Relativity's Fundamental Ideas

[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

[Dono.]

On Monday, August 9, 2021 at 7:15:04 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> snip cretinisms>

[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?

[Odd Bodkin]

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]

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]

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]

ROTFLOL the woodworker knows only obsolete physics and tried to use his obsolete knowledge to criticize everybody.

[Breda Haanrade]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Most probably he was sloppy, not really a mistake.

[Odd Bodkin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Of course the speed of an electron can be directly measured.
But Einstein doesn't say that moving free electrons have
an oscillation you can measure the frequency of, that is
a stupid misunderstanding.
You have a serious reading comprehension problem.

I have explained below how the speed of electrons can be measured.
Read it!

>
>>>
>>> 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.

You are babbling.

>
> 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?

Yet another demonstration of your ignorance of elementary physics.

https://paulba.no/paper/Electrodynamics.pdf
Read:
§6.Transformation of the Maxwell-Hertz Equations for Empty Space.

And read how you can measure the speed of electrons
by means of rapidly changing electric and magnetic fields:

>> 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. The following is not a quotation of Einstein:

"You can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."

It is a quotation of YOU.

And as the rest of your 'paper' it is nonsense.

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

If you don't know much about electrons, why do you then write
a paper where you claim:

"You can tell how fast the electron is moving relative to
some other electron by measuring their oscillations rates."

????

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Ken Seto]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:06:37 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
> 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.

Your spacetime is similar to my physical aether, the E-Matrix,.
The E-Matrix transmits light at constant speed.

[Odd Bodkin]

Arthur Adler <aadl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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".

An answer I acknowledged and followed up with: for WHAT benefit and for
WHOM?

>
>> 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.

Certainly not from you. Why would I come to you to learn about physics when
I have the carefully crafted explanations by physicists?

>
>> 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.

Well, specifically what I said was: “It is also clear that your intent is
to make sure that your correspondent hears your assessment that they’re
being illogical, incoherent, and self-contradictory,” and your reply was,
“Yes, exactly.” And furthermore you commented that “Look, if you think
you’re going to free a hardened crackpot of 60 years from his crackpot
beliefs, I think you’re being naive.” And you do not think these statements
stand as evidence of intent 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?
>
> As I said, the intended outcome of saying the truth is to have said the
> truth. Some people value truth.

Well, valuing the truth (as you see it) is different than feeling the need
to express the truth (as you see it) for its own sake. You said above that
this is what scientists (and rational people) do. It’s interesting to me
that among the many science teachers I’ve had, it’s actually not a common
practice to point out to students where their thinking is illogical,
incoherent, and self-contradictory. A few do, but not the good ones.
Behaving that way tends to be demoralizing and discouraging to students,
which inhibits success.

It may have also been expressed to you at various points in your life that
feeling the need to pontificate to the truth (as you see it) for its own
sake is a behavior exhibited by sanctimonious blowhards. Let me know if
this at all sounds familiar.

>
>> 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,

Don’t judge too hastily. As mentioned above, valuing the truth is different
than seizing the opportunity to express the truth as you see it. Choosing
not to express the truth as I see it does not logically imply that I do not
value truth for itself. See there? I’ve tried to echo back to you the
pattern of illustrating where my correspondent is being illogical,
incoherent, or self-contradictory. What’s your internal reaction to that
pattern echoed back to you?

> 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.

And is that a particular value that applies to you? That is, is your
conversation with cranks used in practice by you in the instruction of a
formal cross-disciplinary class? Are you a titled teacher in a school?

>
> 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,

Likely not, since I’m not 60 years old.

> 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.

Yes, well, you’ve mentioned that “one” engages in discussion with cranks to
speak the truth as you see it, for its own sake, though it’s not clear that
Truth gives a damn one way or the other about that. You’ve also mentioned
some vague audience that might benefit, but you have not declared at all
explicitly that it is your intent, when engaging with the hardened
crackpot, to teach teachers in the audience how to teach, for example. If
that IS your intent and is the primary gain to be had in the exchange with
crackpots as you see it, then I wonder how it is you view this forum as an
appropriate place to instruct other physics instructors.

> 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.

Do theoretical physicists post here? Which ones? And do theoretical
physicists have a habit of engaging in conversations with crackpots for the
purposes you indicate? Which theoretical physicists have engaged with Seto,
Lake, Rabbidge, Wozniak?

> 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.
>

Not the purpose of life. Questions to you about your purposes in posting
here, which I hope has very little to do with how you approach life in
general — given the general reception that approach has earned you.

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> 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.

Then read Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."
It's on page 23. Here's the link: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf

On page 22, Einstein explains how an electron will gain kinetic energy
when moving. And, as it gains kinetic energy, time slows for the electron.
When the velocity of the electron reaches c, "its energy becomes infinite."

Right. When you move fast, you do not feel time slowing down, and
you do not see YOUR clock slowing down. But a slower moving observer
would see it slowing down.

The problem of seeing a clock that is a million miles away is solved
by using a clock that BOTH a "stationary" observer and a moving
observer can see. Both parties can use a PULSAR as a clock in addition
to the clocks they have with them.

I describe that situation in my May 31, 2015 paper at this link: https://vixra.org/pdf/1505.0234v1.pdf

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 4:08:26 PM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:

Einstein was talking about reality, not mathematical fiction. The body
that was "hurled" from the sun might be an "inertial body" but IN NO WAY
is it "at rest." Because it is moving faster than the sun, time ticks slower
for the body than it does for the sun. If you talk about the body being
at rest and the sun moving away from it, you are talking total CRAP, so
whatever you say would be meaningless.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 9:53:12 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

> On August 9, 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?

It is explained in great detail in my paper. Every atom and every
particle is a tiny clock. And they CREATE time by "ticking" in some
way, such as with oscillating electric and magnetic fields. They do
NOT MEASURE time. A human has to do that. Humans do it by
MEASURING how many times a particle or atom "ticks" in a second.
Officially, a cesium atom "ticks" 9,192,631,770 time per second.
The atom creates time, humans measure time.

>
> 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?

Yes. But without the medium.

>
> 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?

It is described in detail in my paper. An atomic clock shoots a photon at
a cesium atom, the atom rejects the photon, the clock shoots the photon
back again, the atom rejects the photon again. The cesium atomic clock
measures this happening 9,192,631,770 times per second. An Optical Lattice
Clock “ticks” 429,288,004,229,873.2 times per second. It uses photons in
the visible light range, which oscillate faster than the microwave photons
used in cesium atomic clocks.

Atomic particles CREATE time via oscillating fields. Humans MEASURE time
by counting how many times per second various particles "tick".

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

On 8/12/2021 11:00 AM, Ed Lake wrote:

> If you talk about the body being
> at rest and the sun moving away from it, you are talking total CRAP, so
> whatever you say would be meaningless.

That's not crap, that's Galileo. Remember, motion is always relative to
a frame (or an object stationary in an inertial frame) so yes, it's
perfectly valid to consider the body stationary and the sun moving away.
Assuming the "hurled" body is moving inertially, of course. Just like
Galileo explained with his ship.

[Michael Moroney]

On 8/12/2021 10:46 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 11, 2021 at 3:57:51 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Then read Einstein's 1905 paper "On The Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies."
> It's on page 23. Here's the link: http://hermes.ffn.ub.es/luisnavarro/nuevo_maletin/Einstein_1905_relativity.pdf
>

He explains the velocity can be determined by the ratio of magnetic
deflection to electric deflection, and then mentions the rapidly
oscillating electric and magnetic fields. This implies the fields are
external, in order to measure the velocity, not any oscillation of the
electron itself, something never mentioned.

> On page 22, Einstein explains how an electron will gain kinetic energy
> when moving. And, as it gains kinetic energy, time slows for the electron.
> When the velocity of the electron reaches c, "its energy becomes infinite."

Non sequitur. That section does not discuss time dilation.

>>>>> 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.
>
> Right. When you move fast, you do not feel time slowing down, and
> you do not see YOUR clock slowing down. But a slower moving observer
> would see it slowing down.

And you will see the other observer's clock slowing down.

You are still stuck with some form of absolute motion, seemingly stating
motion is absolute somehow. This disagrees with Galileo 400 years ago,
not just Einstein.

>
> The problem of seeing a clock that is a million miles away is solved
> by using a clock that BOTH a "stationary" observer and a moving
> observer can see. Both parties can use a PULSAR as a clock in addition
> to the clocks they have with them.

That's just adding a third clock, and what the pulsar is measured as
depends on how the two observers move relative to the pulsar.

[Arthur Adler]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:00:02 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> Einstein was talking about reality, not mathematical fiction. The body
> that was "hurled" from the sun might be an "inertial body" but IN NO WAY
> is it "at rest."

He didn't talk about being "at rest" (that would be ambiguous), he talked about "being at rest with respect to a specified system of inertial coordinates". Have a look at Chapter 11 of his popular expositional book, in which he first defines the two inertial coordinate systems called K and K', and then says

> "Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the following manner.
> What are the [coordinates] of an event with respect to K', when the [coordinates]
> of the same event with respect to K are given? The relations must be so chosen
> that the law of the transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied for one and the same
> ray of light (and of course for every ray) with respect to K and K'."

You see? As always, he unequivocally asserts that *one and the same* ray of light has the speed c in terms of two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. He then explains precisely how this is possible, by giving the relationship between K and K'.

He explained this over and over, in many different publications, including the one you quoted, and in each case he clearly and plainly referred to one and the same ray of light having the speed c in terms of (with respect to, relative to) two different objects or systems of coordinates. In the case of the projectile hurled by the Sun, the projectile is stationary in terms of K', and the sun is stationary in terms of K.

Remember, in order to claim that you agree with Einstein, you had to actually change the quote, but that is illegitimate and illogical. You can't just willy-nilly change all the quotes in which Einstein clearly described what he meant, to alter his meaning so that it aligns with your beliefs, and then claim your beliefs correspond with Einstein's. Einstein meant what he said, and what he said is the opposite of what you believe, so you should stop claiming you agree with Einstein. Read Chapter 11 of his book on Special and General Relativity. It's very clear, and only a few pages.

[Ed Lake]

Yes, but Galileo knew nothing about TIME DILATION. Time Dilation
tells you who is moving faster. Time passes slower for the faster moving
body. Changing frames of reference just confuses the situation
and creates a FICTION. In reality, you can tell who is moving faster
by determining whose clock is ticking the slowest.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

If you read the paper, you will see that both parties are almost stationary
relative to the pulsar. The traveler moves at a RIGHT ANGLE to the pulsar.
The pulsar is billions of miles away, so there is no significant change in
distance from the pulsar for either observer.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

This is a basic concept that simply eludes some people because it conflicts
with a highly common intuition that the earth (or any other very large
thing) is what’s stationary and other objects move relative to it.

This is what led to the “common sense” argument back in the 1500s that the
earth cannot be rotating because if that were true, we’d all be flung off
the surface out into space, or we’d all be living in hundreds-mph winds, or
similar kinds of spurious rationales. It is common experience that says
trees are stationary because they are fixed to the earth and did nothing to
generate motion, and cars are the things that are moving because of the
motors in them. And plus, the car is small relative to the earth, and
there’s a bias that the biggest things are the more immobile ones — from
common experience.

Now, one can recognize *in the head* that of course trees are moving
because we do know the earth is rotating. And in fact, one can recognize
*in the head* that Oslo travels from west to east at 500 mph, and so a
plane flying westward over Oslo at 500 mph (ground speed) is a case where
the engines *removed* the 500 mph it had while resting on the ground. But
this will conflict *in the gut* with the sense that the airplane in flight
is burning fuel and so it has to be the thing moving, not that the plane is
in some sense stationary while the ground passes at 500 mph under it. In
this conflict between what is recognized in the head and what is felt in
the gut, there are lots of people who will then revert to what is in their
gut as being “common sense”. The conflict between what the head and the gut
say is sometimes resolved by saying that recognizing the Earth is moving is
some kind of mental game, a distraction from truth by invocation of the
arcane.

People with this internal conflict feel deeply ill at ease siding with what
the head says, and would much rather it all “feel natural”, meaning
alignment between the head and the gut. So much so that only the things
where there is that natural resonance between head and gut are taken to be
“facts” and everything where there is a dissonance between the two is taken
to be questionable.

Ed is a perfect example of this dissonance in force, and you can see how it
bends what he perceives and what he’s willing to accept as truth.

[Odd Bodkin]

No, Ed, and this illustrates the dissonance between your head and your gut
exactly.
There is a deep-seated need in your gut for some absolute reference for a
stationary point somewhere in the universe. And so you are willing to bend
what your head acknowledges to find support for that absolute rest
reference.

Galileo in the early 1600s made a fairly revolutionary statement that there
IS NO absolute stationary reference point. This jars with your gut that
tells you there MUST be such a thing, though your head struggles to
identify what that point might be. And so then your head starts to
fabricate ways to justify that gut-level instinct. Here you say that time
dilation is a way to find out which things are moving more than other
things, to the point where the one thing that has no time dilation
whatsoever must be the thing at absolute rest. The problem is, Einstein
showed in his book for the lay person that time dilation is mutual — and
the chapter and specific pages have been pointed out to you before. I
realize that such a claim makes no sense to you at all, given your
allegiance to an absolute rest reference point. But Einstein’s claim about
time dilation is EXACTLY in the same spirit as Galileo’s, whether that is
hard to swallow for you or not.

[Arthur Adler]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> The traveler moves at a RIGHT ANGLE to the pulsar.

Again, the fallacy in your argument is that you fail to account for relativistic aberration: The angle is not a right angle with respect to both observers' frames.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:50:25 AM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:

> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 8:00:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Einstein was talking about reality, not mathematical fiction. The body
> > that was "hurled" from the sun might be an "inertial body" but IN NO WAY
> > is it "at rest."
> He didn't talk about being "at rest" (that would be ambiguous), he talked about "being at rest with respect to a specified system of inertial coordinates". Have a look at Chapter 11 of his popular expositional book, in which he first defines the two inertial coordinate systems called K and K', and then says
>
> > "Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the following manner.
> > What are the [coordinates] of an event with respect to K', when the [coordinates]
> > of the same event with respect to K are given? The relations must be so chosen
> > that the law of the transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied for one and the same
> > ray of light (and of course for every ray) with respect to K and K'."
>
> You see? As always, he unequivocally asserts that *one and the same* ray of light has the speed c in terms of two relatively moving systems of inertial coordinates. He then explains precisely how this is possible, by giving the relationship between K and K'.

You are taking things out of context. In his 1905 paper on Special Relativity,
Einstein explains: "We have not defined a common “time” for
A and B, for the latter cannot be defined at all unless we establish by definition
that the “time” required by light to travel from A to B equals the “time” it
requires to travel from B to A."

In other words, if it takes the same amount of time for light to travel from
K to K' and it does for light to travel from K' to K, then the two Ks are
STATIONARY relative to each other. Otherwise they are NOT stationary
relative to each other.

>
> He explained this over and over, in many different publications, including the one you quoted, and in each case he clearly and plainly referred to one and the same ray of light having the speed c in terms of (with respect to, relative to) two different objects or systems of coordinates. In the case of the projectile hurled by the Sun, the projectile is stationary in terms of K', and the sun is stationary in terms of K.
>
> Remember, in order to claim that you agree with Einstein, you had to actually change the quote, but that is illegitimate and illogical. You can't just willy-nilly change all the quotes in which Einstein clearly described what he meant, to alter his meaning so that it aligns with your beliefs, and then claim your beliefs correspond with Einstein's. Einstein meant what he said, and what he said is the opposite of what you believe, so you should stop claiming you agree with Einstein. Read Chapter 11 of his book on Special and General Relativity. It's very clear, and only a few pages.

I've read that chapter. It is VERY CONVOLUTED and anything but "clear."
However, I am not arguing that light emitted from stationary A will not
pass moving object B at B's speed of light. I'm just saying that B's speed
of light involves LONGER SECONDS.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

So both observers will observe the transverse Doppler Effect (from SR)
according to their relative speeds wrt to the pulsar. Since the speeds
will (must) differ, they will measure different time dilation.

We see this with Earth in its orbit. Consider a pulsar in the ecliptic
plane. At some point in earth's orbit Earth will be moving transversely
to the pulsar, and 6 months later it will be moving transversely again
but in the other direction. This is measurable.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:22:27 AM UTC-5, Arthur Adler wrote:

> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:02:13 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> > The traveler moves at a RIGHT ANGLE to the pulsar.
> Again, the fallacy in your argument is that you fail to account for relativistic aberration: The angle is not a right angle with respect to both observers' frames.

It doesn't make any difference. The nearest pulsar is about 400 light years
away. The distance between earth and Alpha Centauri is less than 4 light years.
So, if the traveler travels at a right angle to the pulsar to get to Alpha Centauri,
any change in distance is too small to be of concern. If it means you cannot
do the calculations, then just PRETEND that Earth and Alpha Centauri ARE
both the same distance from the pulsar. Any difference is NEGLIGIBLE.

Or pretend the pulsar is 4,000 light years away. Or 400,000 light years.

Ed

[Arthur Adler]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:29:04 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> I am not arguing that light emitted from stationary A will not pass moving object
> B at B's speed of light. I'm just saying that B's speed of light involves LONGER SECONDS.

Well, now you have flipped back again to what you were saying months ago, when you agreed with Einstein that the speed of light relative to B is indeed c meters per second, even though it is (you say) "actually c-v, and the reason is (you say) that B is using longer seconds, due to (you say) time dilation.

So I've chased you all the way around the barn, and we are back to where we started, and I say again, your belief is illogical and self-contradictory, because (1) the effect of time dilation is far too small to account for the difference between c-v and c, and (2) for an object approaching the light this effect of longer seconds would cause c+v to have an even greater value, so the effect would be in the wrong direction.

[Odd Bodkin]

I realize that variables are a variant of Greek to you.
A and B are points or locations in the first case.
K and K’ are reference frames in the second case.
The context of the first is much different than the context of the second,
and you have muddled the two.

>
>>
>> He explained this over and over, in many different publications,
>> including the one you quoted, and in each case he clearly and plainly
>> referred to one and the same ray of light having the speed c in terms of
>> (with respect to, relative to) two different objects or systems of
>> coordinates. In the case of the projectile hurled by the Sun, the
>> projectile is stationary in terms of K', and the sun is stationary in terms of K.
>>
>> Remember, in order to claim that you agree with Einstein, you had to
>> actually change the quote, but that is illegitimate and illogical. You
>> can't just willy-nilly change all the quotes in which Einstein clearly
>> described what he meant, to alter his meaning so that it aligns with
>> your beliefs, and then claim your beliefs correspond with Einstein's.
>> Einstein meant what he said, and what he said is the opposite of what
>> you believe, so you should stop claiming you agree with Einstein. Read
>> Chapter 11 of his book on Special and General Relativity. It's very
>> clear, and only a few pages.
>
> I've read that chapter. It is VERY CONVOLUTED and anything but "clear."

Well, Ed, let’s just say that it is convoluted TO YOU. But also keep in
mind that — unlike his 1905 paper which was definitely not written for a
general audience — Einstein’s book on Special and General Relativity WAS
written for a general audience. He wrote it in such a way that it could be
easily followed by most people, though it did expect that most people had a
passing acquaintance with algebra, which you do not have.

I completely understand that you find it ENORMOUSLY frustrating that you
find a book written for a general audience to be “anything but clear”.
After all, you pride yourself on being an “analyst”, and with that
self-appointed label you feel you should be able to figure most things out.


I think the best thing you can do at this point is to acknowledge the plain
fact that there are some subjects where even a layperson’s explication
(like Einstein’s book for the general public) are still over your head. And
please understand that this is perfectly okay. Even “analysts” cannot be
expected to understand any subject they put their minds to, even if they’re
keenly interested in them. In this case, physics in general — even at the
laypeople presentation level — is just outside your domain of
comprehension, and frankly it’s always going to be. The sooner you can
reconcile yourself to this, the easier it will be to move on to other
subjects that are equally interesting to you but less conceptually
confounding.

> However, I am not arguing that light emitted from stationary A will not
> pass moving object B at B's speed of light. I'm just saying that B's speed
> of light involves LONGER SECONDS.
>
> Ed
>

[Michael Moroney]

On 8/12/2021 11:55 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 11:00 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>
>>> If you talk about the body being
>>> at rest and the sun moving away from it, you are talking total CRAP, so
>>> whatever you say would be meaningless.
>> That's not crap, that's Galileo. Remember, motion is always relative to
>> a frame (or an object stationary in an inertial frame) so yes, it's
>> perfectly valid to consider the body stationary and the sun moving away.
>> Assuming the "hurled" body is moving inertially, of course. Just like
>> Galileo explained with his ship.
>
> Yes, but Galileo knew nothing about TIME DILATION.

It doesn't matter. You are still "stuck" on the pre-Galilean idea of
something being "absolutely stationary" and anything moving has some
absolute motion which can be shown by time dilation.

Galileo stated that motion is relative, not absolute. A sailor standing
on the ship's deck is stationary relative to the ship. He sees the
cannonball fall straight down.

Einstein agreed with Galileo. With his SR, time dilation is also
relative to two observers/frames. If A is moving relative to B, B will
see A's clock as slowed and A will see B's clock slowed.

> Time Dilation
> tells you who is moving faster. Time passes slower for the faster moving
> body. Changing frames of reference just confuses the situation
> and creates a FICTION.

It does not, and this has been known since Galileo, 400 years ago.
Einstein just built on this.

Common sense is that the earth is stationary and we measure almost
everything relative to the earth, but this is misleading. Even you
acknowledge the earth rotates, moves in its orbit, the solar system
orbits the galactic center etc. but you then ignore that and go right
back (usually) to the "stationary" earth frame.

> In reality, you can tell who is moving faster
> by determining whose clock is ticking the slowest.

And you'll find A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's clock
running slow. There is no absolute "slowest" (this also violates the
first postulate).

[Ed Lake]

NO! There is no significant Doppler Effect because they travel at RIGHT ANGLES
to the pulsar. They use the PULSES from the pulsar to measure time. BOTH
observers count the same number of pulses. HOWEVER, the traveling observer
counts those pulses in ONE year according to the clock he has on his space
ship, and the observer on earth counts those pulses in TEN years according
to the clock he has on earth.

>
> We see this with Earth in its orbit. Consider a pulsar in the ecliptic
> plane. At some point in earth's orbit Earth will be moving transversely
> to the pulsar, and 6 months later it will be moving transversely again
> but in the other direction. This is measurable.

Yes, but that is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE. I have a web page
about the "annual Doppler effect." It's #2 at this link: http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html

Ed

[Arthur Adler]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 9:40:40 AM UTC-7, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> > > The traveler moves at a RIGHT ANGLE to the pulsar.
> > Again, the fallacy in your argument is that you fail to account for relativistic aberration: The angle is not a right angle with respect to both observers' frames.
>
> It doesn't make any difference. The nearest pulsar is about 400 light years
> away. The distance between earth and Alpha Centauri is less than 4 light years.

> So, if the traveler travels at a right angle to the pulsar to get to Alpha Centauri, ...

You missed the point. Again, the meaning of "right angle" depends on the reference frame, due to the effect of aberration. You see, even an arbitrarily distant object undergoes annual changes in its angular position as viewed from earth, due to the variations in the earth's frame of reference. This is *not* parallax, because the parallax of a sufficiently distant object is negligible. This is aberration, a completely different effect, due to the different states of motion of the frame of reference.

More detail: Given two observers A and B momentarily passing each other in different states of motion, we can arrange for B to be moving at right angle to the direction to the pulsar in terms of A's inertial rest coordinates, but in that case A will not be moving at right angles to the direction of the pulsar in terms of B's inertial rest coordinates, and vice versa. In either case, we get a symmetrical situation, depending on which one we choose to be at right angle to the pulsar. That's why this can't be used to establish that A or B is "really" at rest and the other is "really" moving. When aberration is taken into account, the situation is perfectly symmetrical.

[Ed Lake]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 8/12/2021 11:55 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >> On 8/12/2021 11:00 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you talk about the body being
> >>> at rest and the sun moving away from it, you are talking total CRAP, so
> >>> whatever you say would be meaningless.
> >> That's not crap, that's Galileo. Remember, motion is always relative to
> >> a frame (or an object stationary in an inertial frame) so yes, it's
> >> perfectly valid to consider the body stationary and the sun moving away.
> >> Assuming the "hurled" body is moving inertially, of course. Just like
> >> Galileo explained with his ship.
> >
> > Yes, but Galileo knew nothing about TIME DILATION.
> It doesn't matter. You are still "stuck" on the pre-Galilean idea of
> something being "absolutely stationary" and anything moving has some
> absolute motion which can be shown by time dilation.

Right. Einstein IMPLIES that. That is why his theory generated
the Big Bang Theory. I DESCRIBE THIS IN DETAIL IN MY PAPER
when I discuss "Fundamental Idea #6":

"6. Nothing can go faster than photons emitted from the slowest moving atom."

The point of the Big Bang would be where you would find "the
slowest moving atoms." Everything moved outward from there.

>
> Galileo stated that motion is relative, not absolute. A sailor standing
> on the ship's deck is stationary relative to the ship. He sees the
> cannonball fall straight down.
>
> Einstein agreed with Galileo. With his SR, time dilation is also
> relative to two observers/frames. If A is moving relative to B, B will
> see A's clock as slowed and A will see B's clock slowed.

NONSENSE!!!!!!! That is a DISTORTION of Einstein's words created
by Quantum Mechanics Mathematicians to eliminate the idea of
Velocity Time Dilation, which they cannot cope with.

IT IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE WRONG BY ALL TIME DILATION
EXPERIMENTS INVOLVING VELOCITY.

> > Time Dilation
> > tells you who is moving faster. Time passes slower for the faster moving
> > body. Changing frames of reference just confuses the situation
> > and creates a FICTION.
> It does not, and this has been known since Galileo, 400 years ago.
> Einstein just built on this.
>
> Common sense is that the earth is stationary and we measure almost
> everything relative to the earth, but this is misleading. Even you
> acknowledge the earth rotates, moves in its orbit, the solar system
> orbits the galactic center etc. but you then ignore that and go right
> back (usually) to the "stationary" earth frame.
> > In reality, you can tell who is moving faster
> > by determining whose clock is ticking the slowest.
> And you'll find A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's clock
> running slow. There is no absolute "slowest" (this also violates the
> first postulate).

No, it does NOT violate the first postulate. Einstein explains on the
first page of his paper that it only APPEARS to conflict with the first
postulate. Once you understand Time Dilation, you will see that they
no longer conflict.

Ed

[Michael Moroney]

I said TRANSVERSE Doppler Effect. TRANSVERSE. This is a relativistic
effect from measuring the clock rate of something moving at right angles
to the line of sight. This is NOT the classical Doppler Effect from
moving toward or away from the pulsar (which is also affected by SR, not
relevant here).

> They use the PULSES from the pulsar to measure time. BOTH
> observers count the same number of pulses.

They will not, due to differing relative motions wrt the pulsar, and
thus differing TRANSVERSE Doppler Effects.

>>
>> We see this with Earth in its orbit. Consider a pulsar in the ecliptic
>> plane. At some point in earth's orbit Earth will be moving transversely
>> to the pulsar, and 6 months later it will be moving transversely again
>> but in the other direction. This is measurable.
>
> Yes, but that is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE.

The TRANSVERSE Doppler Effect must be accounted for. Period.

[Odd Bodkin]

Be careful, Ed. What was mentioned was the TRANSVERSE Doppler shift, which
is Doppler shift for motion perpendicular to a light source. This may be
unfamiliar to you, and you may be only aware of the kind of Doppler shift
where the motion is toward or away from the source.

> They use the PULSES from the pulsar to measure time. BOTH
> observers count the same number of pulses. HOWEVER, the traveling observer
> counts those pulses in ONE year according to the clock he has on his space
> ship, and the observer on earth counts those pulses in TEN years according
> to the clock he has on earth.
>
>>
>> We see this with Earth in its orbit. Consider a pulsar in the ecliptic
>> plane. At some point in earth's orbit Earth will be moving transversely
>> to the pulsar, and 6 months later it will be moving transversely again
>> but in the other direction. This is measurable.
>
> Yes, but that is a TOTALLY DIFFERENT ISSUE. I have a web page
> about the "annual Doppler effect." It's #2 at this link:
> http://www.ed-lake.com/Variable-Speed-of-Light-Experiments.html
>
> Ed
>

[Odd Bodkin]

I’ll remind you, Ed, that quantum mechanics is not incompatible with
“velocity time dilation”. The existence of relativistic quantum mechanics
for the last 9 decades is testament to that.

I honestly don’t know where you got the idea that any conflict between
relativity and quantum mechanics has anything to do with time dilation.

>
> IT IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE WRONG BY ALL TIME DILATION
> EXPERIMENTS INVOLVING VELOCITY.
>
>>> Time Dilation
>>> tells you who is moving faster. Time passes slower for the faster moving
>>> body. Changing frames of reference just confuses the situation
>>> and creates a FICTION.
>> It does not, and this has been known since Galileo, 400 years ago.
>> Einstein just built on this.
>>
>> Common sense is that the earth is stationary and we measure almost
>> everything relative to the earth, but this is misleading. Even you
>> acknowledge the earth rotates, moves in its orbit, the solar system
>> orbits the galactic center etc. but you then ignore that and go right
>> back (usually) to the "stationary" earth frame.
>>> In reality, you can tell who is moving faster
>>> by determining whose clock is ticking the slowest.
>> And you'll find A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's clock
>> running slow. There is no absolute "slowest" (this also violates the
>> first postulate).
>
> No, it does NOT violate the first postulate. Einstein explains on the
> first page of his paper that it only APPEARS to conflict with the first
> postulate. Once you understand Time Dilation, you will see that they
> no longer conflict.
>
> Ed
>

[Michael Moroney]

On 8/12/2021 1:05 PM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 11:52:01 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> On 8/12/2021 11:55 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:23:32 AM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote:
>>>> On 8/12/2021 11:00 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If you talk about the body being
>>>>> at rest and the sun moving away from it, you are talking total CRAP, so
>>>>> whatever you say would be meaningless.
>>>> That's not crap, that's Galileo. Remember, motion is always relative to
>>>> a frame (or an object stationary in an inertial frame) so yes, it's
>>>> perfectly valid to consider the body stationary and the sun moving away.
>>>> Assuming the "hurled" body is moving inertially, of course. Just like
>>>> Galileo explained with his ship.
>>>
>>> Yes, but Galileo knew nothing about TIME DILATION.
>> It doesn't matter. You are still "stuck" on the pre-Galilean idea of
>> something being "absolutely stationary" and anything moving has some
>> absolute motion which can be shown by time dilation.
>
> Right. Einstein IMPLIES that.

No, he doesn't. His SR paper EXPLICITLY concluded that time dilation was
relative.

> "6. Nothing can go faster than photons emitted from the slowest moving atom."

Only accidentally true. Nothing can go faster than light which has a
constant speed c, and it doesn't matter that the phrase "the slowest
moving atom" is nonsense.

>
> The point of the Big Bang would be where you would find "the
> slowest moving atoms." Everything moved outward from there.

So we could find "where" the Big Bang happened by measuring the speed of
light in different directions. Sorry this was attempted and the speed
of light is c in all directions.

>
>>
>> Galileo stated that motion is relative, not absolute. A sailor standing
>> on the ship's deck is stationary relative to the ship. He sees the
>> cannonball fall straight down.
>>
>> Einstein agreed with Galileo. With his SR, time dilation is also
>> relative to two observers/frames. If A is moving relative to B, B will
>> see A's clock as slowed and A will see B's clock slowed.
>
> NONSENSE!!!!!!! That is a DISTORTION of Einstein's words

No, Einstein explicitly concluded that, plus used that in many of his
writings for the general public.

> IT IS DEMONSTRATED TO BE WRONG BY ALL TIME DILATION
> EXPERIMENTS INVOLVING VELOCITY.

Um, no, it was demonstrated to be CORRECT by all experiments able to
measure it.

>> And you'll find A sees B's clock running slow, and B sees A's clock
>> running slow. There is no absolute "slowest" (this also violates the
>> first postulate).
>
> No, it does NOT violate the first postulate.

Yes it does, because there would be frames with different laws of
physics caused by different time dilations, plus some special "slowest"
frame where the time dilation is minimum. First postulate forbids such
special frames.

[Arthur Adler]

On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 10:11:22 AM UTC-7, Michael Moroney wrote:
> I said TRANSVERSE Doppler Effect. TRANSVERSE. This is a relativistic
> effect from measuring the clock rate of something moving at right angles
> to the line of sight. This is NOT the classical Doppler Effect from
> moving toward or away from the pulsar (which is also affected by SR, not
> relevant here).

It is relevant. You're missing the same thing Ed is missing, namely, aberration. The scenario he described is a standard canard. Basically you have a plane wave passing through a region in a certain direction, and the "paradox" is that if you just consider clocks moving perpendicularly to the wave direction (all in the same state of motion in the direction parallel to the wave), it seems that there is one particular state of motion that would measure the lowest frequency, and clocks in any other state of motion (transverse to the wave) would measure a greater frequency due to time dilation (i.e., transverse Doppler). The clocks can be identically constructed and they can all transmit their measured frequency digitally to some central location to compare the measured values. The paradoxer says one particular clock will report the lowest frequency, so it seems to identify an absolute state of rest. We can do the same with a wave in any other direction, to establish absolute rest in all directions.

The fallacy of the paradox is that it neglects aberration. If one clock is at rest in S, and the other clocks are moving transversely to the wave in terms of S, then indeed the clock at rest in S will report the lowest frequency. But this applies to all of the clocks. The explanation is that if A is at rest in S and B is moving transversely to the wave in terms of S, and if B is at rest in S', it does not follow that A is moving transversely to the wave in terms of S'. It actually is moving at an oblique angle to the wave, due to aberration, and hence there is longitudinal Doppler that accounts for the relations between the measured frequencies. If you force A to actually move transversely to the wave in terms of S', then you get the symmetrical situation, i.e., B will report the lower frequency.

So, the resolution of this very old and very well known "paradox" is aberration and the resulting longitudinal Doppler, which restores the symmetry.

[Ed Lake]

The transverse Doppler Effect is minuscule and IRRELEVANT.
I'm going to start a new thread titled "Using a pulsar to measure time dilation."
I'll explain things to you in that thread.

Ed

[Ed Lake]

I know what the transverse Doppler shift is. It is IRRELEVANT.
I'll start a new thread titled "Using a pulsar to measure time dilation" to discuss it.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Irrelevant to what, Ed? It’s either experimentally verifiable with
observational measurement, or it isn’t. (Hint: it is.) It doesn’t matter
whether you consider the number small. It matters a lot whether it can be
cleanly measured and verified to be in alignment with what theory predicts.
(Hint: it can and has been.)

[Ed Lake]

The conflict has been going on for over a hundred years. But Quantum
Mechanics mathematicians PRETEND it doesn't exist, and they twist and
distort Einstein's words to make it seem Einstein agreed with them.

"In theoretical physics, the problem of time is a conceptual conflict between
general relativity and quantum mechanics in that quantum mechanics regards
the flow of time as universal and absolute, whereas general relativity regards
the flow of time as malleable and relative."

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_time

Ed

[Ed Lake]

The speed of light is c in all directions, but TIME will speed up if you
move AGAINST the motion controlling time. Hafele and Keating demonstrated
that when they traveled WESTWARD AGAINST the rotation of the earth.

Ed

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh, I see. So what you’re saying is that Wikipedia is the authority on the
problem, and the reason why this isn’t reflected in textbooks is (if I
understand you correctly) that “Quantum Mechanics mathematicians” have
decided to cover up the conflict in physics references so that you can’t
find it. And meanwhile, this whole business about relativistic quantum
mechanics must be just out-and-out nonsense, right?

By the way, since you copy-pasta’d the first paragraph from the Wikipedia
article, you may have noticed the large orange exclamation-pointed notice
immediately above it. The one that says: “This article needs attention from
an expert in Physics. The specific problem is: his article has some
interesting ideas in it, but some of it is wrong, and a lot of it reads
like an attempt by someone without deep expertise to summarize
half-understood stuff that they've read.” Do you take into account warnings
like that in anything you read online?

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh my goodness. The rotation of the earth from west to east controls time?
What would have happened, do you think, if Hafele and Keating would have
traveled from west to east instead??

[Odd Bodkin]

Oh, I remember now! There was that Christopher Reeve Superman movie where
Lois Lane dies, and he flies against the rotation of the earth faster and
faster, until the drag of his flying gets the earth to stop and start
turning east to west, and this is how Superman reverses time to save Lois!

Yes, that all makes perfectly good science sense now. Thank goodness for
movies to explain good science!!

[Michael Moroney]

If you are moving at relative speeds where time dilation matters, it
certainly is a significant factor! If it's too "minuscule" than the
relative speeds are also too small for time dilation to matter.
Because.... The transverse Doppler Effect *is* Time Dilation!

[Ed Lake]

Why don't you read their papers? They DID travel from west to east. They
MADE TWO TRIPS, one east to west and the other west to east.

When they traveled with the spin of the earth, time slowed down a lot more
than when they traveled against the spin of the earth.

Their papers, their routes are all on my web page about them at this link:
http://www.ed-lake.com/Time-Dilation-Experiments.html

This is my last post in this thread. For further discussions go to my new
thread "Using a pulsar to measure time dilation."

Ed

[RichD]

On August 12, det...@newsguy.com wrote:
> The speed of light is c in all directions, but TIME will speed up if you
> move AGAINST the motion controlling time.

I scratch my head here, Ed.

What means "time will speed up"?
If a track meet is held on a fast space ship, do you expect the
100-meter sprinters will be timed at 12 seconds, instead of 10?

And "motion controlling time" leaves me scratching even deeper -
is this the motion relative to the Big Bang point?

--
Rich

[RichD]

On August 12, 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.
>
>> 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?
>
> Every atom and every particle is a tiny clock. And they CREATE time by
> "ticking" in some way, such as with oscillating electric and magnetic fields.
> They do NOT MEASURE time.

A clock doesn't measure time, it CREATES time.
Wonder of wonders, that's right!
Well, even a stopped calendar is right once a year -

> A human has to do that. Humans do it by
> MEASURING how many times a particle or atom "ticks" in a second.
> Officially, a cesium atom "ticks" 9,192,631,770 time per second.
> The atom creates time, humans measure time.

Right again... almost.
The "per second" bit is an omen...

So, the atom ticks 9 billion times per second. What is this
'second' thigamabob, exactly? Is it something that exists,
independently, and the clock measures its length?

>> 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?
>
> Yes.

<sigh>
Ed reverts to form -

>> 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?
>
> The cesium atomic clock measures this happening 9,192,631,770 times per second.
> Atomic particles CREATE time via oscillating fields. Humans MEASURE time
> by counting how many times per second various particles "tick".

OK
Time is a mighty river - it's "out there", so to speak - which flows
at its own pace, except if the observer is moving fast.

The problem here is you're human, stuck with the brain that
Darwin gave you. A million years of evolution is hard to overcome.

--
Rich

[Maciej Wozniak]

On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 22:48:41 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:

> If you are moving at relative speeds where time dilation matters

Sorry, stupid Mike, anyone can check at GPS, there is
no time dilation, the clocks indicate t'=t just like they
always did.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.08.2021 um 14:29 schrieb Ken Seto:
> On Thursday, August 12, 2021 at 2:06:37 AM UTC-4, Thomas Heger wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Your spacetime is similar to my physical aether, the E-Matrix,.
> The E-Matrix transmits light at constant speed.


'Spacetime' is just a placeholder. If you prefer, you could use
'e-matrix' as well.

My assumption was, that spacetime of GR is a real physical system.

This assumption was needed, because I wanted to connect GR with QM.

This main idea was to start that connection at the 'GR-side'.

So, I didn't attempt to create quantum gravity, but wanted to 'make'
particles out of spacetime.

And, as far as I can tell, that system works.
...

>> I have written a 'book' about this idea in 2008. This can be found here:
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dd8jz2tx_3gfzvqgd6


TH

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Den 11.08.2021 17:50, skrev Ed Lake:
>> 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".

To Ed Lake’s defense, though, unfortunately that *is* the typical popular-
scientific explanation of “time dilation”. In my experience, only in very
few cases the audience is being made aware that the different measurements
of time with clocks are not due to time slowing down or speeding up, but due
to a different amount of elapsed proper time in different reference frames.


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.

(from: WolframAlpha)

[RichD]

On August 12, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> There was that Christopher Reeve Superman movie where
> Lois Lane dies, and he flies against the rotation of the earth faster and
> faster, until the drag of his flying gets the earth to stop and start
> turning east to west, and this is how Superman reverses time to save Lois!

That's another of my quiz questions: Superman catches Lois five feet
above the ground. Does she survive?
Invariably, they assent. As long as she doesn't hit the pavement, she's saved!

> Thank goodness for movies to explain good science!!

History too - I learned from "Pearl Harbor" that torpedo planes attacked airfields -

--
Rich

[Odd Bodkin]

RichD <r_dela...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On August 12, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> There was that Christopher Reeve Superman movie where
>> Lois Lane dies, and he flies against the rotation of the earth faster and
>> faster, until the drag of his flying gets the earth to stop and start
>> turning east to west, and this is how Superman reverses time to save Lois!
>
> That's another of my quiz questions: Superman catches Lois five feet
> above the ground. Does she survive?
> Invariably, they assent. As long as she doesn't hit the pavement, she's saved!

Terminal velocity for Lois is about 120 mph = 176 ft/s. To decelerate in 5
ft, we can calculate the acceleration from v^2 = 2*a*s or a = v^2/2s = 3100
ft/s^2 = 97 “gees”. It’s very unlikely Lois survives that without severe
trauma.

>
>> Thank goodness for movies to explain good science!!
>
> History too - I learned from "Pearl Harbor" that torpedo planes attacked airfields -
>
> --
> Rich
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[Odd Bodkin]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <Point...@web.de> wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 11.08.2021 17:50, skrev Ed Lake:
>>> 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".
>
> To Ed Lake’s defense, though, unfortunately that *is* the typical popular-
> scientific explanation of “time dilation”.

Which is why then things like reciprocal time dilation do not make sense if
“time slows down”. This is why popularizations are AT BEST suitable for
approximating the ideas to generate interest in doing further reading.

> In my experience, only in very
> few cases the audience is being made aware that the different measurements
> of time with clocks are not due to time slowing down or speeding up, but due
> to a different amount of elapsed proper time in different reference frames.
>
>
> PointedEars



--

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

[Thomas Heger]

Am 11.08.2021 um 17:50 schrieb Ed Lake:
> "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 world seems to have characteristics of fractals.

Fractal sets have also countable structures, but are actually build from
a continuum (usually complex numbers).

So you should think about a continuum, which can have countable
structures, that could be regarded as things.

These 'things' are not independent entities, but more 'things' like a
special point in a continous function.

So, the universe is not built from quants.

Instead quants are built from the universe (...in a way).

I call my idea 'structured spacetime' and have written kind of 'book'
about it, which can be found here:

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


TH