6 views

Skip to first unread message

Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00

to

The whole LET-SR-GR-GET debate (and probably also the corresponding

theories themselves) is overshadowed by the confusion between

coordinate transformations (Lorentz Ether Theory) and space-time

transformations (Special Relativity).

theories themselves) is overshadowed by the confusion between

coordinate transformations (Lorentz Ether Theory) and space-time

transformations (Special Relativity).

The cordinate transformation x'=2x means that in the coordinate

system S' a value of 10 m is attributed to the same objective

length to which 5 m are attributed in the system S. Rulers of S'

are contracted wrt the rulers in S.

The same space-time transformation x'=2x means exactly the contrary:

A length of 5 m in the system S is transformed into a length of 10 m

in system S'. Rulers of S' are expanded by factor 2 wrt the rulers

in S.

Whereas (original) LET uses a Lorentz coordinate transformation,

SR is fundamentally based on a Lorentz space-time transformation.

If we use a space-time transformation in LET, the correct

equations are not the SR equations

Dx' = [Dx - v Dt ] * gamma [1a]

Dt' = [Dt - v Dx /c^2] * gamma [1b]

Dx = [Dx'+ v Dt' ] * gamma [2a]

Dt = [Dt'+ v Dx'/c^2] * gamma [2b]

but

Dx' = [Dx - v Dt ] / gamma [1A]

Dt' = [Dx - v Dx/c^2] / gamma [1B]

and length contraction must be derived from [1A]

Dt = 0 --> Dx'= Dx / gamma

whereas in SR it is derived from [2a]

Dt' = 0 --> Dx = Dx' * gamma --> Dx' = Dx / gamma

See also http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=567242853

Regards, Wolfgang

Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00

to

"z@z" wrote:

> The whole LET-SR-GR-GET debate (and probably also the corresponding

> theories themselves) is overshadowed by the confusion between

> coordinate transformations (Lorentz Ether Theory) and space-time

> transformations (Special Relativity).

> The whole LET-SR-GR-GET debate (and probably also the corresponding

> theories themselves) is overshadowed by the confusion between

> coordinate transformations (Lorentz Ether Theory) and space-time

> transformations (Special Relativity).

Not really. Apparently you have never heard of the difference between

"active" transforms and "passive" transforms, and attempted to make

up a whole new vocabulary for them. In an active transform one uses

a single set of coordinates and performs some modification of the

physical system; in a passive transform one performs the inverse

modification to the coordinates.

So, for instance, an active transform could consist of a 90-degree

rotation of an object clockwise around its vertical axis. The

corresponding passive transform is a 90-degree rotation of the

coordinates counterclockwise around that same axis. The results

of each of these are the same (vis-a-vis the relationship between

globe and coordinates).

Both concepts are valid, and indeed are related by an isomorphism.

It does not matter which concept you use, as long as you remain

consistent throughout.

> If we use a space-time transformation in LET, the correct

> equations are not the SR equations [...] but

> Dx' = [Dx - v Dt ] / gamma [1A]

> Dt' = [Dx - v Dx/c^2] / gamma [1B]

^

+-- typo, should be t

You are wrong. Demonstrably. Look in Lorentz's 1904 paper. His

transforms multiply by gamma (his beta) just like SR's.

Why do you think they are called _LORENTZ_ transforms?

Hint: Lorentz used them in his 1904 paper, and 1904 came

before 1905.

Oh yes, your usage of "Dx" and "Dt" (etc.) are simply devices you

think highlight that you are discussing differences rather than

coordinates. In fact, the usual notation "x" and "t" also refer to

differences -- between the event in question and the event selected

as x=0,t=0.

This only holds in a linear theory, like SR and LET.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Jan 13, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/13/00

to

Tom Roberts says...

>Both concepts [passive and active transforms]

>are valid, and indeed are related by an isomorphism.

>It does not matter which concept you use, as long as you remain

>consistent throughout.

I would like to point out that there *is* a difference

between the two concepts when it comes to invariance

properties. To say that the laws of physics should be

invariant under passive transformations is really to

say nothing at all. You can always write any laws

in such a way that any coordinate system can be

used. However, there is real physical content to

the claim that the laws of physics are invariant under

*active* transformations.

Daryl McCullough

CoGenTex, Inc.

Ithaca, NY

Jan 14, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/14/00

to

Daryl McCullough wrote:

> Tom Roberts says...

> >Both concepts [passive and active transforms]

> >are valid, and indeed are related by an isomorphism.

> >It does not matter which concept you use, as long as you remain

> >consistent throughout.

> I would like to point out that there *is* a difference

> between the two concepts when it comes to invariance

> properties.

> Tom Roberts says...

> >Both concepts [passive and active transforms]

> >are valid, and indeed are related by an isomorphism.

> >It does not matter which concept you use, as long as you remain

> >consistent throughout.

> I would like to point out that there *is* a difference

> between the two concepts when it comes to invariance

> properties.

I disagree. See below.

> To say that the laws of physics should be

> invariant under passive transformations is really to

> say nothing at all. You can always write any laws

> in such a way that any coordinate system can be

> used.

Yes. The usual way to do this is to specify the laws in a specific

coordinate system, and then _define_ them in any other coordinate

system to be what the originally-stated laws transform to in the

other coordinate system. This is the essence of the "comma goes to

semicolon" rule (specify the laws in an inertial frame, then replace

ordinary derivatives with covariant derivatives; implicitly one

generalizes the tensors of the inertial frame into the corresponding

tensors of the curved manifold, and the covariance group of the

tensors implicitly expands from that of the inertial frame to the

necessary general covariance of the curved manifold).

"inertial frame" = "flat manifold".

> However, there is real physical content to

> the claim that the laws of physics are invariant under

> *active* transformations.

Not really. I think what you mean is to claim that invarance related

to a _REAL_ transform (i.e. a real physical modification to the system

which leaves some property unchanged) has "real physical content". No

argument there, but that is not what is meant by an active transform.

I'll come back to this point.

As an example, let me choose rotations. To say a given law is invariant

over rotations means that the law does not refer to the orientation of

the system in any way. An active transform rotates the system relative

to the coordinates, and a passive transform rotates the coordinates

relative to to the system. These have the same content and the same

end result WHEN EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE COORDINATES OF THE SYSTEM.

So for laws expressed in terms of coordinates they are equivalent

(isomorphic).

[In passing I remark that this is an incentive to express the

laws in a coordinate-independent way. The law:

g^ik F_ij;k = 0

has both active and passive transforms. The law:

dF = 0

has neither, because it is not expressed in terms of

coordinates at all.]

Consider a manifold M. A coordinate system C is a 1-to-1 mapping of a

region of M onto a region of R^n. I consider only C's domain. An active

transform A is a mapping of M onto itself. The corresponding passive

transform is a mapping P of the region of R^n to itself such that

CA = PC for every point of M in the domain of C. By construction these

two mappings A and P are isomorphic within this region; each is a

mapping from this region of M onto the region of R^n.

The point is, both active and passive transforms are operations WITHIN

THE MODEL. The "real" transform I discussed above is NOT within the

model, but is a real change to the physical system (so the word

"transform" is not really appropriate, but is the best I could do).

Yes, invariances under "real" transforms like this have "real physical

content". But the distinction between active and passive transforms

is purely formal, and both are wholly within the model. Neither has

any "real physical content" at all, and they are merely different

ways of looking at the model and/or of relating the model to the world.

Getting back to rotations, you will have _great_ difficulty describing

a "real" rotation of the _ENTIRE_ system -- to what will you reference

this "rotation" to? But the active and passive transforms do not suffer

from this difficulty, as they both merely affect the relationship

between the system and the coordinates (i.e. between the "real" world

and the model coordinates). And the coordinates were arbitrary in the

first place.

A final remark: the restriction of SR to inertial frames is

a restriction which has significant physical content. But

the general covariance of GR is without such physical content,

as discussed above.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Jan 16, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/16/00

to

: = Tom Roberts

:: = Daryl McCullough

::: = Tom Roberts

:::: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=571890451

:: = Daryl McCullough

::: = Tom Roberts

:::: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=571890451

:::: The whole LET-SR-GR-GET debate (and probably also the corresponding

:::: theories themselves) is overshadowed by the confusion between

:::: coordinate transformations (Lorentz Ether Theory) and space-time

:::: transformations (Special Relativity).

::: Not really. Apparently you have never heard of the difference between

::: "active" transforms and "passive" transforms, and attempted to make

::: up a whole new vocabulary for them. In an active transform one uses

::: a single set of coordinates and performs some modification of the

::: physical system; in a passive transform one performs the inverse

::: modification to the coordinates.

::: Both concepts are valid, and indeed are related by an isomorphism.

::: It does not matter which concept you use, as long as you remain

::: consistent throughout.

:: I would like to point out that there *is* a difference between the

:: two concepts when it comes to invariance properties. To say that the

:: laws of physics should be invariant under passive transformations is

:: really to say nothing at all. You can always write any laws in such

:: a way that any coordinate system can be used. However, there is real

:: physical content to the claim that the laws of physics are invariant

:: under *active* transformations.

: Not really. I think what you mean is to claim that invariance related

: to a _REAL_ transform (i.e. a real physical modification to the system

: which leaves some property unchanged) has "real physical content". No

: argument there, but that is not what is meant by an active transform.

: I'll come back to this point.

:

: As an example, let me choose rotations. To say a given law is invariant

: over rotations means that the law does not refer to the orientation of

: the system in any way. An active transform rotates the system relative

: to the coordinates, and a passive transform rotates the coordinates

: relative to to the system. These have the same content and the same

: end result WHEN EXPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE COORDINATES OF THE SYSTEM.

: So for laws expressed in terms of coordinates they are equivalent

: (isomorphic).

: The point is, both active and passive transforms are operations WITHIN

: THE MODEL. The "real" transform I discussed above is NOT within the

: model, but is a real change to the physical system (so the word

: "transform" is not really appropriate, but is the best I could do).

:

: Yes, invariances under "real" transforms like this have "real physical

: content". But the distinction between active and passive transforms

: is purely formal, and both are wholly within the model. Neither has

: any "real physical content" at all, and they are merely different

: ways of looking at the model and/or of relating the model to the world.

If we accept this notation, we can say that both LET and SR use "REAL"

transforms. The decisive question however is, whether LET is also based

on ACTIVE transforms as SR undoubtedly is.

Lorentz presents in his well-known 1904 paper these formulae (4,5):

x' = BLx, y' = Ly, z' = Lz, t' = Lt/B - (BLx/c)(v/c)

Poincaré presents in his last pre-SR paper of June 1905:

x' = kl(x + epsilon t), y' = ly, z' = lz, t' = kl(t + epsilon x)

Taking into consideration that L = l = 1, we get

for Lorentz (a Galilean transform is implicitely assumed):

x' = gamma x, t' = t/gamma - (gamma x/c)(v/c)

for Poincaré:

x' = gamma (x + vt) t' = gamma (t + vx/c^2)

for Einstein:

x' = gamma (x - vt) t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

In the case of Lorentz, it is clear that only a PASSIVE transform can

be meant, because otherwise x' = gamma x would represent an expansion

and not a contraction.

In the case of Poincaré apart from the continuity with the work of

Lorentz also the fact that he uses "+" where Einstein uses "-" could

be evidence that he uses a PASSIVE transform.

If we write Einstein's version as a PASSIVE transform, we get the

following result, don't we?

x' = (x + vt) / gamma t' = (t + vx/c^2) / gamma

Whereas the math is exactly the same, there is huge physical difference

between the ACTIVE and the PASSIVE interpretation. So from a purely

mathematical point of view, a Lorentz-expansion is fully equivalent

to Lorentz-contraction, because it depends only on the way (ACTIVE or

PASSIVE) we interpret the Lorentz transform.

Wolfgang Gottfried G. (0:015.6)

Jan 22, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/22/00

to

"z@z" wrote:

> In the case of Poincaré apart from the continuity with the work of

> Lorentz also the fact that he uses "+" where Einstein uses "-" could

> be evidence that he uses a PASSIVE transform.

> In the case of Poincaré apart from the continuity with the work of

> Lorentz also the fact that he uses "+" where Einstein uses "-" could

> be evidence that he uses a PASSIVE transform.

Either that, or they defined the direction of motion in the opposite

direction of each other.

> If we write Einstein's version as a PASSIVE transform, we get the

> following result, don't we?

> x' = (x + vt) / gamma t' = (t + vx/c^2) / gamma

No. You have to invert the transform, and get:

x' = gamma (x + vt) t' = gamma (t + vx/c^2)

> Whereas the math is exactly the same, there is huge physical difference

> between the ACTIVE and the PASSIVE interpretation.

Not really. They're merely different points of view, and are

_isomorphic_ to each other.

> So from a purely

> mathematical point of view, a Lorentz-expansion is fully equivalent

> to Lorentz-contraction, because it depends only on the way (ACTIVE or

> PASSIVE) we interpret the Lorentz transform.

Not true. There is never any sort of "Lorentz expansion". You made

a mistake in inverting the transform above.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Jan 23, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/23/00

to

Tom says...

>

>Daryl McCullough wrote:

>

>Daryl McCullough wrote:

>> However, there is real physical content to

>> the claim that the laws of physics are invariant under

>> *active* transformations.

>

>Not really. I think what you mean is to claim that invarance related

>to a _REAL_ transform (i.e. a real physical modification to the system

>which leaves some property unchanged) has "real physical content". No

>argument there, but that is not what is meant by an active transform.

>I'll come back to this point.

I still don't agree with you here, but let me explain

why I say that there is physical content to invariance

under active transformations.

A coordinate system is basically a particular way of

describing the states of a system. Different coordinate

systems describe the same physical state in different

ways. Given any transformation T that maps one coordinate

system into another, we can define a corresponding map

m from states to states as follows:

m(s) = that state s' such that the description of s' in

coordinate system C is the same as the description

of s in coordinate system T(C).

So, as far as descriptions of states, it doesn't make any

difference whether you keep the state constant, and change

coordinates from C to T(C), or you keep the coordinate system

constant, and change state from s to m(s).

But once we start talking about dynamics, there is a big

difference between these two. To say that the laws of

dynamics are invariant under the physical change s --> m(s)

means that

d(m(s)) ds

------- = m ----

dt dt

This definitely has physical content.

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00

to

: = Tom Roberts

:: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=573350660

:: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=573350660

:: Taking into consideration that L = l = 1, we get

::

:: for Lorentz (a Galilean transform is implicitely assumed):

::

:: x' = gamma x, t' = t/gamma - (gamma x/c)(v/c)

::

:: for Poincaré:

::

:: x' = gamma (x + vt) t' = gamma (t + vx/c^2)

::

:: for Einstein:

::

:: x' = gamma (x - vt) t' = gamma (t - vx/c^2)

::

:: In the case of Lorentz, it is clear that only a PASSIVE transform can

:: be meant, because otherwise x' = gamma x would represent an expansion

:: and not a contraction.

:: In the case of Poincaré apart from the continuity with the work of

:: Lorentz also the fact that he uses "+" where Einstein uses "-" could

:: be evidence that he uses a PASSIVE transform.

:

: Either that, or they defined the direction of motion in the opposite

: direction of each other.

In any case, I just had to recognize that also Einstein uses a

PASSIVE transform.

"If Dx, Dt, etc. denote coordinate differences, the Lorentz

transformation takes in the case of a relative speed of 0.6 c

this form:

Dx' = 1.25 [Dx - 0.6 c Dt] [ 1a ]

Dt' = 1.25 [Dt - O.6/c Dx] [ 1b ]

Dx = 1.25 [Dx' + 0.6 c Dt'] [ 2a ]

Dt = 1.25 [Dt' + O.6/c Dx'] [ 2b ]

The proper lenght Dx' of the body in the moving frame S' is 1 LY.

A superficial examination could suggest that equation [2a] entails

an elongation by the factor 1.25 (resulting in 1.25 LY) for the

frame S. But correct is exactly the contrary: a contraction to

0.8 LY (1 LY/1.25)." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/paradox.html

This is from a text I wrote in 1988 and translated into English in

1999. The whole argument that Einstein uses an active transform

results from my mixing up [1a] with [2a].

:: So from a purely

:: mathematical point of view, a Lorentz-expansion is fully equivalent

:: to Lorentz-contraction, because it depends only on the way (ACTIVE or

:: PASSIVE) we interpret the Lorentz transform.

:

: Not true. There is never any sort of "Lorentz expansion". You made

: a mistake in inverting the transform above.

Yes. In another respect however, EXPANSION is as present in SR as

CONTRACTION. Every moving object contracted by gamma wrt the rest

frame is expanded by the same factor (again wrt the rest frame) when

observed simultanously in the moving frame. (That this requires

constant velocities is a serious problem for SR.)

The EXPANSION can also be explained using LET. Assume a body moving

at v = sqrt(0.99)c wrt the ether. If its rest length is 10 m, then

it is contracted to 1 m. If we send from the center of the body a

signal to both edges, the sum of both signal paths is 100 m. Whereas

the path in direction of the ether wind is only around 0.25 m [1] the

signal in the opposite direction crosses an ether distance of 99.75 m

[2] before reaching the edge of the body.

Sorry for confusion

Wolfgang

[1] 0.5 m / (1 + sqrt(0.99) = 0.25 m

[2] 0.5 m / (1 - sqrt(0.99) = 99.75 m

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00

to

"z@z" wrote:

> Yes. In another respect however, EXPANSION is as present in SR as

> CONTRACTION. Every moving object contracted by gamma wrt the rest

> frame is expanded by the same factor (again wrt the rest frame) when

> observed simultanously in the moving frame. (That this requires

> constant velocities is a serious problem for SR.)

> Yes. In another respect however, EXPANSION is as present in SR as

> CONTRACTION. Every moving object contracted by gamma wrt the rest

> frame is expanded by the same factor (again wrt the rest frame) when

> observed simultanously in the moving frame. (That this requires

> constant velocities is a serious problem for SR.)

If you intermix measurements and observations from different

coordinate systems you can obtain any sort of nonsense you like. But

in SR, when you only discuss what a given observer can observe, there

is never any expansion of a moving object (i.e. the moving object is

never measured to be larger than its proper size).

By "observer" I really mean measurements made from a single

inertial frame. In particular, the observer normally is

considered to have assistants collocated with any

measurements, and they all use clocks and rulers at rest

in the observer's inertial frame, and synchronized in it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in your last parenthetical

remark above.

> The EXPANSION can also be explained using LET.

Yes, one can make the same mistake in LET, and obtain the same

nonsense. LET is mathematically equivalent to SR, and offers the

same opportunities to make errors (:-)).

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00

to

Re: 1-25-00, 10:44am (EST-1) posting of Tom Roberts

Tom writes: If you intermix measurements and observations from

different coordinate systems you can obtain any sort of nonsense you

like.

Arlin Jean: That's because SR is a very mixed up theory. For starters

(a bad start), every SR equation contains at least one real quantity and

at least one illusory quantity. and from there, contradictions abound,

The traveling twin comes to a false conclusion about whose clock really

run faster, whose rods are longer and whose masses are heavier. SR's

separated clocks are always out of sync by definition. Since these

clocks never read the same, they must always differ by some finite

amount. One clock is always ahead of the other. SRians can't deal with

which clock is ahead of the other, or with exactly how much ahead one

clock is compared with the other, or why one particular clock is ahead

of the other. Most SRians remain stone silent while the others dish out

some metaphysical crap. AET, on the other hand, doesn't give a damn how

much you mix up observations and quantities. As long as you obey the

rules of math (which is nothing more than the proven rules of logic

expressed in symbols), you can do anything that pleases your fancy. You

can't do this with SR because it's so far removed from reality that many

of its observed measurement values are illusory (quantitatively

differing from the real value they're incorrectly trying to measure). SR

rests on a foundation of quicksilver, while AET rests on a solid

foundation. AET can express every SR quantity as a function of real

quantities. This is how you can derive either theory from the other. SR

and AET are opposite sides of the same coin. It's SR's faulty OWLS=c

definition that throws SR into a metaphysical cocked hat, resulting in

many paradoxes (defined by the dictionary as an apparent contradiction

which can be explained). The problem with SR is that it can't physically

explain ANY paradox, and spacetime is just another mathematical method

(in geometrical form) of getting the predicted measurement answer (real

or illusory) that the seriously flawed SR theory is looking for. The

ONLY reason that non-existent spacetime is considered at all is because

Einstein tried to force out-of-sync clocks into sync by PRETENDING (with

no experimental justification to this very day after 95 years) that the

one-way speed of light is equal to c, when it very seldom is. SR's

out-of-sync clocks can NOT be used to claim that OWLS is physically

equal to c. As Lorentz correctly pointed out, the equations based on the

OWLS definition are merely "tools for calculation." Tom, when your pet

theory doesn't have the foggiest notion how its measurement values

relate to physical REALITY, you end up with the nonsensical SR

imbroglio. You seem to think it's nonsense that clocks in one frame can

actually run faster than clocks in another frame, in spite of the fact

that this has been experimentally proven. A crackpot is defined as one

who can not accept proven facts and then goes off of a tangent with

notions that contradict those facts. But yet, SRians do precisely that.

Tom, if SRians just used a common frame in which to set their clocks,

different observations by different observers could be mixed up in any

and all mathematically-correct ways until the cows come home and there

would never be any contradictions, paradoxes, or nonsense of any kind.

It is not even necessary for a moving observer to come to rest in the

common reference frame, because the "moving" clocks could be set

according to speed calculations of the moving frame made in the

reference frame. All of the non-contradictory AET equations can be used

when all observers use the same IDENTICAL clock setting, not SR"s sorry

so-called relative sync. Nothing in nature demands that clocks be-set

upon a frame change. The ad hoc SR rule which demands this is physically

arbitrary and does not change physical reality. It just distorts the

MEASUREMENT of physical reality and you end up with at least 95 years of

utter nonsense which will NEVER be physically explained by the same

theory which produced the nonsense to begin with. I'll keep repeating

the FACT that no SRian understands SR on the physical level, because the

physical reality behind SR is the ether, and the ether mimics SR in

EVERY conceivable way known to science (the duck scenario).

Tom: But in SR, when you only discuss what a given observer can

observe, there is never any expansion of a moving object (i.e. the

motion object is never measured to be larger than its proper size).

Arlin Jean: An object expands when it slows down wrt the ether. When an

observer uses her clock to measure the rate of clocks moving by in

another frame, those clocks will be measured to be running FASTER and

the objects moving past will be measured to be LARGER. This measurement

procedure was always permitted in pre-SR days and it is ALWAYS permitted

when clocks are in sync in the observer's frame, such as in AET. It is

also permitted in MSR (modified SR), where all observers in all frames

have their separated clocks differing by the same finite amount at a

given local distance. This is done by all observers using the same

common reference frame to set their clocks SR-style.

---

Best,

Jeannie

Jan 25, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/25/00

to

Arlin Brown wrote:

>

> Re: 1-25-00, 10:44am (EST-1) posting of Tom Roberts

>

> Tom writes: If you intermix measurements and observations from

> different coordinate systems you can obtain any sort of nonsense you

> like.

>

> Arlin Jean: That's because SR is a very mixed up theory.

>

> Re: 1-25-00, 10:44am (EST-1) posting of Tom Roberts

>

> Tom writes: If you intermix measurements and observations from

> different coordinate systems you can obtain any sort of nonsense you

> like.

>

> Arlin Jean: That's because SR is a very mixed up theory.

That is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel. How can any theory

defend itself against attacks that are based on misusing it.

Combining results from two different coordinate systems

is just plain stupid. The nonsensical results that you

get by doing this are no reflection on SR.

John Anderson

Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00

to

: = Tom Roberts in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=577450711

:: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=577202662

:: = Wolfgang G. in http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=577202662

:: EXPANSION is as present in SR as

:: CONTRACTION. Every moving object contracted by gamma wrt the rest

:: frame is expanded by the same factor (again wrt the rest frame) when

:: observed simultanously in the moving frame. (That this requires

:: constant velocities is a serious problem for SR.)

:

: If you intermix measurements and observations from different

: coordinate systems you can obtain any sort of nonsense you like. But

: in SR, when you only discuss what a given observer can observe, there

: is never any expansion of a moving object (i.e. the moving object is

: never measured to be larger than its proper size).

It is clear that all the following variants can directly be derived

from the SR equations:

Dx' = Dx * gamma Dt' = Dt / gamma

Dx' = Dx / gamma Dt' = Dt * gamma

To all of them correspond clearly defined physical situations. If

a fast moving dark object of length L sends a light signal from

each end at the same moving-frame time, then the distance between

the two points where the signals are emitted is L*gamma in the rest

frame. This cannot be denied in a reasonable way!

In an analoguous way, the time of a moving system goes faster by

gamma wrt an observer at rest in the rest frame. If this were not

true, then also clocks of a rest frame could not run faster wrt

the time of a particle at rest in a moving frame.

: I have no idea what you are trying to say in your last parenthetical

: remark above.

That you have no idea only shows that you do not fully understand

SR length contraction. If not even you understand such a fundamental

principle of SR, then I must conclude that (almost?) nobody on

earth really understands SR (let alone GR).

See for instance: http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551801940

:: The EXPANSION can also be explained using LET. [...]

:

: Yes, one can make the same mistake in LET, and obtain the same

: nonsense. LET is mathematically equivalent to SR, and offers the

: same opportunities to make errors (:-)).

I did not make a mistake. Try again:

"The EXPANSION can also be explained using LET. Assume a body moving

at v = sqrt(0.99)c wrt the ether. If its rest length is 10 m, then

it is contracted to 1 m. If we send from the center of the body a

signal to both edges, the sum of both signal paths is 100 m. Whereas

the path in direction of the ether wind is only around 0.25 m the

signal in the opposite direction crosses an ether distance of 99.75 m

before reaching the edge of the body."

Inasfar as LET is equivalent to SR it must be able to explain that

wrt a moving observer the ether shrinks by gamma in the same way as

the moving observer shrinks wrt the ether. Because real contraction

of the ether is impossible, the only remaining possibility is an

expansion of the observer by gamma.

Wolfgang

Jan 26, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/26/00

to

Re: 1-25-00, 7:30pm (EST-3) posting of John Anderson

John writes: Arlin Brown wrote: Tom Roberts wrote: If you intermix

measurements and observations from different coordinate systems you can

obtain any sort of nonsense you like.

Arlin Jean: That's because SR is a very mixed up theory.

John: That is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Arlin Jean: Johnny baby, after that initial sentence of mine in my

1-25-99,1:55pm post, I went on to back up what I said by giving examples

of how flawed SR theory is. I realize that you don't like people

criticizing your little pet theory, but I have to call a spade a spade.

SR has many flaws and if you had read the entire post, you might have

learned what some of those flaws are.

John: How can any theory defend itself against attacks that are based

on misusing it.

Arlin Jean: It is not I who misuses SR theory. I don't abuse SR by

incorrectly mixing up what observers in different frames measure. I just

mathematically and physically explain SR. Because SR is so terribly

flawed, it lends itself easily to abuse by those who don't understand it

and those who think they can use logical thinking in dealing with

illogical equations (which are based on Einstein's physically false

OWLS=c definition) and end up with something logical. Nothing got mixed

up in pre-1905 physics when dealing with coordinate systems. Nothing

gets mixed up in AET. But SR is something else. It is illogical from the

onset with its nonsensical OWLS definition - then you wonder why SR is

replete with paradoxes and ad hoc measurement requirements?

John: Combining results from two different coordinate systems is just

plain stupid.

Arlin Jean: Yes, it is - viz. a viz. a stupid theory. On the other

hand, when you deal only with reality, as AET does, you can mix anything

you wish together, as long as you are mathematically correct. I have

shown in my SR/ether paper (available by e-mail for the asking) that you

can mix up the real quantities of AET with the illusory quantities of SR

in any way you wish, as long as you don't violate any math rules. In

this manner, we can derive AET from SR and vice versa, and do many other

interesting things like deriving the addition of velocities equation in

the SR form and in the AET form. We can also mathematically derive from

the reality of the ether the fact that two SR observers in relative

uniform motion wrt each other will each measure the same value for the

speed of the other frame. SR never derives this fact. It merely ASSUMES

it in order to agree with SR postulates.

John: The nonsensical results that you get by doing this are no

reflection on SR.

Arlin Jean: Since SR makes little logical sense to begin with, it is no

wonder that some people continue with more illogic. I'm not defending

illogic of any kind. I've always been a stickler for rationality, but I

see precious little of it from SRians. If SR theory were currently out

of favor with the physics establishment, its adherents would be

considered to be crackpots. But right now, you and other SRians have the

shielding protection of the majority. There's safety in numbers and in

falling into lock step with the majority.

---

Best,

Jeannie

Jan 27, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/27/00

to

"z@z" wrote:

> Inasfar as LET is equivalent to SR it must be able to explain that

> wrt a moving observer the ether shrinks by gamma in the same way as

> the moving observer shrinks wrt the ether. Because real contraction

> of the ether is impossible, the only remaining possibility is an

> expansion of the observer by gamma.

> Inasfar as LET is equivalent to SR it must be able to explain that

> wrt a moving observer the ether shrinks by gamma in the same way as

> the moving observer shrinks wrt the ether. Because real contraction

> of the ether is impossible, the only remaining possibility is an

> expansion of the observer by gamma.

You have only a superficial understanding when you try to explain

this in terms of "contractions" only. You forgot the possibility

that the simultaneity of the measurements is different in the

different frames, so that the different observers in different

frames do not measure the same things. Lo and behold this explains

it fully when one works out the math.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Jan 28, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/28/00

to

Lou Verdon wrote:

> ...and how different is the math from the case that clocks physically

> change Newtonian "speed" as a function of the spacetime field which is so

> well characterized in GR?

> ...and how different is the math from the case that clocks physically

> change Newtonian "speed" as a function of the spacetime field which is so

> well characterized in GR?

You need to be far more precise. What sort of "field" do you mean, and

how does it affect "newtonian speed"?

> Errors in the relativity of simultaneity in 4 dimensional transformations

> are well known to create foreshortening or rotation of images. Why would

> you not consider the possibility of clock error due to an external field?

No "external field" is necessary, because the effects predicted by SR

to be changes in perspective are sufficient to describe zillions of

experimental measurements. So if one added in some sort of distortions

due to some "external field" one would not obtain agreement with

experiments.

And if you think these effects due purely to the influence of some

"external field" (i.e. no perspective at all), then this field must

affect more than clock rates. And you must also explain why perspective

in 3-space is geometrical but perspective in 4-space is partly

geometrical and partly due to your "external field". Unless you also

explain the ordinary 3-d perspective as due to some "directioniferous

ether" (but so far nobody has done that).

Ordinary 3-d perspective is what causes a ruler observed from

the side to appear wider than when observed from the end. This

is isomorphic to time dilation and length contraction in SR --

they are additional manifestations of geometrical perspective

in the 4 dimensions of Minkowski spacetime.

> SR does not identify the physical cause of time dilation, but it is very

> clear that there is a physical cause.

Not true. SR identifies the "cause" of time dilation as being due to

the geometry of the measurement. In SR it is QUITE CLEAR there is no

sort of "physical cause" at all, it is merely geometry.

> Why would you consider such a potential not to exist when an average field

> of less than 1 volt per 10^11 meters of space is all that is necessary?

> Do you think that such a minute field could be measured with normal

> laboratory instruments? In fact, we cannot even approach such resolution.

> Such a field is, I believe, wrongly approximated to nil in any real

> experiment.

At Fermilab experiments have sizes on the order of 10^3 meters, so your

putative field is on the order of 10^-8 volt difference from one end

to the other. This is ENORMOUSLY too small to cause a time dilation

with gamma ~2000 as seen in pions and muons at Fermilab. But I agree

nobody would measure it (:-)).

Actually, such static fields as you propose are very difficult

to measure. If you extend a voltmeter probe from "ground"

to some point far away, the equipotential surfaces near ground

will surround the lead and the voltmeter reads 0 even if there

is a large potential difference across the spatial region.

You cannot measure a potential difference across "empty space"

with a voltmeter, you can only measure one between two objects.

You could attempt to observe it by letting a charged particle

accelerate in the potential difference, but 10^-11 V/m would

be hopelessly too small to observe that way.

> The strong force is observed in the strong field and the weak force is

> observed in the weak field, and they are both simple electrical force.

You are believing the words "strong" and "weak" far too literally. In

particular, the form of the strong force is VERY DIFFERENT from that

of any known electrical force. Speaking loosely, the strong force gets

STRONGER as you separate two strongly-charged particles; electrical

forces get weaker as you separate two electrically-charged particles.

But also, weak forces are observed inside nuclei (e.g. beta decay) as

are strong forces, so they inhabit the same region but behave very

differently; _neither_ of them behaves in a manner similar to

electrical forces (e.g. the weak force causes neutrons to decay,

but neutrons are electrically neutral).

The strong and weak forces are both short-range nuclear

forces. They were named because of their relative coupling

constants at low energies.

Your model depends strongly on your personal ignorance of modern

physics. Learn some real physics and you will be able to see its

shortcomings.

Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com

Jan 31, 2000, 3:00:00 AM1/31/00

to

Arlin Brown wrote:

>

> Re: 1-25-00, 7:30pm (EST-3) posting of John Anderson

>

> John writes: Arlin Brown wrote: Tom Roberts wrote: If you intermix

> measurements and observations from different coordinate systems you can

> obtain any sort of nonsense you like.

>

> Arlin Jean: That's because SR is a very mixed up theory.

>

> John: That is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

>

> Arlin Jean: Johnny baby,

>

> Re: 1-25-00, 7:30pm (EST-3) posting of John Anderson

>

> John writes: Arlin Brown wrote: Tom Roberts wrote: If you intermix

> measurements and observations from different coordinate systems you can

> obtain any sort of nonsense you like.

>

> Arlin Jean: That's because SR is a very mixed up theory.

>

> John: That is truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

>

> Arlin Jean: Johnny baby,

[editorial deleted]

I have no interest in discussing what your aesthetic criteria

for a good physics theory are.

SR is a logically consistent theory that is supported by experiment.

As Tom Roberts has pointed out, AET is just SR in a coordinate

system in which clocks in all frames are synched. It differs

from SR by a coordinate transformation. They are really the

same theory in different coordinate systems.

Face it. Roberts understands your theory better than you do.

John Anderson

Feb 5, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/5/00

to

Arlin Brown wrote:

> Re: 1-31-00, 8:54pm (EST-3) posting of John Anderson

>

> John writes: SR is a logically consistent theory that is supported by

> experiment.

>

> Arlin Jean: A half truth if I ever heard one. SR is quite INCONSISTENT.

> When a traveling twin measures the rate of an earth clock and gets an

> incorrect value for the ratio of that clock rate to her own clock rate,

> and the girl on earth measures the correct value for the ratio of the

> clock rates, THEN SR IS CLEARLY INCONSISTENT, unless you have your own

> pet definition of the word "inconsistent."

Yes. His "pet definition" of "inconsistent" is the same as everyone else's,

namely "self-contradictory". It is clear that SR does not have this

property, regardless of how "correct"

it may be. It is also clear that it agrees with experiments, and so is

"correct" according to everyone else's definition. It looks like you're the

one who has her own pet definitions...

Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00

to

Re: 2-5-00, 9:06pm (EST-1) posting of Standeven

Standeven writes: Arlin Brown wrote: John Anderson wrote: SR is a

logically consistent theory that is supported by experiment.

Arlin Jean: SR is quite inconsistent. When a traveling twin measures

the ratio of an earth clock and gets an incorrect value for the ratio of

that clock rate to her own clock rate, and the girl on earth measures

the correct value for the ratio of the clock rates, THEN SR IS CLEARLY

INCONSISTENT, unless you have your own pet definition of the word

"inconsistent."

Standeven: His "pet definition" of "inconsistent" is the same as

everyone else's, namely "self-contradictory".

Arlin Jean: In that case, he is clearly violating that definition of

"self-contradictory", because I have just pointed out an unmistakably

extremely clear cut case of an out-and-out contradiction. But you guys

are so BRAINWASHED that you see white and call it black. When I clearly

showed where Einstein divided by zero, instead of you guys calling

Einstein's bluff, I was attacked for criticizing your GOD. It is an

extremely egregious logical blunder to say that the in-flight clock rate

measurements of the traveling twins is not self-contradictory. If the

twins' measured clock rate ratios are not contradictory, then the word

has completely lost all meaning. I'm beginning to think that some of

you guys are mentally ill, because the most common form of mental

illness is the denial of reality. You can fool a lot of people when you

say that the SR paradoxes are not really paradoxes because measurements

have nothing to do with physical reality and what one observer measures

does not have to make any sense compared to what another observer

measures. Yes, you can make excuses for those paradoxes, since reality

never comes into the picture. BUT you just can't pull that same trick

when you're dealing with a touch of reality for a change. And the twins

paradox just gives us that touch of reality because the slow average

round-trip rate of the traveling clock is not relative. It is real. It

is not observer independent, because all observers in the universe agree

that the traveling clocks runs slower. You can't fake your way out of

this one, Standeven. You are a clear loser and have made a complete fool

of yourself by spouting such nonsense. You don't even know a

contradiction when you see it.

---

Have a nice day,

Jeannie

Feb 6, 2000, 3:00:00 AM2/6/00

to

Arlin Brown wrote:

> Re: 2-5-00, 9:06pm (EST-1) posting of Standeven

>

> Standeven writes: Arlin Brown wrote: John Anderson wrote: SR is a

> logically consistent theory that is supported by experiment.

>

> Arlin Jean: SR is quite inconsistent. When a traveling twin measures

> the ratio of an earth clock and gets an incorrect value for the ratio of

> that clock rate to her own clock rate, and the girl on earth measures

> the correct value for the ratio of the clock rates, THEN SR IS CLEARLY

> INCONSISTENT, unless you have your own pet definition of the word

> "inconsistent."

>

> Standeven: His "pet definition" of "inconsistent" is the same as

> everyone else's, namely "self-contradictory".

>

> Arlin Jean: In that case, he is clearly violating that definition of

> "self-contradictory", because I have just pointed out an unmistakably

> extremely clear cut case of an out-and-out contradiction.

>

Unfortunately, you didn't use SR to derive the prediction, so it is

irrelevent. (According to SR, measuring the ratio will give the _correct_

ratio, even for the travelling twin.)

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu