Question about Lorentz Transform for Relativity
Chris
I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
explain it to me.
In the appendix is shows:
x = ct
x' = ct'
x - ct = 0
x' - ct' = 0
(x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
(
If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true, then
why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
follow.
Can anyone explain this?
Mathew Orman
"Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Dirk Van de moortel
>
> I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
> there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
> explain it to me.
>
> In the appendix is shows:
> x = ct
> x' = ct'
>
> x - ct = 0
> x' - ct' = 0
>
> (x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
> (
>
> If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true,
The point is that eq 3 and eq 4 are *not* true for all cases,
i.e. for all events in spacetime, but only for events 'taking
place' on a light signal going in the positive x- and x'-directions.
> then
> why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
>
> In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
> follow.
We do know for sure that
for all x and t: x-ct = 0 <==> x'-ct'=0
and this is equivalent with the statement:
there is a U such that
for all x and t: x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
>
> Can anyone explain this?
hth
Dirk Vdm
Pmb
I'm not sure where they get that but let me take a shot. The two equations
> x - ct = 0
> x' - ct' = 0
represents a wavefront of a light beam. I.e. the x is where the light is at
time t. Same with x',t' i.e. x' is where the light is at time t'.
In the relation
> (x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
the x',t' and x,t do not neccesarily represent points on a wavefront of
light.
Hope that helps
Pmb
Chuck Simmons
>
> "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
> >
> > I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
> > there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
> > explain it to me.
> >
> > In the appendix is shows:
> > x = ct
> > x' = ct'
> >
> > x - ct = 0
> > x' - ct' = 0
> >
> > (x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
> > (
> >
> > If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true, then
> > why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
> >
> > In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
> > follow.
> >
> > Can anyone explain this?
>
> Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you want to interfere with what someone wants to do? The OP wants
to know about a particular algebraic tranformation. If Someone asked
about finding a basis for a certain vector space, would you blurt out
that vector spaces are useless and that the person should study Smart
shit instead? Yes, I guess you would. I suggest that you have an MRI of
the brain. Maybe they can find something.
Chuck
--
... The times have been,
That, when the brains were out,
the man would die. ... Macbeth
Chuck Simmons chr...@webaccess.net
Chris
> Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
Why do you say it's a fallacy?
"Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<bf9qjv$80o$1...@news.onet.pl>...
tomG
> Can anyone explain this?
U is -not- a constant.
Minor Crank
>
>
> Why do you say it's a fallacy?
Unfortunately, the sci.physics.* newsgroups are filled with crackpots.
Mathew Orman is one of the many "relativity is wrong" nuts who infest this
place.
It takes a while to sort out the nutcases from the ones who have a genuine
degree of knowledge about the subject. Dirk gave you a good answer. I won't
pretend to be able to explain it better.
Of course, the problem with receiving such advice from me is that you have
no means of knowing whether -I- might be a crackpot myself! Since you really
can't trust me, I wish to refer you to a previous post of mine to a newbie
who was faced with a similar problem...as soon as he posted a relativity
question, he got jumped on by a bunch of nuts and incompetents. In this
previous post of mine, I gave links to the Usenet Physics FAQ and to an
excellent textboon on relativity.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=bfgNa.9192%24Ix2.1538%40rwcrnsc54
Hopefully this will help.
Minor Crank
Dirk Van de moortel
"tomG" <t...@jorsm.com> wrote in message news:j9KdnQpqyfN...@jorsm.com...
U = sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c)
This is independent of x and t for any given v.
Dirk Vdm
Mathew Orman
>
>
> Why do you say it's a fallacy?
>
>
>
>
>
Because it was invented and not discovered about 100 years ago
and failed to materialize ever since.
Evidence that falsifies it exist in enormous amount!
Gregory L. Hansen
If x-ct=0, then anything*(x-ct)=0, because anything*0=0 if
"anything" is finite.
--
"When fighting with sharpened Bronze, or harder Metals from the Heavens,
it is Wise to kick thy Opponent, be he a Chaldean or a man of Uruk, in his
Man Sack, that thou mayst defeat him more handily than by Arms. So sayeth
INNAMURUTUSHIMMILODEK, who hath slain threescore Ammelekites."
Chris
A light signal which is proceeding along the positive axis of x, is
transmitted according to the equation:
x = ct
or
x - ct = 0 .........(1)
Since the same light signal has to be transmitted relative to K' (K'
is the system of coordinates that is moving in a positive x direction
at a velocity v, this is diagramed earlier in the book, but not show
here) with the velocity c, the propagation relative to the system K'
will be represented by the analogous formula:
x' - ct' = 0 ............(2)
(x' is the x axis for K', t' is time as seen by K')
Those space time points (events) which satisfy (1) must also satisfy
(2). Obviously this will be the case when the relation:
x' - ct' = U(x - ct).......(3)
is fulfilled in general, where U indicates a constant; for according
to (3), the disappearance of (x-ct) involves the disappearance of
(x'-ct').
--------
Why do you say it isn't a constant?
BTW, U is really a Lambda, but that doesn't matter.
Maybe its the term "disappearance" that I am not grasping. Einstein
seems to say that all points along the x and x' axis (in this case)
will satisfy (1) and (2). i.e. they will always be resolved to equal
0. So what is with the "disappearance" terminology?
"tomG" <t...@jorsm.com> wrote in message news:<j9KdnQpqyfN...@jorsm.com>...
Chris
> "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
> >
> > I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
> > there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
> > explain it to me.
> >
> > In the appendix is shows:
> > x = ct
> > x' = ct'
> >
> > x - ct = 0
> > x' - ct' = 0
> >
> > (x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
> > (
> >
> > If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true,
>
> The point is that eq 3 and eq 4 are *not* true for all cases,
> i.e. for all events in spacetime, but only for events 'taking
> place' on a light signal going in the positive x- and x'-directions.
>
Understood.
> > then
> > why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
> >
> > In the book it says that this is to "generalize" it, but I don't
> > follow.
>
> We do know for sure that
> for all x and t: x-ct = 0 <==> x'-ct'=0
> and this is equivalent with the statement:
> there is a U such that
> for all x and t: x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
>
Ok. So then is adding constant simply a way to allow for cleaner
manipulation of the equations later? I totally understand that if A=0
and B=0 then A*X=B, but at the same time, adding X to my A=B equation
doesn't do anything to the equation. In most cases you would be
removing the X to return the simplified A=B.
I would assume that for U to actually *matter* in this equation, there
would need to be a situation where (x' - ct') <> 0 or (x - ct) <> 0.
I don't doupt the validity of the x'-ct' = U*(x-ct) equation.
So I guess that I am seeing 2 possible reasons:
1) There is actually a case where x-ct <> x'-ct', but their values
have a direct relationship so by multiplying one side by some value U,
you could make the equation true.
2) Adding U is simply a way to make the equations that will come later
look nicer, easier to manipulate, but U is not actually required in
the equation. (kinda like X+1-1=Y could just be (X=Y) )
I am still missing the boat?
Chris
Can you see my post in reply to Dirk's initial response?
I was basically asking some questions about his response, and I think
they directly apply to your post also.
I'm using google groups, so I can't see my post yet, it takes a few
hours some times, otherwise, I would just cut and paste most of it
into this reply.
Thanks
glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<bfbc8j$3k8$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu>...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message news:44f6e099.0307...@posting.google.com...
see below...
>
> I don't doupt the validity of the x'-ct' = U*(x-ct) equation.
>
> So I guess that I am seeing 2 possible reasons:
> 1) There is actually a case where x-ct <> x'-ct', but their values
> have a direct relationship so by multiplying one side by some value U,
> you could make the equation true.
> 2) Adding U is simply a way to make the equations that will come later
> look nicer, easier to manipulate, but U is not actually required in
> the equation. (kinda like X+1-1=Y could just be (X=Y) )
>
>
> I am still missing the boat?
All the events in spacetime that do not 'take place' on
the light signal satisfy the equations
(x' - ct') <> 0 and (x - ct) <> 0.
This comes automatically with
x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
which effectively tells you that
for all x and t: x-ct = 0 <==> x'-ct' = 0
which is of course fully equivalent with
for all x and t: x-ct <> 0 <==> x'-ct' <> 0.
So these two statements are expressed with that single
statement
x'-ct' = U*(x-ct).
Be careful though: one could just as well have said,
ha okay, let's take the equation
x'-ct' = 27*U*(x-ct)^(5+V)
Then clearly we also have
for all x and t: x-ct = 0 <==> x'-ct' = 0
and
for all x and t: x-ct <> 0 <==> x'-ct' <> 0
so why *do* we take this form
x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
?
Well, the whole idea is, that we first demand (for a number
of physical reasons) that the transformatrion between pairs
(x,t) and (x',t') is a *linear* transformation with (for now)
unknown coefficients:
x' = p*x + q*ct
ct' = r*x + s*ct
and that we then try to find these coefficients p,q,r,s by
using some physical insights.
How do we do that?
We use the fact that the 'equation of motion' or 'wordline'
of the lightray
x = ct
transforms to
x' = ct'
and likewise that the lightray in the other direction
x = -ct
transforms to
x' = -ct'.
Demanding that there is a number U such that
x'-ct' = U*(x-ct)
and that there is a number V such that
x'+ct' = V*(x+ct)
is a nifty way to do that, since we can now immediately
write
x' = [U+V]/2 * x - [U-V]/2 * ct
ct' = -[U-V]/2 * x + [U+V]/2 * ct
so we already know that our unknown coefficients p,q,r,s
satisfy
p = [U+V]/2
q = -[U-V]/2
r = -[U-V]/2
s = [U+V]/2
so we can already write
x' = a*x - b*ct
ct' = a*ct - b*x
which leaves us with the task of finding a and b now...
hth
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
[snip]
> Maybe its the term "disappearance" that I am not grasping. Einstein
> seems to say that all points along the x and x' axis (in this case)
> will satisfy (1) and (2). i.e. they will always be resolved to equal
> 0. So what is with the "disappearance" terminology?
Nothing to be afraid of :-)
Something is sometimes said to "disappear" when its
value is 0.
So we can say that sin(x) disappears for x = k*pi
Dirk Vdm
rsm...@york.ac.uk
[snip]
> Evidence that falsifies it exist in enormous amount!
All your fallacy are belong to us!
Alfred Einstead
> why do you need to use the constant U in the final equation?
If x' and t' are functions of x and t, then x'-ct' is a function
of x and t:
x'-ct' = f(x,t).
The condition is that f(ct,t) = 0.
If a function F(x) has continuous derivative between x and a, then
it can be expressed in the form:
F(x) = F(a) + (x-a) U(x),
where
U(x) = integral F'(a + t(x-a)) dt: t = 0 to 1.
The integral is defined because F'(a+t(x-a)) is continuous and
integrals of continuous functions are defined.
Therefore, the function f(x,t), expressed as a function of x,
is
f(x,t) = f(ct,t) + (x-ct) U(x,t)
= (x-ct) U(x,t).
Therefore,
x' - ct' = (x - ct) U(x, t)
for some function U(x, t).
Dirk Van de moortel
"Alfred Einstead" <whop...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:e58d56ae.03071...@posting.google.com...
Oh yes, that's nice.
So using the same reasoning that provides
x' + ct' = (x + ct) V(x, t)
we get
x' = a(x,t)*x - b(x,t)*ct
ct' = a(x,t)*ct - b(x,t)*x
where
a(x,t) = [U(x,t)+V(x,t)]/2
b(x,t) = [U(x,t)-V(x,t)]/2
which is *not* a linear transformation *yet*.
It merely turns out to be linear when we find that
a(x,t) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant
b(x,t) = b/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant.
I hadn't looked at it this way before.
Nice :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
> b(x,t) = b/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant.
typo: v/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
keith stein
news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
> Why do you say it's a fallacy?
I will explain it for you Chris, but be warned....
This information will certainly not aid you to get a physics degree,
or even to communicate with most physicists. However if you are a genuine
seeker after 'truth', then read on eh!
> "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<bf9qjv$80o$1...@news.onet.pl>...
> > "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
> > news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
> > >
> > > I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
> > > there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
> > > explain it to me.
> > >
> > > In the appendix is shows:
> > > x = ct
> > > x' = ct'
And there already is the fallacy, Chris, for you are using
the same value 'c' for the velocity in the primed, and the
unprimed frames of reference.
Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
are moving relative to each other?
Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
A light----> B <-you
< ----------- L --------------> v m/s
Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
A to B.
Therefore:
Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
= (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
= c + v
Understanding this will enable you to join the long list
of "crackpots" who infest this newsgroup, but nothing
more eh! :-)
--
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
keith stein
> BTW, U is really a Lambda, but that doesn't matter.
BTW, Lambda is really gamma,
and that doesn't matter either eh!
:-)
S. Enterprize Company
>news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
>
>> > Why do you want to study Einstein-Lorentz fallacy?
>
>> Why do you say it's a fallacy?
>
>I will explain it for you Chris, but be warned....
>
>This information will certainly not aid you to get a physics degree,
>or even to communicate with most physicists. However if you are a genuine
>seeker after 'truth', then read on eh!
>
>> "Mathew Orman" <or...@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:<bf9qjv$80o$1...@news.onet.pl>...
>> > "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
>> > news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
>> > > My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
>> > >
>> > > I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
>> > > there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
>> > > explain it to me.
>> > >
>> > > In the appendix is shows:
>> > > x = ct
>> > > x' = ct'
>
>And there already is the fallacy, Chris, for you are using
>the same value 'c' for the velocity in the primed, and the
>unprimed frames of reference.
This just shows c is constant in all time frames. This is ok.
>
>Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
>have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
>are moving relative to each other?
>
>Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
>
>Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
>to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
>but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
I think the equations were right. c is constant in all time frames.
>
>
> A light----> B <-you
> < ----------- L --------------> v m/s
>
>Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
>light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
>
>Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
> where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
> and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
>
>Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
>Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
>so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
>which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
>A to B.
>
>Therefore:
>Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
> = (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
> = c + v
c still remains constant. I think you forgot to consider the doppler
effect. c remains constant. If that person did approach at v , c + v doesn't
occur. There is a frequency shift called the doppler effect which gives light
the ability to change frequencies but yet remain constant, occurs.
It's like this as an analogy.
train ----> train---->
observer 1 observer 2
Observer 1 hears the frequency of train differently than observer 2. The
train's speed remains constant. c remains constant in all time frames, the
frequency of light changes ( c + v doesn't occur).
Now here is where I disagreed that mass is not relativisitic. The mass of
the train remains constant, and so does the observers. The doppler effect
doesn't apply to mass. Mass is also constant in every time frame. But yet they
say,
m_f = m_i / ( sqrt ( 1 - v^2/c^2) )
If mass in time frame 1 is moving near the speed of light, and mass in frame
2 is still. The mass in both frames are still constant.
Ant let's say you reach v =c
m_f x 0 = m_i
0 = m_i
mass is zero.
How can mass just disappear? This is a violation of the law of the
conservation of matter and energy.
In particle accelerators they used this relation to account for the extra
energy because just E = m^2, didn't work. Well that's because E = mc^2 isn't
correct. Mass can't reach the speed of light, but then they say it does to
transform into total energy. This is a contradiction.
Using the Smart Model, I even showed where the extra energy can be accounted
for in particle accelerators, maintaining the laws of conservation..... .
>
>Understanding this will enable you to join the long list
>of "crackpots" who infest this newsgroup, but nothing
>more eh! :-)
>--
>
>keith stein
>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
>
>
>
Smart's First Will And Testament Song
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/BeefmeatBlues.MP3
S. Enterprize (Science Journal)
http://smart1234.s-enterprize.com/
Chris
Now, I am definitely not trying to get a physics degree, but wouldn't
relativity (or those that believe in it) say that, because in the 2nd
situation you are running, your increased v will cause your t to be
different, such as t'?
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<2QxSa.6628$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
Jeff Krimmel
> "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<2QxSa.6628$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
[...]
>> Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave, have the
>> same velocity in two frames of reference which are moving relative to
>> each other?
>>
>> Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
Chris, here is your first indication that Keith has _absolutely_ no idea
what is going on. The special theory of relativity has been verified
experimentally innumerable times within this specific problem domain, and
Keith simply has nothing else to offer except for his own elementary
"common sense". You are correct to be skeptical of his garbage.
>> Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found' to have the
>> same velocity in ALL frames of reference, but this is a LIE, as can
>> easily be demonstrated....
>>
>>
>> A light----> B <-you
>> < ----------- L --------------> v m/s
>>
>> Use synchronised clocks...
How do you synchronize your clocks, Keith?
[...]
>> Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s Note that
>> 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving , so that the light
>> must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA) which is the distance B
>> has moved as the light travels from A to B.
Oh, the light "must travel" the way you tell it to, huh Keith? Why, pray
tell, is that?
[...]
>> Understanding this will enable you to join the long list of "crackpots"
>> who infest this newsgroup, but nothing more eh! :-)
In this, I must agree with Keith. You will be nothing more than a crackpot
if you believe in such nonsense. If this is to what you aspire, then
please have at it.
> Now, I am definitely not trying to get a physics degree, but wouldn't
> relativity (or those that believe in it) say that, because in the 2nd
> situation you are running, your increased v will cause your t to be
> different, such as t'?
Not really, Chris. Albert Einstein postulated that the speed of light is
constant in any inertial frame of reference, so no matter in what frame of
reference you happen to be sitting, you will _always_ measure the speed of
light to be constant (and it doesn't matter in which direction the light
is traveling).
Here is a link to the FAQ for this newsgroup:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
You will do much better getting your first rounds of answers from the FAQ,
rather than from Keith, or myself, for that matter.
Good luck, and more importantly, have fun!
Jeff
keith stein
> Keith,
>
> Now, I am definitely not trying to get a physics degree, but wouldn't
> relativity (or those that believe in it) say that, because in the 2nd
> situation you are running, your increased v will cause your t to be
> different, such as t'?
Indeed they would Chris, but in reality the clocks are not affected by
running towards them. The relativists say that the velocity of light is
'found' to be constant, but in fact it is 'forced' to be constant by
the relativists fiddling the clock readings eh!
keith stein
rsm...@york.ac.uk
You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
Mathew Orman
<rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
Can you show as the experiment that demonstrates the property of space that
limits the
EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
rsm...@york.ac.uk
> > Keith,
> >
> > Now, I am definitely not trying to get a physics degree, but wouldn't
> > relativity (or those that believe in it) say that, because in the 2nd
> > situation you are running, your increased v will cause your t to be
> > different, such as t'?
>
> Indeed they would Chris, but in reality the clocks are not affected by
> running towards them. The relativists say that the velocity of light is
> 'found' to be constant, but in fact it is 'forced' to be constant by
> the relativists fiddling the clock readings eh!
>
> keith stein
The half-life of a muon (a type of unstable subatomic particle) is
found to be dependent on its velocity. In principle the same is true
of any unstable particle, and it provides strong evidence for time
being frame-dependent. I would like to see what experiments have been
done to disprove this.
In the meantime, I suggest you resit your physics A-level.
Robert
Dirk Van de moortel
Didn't you know? When particles are accelerated, they
receive energy that makes them last longer. It's a well
known fact among crackpots, steins, kooks, ormans and
other idiots.
>
> In the meantime, I suggest you resit your physics A-level.
Suggesting something to crackpots, steins, kooks, ormans
and other idiots? Doesn't work. That's a well known fact,
*even* to them.
Dirk Vdm
Chris
I believe that I understand the argument you are putting foward.
You are stating the idea that, by running toward the beam of light
that is coming at you, point B will (from the runners perspective) be
moving away from the beam of light. Because in the frame of reference
of the runner, B is moving away from the light, it should take longer
for the light to reach point B, if relativity was in fact true. But,
the clocks at A and B show that it in fact took the same amount of
time to reach B.
Can you tell me if I understand your experiment correct?
Let me slightly alter your experiment. Lets say that, instead of
running toward B, you are standing running PAST B, in the direction of
A, at the exact moment that the light at A begins to propogate toward
B.
If the distance between A-B was 1 light-second, then your argument
would be that:
"If relativity were true, the person running toward the light would
come into contact with the beam of light after exactly 1 second, even
though he is closer to the source of the light (at the time of
contact), than point B. Therefore, the light must then take *more*
than 1 second to reach point B, because it must travel the extra
distance from the runner to point B."
Am I still on track with your idea?
Now, I believe that the theory of special relativity would state (and
if someone who knows more about special relativity than I do (probably
anyone reading this) sees a fallacy in my statement here, please let
me know), that if you were to use 2 synchronized clocks, one in the
hands of the runner, and one at point B, and repeated my modified
experiment, the runner, and his clock that is moving at a velocity V
towards the oncoming beam of light, would show that he intersected the
wave at exactly 1 second, and the clock at point B would show that the
light wafe intersected point B at exactly 1 second as well.
If the person was running really fast, say (c/10), and he continued
his running into a loop back towards point B, when he arrived, the
clocks would no longer be synchronized.
I believe that this idea has been tested by using 2 atomic clocks, and
placing one aboard a supersonic airplane. After landing, the clocks
showed a difference in time.
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<Ti_Sa.20541$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:44f6e099.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > Keith,
> >
> > Now, I am definitely not trying to get a physics degree, but wouldn't
> > relativity (or those that believe in it) say that, because in the 2nd
> > situation you are running, your increased v will cause your t to be
> > different, such as t'?
>
> Indeed they would Chris, but in reality the clocks are not affected by
> running towards them. The relativists say that the velocity of light is
> 'found' to be constant, but in fact it is 'forced' to be constant by
> the relativists fiddling the clock readings eh!
>
> keith stein
<<<snipped>>>>
Chris
I believe I get it now...
x = ct
is defining x as the distance the light wave has traveled after time
t.
when the equation is generalized and U is inserted into the equation,
x and x' no longer represent the distance that the wave has traveled
in time t, but rather represent any point on the axis.
So you were to swap x with a var d, that represents the distance
traveled by light in time t, you would get
d = ct
and because d does not have to equal x, you could then write:
x = U*ct
x = U*d
I understand all of the math that follows this, I hope that I finally
get this, if I am still missing it let me know.
Thanks so much for your help.
If you ever have a computer, networking, or software programming
question, just let me know, and I can return the favor. :)
chris @ NoSpamOK TCSync.(dot)com
remove spaces
remove the nospamok
remove the (dot) part... and you got it.
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<HkgSa.21260$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message news:44f6e099.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<O8_Ra.19539$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > "Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message news:44f6e099.03071...@posting.google.com...
> > > > My degree is in engineering, not physics or math.
> > > >
> > > > I bought a book about Relativity that shows the Lorentz Transform, but
> > > > there is one part that I don't quite get, and I am hoping someone can
> > > > explain it to me.
> > > >
> > > > In the appendix is shows:
> > > > x = ct
> > > > x' = ct'
> > > >
> > > > x - ct = 0
> > > > x' - ct' = 0
> > > >
> > > > (x'- ct') = U(x - ct)
> > > > (
> > > >
> > > > If in all cases, the 3rd and 4th equations listed above are true,
<<<<snipped>>>>>
rsm...@york.ac.uk
The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th century
that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of reference.
It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the postulate is
fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the behaviour
of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured differently by
moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time dilation).
For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
exactly that predicted by special relativity.
Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable phenomenon)
into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant speed
of light.
keith stein
news:44f6e099.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Keith,
>
>
> You are stating the idea that, by running toward the beam of light
> that is coming at you, point B will (from the runners perspective) be
> moving away from the beam of light. Because in the frame of reference
> of the runner, B is moving away from the light, it should take longer
> for the light to reach point B, if relativity was in fact true. But,
> the clocks at A and B show that it in fact took the same amount of
> time to reach B.
>
> Can you tell me if I understand your experiment correct?
That's right Chris. The distant the light travelled in the runner's
frame of reference is greater, and yet the time the light took to
reach B is the same.
> Let me slightly alter your experiment. Lets say that, instead of
> running toward B, you are standing running PAST B, in the direction of
> A, at the exact moment that the light at A begins to propogate toward
> B.
>
> If the distance between A-B was 1 light-second, then your argument
> would be that:
> "If relativity were true, the person running toward the light would
> come into contact with the beam of light after exactly 1 second, even
> though he is closer to the source of the light (at the time of
> contact), than point B. Therefore, the light must then take *more*
> than 1 second to reach point B, because it must travel the extra
> distance from the runner to point B."
>
> Am I still on track with your idea?
Right again Chris. In the runner's frame of reference he is stationary,
so, if relativity were true, the velocity of the laboratory relative to the
runner would not affect how long it took the light to reach the runner.
> Now, I believe that the theory of special relativity would state (and
> if someone who knows more about special relativity than I do (probably
> anyone reading this) sees a fallacy in my statement here, please let
> me know), that if you were to use 2 synchronized clocks, one in the
> hands of the runner, and one at point B, and repeated my modified
> experiment, the runner, and his clock that is moving at a velocity V
> towards the oncoming beam of light, would show that he intersected the
> wave at exactly 1 second, and the clock at point B would show that the
> light wafe intersected point B at exactly 1 second as well.
>
> If the person was running really fast, say (c/10), and he continued
> his running into a loop back towards point B, when he arrived, the
> clocks would no longer be synchronized.
>
>
> I believe that this idea has been tested by using 2 atomic clocks, and
> placing one aboard a supersonic airplane. After landing, the clocks
> showed a difference in time.
"The H & K tests prove nothing. The accuracy of the clocks would need
to be two orders of magnitude better to give confidence in the results.
The actual test results, which were not published, were changed by
H & K give the impression that they confirm the theory..... "Dr.Kelly
Dr.Kelly's full report on the Hafele and Keating FRAUD can be seen at:
http://www.mywebpages.com/asps/H&Kpaper.htm
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
Mathew Orman
One does not need supersonic flight to get the same results!.
One can put an atomic clock in the G spin carousel and one gets the same
results.
Namely the gravity force affects the periodic rate of any clocks that humans
have ever invented!
Mathew Orman
<rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307...@posting.google.com...
So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute property of space!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
Dirk Van de moortel
"Chris" <cm...@walshgroup.com> wrote in message news:44f6e099.03072...@posting.google.com...
> Dirk,
>
> I believe I get it now...
>
> x = ct
> is defining x as the distance the light wave has traveled after time
> t.
Indeed.
Same goes for x' = ct' representing the same light signal
as described by the other frame.
>
> when the equation is generalized and U is inserted into the equation,
> x and x' no longer represent the distance that the wave has traveled
> in time t, but rather represent any point on the axis.
Indeed, as soon as you write the equation
x-ct = U*(x'-ct') ,
a pair (x,t) represents any event in spacetime as seen by
the first frame. The pair (x',t') is then the representation
of the same event as seen by the second frame. Of course
at this time U is still unknown.
[ "If you don't know something, give it a name!"
Howard Georgi in
http://icg.harvard.edu/~phys16/lectures/l12.pdf ]
>
> So you were to swap x with a var d, that represents the distance
> traveled by light in time t, you would get
> d = ct
>
> and because d does not have to equal x, you could then write:
>
> x = U*ct
> x = U*d
Of course you could write this, but if it has to mean
something physical, you'd have to say what x represents,
and I don't think that in the equation
x = U*ct
the pair (x,t) represents an interesting event in spacetime.
Of course U will turn out to be sqrt(1+v/c) / sqrt(1-v/c),
which is the relativistic Doppler shift, so... who knows ;-)
>
>
> I understand all of the math that follows this, I hope that I finally
> get this, if I am still missing it let me know.
>
> Thanks so much for your help.
>
> If you ever have a computer, networking, or software programming
> question, just let me know, and I can return the favor. :)
I make a living out of all that and I work at the very
source. But thanks for offering :-)
Dirk Vdm
keith stein
PRINT "This program gives the SR and GR predicted time-dilations for"
PRINT "an Earth Satelite in a circular orbit, at any given altitude."
c = 2.99792E+08
G = 6.67259E-11
m = 5.976E+24
R = 6378000
DO: REM prompt user for 'ALTITUDE OF SATELLITE'
PRINT "Enter M (or m) to simulate the 'MIR Space Station at 300 km'"
PRINT "OR Enter G (or g) to simulate the 'GPS Satelites at 20,000 km'"
INPUT "OR Enter the altitude of the satellite in 'km' "; h$: PRINT
h = VAL(h$) * 1000
IF h$ = "M" OR h$ = "m" THEN h = 300000!: PRINT "MIR SPACE STATION"
IF h$ = "G" OR h$ = "g" THEN h = 2E+07: PRINT "GPS SATELITES"
LOOP UNTIL h > 0
velocity = SQR(G * m / (R + h))
gamma# = (1 - velocity ^ 2 / c ^ 2) ^ -.5
SRtd = (gamma# - 1) * 24 * 60 * 60
GRtd = G * m * (1 / (R + h) - 1 / R) / c ^ 2 * 24 * 60 * 60
NETtd = INT((GRtd + SRtd) * 10 ^ 7) / 10
PRINT "Altitude = "; h; "m"
PRINT "Velocity = "; INT(velocity); " m / s "
PRINT "gamma = "; gamma#
PRINT "Time lost per day due to SR time dilation = "; SRtd; "sec"
PRINT "Time lost per day due to GR time dilation = "; GRtd; "sec"
PRINT
PRINT "Net time lost per day in satelite = "; NETtd; "micro sec"
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT
PRINT "N.B. These are Einstein predictions, not mine! - K.Stein "
Results of the above program, confirm the usual predictions for
the GPS, and show that relativity makes the following very surprising
prediction for a satellite in Low Earth orbit:
l. Space Laboratory(Altitude = 300 km)
Velocity = 7727 m/s SR time dilations = +2.87 E-5 seconds/day
GR time dilations = -2.70 E-6 second/day
Net time dilation = +26 micro seconds/day
2. The 'GPS' Satellites (Altitude = 20,000 km)
Velocity = 3888 m/s SR time dilations = +7.26 E-6 seconds/day
GR time dilations = -4.557 E-5 seconds/day
Net time dilation = -38.4 micro seconds/day
So according to Einstein's relativity theory:
clocks in LOW earth orbit go over 20 micro seconds/day SLOW
whereas
clocks in HIGH earth orbit go nearly 40 micro seconds/day FAST.
And i wouldn't have thought a clock in free fall would even know what orbit
it was in even eh!
Alfred Einstead
> Oh yes, that's nice.
> So using the same reasoning that provides
> x' + ct' = (x + ct) V(x, t)
> we get
> x' = a(x,t)*x - b(x,t)*ct
> ct' = a(x,t)*ct - b(x,t)*x
> where
> a(x,t) = [U(x,t)+V(x,t)]/2
> b(x,t) = [U(x,t)-V(x,t)]/2
> which is *not* a linear transformation *yet*.
Your reply is very predictable. In fact, I also used the same V,
thinking through the issue.
> It merely turns out to be linear when we find that
> a(x,t) = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant
> b(x,t) = b/c/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) = constant.
> I hadn't looked at it this way before.
Unfortunately, there is one further stage you're probably not aware
of, that I was considering.
In 1+1-dimensions that's as far as you can go. For 3+1-dimensions
there are enough constraints in the requirement that light speed be
preserved in all directions to prove that the corresponding factors
have to be constants.
That arises from the fact that all geometric concepts: congruence,
length, angle, etc. can be defined SOLELY in terms of the primitive
"events a and b are light-like separated".
The most general transformation (of any kind, continuous or not)
that preserves light speed in N+1 dimensions (N > 2; or N > 1 I
think) is, up to a global change of scale and orientation of
time-like direction, a Poincare transformation.
keith stein
" TIME " AS INDICATED BY A CLOCK
IN AN ORBITING SATELLITE WILL NOT DEPEND
ON HOW LONG THE CLOCK HAS BEEN IN ORBIT.
And don't try telling me it's been tested, 'cos it has NOT!.
Not with adjacent clocks it hasn't, and trying to compare
moving clocks many kilometres apart is just not the way
to do this job, and any real physicist would know that eh!
keith stein
<rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307...@posting.google.com...
Sam Wormley
>
> I make the following prediction:-
>
> " TIME " AS INDICATED BY A CLOCK
> IN AN ORBITING SATELLITE WILL NOT DEPEND
> ON HOW LONG THE CLOCK HAS BEEN IN ORBIT.
>
> And don't try telling me it's been tested, 'cos it has NOT!.
Ref: Hartle, "Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General
Relativity", Addison Wesley (2003)
The difference between rates at which signals are emitted and received
at two locations with different gravitational potentials is minute in
laboratory circumstances. Yet take these differences into account is
crucial for the operation of the Global Positioning System (GPS) used
every day. If the relativistic effects of time dilation and the
gravitational effects are not properly taken into account. the system
would fail after only a fraction of an hour.
The GPS consists of a constellation of satellites, each in a half
sidereal day orbit about the Earth in a total of six orbital planes.
Each satellite carries accurate atomic clocks that keep proper time on
a satellite to accuracies of a few parts in 10^13 over a few weeks.
Corrections uploaded several times a day from the ground enable
accurate time to be kept over longer periods. The details of operation
of the system are complex, see for example the nearly 800 pages of
detail in Parkinson and Spilker (1996), but the basic idea is easily
explained in an idealization of the real situation.
Imagine an inertial frame in which the center of the Earth is
approximately at rest for the time it takes a signal to propagate from
a satellite to the ground. Periodically each satellite sends out
microwave signals encoded with the time and spacial location of
emission in the coordinates of the inertial frame. An observer that
receives a signal an interval of time later can calculate his or her
distance from the satellite by multiplying that time interval by the
speed of light c. By using the signal from three satellites the
observer's position in space can be narrowed down to the possible
intersection points of three spheres. By using four satellites, the
observer's position in both space and time can be fixed, even without
the observer possessing an accurate clock, giving a complete location
in spacetime. Signals from additional satellites reduce uncertainty
further.
Proper time on the satellite clocks has to be corrected to give the
time of the inertial frame for at least two reasons: time dilation of
special relativity and the effects of the Earth's gravitational field.
to understand this, suppose a GPS satellite emits signals at a constant
rate as measured by its clock. Suppose further that these are monitored
by a distant observer at rest in the inertial frame. A clock of this
observer, at rest and far from any source of gravitational effects,
measures the time of the inertial frame. The signals will be received
at a slower rate than they were emitted. Time dilation of the moving
satellite clock is one reason. But another is the difference between
the rates of emission an reception because the satellite is lower in
the gravitational potential of the Earth than the distant observer. Two
corrections must therefore be applied to rate of satellite time to get
the time in the inertial frame.
These corrections are tiny by everyday standards, but a nanosecond is a
significant time in GPS operation. A signal from a satellite travels 30
cm in a nanosecond. To meet the announced 2-m accuracy for military
applications of the GPS, times and time differences must be known to
accuracies of approximately 6 ns. Keeping time to that accuracy is not
a problem for contemporary atomic clocks, but at these accuracies, both
time dilation and the gravitational redshift become important for GPS
operation.
The actual GPS does not employ an inertial frame whose time is defined
by clocks at infinity; rather it uses a frame rotating with the Earth
whose time is defined by clocks on its surface. The rates of the
satellite clocks must be corrected downward to keep the time of that
frame. Further corrections are needed for the relativistic Doppler
effect, the relativity of simultaneity, the Earth's rotation, the
asphericity of the Earth's gravitational potential, the time delays
from the index of refration of the Earth's ionosphere, satellite clock
errors, etc.
More:
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
rsm...@york.ac.uk
> <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:d93e0055.0307...@posting.google.com...
[trim]
> > > Can you show [us] the experiment that demonstrates the property of space
> that
> > > limits the
> > > EM wave propagation speed to that of c?
> >
> > The postulate was presented in the first decade of the 20th century
> > that the speed of light is invariant in inertial frames of reference.
> > It has not been successfully falsified, so it is in agreement with
> > experiment until a solid disproof can be presented. To speak of a
> > single experiment or set of experiments which *prove* the postulate is
> > fallacious, because that isn't how the scientific method works.
> >
> > The conclusions derived from this postulate (relating to the behaviour
> > of particles at near-light speeds, as in for instance particle
> > accelerators) have proved remarkably accurate. One of these
> > conclusions is, as I pointed out, that time is measured differently by
> > moving observers than stationary ones (relativistic time dilation).
> > For example a muon (heavy electron) stationary relative to the
> > observers in the lab decays more rapidly than one accelerated to
> > near-light speeds. Furthermore, the change in muon half-life is
> > exactly that predicted by special relativity.
> >
> > Failing to take time dilation (an accepted and observable phenomenon)
> > into account was the fallacy in your "disproof" of the invariant speed
> > of light.
>
> So, not even a single experiment that shows the absolute property of space!
A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points out
that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
I repeat: it isn't for us to prove the postulate, it's for those who
doubt its veracity to present convincing evidence that *disproves* it.
THAT IS HOW THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD WORKS.
Come back when you've passed your GCSEs.
Robert
Mathew Orman
<rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
keith stein
news:3F1E9094...@mchsi.com...
> keith stein wrote:
> >
> > I make the following prediction:-
> >
> > " TIME " AS INDICATED BY A CLOCK
> > IN AN ORBITING SATELLITE WILL NOT DEPEND
> > ON HOW LONG THE CLOCK HAS BEEN IN ORBIT.
> >
> > And don't try telling me it's been tested, 'cos it has NOT!.
>
> Continually being tested...
Oh no it isn't !
None of the factors which you list below as " crucial for the operation of
the Global Positioning System " are crucial. In fact they are not relevent
to the accuracy of the system, for the GPS relies for it's accuracy on
'feedback', and it really doesn't matter too much what the clocks do. If
one of the clocks start to go a bit wonky, so that Paris appears to drift up
towards London say, then the system simple pulls in an appropriate
correction to bring Paris back to where it should be eh!
No! No more "twaddle" please Mr Wormley. If there are time dilations which
should be demonstratable on adjacent clocks, then they really must be
demonstrated on adjacent clocks, not inferred from a 'feedback' positioning
system where the clocks 20,000 kilometres away. That's a long way from
adjacent eh!
keith stein
http://groups.google.com/groups?&q=author%3Akeith%20author:stein
keith stein
news:<Ti_Sa.20541$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > 'found' to be constant, but in fact it is 'forced' to be constant by
> > the relativists fiddling the clock readings eh!
> >
> > keith stein
>
> The half-life of a muon (a type of unstable subatomic particle) is
> found to be dependent on its velocity. In principle the same is true
> of any unstable particle, and it provides strong evidence for time
> being frame-dependent.
But if you could show time dilations on "clocks", as claimed by
relativity, you wouldn't be replying on dubious inferences with
measurements from sub atomic physics eh!
>I would like to see what experiments have been done to disprove this.
You'll love this one then Robert :-)
> >> > > > >>>> 1. Synchronise two clocks
> >> > > > >>>> 2. Take one to the Internation Space Station.
> >> > > > >>>> 3. D days later take up the other.
> >> > > > >>>> 4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
Now i can't garantee that it has been done, but i do garantee than when
it is done it will disprove the relativistic time dilations nonsense.
> In the meantime, I suggest you resit your physics A-level.
>
> Robert
Teaching the relativity bullshit to A-level students now are they...
Well i suggest you go back to primary school Robert where you
may learn that c + v != c eh! :-)
Chris
What do you do?
"Work at the source?" :)
Processor work? EE stuff?
Kernel programming?
Something with the internet backbones?
Chris
Chris
copy of the book, and so I was really disappointed that I would have
screwed that up, seeing as how I had to know just about every symbol
on earth duing my engineering course work.
But when I checked the book later, it is in fact a lambda, at least in
my copy.
http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~delaat/optical/lambda-red.jpg
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XEDSa.9796$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
keith stein
Good questions Chris, but i don't think those are what Dirk works on....
I think Dirk writes the summaries of all these news group postings for
Google eh! :-)
Dirk Van de moortel
[private reply sent]
Dirk Vdm
Mathew Orman
Here: http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/
You may end up on his obsession list.
He believes that anything that is created using math formulas will
automatically materialize in reality.
Just like Lorentz and his buddy Einstein had infected physics with
postulating the entities or properties of matter and space.
rsm...@york.ac.uk
For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
*flash*?
If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
experimental evidence for it.
Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
who did the refuting.
Robert
Dirk Van de moortel
Dirk Van de moortel
[snip]
> > That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
> > Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
>
> For heaven's sake, I even capitalised EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED
> in my post! What more do you want, ten-metre high neon letters which
> *flash*?
>
> If you really think it's a "funny excuse", it's obvious you don't
> comprehend the scientific method. As such, you have no business
> calling yourself a scientist. You are a quack with no scientific
> understanding to speak of, or you would realise that "every experiment
> ever performed supports the invariant c postulate" means that there IS
> experimental evidence for it.
>
> Constantly repeating arguments that have been refuted isn't going to
> convince anyone of the validity of your claims. Least of all myself,
> who did the refuting.
One of his first messages here was this one:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Lorentz.html
So I decided not to bother :-)
Dirk Vdm
rsm...@york.ac.uk
> <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<Ti_Sa.20541$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > The relativists say that the velocity of light is
> > > 'found' to be constant, but in fact it is 'forced' to be constant by
> > > the relativists fiddling the clock readings eh!
> > >
> > > keith stein
> >
> > The half-life of a muon (a type of unstable subatomic particle) is
> > found to be dependent on its velocity. In principle the same is true
> > of any unstable particle, and it provides strong evidence for time
> > being frame-dependent.
>
> But if you could show time dilations on "clocks", as claimed by
> relativity, you wouldn't be replying on dubious inferences with
> measurements from sub atomic physics eh!
An assembly of decaying subatomic particles *is* a clock, since
measuring it at different times gives an indication of how much time
has elapsed (by measuring the particle flux)
Since the main application of special relativity is in subatomic
physics (the equations used to operate particle accelerators are based
on special relativity, and the accelerators work fine) this is a
perfectly legitimate demonstration of the validity of the theory.
> >I would like to see what experiments have been done to disprove this.
>
> You'll love this one then Robert :-)
>
> > >> > > > >>>> 1. Synchronise two clocks
> > >> > > > >>>> 2. Take one to the Internation Space Station.
> > >> > > > >>>> 3. D days later take up the other.
> > >> > > > >>>> 4. Compare the two clocks on the ISS.
I was talking about special-relativistic time dilation, not
gravitational time dilation. The problem with this experiment is that
the frames of reference aren't inertial, and we have to use *general*
relativity.
And no, it hasn't been done. It's been proposed, though. I remember
seeing the predictions that the scientists made.
> Now i can't garantee that it has been done, but i do garantee than when
> it is done it will disprove the relativistic time dilations nonsense.
I am specifically referring to *special* relativity. I am the first to
admit I'm not the best person to ask about general relativity, an area
in which I am almost entirely self-taught.
> > In the meantime, I suggest you resit your physics A-level.
> >
> > Robert
>
> Teaching the relativity bullshit to A-level students now are they...
> Well i suggest you go back to primary school Robert where you
> may learn that c + v != c eh! :-)
I don't recall doing any classical mechanics at primary school either.
What is your problem with an invariant speed of light anyway? If it's
such "bullshit" then why are so many of its predictions (as in for
instance the behaviour of subatomic particles, the fact that none of
them has ever been observed moving faster than c but instead tend
towards c as their energy tends to infinity, the prediction of the
existence of antimatter, etc.) so accurate?
"...it is probably fair to say that special relativity has a firmer
experimental basis than any other of our laws of physics, since it is
tested every day in all the giant particle accelerators, which send
particles nearly to the speed of light."
Bernard F. Schutz, A First Course in General Relativity, page 3
< http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521277035/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/026-6580467-1026015
>
Gregory L. Hansen
>
><rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
>> A decidedly peculiar remark to make in reply to a post that points out
>> that EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED supports the invariant c
>> postulate. Or was it just an automated response?
...
>
>That is a funny excuse to support Einstein-Lorentz fallacy!
>Still no single experiment that verifies the property of space!
NIM A 355 (1995) 537
Physical Review 135 (1964) B1071
Physics Letters B 328 (1994) 103
Physical Review Letters 39 (1977) 1051
Physical Review Letters 64 (1990) 1697
Physics Letters 12 (1964) 260
This is the third time I've given you this reading list, and you haven't
commented on it. And you could have found this and more if you'd have
made some nominal effort to look for it. But you just keep repeating that
no experiment shows the invariance of c. What's wrong with you?
>
>Sincerely,
I have trouble believing that.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Mathew Orman
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Mathew Orman
Dirk,
that was a trap for you!
My friend suggested it!
If you want to see my math abilities check US. Patent No. 5,767,960!
World's most advanced 6D Laser Tracking system currently used by NASA!
No maybe you can show a single contribution to the advancement of practical
physics!
That is if you got one:)
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
ps. I thought that you use killfiles on my post.
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Mathew Orman
"Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
news:bfpgj0$gca$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
You are funny too!
Show single link to a single experiment!
Or do you expect me to pay for viewing fallacy?
Mathew Orman
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:IGWTa.30619$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be...
>
Dirk,
Mathew Orman
Just show one of those "EVERY EXPERIMENT EVER PERFORMED"!
Sincerely,
Mathew Orman
www.ultra-faster-than-light.com
www.radio-faster-than-light.com
Gregory L. Hansen
So it doesn't exist if there isn't an URL?
Libraries don't typically charge you to view their materials. You have
some references, you can find them if you want to, although you might have
to get your butt out from in front of the computer to do so.
Mathew Orman
Excuse you!
Still no single experiment showing property of space that limits motion of
matter to that of c!
keith stein
Here is what Einstein claimed in his 1905 SR paper, Robert
"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed
curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey
lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest
the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be (1/2 t v^2/c^2)
second slow." Einstein
Now you should note that one can't travel in a "closed curve" without
accelerating, so that in itself does not rule out the use of *special*
relativity eh! It's true that tbere should also be a GR time dilation on
the
ISS, because of the lower gravitational potential than here on the Earth,
but this claimed GR time dilation on the ISS is very much less than
the SR time dilation for the ISS as claimed above, so the proposed test is
mostly of the SR time dilation.
> And no, it hasn't been done. It's been proposed, though. I remember
> seeing the predictions that the scientists made.
I have already shown you exactly how to work out the predicted
time dilations for a satellite in circular orbit, Robert, but in case you
missed it here it is again eh!
LOOP UNTIL h > 0
> > Now i can't garantee that it has been done, but i do garantee than when
> > it is done it will disprove the relativistic time dilations nonsense.
>
> I am specifically referring to *special* relativity. I am the first to
> admit I'm not the best person to ask about general relativity, an area
> in which I am almost entirely self-taught.
>
> > > In the meantime, I suggest you resit your physics A-level.
> > >
> > > Robert
> >
> > Teaching the relativity bullshit to A-level students now are they...
> > Well i suggest you go back to primary school Robert where you
> > may learn that c + v != c eh! :-)
>
> I don't recall doing any classical mechanics at primary school either.
>
> What is your problem with an invariant speed of light anyway?
Have you heard about my genetically modified mouse which runs
at an invariant speed in all frames of reference Robert. I'm selling
it as a visual aid for physics lecturers teaching relativity. Want one ?
:-)
>If it's
> such "bullshit" then why are so many of its predictions (as in for
> instance the behaviour of subatomic particles, the fact that none of
> them has ever been observed moving faster than c but instead tend
> towards c as their energy tends to infinity, the prediction of the
> existence of antimatter, etc.) so accurate?
>
> "...it is probably fair to say that special relativity has a firmer
> experimental basis than any other of our laws of physics, since it is
> tested every day in all the giant particle accelerators, which send
> particles nearly to the speed of light."
>
> Bernard F. Schutz, A First Course in General Relativity, page 3
> <
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521277035/ref=sr_aps_books_1_1/026
-6580467-1026015
> >
Results of the above program, confirm the usual predictions for
the GPS, and show that relativity makes the following very surprising
prediction for a satellite in Low Earth orbit:
l. Space Laboratory(Altitude = 300 km)
Velocity = 7727 m/s SR time dilations = +2.87 E-5 seconds/day
GR time dilations = -2.70 E-6 second/day
Net time dilation = +26 micro seconds/day
2. The 'GPS' Satellites (Altitude = 20,000 km)
Velocity = 3888 m/s SR time dilations = +7.26 E-6 seconds/day
GR time dilations = -4.557 E-5 seconds/day
Net time dilation = -38.4 micro seconds/day
Well if clocks really do behave in that extraordinary way, then
i withdraw all my criticisms of relativity Robert, and you can
mark me down as Einstein's number one fan, but if they don't,
and i don't believe for one moment that they do, then relativity
is bullshit eh!
Minor Crank
>
> "Gregory L. Hansen" <glha...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote in message
> news:bfpgj0$gca$1...@hood.uits.indiana.edu...
> > NIM A 355 (1995) 537
> > Physical Review 135 (1964) B1071
> > Physics Letters B 328 (1994) 103
> > Physical Review Letters 39 (1977) 1051
> > Physical Review Letters 64 (1990) 1697
> > Physics Letters 12 (1964) 260
> >
> > This is the third time I've given you this reading list, and you haven't
> > commented on it. And you could have found this and more if you'd have
> > made some nominal effort to look for it. But you just keep repeating
that
> > no experiment shows the invariance of c. What's wrong with you?
> >
> > >
> > >Sincerely,
> >
> > I have trouble believing that.
> >
> >
> > --
> > "A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
> > executed next week."
> > -Gen. George S. Patton
>
> You are funny too!
> Show single link to a single experiment!
> Or do you expect me to pay for viewing fallacy?
That just goes to show that you are a lazy bum, in addition to being an
idiot. Not everything is free online. What you need to do is to make a short
drive to your nearest university library, and you can photocopy everything
you need for a nominal fee.
I visit my local university and college libraries about once a month to
catch up on reading that I can't get in the public libraries.
Minor Crank
Gregory L. Hansen
Now you're being an intentional idiot. If you can't do a little research
you really can't do much science, and physics without data is called
Tinkerbell physics-- "You just gotta believe!"
Gregory L. Hansen
Heck, he probably doesn't have to do that much. Probably his local branch
library can get the articles through interlibrary loan, pre-photocopied.
rsm...@york.ac.uk
Take your pick.
rsm...@york.ac.uk
Au contraire. The special-relativistic time dilation caused by an
object going to Earth-orbit speed and back is minuscule, because the
speed of a rocket is nowhere near the speed of light. In which case
I'm sure people like you would put an observed time dilation down to
experimental error. Just as many of us would put the lack of same down
to experimental error.
I'll put it another way: what is your problem with the clocks behaving
in this way? And you haven't answered my key point: if special
relativity is such bullshit, then why have so many of its predictions
been accurate? Why do the particle accelerators, whose operational
parameters are calculated using SR, work if SR is bullshit?
(BTW you haven't accounted for time effects caused by the acceleration
of your test clock to and from Earth.)
I am the first to admit that relativity isn't perfect, and conditions
could conceivably exist in which it doesn't work, but the same goes
for any scientific theory. For instance try accounting for the
observations of atomic structure using classical electromagnetic
theory and see how far you get. Try using classical mechanics to
account for the precession in the perihelion of the orbit of the
planet Mercury while you're at it. Meanwhile you can use classical
mechanics to model the motion of a football on a field, and classical
electromagnetic theory to model the behaviour of an LCR circuit,
simply and without any problems. All theories have their uses, and all
have their limitations.
A parting thought: do you believe that solar sails are workable? I saw
you arguing that point on another thread. If so then you must believe
that photons have momentum, a key prediction of special relativity...
Mathew Orman
What is that?
Another excuse!
Mathew Orman
Twisting will not help!
The problem is that I've asked several poster to provide single experiment
that shows space property that limits motion of matter to that of c
and none of the posters ware able to provide such!
Gregory L. Hansen
You can't know if they did or didn't until you look up the cites and read
them.
keith stein
> <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<Y_CTa.45703$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<Ti_Sa.20541$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > > > The relativists say that the velocity of light is
> > > > > 'found' to be constant, but in fact it is 'forced' to be constant
by
> > > > > the relativists fiddling the clock readings eh!
> > > > >
> > > > > keith stein
> > > >
> > > > The half-life of a muon (a type of unstable subatomic particle) is
> > > > found to be dependent on its velocity. In principle the same is true
> > > > of any unstable particle, and it provides strong evidence for time
> > > > being frame-dependent.
> > >
> > > But if you could show time dilations on "clocks", as claimed by
> > > relativity, you wouldn't be replying on dubious inferences with
> > > measurements from sub atomic physics eh!
> >
> > An assembly of decaying subatomic particles *is* a clock, since
> > measuring it at different times gives an indication of how much time
> > has elapsed (by measuring the particle flux)
Oh no the're NOT !
Muons are NOT a clock.
What you are measuring with muons is not TIME
What you are measuring is a DISTANCE,
> > Since the main application of special relativity is in subatomic
> > physics (the equations used to operate particle accelerators are based
> > on special relativity, and the accelerators work fine) this is a
> > perfectly legitimate demonstration of the validity of the theory.
You arguments, like your accelerators are circular, and really
Whatever you think you understand in terms of relativity you
Do not understand at all, since, in reality, Einstein's theory of
Relativity is bullshit eh!
Oh yes it IS!
--
keith stein
(Unless clocks loose 26 us/day on the International Space Station it is)
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=keith+stein&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&site=groups
rsm...@york.ac.uk
If you measure the muon flux at two different points A and B, then
provided you know the half-life of the muon you can determine how much
time the muons have taken to travel from A to B.
> > > Since the main application of special relativity is in subatomic
> > > physics (the equations used to operate particle accelerators are based
> > > on special relativity, and the accelerators work fine) this is a
> > > perfectly legitimate demonstration of the validity of the theory.
>
> You arguments, like your accelerators are circular, and really
> Whatever you think you understand in terms of relativity you
> Do not understand at all, since, in reality, Einstein's theory of
> Relativity is bullshit eh!
>
> Oh yes it IS!
< http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html >
rsm...@york.ac.uk
Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
Mathew Orman
Show me one the does not require credit card!
Gregory L. Hansen
You really ought to find out where your local library is some day, and
find out what services they offer.
keith stein
BUT unless one already accepts relativity theory, the time taken
to travel from A to B is equal to the life-time of the muon, NOT
gamma times the life-time of the muon as presumed by
relativity theory, which is why i'm telling you your arguments
are circular eh!
keith stein
BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
established theory in 1905 ?
The answer is none, and 100 years later there is still "none",
in fact it was, and is, a ridiculous idea eh!
keith stein
Dirk Van de moortel
"keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:e5vUa.69690$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
[unkillfiled stein for a few days]
Hey moron, the lifetimes of the muons are *measured*,
and *apparently* by some strange coincidence their
lifetimes precisely *match* the relativistic prediction,
Even If You Think Relativity Is A Religion And You
Think You Have Some Kind Of Choice Of Believing
Or Not Believing In It.
Normal folks would then say, "Hey, that's interesting...
this theory is not so silly". Crackpots, ormans, kooks,
steins and other idiots then say, "Hey, I am dumb, so
they must be dumb too".
Dirk Vdm
Mathew Orman
Keith,
thank you very much!
Mathew Orman
That means that you have no idea at all!
My local library does not carry Einstein-Lorentz fallacy neither!
keith stein
>
> "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:e5vUa.69690$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > > > What you are measuring with muons is not TIME
> > > > What you are measuring is a DISTANCE,
> > >
> > > If you measure the muon flux at two different points A and B, then
> > > provided you know the half-life of the muon you can determine how much
> > > time the muons have taken to travel from A to B
> >
> > BUT unless one already accepts relativity theory, the time taken
> > to travel from A to B is equal to the life-time of the muon, NOT
> > gamma times the life-time of the muon as presumed by
> > relativity theory, which is why i'm telling you your arguments
> > are circular eh!
>
> [unkillfiled stein for a few days]
>
> Hey moron, the lifetimes of the muons are *measured*,
> and *apparently* by some strange coincidence their
> lifetimes precisely *match* the relativistic prediction,
> Even If You Think Relativity Is A Religion And You
> Think You Have Some Kind Of Choice Of Believing
> Or Not Believing In It.
> Normal folks would then say, "Hey, that's interesting...
> this theory is not so silly". Crackpots, ormans, kooks,
> steins and other idiots then say, "Hey, I am dumb, so
> they must be dumb too".
>
> Dirk Vdm
The lifetime (or rather "half-life") of SLOW muons IS measured,
Now if that measured half life is CONSTANT then we know. from
the distances travelled by the muons that muons are travelling a lot
faster than light eh! Now relativity ASSUMES that this not possible,
and therefore DEDUCES that the life time of the muon must
increase with their velocity, but this does not amount to an
actual measurement of the increased life time eh!
Note also that according to relativity theory the half life of muons
increases even when we run towards them, which IS a truely
moronic notion, so Mr Van de moortel will have no difficulty
with that eh!
keith stein
rsm...@york.ac.uk
Experiments prior to 1905 showed that the speed of light is neither
dependent on the speed of the source nor dependent on the speed of the
observer through the hypothetical luminiferous ether. The alternative
is a speed of light that is invariant, hence Einstein's postulate.
The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
to the contrary. The idea seems to be burned into your brain, and
nothing I can say will convince you of the facts. In contrast, I
realise that not all scientific theories are perfect and finding one
experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR does not completely
discredit the theory - it has still made many accurate predictions.
I have nothing more to say.
keith stein
> "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
> > > attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
> > > done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
> >
> > BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
> > fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
> > established theory in 1905 ?
>
> Experiments prior to 1905 showed that the speed of light is neither
> dependent on the speed of the source nor dependent on the speed of the
> observer through the hypothetical luminiferous ether. The alternative
> is a speed of light that is invariant, hence Einstein's postulate.
No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the observer. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
experiment is simply and naturally explained by Maxwell's theeory that
light travels relative to matter it is travelling through ie air in
the case of the MMX.
> The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
> know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
In that case clocks on the International Space Station must be losing
26 microseconds per day - so where are the results which confirm this
extraordinary prediction eh!
> You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
> velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
> to the contrary.
But there is NO experimental evidence to the contrary.
> The idea seems to be burned into your brain, and
> nothing I can say will convince you of the facts.
You have presented no facts which remotely suggest that any velocity
is or could be frame independent. All velocities must be relative to
something,
not relative to everything eh!
> In contrast, I
> realise that not all scientific theories are perfect and finding one
> experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR does not completely
> discredit the theory
But if clocks on the ISS don't loose 26 us/day that would indeed
completely discredit the theory. Let me remind you what was said when
you first jumped in on this thread Robert.
Keith Stein wrote:
> > Could a car, or a train, or a sound wave, or a water wave,
> > have the same velocity in two frames of reference which
> > are moving relative to each other?
> >
> > Of course not eh! and no more can light waves,
> >
> > Now relativists will tell you that light has been 'found'
> > to have the same velocity in ALL frames of reference,
> > but this is a LIE, as can easily be demonstrated....
> >
> > A light----> B <-you
> > < ----------- L --------------> v m/s
> >
> > Use synchronised clocks at A and B to time how long it takes
> > light to travel a distance of L meters across the laboratory..
> >
> > Speed of light relative to the laboratory = L/ (tB - tA) = c
> > where 'tA' is the time at which the light left A
> > and 'tB' is the at which the light arrived at B
> >
> > Now repeat the experiment while running towards B at v m/s
> > Note that 'in your frame of reference' the point B is moving ,
> > so that the light must travel an extra distance = v * (tB - tA)
> > which is the distance B has moved as the light travels from
> > A to B.
> >
> > Therefore:
> > Speed of light relative to you= Light Path / Time Interval
> > = (L+ v * (tB - tA)) / (tB - tA)
> > = c + v
And you Robert explained away this simple demonstration that the
velocity
of light must be given by 'c+v' as follows:
> You have made the assumption that the moving observer measures the
> same time as the stationary observer, which is in direct contradiction
> with experiment. The postulate of a speed of light that is invariant
> in any inertial frame of reference is in agreement with experiment. If
> you actually bothered to learn physics to even A-level standard, then
> you would be familiar with those experiments. As it is, you are a
> crackpot speaking on a subject of which you know sod all.
So if the clocks on the ISS keep the same time as clocks on the Earth
then indeed my assumption is correct, and the fundamental assumption
of relativity that the velocity of light is frame independent is
wrong,
and therefore such a result would indeed completely discredit the
theory.
>- it has still made many accurate predictions.
And yet it's fundamental assumption is bullshit eh!
keith stein
rsm...@york.ac.uk
in order.
ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk (keith stein) wrote in message news:<daab62a4.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> rsm...@york.ac.uk (rsm...@york.ac.uk) wrote in message news:<d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > > <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Show me the verified experimental evidence for c not being invariant,
> > > > lest us not forget that the burden of proof is upon the person who
> > > > attempts to disprove the established theory. What experiments have you
> > > > done to demonstrate the frame-dependence of c?
> > >
> > > BUT prior to 1905 the frame dependence of every velocity was
> > > fundamental ? What evidence did Einstein have to overturn the
> > > established theory in 1905 ?
> >
> > Experiments prior to 1905 showed that the speed of light is neither
> > dependent on the speed of the source nor dependent on the speed of the
> > observer through the hypothetical luminiferous ether. The alternative
> > is a speed of light that is invariant, hence Einstein's postulate.
>
> No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is independent of
> the speed of the observer. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
> experiment is simply and naturally explained by Maxwell's theeory that
> light travels relative to matter it is travelling through ie air in
> the case of the MMX.
I was referring to de Sitter's measurements of double stars, because I
knew you had that excuse to explain the MMX. It was found that the
light from the receding star was travelling at the same speed as the
light from the advancing star, which strongly suggest that the speed
of light is invariant. It's this which led Einstein to postulate an
invariant speed of light.
Light doesn't travel through matter, by the way. It travels through
space, which may or may not contain matter.
> > The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
> > know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
>
> In that case clocks on the International Space Station must be losing
> 26 microseconds per day - so where are the results which confirm this
> extraordinary prediction eh!
Where are the results which disprove this prediction? The experiment
hasn't yet been performed. Not even you can claim a contradiction is
presented by an experiment which hasn't even been *done*. Wait for the
results before you start using an as yet unperformed experiment as
evidence for your argument.
> > You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
> > velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
> > to the contrary.
>
> But there is NO experimental evidence to the contrary.
Yes there is. The double star measurements provide direct evidence,
and the fact that many predictions derived from the postulate hold
provides indirect evidence.
> > The idea seems to be burned into your brain, and
> > nothing I can say will convince you of the facts.
>
> You have presented no facts which remotely suggest that any velocity
> is or could be frame independent. All velocities must be relative to
> something,
> not relative to everything eh!
>
> > In contrast, I
> > realise that not all scientific theories are perfect and finding one
> > experiment which contradicts the predictions of SR does not completely
> > discredit the theory
>
> But if clocks on the ISS don't loose 26 us/day that would indeed
> completely discredit the theory. Let me remind you what was said when
> you first jumped in on this thread Robert.
No it wouldn't. One contradiction would not take away the fact that
the theory has made many accurate predictions. Otherwise the fact that
a high-energy electron is experimentally shown to move much more
slowly than the predicted speed v=sqrt(2E/m) would completely
discredit classical mechanics.
Its fundamental assumption has not been shown to be bullshit - quite
the contrary. If a theory makes accurate predictions, then that's good
enough for those who use it. Your fundamental assumption, on the other
hand, is based on the kind of preconceived notions one would expect
from someone who hadn't even studied physics (whether or not you
actually have). You have no experimental evidence on your side.
No theory is perfect, nor should we assume that it should be.
Mathew Orman
So you completely ignore the fact that an atomic clock can be subjected to
various G forces here on the Earth
and that G forces will affect it's periodic count rate!
It can even be demonstrated with Casio wrist watches!
keith stein
> I know I said I had nothing more to say, but some clarifications are
> in order.
Well i am very pleased that you relented and came back again Robert,
because now you have made it abundantly clear that you have ZERO
EVIDENCE that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
THE OBSERVER eh!
> ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk (keith stein) wrote in message
news:<daab62a4.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > rsm...@york.ac.uk (rsm...@york.ac.uk) wrote in message
news:<d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
> > No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is independent of
> > the speed of the observer. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
> > experiment is simply and naturally explained by Maxwell's theeory that
> > light travels relative to matter it is travelling through ie air in
> > the case of the MMX.
> I was referring to de Sitter's measurements of double stars,
Which no way even remotely suggests that "the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the observer."
> because I knew you had that excuse to explain the MMX.
It is not an "excuse", the result of the MMX is an immediate and
obvious consequence of Maxwell's theory - that light travels relative
to the medium.
> It was found that the
> light from the receding star was travelling at the same speed as the
> light from the advancing star,
Of course! This shows that the speed of light is independent of the
speed of the SOURCE. All waves behave like that, so no suprise
there eh!
> which strongly suggest that the speed of light is invariant.
Of course it doesn't ! What is impossible is that the speed
of light relative to an observer is independent of the speed
of the observer, and de Sitter's measurements of double stars
in no way even remotely suggests that it is eh!
> It's this which led Einstein to postulate an invariant speed of light.
Well that just shows how stupid Einstein was then eh!
> Light doesn't travel through matter,
Of course it does, since there is matter everywhere.
> by the way. It travels through space, which may or may not contain matter.
The medium in space is the interstellar hydrogen, and the light in space
travels relative to the interstellar hydrogen it is travelling through, just
as light in air travels relative to the air, light in water travels relative
to the water, and light in glass travels relative to the glass.
> > > The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
> > > know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
> >
> > In that case clocks on the International Space Station must be losing
> > 26 microseconds per day - so where are the results which confirm this
> > extraordinary prediction eh!
>
> Where are the results which disprove this prediction?
Exactly " WHERE ARE THE RESULTS ? " You bet if clocks in orbit
really behaved in the extraordinary way predicted by the relativists the
evidence would of been presented years ago. The lack of evidence, is
evidence of the lack of evidence eh!
> The experiment
> hasn't yet been performed. Not even you can claim a contradiction is
> presented by an experiment which hasn't even been *done*. Wait for the
> results before you start using an as yet unperformed experiment as
> evidence for your argument.
Well since relativists are only pseudo scientists there is no chance
of them publishing results which demolish their pseudo science eh!
> > > You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
> > > velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
> > > to the contrary.
> >
> > But there is NO experimental evidence to the contrary.
>
> Yes there is. The double star measurements provide direct evidence,
Of the obvious fact that the speed of light waves are independent
of the speed of the "source", as is every type of wave, but this is not
at all the same thing as the velocity being "frame-independent" eh!
> and the fact that many predictions derived from the postulate hold
> provides indirect evidence.
Not at all. Just because relativists interpret the experiments in terms of
relativity does not prove relativity is a correct theory, any more than the
fact that in the 19th century the working of heat engines were explained
in terms of the fluid "caloric" proved that that theory was correct eh!
keith stein
rsm...@york.ac.uk
> <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com...
>
> > I know I said I had nothing more to say, but some clarifications are
> > in order.
>
> Well i am very pleased that you relented and came back again Robert,
> because now you have made it abundantly clear that you have ZERO
> EVIDENCE that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
> THE OBSERVER eh!
No I haven't.
> > ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk (keith stein) wrote in message
> news:<daab62a4.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > rsm...@york.ac.uk (rsm...@york.ac.uk) wrote in message
> news:<d93e0055.03072...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<XdvUa.69722$Df6....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk>...
>
> > > No experiment ever showed that the speed of light is independent of
> > > the speed of the observer. The null result of the Michelson Moreley
> > > experiment is simply and naturally explained by Maxwell's theeory that
> > > light travels relative to matter it is travelling through ie air in
> > > the case of the MMX.
>
> > I was referring to de Sitter's measurements of double stars,
>
> Which no way even remotely suggests that "the speed of light is
> independent of the speed of the observer."
>
> > because I knew you had that excuse to explain the MMX.
>
> It is not an "excuse", the result of the MMX is an immediate and
> obvious consequence of Maxwell's theory - that light travels relative
> to the medium.
>
> > It was found that the
> > light from the receding star was travelling at the same speed as the
> > light from the advancing star,
>
> Of course! This shows that the speed of light is independent of the
> speed of the SOURCE. All waves behave like that, so no suprise
> there eh!
The speed of the source relative to the observer is IDENTICAL to the
speed of the observer relative to the source. Your distinction is
spurious, as anyone who has ever studied physics can tell you.
> > which strongly suggest that the speed of light is invariant.
>
> Of course it doesn't ! What is impossible is that the speed
> of light relative to an observer is independent of the speed
> of the observer, and de Sitter's measurements of double stars
> in no way even remotely suggests that it is eh!
>
> > It's this which led Einstein to postulate an invariant speed of light.
>
> Well that just shows how stupid Einstein was then eh!
Realising the fundamental fact that the speed of the observer and the
speed of the source are identical does not make him stupid. Not
realising this fact, on the other hand, would have.
> > Light doesn't travel through matter,
>
> Of course it does, since there is matter everywhere.
>
> > by the way. It travels through space, which may or may not contain matter.
>
> The medium in space is the interstellar hydrogen, and the light in space
> travels relative to the interstellar hydrogen it is travelling through, just
> as light in air travels relative to the air, light in water travels relative
> to the water, and light in glass travels relative to the glass.
That is irrelevant. Light travels through space, whether or not space
contains any atoms.
> > > > The predictions of SR are consistent with experiment, as you would
> > > > know if you bothered to do even a minimal amount of research.
> > >
> > > In that case clocks on the International Space Station must be losing
> > > 26 microseconds per day - so where are the results which confirm this
> > > extraordinary prediction eh!
> >
> > Where are the results which disprove this prediction?
>
> Exactly " WHERE ARE THE RESULTS ? " You bet if clocks in orbit
> really behaved in the extraordinary way predicted by the relativists the
> evidence would of [sic] been presented years ago. The lack of evidence, is
> evidence of the lack of evidence eh!
The time difference has not been measured under rigorous experimental
conditions, so no evidence exists either pro or anti time difference.
On the other hand, had experiments shown that the clocks behaved in
the extraordinary way *you* predict, you can bet that the science
press would have been full of the news for months. SR is arguably
*the* most experimentally verified scientific theory, so any
contradiction between experiment and theory would be Huge News.
> > The experiment
> > hasn't yet been performed. Not even you can claim a contradiction is
> > presented by an experiment which hasn't even been *done*. Wait for the
> > results before you start using an as yet unperformed experiment as
> > evidence for your argument.
>
> Well since relativists are only pseudo scientists there is no chance
> of them publishing results which demolish their pseudo science eh!
This is sci.physics, not alt.conspiracy.
> > > > You cling on with a religious fervour to the notion that all
> > > > velocities are frame-dependent, whatever experimental evidence exists
> > > > to the contrary.
> > >
> > > But there is NO experimental evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > Yes there is. The double star measurements provide direct evidence,
>
> Of the obvious fact that the speed of light waves are independent
> of the speed of the "source", as is every type of wave, but this is not
> at all the same thing as the velocity being "frame-independent" eh!
See above.
> > and the fact that many predictions derived from the postulate hold
> > provides indirect evidence.
>
> Not at all. Just because relativists interpret the experiments in terms of
> relativity does not prove relativity is a correct theory, any more than the
> fact that in the 19th century the working of heat engines were explained
> in terms of the fluid "caloric" proved that that theory was correct eh!
Caloric theory was replaced by thermodynamics because the latter
explained the observed facts better. Similarly, SR will only be
supplanted if another theory comes along which explains the facts
better. Simply throwing up your arms and crying "but it's bullshit
eh!" isn't going to convince anyone when you have singularly failed to
provide an alternative theory, or even any experimental evidence at
all justifying your hatred of SR.
Therefore:
I challenge you to formulate a theory which, starting from a
reasonable set of postulates, explains *all* the predictions of
special relativity. It should also make some new predictions of its
own, so that it can be tested and verified. It should also have all
the postulates clearly stated, not buried in an attempt to sneak them
past readers like you did with the invariant time postulate in your
c+v "proof". All predictions should be clearly derived from the
postulates.
When you have devised and verified your new theory, we can discuss
further. If you can produce a better alternative to relativity, then I
may start taking you seriously.
Scratch "may". I *will*. I would find such a theory to be of immense
interest, and the same could be said for anyone with any interest in
physics at all.
Until you do this, my continued presence serves no purpose.
Minor Crank
> Of course! This shows that the speed of light is independent of the
> speed of the SOURCE. All waves behave like that, so no suprise
> there eh!
How in hell do you tell the difference between the source moving versus you
moving?
Oh, yes. You just compare all measurements against the absolute reference
frame of your living room chair.
Idiot. You are surely one of the denser ones.
Minor Crank
Mathew Orman
<rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307...@posting.google.com...
And no experimental prove at the end!
Whether you have prove that you did it or that you did not do it
is irrelevant because you have neither!
Steve Harris
<rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:d93e0055.0307...@posting.google.com...
> "keith stein"
> > > Light doesn't travel through matter,
> >
> > Of course it does, since there is matter everywhere.
> >
> > > by the way. It travels through space, which may or may
not contain matter.
> >
> > The medium in space is the interstellar hydrogen, and
the light in space
> > travels relative to the interstellar hydrogen it is
travelling through, just
> > as light in air travels relative to the air, light in
water travels relative
> > to the water, and light in glass travels relative to the
glass.
Has somebody forgotten to tell you about atoms, Keith?
There's about a centimeter of pure vacuum between each
hydrogen molecule in space. How does the light cross from
atom to atom, if there's no matter between atoms?
Mathew Orman
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:bg6ooq$k4c$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
Light travels in vacuum by mutual reproduction of E and H fields relative to
each other.
But if there is a massive media than the speed of reproduction changes
accordingly.
For the given uniform medium light travels with constant speed that is
initially relative to source
until the sources stops radiating and than again light continues to travel
with the same speed now relative to
consecutive wave number in the packet!
Minor Crank
news:bg6ooq$k4c$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
> Has somebody forgotten to tell you about atoms, Keith?
> There's about a centimeter of pure vacuum between each
> hydrogen molecule in space. How does the light cross from
> atom to atom, if there's no matter between atoms?
Doesn't matter to Keith. You could have a meter spacing between atoms, and
it would still be a medium to Keith. We've gone down this road before many a
time.
Minor Crank
keith stein
"Steve Harris" <sbha...@ix.RETICULATEDOBJECTcom.com> wrote in message
news:bg6ooq$k4c$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
Maxwell's e-m theory is a macroscopic theory, which predicts
that light travels relative to the matter which it is travelling through.
If you want theories with atoms that's ok,but the predictions of those
theories MUST AGREE with the predictions of Maxwell's theory as
the scale approaches the macroscopic eh!.
Look up Bohr's Correspondence Principle, Mr. Harris.
keith stein
Dirk Van de moortel
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:UNFVa.15490$YN5.12684@sccrnsc01...
Oh yes, I remember. The good old times :-)
Dirk Vdm
keith stein
but until they do, they will simply not understand the first thing about the
velocity of light eh!
"Minor Crank" <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NWrVa.5773$cF.2264@rwcrnsc53...
> "keith stein" <ks012...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vVaVa.264$nq.51@news-fe1...
>
> > Of course! This shows that the speed of light is independent of the
> > speed of the SOURCE. All waves behave like that, so no suprise
> > there eh!
>
> How in hell do you tell the difference between the source moving versus
>you moving?
The speed of light relative to an observer Crank is given by:the vector
addition:
c_medium + v
where c_medium is the characteristic velocity of light in the medim
and v is the velocity of the observer relative to the medium.
Note that this velocity is independent of the velocity of the source eh!
> Oh, yes. You just compare all measurements against the absolute reference
> frame of your living room chair.
>
> Idiot. You are surely one of the denser ones.> Minor Crank
keith stein
Steve Harris
> Maxwell's e-m theory is a macroscopic theory, which
predicts
> that light travels relative to the matter which it is
travelling through.
> If you want theories with atoms that's ok,but the
predictions of those
> theories MUST AGREE with the predictions of Maxwell's
theory as
> the scale approaches the macroscopic eh!.
>
> Look up Bohr's Correspondence Principle, Mr. Harris.
>
> keith stein
No, you look it up. It's not the limit of macroscopic, it's
the limit of h going to zero.
There are plenty of macroscopic phenomenon which are not
predicted by classical mechanics, or by Maxwell's equations.
If you shine a light though a pinhole, Maxwell's equations
predict that you'll measure smaller and small E and B fields
with distance, monotonically with 1/r, as far as you want to
go out, and as weak as you detector can measure. But this is
wrong. At some point, long before our detectors give out,
detection granularizes into events, not smooth values.
So Maxwell is wrong. His equations make the wrong
prediction. There is no need to fix things up so his
equations make the right prediction, because they never
will. Nature isn't like that.
SBH
Mathew Orman
Who knows!
Currently we do not have test and measurements capabilities
that would allow discreet measurements on atomic scale.
One cannot verify Maxwell model when the detecting means are 1000 times
larger than the wavelength!
keith stein
news:bg6ooq$k4c$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> <rsm...@york.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:d93e0055.0307...@posting.google.com...
> > "keith stein"
> > > > Light doesn't travel through matter,
> > >
> > > Of course it does, since there is matter everywhere.
> > >
> > > > by the way. It travels through space, which may or may
> not contain matter.
> > >
> > > The medium in space is the interstellar hydrogen, and
> the light in space
> > > travels relative to the interstellar hydrogen it is
> travelling through, just
> > > as light in air travels relative to the air, light in
> water travels relative
> > > to the water, and light in glass travels relative to the
> glass.
>
>
>
> Has somebody forgotten to tell you about atoms, Keith?
> hydrogen molecule in space. How does the light cross from
> atom to atom, if there's no matter between atoms?
Maxwell's e-m theory is a macroscopic theory, which predicts
Richard
Bullshit.