Relativity's Fundamental Ideas

394 views
Skip to first unread message

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 10:15:04 AMAug 9
to
It's amazing how clear and simple Relativity becomes when you just look at the fundamental ideas. If you understand just six fundamental ideas, everything in Relativity about Time and Time Dilation makes perfect sense. Here are those ideas:

1. Every atom is a tiny clock that creates time at its location.
2. Light is the transmission of energy in the form of photons from one atom to another.
3. Atoms emit photons at the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.
4. A second lengthens when speed and/or gravity increase for the emitting atom.
5. A second shortens when speed and/or gravity decrease for the emitting atom.
6. Nothing can go faster than photons emitted from the slowest moving atom.

I examine those idea is my new paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" which can be found at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2108.0025v1.pdf

Dono.

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 10:31:49 AMAug 9
to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 7:15:04 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> snip cretinisms>

Ken Seto

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 11:16:35 AMAug 9
to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:15:04 AM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> It's amazing how clear and simple Relativity becomes when you just look at the fundamental ideas. If you understand just six fundamental ideas, everything in Relativity about Time and Time Dilation makes perfect sense. Here are those ideas:
>
> 1. Every atom is a tiny clock that creates time at its location.

Does different atoms create a different amount of time? Does an atom creates a universal interval of time?

> 2. Light is the transmission of energy in the form of photons from one atom to another.
> 3. Atoms emit photons at the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.

How does the atom knows the speed of the photon it created?

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 11:41:24 AMAug 9
to
It’s amazing how clear and simple physics can be when a wannabe armchair
thinker is determined to lower the bar of what physics is to be only what
the armchair thinker is capable of doing.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 11:41:25 AMAug 9
to
See, Seto, even Ed Lake thinks he has it all figured out. Of course, he’s
like you. He couldn’t pass a first-year physics pop-quiz if the lives of
his family depended on it.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 11:48:41 AMAug 9
to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:16:35 AM UTC-5, seto...@gmail.com wrote:

"Does different atoms create a different amount of time? Does an atom creates a universal interval of time?"

Different kinds of atoms oscillate or spin at different rates, but that just means each "clock" has a different number of "ticks" per second.
Time is different from measuring time.

Seto also asked, "How does the atom knows the speed of the photon it created?"

An atom doesn't "know" anything. It doesn't "know" the length of a second. It just emits a photon to get rid
of excess energy. HUMANS created "seconds." We decided that one second is "equal to the time duration of 9,192,631,770
periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the fundamental unperturbed
ground-state of the caesium-133 atom." Using Optical Lattice Clocks, we can break a second into 429,288,004,229,873.2 "ticks."

9,192,631,770 "ticks" on one clock is equal to 429,288,004,229,873.2 "ticks" on another clock, but BOTH are one second
for humans. And that second will get longer if the clock is moving.

Ken Seto

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 3:48:32 PMAug 9
to
ROTFLOL the woodworker knows only obsolete physics and tried to use his obsolete knowledge to criticize everybody.

Breda Haanrade

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 3:49:07 PMAug 9
to
Ken Seto wrote:

>> See, Seto, even Ed Lake thinks he has it all figured out. Of course,
>> he’s like you. He couldn’t pass a first-year physics pop-quiz if the
>> lives of his family depended on it.
>
> ROTFLOL the woodworker knows only obsolete physics and tried to use his
> obsolete knowledge to criticize everybody.

pull my finger.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 4:24:43 PMAug 9
to
You have no safe place to pretend here, Ken. You’ve been ridiculed here for
at least 2 decades, and you complain whenever someone criticizes you. But
you seem unable to learn the lesson to stay out of places where all you get
is ridicule.

I’m beginning to think you LIKE the criticism. I’m beginning to think that
you have a sick emotional need for the ridicule.

A normal person wouldn’t try the same thing for 20 years and expect things
to change.

Paparios

unread,
Aug 9, 2021, 5:41:26 PMAug 9
to
Einstein found a far more simpler way, starting from just two principles: 1) the principle of relativity and 2) the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light.

Modern special relativity presentations only need to use principle 1.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 2:09:22 AMAug 10
to
On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 17:41:24 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> It’s amazing how clear and simple physics can be when a wannabe armchair
> thinker is determined to lower the bar of what physics is to be only what
> the armchair thinker is capable of doing.

Sure, your idiot armchair guru has demonstrated that you can revolutionize
physics not knowing what a clock is and what it is for.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 2:10:28 AMAug 10
to
On Monday, 9 August 2021 at 23:41:26 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
> El lunes, 9 de agosto de 2021 a las 10:15:04 UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com escribió:
> > It's amazing how clear and simple Relativity becomes when you just look at the fundamental ideas. If you understand just six fundamental ideas, everything in Relativity about Time and Time Dilation makes perfect sense. Here are those ideas:
> >
> > 1. Every atom is a tiny clock that creates time at its location.
> > 2. Light is the transmission of energy in the form of photons from one atom to another.
> > 3. Atoms emit photons at the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.
> > 4. A second lengthens when speed and/or gravity increase for the emitting atom.
> > 5. A second shortens when speed and/or gravity decrease for the emitting atom.
> > 6. Nothing can go faster than photons emitted from the slowest moving atom.
> >
> > I examine those idea is my new paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" which can be found at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2108.0025v1.pdf
> Einstein found a far more simpler way, starting from just two principles:

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 6:40:49 AMAug 10
to
I quote from your paper:
"Einstein also wrote: “the velocity of the electron can be
directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating
electric and magnetic fields.” "

First question:
---------------
When did Einstein say this? Reference please.

I quote further:
"That means that time will slow down if the electron is moving,
and you can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."

Second question:
----------------
Let's be concrete. Say we want to measure the speed of
the electrons in a CRT (cathode ray tube).

How would you measure the 'oscillation rates' of the electrons,
and how can these 'oscillation rates' tell you what the speeds
of the electrons are?

Third question:
---------------
Why does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
mean that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 10:48:36 AMAug 10
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:40:49 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 09.08.2021 16:15, skrev Ed Lake:
> > It's amazing how clear and simple Relativity becomes when you just look at the fundamental ideas. If you understand just six fundamental ideas, everything in Relativity about Time and Time Dilation makes perfect sense. Here are those ideas:
> >
> > 1. Every atom is a tiny clock that creates time at its location.
> > 2. Light is the transmission of energy in the form of photons from one atom to another.
> > 3. Atoms emit photons at the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.
> > 4. A second lengthens when speed and/or gravity increase for the emitting atom.
> > 5. A second shortens when speed and/or gravity decrease for the emitting atom.
> > 6. Nothing can go faster than photons emitted from the slowest moving atom.
> >
> > I examine those idea is my new paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" which can be found at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2108.0025v1.pdf
> >
> I quote from your paper:
> "Einstein also wrote: “the velocity of the electron can be
> directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating
> electric and magnetic fields.” "
>
> First question:
> ---------------
> When did Einstein say this? Reference please.

It's on the last page (page 23) of his 1905 paper "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."
http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
Here's the complete quote:

"This relationship may be tested experimentally, since the velocity of the
electron can be directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating electric
and magnetic fields."

>
> I quote further:
> "That means that time will slow down if the electron is moving,
> and you can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
> some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
>
> Second question:
> ----------------
> Let's be concrete. Say we want to measure the speed of
> the electrons in a CRT (cathode ray tube).
>
> How would you measure the 'oscillation rates' of the electrons,
> and how can these 'oscillation rates' tell you what the speeds
> of the electrons are?

I don't know much about cathode ray tubes. If a cathode ray tube can
fire electrons at a screen, its construction should tell you how fast the
electrons will travel.

To measure time dilation, you just need some way to compare the
oscillation rate of an electron when stationary to its rate when it
hits the tube's screen.

>
> Third question:
> ---------------
> Why does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
> mean that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?

Because time slows down for EVERYTHING that is moving. If an
electron oscillates at x times PER SECOND when stationary, it will
oscillate slower when moving because a second will be longer. It
will still be x times per second, but a longer second.

Ed

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 11:10:53 AMAug 10
to
On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 4:41:26 PM UTC-5, Paparios wrote:
If you do things that way, you do them INCORRECTLY and you PRETEND that Time Dilation doesn't exist.

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity is based upon two POSTULATES:

1: the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the
equations of mechanics hold good.

2: light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the
state of motion of the EMITTING body.

These two postulates are only reconcilable if you understand Time Dilation.

An emitter will emit light that travels at c, and that light will hit an oncoming object at c+v.
That is how radar guns work. Anyone who claims that light is observed to travel at c by ALL
OBSERVERS is proved to be WRONG by many experiments. Here is a list of some of them:

1. The Sagnac Effect
2. Pulsars
3. Mirrors on the Moon
4. GPS
5. Eclipses of Io
6. Radar Guns
7. The Michelson-Gale Experiment
8. The Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment

They're explained here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 11:54:46 AMAug 10
to
Well, if you’re referring to YOUR personal understanding of Time Dilation
as being the only way to reconcile the postulates, I completely disagree.

I have a completely different understanding of time dilation, and it also
reconciles these two postulates completely. This, by the way, is the
understanding described in many textbooks. (Not popularizations, mind you;
textbooks.)

>
> An emitter will emit light that travels at c, and that light will hit an
> oncoming object at c+v.
> That is how radar guns work. Anyone who claims that light is observed to
> travel at c by ALL
> OBSERVERS is proved to be WRONG by many experiments.
> Here is a list of some of them:
>
> 1. The Sagnac Effect
> 2. Pulsars
> 3. Mirrors on the Moon
> 4. GPS
> 5. Eclipses of Io
> 6. Radar Guns
> 7. The Michelson-Gale Experiment
> 8. The Kennedy-Thorndike Experiment
>
> They're explained here: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 11:54:47 AMAug 10
to
Oh, I know how to measure the speed of the electrons in a cathode ray tube.
There is also a different thing, which is what you’re describing, and
that’s the DESIGN speed of the electrons in the CRT, but that’s not a
measurement.

But the question was about measuring the “oscillation rates” of the
electrons, which has nothing to do with the linear speed of the electrons.

>
> To measure time dilation, you just need some way to compare the
> oscillation rate of an electron when stationary to its rate when it
> hits the tube's screen.
>
>>
>> Third question:
>> ---------------
>> Why does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
>> mean that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
>
> Because time slows down for EVERYTHING that is moving. If an
> electron oscillates at x times PER SECOND when stationary, it will
> oscillate slower when moving because a second will be longer. It
> will still be x times per second, but a longer second.
>
> Ed
>



Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 12:18:58 PMAug 10
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
According to Einstein, it does. From page 23 of "On the Electrodynamics
of Moving Bodies": "the velocity of the electron can be directly measured, e.g.
by means of rapidly oscillating electric and magnetic fields."

A photon always travels at c, but when it hits a moving observer, that observer
will receive the photon at c+v or c-v. And that means the oscillation frequency
of the photon can be directly converted into the speed of the observer. That
is how radar guns work.

In principle, you can do the same thing with electrons (or any kind of particle).
The emitted electron will oscillate at a given frequency, and a moving observer
will observe it to arrive oscillating at a different frequency. That difference in
oscillation frequencies can be converted into the speed of the electron - just
as Einstein said.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 12:40:33 PMAug 10
to
Yes, you can measure the linear velocity of an electron using an
oscillating field. This does not measure the oscillation of the ELECTRON in
any way. The oscillating field is different than an oscillating electron.
What about this do you not follow?

>
> A photon always travels at c, but when it hits a moving observer, that observer
> will receive the photon at c+v or c-v. And that means the oscillation frequency
> of the photon can be directly converted into the speed of the observer. That
> is how radar guns work.
>
> In principle, you can do the same thing with electrons (or any kind of particle).

I’m not interested in “in principle” statements. I’m interested in how you
envision MEASURING the oscillation rate of an electron. I know how to
measure the oscillation rate of light. How do you propose to measure the
oscillation rate of an electron? That’s the specific question.

> The emitted electron will oscillate at a given frequency, and a moving observer
> will observe it to arrive oscillating at a different frequency. That difference in
> oscillation frequencies can be converted into the speed of the electron - just
> as Einstein said.
>
> Ed
>
>



Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 12:51:06 PMAug 10
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 10:54:46 AM UTC-5, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
It is how different TEXTBOOKS describe Relativity that got me interested in the
subject of Time Dilation in the first place. You undoubtedly believe textbooks
which claim this is Einstein's "Second Postulate":

"The speed of light in free space has the same value for all observers, regardless of their state of motion."[8]

I quote that textbook in my paper. It's from

[8] Peter J. Nolan. Fundamentals of Modern Physics, published by Physics Curriculum & Instruction, Inc. (2014), page 1.22

Here are what some other textbooks say is Einstein's Second Postulate:

"Postulate 2. The speed of light in a vacuum is equal to the value c, independent of the motion of the source."
From Modern Physics (6th edition) by Paul A. Tipler, Ralph A. Llewellyn, published by W.H. Freeman & Company (2012) page 12.

"2. Regardless of the motion of its source, light always moves through empty space with the same constant speed."
From: Relativity Simply Explained by Martin Gardner, published by Dover Publications, 1997, page 34.

"light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
From Einstein's Space-Time: An Introduction to Special and General Relativity by Rafael Ferraro, published by Springer Science (2007), page 47.

"Postulate 2: "Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting
body." ("Principle of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light")"
From Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity by William Lane Craig, published by Springer-Science (2001), page 25.

"2. In any given inertial frame, the velocity of light c is the same whether the light be emitted by a body at rest or by a body in uniform motion."
From: “Subtle is the Lord” - The Science and Life of Albert Einstein by Abraham Pais, Oxford University Press (2005), page 141.

And there are lots more.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 1:38:00 PMAug 10
to
Your alternative view of what the postulates say is not particularly
relevant to the point I made.

What I said is that there is a different view of what time dilation means
other than your view. This different view has no problem reconciling the
two postulates as Einstein wrote them. Your claim is that your view of time
dilation is the ONLY way to reconcile the two postulates as Einstein wrote
them. Your claim is false. Your view is NOT the only way to reconcile the
two postulates as Einstein wrote them. It’s really very simple English.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 3:35:50 PMAug 10
to
Okay, we are in agreement. There ARE two ways to reconcile the two
postulates as Einstein wrote them. Yes. There is the CORRECT way as
Einstein reconciled them with Time Dilation, and there is a WRONG WAY
as Quantum Mechanics mathematicians reconcile them by constructing
mathematical models that have nothing to do with reality.

I state this in the final sentence in my paper:

"The six fundamental ideas I chose to discuss were chosen primarily because
they address a total disagreement between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
on the issue of Time Dilation, and many well-known experiments clearly show
that Quantum Mechanics is wrong on that issue."

Quantum Mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute.
Relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.
EXPERIMENTS show Quantum Mechanics to be WRONG and Relativity
to be right. Some of those experiments are:

1. Hafele-Keating
2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
4. Muon experiments
5. University of Maryland
6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
7. Briatore and Leschiutta
8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
9. Van Baak - 2005
10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
11. Van Baak - 2016
12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020

I describe them on my web page at http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 3:58:24 PMAug 10
to
Well, keep in mind that I’m a woodworker. I’m not a “Quantum Mechanics
mathematician” in any sense of the word, and frankly I refuse to be labeled
as such just because I have a different view of Time Dilation than you do.

As for what has to do with reality, that is settled best (in fact, solely)
by experimental and observation. If experiment and observation are
completely consistent with my view of time dilation, then as far as I’m
concerned, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality.

>
> I state this in the final sentence in my paper:
>
> "The six fundamental ideas I chose to discuss were chosen primarily because
> they address a total disagreement between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics
> on the issue of Time Dilation, and many well-known experiments clearly show
> that Quantum Mechanics is wrong on that issue."
>
> Quantum Mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute.

This would be news to me. I’ve read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and
I’ve seen no quantum mechanic textbook that states that the flow of time is
universal and absolute.

Given that the Dirac formulation is an example of quantum mechanics that is
fully relativistic, it would seem to me that you’re saying such a thing is
completely impossible, given your understanding of what quantum mechanics
says about time and what relativity says about time. So either you are
saying that relativistic quantum mechanics CANNOT POSSIBLY EXIST, or
something is wrong with your view of time in either quantum mechanics or
relativity or both. Since relativistic quantum mechanics has been around,
clearly in existence (and highly successful and used by chemists and
electrical engineers the world over) for the last 90 years, this doesn’t
leave much a choice left about what to conclude.

> Relativity regards the flow of time as malleable and relative.
> EXPERIMENTS show Quantum Mechanics to be WRONG and Relativity
> to be right.

I agree that there are lots of experiments that show that time is not
universal and absolute. None of those experiments say that quantum
mechanics requires time to be universal and absolute. You do. But I have no
idea what textbook ever gave you that idea. (Not magazine article, not
popularization. A textbook.)

> Some of those experiments are:
>
> 1. Hafele-Keating
> 2. NIST Optical Clocks and Relativity
> 3. Geodesy and Metrology experiment (measuring altitude by time difference)
> 4. Muon experiments
> 5. University of Maryland
> 6. Japanese Mitaka to Norikura
> 7. Briatore and Leschiutta
> 8. National Physical Laboratory - 1996
> 9. Van Baak - 2005
> 10. National Physical Laboratory - 2010
> 11. Van Baak - 2016
> 12. Tokyo Skytree - 2020
>
> I describe them on my web page at http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html
>
> Ed
>



Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 4:32:09 PMAug 10
to
You make no sense. How could an EXPERIMENT "say that Quantum Mechanics
requires time to be universal and absolute"?

Experiments show time is variable. Quantum Mechanics TEXTBOOKS say that
time is universal and absolute. It is a BASIC RULE in Quantum Mechanics.
Do a Google Search for - problem of time physics - using this link:
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=problem+of+time+physics

or try Googling: time in quantum physics

I have a college textbook book titled "Time in Quantum Mechanics - Volume 1" which
is a collection of essays edited by J. Gonzalo Muga, Rafael Sala Mayato and I˜nigo L. Egusquiza,
and another 917 page textbook titled "The Problem of Time: Quantum Mechanics Versus General Relativity"
by Edward Anderson. They describe the problem in great detail, but finding something in them
that is clarifying and worth quoting is next to impossible.

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 4:58:29 PMAug 10
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:58:24 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Quantum Mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute.
>
> This would be news to me. I’ve read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and
> I’ve seen no quantum mechanic textbook that states that the flow of time is
> universal and absolute.

The original quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger, still widely taught, is non-relativistic, and it does indeed have a single absolute time. This is well known to anyone who has even had the most rudimentary education in quantum mechanics. The standard Schrodinger equation that you are taught in introductory Quantum Mechanics classes, and that you use quite often in practice, is not Lorentz invariant. All text books on introductory Quantum Mechanics treat this form, with its absolute time. Only when you get to quantum field theory (after having studied non-relativistic quantum mechanics) do you arrive at a relativistic quantum theory. Ordinarily, with no qualifying preface, the term "quantum mechanics" is taken to refer to the original non-relativistic theory.

>> These two postulates are only reconcilable if you understand Time Dilation.
>
> I have a completely different understanding of time dilation, and it also
> reconciles these two postulates completely.

That's not the correct way to respond to Ed. You are tacitly conceding (with "also") that his understanding of time dilation logically reconciles the theory arising from the "two postulates". It does not. The correct way to respond to Ed is to point out that his understanding of time dilation is illogical and self-contradictory, because it implies (as he has stated) that the speeds c+v and c-v are measured as c in a moving frame due to the different measures of a second, which (he says) result from time dilation. That is logically untenable for two reasons: First, the magnitude of time dilation is far to small to cause c+-v to be measured as c, and second, the effect would actually be in the wrong direction for a receiver approaching the light (i.e., it would cause c+v to be measured as an even greater value), so it isn't even directionally correct. Thus his beliefs are logically self-contradictory and incoherent.

There is only one logically viable way of reconciling the two postulates (accepting vacuum, and noting the definition of inertial coordinates systems as those in which Newton's equations of mechanics hold good in the low speed limit), and that is by recognizing that inertial coordinate systems are related by Lorentz transformations, just as Einstein shows explicitly, and this entails all the relativistic effects of time dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity, just as Einstein explained.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 5:02:59 PMAug 10
to
Exactly.

>
> Experiments show time is variable. Quantum Mechanics TEXTBOOKS say that
> time is universal and absolute.

This is what I’m asking you to substantiate. As I said, I’ve read quite a
bit about quantum mechanics, from textbooks, including those that describe
RELATIVISTIC quantum mechanics. It would seem rather impossible for a
textbook to describe RELATIVISTIC quantum mechanics while at the same time
saying that quantum mechanics requires time to be universal and absolute,
don’t you think so too?

> It is a BASIC RULE in Quantum Mechanics.

Not that I can see.

> Do a Google Search for - problem of time physics - using this link:
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=problem+of+time+physics

Again, I’m not interested in what web articles or poorly written
popularizations say about it. I’m looking for accurate and carefully stated
statements from textbooks.

>
> or try Googling: time in quantum physics
>
> I have a college textbook book titled "Time in Quantum Mechanics - Volume 1" which
> is a collection of essays edited by J. Gonzalo Muga, Rafael Sala Mayato
> and I˜nigo L. Egusquiza,
> and another 917 page textbook titled "The Problem of Time: Quantum
> Mechanics Versus General Relativity"
> by Edward Anderson. They describe the problem in great detail, but
> finding something in them
> that is clarifying and worth quoting is next to impossible.

Well, that’s possibly because it’s not in there. At least until you produce
something that backs your position that it is a “BASIC RULE in Quantum
Mechanics that time is universal and absolute.”

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 5:28:10 PMAug 10
to
Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:58:24 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Quantum Mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute.
>>
>> This would be news to me. I’ve read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and
>> I’ve seen no quantum mechanic textbook that states that the flow of time is
>> universal and absolute.
>
> The original quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger, still
> widely taught, is non-relativistic, and it does indeed have a single
> absolute time. This is well known to anyone who has even had the most
> rudimentary education in quantum mechanics.

Yes, that is true and obvious to you and me. Early treatment of quantum
mechanics did not incorporate relativity. And it is successful still in a
number of applications in the same manner that Newtonian mechanics is
successful still in a number of applications where a treatment including
relativity would yield insubstantial additional benefit — in the camp of a
useful approximation.

However, that’s a far cry from insisting that quantum mechanics TO THIS DAY
insists that time must be universal and absolute, especially since the one
insisting has absolutely no idea of the distinction between quantum
mechanics and quantum field theory and relativistic quantum mechanics. To
introduce that distinction would only serve to cater to pedantry for the
sake of additional confusion, in my opinion, which is why I did not do it,
regardless of what choices you might make in your own 1:1 exchange with
him. If you want to spend a great deal of time with Ed explaining that
“quantum mechanics” invokes Newtonian time concepts but that “relativistic
quantum mechanics” invokes relativistic time concepts, good luck to you on
that interchange with him. I’m sure at some point you will win with him
“running away” after you’ve made your laboriously verbose points patiently
and inexhaustibly. I’m also sure that at no point will you have managed to
educate him on this pedantic matter, and you will of course blame that on
him rather than on your choice of battles to fight.

> The standard Schrodinger equation that you are taught in introductory
> Quantum Mechanics classes, and that you use quite often in practice, is
> not Lorentz invariant. All text books on introductory Quantum Mechanics
> treat this form, with its absolute time. Only when you get to quantum
> field theory (after having studied non-relativistic quantum mechanics) do
> you arrive at a relativistic quantum theory. Ordinarily, with no
> qualifying preface, the term "quantum mechanics" is taken to refer to the
> original non-relativistic theory.
>
>>> These two postulates are only reconcilable if you understand Time Dilation.
>>
>> I have a completely different understanding of time dilation, and it also
>> reconciles these two postulates completely.
>
> That's not the correct way to respond to Ed.

There are many ways to respond to Ed, each imbued by the different
perspectives and motivations of the respondent. It is silly to assert that
there is one true and correct way to respond to anyone. There may be one
that you prefer, imbued with your own priorities and sense of what is
important (at least to you). Please do not attempt to assert that the only
proper way to communicate is the way that you choose to do it. Just respond
as you will, and leave others to respond the way that they will, and the
world will be a better place without you trying to get everyone to conform
to your model of best practices. Mm’k?

> You are tacitly conceding (with "also") that his understanding of time
> dilation logically reconciles the theory arising from the "two
> postulates". It does not. The correct way to respond to Ed is to point
> out that his understanding of time dilation is illogical and
> self-contradictory, because it implies (as he has stated) that the speeds
> c+v and c-v are measured as c in a moving frame due to the different
> measures of a second, which (he says) result from time dilation. That is
> logically untenable for two reasons: First, the magnitude of time
> dilation is far to small to cause c+-v to be measured as c, and second,
> the effect would actually be in the wrong direction for a receiver
> approaching the light (i.e., it would cause c+v to be measured as an even
> greater value), so it isn't even directionally correct. Thus his beliefs
> are logically self-contradictory and incoherent.
>
> There is only one logically viable way of reconciling the two postulates
> (accepting vacuum, and noting the definition of inertial coordinates
> systems as those in which Newton's equations of mechanics hold good in
> the low speed limit), and that is by recognizing that inertial coordinate
> systems are related by Lorentz transformations, just as Einstein shows
> explicitly, and this entails all the relativistic effects of time
> dilation, length contraction, and relativity of simultaneity, just as Einstein explained.
>



Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 6:34:02 PMAug 10
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 2:28:10 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Quantum Mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute.
> >>
> >> This would be news to me. I’ve read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and
> >> I’ve seen no quantum mechanic textbook that states that the flow of time is
> >> universal and absolute.
> >
> > The original quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger, still
> > widely taught, is non-relativistic, and it does indeed have a single
> > absolute time. This is well known to anyone who has even had the most
> > rudimentary education in quantum mechanics.
>
> Yes, that is true and obvious to you and me....

Great, so rather than encouraging Ed by stating that "it's news to you", and challenging him to find any text book that presents this, which he can easily do, thereby bolstering his (unwarranted) self-confidence, wouldn't it be better to respond by saying that, yes, it's well known that the quantum mechanics in introductory courses and text books is indeed non-relativistic, so it has a unique absolute time, but precisely for that reason it was found to be inadequate, and was replaced in more advanced applications by relativistic quantum field theory, which is (obviously) relativistic, meaning fully compatible with the space-time of special relativity? You could also mention the all-too-common misunderstandings about "instantaneous collapse of the wave function", which is discussed in the interpretational sections of many otherwise reputable texts, and how this is sometimes mis-interpreted as implying an absolute time, but that is just a mis-interpretation, since there is no superluminal conveyance of any energy or information.

There's also a purely semantic aspect to this, because the phrase "quantum mechanics" is generally used to refer to the original quantum mechanics, and if you want to talk about relativistic quantum theory we generally refer to quantum field theory, rather than quantum mechanics. Yes, the phrase "relativistic quantum mechanics" is also used, but it is somewhat archaic, and without the qualifier it is not implied.

> [Ed] has absolutely no idea of the distinction between quantum mechanics and
> quantum field theory and relativistic quantum mechanics. To introduce that
> distinction would only serve to cater to pedantry for the sake of additional confusion...

I don't think stating the relevant facts and making the relevant distinctions is adding confusion. Just the opposite. Ed made a statement about the concept of time in "quantum mechanics", and you indicated that he was wrong, and indeed that you'd never even *heard* of any such claim, and denied that it could be found in any text, and I pointed out that he isn't actually wrong, modulo the most common definition of the term "quantum mechanics". So I wasn't correcting Ed's statement, I was correcting *your* statement, and suggesting how you could have answered more clearly and correctly. In response, you claim that you use the term "quantum mechanics" as a synonym for quantum field theory, but that's non-standard terminology.

> >>> These two postulates are only reconcilable if you understand Time Dilation.
> >>
> >> I have a completely different understanding of time dilation, and it also
> >> reconciles these two postulates completely.
> >
> > That's not the correct way to respond to Ed.
>
> There are many ways to respond to Ed, each imbued by the different
> perspectives and motivations of the respondent. It is silly to assert that
> there is one true and correct way to respond to anyone.

This isn't just a matter of perspective or motivations (unless your motivation is to be wrong, and to give encouragement to Ed). I explained what is really quite wrong with your response to Ed. Again, you are tacitly conceding (with "also") that his understanding of time dilation logically reconciles the theory arising from the "two postulates". It does not. So, again, I'm correcting *your* statement. Contrary to your statement, Ed's understanding of time dilation is illogical and self-contradictory, for the reasons explained (that you ignored as usual).

This all gets back to your hobby horse. You think the whole lesson of relativity is that it can't be understood with ordinary reason and common sense (not surprisingly, because you don't understand it), it can only be accepted as brute facts. You love to tell cranks that their ideas are perfectly logical, sensible, and reasonable, but it just so happens that, as a unfathomable brute fact, they are wrong. That is fundamentally wrong. The ideas of cranks are not logical or sensible or reasonable at all. They are intrinsically illogical and self-contradictory. There is only one logically self-consistent account. You don't like this, because it contradicts your hobby horse narrative.

Young Shuman

unread,
Aug 10, 2021, 7:07:48 PMAug 10
to
Ed Lake wrote:

>> I quote from your paper:
>> "Einstein also wrote: “the velocity of the electron can be directly
>> measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating electric and magnetic
>> fields.” "
>>
>> First question:
>> ---------------
>> When did Einstein say this? Reference please.
>
> It's on the last page (page 23) of his 1905 paper "On the
> Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."
> http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/
Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
> Here's the complete quote:
>
> "This relationship may be tested experimentally, since the velocity of
> the electron can be directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly
> oscillating electric and magnetic fields."

That's actually not a measurement of velocity, but rather deduction from
the applied intensities for those fields. Similar CRT.

Maciej Wozniak

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 2:28:32 AMAug 11
to
On Tuesday, 10 August 2021 at 21:58:24 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> As for what has to do with reality, that is settled best (in fact, solely)
> by experimental and observation. If experiment and observation are
> completely consistent with my view of time dilation, then as far as I’m
> concerned, it has EVERYTHING to do with reality.

In the meantime in the real world, however, the real clocks of real
GPS keep indicating t'=t (with the precision of an acceptable error),
just like serious clocks always did.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 9:14:22 AMAug 11
to
In Ed’s case, no, I do not think it is a better response at all.

Let me ask you directly: What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
What would be your goal as an outcome? (Note that you have not yet
responded to Ed on this topic, so I guess this is a hypothetical question.)

And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?

>
> There's also a purely semantic aspect to this, because the phrase
> "quantum mechanics" is generally used to refer to the original quantum
> mechanics, and if you want to talk about relativistic quantum theory we
> generally refer to quantum field theory, rather than quantum mechanics.
> Yes, the phrase "relativistic quantum mechanics" is also used, but it is
> somewhat archaic, and without the qualifier it is not implied.
>
>> [Ed] has absolutely no idea of the distinction between quantum mechanics and
>> quantum field theory and relativistic quantum mechanics. To introduce that
>> distinction would only serve to cater to pedantry for the sake of additional confusion...
>
> I don't think stating the relevant facts and making the relevant
> distinctions is adding confusion. Just the opposite. Ed made a
> statement about the concept of time in "quantum mechanics", and you
> indicated that he was wrong, and indeed that you'd never even *heard* of
> any such claim, and denied that it could be found in any text, and I
> pointed out that he isn't actually wrong, modulo the most common
> definition of the term "quantum mechanics". So I wasn't correcting Ed's
> statement, I was correcting *your* statement, and suggesting how you
> could have answered more clearly and correctly. In response, you claim
> that you use the term "quantum mechanics" as a synonym for quantum field
> theory, but that's non-standard terminology.

I made no claim that I use the term “quantum mechanics” as a synonym for
quantum field theory. Cf. JD Borken and Sid Drell’s classic book
Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (where they also discuss nonrelativistic
quantum mechanics) alongside Dirac’s classic book The Principles of Quantum
Mechanics (in which he presents relativistic quantum mechanics), and tell
me that these authors are not being sufficiently pedantically correct for
your tastes, or that your semantic implications about the terminological
distinctions are shared by all.

Once again, and finally, I ask you: what would be YOUR intentions for an
outcome in a conversation with Ed? What do you think mine are?

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 11:50:40 AMAug 11
to
Okay, I misstated the situation. There is no such "basic rule." It is just how
things are done. Here's a quote from Stanford University's web site:

"What is it about quantum mechanics that is incompatible with general relativity?

"As I understand the basic problem, 'Classical' general relativity, which is the theory developed by Einstein in 1915, is a theory where gravitational fields are continuous entities in nature. They also represent the geometric properties of 4-dimensional spacetime. In quantum mechanics, fields are discontinuous and are defined by 'quanta'. So, there is no analog in conventional quantum mechanics for the gravitational field, even though the other three fundamental forces have now been described as 'quantum fields' after considerable work in the 1960-1980s. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with general relativity because in quantum field theory, forces act locally through the exchange of well-defined quanta."

The link: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11758.html

Text books do not usually compare theories, they just explain the Quantum
Mechanics view of things as if there was no alternative view.

What I find to be totally absurd is that just about every college physics
textbook has a DIFFERENT version of Einstein's Second Postulate. Each
author is doing HIS OWN interpretation of Einstein's Special Relativity.

The key fact is: EXPERIMENTS SHOW EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT. And most
authors of college physics textbooks DO NOT CARE about experiments.

When you ignore experiments, you ignore science. Instead, you argue
mathematics as if every mathematical equation is valid - even if
experiments show it is wrong.

Thanks for the discussion. What I got out of it was that I need to go
through my collection of college physics textbooks to see if ANY of
them mention the Hafele-Keating experiment. And, if they do, what do
they say about it? I love researching such things.

Ed

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 12:00:41 PMAug 11
to
Great, I’m glad you realize this now.

> It is just how
> things are done.

No, I don’t think that’s how it’s done. There’s nothing about quantum
mechanics as it is done today that insists that time is just to be treated
as absolute and universal.

> Here's a quote from Stanford University's web site:
>
> "What is it about quantum mechanics that is incompatible with general relativity?
>
> "As I understand the basic problem, 'Classical' general relativity, which
> is the theory developed by Einstein in 1915, is a theory where
> gravitational fields are continuous entities in nature. They also
> represent the geometric properties of 4-dimensional spacetime. In quantum
> mechanics, fields are discontinuous and are defined by 'quanta'. So,
> there is no analog in conventional quantum mechanics for the
> gravitational field, even though the other three fundamental forces have
> now been described as 'quantum fields' after considerable work in the
> 1960-1980s. Quantum mechanics is incompatible with general relativity
> because in quantum field theory, forces act locally through the exchange
> of well-defined quanta."

And notice that there is not one single thing in that quote about time
being treated as universal and absolute. Not one single thing. There is a
difference noted about GR being a continuum theory and quantum mechanics
being discontinuous in a number of ways, but that has nothing whatsoever to
do with whether time is treated as absolute or not.

>
> The link: https://einstein.stanford.edu/content/relativity/a11758.html
>
> Text books do not usually compare theories, they just explain the Quantum
> Mechanics view of things as if there was no alternative view.

I would think that textbooks dealing with quantum theory and gravitation
would compare the two theories. Have you looked at textbooks that deal with
that?

>
> What I find to be totally absurd is that just about every college physics
> textbook has a DIFFERENT version of Einstein's Second Postulate.

You’re wandering off track. We were discussing whether quantum mechanics
has a problem with the relativistic treatment of time. It doesn’t.
Relativistic quantum mechanics, something that’s been around for 9 decades,
shows it doesn’t have a problem with that.

> Each
> author is doing HIS OWN interpretation of Einstein's Special Relativity.
>
> The key fact is: EXPERIMENTS SHOW EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT. And most
> authors of college physics textbooks DO NOT CARE about experiments.
>
> When you ignore experiments, you ignore science. Instead, you argue
> mathematics as if every mathematical equation is valid - even if
> experiments show it is wrong.
>
> Thanks for the discussion. What I got out of it was that I need to go
> through my collection of college physics textbooks to see if ANY of
> them mention the Hafele-Keating experiment. And, if they do, what do
> they say about it? I love researching such things.

The Hafele-Keating experiment isn’t going to tell you a damn thing about
whether quantum mechanics has a problem with the relativistic treatment of
time. Stay on track.

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 12:11:35 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 6:14:22 AM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> I made no claim that I use the term “quantum mechanics” as a synonym for
> quantum field theory.

In effect you did, because after I pointed out what the term "quantum mechanics" ordinarily refers to, you replied by talking about Ed "insisting that quantum mechanics TO THIS DAY insists that time must be universal and absolute". So you are saying that you use the unqualified term "quantum mechanics" to refer to the latest quantum theory ("to this day"), which is quantum field theory. That is non-standard terminology. Normally the unqualified term "quantum mechanics" refers to the subject taught in first-year quantum mechanics classes and texts.

> Cf. JD Borken and Sid Drell’s classic book Relativistic Quantum Mechanics (where
> they also discuss nonrelativistic quantum mechanics) alongside Dirac’s classic book
> The Principles of Quantum Mechanics (in which he presents relativistic quantum mechanics)...

Those are not describing quantum theory "to this day", they are describing the early forays into reconciling quantum mechanics with special relativity. For a little perspective, have a look at the Wikipedia article:

"Early attempts to merge quantum mechanics with special relativity involved the replacement of the Schrödinger equation with a covariant equation such as the Klein–Gordon equation or the Dirac equation. While these theories were successful in explaining many experimental results, they had certain unsatisfactory qualities stemming from their neglect of the relativistic creation and annihilation of particles. A fully relativistic quantum theory required the development of quantum field theory, which applies quantization to a field (rather than a fixed set of particles). The first complete quantum field theory, quantum electrodynamics, provides a fully quantum description of the electromagnetic interaction."

This is why even the qualified the term "relativistic quantum mechanics" is not a synonym for quantum field theory, nor for quantum theory "to this day". It is usually taken to refer to a transitional set of ideas. So it's important to be clear about what you are talking about. Moreover, the "instantaneous collapse of the wave function" is most likely what Ed's references were talking about, which is an all-to-common interpretational confusion that has lead some people (even some who should know better) to suggest that quantum theory entails an absolute time. So, if someone says "quantum mechanics has an absolute time", I would not respond by saying "that's news to me", I would respond with a factual and accurate explanation.

> tell me that these authors are not being sufficiently pedantically correct for
> your tastes, or that your semantic implications about the terminological
> distinctions are shared by all.

I think what I'm describing is fairly standard and accurate.

> What would be your intent in responding to Ed?

The same as my intent in responding to anyone, i.e., to say the truth.

> What would be your goal as an outcome?

To have said the truth.

> And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?

I'm not a mind reader, but your messages have the effect of flattering his vanity and encouraging his self-confidence. Whether that is your intent, I do not know. For example, you tell him that his ideas about relativity are one way of rationally reconciling the principles of special relativity, but you say there is "also" another way, and you say the only way to choose between these two ways is by brute facts (your hobby horse CommonSenseBad). He is happy to argue on those grounds all day long, and he is gratified that you agree his reasoning is sound. My point to you is that his reasoning is not sound, his ideas about relativity are not rational or sensible at all, they are illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory, for the reasons explained (that you studiously ignored). If you tell me you don't care about this, that's fine.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 1:12:23 PMAug 11
to
On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 3:58:29 PM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 12:58:24 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Quantum Mechanics regards the flow of time as universal and absolute.
> >
> > This would be news to me. I’ve read quite a bit about quantum mechanics and
> > I’ve seen no quantum mechanic textbook that states that the flow of time is
> > universal and absolute.
> The original quantum mechanics of Heisenberg and Schrodinger, still widely taught, is non-relativistic, and it does indeed have a single absolute time. This is well known to anyone who has even had the most rudimentary education in quantum mechanics. The standard Schrodinger equation that you are taught in introductory Quantum Mechanics classes, and that you use quite often in practice, is not Lorentz invariant. All text books on introductory Quantum Mechanics treat this form, with its absolute time. Only when you get to quantum field theory (after having studied non-relativistic quantum mechanics) do you arrive at a relativistic quantum theory. Ordinarily, with no qualifying preface, the term "quantum mechanics" is taken to refer to the original non-relativistic theory.
> >> These two postulates are only reconcilable if you understand Time Dilation.
> >
> > I have a completely different understanding of time dilation, and it also
> > reconciles these two postulates completely.
> That's not the correct way to respond to Ed. You are tacitly conceding (with "also") that his understanding of time dilation logically reconciles the theory arising from the "two postulates". It does not. The correct way to respond to Ed is to point out that his understanding of time dilation is illogical and self-contradictory, because it implies (as he has stated) that the speeds c+v and c-v are measured as c in a moving frame due to the different measures of a second, which (he says) result from time dilation. That is logically untenable for two reasons: First, the magnitude of time dilation is far to small to cause c+-v to be measured as c, and second, the effect would actually be in the wrong direction for a receiver approaching the light (i.e., it would cause c+v to be measured as an even greater value), so it isn't even directionally correct. Thus his beliefs are logically self-contradictory and incoherent.

Okay, your later comments say that you showed where I was wrong. So, I'm going back to that comment.
You CLAIM: "his [Ed Lake's] understanding of time dilation is illogical and self-contradictory,
because it implies (as he has stated) that the speeds c+v and c-v are measured as c in a
moving frame due to the different measures of a second, which (he says) result from time dilation."

There is NO TIME DILATION MEASUREMENT when a photon traveling
at c hits a target traveling at v, causing the photon to hit at c+v. It is
PURELY A DIFFERENCE IN PHOTON ENERGY.

That is how radar guns work. A radar gun emits photons which travel at c.
When those photons hit an oncoming target, they hit at c+v where v is the
speed of the target toward the EMITTER.

NO ONE MEASURES c+v as c. When the photon hits the target at c+v,
the FREQUENCY of the photon is measured AS IF the photon hit at c.
A typical radar gun frequency is 35,000,000,000 oscillations per second.
If the target is traveling at 70 mph, the photons will hit the target AS IF
the photons were oscillating 35,000,001,792 times per second. The
35 billion is the photon's energy, and 1,792 is the KINETIC energy added
by the moving vehicle. An atom in the vehicle absorbs the photon AS IF
it was oscillating at 35,000,001,792 times per second. That atom
cannot hold the extra energy, so it emits a NEW photon that oscillates
35,000,001,792 times per second. The radar gun compares the
frequencies of what it emits to what it gets back, and computes the
speed of the target to be 70 mph.

KINETIC energy from a moving target will add to the original energy
of a photon. There is no addition of speeds, only energy.

The gun's software compares the ENERGY in the photons that it emits
to the ENERGY in the photons it gets back. Because the returning
photons contain the original energy PLUS the KINETIC energy from
hitting a moving object, the gun's software can compute the target's
speed as 70 mph. It is not a direct relationship. 1,792 as a percentage
of 35,000,000,000 is 2 times the percentage that 70 mph is of the
speed of light, 670,616,629 miles per hour.

The energy added to the photon is energy subtracted from the
target vehicle, so no energy is create or lost.

Does this explanation help you understand?

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 2:02:21 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > as [Ed] has stated, the speeds c+v and c-v are measured as c in a moving frame due to the different measures of a second, which (he says) result from time dilation. That is logically untenable for two reasons: First, the magnitude of time dilation is far to small to cause c+-v to be measured as c, and second, the effect would actually be in the wrong direction for a receiver approaching the light (i.e., it would cause c+v to be measured as an even greater value), so it isn't even directionally correct.
>
> NO ONE MEASURES c+v as c.

That contradicts what you've said previously, and what you've quoted Einstein as saying. A quick review of the google archives shows that you said this a few months ago, agreeing with Einstein's discussion of an projectile moving away from the sun, and that the same ray of light from the sun moves at c both relative to the sun and relative to the projectile:

Ed Lake wrote:
> Yes, "the speed of light is the same for the same light signal for two
> different observers." It is c, or 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND for
> BOTH observers. However, THE LENGTH OF A SECOND is DIFFERENT
> for the two observers. Therefore, the speed of light is ACTUALLY
> DIFFERENT for the two observers.

You see, you said that the speed of light relative to the receding observer is "actually" c-v, and the speed relative to an observer appoaching the sun is "actually" c+v, but you agreed with Einstein that it is c meters per second for both observers because "the length of a second is different for the two observers", and that difference in the length of the second represents (you said) time dilation. Have you changed your mind about that? Do you now disagree with Einstein?

> The [radar] gun's software compares the ENERGY in the photons that it emits
> to the ENERGY in the photons it gets back.

In a manner of speaking that is true, although the device actually measures the difference in frequency, which (according to the fundamental relation from quantum mechanics, E=hv) is proportional to energy. As Einstein showed, frequency and energy transform in exactly the same way, i.e., Einstein showed that the Doppler formula for frequency also applies to energy. (The remarkable fact is not at all self-evident, and it is what makes quantum field theory possible.) So, indirectly, one can say that a radar gun evaluates the difference in energy of the emitted and reflected signal, but, again, in terms of what the device is actually doing, it is measuring the difference in frequency, which happens to be proportional to the difference in energy, in accord with quantum theory and relativity.

> Does this explanation help you understand?

No, the logical contradiction in your claims is unchanged... unless you have changed your claim. Again, up above you agreed with Einstein that an approaching and receding observer both find the speed of light to be c meters per second, even though the speeds are "actually" c+v and c-v respectively, because the length of a second is different for those observers. That is logically self-contradictory, for the reasons explained above. Have you changed your mind about all this? Do you now disagree with Einstein's statement (that you specifically endorsed in the quote above) that the speed of light is c for both observers?

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 2:16:50 PMAug 11
to

Den 10.08.2021 16:48, skrev Ed Lake:
> On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:40:49 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 09.08.2021 16:15, skrev Ed Lake:
>>>
>>> I examine those idea is my new paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" which can be found at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2108.0025v1.pdf
>>>
>> I quote from your paper:
>> "Einstein also wrote: “the velocity of the electron can be
>> directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating
>> electric and magnetic fields.” "
>> "That means that time will slow down if the electron is moving,
>> and you can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
>> some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
>>
>> Let's be concrete. Say we want to measure the speed of
>> the electrons in a CRT (cathode ray tube).
>>
>> How would you measure the 'oscillation rates' of the electrons,
>> and how can these 'oscillation rates' tell you what the speeds
>> of the electrons are?
>
> I don't know much about cathode ray tubes. If a cathode ray tube can
> fire electrons at a screen, its construction should tell you how fast the
> electrons will travel.

It is quite simple to measure the speed of electrons in a CRT.
But the point is that you are utterly ignorant of how
you can measure the speed of moving free electrons.

>
> To measure time dilation, you just need some way to compare the
> oscillation rate of an electron when stationary to its rate when it
> hits the tube's screen.

Here you demonstrate your utter ignorance of what you
are talking about. A stationary electron doesn't oscillate.
The only field is a static electric field.
A moving electron will have a magnetic and electric field
associated with it.
For example:
If a moving electron goes through a wire loop, the magnetic
field will induce a voltage/current pulse in the wire loop.
By measuring this pulse with an oscilloscope, the speed of
the electron can be calculated.
Or simpler: let the electron pass through two wire loops
with known distance between them, and measure the time between
the two pulses with an oscilloscope.
In the wire loop, there are fast changing electric and magnetic
fields, but there are no oscillations you can measure the frequency of.

(The wire loop is only an example of a possible detector.
There are others.)

Your statement:
"You can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
reveals your utter ignorance of elementary physics.

The quotation above is taken from the beginning of your "paper".
It is utter nonsense. And so is the rest of your paper.

>
>>
>> Third question:
>> ---------------
>> Why does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
>> mean that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
>
> Because time slows down for EVERYTHING that is moving.

The question was:
WHY does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
PROVE that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?

It doesn't because time doesn't "slow down".

> If an
> electron oscillates at x times PER SECOND when stationary, it will
> oscillate slower when moving because a second will be longer. It
> will still be x times per second, but a longer second.

Free electrons don't 'oscillate', and your idea that you can
measure the speed of an electron by measuring its 'oscillation
rate' is utter nonsense.

How is it possible to be ignorant of the fact that you have
no idea whatsoever of what you are talking about?
Don't you understand that you can't make up how nature works?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 2:52:11 PMAug 11
to


Den 11.08.2021 17:50, skrev Ed Lake:
>
> What I find to be totally absurd is that just about every college physics
> textbook has a DIFFERENT version of Einstein's Second Postulate. Each
> author is doing HIS OWN interpretation of Einstein's Special Relativity.
>
> The key fact is: EXPERIMENTS SHOW EINSTEIN WAS RIGHT. And most
> authors of college physics textbooks DO NOT CARE about experiments.

No physicist ignore experiments.
But the point of textbooks is to teach the mathematics and physics
which experiments have shown to be valid.

>
> When you ignore experiments, you ignore science. Instead, you argue
> mathematics as if every mathematical equation is valid - even if
> experiments show it is wrong.

I have a strong suspicion that you don't understand the mathematics,
and don't understand what the experiments show, and what they don't show.

For example: No experiment show that "time slows down".

>
> Thanks for the discussion. What I got out of it was that I need to go
> through my collection of college physics textbooks to see if ANY of
> them mention the Hafele-Keating experiment. And, if they do, what do
> they say about it? I love researching such things.

https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele_Keating.pdf
https://paulba.no/pdf/H&K_like.pdf

And a lot of other experiment you can "research":
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 3:15:27 PMAug 11
to
As you see it. I notice that there is nothing in that about actually
getting your correspondent to hear and understand you, nothing about moving
them incrementally in any way. You are just intent on expressing the truth
as you see it, and hearing yourself do that. It is also clear that your
intent is to make sure that your correspondent hears your assessment that
they are being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory. Why you would
feel that to be productive, I don’t know.

>
>> And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?
>
> I'm not a mind reader, but your messages have the effect of flattering
> his vanity and encouraging his self-confidence.

I didn’t ask you what your assessment is of the effect of my messaging, or
whether you agree that is a proper intent. I frankly don’t give a damn
whether you think my communication intentions are proper or not.

Suffice it to say, that “to have said the truth” is not the only proper
intent in communication, although it is clear that it is your personal
objective and style.

> Whether that is your intent, I do not know. For example, you tell him
> that his ideas about relativity are one way of rationally reconciling the
> principles of special relativity, but you say there is "also" another
> way, and you say the only way to choose between these two ways is by
> brute facts (your hobby horse CommonSenseBad). He is happy to argue on
> those grounds all day long, and he is gratified that you agree his
> reasoning is sound. My point to you is that his reasoning is not sound,
> his ideas about relativity are not rational or sensible at all, they are
> illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory, for the reasons explained
> (that you studiously ignored). If you tell me you don't care about this, that's fine.
>



Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:08:55 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 10:12:23 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > > as [Ed] has stated, the speeds c+v and c-v are measured as c in a moving frame due to the different measures of a second, which (he says) result from time dilation. That is logically untenable for two reasons: First, the magnitude of time dilation is far to small to cause c+-v to be measured as c, and second, the effect would actually be in the wrong direction for a receiver approaching the light (i.e., it would cause c+v to be measured as an even greater value), so it isn't even directionally correct.
> >
> > NO ONE MEASURES c+v as c.
> That contradicts what you've said previously, and what you've quoted Einstein as saying. A quick review of the google archives shows that you said this a few months ago, agreeing with Einstein's discussion of an projectile moving away from the sun, and that the same ray of light from the sun moves at c both relative to the sun and relative to the projectile:
>
> Ed Lake wrote:
> > Yes, "the speed of light is the same for the same light signal for two
> > different observers." It is c, or 299,792,458 meters PER SECOND for
> > BOTH observers. However, THE LENGTH OF A SECOND is DIFFERENT
> > for the two observers. Therefore, the speed of light is ACTUALLY
> > DIFFERENT for the two observers.

Yeah, at that time I was thinking that Einstein's thought experiment
was about more than what it is actually about. I use that same experiment
on pages 6 and 7 in my new paper. The experiment just says that the
moving emitter emits light that travels at a DIFFERENT SPEED than the
light that was emitted from the sun. Einstein wrote:

"The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative
to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers per
second. If this appears impossible, the reason is that the hypothesis of
the absolute character of time is false. One second of time as judged
from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the
projected body."

Einstein talks about "the same ray of light" when he probably should
have instead just written "light" like so:

"Light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative to the sun and
also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers per second. If
this appears impossible, the reason is that the hypothesis of the
absolute character of time is false. One second of time as judged from
the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen from the projected body."

>
> You see, you said that the speed of light relative to the receding observer is "actually" c-v, and the speed relative to an observer appoaching the sun is "actually" c+v, but you agreed with Einstein that it is c meters per second for both observers because "the length of a second is different for the two observers", and that difference in the length of the second represents (you said) time dilation. Have you changed your mind about that? Do you now disagree with Einstein?

I don't disagree with Einstein, I'm just finding his words have a different
meaning than the first time I read them.

>
> > The [radar] gun's software compares the ENERGY in the photons that it emits
> > to the ENERGY in the photons it gets back.
> In a manner of speaking that is true, although the device actually measures the difference in frequency, which (according to the fundamental relation from quantum mechanics, E=hv) is proportional to energy. As Einstein showed, frequency and energy transform in exactly the same way, i.e., Einstein showed that the Doppler formula for frequency also applies to energy. (The remarkable fact is not at all self-evident, and it is what makes quantum field theory possible.) So, indirectly, one can say that a radar gun evaluates the difference in energy of the emitted and reflected signal, but, again, in terms of what the device is actually doing, it is measuring the difference in frequency, which happens to be proportional to the difference in energy, in accord with quantum theory and relativity.

The problem with talking about "frequency" instead of energy, is that the target
adds KINETIC ENERGY to the photon. If I wrote that the target adds KINETIC
FREQUENCY, that would have resulted in a different argument over WORDS that
I didn't want to get into.

> > Does this explanation help you understand?
> No, the logical contradiction in your claims is unchanged... unless you have changed your claim. Again, up above you agreed with Einstein that an approaching and receding observer both find the speed of light to be c meters per second, even though the speeds are "actually" c+v and c-v respectively, because the length of a second is different for those observers. That is logically self-contradictory, for the reasons explained above. Have you changed your mind about all this? Do you now disagree with Einstein's statement (that you specifically endorsed in the quote above) that the speed of light is c for both observers?

I think Einstein was saying that the speed of light is c for both EMITTERS.
I'm not sure that Einstein meant that the speed of light would be the
same for the EMITTER as it would be for a MOVING OBSERVER watching
the photon go by. We KNOW that a photon from the sun will hit the
OBSERVER at c-v, as viewed from the sun. I now think Einstein's point was
simply that both emitters emit light at c, but c is different for the two
emitters due to the different lengths for their seconds.

Ed

Dusty Ordonez

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:19:48 PMAug 11
to
Ed Lake wrote:

> "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative
> to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers
> per second. If this appears impossible, the reason is that the
> hypothesis of the absolute character of time is false. One second of
> time as judged from the sun is not equal to one second of time as seen
> from the projected body."

This is incorrect. Not the same as judged from the same point. Judged on
the sun and on the body are the same.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:38:49 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:16:50 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.08.2021 16:48, skrev Ed Lake:
> > On Tuesday, August 10, 2021 at 5:40:49 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 09.08.2021 16:15, skrev Ed Lake:
> >>>
> >>> I examine those idea is my new paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" which can be found at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2108.0025v1.pdf
> >>>
> >> I quote from your paper:
> >> "Einstein also wrote: “the velocity of the electron can be
> >> directly measured, e.g. by means of rapidly oscillating
> >> electric and magnetic fields.” "
> >> "That means that time will slow down if the electron is moving,
> >> and you can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
> >> some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
> >>
> >> Let's be concrete. Say we want to measure the speed of
> >> the electrons in a CRT (cathode ray tube).
> >>
> >> How would you measure the 'oscillation rates' of the electrons,
> >> and how can these 'oscillation rates' tell you what the speeds
> >> of the electrons are?
> >
> > I don't know much about cathode ray tubes. If a cathode ray tube can
> > fire electrons at a screen, its construction should tell you how fast the
> > electrons will travel.
> It is quite simple to measure the speed of electrons in a CRT.
> But the point is that you are utterly ignorant of how
> you can measure the speed of moving free electrons.

All I know is what Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper:

the velocity of the electron can be directly measured, e.g. by means
of rapidly oscillating electric and magnetic fields."

> >
> > To measure time dilation, you just need some way to compare the
> > oscillation rate of an electron when stationary to its rate when it
> > hits the tube's screen.
> Here you demonstrate your utter ignorance of what you
> are talking about. A stationary electron doesn't oscillate.
> The only field is a static electric field.
> A moving electron will have a magnetic and electric field
> associated with it.

A stationary electron must have its energy in motion some way.
Some sources say it's in the form of "spin." An electron is NOT
a solid object. When it is part of an atom and is hit by a photon,
it jumps to a higher orbit. So, it is in motion when it is part of
an atom.

Wikipedia says, "Since an electron has charge, it has a surrounding
electric field, and if that electron is moving relative to an observer,
said observer will observe it to generate a magnetic field."

How does an electron with a "surrounding electric field" generate
a magnetic field?

> For example:
> If a moving electron goes through a wire loop, the magnetic
> field will induce a voltage/current pulse in the wire loop.
> By measuring this pulse with an oscilloscope, the speed of
> the electron can be calculated.
> Or simpler: let the electron pass through two wire loops
> with known distance between them, and measure the time between
> the two pulses with an oscilloscope.
> In the wire loop, there are fast changing electric and magnetic
> fields, but there are no oscillations you can measure the frequency of.
>
> (The wire loop is only an example of a possible detector.
> There are others.)
>
> Your statement:
> "You can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
> some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
> reveals your utter ignorance of elementary physics.
>
> The quotation above is taken from the beginning of your "paper".
> It is utter nonsense. And so is the rest of your paper.

I was quoting Einstein.

> >
> >>
> >> Third question:
> >> ---------------
> >> Why does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
> >> mean that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
> >
> > Because time slows down for EVERYTHING that is moving.
> The question was:
> WHY does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
> PROVE that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
>
> It doesn't because time doesn't "slow down".

Okay, you have a fundamental disagreement with Einstein.

I don't know that much about electrons. I focus mostly on
photons. But, I'll study electrons when I get some free time.

Ed

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:39:45 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:15:27 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
As always, you scrupulously ignore all the substantive content of each message, to focus exclusively on your personal speculations about people's motives, etc. I would only suggest you actually read my previous message for its substantive content.

> > > What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
> > The same as my intent in responding to anyone, i.e., to say the truth.
> > > What would be your goal as an outcome?
> > To have said the truth.
> As you see it.

No, as Adolph Hitler sees it. Sheesh. Grow up. You asked me (for some reason) to tell you my *intent*, which I did. Are you advocating that people *not* intend to tell the truth (yes, as they see it)?

> I notice that there is nothing in that about actually getting your correspondent
> to hear and understand you, nothing about moving them incrementally in any way.

You didn't ask me about the details of how I compose posts, and whether I tailor the messages to be optimally intelligible to the particular audience, and who that audience may be (not necessarily limited to the person who is nominally being addressed) etc., and your knowledge of how effective I've been in communicating things to people is not in evidence. I don't think you've been paying attention... and there's no reason you should. You seem to be primarily interested in sociological posturing, rather than actually trying to learn anything.

> It is also clear that your intent is to make sure that your correspondent hears your
> assessment that they are being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory.

Yes, exactly. This is in contrast to your misguided hobby horse, which is say to everyone "Yes, your reasoning is perfectly sound, and your logic is impeccable, but you are nonetheless wrong, because you must accept the brute fact that 1+1=1". That is horribly wrong and misguided. Remember, the crank's own avowed criteria is logic and reason, and it is essential to convey to them how their beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory. Otherwise you just create more cranks who believe relativity violates common sense but must simply be accepted as a brute incomprehensible fact.

> Why you would feel that to be productive, I don’t know.

Productive? Look, if you think you are going to free a hardened crackpot of 60 years from his crackpot beliefs, I think you are being naive. They are no more likely to ever learn anything than you are. But the audience here is not limited to the person nominally being addressed, and there have been many appreciative responses to clear explanations. Also, for you to express bewilderment at why someone would think it was worthwhile to explain that an illogical belief is illogical, well, that's just another of your strange takes on things.

> I didn’t ask you what your assessment is of the effect of my messaging...

Hold on. You asked: "And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?" and I replied that I'm not a mind reader as to your intent, but that the *effect* of your messages is to flatter his ego and encourage his self-confidence in his ideas. This seems (to me) to be a relevant reply to your question, because although I obviously can't tell you your intentions, I can tell you the effect of your messages, which would equal the intent if you are achieving your intent. Only you can answer whether you are, in fact, intending to flatter his ego and encourage his self-confidence in his ideas. I personally don't care what your intent is.

> I frankly don’t give a damn whether you think my communication intentions are proper or not.

Wait... Here's a quote with which you may be familiar:

> What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
> What would be your goal as an outcome?
> Why you would feel that to be productive, I don’t know.
> And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?
> Once again, I ask you: what would be YOUR intentions for an
> outcome in a conversation with Ed? What do you think mine are?

Now you pompously declare that you don't care whether I think your intentions are proper. Sheesh. I have zero interest in all your questions about intentions and motives and productivity and blah blah blah. I only replied to your questions because, unlike you, I try to respond to what people say. You are the one who is obsessing over this personal stuff... and totally glossing over and ignoring all the physics content. And then you have the gall to scold me for my replies to your questions? Wow.

Ed Lake

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:45:44 PMAug 11
to
The quote is from Einstein, not from me. It is from his paper “The Principle
Ideas of the Theory of Relativity.” It is on page 3 at this link: https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/

Ed

Michael Moroney

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 4:57:51 PMAug 11
to
On 8/11/2021 4:38 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:16:50 PM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 10.08.2021 16:48, skrev Ed Lake:

>>> I don't know much about cathode ray tubes. If a cathode ray tube can
>>> fire electrons at a screen, its construction should tell you how fast the
>>> electrons will travel.
>> It is quite simple to measure the speed of electrons in a CRT.
>> But the point is that you are utterly ignorant of how
>> you can measure the speed of moving free electrons.
>
> All I know is what Einstein wrote in his 1905 paper:
>
> the velocity of the electron can be directly measured, e.g. by means
> of rapidly oscillating electric and magnetic fields."

That statement, as it stands, doesn't state whether the "rapidly
oscillating electric and magnetic fields" are produced externally in
order to measure the electron or by the electron itself. I'm sure if I
saw more context than a phrase, I could tell.
>
>>>
>>> To measure time dilation, you just need some way to compare the
>>> oscillation rate of an electron when stationary to its rate when it
>>> hits the tube's screen.
>> Here you demonstrate your utter ignorance of what you
>> are talking about. A stationary electron doesn't oscillate.
>> The only field is a static electric field.
>> A moving electron will have a magnetic and electric field
>> associated with it.
>
> A stationary electron must have its energy in motion some way.
> Some sources say it's in the form of "spin." An electron is NOT
> a solid object. When it is part of an atom and is hit by a photon,
> it jumps to a higher orbit. So, it is in motion when it is part of
> an atom.

Word salad.
>
> Wikipedia says, "Since an electron has charge, it has a surrounding
> electric field, and if that electron is moving relative to an observer,
> said observer will observe it to generate a magnetic field."
>
> How does an electron with a "surrounding electric field" generate
> a magnetic field?

Electric and magnetic fields transform into each other based on
different relative motion. (that's very much a simplification...)
>
>> For example:
>> If a moving electron goes through a wire loop, the magnetic
>> field will induce a voltage/current pulse in the wire loop.
>> By measuring this pulse with an oscilloscope, the speed of
>> the electron can be calculated.
>> Or simpler: let the electron pass through two wire loops
>> with known distance between them, and measure the time between
>> the two pulses with an oscilloscope.
>> In the wire loop, there are fast changing electric and magnetic
>> fields, but there are no oscillations you can measure the frequency of.
>>
>> (The wire loop is only an example of a possible detector.
>> There are others.)
>>
>> Your statement:
>> "You can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
>> some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
>> reveals your utter ignorance of elementary physics.
>>
>> The quotation above is taken from the beginning of your "paper".
>> It is utter nonsense. And so is the rest of your paper.
>
> I was quoting Einstein.

Hah! I've seen some of your "quotes of Einstein"...

>>> Because time slows down for EVERYTHING that is moving.
>> The question was:
>> WHY does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
>> PROVE that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
>>
>> It doesn't because time doesn't "slow down".
>
> Okay, you have a fundamental disagreement with Einstein.

Einstein said a moving clock is seen by an observer as being slowed. It
is not slowed according to a second observer moving with the clock.

Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 5:08:26 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 1:08:55 PM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> At that time I was thinking that Einstein's thought experiment
> was about more than what it is actually about... [it] just says that the
> moving emitter emits light that travels at a DIFFERENT SPEED than the
> light that was emitted from the sun. Einstein wrote:
>
> "The same ray of light travels at 300,000 kilometers per second relative
> to the sun and also relative to the body projected at 1,000 kilometers per
> second...."

That's self-contradictory. Einstein says the same ray of light travels at c relative to the sun and also relative to the projected body, which contradicts your statement referring to two different rays of light.

> Einstein talks about "the same ray of light" when he probably should have instead
> just written "light"....

That isn't valid reasoning. The fact that you have to modify his quote (and many others just like it) in order to make it agree with your beliefs should be telling you something. If he actually said what you think he meant, you wouldn't have to falsify the quote to make it agree with your beliefs. Also, the rest of the quote, talking about the different measures of time, doesn't agree with your beliefs either.

The entire point of Einstein's paper, and all the other papers he wrote on this subject, is that, as he emphasized repeatedly, *the same ray of light* travels at c relative to the sun and relative to the projectile. All of the reasoning that follows is completely reliant on this fact, i.e., he shows how these seemingly irreconcilable facts (same speed relative to two different objects) can be reconciled. That's what Einstein is famous for. To be honest about this, I think you need to simply say that you now completely disagree with what Einstein wrote.

> The problem with talking about "frequency" instead of energy, is that the target
> adds KINETIC ENERGY to the photon. If I wrote that the target adds KINETIC
> FREQUENCY, that would have resulted in a different argument over WORDS that
> I didn't want to get into.

You don't have to talk about "kinetic frequency" (whatever that might mean), you just have to talk about frequency, which is proportional to energy. The radar gun measures the difference in frequency, not the energy. It would be totally impractical to measure the energy difference. Also, please note that radar speed guns don't demonstrate any special relativistic effects, they just rely on the first-order Doppler effect.

> I think Einstein was saying that the speed of light is c for both EMITTERS.

Sure it is, meaning it is c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which each emitter is at rest. Also, as Einstein explained, it is c in terms of the inertial coordinates in which each receiver is at rest... and in terms of every other system of inertial coordinates. That's because inertial coordinate systems are related to each other in such a way that the speed c transforms to the speed c.

> We KNOW that a photon from the sun will hit the OBSERVER at c-v, as viewed from the sun.

Right, in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the sun is at rest, the distance between pulse and projectile is changing at the rate c-v for a receding projectile, and c+v for an approaching one. But in terms of the inertial coordinates in which the projectile is at rest the speed of the pulse is c.

Dusty Ordonez

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 5:08:58 PMAug 11
to
Most probably he was sloppy, not really a mistake.

Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 5:22:02 PMAug 11
to
Ah, look at you! You’re actually asking a physics QUESTION, rather than
just making something up by trying to interpret what you read.

>
>> For example:
>> If a moving electron goes through a wire loop, the magnetic
>> field will induce a voltage/current pulse in the wire loop.
>> By measuring this pulse with an oscilloscope, the speed of
>> the electron can be calculated.
>> Or simpler: let the electron pass through two wire loops
>> with known distance between them, and measure the time between
>> the two pulses with an oscilloscope.
>> In the wire loop, there are fast changing electric and magnetic
>> fields, but there are no oscillations you can measure the frequency of.
>>
>> (The wire loop is only an example of a possible detector.
>> There are others.)
>>
>> Your statement:
>> "You can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
>> some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."
>> reveals your utter ignorance of elementary physics.
>>
>> The quotation above is taken from the beginning of your "paper".
>> It is utter nonsense. And so is the rest of your paper.
>
> I was quoting Einstein.

No you weren’t. Oscillating electric and magnetic fields, which is what
Einstein referred to, is not the oscillation rates of electrons. You keep
getting the two confused.

Einstein said that if you have some oscillating electric and magnetic
fields and you pass a moving electron through it, you can use the fields to
measure the linear velocity of the electrons, which is true. There is
nothing in what Einstein said about measuring the oscillations of
electrons. You said that. Only you.

I think it would help enormously if, when you read something, you read the
words that are actually said rather than what you insert in there yourself.


>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Third question:
>>>> ---------------
>>>> Why does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
>>>> mean that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
>>>
>>> Because time slows down for EVERYTHING that is moving.
>> The question was:
>> WHY does the fact that the speed of electrons can be measured
>> PROVE that "time will slow down if the electron is moving"?
>>
>> It doesn't because time doesn't "slow down".
>
> Okay, you have a fundamental disagreement with Einstein.
>
> I don't know that much about electrons. I focus mostly on
> photons. But, I'll study electrons when I get some free time.
>
> Ed
>



Odd Bodkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 5:37:01 PMAug 11
to
Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 12:15:27 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> As always, you scrupulously ignore all the substantive content of each
> message, to focus exclusively on your personal speculations about
> people's motives, etc. I would only suggest you actually read my
> previous message for its substantive content.
>
>>>> What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
>>> The same as my intent in responding to anyone, i.e., to say the truth.
>>>> What would be your goal as an outcome?
>>> To have said the truth.
>> As you see it.
>
> No, as Adolph Hitler sees it. Sheesh. Grow up. You asked me (for some
> reason) to tell you my *intent*, which I did. Are you advocating that
> people *not* intend to tell the truth (yes, as they see it)?
>
>> I notice that there is nothing in that about actually getting your correspondent
>> to hear and understand you, nothing about moving them incrementally in any way.
>
> You didn't ask me about the details of how I compose posts, and whether I
> tailor the messages to be optimally intelligible to the particular
> audience, and who that audience may be (not necessarily limited to the
> person who is nominally being addressed) etc.,

Indeed. I asked you what your intentions were in responding. If your
intentions are to hear yourself speak the truth, be so good as to say that.
If your intentions are to demonstrate something to some audience other than
the person you’re responding to, then what are you intending to demonstrate
to them?

> and your knowledge of how effective I've been in communicating things to
> people is not in evidence. I don't think you've been paying attention...
> and there's no reason you should. You seem to be primarily interested in
> sociological posturing, rather than actually trying to learn anything.

Whatever gave you the idea I engage in a conversation with you to learn
something from you? Is this something you assume is true of anyone who
engages in a conversation with you?

>
>> It is also clear that your intent is to make sure that your correspondent hears your
>> assessment that they are being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory.
>
> Yes, exactly.

Ah, good, I’m glad you’ve made it clear that your intent is to denigrate
the intellectual prowess of the person you’re responding to. And what would
be the end game of that? What desirable outcome do you expect to emerge?

> This is in contrast to your misguided hobby horse, which is say to
> everyone "Yes, your reasoning is perfectly sound, and your logic is
> impeccable, but you are nonetheless wrong, because you must accept the
> brute fact that 1+1=1". That is horribly wrong and misguided. Remember,
> the crank's own avowed criteria is logic and reason, and it is essential
> to convey to them how their beliefs are illogical and self-contradictory.
> Otherwise you just create more cranks who believe relativity violates
> common sense but must simply be accepted as a brute incomprehensible fact.
>
>> Why you would feel that to be productive, I don’t know.
>
> Productive? Look, if you think you are going to free a hardened
> crackpot of 60 years from his crackpot beliefs, I think you are being naive.

Well then, what positive outcome do YOU expect to emerge from informing a
hardened crackpot of 60 years of his illogical, incoherent, and
self-contradictory thinking? Does that accomplish anything? Or does it just
feel good to point it out without any hope of positive effect?

> They are no more likely to ever learn anything than you are. But the
> audience here is not limited to the person nominally being addressed, and
> there have been many appreciative responses to clear explanations.

Ah, so let me see if I have this straight. You choose to engage in a
conversation with a hardened crackpot of 60 years with no hope on your part
of actual reform of their thinking, making sure that it’s clear to the
crackpot that they are being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory,
just for the edification of OTHER audience members watching you do that?

> Also, for you to express bewilderment at why someone would think it was
> worthwhile to explain that an illogical belief is illogical, well, that's
> just another of your strange takes on things.
>
>> I didn’t ask you what your assessment is of the effect of my messaging...
>
> Hold on. You asked: "And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?"
> and I replied that I'm not a mind reader as to your intent, but that the
> *effect* of your messages is to flatter his ego and encourage his
> self-confidence in his ideas.

You could have said, “I don’t know and I don’t care,” full stop, which
would have been to the point of the question asked. I did not ask you about
your perception of the effect of my messages to Ed. At all. I asked you
what you think my intent is.

> This seems (to me) to be a relevant reply to your question, because
> although I obviously can't tell you your intentions, I can tell you the
> effect of your messages, which would equal the intent if you are
> achieving your intent. Only you can answer whether you are, in fact,
> intending to flatter his ego and encourage his self-confidence in his
> ideas. I personally don't care what your intent is.
>
>> I frankly don’t give a damn whether you think my communication
>> intentions are proper or not.
>
> Wait... Here's a quote with which you may be familiar:
>
>> What would be your intent in responding to Ed?
>> What would be your goal as an outcome?
>> Why you would feel that to be productive, I don’t know.
>> And what would you imagine my intent with Ed is?
>> Once again, I ask you: what would be YOUR intentions for an
>> outcome in a conversation with Ed? What do you think mine are?
>
> Now you pompously declare that you don't care whether I think your intentions are proper.

That’s right. I asked you about YOUR intents, which you could freely
elaborate on, since you understand them better than anyone. I also asked
you what YOU think my intent is, not what you think the effects of my
messaging to Ed is. It’s a very simple set of questions, to which “I don’t
know” answers might be perfectly appropriate, both about your intents and
mine.

If you don’t want to engage in a conversation about conversational intents
in discussions, within the venue of a discussion forum, just say so. I’m
very interested in your motivations: WHY you choose to respond to the
people you do, WHAT outcome you hope to obtain from that engagement, WHY
you think that outcome is achievable with the choices you make, and WHETHER
you think you have been successful in that desired outcome whatever it is.

> Sheesh. I have zero interest in all your questions about intentions and
> motives and productivity and blah blah blah. I only replied to your
> questions because, unlike you, I try to respond to what people say. You
> are the one who is obsessing over this personal stuff... and totally
> glossing over and ignoring all the physics content. And then you have
> the gall to scold me for my replies to your questions? Wow.
>



Arthur Adler

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 6:49:52 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 2:37:01 PM UTC-7, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> I asked you what your intentions were in responding.

And I replied "To say the truth".

> Whatever gave you the idea I engage in a conversation with you to learn
> something from you?

I don't have that idea. It's quite obvious that you have no intention of learning anything.

> Ah, good, I’m glad you’ve made it clear that your intent is to denigrate
> the intellectual prowess of the person you’re responding to.

You mis-read. I said that when a logically self-contradictory statement is made, I may point it out, and explain why the statement is logically self-contradictory as clearly and simply as I can. This is what scientists (and rational people) do.

> And what would be the end game of that? What desirable outcome do you expect to emerge?

As I said, the intended outcome of saying the truth is to have said the truth. Some people value truth.

> Does that accomplish anything? Or does it just feel good to point it out without
> any hope of positive effect?

Well, since you don't value truth for itself, I can mention that engaging with cranks can be useful in revealing the numerous weird and wacky ways in which individuals can misconstrue and misunderstand seemingly plain and simple explanations. For example, some crank can read (say) Einstein's second postulate and construe it in ways that a scientifically literate person might never imagine. And yet, when you re-read the wording, you can say to yourself "Ah, I see how this contains some verbal ambiguity, especially for someone with limited scientific background", and so then in future presentations to normal students, say in a cross-disciplinary class, you can be a little careful to point out that verbal ambiguity, and make sure the students don't go down that rabbit hole.

That's just one example of how engaging with an anti-relativity person can be useful, not that it results in curing the person, but one can be made aware of the many ways in which a subject can be misunderstood.

> You choose to engage in a conversation with a hardened crackpot of 60 years
> with no hope on your part of actual reform of their thinking...

There's a variety of people here. I doubt that you have been a hardened crackpot for all of 60 years, but regardless of the actual duration, it's fairly well established that there is no cure for hard core crackpotism. One doesn't engage in discussion with cranks for the purpose of reforming them. As Einstein once said, once someone has been in love with an idea for more than 6 months, he can no longer be freed from it, except by himself.

> making sure that it’s clear to the crackpot that they are being illogical, incoherent,
> and self-contradictory, ...

Yes, the only point in such discussions is to clarify what is correct, point our illogical and self-contradictory reasoning, and so on. This is what theoretical physicists do. In a relativity newsgroup, talk about relativity. Not sociological posturing. Not psychological counseling.

> just for the edification of OTHER audience members...?

Often bystanders have expressed appreciation for interjecting into a thread by providing (for example) a missing part of a quote from some scientist that the crackpot has selectively omitted, or pointing out where in a paper certain relevant statements are made, and explaining the actual reasoning that a crank has been misrepresenting. So that's another kind of value... there actually are some individuals interested in the subject.

> I did not ask you about your perception of the effect of my messages to Ed.

But you're confused... I already told you the effect in my very first post, before you had asked any of your little questions at all. This is the point I was making in my post: The answer you gave to Ed was (1) technically wrong, and (2) encouraging him. You completely disregarded the substantive content, and launched into a tirade about the purpose of life. Sheesh.

RichD

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 10:53:12 PMAug 11
to
On August 9, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Different kinds of atoms oscillate or spin at different rates, but that just means each "clock"
> has a different number of "ticks" per second.
> Time is different from measuring time.

Let's delve this a bit.

If time is different from its measurement, is it a 'thing'?
That is, does it enjoy existence independent of clocks and
measurements? You say that time is different from measuring.
In what way?

Consider water. On a damp March day in Portland, put a calibrated
bucket outside. Thus we measure the volume of water falling from the sky.

Water is also a medium, it transports waves. We can easily measure
their velocity and amplitude.

But water exists independently of such measurements. It's real stuff.
Is time like that?

If so, what IS time? Imagine you're tasked to write the definition for
a scientific dictionary... you have to be precise, no word salads.

If not, then hmmm... when we measure time, what exactly is being measured?


--
Rich

mitchr...@gmail.com

unread,
Aug 11, 2021, 11:15:01 PMAug 11
to
On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 7:53:12 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> On August 9, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > Different kinds of atoms oscillate or spin at different rates,

No. Atoms are fundamentally the same.
So is the light EM energy wave.
atom's can change size....
of themselves they don't spin.
spin is for macro spaces..

Mitchell Raemsch

Thomas Heger

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 2:06:37 AMAug 12
to
Am 09.08.2021 um 17:16 schrieb Ken Seto:
> On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 10:15:04 AM UTC-4, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
>> It's amazing how clear and simple Relativity becomes when you just look at the fundamental ideas. If you understand just six fundamental ideas, everything in Relativity about Time and Time Dilation makes perfect sense. Here are those ideas:
>>
>> 1. Every atom is a tiny clock that creates time at its location.
>
> Does different atoms create a different amount of time? Does an atom creates a universal interval of time?
>
>> 2. Light is the transmission of energy in the form of photons from one atom to another.
>> 3. Atoms emit photons at the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second.
>
> How does the atom knows the speed of the photon it created?

I personally think, that spacetime is a real continuum, where the points
have features like complex-four-vectors.

A velocity in spacetime is a complex angle, where the 'distance' in
spacelike direction equals the distance in timelike direction.

Once this occurs, the radiation is perceived as light. It is a
connection in an angle towards the axis of time of 45°.

This angle is always and everywhere 45°, whereever the axis of time
points to.

The angle 45° creates a cone, that we call 'light-cone'.

This is not really a cone, but a set of nested spheres. And our own past
light cone is, what we call 'universe'.

Whereever we go, we would see our past light cone (only), hence a valid
universe.

This universe would not be the same, if we would got to remote places
(like other gallaxies). But we usually do not do, hence see only one
universe.

In this universe we see only our own past light cone, where c is a
universal constant (of 45°).


Now an atom is not really a thing, but a 'structur' of/in spacetime.

This is like a standing wave, which moves along the local axis of time.

This atom gets in touch with the local environment, hence in synch with
local time (otherwise it would vanish from that environment and would
not be a 'timelike stable pattern' anymore).

So the local environment tells the atoms, how fast clocks tick and how
fast light moves, because this synchronisation is the precondition for
local existence.


TH

>> 4. A second lengthens when speed and/or gravity increase for the emitting atom.
>> 5. A second shortens when speed and/or gravity decrease for the emitting atom.
>> 6. Nothing can go faster than photons emitted from the slowest moving atom.
>>
>> I examine those idea is my new paper "Relativity's Fundamental Ideas" which can be found at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/2108.0025v1.pdf

p.s.

I have written a 'book' about this idea in 2008. This can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6

Paul B. Andersen

unread,
Aug 12, 2021, 3:59:56 AMAug 12