes that light travels at a constant velocity, c, relative
>> to himself.
>
>More properly, in special relativity Einstein enunciated his
>second postulate, the "principle of the constancy of the velocity
>of light," which is, in effect, that the speed of light is
>constant as measured by an observer in any inertial reference
>frame, regardless of the relative motion between light source and
>observer.
Is that OWLS or TWLS, Speicher?
>
>> "Light's reference frame" is simply the term I use to describe
>> the reference frame which observer A uses when calculating the
>> results of his own experiments, and his predictions of what he
>> will see when looking at other observers who are moving
>> relative to himself (to observer A).
>
>As long as you make your definitions clear and precise, you are
>certainly free to denote them by any name that you please. If,
>however, your goal is to communicate with others who are
>knowledgeable in the field of relativity, it would behoove you to
>learn the standard definitions used in that body of knowledge.
>This will facilitate better communication all around.
>
>For instance, your choice of term "light's reference frame" would
>be considered an abomination since it denotes an invalid concept
>in relativity. In standard relativity light cannot have its own
>reference frame, for reasons which are clear and well-understood
>by theorists in the field.
Do you agree that light 'moves' at all, Speicher?
What property of space determines the rate at which it moves?
For instance why doesn't it move at twice the speed it does?
Take any point in space and consider a line through it. Do you not think
that photons are travelling along that line in both directions (even with
no observer present).
Logic tells us that there should be a particular movement of that point
such that their mean velocity is zero along that line?
SR tells us that the mean will always be zero, irrespective of movement.
So progress in physics is brought to a standstill by a few equations.
Nobody bothers to look for a models of space and time which might be
revealed by these equations. (Assuming they are true, of course)
>
>The term you are seeking, in the standard language of relativity,
>is simply the inertial reference frame in which the observer
>makes all of his measurements. By "observer" is meant the entire
>array of synchronized clocks and standard rods which record the
>location and time of events which occur.
Ah! But what is the definition of 'synchronized'?
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"Phil" <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:3C6C0128...@jump.net...
[snip]
> I also notice that none of you are dealing with my "orbiting clock paradox."
> Let me see if I can help all of you out on that, using an alternative
> version. Assume that we particles with a half-life of 1 minute. We get 1,000
> particles, quickly accelerate them to 0.9998611c, and then run them in a
> circular track 5 m in diameter. After one hour, we decelerate them to a
> velocity of zero and quickly count them, and find that only 500 of them have
> decayed. The reason for this is that at a velocity of 0.9998611c, their
> time-rate is just 1/60 of normal, meaning that for the particles, just 1
> minute has passed. Now for the "thought experiment." Suppose an observer
> could shrink down to the size of the particles and move with them, what would
> he see? Assuming that the circular track is transparent, for 60 minutes
> photons will bounce off the room, the scientists moving in the room, and the
> clocks on the walls, and in *nanoseconds* those photons will reach the
> observer. The observer will perceive 60 minutes of events, including the
> hands on the clocks moving around, in a period of time that him, is just 1
> minute. Again, unless the photons *go mystic* and decide to stay away from
> the observer, there is no way for this not to happen. Nor can we say that
> this is due to the massive acceleration experienced by the particles, for two
> reasons. One, as the FAQ says, acceleration has no relativistic effects, and
> two, if it really bothers us, then we can go back to the orbiting spaceship
> at 0.728 light-years, which has an acceleration of just 1 g, the same as
> earth observers. The spaceship observers still see, on a continuous basis,
> two minutes worth of earth events for every 1 minute of their own time, and
> this occurs century after century.
Phil, you might be interested in Jan Bielawski's little text about rotating
frames:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=c2893ecb.01100...@posting.google.com
In general, since you seem to be reflecting on relativity a lot, I recommend
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm
and
http://www.mathpages.com/home/albrotoc.htm
Dirk Vdm
Stewart Gordon
<snip>
> Do you agree that light 'moves' at all, Speicher?
> What property of space determines the rate at which it moves?
None. It's a property of spacetime, namely the scale of the time dimension
relative to the three dimensions of space.
> For instance why doesn't it move at twice the speed it does?
Because c != 2c. Which is consequently because c != 0.
> Take any point in space and consider a line through it. Do you not think
> that photons are travelling along that line in both directions (even with
> no observer present).
> Logic tells us that there should be a particular movement of that point
> such that their mean velocity is zero along that line?
Depends on what postulates you apply the logic to.
> SR tells us that the mean will always be zero, irrespective of movement.
>
> So progress in physics is brought to a standstill by a few equations.
>
> Nobody bothers to look for a models of space and time which might be
> revealed by these equations. (Assuming they are true, of course)
<snip>
What is Lorentz spacetime, Minkowski spacetime or whatever you call it then?
Stewart.
--
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the
'group where everyone may benefit.
Oriel36
Bilge,
If you feel an observer is just a convenient notation it is easy to
turn around everytime somebody proposes a relativistic concept using
observance and dismiss it as a convenient notation.You simply cannot
be that stupid or was there something hidden in the 'sheesh' bit.
How do you think the concept originally emerged except through
considering what the observer sees,it is not just convenient,it is
vitally important and you just undermined or diluted the observer's
influence which is tantamount to rejecting relativity
Einstein said that clocks measure time,from an observer's standpoint,
they do in that it is a substitute for being unaware of planetary
rotation but what clocks ACTUALLY do is imitate the distance covered
through rotation through a daily cycle.Seconds,minutes and hours are
objectively subdivisions of distance ,not subdivisions of time whether
the clock is mechanical or digital.
I am not arguing against the relativistic concept,I am telling you
that without conditioning the concept of spacetime and stripping
everything back to where mass and motion exist without applying
measurement,you cannot form a fully objective picture.Once you
introduce measurement,a limitation is introduced and it remains
whether it be space and time or spacetime,unfortunately spacetime tips
the balance towards the observer and the objective component is lost.
Now I did not write this for your benefit but for those who come here
and get their heads bitten off for straining to understand something
they should'nt have to in the first place.Spacetime is not
insane,spacetime without a condition is,the one Einstein forgot to
mention and you continue to ignore.I could'nt care less what
definitions you apply to time because it is irrelevant or as you put
it "a convenient notation" peculiar to the observer but the true
objective reality does not rely on the observer nor his definitions
and considerations of time.
Bilge
>
>How do you think the concept originally emerged except through
>considering what the observer sees,it is not just convenient,it is
People perform experiments, therefore it is useful to ask what
those people should observe. The concept of an observer is not required
unless you want to know what is observed. Just like a euclidean universe,
special (and general) relativity is a theory about the geometry of
spacetime.
>vitally important and you just undermined or diluted the observer's
>influence which is tantamount to rejecting relativity
I didn't undermine anything but your argument.
Bilge
>Nobody bothers to look for a models of space and time which might be
>revealed by these equations. (Assuming they are true, of course)
For those of us that are conscious, special and general relativity
are known to be models of space and time. Are you really that dense?
[...]
>Ah! But what is the definition of 'synchronized'?
Having at least 2 neurons fire sequentially in a causal way. You should
try it and see what you're missing rather than misfiring.
Bilge
>They know their textbook physics very well. You will be bombarded with
>endless quotes from standard texts. It is only when one introduces
>something novel that they react and shudder with fear.
How would you know?
Phil
Where are you reading Bilge's comments? I can't see them anywhere. And to think I
was worried about "mystic photons" -- should have been worried about invisible
posts!
By the way, I don't understand everything you are saying, but from what I do
understand, it is pretty obvious that you know how to THINK!
Phil
Stephen Speicher
sustem you use, but please consider using any of the many
standard readers which conform to the standard way of denoting
attributions through the use of indented ">" or the like. I added
them here for clarity, but if you continue to post here you will
encounter difficulties with people wantng to respond. Also, you
seem to be quite a talkative guy -- which is nice -- but if you
write volumes where a simple sentence will do your posts will be
so long that you will lose readers. I have pared down this reply
by just selecting a few of the more interesting or relevant
issues. which makes use
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
> Stephen Speicher wrote:
>
> > For instance, your choice of term "light's reference frame"
> > would be considered an abomination since it denotes an
> > invalid concept in relativity. In standard relativity light
> > cannot have its own reference frame, for reasons which are
> > clear and well-understood by theorists in the field.
>
> Okay that's fine, but if you think that I am going to
> constantly say, "the inertial reference frame in which the
> observer makes all of his measurements," instead of light's
> reference frame, or if you prefer, observer A's reference
> frame, or something like that, you're nuts! Friend, that's just
> too long-winded!
"observer A's reference frame" is just fine. It is "light's
reference frame" which is the objectionable concept.
> And as for being an abomination, that's just silly, because
> observer A *must* assume that light travels...
You are missing the point. The objection to the terminology
"light's reference frame" is that in standard relativity light
cannot have a frame in which it is at rest. It is meaningless --
how would you transform coordinates into "light's reference
frame?" The speed of light is a fundamental physical constant,
and the Principle of Relativity (PoR) requires its value to be
the same in all inertial frames of reference. That value is
measured at c, and a photon is never at rest.
> >
> > Do you know what the "principle of relativity" is?
> >
> I have many pages of thoughts concerning the PofR, but for the
> purposes of the present discussion, I think that it says that
> we can learn nothing about our velocity relative to the medium
> of space (assuming that such a thing exists) as a result of our
> experiments.
To re-focus, more specifically the PoR states that the laws of
physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference. As to
the "medium of space," such is nonexistent in special relativity.
> Interestingly, this does *not* necessarily mean that we cannot
> derive any conclusions about our "absolute velocity" (yes you
> will say that this term is an abomination or whatever, but run
> with me on this for just a minute)
Sorry, but there is no place to run with this. There is no point
in using an invalid concept as a starting place to launch further
discussion. It will, of necessity, always result in further
confusion. In standard relativity there is no such thing as an
"absolute velocity," and you should purge such a notion from your
thinking processes lest you short-circuit your ability to think
about relativity.
> > You _really_ need to reduce the level of your haughtiness and
> > first learn some more about relativity. In this context, I
> > suggest you read Tom Roberts excellent posting titled "Speed
> > of Light in an Accelerated System ," which you can get to
> > from URL:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?sourceid=navclient&q=author%3Atom+author%3Aroberts+speed+light+accelerated+system
> >
>
> I am going to disagree with you here. I think I am permitted to
> express amazement at beliefs which at least appear to blatantly
> contradict reality.
As would I.
> However if I were judging this exchange in terms of debate
> points, rather than accurate conclusions on reality, I would
> say that you are way ahead.
Do you think that my purpose in discussing with you is to win
debating points? My sense of self is strong enough that I feel
no need to acquire "debating points" in newsgroup discussions.
Look, Phil, I chose to spend the time and effort disussing some
aspects of relativity with you because, though it is clear to me
that you have a goodly number of mistaken notions, I thought you
had enough of a genuine interest in the subject that it would be
worth my while to invest some time, hopefully steering you
towards a better understanding.
Perhaps you are confused by my dealings with cuckoo birds on this
group such as Henry. There are a few knowledgeable people who
post to this group, but it is also populated with a number of
very vocal posters who suffer, simultaneously, from self-imposed
ignorance coupled with deluded arrogance. The anti-relativists
are fundamentally irrational people, and as such I either ignore
them entirely or ridicule them when I do choose to acknowledge
their existence.
This is _not_ what I have done with you, and I have left the door
open, so to speak, for a reasonable discussion about issues which
I think you are confused about. I assure you I have no interest
in accumulating "debating points."
>
> I looked at most of the threads you pointed to, and even
> understood some of it! But I saw nothing that would explain
> how the particles in the lab...
I'm afraid you missed the point for which I referred you to Tom
Roberts' post. I wanted you to understand some of the affects for
accelerated systems, such as standard clocks not remaining
synchronized, so that your mistaken notion enbedded in "but it
damn sure contradicts the current dogma, which says that unless
we are deep in a gravitational well, all other observers..."
could be corrected.
(Incidentally, I did not want you to read the thread, just Tom's
post.)
>
> Speaking of which, I see that you still have not directly said
> anything about this, other than "you need to read x, y, z", so
> I will directly ask you, do you believe that there is some way
> that I simply don't understand that will prevent the particles
> from seeing 60 minutes worth of events in a particle time of
> just 1 minute?
Do you understand that in each clock's own reference frame the
clocks simply tick away at their usual rate?
>
> What dichotomy are you referring to? There are many ether
> theories, but there exists a group of theories similar to
> the Lorentz Ether Theory (LET) which are experimentally
> indistinguishable from standard relativity.
>
> You and I are on the same page here, at least mostly. I find
> that very few people are aware that SR in no way contradicts
> LET.
You need to speak to more people who understand physics.
> However, there is a common belief that SR somehow contradicts
> the ether theory,
"contradicts" is not the right word. As Einstein said, special
relativity made the ether superfluous.
> specifically the belief that c is relative to the medium of
> space.
"belief" is a good word, since the ether of LET is, by its very
nature, unobservable.
> I would go so far as to say that SR in effect claims that
> although c *might* be relative to the medium of space, that
> fact is meaningless because we cannot experimentally verify it.
Then why entertain such a notion?
> On this point, however, I will freely admit that I might be
> full of it. My opinion is that SR *effectively* assumes that c
> is indeed relative to the medium of space, but in such a hidden
> way that it can then declare that such a belief is meaningless.
Opinions are easy to come by. If you have any facts or rational
reasons to substantiate such an opinion, feel free to voice them.
> >
> > You have yet to draw any valid conclusions here since you
> > have yet to present any valid arguments. I strongly suggest
> > that you study the book which you got, _Spacetime Physics_,
> > before you invest more time in presenting "alternative" views
> > of relativity. Before you can present an alternative view,
> > you should be exceptionally clear about what it is an
> > alternative to.
> >
>
> Well, we disagree as to whether relativity is "perfect" or not.
Where exactly do you think I said that special relativity was
"perfect?" Those who best understand relativity are well aware of
its limitations, i.e., its domain of applicability.
> My own conclusion is that there are problems, but not in the
> areas where most "doubters" think there are problems. Of course
> you can simply claim that I have not presented any valid
> arguments,
But you have not presented any valid argument. All you have
shown is that you do not understand accelerated systems, nor do
you understand what time dilation actually means.
Oriel36
It is difficult to draw out a discussion on basic premises of
relativity as you well know.
In any case,best wishes with your treatment .
Gerald
Phil <tu...@jump.net> wrote in message news:<3C6D947B...@jump.net>...
David Evens
That would explain why you continue to have this delusion that there
is a diagonal light bema in SR and not in youtr pretenses, while SR
has a verticle light beam and your pretenses have a diagonal light
beam.
Phil
You will not lose, not expose any of your assumptions, not address my points, no matter how directly I ask you (do you
think the particles will not see 60 minutes of room events in a particle time of 1 minute), and in general, you are going
to come out on top, regardless of what may or may not be the truth. In other words, your goal is to win the debate or
discussion, period, and that's all. I am a walking dead man with an incurable (although fortunately highly treatable)
form of cancer, and I have no time for such bullshit. If getting a little closer to "the truth" means that I have to be
vulnerable, leave the premises behind my conclusions completely exposed and open to attack, especially when using
debating techiniques, which can attack true or false conclusions with equal ease, then that is what I must do. Einstein's
wife said that everyone thought that Einstein must be this tower of strength because he could solve all these problems,
but that the truth was that "he is the most vulnerable man I have ever known." If you decide to stop winning, and *test*
your beliefs (as Einstein said we should), then I will be happy to talk to you. In order to do that, however, you *must*
expose the assumptions or premises behind your beliefs, and drop the debating tactics. Until then, I have no more time
for you. Good-bye, Stephen, and good luck.
Phil
David Evens
No, SR is formulated on the assumptin that the speed of light is the
same for everyone and the laws of physics are the same for everyone.
The above in a CONSEQUENCE of that. You seem to be confused about
what a consequence it (again).
>>Of course, since the students had watched the derivation of
>>the velocity transformation equations, this came as no surprise
>>to them.
>
>In other words it is meaningless circular drivel.
Yes, you did write meaningless circular drivel.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d5084...@news.bigpond.com...
[snip]
> I don't bother reading about SR because it is based on a misconception in
> the very first paragraph. Vertical light beams do no appear diagonal to a
> moving observer. The pythagoras bit doesn't happen. There is no 'gamma'!
Indeed, vertical light beams do not appear diagonal to a moving observer.
Beams remain vertical, the constituting elements follow a diagonal path.
You managed to find this result yourself. It is true. Really. We all know that.
But you don't seem to understand that the "first paragraphs" don't show
any beams (Some sloppy text books talk about a beam, they are wrong).
They show a *single* light signal. It goes diagonally for a moving observer,
just like a bullet and a rain drop goes diagonally. One can use Pythagoras
on the triangle. The "first paragraphs" use it to mathematically derive stuff
like gamma from the postulate of the constancy of lightspeed.
If you are alergic to the consequences (like gamma) you have to reject the
postulate and find another hobby. But do shut up about the derivations.
Specially if you don't understand them.
But I guess you don't even understand what I'm talking about *here*.
Dirk Vdm
Stephen Speicher
problems, and after you succeed with that I hope you will address
your mental problems too. Shakespeare made a living writing
about fatalistic people like yourself, ones who project onto the
world their own inner fears and insecurities, and then wonder why
the reponse of the world seems to them as it does. You seem
obsessed with how you are seen and with "debating points," and
somehow that concern is projected on me. If that is what you
think of as getting closer to "the truth" or as "accurate
conclusions on reality" then I must say that your physical
problems, sad as they are, pale in comparison to what you have
done to your spirit and mind.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
On Fri, 15 Feb 2002, Phil wrote:
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d5084...@news.bigpond.com...
>
>[snip]
>
>> I don't bother reading about SR because it is based on a misconception in
>> the very first paragraph. Vertical light beams do no appear diagonal to a
>> moving observer. The pythagoras bit doesn't happen. There is no 'gamma'!
>
>Indeed, vertical light beams do not appear diagonal to a moving observer.
>Beams remain vertical, the constituting elements follow a diagonal path.
>You managed to find this result yourself. It is true. Really. We all know that.
>But you don't seem to understand that the "first paragraphs" don't show
>any beams (Some sloppy text books talk about a beam, they are wrong).
>They show a *single* light signal. It goes diagonally for a moving observer,
>just like a bullet and a rain drop goes diagonally. One can use Pythagoras
>on the triangle. The "first paragraphs" use it to mathematically derive stuff
>like gamma from the postulate of the constancy of lightspeed.
And why do you think light should appear any different than raindrops or
bullets in the frame of a moving observer?
Do you believe the obseerver's movement actually changes something in the
light beam?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6eb6a3...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:42:58 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d5084...@news.bigpond.com...
> >
> >[snip]
> >
> >> I don't bother reading about SR because it is based on a misconception in
> >> the very first paragraph. Vertical light beams do no appear diagonal to a
> >> moving observer. The pythagoras bit doesn't happen. There is no 'gamma'!
> >
> >Indeed, vertical light beams do not appear diagonal to a moving observer.
> >Beams remain vertical, the constituting elements follow a diagonal path.
> >You managed to find this result yourself. It is true. Really. We all know that.
> >But you don't seem to understand that the "first paragraphs" don't show
> >any beams (Some sloppy text books talk about a beam, they are wrong).
> >They show a *single* light signal. It goes diagonally for a moving observer,
> >just like a bullet and a rain drop goes diagonally. One can use Pythagoras
> >on the triangle. The "first paragraphs" use it to mathematically derive stuff
> >like gamma from the postulate of the constancy of lightspeed.
>
> And why do you think light should appear any different than raindrops or
> bullets in the frame of a moving observer?
They are not different since they all satisfy the 3D version of
w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
For slow stuff like bullets and raindrops it appears like w = u + v.
For light it appears like w = c.
So they appear to different. Why? Nobody knows.
> Do you believe the obseerver's movement actually changes something in the
> light beam?
There is no light beam in the "first paragraphs".
Phil
Oops! That came across WAY more harsh and personal than I meant it to. I thought of it as simply a choice: either we can
question the premises of physics, in an effort to find a better understanding, find flaws, clarify confusion, etc., or we can
try to teach the current theories, premises, and beliefs in the clearest possible manner. I now think that you are using the
latter approach, which means that our questions about and tests of relativity's premises are meaningless. This is why you
never answer my direct questions, because they are not a part of the current system, and from a teaching point of view, it
makes no sense to deal with them. I and a few others, however, want to try to see how the current beliefs necessarily follow
from the most basic, reliable facts, to see if there are flaws, or areas of confusion which can be corrected or clarified.
For that, we must dive into precisely those areas where confusion and disagreement reign supreme!
I still will not have time for your *responses*, since they come from a "teach the current beliefs," rather than a "test the
current beliefs" point of view, and I have complete faith that you will continue to not touch any of the points that those of
us who do want to test the premises will raise. However, it was wrong of me to say that I have no time for *you*, and to
accuse you of simply using debate tactics, when the truth is probably simply that you come from a teaching point of view,
where it makes no sense to question the premises. I do of course have plenty of time for you as a person. My apologies.
Phil
Phil
> Phil wrote:
> Suppose an observer
> > could shrink down to the size of the particles and move with them, what would
> > he see? Assuming that the circular track is transparent, for 60 minutes
> > photons will bounce off the room, the scientists moving in the room, and the
> > clocks on the walls, and in *nanoseconds* those photons will reach the
> > observer. The observer will perceive 60 minutes of events, including the
> > hands on the clocks moving around, in a period of time that him, is just 1
> > minute.
> Phil, you might be interested in Jan Bielawski's little text about rotating
> frames:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?as_umsgid=c2893ecb.01100...@posting.google.com
>
> In general, since you seem to be reflecting on relativity a lot, I recommend
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm
> and
> http://www.mathpages.com/home/albrotoc.htm
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk,
That is very interesting! It brings a continuity to the whole situation that I had never seen
before. The standard "out and back" paradox, the description you provided above where the
spaceship goes on a circular journey from and then back to the planet, the orbiting paradox
where the spaceship travels in a circle with the planet in the center, and the particle paradox,
which is the same except that the "orbit" is inside a room, with "nowhere to run" (for the
particles) from the photons bouncing off of the clocks on the walls. We can even cause all of
them to travel at 0.866c, thereby giving all of them a time-rate exactly 1/2 of the planet or
scientists in the room.
The standard clock paradox only concludes that he in slower after he returns to earth, the
circle version (that you mentioned) has periods during his journey where the earth's time-rate
appears slower and faster, and the orbiting versions see the earth or the scientists as having a
faster time-rate on a continuous basis. All four of these, however, have one thing in common;
they travel on an out and back journey, which as it turns out is quite significant.
The main question, of course, is whether the moving observers, especially the particles moving
in the room, can legitimately conclude that it is they, and not the scientists, who are moving
at high speed relative to the medium of space. As far as I know there are only three things that
can cause someone to perceive others as having time-rates greater than 1.0, namely Doppler
shifts, a gravitational well, and a high velocity relative to the medium of space (absolute
velocity). The latter doesn't work for inertial observers, because both observers perceive each
other as having slower time-rates. It is easy to show that even if we assume that observer B is
moving at 0.866c, he will perceive observer A (who is motionless) as having a slower time-rate,
because observer B's motion relative to light's reference frame/the medium of space/whatever
*interferes* with his ability to measure observer A's time-rate. For the particles moving in a
room, however, no such interference occurs, and they see the truth. There is no way that the
scientists could appear to have a time-rate of 2.0 unless the *average* velocity of the
particles was much higher than the velocity of the scientists. It is important to remember that
this is an average velocity, because if the scientists were in fact moving at high speed, then
the particles could be moving alternately faster and slower than the scientists, although the
math shows that they will spend much more *time* at speeds higher than the scientists than they
will at slower speeds in this situation.
The reason I like your example so much is that it allows to "step back," one step at a time,
from the particles, to the orbiting spaceship, to the spaceship leaving the earth and traveling
in a circle, to the standard straight out and back journey, and realize that all of them are
just slightly less obvious and less clear versions of the same thing. In all cases the traveling
observer can legitimately conclude that he spent much more time at a velocity significantly
higher than the earth/scientists that he spent at a velocity slower than the earth/scientist,
which is the real reason why he aged less.
The possible implication, of course, is that this is an absolute velocity, relative to the
medium of space. Experiments like the clock paradox(es) do allow us to conclude that we have a
non-zero *average* velocity relative to the medium of space, although those same experiments do
not tell us what the velocity of the earth is, or what our absolute velocity is at any
particular moment. Also, as I have said before, it is possible in the case of all four paradoxes
to deduce from purely geometric principles that the spaceship/particles had a minimum average
absolute velocity of 0.866c, so the results of these experiments merely confirm what we can
simply deduce, and therefore do not actually teach us anything new about our absolute velocity
-- quite in line with the principle of relativity.
Phil
Stephen Speicher
the relativity establishment, seeking the "flaws, or areas of
confusion which can be corrected or clarified," when in fact the
flaw is your own ignorance and the confusion is that which exists
in your own mind. Before you can "correct" any "flaws" in the
theory you must first learn what it is, and your mistaken notions
of the theory disqualify you in that regard. If you really want
to "dive into precisely those areas where confusion and
disagreement reign supreme," then educate yourself and learn the
theory to remove your confusion. Until you do, you are naught
but a Don Quixote who says:
"Look there, friend Sancho Panza, where thirty or more
monstrous giants rise up, all of whom I mean to engage
in battle and slay, and with whose spoils we shall
begin to make our fortunes. For this is righteous
warfare, and it is God's good service to sweep so evil
a breed from off the face of the earth."
The "monstrous giants" of Don Quixote were nothing but windmills,
and your "flaws, or areas of confusion" are nothing but your own
distortions of fact. I sympathize with Don Quixote for his sense
of knighthood and his "impossible dreams," and I sympathize when
you "question the premises of physics," but no sword will turn
windmills into giants, nor will your distortions of relativity
turn "flaws" into fact.
Before you can fight a battle you must arm yourself with
knowledge, so take Don Quixote by the hand and sit yourselves
down and learn the facts of reality first. You do not have to
learn it here, nor do you need to learn it from me, but do
yourself and Don Quixote a favor and read the books which were
recommended to you. I suggested Taylor and Wheeler's _Spacetime
Physics_, and Dirk suggested another great book, Robert Geroch's
_General Relativity From A to B_.
You have the choice: educate yourself before you do battle, or
wind up as a deluded dolt like Henry and his ilk.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Welcome to California. Bring your own batteries.
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:3c6d536e...@news.bigpond.com...
><snip>
>> Do you agree that light 'moves' at all, Speicher?
>> What property of space determines the rate at which it moves?
>
>None. It's a property of spacetime, namely the scale of the time dimension
>relative to the three dimensions of space.
I did consider that theory once but gave it away.
Time is quite unrelated to space. Any observer can express a distance in
terms of the time light will take to travel across it - but a universe
described in terms of that type of 'spacetime' can only reveal
observational effects - which is essentially what SR does (but
incorrectly).
>
>> For instance why doesn't it move at twice the speed it does?
>
>Because c != 2c. Which is consequently because c != 0.
YES that's very clear!
>
>> Take any point in space and consider a line through it. Do you not think
>> that photons are travelling along that line in both directions (even with
>> no observer present).
>> Logic tells us that there should be a particular movement of that point
>> such that their mean velocity is zero along that line?
>
>Depends on what postulates you apply the logic to.
well come on, tell me how your postulates can change that!
You will say "put an observer at that point and always synch his clocks so
that, no matter how he moves, he will find OWLS=TWLS and is constant and
isotropic".
Can you not see that this is a circular maths argument that does nothing to
enhance the progress of physics?
>
>> SR tells us that the mean will always be zero, irrespective of movement.
>>
>> So progress in physics is brought to a standstill by a few equations.
>>
>> Nobody bothers to look for a models of space and time which might be
>> revealed by these equations. (Assuming they are true, of course)
><snip>
>
>What is Lorentz spacetime, Minkowski spacetime or whatever you call it then?
It is intended as a tool for comparing how differently moving observers
will perceive a spatial event IF THEIR SOLE METHOD OF COMMUNICATION IS EM..
Henry Wilson
<s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
Listen, speicher, relativity is nothing but a circular mathematical
variation of Newtonian physics. Trouble is, it is based on a number of
false assumptions. It ends up producing some approximaterly correct answers
amongst the rest of the nonsense.
Bilge
That beats the next best thing by how many correct answers, henry?
(Provide examples where relativity gets the wrong answer and your next
best thing does not by providing the two numbers for comparison and citing
the reference for the experiment.)
Henry Wilson
<dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6eb6a3...@news.bigpond.com...
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 08:42:58 GMT, "Dirk Van de moortel"
>> <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c6d5084...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >
>> >[snip]
>> >
>> >> I don't bother reading about SR because it is based on a misconception in
>> >> the very first paragraph. Vertical light beams do no appear diagonal to a
>> >> moving observer. The pythagoras bit doesn't happen. There is no 'gamma'!
>> >
>> >Indeed, vertical light beams do not appear diagonal to a moving observer.
>> >Beams remain vertical, the constituting elements follow a diagonal path.
>> >You managed to find this result yourself. It is true. Really. We all know that.
>> >But you don't seem to understand that the "first paragraphs" don't show
>> >any beams (Some sloppy text books talk about a beam, they are wrong).
>> >They show a *single* light signal. It goes diagonally for a moving observer,
>> >just like a bullet and a rain drop goes diagonally. One can use Pythagoras
>> >on the triangle. The "first paragraphs" use it to mathematically derive stuff
>> >like gamma from the postulate of the constancy of lightspeed.
>>
>> And why do you think light should appear any different than raindrops or
>> bullets in the frame of a moving observer?
>
>They are not different since they all satisfy the 3D version of
> w = (u+v)/(1+uv/c^2).
I think all observations are made in 1D only.
>For slow stuff like bullets and raindrops it appears like w = u + v.
>For light it appears like w = c.
>So they appear to different. Why? Nobody knows.
Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
Nothing happens to the light just because a moving observer happens to pass
by.
>
>
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
The frontier of scientific invention.
www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
wrote:
Evens, this stuff is way too hard for you. Why don't you join
alt.tiddlywinks
dur...@aging.coa.uky.edu
(snip)
> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
> Nothing happens to the light just because a moving observer happens to pass
> by.
How many kilograms of light hit the earth yesterday? What was the light
accumulation in centimeters?
- Bryan
Patrick I Taylor
> How many kilograms of light hit the earth yesterday? What was the light
> accumulation in centimeters?
none. it froze in the upper atmosphere. then it evaporated and
went home.
pt
Eric Prebys
The cross-sectional area of the earth is 1.3E14 m^2
The intensity of sunlight hitting the earth is something
like 1.5W/m^2 -> 1.9E14 watts of sunlight are continuously
hitting the earth. If all this energy were absorbed, it
would be 1.6E19 Joules in one day, which is would result in a
mass increase of m = E/c^2 = 180 kg.
Of course, the earth is in thermal equilibrium, so an equivent
amount of energy leaves through reflection and thermal radiation,
and the actual mass of the earth does not change, to first order
anyway.
-Eric
> - Bryan
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Prebys, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Office: 630-840-8369, Email: pre...@fnal.gov
WWW: http://home.fnal.gov/~prebys
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Wilson
Silly boy!
David Evens
>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 04:47:35 +0000 (UTC), dur...@aging.coa.uky.edu wrote:
>>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>>
>>(snip)
>>> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
>>> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
>>> Nothing happens to the light just because a moving observer happens to pass
>>> by.
>>
>>How many kilograms of light hit the earth yesterday? What was the light
>>accumulation in centimeters?
>>
>>- Bryan
>>
>Silly boy!
Yes, you pretense that light is like rain IS silly, Henry.
>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>The frontier of ascientific evasion.
>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:59:34 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 04:47:35 +0000 (UTC), dur...@aging.coa.uky.edu wrote:
>>>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>>>
>>>(snip)
>>>> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
>>>> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
>>>> Nothing happens to the light just because a moving observer happens to pass
>>>> by.
>>>
>>>How many kilograms of light hit the earth yesterday? What was the light
>>>accumulation in centimeters?
>>>
>>>- Bryan
>>>
>>Silly boy!
>
>Yes, you pretense that light is like rain IS silly, Henry.
And a moving observer is a moving observer whether it goes past rain or a
rainbow.
>
>>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>The frontier of ascientific evasion.
>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c70339f...@news.bigpond.com...
Isn't it strange, then, that SR produces correct predictions where NM fails?
And maybe you can name one of the many experiments where SR predicts nonsense?
You know, one of the experiments falsifying SR?
You can't?
If Henry Wilson cannot name ONE example where SR produce nonsense
then Henry Wilson must be the one who produces the nonsense, right?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c72da56...@news.bigpond.com...
You are a funny guy, Henry. :-)
You do really think physics is about what you believe, don't you? :-)
Do you always live in this fantasy world of yours?
If you find your cup empty, do you then say:
"There is absolutely no reason to believe that my cup should
be empty." And then you drink your fantasy coffee?
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c755b28...@news.bigpond.com...
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Lavatory,
The cesspool of scientific fumbling.
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/ImmortalFumbles.html
Dirk Vdm
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c72da56...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >For slow stuff like bullets and raindrops it appears like w = u + v.
>> >For light it appears like w = c.
>> >So they appear to different. Why? Nobody knows.
>>
>> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
>> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
>
>You are a funny guy, Henry. :-)
>You do really think physics is about what you believe, don't you? :-)
>
>Do you always live in this fantasy world of yours?
>If you find your cup empty, do you then say:
>"There is absolutely no reason to believe that my cup should
> be empty." And then you drink your fantasy coffee?
>
>Paul
>
Paul, a moving observer makes not one iota of difference to the movement of
anything external, be it raindrops bullets or light.
Einstein and his followers seem to believe that space is governed by moving
observers.
What a joke!
Henry Wilson
See my upgrades 'photons'exe' demo.
David Evens
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:05:18 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>wrote:
>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:59:34 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 04:47:35 +0000 (UTC), dur...@aging.coa.uky.edu wrote:
>>>>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>(snip)
>>>>> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
>>>>> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
>>>>> Nothing happens to the light just because a moving observer happens to pass
>>>>> by.
>>>>
>>>>How many kilograms of light hit the earth yesterday? What was the light
>>>>accumulation in centimeters?
>>>>
>>>>- Bryan
>>>>
>>>Silly boy!
>>
>>Yes, you pretense that light is like rain IS silly, Henry.
>
>And a moving observer is a moving observer whether it goes past rain or a
>rainbow.
So you admit that your assumption that the laws of physics are
different for light and everything else is stupidly wrong.
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c758848...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:39:36 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c72da56...@news.bigpond.com...
>
> >> >For slow stuff like bullets and raindrops it appears like w = u + v.
> >> >For light it appears like w = c.
> >> >So they appear to different. Why? Nobody knows.
> >>
> >> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
> >> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
> >
> >You are a funny guy, Henry. :-)
> >You do really think physics is about what you believe, don't you? :-)
> >
> >Do you always live in this fantasy world of yours?
> >If you find your cup empty, do you then say:
> >"There is absolutely no reason to believe that my cup should
> > be empty." And then you drink your fantasy coffee?
> >
> >Paul
> >
> Paul, a moving observer makes not one iota of difference to the movement of
> anything external, be it raindrops bullets or light.
Henry Wilson wrote:
| Why should they appear different?
| There is absolutely no reason to believe
| that light behaves any differently from raindrops.
So you obviously think that YOUR beliefs have physical
consequences for the behaviour of nature.
A most remarkable belief.
That's what make you such a funny guy, Henry.
> Einstein and his followers seem to believe that space is governed by moving
> observers.
> What a joke!
Indeed.
This naive misinterpretation of SR is indeed a joke.
It is THE most stupid misinterpretation there is,
seen only among people who are utterly ignorant about SR.
What's the secret behind your success in staying this ignorant
for such a long time, Henry?
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c7588fa...@news.bigpond.com...
> On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 22:24:07 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
> <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c70339f...@news.bigpond.com...
> >> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 16:46:18 -0800, Stephen Speicher
> >> <s...@compbio.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Listen, speicher, relativity is nothing but a circular mathematical
> >> variation of Newtonian physics. Trouble is, it is based on a number of
> >> false assumptions. It ends up producing some approximaterly correct answers
> >> amongst the rest of the nonsense.
> >
> >Isn't it strange, then, that SR produces correct predictions where NM fails?
No answer, Henry?
How can a theory which is but "a circular mathematical variation of NM"
produce conrete predictions different from NM?
And why is it that it is the predictions of SR that invariably
are correct when the predictions differ?
Henry..?
No answer?
Why is that?
> >
> >And maybe you can name one of the many experiments where SR predicts nonsense?
> >You know, one of the experiments falsifying SR?
> >
> >You can't?
> >If Henry Wilson cannot name ONE example where SR produce nonsense
> >then Henry Wilson must be the one who produces the nonsense, right?
> >
> >Paul
> See my upgrades 'photons'exe' demo.
I was not asking for YOUR nonsense, Henry.
I was asking for a reference for an experiment which proves
that SR predicts nonsense.
I am waiting, Henry.
Since the predictions of SR are "approximately correct" in only
a few cases amongst "the rest of the nonsense", it should be
simple to name one single of the cases were it predicts nonsense,
should it not?
Henry...?
No answer?
Were you just blabbering meaningless nonsense maybe?
Paul
Henry Wilson
You are going very close to being done for defamation Dirk!
The only thing that saves you is the fact that your so called 'fumbles' are
really ALL very sound words of wisdom - (well, maybe I'm not so sure about
some of Seto's).
Henry Wilson
wrote:
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 20:41:07 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 03:05:18 GMT, dev...@technologist.com (David Evens)
>>wrote:
>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:59:34 GMT, He...@the.edge(Henry Wilson) wrote:
>>>>On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 04:47:35 +0000 (UTC), dur...@aging.coa.uky.edu wrote:
>>>>>Henry Wilson <He...@the.edge> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>(snip)
>>>>>> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
>>>>>> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
>>>>>> Nothing happens to the light just because a moving observer happens to pass
>>>>>> by.
>>>>>
>>>>>How many kilograms of light hit the earth yesterday? What was the light
>>>>>accumulation in centimeters?
>>>>>
>>>>>- Bryan
>>>>>
>>>>Silly boy!
>>>
>>>Yes, you pretense that light is like rain IS silly, Henry.
>>
>>And a moving observer is a moving observer whether it goes past rain or a
>>rainbow.
>
>So you admit that your assumption that the laws of physics are
>different for light and everything else is stupidly wrong.
Evens, there is one assumption of mine that is DEFINITELY right. YOU NEED
PSYCHIATRIC HELP!!!
>
>>>>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>>>The frontier of ascientific evasion.
>>>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>>>
>>
>>Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's thought-free Lavatory,
>>The frontier of ascientific evasion.
>>www.users.bigpond.com/rmrabb/HW.htm
>
Henry Wilson, Henry Wilson's free thought Laboratory,
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
>
>"Henry Wilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:3c758848...@news.bigpond.com...
>> >> >For slow stuff like bullets and raindrops it appears like w = u + v.
>> >> >For light it appears like w = c.
>> >> >So they appear to different. Why? Nobody knows.
>> >>
>> >> Why should they appear different? There is absolutely no reason to believe
>> >> that light behaves any differenly from raindrops.
>> >
>> >You are a funny guy, Henry. :-)
>> >You do really think physics is about what you believe, don't you? :-)
>> >
>> >Do you always live in this fantasy world of yours?
>> >If you find your cup empty, do you then say:
>> >"There is absolutely no reason to believe that my cup should
>> > be empty." And then you drink your fantasy coffee?
>> >
>> >Paul
>> >
>> Paul, a moving observer makes not one iota of difference to the movement of
>> anything external, be it raindrops bullets or light.
>
>Henry Wilson wrote:
>| Why should they appear different?
>| There is absolutely no reason to believe
>| that light behaves any differently from raindrops.
>
>So you obviously think that YOUR beliefs have physical
>consequences for the behaviour of nature.
>
>A most remarkable belief.
>That's what make you such a funny guy, Henry.
As I have tried to explain on many previous occasions, there cannot be any
inconsistency in transforming moving events from one frame to another.
If I move through vertically falling rain, I can plot the diagonal path of
each droplet in my frame, right? Its velocity is sqrt(U^2+v^2).
If the raindrops happen to be falling at .9999999999999999999999c, I can
still plot them in the same manner. there velocity is close enough to
sqrt(c^2+v^2).
Why do you think I cannot plot photons in the same way?
>
>> Einstein and his followers seem to believe that space is governed by moving
>> observers.
>> What a joke!
>
>Indeed.
>This naive misinterpretation of SR is indeed a joke.
>It is THE most stupid misinterpretation there is,
>seen only among people who are utterly ignorant about SR.
>
>What's the secret behind your success in staying this ignorant
>for such a long time, Henry?
Paul, naturally, I often wonder about the possible consequences if, on the
off chance and against all evidence and logic, the principles of SR were
actually correct.
What stands out in my mind is the fact that SRians never try to find a
physical connection.
If vertical light DOES move diagonally at c in a moving frame, then most
wonderful discoveries follow.
..but you people are all content to just say, "this and that is 'caused by'
SR."
What a terrible attitude!
If SR did happen to be correct then surely someone would have used it to
discover something useful by now!
>
>Paul
Henry Wilson
<paul.b....@hia.no> wrote:
You know my likely answer.