A question about physicists and Einsteins SR Theory
David Johnson
I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting answered.
1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe SR
Theory to be good science?
And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
contractions would be an actual change in time and length, along the lines
of the way TV shows and movies have long portrayed what happens when one
travels at relativistic speads?
2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why not?
Thanks for all answers?
Bill Hobba
"David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
> and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting
answered.
>
> 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe
SR
> Theory to be good science?
This is a joke right? It has been around since 1905 and has no experimental
refutation, thus virtually by the definition of good science it is good
science..
> And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
> dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
> moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
> has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
> contractions would be an actual change in time and length, along the lines
> of the way TV shows and movies have long portrayed what happens when one
> travels at relativistic speads?
I remember one TV show said that if you traveled faster than light you go
back in time. So I would not put too much faith in what they say. Again SR
is in accord with experiment so is good science.
>
> 2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
> the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why
not?
>
SR does not say effects can not appear to happen faster than light - it says
it is not possible to send information or for them to happen faster than
light -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/Superluminal/superluminal.html.
Thanks
Bill
>
> Thanks for all answers?
>
>
Jon Bell
David Johnson <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe SR
>Theory to be good science?
Oh, I'd say about 99.999%.
>And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
>dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
>moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
>has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
>contractions would be an actual change in time and length,
Here I think you might find some differences among physicists, because of
differing definitions of the meaning of "actual change in time and length"
in certain situations. Note, however, that with respect to time dilation,
differential aging of objects traveling different paths through space-time
has in fact been observed. See
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
in particular the section "Tests of the Twin Paradox."
>2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
>the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why not?
No, they do not. See
<http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/Superluminal/superluminal.html>
--
Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian College
Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina USA
jahn
"David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
A wild guess is 50 percent. I am continually amazed
by the number of die hard proponents that can ignore simple
tests like:
both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
watches are meaningfully different.
or
both twins must agree on the number of orbits
a commonly viewed satellite makes.
For many, it is like someone is faulting their religious
beliefs to suggest that the theory has severe logical
inconsistancies.
Kind regards,
Sue...
>
>
Harry
"David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting
answered.
>
> 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe
SR
> Theory to be good science?
I don't live in the US, but still I think that it may be useful to point out
the following:
"SR theory" means different things to different people.
In the most common meaning of physics, it is about the Lorentz
transformation laws which are conform the observation that laws of nature
are independent of one's speed.
I think there are very few phycisists who don't accept that the theory works
and therefore is, in that way, "good science".
But to others "SR theory" includes the metaphysical interpretation that
Einstein gave to it, or even that of others after him.
I doubt that any statistics exist on physicists' opinions about that, and
anyway physics education doesn't elaborate on such issues and usually
doesn't even mention different interpretations.
Harald
dlzc1 D:cox T:net@nospam.com N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
You've got good answers from the others...
...
> 2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
> the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why
> not?
If they were travelling superlumenally, how could we see them? They would
either get here before the light did, or be so red shifted we'd have to
develop new instrumentation to resolve them. Since the "superlumenal"
effects are observed with the same instruments, then what is observed is
illusion.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Relativity,
> and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting
> answered.
>
> 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S.,
> believe SR
> Theory to be good science?
No idea. Demographics isn't my thing. Most people are gullible, so it is
approximately high, along with religion. The rest of the world, not so
high.
In Britain and Australia it is lower. Why the interest in the US?
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:41b45785$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
> > and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting
> answered.
> >
> > 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe
> SR
> > Theory to be good science?
>
> I don't live in the US, but still I think that it may be useful to point out
> the following:
>
> "SR theory" means different things to different people.
Only on this crackpot group it does.
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:31j39mF...@individual.net...
>
> "David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
> > and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting answered.
> >
> > 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe SR
> > Theory to be good science?
> > And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
> > dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
> > moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
> > has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
> > contractions would be an actual change in time and length, along the lines
> > of the way TV shows and movies have long portrayed what happens when one
> > travels at relativistic speads?
> >
> > 2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
> > the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why not?
> >
> > Thanks for all answers?
>
> A wild guess is 50 percent.
50% of the time you call yourself Dennis and 50% of the time you
call yourself Sue.
Dennis, you are a wild idiot.
Dirk Vdm
David Johnson
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message
news:NTXsd.61648$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
What I was meant was time dilation caused by non-accelerated motion that
changes a mechanical or individual clock vs. time dilation caused by
non-accelerated motion that's just observational or an illusion. Traveling
into the future would be the more likely implication of the first case, I
think. I shouldn't have mentioned TV shows, it just confused things.
David
Tom Roberts
> both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
> watches are meaningfully different.
Why do you think that??? Set your watch to CST and someone else's watch
to EST and try it. The value on a dial has no influence on the ability
for two solid objects to occupy the same space simultaneously.
[Since the two objects are presumably located together,
simultaneity is independent of coordinate frame.]
> both twins must agree on the number of orbits
> a commonly viewed satellite makes.
They do. Why don't you try a real computation using the ACTUAL THEORY
rather than just making stuff up?
[Be careful counting orbits -- if the traveling twin follows a
circular path and the orbiting satellite is inside it and
coplanar with it, she may be off by 1 if she counts naively.
This of course happens classically as well.]
The twins, of course, don't agree on the average period of those orbits,
and the traveling twin might observe orbits having different periods
during different legs of her journey, unless her path has certain
symmetries (which the usual simple statements of the scenario happen to
have)....
> For many, it is like someone is faulting their religious
> beliefs to suggest that the theory has severe logical
> inconsistancies.
It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your MISUNDERSTANDING of SR
that has them.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
jahn
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:cp2q9d$h...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> jahn wrote:
> > both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
> > watches are meaningfully different.
>
> Why do you think that??? Set your watch to CST and someone else's watch
> to EST and try it. The value on a dial has no influence on the ability
> for two solid objects to occupy the same space simultaneously.
I see what you are saying. So a clock that is affected
by motion has no relation to one of the most fundamental
characteristics of time. It is simply a faulty clock.
> Since the two objects are presumably located together,
> simultaneity is independent of coordinate frame.
I've read Einstein's argument that relative moving
objects could not have have the same notion of
simultaneity but I don't recall such a claim for
co-moving much less co-located objects.
> > both twins must agree on the number of orbits
> > a commonly viewed satellite makes.
>
> They do. Why don't you try a real computation using the
> ACTUAL THEORY
> rather than just making stuff up?
I did. That is how I learned the value of common view
equal path synchronization. I didn't make it up either.
It is described on the NIST web site.
>
> Be careful counting orbits -- if the traveling twin follows a
> circular path and the orbiting satellite is inside it and
> coplanar with it, she may be off by 1 if she counts naively.
> This of course happens classically as well.
Yep. The best way is both twins at constant and equal radius
with the traveler tracing a circle. The satellite and it's parent
at the center of the circle.
> The twins, of course, don't agree on the average period of those orbits,
> and the traveling twin might observe orbits having different periods
> during different legs of her journey, unless her path has certain
> symmetries (which the usual simple statements of the scenario happen to
> have)....
If they tossed their unreliable clocks, they have no way to even
measure.
> > For many, it is like someone is faulting their religious
> > beliefs to suggest that the theory has severe logical
> > inconsistancies.
>
> It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your MISUNDERSTANDING of SR
> that has them.
It may be understandable as a work of philosophy
or a mathematical exercise.
But the improper comparison of synchronizing paths
and the invention of "relativistic mass" which favors
an infiintiy where a zero fits perfectly has to leave
any thoughtful reader highly skeptical about of any
physical significance.
Sue...
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
shuba
> "SR theory" means different things to different people.
Look at any introductory physics book or search the internet
for "special relativity theory" and you'll find that special
relativity refers to the geometric theory developed by Einstein,
which led to general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics,
and ultimately to the standard model.
The fact is that you reject special relativity in favor of a
preferred frame model which had led precisely nowhere. You lie
about what special relativity is in an attempt to hide that fact.
---Tim Shuba---
Bill Hobba
I think you are a bit confused about what SR is saying - but that is nothing
to worry about - it is counter intuitive and does require some letting go of
preconceptions to get to grips with. Also popular accounts sometime obscure
rather than illuminate. Consider a rod placed on the x axis. Rotate it -
the rods length remains the same but the x component is different. Now is
the x component any less real than before? Of course not - it is just
different. Exactly the same thing is happening in SR. When you are moving
relative to a stationary rod all you are doing is rotating the rod through
what is technically called a 'hyperbolic rotation'. It length has not
changed simply its projection onto our coordinate system. That projection
is just as real as when it was at rest. Similar comments apply to clocks as
well. Tom Roberts has posted at length on this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&selm=3714210B.9081...
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3384368904d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2co...
'Go back and look at my building analogy. GEOMETRY affects the RELATIONSHIP
between a measuring tool and the object being measured, but NEITHER object
nor measuring tool is "affected". The underlying process is geometrical
projection: In Euclidean space, lay a rod of length L along the X axis;
measure it using a ruler parallel to the X axis and you obtain L. But if you
measure it with a ruler inclined wrt the X axis, you must PROJECT the ends
of the rod onto the ruler; do that perpendicular to the ruler and you get a
value smaller than L. The distance between the ends of the rod is a spatial
interval, and measuring with a ruler ivolved PROJECTING that interval onto
the ruler; while the value obtained varies with the relationshiop between
ruler and rod, neither ruler nor rod are "affected" by the inclination of
rod wrt ruler. The EXACT same thing happens with clocks in SR -- there is a
geometrical PROJECTION involved. A given clock PROJECTS a spacetime interval
onto its own trajectory. A moving clock is INCLINED in the X-T plane wrt a
clock at rest on the X axis. But this is hyperbolic geometry, so a clock
with an inclined trajectory (i.e. is moving) registers a smaller value for
the interval between two points (e.g. the departure and arrival of the
traveling twin/clock) than does a clock with a trajectory that is not
inclined (i.e. is not moving).'
Thanks
Bill
>
> David
>
>
Androcles
"Traveling" into the future is what we all do. When else is there to go?
Androcles.
>
> David
>
>
Bill Hobba
>
> "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
news:cp2q9d$h...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > jahn wrote:
> > > both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
> > > watches are meaningfully different.
> >
> > Why do you think that??? Set your watch to CST and someone else's watch
> > to EST and try it. The value on a dial has no influence on the ability
> > for two solid objects to occupy the same space simultaneously.
>
> I see what you are saying. So a clock that is affected
> by motion has no relation to one of the most fundamental
> characteristics of time. It is simply a faulty clock.
As Tom Roberts says 'It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your
MISUNDERSTANDING of SR that has them.' For the benefit of the original
poster as explained in my reply (and Tom Roberts excellent previous posts)
clocks are not affected by motion; all that is affected is its projection on
our coordinate system. It is a mathematically provable theorem that SR is
as consistent as Euclidian geometry. Unfortunately this newsgroup has a lot
of cranks that make all sorts of wild unsupported claims. As you probably
have guessed Jahn's (or Dennis Mcarthy or Sue or whoever he wants to call
him or herself) usual tactic is one of misdirection.
Thanks
Bill
Androcles
>> both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
>> watches are meaningfully different.
>
> Why do you think that???
Pretty easy, I'd have thought.
> Set your watch to CST and someone else's watch to EST and try it.
LOL! Set your watch to CST and someone else's watch
to CST and try it.
If the watches show meaningfully different times, it is quite easy to
do!
> The value on a dial has no influence on the ability for two solid
> objects to occupy the same space simultaneously.
Irrelevant verbiage.
It has nothing whatever to do with the statement
"both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
watches are meaningfully different."
> [Since the two objects are presumably located together,
> simultaneity is independent of coordinate frame.]
Irrelevant verbiage.
>> both twins must agree on the number of orbits
>> a commonly viewed satellite makes.
>
> They do. Why don't you try a real computation using the ACTUAL THEORY
> rather than just making stuff up?
> [Be careful counting orbits -- if the traveling twin follows a
> circular path and the orbiting satellite is inside it and
> coplanar with it, she may be off by 1 if she counts naively.
> This of course happens classically as well.]
Irrelevant verbiage.
> The twins, of course, don't agree on the average period of those
> orbits, and the traveling twin might observe orbits having different
> periods during different legs of her journey, unless her path has
> certain symmetries (which the usual simple statements of the scenario
> happen to have)....
Why don't you try a real computation using the ACTUAL THEORY
rather than just making stuff up?
>
>> For many, it is like someone is faulting their religious
>> beliefs to suggest that the theory has severe logical
>> inconsistancies.
>
> It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your MISUNDERSTANDING of
> SR that has them.
Well, of course we misundertand it. I've asked Roberts to explain which
is correct,
Is it
a)
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured
in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
or
b) "It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered
by
composition with a velocity less than that of light.
For this case we obtain V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
and he's said it's irrelevant verbiage.
Beats the hell outa me how anyone can understand that.
Androcles
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bill Rowe
"David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
> and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting answered.
> 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe SR
> Theory to be good science?
100% of the competent physicists accept relativity as good science.
> And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
> dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
> moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
> has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
> contractions would be an actual change in time and length, along the lines
> of the way TV shows and movies have long portrayed what happens when one
> travels at relativistic speads?
Didn't you know physics works totally differently in Hollywood then any
other place in the universe? Seriously, what you see on TV and movies is
a very poor representation of what happens. This is often true even in
shows that are attempting to get some portion of the science right such
as Nova. While Nova generally does a good job, often they simplify
things too much without making it clear that they are simplifying things.
In SR, time dilation is the ratio of time measured in one coordinate
system to time measured in another coordinate system. Similarly, length
contraction is the ratio of a length measurement in one coordinate
system to a length measurement in another coordinate system.
> 2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
> the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why not?
No. These measurements are non-local measurements. SR predicts nothing
can have a local speed greater than c. There is no restriction on
non-local speeds. Note, strictly speaking, SR assumes no gravity and
isn't applicable. It is GR you have to use correctly in this case, not
SR.
Finally, if you are truly interested in trying to understand SR a very
good place to start would be with Spacetime Physics by Taylor and
Wheeler. This book is available at places like amazon.com for a very
reasonable price.
--
To reply via email subtract one hundred nine
Dirk Van de moortel
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message news:tim.shuba-F5FEC...@individual.net...
I think that dear Harry's agenda goes even further.
Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
>and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting answered.
>
>1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe SR
>Theory to be good science?
accept newtonian mechanics, which is to say that within the scope of what
it was conceived to describe, relativity (and newtonian mechanics) have
been empirically verified. Special relativity superceded newtonian mechanics
because newtonian mechanics could not adequately address electromagnetism.
Newtonian mechanics remains a limiting case of special relativity. General
relativity superceded special relativity because special relativity did
not adequately address gravity. Special relativity remains a special case
of general relativity and is also the basis for the standard model, which
describes all known physics other than gravity. General relativity and
the standard model have been empirically confirmed to better precision
than any theory of anything in the history of science (to parts in 10^13
in some cases), which makes relativity ``good science'' regardless of
any science to which you might want to make a comparison. So, I would
place the number of physicists who think that relativity is _not_ good
science somewhere down in the statistical noise.
>And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
>dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
>moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
>has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
>contractions would be an actual change in time and length, along the lines
>of the way TV shows and movies have long portrayed what happens when one
>travels at relativistic speads?
TV shows and movies tend to distort science by realizing a concept in
ways which contradict the theories from which the concept was taken.
The concept of time dilation and length contraction are identical to
a rather common observation that going from home to the store using
different routes, generally requires travelling different distances.
In relativity, time and space are on equal footing, so that the distance
between to points is spacetime is ds^2 = -(ct)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2,
rather than the more familiar spatial distance ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.
Two people who travel different distances between the same two space-
time points will have different elapsed times on their clocks,
just like two people who drive from point A to point B by different
routes witll have different elapsed distances on their odometers.
>2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c, relative to
>the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions? And if not, why not?
No. See the following url for a detailed explanation.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/
Superluminal/superluminal.html
shuba
So I could have included the part of my post that I cut out
before sending it? But that *was* rather ugly.
---Tim Shuba---
Tom Roberts
> So a clock that is affected
> by motion has no relation to one of the most fundamental
> characteristics of time. It is simply a faulty clock.
If one takes the classical viewpoint of the world that time is unique
and universal, then one could claim that. But those of us that do
science consider experiments performed on the world to override such
abstract idealizations arrived at via hopes and dreams.
From an experimental perspective, time is not universal, and there is
no way to make it so. Learn to live with it.
IOW: it is your personal notion of "time" that is faulty, not clocks.
[For common everyday tasks, the notion of "universal time"
can be used without serious problems, but when one examines
it experimentally with modern atomic clocks it fails.]
> Tom Roberts wrote
>>Since the two objects are presumably located together,
>>simultaneity is independent of coordinate frame.
>
> I've read Einstein's argument that relative moving
> objects could not have have the same notion of
> simultaneity but I don't recall such a claim for
> co-moving much less co-located objects.
It is a direct consequence of SR and GR that for two collocated objects
it does not matter which coordinate frame one uses to define definition
of simultaneity (local inertial frame in GR).
>>It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your MISUNDERSTANDING of SR
>>that has them.
>
> It may be understandable as a work of philosophy
> or a mathematical exercise.
No. It is a self-consistent physical theory that has been experimentally
verified to apply to the world we inhabit with high accuracy within its
domain of applicability. This is physics, and "works of philosophy"
and/or "mathematical exercises" are irrelevant -- what matters is such
experimental verification (including lack of refutation).
> But the improper comparison of synchronizing paths
> and the invention of "relativistic mass" which favors
> an infiintiy where a zero fits perfectly has to leave
> any thoughtful reader highly skeptical about of any
> physical significance.
Your personal prejudices are trumped by experimental evidence.
[Though I happen to agree about "relativistic mass" -- it is
an anachronism that causes more problems than it solves. But
my reasons for this are vastly different from yours.]
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Androcles
> jahn wrote:
>> So a clock that is affected
>> by motion has no relation to one of the most fundamental
>> characteristics of time. It is simply a faulty clock.
>
> If one takes the classical viewpoint of the world that time is unique
> and universal, then one could claim that. But those of us that do
> science consider experiments performed on the world to override such
> abstract idealizations arrived at via hopes and dreams.
"Do science" - LOL.
Roberts doesn't even know what science is, let alone "do" it.
>
> From an experimental perspective, time is not universal, and there is
> no way to make it so. Learn to live with it.
From a logical perspective, time most definitely is universal, learn to
live with it.
Any experiments that do not reach that conclusion are illogically
interpreted.
>
> IOW: it is your personal notion of "time" that is faulty, not clocks.
IOW: it is the relativists personal notion of "time" that is faulty,
clocks
are simple machines.
>
> [For common everyday tasks, the notion of "universal time"
> can be used without serious problems, but when one examines
> it experimentally with modern atomic clocks it fails.]
Yes, your notions fail. They are illogical nonsense.
Here is why.
The Seven Deadly Sins of Special Relativity.
For quotations following, reference:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
("On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" by Albert Einstein)
1) "light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c
which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body",
a totally unproven assumption without any evidence to support it.
2) "In agreement with experience we further assume the quantity
2AB/(t'A-tA) = c to be a universal constant- the velocity of light in
empty
space.",
an admitted assumption that is quite worthless when there is any
relative motion between A and B, yet essential to the derivation of the
remainder of Einstein's nonsense.
3) The equation
½[tau(0,0,0,t)+tau(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] = tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
,
the ½ of which is derived from 2) above and is tantamount to saying
(1/3 + 2/3)/2 = 1/3.
4) The missing 0' from that equation, since x' = x-vt, hence 0' = 0-vt,
and the equation should be
½[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/(c-v)+x'/(c+v))] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
at the very least.
5) The further assumption "IF we place x' = x-vt ... " without
considering
IF we place x' = x+vt, from which we derive (using Einstein's method)
tau = (t+xv/c^2)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
xi = (x + vt)/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)" -Paul B. Andersen
6) The statements
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
which are contradictory, the first being Galilean, the second being
contrary to the vector addition of velocities, an axiom of a vector
space.
7) The lack of a check to verify the theory is self-consistent by
feeding
the new PoR given in 6) into the equation given in 3) and finding a
total
failure.
Check:
(t1-t)/(t2-t)*[tau(-vt,0,0,t)+tau(-vt,0,0,t+x'/V+x'/V)] =
tau(x',0,0,t+x'/V)
where V = (c+v)/(1+v/c) as required by the redefined PoR.
> > Tom Roberts wrote
>>>Since the two objects are presumably located together,
>>>simultaneity is independent of coordinate frame.
>>
>> I've read Einstein's argument that relative moving
>> objects could not have have the same notion of
>> simultaneity but I don't recall such a claim for
>> co-moving much less co-located objects.
>
> It is a direct consequence of SR and GR that for two collocated
> objects it does not matter which coordinate frame one uses to define
> definition of simultaneity (local inertial frame in GR).
Waffle.
>
>
>>>It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your MISUNDERSTANDING of
>>>SR
>>>that has them.
>>
>> It may be understandable as a work of philosophy
>> or a mathematical exercise.
>
> No.
Yes.
> It is a self-consistent physical theory
Utter crap.
There is nothing self consistent about
"But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k,
when measured in the stationary system, with the velocity c-v..."
and
"It follows, further, that the velocity of light c cannot be altered by
composition with a velocity less than that of light. For this case we
obtain
V = (c+w)/(1+w/c) = c."
> that has been experimentally verified
Utter crap. No experiment has ever verified time dilation because
it is impossible.
> to apply to the world we inhabit with high accuracy within its domain
> of applicability.
The "domain of applicability" is the empty set.
>This is physics,
Bullshit. You are talking theoretical physics, not real physics.
> and "works of philosophy" and/or "mathematical exercises" are
> irrelevant -- what matters is such experimental verification
> (including lack of refutation).
Plenty of refutation.
" Thence we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions. " and it
doesn't.
You have NO evidence, just assertion, Roberts. You are not believed. Nor
are you a scientist, nor do you "do" science.
>> But the improper comparison of synchronizing paths
>> and the invention of "relativistic mass" which favors
>> an infiintiy where a zero fits perfectly has to leave
>> any thoughtful reader highly skeptical about of any
>> physical significance.
>
> Your personal prejudices are trumped by experimental evidence.
Your personal prejudices are trumped by experimental evidence, clocks at
the equator
do not run slower than clocks at the pole, and you KNOW it..
> [Though I happen to agree about "relativistic mass" -- it is
> an anachronism that causes more problems than it solves. But
> my reasons for this are vastly different from yours.]
In other words it was an invention of relativity that was proven false,
and you reasons fro supporting an idiotic theory are pompousness and
greed.
Androcles
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
jahn
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:tF8td.62119$K7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
> news:31ke82F...@individual.net...
> >
> > "Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message
> news:cp2q9d$h...@netnews.proxy.lucent.com...
> > > jahn wrote:
> > > > both twins should be able to occupy the same space if their
> > > > watches are meaningfully different.
> > >
> > > Why do you think that??? Set your watch to CST and someone else's watch
> > > to EST and try it. The value on a dial has no influence on the ability
> > > for two solid objects to occupy the same space simultaneously.
> >
> > I see what you are saying. So a clock that is affected
> > by motion has no relation to one of the most fundamental
> > characteristics of time. It is simply a faulty clock.
>
> As Tom Roberts says 'It is not SR that has inconsistencies, it is your
> MISUNDERSTANDING of SR that has them.' For the benefit of the original
> poster as explained in my reply (and Tom Roberts excellent previous posts)
> clocks are not affected by motion; all that is affected is its projection on
> our coordinate system. It is a mathematically provable theorem that SR is
> as consistent as Euclidian geometry. Unfortunately this newsgroup has a lot
> of cranks that make all sorts of wild unsupported claims. As you probably
> have guessed Jahn's (or Dennis Mcarthy or Sue or whoever he wants to call
> him or herself) usual tactic is one of misdirection.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Misdirecton is when we rely on a source that lacks
the information we seek. An observer that is not in
position to confirm the coincidence of events, is
neither in a position to refute the coincidence.
Here is an excellent example
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
It is Tom who has suggested that a clock has no relation
to physical phenomena so you perhaps should read the previous posts
before citing them as support for you POV.
Tom: << The value on a dial has no influence on the ability
for two solid objects to occupy the same space simultaneously.>>
Kind regards,
Sue...
Dirk Van de moortel
"jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message news:31mlc0F...@individual.net...
As always our friend Dennis is deliberately misdirecting.
Hey McCarthy, when are you going to start guessing?
You only have the Androcles imbecile to chat with, so
wouldn't you start admitting to yourself that your cover
has been blown to pieces?
Dirk Vdm
Bill Hobba
Misdirection has a number of manifestations. One is to make a claim that is
not true in sort of an aside fashion and then infer unsubstantiated claims.
You claimed:
'So a clock that is affected by motion' implying a clock is affected by it
motion when one of the tenants of SR is the 'clock postulate' that says
exactly the opposite -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/clock.html. Motion, in
particular, acceleration, does not affect its proper time (ie the time as
measured by an observer stationary wrt to the clock) - all we have is the
usual relativistic effects calculateable using the concept of an MCIF. And
these effects are simply the different projections of that proper time onto
different coordinate systems. Of course you may have meant something else
by your statement to which all I can say is that those that purport to have
found problems with a theory as well established as relativity should
express themselves in a way that can not be misinterpreted.
> An observer that is not in
> position to confirm the coincidence of events, is
> neither in a position to refute the coincidence.
This is another example of misdirection - relativity makes no claims that
physical measuring apparatus or actual observers must be in the location of
the space-time event in different coordinate systems - merely how
measurements of them transform. It is one of the assumptions of the theory
that we can erect hypothetical coordinate systems and examine the same
physical phenomena in different coordinate systems. It is so obvious no one
ever actually states it and it comes as a shock when someone actually doubts
it. It is sort of like the extra lines etc you draw in solving problems in
Euclidian geometry. If you had said to the teacher drawing such invalidates
the original problem I think you would have found yourself in a remedial
class very quickly.
>
> Here is an excellent example
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/
>
Misdirection again. The above is links to a translation of popular writing
Einstein did on relativity I think in the 1920's. I think it and Born's
classic books were the ones I read when I kid of 15 or so. Firstly
scientists have been known to be less that rigorous in scientific statements
made in popular books - which make them very attractive to cranks.
Secondly things have moved on considerable since then - which also makes
such attractive to cranks; since it allows them to shift the context to a
historical analysis rather than the physics.
Thanks
Bill
jahn
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:Zyqtd.63274$K7.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Thank you for the clairification.
Kind regards,
Sue...
Androcles
Thank you Dirk, is what you should be saying.
Sue...
H&K, Ensemble selected for result.
GPS, 50 ns/day vs 7us/day
GP -A, Interpretation recently reversed, Smithsonian Folder missing.
Pound-Rebka, Interpretation reversed by Snider paper.
Mt. Washinton- Kamiokande production heights
GP - B ? {On mission day #227, the GP-B spacecraft continues to be in
good health, with all subsystems performing well. As of tomorrow, we
will have been collecting relativity data for 100 days. The data
collection process is proceeding smoothly, and the quality of the data
remains excellent. All four gyros are digitally suspended in science
mode, and the spacecraft is flying drag-free around gyro #3,
maintaining a constant roll rate of 0.7742 rpm (77.5 seconds per
revolution.) The temperature inside the Dewar is holding steady at just
under 1.82 Kelvin }
http://einstein.stanford.edu/
We shall see.
Sue...
Androcles
"Sue..." <suzyse...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:1102477576.2...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
"Furthermore, seasonal warming of the spacecraft..."
Egads, it must be summer in space. It's winter here...
"an understanding of Einstein's revolutionary theories"
I coulda sworn he said "From the origin of system k let a ray be emitted
at the time tau0 along the X-axis... ", what's so revolvish about that?
Androcles.
> Sue...
>
Ilja Schmelzer
"jahn" <susyse...@yahoo.com.au> schrieb
> I see what you are saying. So a clock that is affected
> by motion has no relation to one of the most fundamental
> characteristics of time. It is simply a faulty clock.
So what? The problem is that all local clocks are faulty in
this sense, and, moreover, all in the same way.
Ilja
jahn
"Ilja Schmelzer" <q686...@mailstore.fernuni-hagen.de> wrote in message news:cp6clp$pcj$1...@beech.fernuni-hagen.de...
what. It's common on his statement.
Sue....
It's
Harry
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
in message news:xE0td.11823$fx3.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
I was indoctrinated to think that SRT includes Einstein's philosophy and
that his metaphysics was scientifically proven. Only when I started to
*think* it hit me that of course SRT in physics discussions means the theory
of physical laws as described by the PoR and the Lorentz transforms.
Many debates in this group are due to such differences of understandings.
Harald
Harry
"shuba" <tim....@lycos.ScPoAmM> wrote in message
news:tim.shuba-F5FEC...@individual.net...
>
> > "SR theory" means different things to different people.
>
> Look at any introductory physics book or search the internet
> for "special relativity theory" and you'll find that special
> relativity refers to the geometric theory developed by Einstein,
> which led to general relativity, relativistic quantum mechanics,
> and ultimately to the standard model.
That's exactly what I meant, thanks for such a great example! Such
unscientific crap I swallowed too.
> The fact is that you reject special relativity in favor of a
> preferred frame model which had led precisely nowhere. You lie
> about what special relativity is in an attempt to hide that fact.
>
> ---Tim Shuba---
I already noticed that you are a True Believer and not a scientist.
Harald
Harry
SNIP
> What I was meant was time dilation caused by non-accelerated motion that
> changes a mechanical or individual clock vs. time dilation caused by
> non-accelerated motion that's just observational or an illusion. Traveling
> into the future would be the more likely implication of the first case, I
> think. I shouldn't have mentioned TV shows, it just confused things.
>
> David
I can't make much sense of your question except for the last part: although
measured values depend on observation, the effects are real enough to be (at
least in theory) good for "travel into the future".
Harald
Harry
Hi Jahn/Sue, it appears that you stumble, not over the laws of relativity or
the PoR, but over the Einstein-Minkowski interpretation of SRT. Would you
similarly doubt QM because of Schroedinger's cat?
Harald
robert j. kolker
Harry wrote:
>
>
> I already noticed that you are a True Believer and not a scientist.
A True Believer in solid accurate predictions. It is the accuracy of
prediction that is the judge and jury to a theory.
Bob Kolker
Harry
"robert j. kolker" <now...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:31oeobF...@individual.net...
>
>
> Harry wrote:
> >
> >
> > I already noticed that you are a True Believer and not a scientist.
>
> A True Believer in solid accurate predictions.
That was not what I referred to. He presents Minkowski's interpretation of
it as Holy Truth, or at least that's the impression he made with his fanatic
comments.
> It is the accuracy of prediction that is the judge and jury to a theory.
Exactly - if it's about a theory of physics in the narrow sense. It seems
you missed out on my original comment in this sub thread, once more here:
"SR theory" means different things to different people.
In the most common meaning of physics, it is about the Lorentz
transformation laws which are conform the observation that laws of nature
are independent of one's speed.
I think there are very few physicists who don't accept that the theory works
and therefore is, in that way, "good science".
But to others "SR theory" includes the metaphysical interpretation that
Einstein gave to it, or even that of others after him.
I doubt that any statistics exist on physicists' opinions about that, and
anyway physics education doesn't elaborate on such issues and usually
doesn't even mention different interpretations.
Harald.
jahn
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:41b7125e$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
AFAIK QM is a mathematical abstraction that clearly states
it's assumpions and makes no claim to be a qualitative physical
theory. That is not the case with SR because it makes claims,
predictions and invites experimental challenge.
Sue...
>
> Harald
>
>
Harry
Hmm, if you're right about that I should urgently refresh my memory about
QM - IMO it makes quantitative predictions about observables, just like
SRT... and there were from the start debates about how to interpret it, also
just like SRT.
jahn
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:41b736b8$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
How many "L"s are there in the word "quantitative" ?
Sue...
Dirk Van de moortel
"Bill Hobba" <bho...@rubbish.net.au> wrote in message news:Zyqtd.63274$K7.5...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
[snip]
Dennis is misdirecting *all the time*.
Actually, we should call him Dennis Misdirecting McCarthy.
Just have a quick look:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/InductiveArgument.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Reading1.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ReadingSon.html
and of course, not so much misdirecting, but so utterly stupid:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Orthonormal.html
Don't you just love this one??? :-))
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:41b6e19e$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
>
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote
> in message news:xE0td.11823$fx3.7...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
> >
> > "Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message
> news:41b45785$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
> > >
> > > "David Johnson" <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> > > >
> > > > I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of
> Relativity,
> > > > and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting
> > > answered.
> > > >
> > > > 1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S.,
> believe
> > > SR
> > > > Theory to be good science?
> > >
> > > I don't live in the US, but still I think that it may be useful to point
> out
> > > the following:
> > >
> > > "SR theory" means different things to different people.
> >
> > Only on this crackpot group it does.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> I was indoctrinated to think that SRT includes Einstein's philosophy and
> that his metaphysics was scientifically proven.
Indoctrinated...
Ah yes, by the conspirers.
Dirk Vdm
Eugene Shubert
news:cp1i2f$9ct$1...@jtbell.presby.edu...
> In article <hwVsd.41137$Al3....@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>,
> David Johnson <mounta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S.,
>>believe SR Theory to be good science?
>
>
>>And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe
>>that the time dilation and length contractions that SR predicts
>>take place when one is moving at relativistic speeds, to be
>>merely observations that the observer has; and what percentage
>>believe that these time dilations and length contractions would
>>be an actual change in time and length,
>
> because of differing definitions of the meaning of "actual change
> in time and length" in certain situations. Note, however, that with
> respect to time dilation, differential aging of objects traveling
> different paths through space-time has in fact been observed.
> See
>
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
>
> in particular the section "Tests of the Twin Paradox."
>
>>2. Do the existence of superluminal galaxies moving at 2c-5c,
>>relative to the earth, contradict Einsteins SR Theory predictions?
>>And if not, why not?
>
>
> <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/Superluminal/superluminal.html>
>
> --
> Jon Bell <jtbe...@presby.edu> Presbyterian
> College
> Dept. of Physics and Computer Science Clinton, South Carolina
> USA
Jon,
That's a very good answer. :-)
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
Eugene Shubert
> Popular accounts sometime obscure rather than illuminate.
> Consider a rod placed on the x axis. Rotate it - the rods
> length remains the same but the x component is different.
> Now is the x component any less real than before? Of
> course not - it is just different. Exactly the same thing is
> happening in SR. When you are moving relative to a
> stationary rod all you are doing is rotating the rod
> through what is technically called a 'hyperbolic rotation'.
> It length has not changed simply its projection onto our
> coordinate system. That projection is just as real as when
> it was at rest. Similar comments apply to clocks as
> well. Tom Roberts has posted at length on this.
Religious relativists are extraordinarily pompous and asinine.
That is truly the most worthless response for a layman that
I've ever read.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eugene Shubert
news:slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Physicists today accept relativity to the same extent
> that physicists accept newtonian mechanics,
It would be more accurate to say that physicists today accept
relativity as far as they can understand it but they don't understand
it very well. They do understand Newtonian mechanics however.
> In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
That is incorrect.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Eric Gisse
Hey, more intellectually dishonest editing to convey a meaning that is
not there. Good job, Eugene - you set the standard.
> news:slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > Physicists today accept relativity to the same extent
> > that physicists accept newtonian mechanics,
>
> It would be more accurate to say that physicists today accept
> relativity as far as they can understand it but they don't understand
> it very well. They do understand Newtonian mechanics however.
You paint with a broad brush, Eugene. Just because *you* do not
understand relativity does not mean everybody does not understand it.
>
> > In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
>
> That is incorrect.
Thus justifying my statement about you not understanding relativity.
>
> Eugene Shubert
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Equations? Not numbered.
Rambling abstract with irrelevant and inappropriate crap? Still there.
Still in need of a skilled editor? Yep.
I still think you are not serious about being published.
Harry
Why?!
Indoctrinate:
- To instruct in a body of doctrine or principles. To imbue with a partisan
or ideological point of view
- To instruct in the rudiments or principles of learning, or of a branch of
learning; to imbue with learning; to instruct in, or imbue with, principles
or doctrines; to teach;
- teach doctrines to; teach uncritically
Harry
None. Despite you using it, "quantitative" is most appropriate for
predictions.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:41b8108f$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
Main Entry: in·doc·tri·nate
Pronunciation: in-'däk-tr&-"nAt
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: probably from Middle English endoctrinen,
from Middle French endoctriner, from Old French,
from en- + doctrine doctrine
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
Dirk Vdm
jahn
"Harry" <harald.v...@epfl.ch> wrote in message news:41b81e7d$1...@epflnews.epfl.ch...
You may predict the winning lottery number with 100%
accuracy but I would be very wrong to infer from that
you have special knowlege about the way air currents
affect the serial numbered balls used in the lottery
device.
Without any knowledge how a disease does it's damage
or a medicine works it's magic, we might predict from
other factors a person's vulunerability to the disease and the
effectiveness of a treatment.
This kind of quantitative information can't tell you how
the RNA of a virus hijacks a cells resources to replicate.
This is qualitative information.
Conversely an accurate qualitative model of weather related
phenomena may be predictivley useless absent the computing
resources to duplicate the model.
The assumptions of QM usually replace phenomena that lack
a qualitative model with statistical functions. The predicitve
accuracy proves the technique, NOT the equality of the
substitution.
You might replace some variarble in a manufacturing process
with a random number to study some quality related parameter.
Hopefully you wouldn't instruct workers to put components
in random positions if the parameter didn't change.
Sue...
shuba
> I already noticed that you are a True Believer and not a scientist.
I've never claimed to be a scientist. You, on the other hand,
work at an institute of learning, and your contributions here
consist largely of historical revisionism and attempts to demean
the works and ideas of - umm - *certain* types of people,
including many who are successful scientists and educators. It
sounds a lot like ... oh, never mind.
---Tim Shuba---
Eugene Shubert
> Harald wrote:
>
>> I already noticed that you are a True Believer and not a scientist.
>
> I've never claimed to be a scientist. You, on the other hand,
> work at an institute of learning, and your contributions here
> consist largely of historical revisionism and attempts to demean
> the works and ideas of - umm - *certain* types of people,
> including many who are successful scientists and educators.
Mr. Shuba,
I believe that Harald has been the most helpful person to me on this
newsgroup. I have benefited tremendously by his sincerely honest
critique of http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
He did not demean my work but politely explained his perceptions
so that I could make valuable revisions. I have never seen you help
anyone. You demean others.
Respectfully,
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org/relativity/special.pdf
Harry
Also fine. No need for a conspiration.
Androcles
Good grief, no.
The objective is to remove random variables, there are enough
already without adding to them.
Androcles.
Bilge
>news:slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Physicists today accept relativity to the same extent
>> that physicists accept newtonian mechanics,
>
>It would be more accurate to say that physicists today accept
>relativity as far as they can understand it but they don't understand
>it very well. They do understand Newtonian mechanics however.
well and you are deluded in thinking that you understand it well
enough to do any physics with special relativity at all, much less
critique anyone else's knowledge of relativity. Let's see you prove
the mass-energy-momentum relations (not the plausibility argument
einstein used in 1905, before the mathematics necessary to provide
a real proof was available). You claim to be a math wizard and
a genius at relativity, so it should be a real snap for you.
>> In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
>
>That is incorrect.
Oh? And all this time, I thought relativity was described in terms
of a four-dimensional spacetime. Tell me eugene, if relativity is
not described by a four-dimensional spacetime with a lorentzian
metric, what is it?
Eric Gisse
Eugene is probably referencing his version of SR as the "true" version
when making that statement. If you accept his version of SR as true,
what he said is correct - time and space are no longer on equal
footing.
This is yet another reason why I dislike his "derivation", it destroys
the utility of SR without any gain outside of the gain Eugene Shubert
gives his own ego by doing this.
[Eugene, before you reply, read for comprehension.]
Eugene Shubert
> Eugene Shubert:
> >"Rage Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in
> >message
> >news:slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> >> Physicists today accept relativity to the same extent
> >> that physicists accept newtonian mechanics,
> >
> >It would be more accurate to say that physicists today accept
> >relativity as far as they can understand it but they don't
> >understand it very well. They do understand Newtonian
> >mechanics however.
>
> No, it would be more accurate to say physicists understand it very
> well and you are deluded in thinking that you understand it well
> enough to do any physics with special relativity at all, much less
> critique anyone else's knowledge of relativity.
There is nothing wrong with my critique of Einstein's and present day
physics misunderstanding of the homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=221
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?p=3437#3437
> Let's see you prove
> the mass-energy-momentum relations (not the plausibility argument
> einstein used in 1905, before the mathematics necessary to provide
> a real proof was available). You claim to be a math wizard and
> a genius at relativity, so it should be a real snap for you.
I have an extraordinarily beautiful and original proof of SR's
mass-energy-momentum relations. My derivation of it assumes less
than JD Jackson's derivation in his Classical Electrodynamics. My
approach is obvious superior to whatever you have in mind also
since the mathematics I require was available in 1905.
> >> In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
> >
> >That is incorrect.
>
> Oh? And all this time, I thought relativity was described in terms
> of a four-dimensional spacetime. Tell me eugene, if relativity is
> not described by a four-dimensional spacetime with a lorentzian
> metric, what is it?
All children know that time and space are NOT on an equal footing.
Children realize that cars can be put in reverse and that people can
walk backward to retrace their steps in space. You can't move
backward in time.
It takes years of programming to get physicists students to believe
there's no distinction between space and time.
Have you noticed the many ignorant posts that practically equate
hyperbolic rotations with the rotation of a rod in Euclidean 3-space?
This nonsense was aimed at instructing laymen. This level of ignorance
is frightening.
Eugene Shubert
http://www.everythingimportant.org
Bilge
>news:slrncrj0th....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> Eugene Shubert:
>> >"Rage Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in
>> >message
>> >news:slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>> >> Physicists today accept relativity to the same extent
>> >> that physicists accept newtonian mechanics,
>> >
>> >It would be more accurate to say that physicists today accept
>> >relativity as far as they can understand it but they don't
>> >understand it very well. They do understand Newtonian
>> >mechanics however.
>>
>> No, it would be more accurate to say physicists understand it very
>> well and you are deluded in thinking that you understand it well
>> enough to do any physics with special relativity at all, much less
>> critique anyone else's knowledge of relativity.
>
>There is nothing wrong with my critique of Einstein's and present day
>physics misunderstanding of the homogeneity and isotropy of spacetime.
John Kennaugh
<dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
> David Johnson:
> >
> >I'm a laymen trying to better understand the Special Theory of Relativity,
> >and I have two questions that I'd appreciate some help in getting answered.
> >
> >1. What percentage of the Physicists approximately, in the U.S., believe SR
> >Theory to be good science?
>
>it was conceived to describe, relativity (and newtonian mechanics) have
>been empirically verified. Special relativity superceded newtonian mechanics
>because newtonian mechanics could not adequately address electromagnetism.
>Newtonian mechanics remains a limiting case of special relativity. General
>relativity superceded special relativity because special relativity did
>not adequately address gravity. Special relativity remains a special case
>of general relativity and is also the basis for the standard model, which
>describes all known physics other than gravity. General relativity and
>the standard model have been empirically confirmed to better precision
>than any theory of anything in the history of science (to parts in 10^13
>in some cases), which makes relativity ``good science'' regardless of
>any science to which you might want to make a comparison. So, I would
>place the number of physicists who think that relativity is _not_ good
>science somewhere down in the statistical noise.
David - This answer is perhaps a little deceptive. To start with I don't
think Bilge would agree to call anyone a 'physicist' who questioned
relativity so on that basis 100% of people he would consider worthy of
the name 'physicist' believe in relativity. It is also to some extent a
self fulfilling prophesy. It works like this. Dissent is avoided by a
playground level 'peer pressure' approach which in effect always equates
'not accepting relativity' with 'not understanding relativity'. If
anyone does not accept relativity they are said to not understand
relativity, and if they are too stupid to understand relativity they
should look for another career. Thus the chances of finding a physicist
willing to state that he has doubts about relativity is about as likely
as finding a priest willing to state that he doesn't believe in god and
would have the same effect on his career prospects. If you believe that
the fact that all priests believe in god is sufficient a reason for you
to believe in god then the fact that all physicist accept relativity may
be a reason for accepting relativity. I think you should make your own
mind up about both.
> >And of those who do, what percentage approximately, believe that the time
> >dilation and length contractions that SR predicts take place when one is
> >moving at relativistic speeds, to be merely observations that the observer
> >has; and what percentage believe that these time dilations and length
> >contractions would be an actual change in time and length, along the lines
> >of the way TV shows and movies have long portrayed what happens when one
> >travels at relativistic speads?
>
> TV shows and movies tend to distort science by realizing a concept in
>ways which contradict the theories from which the concept was taken.
>The concept of time dilation and length contraction are identical to
>a rather common observation that going from home to the store using
>different routes, generally requires travelling different distances.
>In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
> so that the distance
>between to points is spacetime is ds^2 = -(ct)^2 + dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2,
>rather than the more familiar spatial distance ds^2 = dx^2 + dy^2 + dz^2.
>Two people who travel different distances between the same two space-
>time points will have different elapsed times on their clocks,
>just like two people who drive from point A to point B by different
>routes witll have different elapsed distances on their odometers.
You may not feel he has answered your question.
>In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
You should perhaps question what that means and whether they should be.
The history goes like this:
Once upon a time there was a chap called Newton. To him velocities
simply add. If you can throw a javelin at 30mph when standing still then
if you run at 6mph and throw it, it will travel at 36mph relative to the
ground. Newton thought that light was made up of little particles he
called corpuscles and assumed that their speed would add to the speed of
the source like everything else does. Newton was completely wrong. Light
is not made up of particles called 'corpuscles', we now know that they
are called 'photons' :o).
He lost out to the wave-ether theory of light. This says that everywhere
in the universe is filled with something called the ether and that light
is a wave, a disturbance, propagated in that ether at a constant speed
relative to the ether. One can conclude from this that if the speed is
constant w.r.t the ether it will not be effected by the speed of the
source (shorthand - source independence) neither will it be constant
w.r.t the observer.
An experiment was devised to detect the existence of the ether -
Michelson- Morley experiment (shorthand MMX). It didn't which lead to a
bit of a crisis. It represents a cross roads in physics or really more
of a T-junction.
In one direction you have Walter Ritz. The basic argument is very simple
- If there is no ether then a source is surrounded by nothing which can
effect the speed of light so the only thing which can effect the speed
of light are the physical processes taking place in the source. i.e. the
speed of light must add to that of the source. Light was found to be
made up of photons, particles, they don't need an ether and there seems
no conceivable reason why their speed should not be c relative to the
source ejecting them.
In the other direction you have Lorentz who basically thought that the
wavelike behaviour of light was just too convincing and he thought up a
fix for the wave ether theory whereby matter moving through the ether is
changed in such a way as to nullify attempts to detect the motion. The
interaction between ponderable matter and the ether he expressed
mathematically as the Lorentz transforms. His theory stated that
although there was an ether underpinning the laws of nature you couldn't
detect it and from a measurement point of view the laws of nature would
appear the same to all inertial observers.
Einstein (with some conceptual help from Poncere) decided that the
answer was correct but the way of reaching it was unconvincing. That the
idea that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, that there
is no such thing as absolute velocity, that velocity was always relative
could be considered as an axiom - The principle of relativity. (short
hand PoR).
You will hear that Einstein based his theory on the PoR and that that
removed the need for the ether. What you are unlikely to hear is the
fact that Walter Ritz's theory is completely consistent with the PoR
also. The difference, and therefore what specifically defines relativity
comes in the second postulate of relativity which does not come from the
PoR at all. In fact Einstein described the second postulate as being
'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR.
The second postulate in effect says that the speed of light is
everywhere constant with respect to the observer observing it.
That in turn comes from the doctrine of source independence. If the
speed of light from a stationary source is c for all observers (PoR) and
light speed is source independent, then it must be c for all observers
whether the source is moving or not.
Now comes the bit which is hard to fathom. The PoR is based on the idea
that there is no ether the second postulate is based on a property of
the ether - no wonder it is apparently irreconcilable. In order to
reconcile the irreconcilable, Einstein ditched both the axiom of
universal time and of universal distance.
You may conclude that having incorporated a property of the ether it is
hardly surprising that he ended up deriving Lorentz's transforms.
You might also care to wonder why people who don't believe in the ether
would consider it so important to incorporate a property of the ether
that they felt it was worth losing two axioms of physics to achieve it.
You might also wonder why you have never heard of Walter Ritz and why
Alfred's theory was accepted and Walter's rejected. The answer appears
to be because if they put Ritz's theory into textbooks they would have
to explain why it was rejected and the reason it was rejected was
because physicists weren't prepared to accept that they had been wrong
for 200 years and Ritz died in 1909 leaving Einstein with a clear field.
You might ask yourself whether it is likely that 'good science' could
ever result from such a provenance. Bilge tells me it has, but you may
see why I am sceptical and why I take with a pinch of salt the idea that
relativity is not an ether based theory.
Now Minkowski had a play with relativity and noted that "the speed of
light is everywhere constant (= c) with respect to the observer
observing it". This means that you can multiply time by the speed of
light and get units of distance and mix them on a diagram with other
things which have units of distance. Just because you can do that and
just because that allows the maths to be performed using geometry rather
than algebra does not necessarily signify that it is anything other than
a useful mathematical technique. If you believe it to be something more
profound than that you may accept Bilge's contention that
>In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
i.e. rather than saying there is a mathematical fiddle you can use to
put time on the same diagram as distance, Bilge says that relativity is
not about light, it is a geometric theory of space-time which models the
geometry of nature.
If that is true it seems to me that Einstein was stumbling about in the
dark and got lucky.
--
John Kennaugh
to email convert the number from hex to decimal
jahn
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:zEDklaKN...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> In message <slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge
> <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
> > David Johnson:
> > >
> > >I'm a laymen trying to better understand
A thoughtful paper John,
Thank you,
Sue...
Tom Capizzi
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zEDklaKN...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>
> time on the same diagram as distance, Bilge says that relativity is not
> about light, it is a geometric theory of space-time which models the
> geometry of nature.
>
> If that is true it seems to me that Einstein was stumbling about in the
> dark and got lucky.
>
It is my belief that it is exactly what Einstein was doing. Special
Relativity
is derived from a false assumption, and from the rules of logic, it still
arrives at true conclusions. This is a perfectly valid logical premise. In
simple terms, the theory attempts to explain physical quantities which
are much like the shadows on the wall of Plato's cavedwellers. The
shadows are 2-dimensional projections of 3-dimensional objects. The
fictions of length contraction, time dilation, and mass increase with
high velocity are artifacts of projective geometry. For a more detailed
description see my post "Mercator's Relativity". I discovered a spatial
geometry which explains these deviations with the shape of spacetime.
It is based on the geometry of a particular type of spiral and also
includes the odd rule for combination of velocities. The Lorentz
transform is also intrinsic to this geometry as a restatement of the
mathematical identity for the hyperbolic functions of multiple angles.
There is no such thing as relativistic mass increase - it is invariant. The
units of length and time are also invariant, but due to the fact that
spacetime is tilted as well as curved, the portions of the units that are
actually observable are the apparently contracted and dilated parts.
The reason mass is absolutely invariant is the distance between two
points actually increases with the tilt of spacetime, so the actual velocity
is greater than the observable part by the relativistic correction factor.
A side effect of this projection is the apparent light speed limit. It turns
out that the observable spatial projection of total velocity approaches
the speed of light as the total spatial component approaches infinity.
The velocity c appears naturally as the universal speed of time. All of
the components of total velocity are proportional to the speed of time.
All the properties I have listed are mathematical consequences of the
choice of geometry. The observable components agree completely with
the Theory of Relativity. The only thing needed to relate the geometric
model with "reality" is the assignment, v = c * sin(spacetime tilt) for
observable velocity. With this definition, the relativistic correction
factor, gamma, becomes secant(tilt), beta becomes sine(tilt), and gamma*
beta becomes tangent(tilt). Special Relativity becomes a first order
analog to General Relativity, relating the slope of spacetime to velocity,
just as curvature of spacetime is related to acceleration. Since all the
observable quantities are explained by geometrical considerations, this
theory is devoid of any reference to an ether as well. It would be worth
looking into further, to see what other geometrical laws imply about the
"real" world.
John Kennaugh
<susyse...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:zEDklaKN...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
>> In message <slrncrbfja...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>, Bilge
>> <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
>> > David Johnson:
>> > >
>> > >I'm a laymen trying to better understand
>[snip]
>A thoughtful paper John,
>Thank you,
>Sue...
My pleasure. Merry Christmas.
Harry
"John Kennaugh" <JK...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:zEDklaKN...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> writes
> > David Johnson:
Allow me a few additional clarifications, as it's interesting stuff - also
some questions:
> >In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
>
> You should perhaps question what that means and whether they should be.
> The history goes like this:
>
> Once upon a time there was a chap called Newton. To him velocities
> simply add. If you can throw a javelin at 30mph when standing still then
> if you run at 6mph and throw it, it will travel at 36mph relative to the
> ground.
To be precise, that was because he assumed (a very reasonable assumption at
the time) that mass is not affected by its speed relative to his "absolute
space". Thus his law of conservation of momentum m*v is consistent with the
Galilean transformation, implying no other physical effect from "absolute
space" than the existence of inertia and the need of inertial reference
frames for his laws. With the corrected mass law as proposed by Lorentz we
obtain the modern relativistic corrections and the velocity-sum equation of
Einstein.
> Newton thought that light was made up of little particles he
> called corpuscles and assumed that their speed would add to the speed of
> the source like everything else does.
- like he *assumed* that everything else does.
> Newton was completely wrong. Light
> is not made up of particles called 'corpuscles', we now know that they
> are called 'photons' :o).
He was mainly wrong with his particle concept for light bending.
> He lost out to the wave-ether theory of light. This says that everywhere
> in the universe is filled with something called the ether and that light
> is a wave, a disturbance, propagated in that ether at a constant speed
> relative to the ether. One can conclude from this that if the speed is
> constant w.r.t the ether it will not be effected by the speed of the
> source (shorthand - source independence) neither will it be constant
> w.r.t the observer.
>
> An experiment was devised to detect the existence of the ether -
> Michelson- Morley experiment (shorthand MMX). It didn't
- to be precise: it did not detect the expected signal that was predicted
from the used model -
> which lead to a
> bit of a crisis. It represents a cross roads in physics or really more
> of a T-junction.
Even more than a T junction, looking at what you write below.
> In one direction you have Walter Ritz. The basic argument is very simple
> - If there is no ether then a source is surrounded by nothing which can
> effect the speed of light so the only thing which can effect the speed
> of light are the physical processes taking place in the source. i.e. the
> speed of light must add to that of the source. Light was found to be
> made up of photons, particles, they don't need an ether and there seems
> no conceivable reason why their speed should not be c relative to the
> source ejecting them.
But if light consists of particles, why *would* its speed be c and
independent of energy...
There is a number of other unanswered questions with such models, e.g. how
can something without substance be called a particle and why would an atom
emit them in the "shape" of violin rods (proper mass and frequency are
zero).
> In the other direction you have Lorentz who basically thought that the
> wavelike behaviour of light was just too convincing and he thought up a
> fix for the wave ether theory
- it was a unification of Newton's and Maxwell's theories incl. their
metaphysics.
> whereby matter moving through the ether is
> changed in such a way as to nullify attempts to detect the motion. The
> interaction between ponderable matter and the ether he expressed
> mathematically as the Lorentz transforms. His theory stated that
> although there was an ether underpinning the laws of nature you couldn't
> detect it and from a measurement point of view the laws of nature would
> appear the same to all inertial observers.
- exactly like the relativity of Newton, but adapted to the newly discovered
reality.
BTW it was Poincare who derived the Lorentz transforms and announced - based
on Lorentz' theory - the "new mechanics" that reestablished the PoR.
> Einstein (with some conceptual help from Poncere) decided that the
> answer was correct but the way of reaching it was unconvincing.
Lorentz agreed and later preferred Einstein's top-down approach.
> That the
> idea that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, that there
> is no such thing as absolute velocity, that velocity was always relative
> could be considered as an axiom - The principle of relativity. (short
> hand PoR).
BTW this was not really new, not even Poincare was original about it
although Poincare may have been the first writer to use the expression
"PoR".
Notice the enormous conceptual gap between Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz ,
Poincare on the one hand and Einstein on the other hand, eventhough Einstein
used their expressions.
Where Ritz was in that conceptual dividing line is not clear to me.
> You will hear that Einstein based his theory on the PoR and that that
> removed the need for the ether. What you are unlikely to hear is the
> fact that Walter Ritz's theory is completely consistent with the PoR
> also. The difference, and therefore what specifically defines relativity
> comes in the second postulate of relativity which does not come from the
> PoR at all. In fact Einstein described the second postulate as being
> 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR.
>
> The second postulate in effect says that the speed of light is
> everywhere constant with respect to the observer observing it.
To be precise, constant with respect to coordinate systems in constant
motion.
> That in turn comes from the doctrine of source independence. If the
> speed of light from a stationary source is c for all observers (PoR) and
> light speed is source independent, then it must be c for all observers
> whether the source is moving or not.
>
> Now comes the bit which is hard to fathom. The PoR is based on the idea
> that there is no ether
- to be precise, Einstein's 1905 interpretation of the PoR was that no ether
is needed.
> the second postulate is based on a property of
> the ether - no wonder it is apparently irreconcilable. In order to
> reconcile the irreconcilable, Einstein ditched both the axiom of
> universal time and of universal distance.
Which was already ditched by Lorentz and Poincare, insofar as time and
distance refer to measurables...
> You may conclude that having incorporated a property of the ether it is
> hardly surprising that he ended up deriving Lorentz's transforms.
>
> You might also care to wonder why people who don't believe in the ether
> would consider it so important to incorporate a property of the ether
> that they felt it was worth losing two axioms of physics to achieve it.
But those "axioms" were lost anyway, don't you agree?
> You might also wonder why you have never heard of Walter Ritz and why
> Alfred's theory was accepted and Walter's rejected. The answer appears
> to be because if they put Ritz's theory into textbooks they would have
> to explain why it was rejected and the reason it was rejected was
> because physicists weren't prepared to accept that they had been wrong
> for 200 years and Ritz died in 1909 leaving Einstein with a clear field.
Simplification would be another answer.
> You might ask yourself whether it is likely that 'good science' could
> ever result from such a provenance. Bilge tells me it has, but you may
> see why I am sceptical and why I take with a pinch of salt the idea that
> relativity is not an ether based theory.
>
> Now Minkowski had a play with relativity and noted that "the speed of
> light is everywhere constant (= c) with respect to the observer
> observing it". This means that you can multiply time by the speed of
> light and get units of distance and mix them on a diagram with other
> things which have units of distance. Just because you can do that and
> just because that allows the maths to be performed using geometry rather
> than algebra does not necessarily signify that it is anything other than
> a useful mathematical technique. If you believe it to be something more
> profound than that you may accept Bilge's contention that
>
> >In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
- which originates with Minkowski -
> i.e. rather than saying there is a mathematical fiddle you can use to
> put time on the same diagram as distance, Bilge says that relativity is
> not about light, it is a geometric theory of space-time which models the
> geometry of nature.
>
> If that is true it seems to me that Einstein was stumbling about in the
> dark and got lucky.
> --
> John Kennaugh
Harald
robert j. kolker
John Kennaugh wrote:
>
> If that is true it seems to me that Einstein was stumbling about in the
> dark and got lucky.
He also "got lucky" by providing an explanation of the photoelectric
effect, a correct model for statistical mechanics, a theory of gravity
that dealt with the bending of light around massive bodies and the
anomalous perihellion advance of Mercury. His luck even extended to
making a basis coherent radiation (later used as masers and lasers).
What a "lucky" guy! Stumbling around in the dark like that and getting a
Nobel Prize for it.
Bob Kolker
John Kennaugh
Fair enough but one should always assumes the simplest model until it
proves untenable. I am happy to rephrase it:
"[He] assumed that their speed would add to the speed of the source like
everything else appeared to do."
Essentially if space is empty there is nothing else which can make its
speed c other than the processes taking place in the source. Why its
speed is c is a valid question but does not effect that argument.
It is tied in with 'what is a photon?'. My own suggestion which is pure
speculation is that a photon spins which is why it has a property we
call frequency. If it spins and moves forward at c relative to the
source then there is a distance in which it will complete one revolution
which might be what we think of as wavelength. If energy is related to
the speed of spin it is possible for any amount of energy to be emitted
while keeping the speed constant. - I still haven't addressed the
question as to why the speed is constant - merely pointed out that a
requirement to carry away different amounts of energy does not imply a
need for different speeds and even if my speculation is wide of the mark
that whatever what we call the frequency of a photon (nu in planks
equation) it is this property which varies with energy level not the
speed. c would seem to be the maximum speed at which an electric force
can act so such a force will therefore eject a massless particle at c
relative to the source ejecting it and any particle with mass will be
less than c. A particle with mass, if subjected repeatedly to an
electrical force which can itself only act at c, will never reach c but
will get nearer and nearer to it. If an electric field cannot make a
particle travel at more than c relative to itself but can increase the
energy of the particle in some other way then like a photon there must
be an alternative mechanism for storing energy other than speed. In
relativity this is put down to an increase in mass (whatever mass is) in
a photon it is put down to frequency (whatever frequency is) both
represent energy so we have energy, mass, and frequency as all aspects
of the same thing.
>There is a number of other unanswered questions with such models, e.g. how
>can something without substance be called a particle and why would an atom
>emit them in the "shape" of violin rods (proper mass and frequency are
>zero).
I do not understand your reference to violin rods nor your comment that
frequency is zero. It is certainly 'interpretation' of some kind based
upon one theory when we are discussing another. My argument is not that
I have any answers nor that Ritz had all the answers (he died in 1909 so
he didn't have long to develop his theory and his battle with Einstein
was short). My argument is that this route has never been adequately
explored and no one has tried to find whether there are answers to the
questions and whether the result would give a simpler model than present
theory.
After all there was nothing wrong with assuming the earth was at the
centre of the solar system it is just that if you put the sun at the
centre everything looks much simpler. Having the earth at the centre
would never have been disproved if there had not been an alternative
theory to challenge it. If you have only got one theory, or if no one
admits the existence of another theory, that theory remains
unchallenged. Relativity works - but no one has tried the alternative to
see if it works better.
>> In the other direction you have Lorentz who basically thought that the
>> wavelike behaviour of light was just too convincing and he thought up a
>> fix for the wave ether theory
>
>- it was a unification of Newton's and Maxwell's theories incl. their
>metaphysics.
>
>> whereby matter moving through the ether is
>> changed in such a way as to nullify attempts to detect the motion. The
>> interaction between ponderable matter and the ether he expressed
>> mathematically as the Lorentz transforms. His theory stated that
>> although there was an ether underpinning the laws of nature you couldn't
>> detect it and from a measurement point of view the laws of nature would
>> appear the same to all inertial observers.
>
>- exactly like the relativity of Newton,
exactly
> but adapted to the newly discovered
>reality.
The 'newly discovered reality' was that the ether which displaced the
relativity of Newton in the first place was found not to exist.
>BTW it was Poincare who derived the Lorentz transforms and announced - based
>on Lorentz' theory - the "new mechanics" that reestablished the PoR.
>
>> Einstein (with some conceptual help from Poncere) decided that the
>> answer was correct but the way of reaching it was unconvincing.
>
>Lorentz agreed and later preferred Einstein's top-down approach.
I understand from Lorentz supporters that Lorentz always referred to GR
as "Einstein's theory" he claimed SR was his - but I do not know if they
are correct.
>> That the
>> idea that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, that there
>> is no such thing as absolute velocity, that velocity was always relative
>> could be considered as an axiom - The principle of relativity. (short
>> hand PoR).
>
>BTW this was not really new, not even Poincare was original about it
>although Poincare may have been the first writer to use the expression
>"PoR".
>Notice the enormous conceptual gap between Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz ,
>Poincare on the one hand and Einstein on the other hand, eventhough Einstein
>used their expressions.
In Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and
Electricity, published in 1953, there is apparently a chapter on
relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz."
Einstein isn't mentioned until the thirteenth page of that chapter and
is credited only with adding the Doppler and aberration equations
suggesting that the gap between Poincare and Einstein was only in
presentation and in grabbing the headlines.
>Where Ritz was in that conceptual dividing line is not clear to me.
The idea of the ether had its ups and downs. Its low point was when it
was decided it needed to be a solid stiffer than steel. Maxwell gave it
a huge boost by showing light to be concerned with electricity and
magnetism. The MMX was a major blow to the ether if not to Maxwell's
equations. If you take Lorenz's theory Maxwell's equations remain
intact. If you say that MMX showed there to be no ether Maxwell's
equations become solutions to an unknown problem.
Maxwell's equations failed when Rayleigh tried to use them to explain
black body radiation. Plank succeeded in explaining black body radiation
by assuming light generation was quantised. Einstein explained the
photo-electric effect by simply assuming light remained quantized (as
per Plank) throughout its life. Surely this sidelines Maxwell's
equations as being useful, approximate, mathematical models who's
applications are limited. Light is made of particle as Newton said.
There is no need for an ether, particles don't need one. If no ether
space is empty and there is nothing but the source for the speed of
light to be constant with. The real question is what is a photon. If one
was starting from scratch one would assume that it is something ejected
by the source at c when an electron falls to a lower energy state but
relativity insists that its speed is source independent and that surely
seriously inhibits progress because of a total lack of causality. We
have known about photons for 100 years. We have known about the DNA
molecule for a percentage of that time. Little progress has been made on
the one, massive progress on the other. Surely that is indicative that a
wrong assumption is hampering progress?
>> You will hear that Einstein based his theory on the PoR and that that
>> removed the need for the ether. What you are unlikely to hear is the
>> fact that Walter Ritz's theory is completely consistent with the PoR
>> also. The difference, and therefore what specifically defines relativity
>> comes in the second postulate of relativity which does not come from the
>> PoR at all. In fact Einstein described the second postulate as being
>> 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR.
>>
>> The second postulate in effect says that the speed of light is
>> everywhere constant with respect to the observer observing it.
>
>To be precise, constant with respect to coordinate systems in constant
>motion.
>
>> That in turn comes from the doctrine of source independence. If the
>> speed of light from a stationary source is c for all observers (PoR) and
>> light speed is source independent, then it must be c for all observers
>> whether the source is moving or not.
>>
>> Now comes the bit which is hard to fathom. The PoR is based on the idea
>> that there is no ether
>
>- to be precise, Einstein's 1905 interpretation of the PoR was that no ether
>is needed.
No. The PoR is invalid if the ether provides a reference and there is
therefore a valid concept of absolute velocity. It is not a question of
interpretation. What Einstein failed to establish was that the idea of
source independence requires no ether. All he did was to establish that
you can reconcile mathematically (not physically) the idea of source
independence and the PoR if you ditch the axioms of absolute time and
absolute distance.
>> the second postulate is based on a property of
>> the ether - no wonder it is apparently irreconcilable. In order to
>> reconcile the irreconcilable, Einstein ditched both the axiom of
>> universal time and of universal distance.
>
>Which was already ditched by Lorentz and Poincare, insofar as time and
>distance refer to measurables...
I agree.
>
>> You may conclude that having incorporated a property of the ether it is
>> hardly surprising that he ended up deriving Lorentz's transforms.
>>
>> You might also care to wonder why people who don't believe in the ether
>> would consider it so important to incorporate a property of the ether
>> that they felt it was worth losing two axioms of physics to achieve it.
>
>But those "axioms" were lost anyway, don't you agree?
You have missed the point. They were *not* lost in the Ritz theory
which is completely consistent with the PoR. The idea of the ether is
'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR so they axioms get lost if you
either try to retain the ether as per Lorentz or if you try and retain a
property of the ether as with Einstein.
You seem to happily accept that Einstein followed on the same path as
Lorentz. If Lorenz's theory was wrong then why would you reject
Lorentz's theory and accept Einstein's. Einstein's SR theory is simply
Lorentz ether theory without the theory. Lorentz assumed source
independence because he assumed an ether. Einstein gives no alternative
justification for source independence. You do not solve the problem by
saying "Light does not travel at c in the ether it travels at c in a
FoR". That is fine if you are talking mathematics. If you are a
scientist, light consists of real physical energy which can cause real
physical effects. If it is made to travel at c in a FoR then it implies
that a FoR (a mathematical abstraction mapping out an area of space)
must correspond with something physical to produce the physical effect
described in the maths. If the speed of light is not dependent upon the
source as per Ritz then it must be dependent upon something else and
that something else must take control the moment it leaves the source.
Logically therefore space cannot be empty.
There is a second problem, a philosophical one.
A S
B -->v
If you have two observers A and B who as they coincide see a flash from
source S (stationary w.r.t A). Then Lorentz says light leaves the source
at c relative to the ether and reaches A and B still travelling at c
relative to the ether but because the measurements of A and B are
distorted w.r.t the ether (Lorentz transforms) they both get a value of
c for the speed of light. Because their measurements are distorted they
calculate the time of the event at S which caused the flash to have
occurred at different times.
Now SR, being a principle theory, is silent upon the matter of whether
or not there is an ether. It is the sort of question it does not attempt
to answer but if you deny the existence of the ether - as most
relativists do - you have problems. What the ether does in Lorentz's
version is to provide a causal mechanism which allows A and B to
observer different distortions of a single reality. Without an ether you
end up with two separate, genuine, realities.
A's reality - 'A' measures the speed of the light as c because it is c.
As A is stationary w.r.t the source it left the source at c relative to
the source and A can calculate what time it left.
B's reality - B measures the speed of the light as c because it is c.
As B is moving at v w.r.t the source it must have left the source at c-v
relative to the source (confirmed by Doppler shift). He too can
calculate when it left the source and will get a different answer to A.
Because there is no causal mechanism which can make A's reality and B's
realities different distortions of a single underlying reality it means
that the event does have to take place at different times and the light
does have to leave the source at different speeds relative to the
source. Now you cannot say that half the light leaves the source to go
to A and half the light leaves the source to go to B. If that were the
case the intensity an observer would see would be inversely proportional
to the number of observers, so one can only conclude that A and B occupy
parallel universes and that in A's universe all the light travels at c
relative to A and in B's universe all the light travels at c relative to
B. There is no problem with an event occurring at different times in
different universes. All you need to do to get back to standard
relativity is to call A's universe A's FoR and B's universe B's FoR and
assume that light travels everywhere at c in a FoR and that a FoR is
capable of supporting an entirely different reality from that of another
FoR defining the same volume of space - which is empty and cannot
therefore have any properties.
>> You might also wonder why you have never heard of Walter Ritz and why
>> Alfred's theory was accepted and Walter's rejected. The answer appears
>> to be because if they put Ritz's theory into textbooks they would have
>> to explain why it was rejected and the reason it was rejected was
>> because physicists weren't prepared to accept that they had been wrong
>> for 200 years and Ritz died in 1909 leaving Einstein with a clear field.
>
>Simplification would be another answer.
One sells a text book one has written by getting it recommended by a
lecturer or teacher for use on a course. The last thing a lecturer wants
is someone asking why Ritz's theory was rejected when he has no good
answer. The way things have worked the lecturer probably wasn't told
about Ritz either.
>> You might ask yourself whether it is likely that 'good science' could
>> ever result from such a provenance. Bilge tells me it has, but you may
>> see why I am sceptical and why I take with a pinch of salt the idea that
>> relativity is not an ether based theory.
>>
>> Now Minkowski had a play with relativity and noted that "the speed of
>> light is everywhere constant (= c) with respect to the observer
>> observing it". This means that you can multiply time by the speed of
>> light and get units of distance and mix them on a diagram with other
>> things which have units of distance. Just because you can do that and
>> just because that allows the maths to be performed using geometry rather
>> than algebra does not necessarily signify that it is anything other than
>> a useful mathematical technique. If you believe it to be something more
>> profound than that you may accept Bilge's contention that
>>
>> >In relativity, time and space are on equal footing,
>
>- which originates with Minkowski -
>> i.e. rather than saying there is a mathematical fiddle you can use to
>> put time on the same diagram as distance, Bilge says that relativity is
>> not about light, it is a geometric theory of space-time which models the
>> geometry of nature.
>>
>> If that is true it seems to me that Einstein was stumbling about in the
>> dark and got lucky.
--
John Kennaugh
Bilge
>
>David - This answer is perhaps a little deceptive. To start with I don't
>think Bilge would agree to call anyone a 'physicist' who questioned
>relativity so on that basis 100% of people he would consider worthy of
>the name 'physicist' believe in relativity. It is also to some extent a
Stop identifying yourself with physicists who offer real arguments.
Just because your arguments are inane, doesn't mean someone who
undestands relativity can't formulate an argument that makes sense.
Harry
No proper frequency at all is required for a photon to "have" a frequency
relative to a detector.
> If it spins and moves forward at c relative to the
> source then there is a distance in which it will complete one revolution
> which might be what we think of as wavelength.
That would be one *twist*, without any rotational motion!
> If energy is related to
> the speed of spin it is possible for any amount of energy to be emitted
> while keeping the speed constant. - I still haven't addressed the
> question as to why the speed is constant - merely pointed out that a
> requirement to carry away different amounts of energy does not imply a
> need for different speeds and even if my speculation is wide of the mark
> that whatever what we call the frequency of a photon (nu in planks
> equation) it is this property which varies with energy level not the
> speed. c would seem to be the maximum speed at which an electric force
> can act so such a force will therefore eject a massless particle at c
> relative to the source ejecting it and any particle with mass will be
> less than c. A particle with mass, if subjected repeatedly to an
> electrical force which can itself only act at c, will never reach c but
> will get nearer and nearer to it. If an electric field cannot make a
> particle travel at more than c relative to itself but can increase the
> energy of the particle in some other way then like a photon there must
> be an alternative mechanism for storing energy other than speed. In
> relativity this is put down to an increase in mass (whatever mass is) in
> a photon it is put down to frequency (whatever frequency is) both
> represent energy so we have energy, mass, and frequency as all aspects
> of the same thing.
Not too bad. I still think that a medium requires less assumptions, and it
appears to me that "Doppler" experiments have been conclusive.
Indeed the kind of ether that some proposed in defiance of Newton was again
not found to exist. But the newly discovered reality consisted of phenomena
such as electromagnetic mass increase and the isotropic reflection times of
light within moving frames despite its wave character.
> >BTW it was Poincare who derived the Lorentz transforms and announced -
based
> >on Lorentz' theory - the "new mechanics" that reestablished the PoR.
> >
> >> Einstein (with some conceptual help from Poncere) decided that the
> >> answer was correct but the way of reaching it was unconvincing.
> >
> >Lorentz agreed and later preferred Einstein's top-down approach.
>
> I understand from Lorentz supporters that Lorentz always referred to GR
> as "Einstein's theory" he claimed SR was his - but I do not know if they
> are correct.
Not exactly, for he didn't realise the full consequences of his theory until
Einstein explained it (he had overlooked or skipped through the intermediate
publications of Poincare).
> >> That the
> >> idea that the laws of nature are the same for all observers, that there
> >> is no such thing as absolute velocity, that velocity was always
relative
> >> could be considered as an axiom - The principle of relativity. (short
> >> hand PoR).
> >
> >BTW this was not really new, not even Poincare was original about it
> >although Poincare may have been the first writer to use the expression
> >"PoR".
> >Notice the enormous conceptual gap between Newton, Maxwell, Lorentz ,
> >Poincare on the one hand and Einstein on the other hand, eventhough
Einstein
> >used their expressions.
>
> In Sir Edmund Whittaker's The History of Theories of Aether and
> Electricity, published in 1953, there is apparently a chapter on
> relativity, entitled, "The Relativity Theory of Poincare and Lorentz."
> Einstein isn't mentioned until the thirteenth page of that chapter and
> is credited only with adding the Doppler and aberration equations
> suggesting that the gap between Poincare and Einstein was only in
> presentation and in grabbing the headlines.
Interesting. Indeed, Poincare didn't acknowledge Einstein at all, and it's
easy to understand why. But I thought that Einstein also provided the
velocity addition equation.
> >Where Ritz was in that conceptual dividing line is not clear to me.
>
> The idea of the ether had its ups and downs.
I pointed out a different dividing line, between Natural Philosophy and the
idea that only mathematics matters for physics.
> Its low point was when it
> was decided it needed to be a solid stiffer than steel. Maxwell gave it
> a huge boost by showing light to be concerned with electricity and
> magnetism. The MMX was a major blow to the ether if not to Maxwell's
> equations. If you take Lorenz's theory Maxwell's equations remain
> intact. If you say that MMX showed there to be no ether Maxwell's
> equations become solutions to an unknown problem.
>
> Maxwell's equations failed when Rayleigh tried to use them to explain
> black body radiation. Plank succeeded in explaining black body radiation
> by assuming light generation was quantised. Einstein explained the
> photo-electric effect by simply assuming light remained quantized (as
> per Plank) throughout its life. Surely this sidelines Maxwell's
> equations as being useful, approximate, mathematical models who's
> applications are limited. Light is made of particle as Newton said.
A particle is a form of matter. In my definiton, light seems to have no rest
mass and therefore isn't made up of particles.
> There is no need for an ether, particles don't need one. If no ether
> space is empty and there is nothing but the source for the speed of
> light to be constant with. The real question is what is a photon. If one
> was starting from scratch one would assume that it is something ejected
> by the source at c when an electron falls to a lower energy state but
> relativity insists that its speed is source independent and that surely
> seriously inhibits progress because of a total lack of causality.
Only Einstein's interpretation of it.
What you state implies that Newton, Lorentz and Poincare would have used
invalid concepts.
I think exactly the contrary.
> It is not a question of interpretation.
It has *everything* to do with interpretation.
> What Einstein failed to establish was that the idea of
> source independence requires no ether. All he did was to establish that
> you can reconcile mathematically (not physically) the idea of source
> independence and the PoR if you ditch the axioms of absolute time and
> absolute distance.
And Poincare had established shortly before him that you can reconcile
mathematically AND physically the idea of source independence and the PoR if
you ditch the axioms that our instruments measure absolute time and absolute
distance.
> >> the second postulate is based on a property of
> >> the ether - no wonder it is apparently irreconcilable. In order to
> >> reconcile the irreconcilable, Einstein ditched both the axiom of
> >> universal time and of universal distance.
> >
> >Which was already ditched by Lorentz and Poincare, insofar as time and
> >distance refer to measurables...
>
> I agree.
>
> >
> >> You may conclude that having incorporated a property of the ether it is
> >> hardly surprising that he ended up deriving Lorentz's transforms.
> >>
> >> You might also care to wonder why people who don't believe in the ether
> >> would consider it so important to incorporate a property of the ether
> >> that they felt it was worth losing two axioms of physics to achieve it.
> >
> >But those "axioms" were lost anyway, don't you agree?
>
> You have missed the point. They were *not* lost in the Ritz theory
> which is completely consistent with the PoR.
I see.
> The idea of the ether is
> 'apparently irreconcilable' with the PoR so they axioms get lost if you
> either try to retain the ether as per Lorentz or if you try and retain a
> property of the ether as with Einstein.
Yes.
> You seem to happily accept that Einstein followed on the same path as
> Lorentz.
To the contrary, I just stressed the enormous philosophical gap between
them. Einstein's metaphysics is even incompatible with a single physical
reality, as you also pointed out yourself.
> If Lorenz's theory was wrong then why would you reject
> Lorentz's theory and accept Einstein's. Einstein's SR theory is simply
> Lorentz ether theory without the theory.
No, modern theories of physics are loose from metaphysics, only about
observables.
When you write "Einstein's SRT theory" I suppose it implies his
interpretations.
> Lorentz assumed source
> independence because he assumed an ether. Einstein gives no alternative
> justification for source independence. You do not solve the problem by
> saying "Light does not travel at c in the ether it travels at c in a
> FoR". That is fine if you are talking mathematics.
Not even so. Self-contradictions can be shown mathematically..
> If you are a
> scientist, light consists of real physical energy which can cause real
> physical effects. If it is made to travel at c in a FoR then it implies
> that a FoR (a mathematical abstraction mapping out an area of space)
> must correspond with something physical to produce the physical effect
> described in the maths. If the speed of light is not dependent upon the
> source as per Ritz then it must be dependent upon something else and
> that something else must take control the moment it leaves the source.
> Logically therefore space cannot be empty.
Still other models are conceivable.
> There is a second problem, a philosophical one.
I suppose that here you explain the selfcontradictory nature of Einstein's
metaphysics.
I'll skip that for now, as I know it very well.
Cheers,
Harald
jahn
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsfsr6....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
uncertainties of realization and measurements in the near future;
the chosen formalism should allow unambiguous definitions within
the chosen conditions; the chosen conditions and
formalism should not be too ambitious.
For the chosen formalism (GR only or parametrized), the
opinions in the group are more or less [*]evenly[*] separated with a
[*]slight[*] advantage for GR. I believe that it is not the goal of a
conventional formalism to describe all the possible models so
that the best choice is GR.
>>
http://www1.bipm.org/static/JCR//jcrcir04.html
----------
Sue...
Bilge
>"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
>> John Kennaugh:
>>
>> >
>> >David - This answer is perhaps a little deceptive. To start with I don't
>> >think Bilge would agree to call anyone a 'physicist' who questioned
>> >relativity so on that basis 100% of people he would consider worthy of
>> >the name 'physicist' believe in relativity. It is also to some extent a
>>
>> Stop identifying yourself with physicists who offer real arguments.
>> Just because your arguments are inane, doesn't mean someone who
>> undestands relativity can't formulate an argument that makes sense.
>>
>>
><< JCR04.3.4. Extension of the metric: conditions of application and choices
>
>For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
you have nothing better to do?
jahn
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsfsr6....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>
>For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
Do you actually have a point or do you just post url's because
you have nothing better to do?
I like to see what people snip. :o)
<< JCR04.3.4. Extension of the metric: conditions of application and choices
For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
Bilge
>
>I like to see what people snip. :o)
Do you have a point to make? If not, why are you posting?
jahn
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsku40....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> jahn, who has difficulty properly attributing text:
>
> >
> >I like to see what people snip. :o)
>
> Do you have a point to make? If not, why are you posting?
>
prestigeious physisicts who do not accept the some
of all of the implications of Einsten's relativity.
The ~ 50/50 split on the BIPM committee is just
one of many examples.
So you have just proved David's statement:
>David - This answer is perhaps a little deceptive. To start with I don't
>think Bilge would agree to call anyone a 'physicist' who questioned
>relativity so on that basis 100% of people he would consider worthy of
>the name 'physicist' believe in relativity. It is also to some extent a
Sue...
Bilge
>> jahn, who has difficulty properly attributing text:
>>
>> >
>> >I like to see what people snip. :o)
>>
>> Do you have a point to make? If not, why are you posting?
>>
>Indeed I do! There are plenty of thoughtful and
>prestigeious physisicts who do not accept the some
>of all of the implications of Einsten's relativity.
>The ~ 50/50 split on the BIPM committee is just
>one of many examples.
is posting. Did you receive some sort of endorsement from them to argue
on their behalf? If not, then you don't speak for them and whatever
your point happens to be, it has nothing to do with the bipm.
>
>So you have just proved David's statement:
Learn to properly attribute the person you reference. He obviously
did he not post that statement, unless he was responding to himself.
All it proves is that you are willing to accept a misrepresentation
you didn't even read carefully if it supports your opinion.
jahn
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsml4a....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> jahn:
> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
> >> jahn, who has difficulty properly attributing text:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >I like to see what people snip. :o)
> >>
> >> Do you have a point to make? If not, why are you posting?
> >>
> >Indeed I do! There are plenty of thoughtful and
> >prestigeious physisicts who do not accept the some
> >of all of the implications of Einsten's relativity.
> >The ~ 50/50 split on the BIPM committee is just
> >one of many examples.
>
> Unless you happen to be on the bipm committee, no one on that committee
> is posting. Did you receive some sort of endorsement from them to argue
> on their behalf? If not, then you don't speak for them and whatever
> your point happens to be, it has nothing to do with the bipm.
<< JCR04.3.4. Extension of the metric: conditions of application and choices
For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
uncertainties of realization and measurements in the near future;
the chosen formalism should allow unambiguous definitions within
the chosen conditions; the chosen conditions and
formalism should not be too ambitious.
For the chosen formalism (GR only or parametrized), the
opinions in the group are more or less [*]evenly[*] separated with a
[*]slight[*] advantage for GR. I believe that it is not the goal of a
conventional formalism to describe all the possible models so
that the best choice is GR.
>>
http://www1.bipm.org/static/JCR//jcrcir04.html
----------
Sue...
>
> >
Tom Roberts
> "Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsml4a....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
>>jahn:
>> >"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote:
>> >There are plenty of thoughtful and
>> >prestigeious physisicts who do not accept the some
>> >of all of the implications of Einsten's relativity.
>> >The ~ 50/50 split on the BIPM committee is just
>> >one of many examples.
Aparently you are not able to read the article (quoted below). The quote
does NOT imply that ~50% of the BIPM commitee "do not accept some or all
of the implications of Einstein's relativity".
Quote from http://www1.bipm.org/static/JCR//jcrcir04.html
> << JCR04.3.4. Extension of the metric: conditions of application and choices
> For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
> uncertainties of realization and measurements in the near future;
> the chosen formalism should allow unambiguous definitions within
> the chosen conditions; the chosen conditions and
> formalism should not be too ambitious.
>
> For the chosen formalism (GR only or parametrized), the
> opinions in the group are more or less [*]evenly[*] separated with a
> [*]slight[*] advantage for GR. I believe that it is not the goal of a
> conventional formalism to describe all the possible models so
> that the best choice is GR.
The choice of the "chosen formalism (GR only or parametrized)" was not
between GR and not believing GR, but rather was between GR and a
model-independent parameterization -- a test theory of GR. Such a
parameterization can permit experiments to test the validity of GR by
measuring model parameters directly (with error bars), and then
comparing to the GR values (GR corresponds to a specific set of values
for the parameters of the test theory).
While I have not scanned the BIPM correspondence, I suspect rather
strongly that the primary argument against using a test theory
parameterization was that their mission as a standards organization was
not to test GR, but rather to provide standards of measurement.
Certainly the last sentence quoted above supports this (but is just 1
member speaking).
That is quite different from "not accepting some or all of the
implications of GR".
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
jahn
"Tom Roberts" <tjro...@lucent.com> wrote in message news:bdIyd.4933$_X7....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Your beef is with Bilge, who sniped
my statement then then rewrote in terms of he thinks it
doesn't imply.
I wrote:
> >> >There are plenty of thoughtful and
> >> >prestigeious physisicts who do not accept the some
> >> >of all of the implications of Einsten's relativity.
> >> >The ~ 50/50 split on the BIPM committee is just
> >> >one of many examples.
This might be clearer:
<< The definitions of the base units of the SI were agreed in a
context which takes no account of relativistic effects. When
such account is taken, it is clear that the definitions apply only
in a small spatial domain which shares the motion of the standards
that realize them. These units are therefore proper units; they are
realized from local experiments in which the relativistic effects that
need to be taken into account are those of special relativity. The
constants of physics are local quantities with their values expressed
in proper units.>>
http://www1.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/chapter1/1-5.html
Sue...
>
>
> Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
Bilge
>For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
>uncertainties of realization and measurements in the near future;
>the chosen formalism should allow unambiguous definitions within
>the chosen conditions; the chosen conditions and
>formalism should not be too ambitious.
>
Or in other words, 50% of the panel felt there was nothing to
gain by using a model other than general relativity and 50% thought
it best to be conservative and use a phenomenological model that
wasn't based on any particular theory. How exactly does that translate
into whatever your point is (assuming you have one)? Do you have
nothing better to do than post random soundbites from random url's
in the hope someone will explain it to you so you can argue?
Bilge
>Your beef is with Bilge, who sniped
>my statement then then rewrote in terms of he thinks it
>doesn't imply.
I didn't rewrite anything.
jahn
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message news:slrncsmtuh....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
No need to put the panel's statement in other words.
The words stand on their own.
Sue...
>
>
>
>
Bilge
>> jahn:
>>
>> >For the conditions of applications: they should be below the
>> >uncertainties of realization and measurements in the near future;
>> >the chosen formalism should allow unambiguous definitions within
>> >the chosen conditions; the chosen conditions and
>> >formalism should not be too ambitious.
>> >
>>
>> Or in other words, 50% of the panel felt there was nothing to
>> gain by using a model other than general relativity and 50% thought
>> it best to be conservative and use a phenomenological model that
>> wasn't based on any particular theory. How exactly does that translate
>> into whatever your point is (assuming you have one)? Do you have
>> nothing better to do than post random soundbites from random url's
>> in the hope someone will explain it to you so you can argue?
>
>No need to put the panel's statement in other words.
>The words stand on their own.
I didn't. I merely tied to figure out your point, since you didn't
bother to state it, despite several requests for you to do so.
John Kennaugh
Explain? According to Plank each photon has an energy dependent upon its
'frequency'. Every photon has a property called 'frequency'. It may or
may not be related to what we conventionally think of as frequency. OTOH
it could be said that the energy of a photon and its frequency are one
and the same.
>
>> If it spins and moves forward at c relative to the
>> source then there is a distance in which it will complete one revolution
>> which might be what we think of as wavelength.
>
>That would be one *twist*, without any rotational motion!
Not understood.
>
>> If energy is related to
>> the speed of spin it is possible for any amount of energy to be emitted
>> while keeping the speed constant. - I still haven't addressed the
>> question as to why the speed is constant - merely pointed out that a
>> requirement to carry away different amounts of energy does not imply a
>> need for different speeds and even if my speculation is wide of the mark
>> that whatever what we call the frequency of a photon (nu in planks
>> equation) it is this property which varies with energy level not the
>> speed. c would seem to be the maximum speed at which an electric force
>> can act so such a force will therefore eject a massless particle at c
>> relative to the source ejecting it and any particle with mass will be
>> less than c. A particle with mass, if subjected repeatedly to an
>> electrical force which can itself only act at c, will never reach c but
>> will get nearer and nearer to it. If an electric field cannot make a
>> particle travel at more than c relative to itself but can increase the
>> energy of the particle in some other way then like a photon there must
>> be an alternative mechanism for storing energy other than speed. In
>> relativity this is put down to an increase in mass (whatever mass is) in
>> a photon it is put down to frequency (whatever frequency is) both
>> represent energy so we have energy, mass, and frequency as all aspects
>> of the same thing.
>
>Not too bad. I still think that a medium requires less assumptions, and it
>appears to me that "Doppler" experiments have been conclusive.
You will have to explain that. If a photon was ballistic (c relative to
the source) and spins = frequency then if you are approaching the source
the rate of spin you see would be faster = Doppler. Again photons
on-mass have wave properties and frequency is one. If light is ballistic
(c relative to the source) then the only difference is that in SR the
observer is assumed stationary w.r.t the medium and the source moves and
in ballistic the source is stationary w.r.t the medium and the observer
moves.
I don't follow. More explanation needed.
Pass.
>
>> >Where Ritz was in that conceptual dividing line is not clear to me.
>>
>> The idea of the ether had its ups and downs.
>
>I pointed out a different dividing line, between Natural Philosophy and the
>idea that only mathematics matters for physics.
I am in agreement with T.E Phipps Jr
"...interpretation looms as the major stumbling block to the joining-up
of mathematics with physics. The attitude prevalent today is that the
main problem in theoretical physics is to hit upon the right
mathematical formalism, and that physical interpretation will follow
as a simple - perhaps even unnecessary - adjunct. In other words, the
math is the hard part and interpretation is practically automatic. But
the facts of the history of science point in precisely the opposite
direction. .... In short, history can be read as saying that the
mathematics of physical description is the easy part the hard part the
part that perennially gives rise to lasting disputes among intelligent
people - being the interpretation."
Relativity is a theory which defies credible physical interpretation
(unless you accept that it is merely the maths of LET without the theory
which to me seems likely). To me that is a reason to reject relativity
or at least to add a health warning to those using the theory. Instead
modern physics has drifted away from seeing a need for physical
interpretation (at least in part I suspect to accommodate relativity)
As Scott Murray says
"The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
>
>> Its low point was when it
>> was decided it needed to be a solid stiffer than steel. Maxwell gave it
>> a huge boost by showing light to be concerned with electricity and
>> magnetism. The MMX was a major blow to the ether if not to Maxwell's
>> equations. If you take Lorenz's theory Maxwell's equations remain
>> intact. If you say that MMX showed there to be no ether Maxwell's
>> equations become solutions to an unknown problem.
>>
>> Maxwell's equations failed when Rayleigh tried to use them to explain
>> black body radiation. Plank succeeded in explaining black body radiation
>> by assuming light generation was quantised. Einstein explained the
>> photo-electric effect by simply assuming light remained quantized (as
>> per Plank) throughout its life. Surely this sidelines Maxwell's
>> equations as being useful, approximate, mathematical models who's
>> applications are limited. Light is made of particle as Newton said.
>
>A particle is a form of matter. In my definiton, light seems to have no rest
>mass and therefore isn't made up of particles.
A semantic problem. In my definition a particle is simply a small self
contained entity as opposed to something which is continuous. I would
also define anything which has a real physical existence (can produce a
real physical affect) as being 'matter' unless you have another umbrella
word under which 'matter' is a sub division.
I don't understand your point. Newton's relativity was the same as far
as I can see as the modern PoR (do not confuse the PoR with the Theory
of relativity). It was believed to be wrong because of belief in the
ether. It was assumed that it experiments would ultimately be able to
come up with experiments which would give different results depending on
the observers speed relative to the ether. (that after all was what MMX
was devised to do). Different results due to different inertial speeds
is contrary to the PoR. The PoR was reinstated when MMX and other
experiments failed. i.e. the predicted exceptions to PoR which would
have invalidated PoR, did not materialise.
>
>> It is not a question of interpretation.
>
>It has *everything* to do with interpretation.
>
>> What Einstein failed to establish was that the idea of
>> source independence requires no ether. All he did was to establish that
>> you can reconcile mathematically (not physically) the idea of source
>> independence and the PoR if you ditch the axioms of absolute time and
>> absolute distance.
>
>And Poincare had established shortly before him that you can reconcile
>mathematically AND physically the idea of source independence and the PoR if
>you ditch the axioms that our instruments measure absolute time and absolute
>distance.
My knowledge of Poncere's contribution is somewhat limited - you seem to
be confirming Sir Edmund Whittaker's view.
Allow me to instruct you in the art of "relativity-speak" which I have
unravelled by studying Bilge's comments :o)
Relativity is a 'principle theory'. This is important because it ring
fences it against any criticism in respect of physical interpretation.
Bilge uses very clever semantics saying that "SR has nothing to do with
ether". What this careful statement actually means is that as a
principle theory it has nothing to say on the subject of whether there
is or isn't an ether.
Likewise your statement is incorrect. Einstein's theory is not
inconsistent with a single physical reality because the principle theory
of relativity does not rule out the constructional theory of LET which
does allow a single reality.
If I say "Let us assume there is no ether" it is easy to show that *with
this additional assumption* SR is incompatible with a single physical
reality.
In assuming 'no ether' I have stepped outside of relativity (outside the
'principle' ring fence) and am talking about physical interpretation
which is where relativists don't want to go. They won't of course attack
my actual assumption by saying "you can't assume there is no ether
because relativity does not deal with such things" because a relativist
would rather die than admit that there might be an ether, that
relativity requires an ether, that relativity is an ether based theory -
which it is. Bilge style "relativity speak" would accuse me of
'attacking my own misconceptions about relativity' - usually followed by
a load of abuse - because in his book once you assume 'no ether' you are
no longer talking about relativity which does not discuss such things.
My 'misconception' is my lack of acceptance of the rules which says you
cannot discuss physical interpretation in the same paragraph as
relativity. I 'don't understand relativity' because if I did I would
accept this rule. In relativity-speak not accepting relativity is
equated with 'not understanding' relativity' = 'being too stupid to
understand relativity' - It is little more than playground level 'peer
pressure' but it has proved very effective over the years.
The most plausible physical interpretation of SR is LET. But no
relativist is going to argue that! 'No physical explanation' is
preferred because they don't like the only one on offer. Because belief
in relativity is compulsory and because relativity offers no physical
explanation it follows that a physical interpretation is not an
essential requirement for any theory of physics and anyone trying to
insist 'sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical
world' shows that he has 'failed to understand the modern understanding
of the true nature of a physical theory'.
>
>> If Lorenz's theory was wrong then why would you reject
>> Lorentz's theory and accept Einstein's. Einstein's SR theory is simply
>> Lorentz ether theory without the theory.
>
>No, modern theories of physics are loose from metaphysics, only about
>observables.
>When you write "Einstein's SRT theory" I suppose it implies his
>interpretations.
>
>> Lorentz assumed source
>> independence because he assumed an ether. Einstein gives no alternative
>> justification for source independence. You do not solve the problem by
>> saying "Light does not travel at c in the ether it travels at c in a
>> FoR". That is fine if you are talking mathematics.
>
>Not even so. Self-contradictions can be shown mathematically..
Possibly so but I leave that to others. There seems to be a third
postulate which says "It does not have to make sense". You would be
naive if you thought you could disprove relativity on the grounds that
it doesn't make sense - of course it doesn't :o)
>
>> If you are a
>> scientist, light consists of real physical energy which can cause real
>> physical effects. If it is made to travel at c in a FoR then it implies
>> that a FoR (a mathematical abstraction mapping out an area of space)
>> must correspond with something physical to produce the physical effect
>> described in the maths. If the speed of light is not dependent upon the
>> source as per Ritz then it must be dependent upon something else and
>> that something else must take control the moment it leaves the source.
>> Logically therefore space cannot be empty.
>
>Still other models are conceivable.
Enlighten me?
>
>> There is a second problem, a philosophical one.
>
>I suppose that here you explain the selfcontradictory nature of Einstein's
>metaphysics.
>I'll skip that for now, as I know it very well.
--
Cheers
John Kennaugh - to email convert the number from hex to decimal
Harry
> Harry writes
SNIP
> >> It is tied in with 'what is a photon?'. My own suggestion which is pure
> >> speculation is that a photon spins which is why it has a property we
> >> call frequency.
> >
> >No proper frequency at all is required for a photon to "have" a frequency
> >relative to a detector.
>
> Explain? According to Plank each photon has an energy dependent upon its
> 'frequency'. Every photon has a property called 'frequency'. It may or
> may not be related to what we conventionally think of as frequency. OTOH
> it could be said that the energy of a photon and its frequency are one
> and the same.
In its proper frame (which according to you exists for it to be a particle)
its energy (its rest energy) is supposed to be zero, and it's known to be
very close to zero. Thus it's frequency is zero or nearly so.
> >> If it spins and moves forward at c relative to the
> >> source then there is a distance in which it will complete one
revolution
> >> which might be what we think of as wavelength.
> >
> >That would be one *twist*, without any rotational motion!
>
> Not understood.
Now elaborated above.
SNIP
I still think that a medium requires less assumptions, and it
> >appears to me that "Doppler" experiments have been conclusive.
>
> You will have to explain that. If a photon was ballistic (c relative to
> the source) and spins = frequency then if you are approaching the source
> the rate of spin you see would be faster = Doppler. Again photons
> on-mass have wave properties and frequency is one. If light is ballistic
> (c relative to the source) then the only difference is that in SR the
> observer is assumed stationary w.r.t the medium and the source moves and
> in ballistic the source is stationary w.r.t the medium and the observer
> moves.
I discussed Ballistic emission and Doppler with Androcles in another thread,
surely you noticed. I concluded that Fox was mistaken and that experiments
with moving sources do differentiate between ballistic emission and other
theories - in fact Fox didn't even mention the Doppler equation for
ballistic emission. Your "only difference" is measurable.
SNIP
> >> The 'newly discovered reality' was that the ether which displaced the
> >> relativity of Newton in the first place was found not to exist.
> >
> >Indeed the kind of ether that some proposed in defiance of Newton was
again
> >not found to exist. But the newly discovered reality consisted of
phenomena
> >such as electromagnetic mass increase and the isotropic reflection times
of
> >light within moving frames despite its wave character.
>
> I don't follow. More explanation needed.
I know of no experiment that disqualifies Newton's "absolute space", to the
contrary! The "stationary ether" as Lorentz called it is manifested by
"relativistic" effects. Of course, according to others it's not "absolute
space" but "space-time" that is manifested; we can only infer from
observation.
SNIP
> >I pointed out a different dividing line, between Natural Philosophy and
the
> >idea that only mathematics matters for physics.
>
> I am in agreement with T.E Phipps Jr
>
> "...interpretation looms as the major stumbling block to the joining-up
> of mathematics with physics. The attitude prevalent today is that the
> main problem in theoretical physics is to hit upon the right
> mathematical formalism, and that physical interpretation will follow
> as a simple - perhaps even unnecessary - adjunct. In other words, the
> math is the hard part and interpretation is practically automatic. But
> the facts of the history of science point in precisely the opposite
> direction. .... In short, history can be read as saying that the
> mathematics of physical description is the easy part the hard part the
> part that perennially gives rise to lasting disputes among intelligent
> people - being the interpretation."
We agree on that.
> Relativity is a theory which defies credible physical interpretation
> (unless you accept that it is merely the maths of LET without the theory
> which to me seems likely). To me that is a reason to reject relativity
> or at least to add a health warning to those using the theory. Instead
> modern physics has drifted away from seeing a need for physical
> interpretation (at least in part I suspect to accommodate relativity)
Funny enough in QM the discussion is out in the open.
> As Scott Murray says
> "The nature of the physicists' default was their failure to insist
> sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical world."
SNIP
> >A particle is a form of matter. In my definiton, light seems to have no
rest
> >mass and therefore isn't made up of particles.
>
> A semantic problem. In my definition a particle is simply a small self
> contained entity as opposed to something which is continuous. I would
> also define anything which has a real physical existence (can produce a
> real physical affect) as being 'matter' unless you have another umbrella
> word under which 'matter' is a sub division.
Fine with me. I still suspect that all "small self contained entities"
contain energy and therefore mass.
SNIP
> >> No. The PoR is invalid if the ether provides a reference and there is
> >> therefore a valid concept of absolute velocity.
> >
> >What you state implies that Newton, Lorentz and Poincare would have used
> >invalid concepts.
> >I think exactly the contrary.
>
> I don't understand your point. Newton's relativity was the same as far
> as I can see as the modern PoR (do not confuse the PoR with the Theory
> of relativity).
Exactly. I suppose that Poincare didn't have the pretention to present a
reformulation (or extension) of Newton's relativity as his own invention -
it took me some time to figure that one out!
> It was believed to be wrong because of belief in the ether.
Poincare didn't think so, he described around the turn of the century how
the game was on! But until 1904 he likely thought that Newton's relativity
concept was incompatible with EM wave propagation. Would the ether have to
go, or the PoR? Then in 1904 it turned out that neither had to go.
> It was assumed that it experiments would ultimately be able to
> come up with experiments which would give different results depending on
> the observers speed relative to the ether. (that after all was what MMX
> was devised to do). Different results due to different inertial speeds
> is contrary to the PoR. The PoR was reinstated when MMX and other
> experiments failed. i.e. the predicted exceptions to PoR which would
> have invalidated PoR, did not materialise.
Right.
> >> It is not a question of interpretation.
> >
> >It has *everything* to do with interpretation.
> >
> >> What Einstein failed to establish was that the idea of
> >> source independence requires no ether. All he did was to establish that
> >> you can reconcile mathematically (not physically) the idea of source
> >> independence and the PoR if you ditch the axioms of absolute time and
> >> absolute distance.
> >
> >And Poincare had established shortly before him that you can reconcile
> >mathematically AND physically the idea of source independence and the PoR
if
> >you ditch the axioms that our instruments measure absolute time and
absolute
> >distance.
>
> My knowledge of Poncere's contribution is somewhat limited - you seem to
> be confirming Sir Edmund Whittaker's view.
More or less - and I didn't take anyone's word for it. Poincare didn't even
mention Einstein when he discussed the new mechanics.
SNIP
> >> You seem to happily accept that Einstein followed on the same path as
> >> Lorentz.
> >
> >To the contrary, I just stressed the enormous philosophical gap between
> >them. Einstein's metaphysics is even incompatible with a single physical
> >reality, as you also pointed out yourself.
>
> Allow me to instruct you in the art of "relativity-speak" which I have
> unravelled by studying Bilge's comments :o)
>
> Relativity is a 'principle theory'. This is important because it ring
> fences it against any criticism in respect of physical interpretation.
> Bilge uses very clever semantics saying that "SR has nothing to do with
> ether". What this careful statement actually means is that as a
> principle theory it has nothing to say on the subject of whether there
> is or isn't an ether.
That's exact - just as QM. Some here call theories of modern physics "math"
theories.
> Likewise your statement is incorrect. Einstein's theory is not
> inconsistent with a single physical reality because the principle theory
> of relativity does not rule out the constructional theory of LET which
> does allow a single reality.
I carefully wrote about Einstein's metaphysics. He excluded a physical
reference frame, even when he acknowledged that his GRT implied some kind of
an ether or physical space.
> If I say "Let us assume there is no ether" it is easy to show that *with
> this additional assumption* SR is incompatible with a single physical
> reality.
> In assuming 'no ether' I have stepped outside of relativity (outside the
> 'principle' ring fence) and am talking about physical interpretation
> which is where relativists don't want to go. They won't of course attack
> my actual assumption by saying "you can't assume there is no ether
> because relativity does not deal with such things" because a relativist
> would rather die than admit that there might be an ether, that
> relativity requires an ether, that relativity is an ether based theory -
> which it is. Bilge style "relativity speak" would accuse me of
> 'attacking my own misconceptions about relativity' - usually followed by
> a load of abuse - because in his book once you assume 'no ether' you are
> no longer talking about relativity which does not discuss such things.
> My 'misconception' is my lack of acceptance of the rules which says you
> cannot discuss physical interpretation in the same paragraph as
> relativity.
Also Einstein broke that rule now and then after 1905.
> I 'don't understand relativity' because if I did I would
> accept this rule. In relativity-speak not accepting relativity is
> equated with 'not understanding' relativity' = 'being too stupid to
> understand relativity' - It is little more than playground level 'peer
> pressure' but it has proved very effective over the years.
> The most plausible physical interpretation of SR is LET. But no
> relativist is going to argue that!
What do you mean with "a relativist" ? I think Builder was one (and one of
the best). But then you would maybe say that he renounced the Faith. ;-)
> 'No physical explanation' is
> preferred because they don't like the only one on offer.
I didn't like it either, but got over it.
> Because belief
> in relativity is compulsory and because relativity offers no physical
> explanation it follows that a physical interpretation is not an
> essential requirement for any theory of physics and anyone trying to
> insist 'sufficiently strongly on the physical reality of the physical
> world' shows that he has 'failed to understand the modern understanding
> of the true nature of a physical theory'.
Theory of physics you mean. Of course this is all semantics, but I think
that the two ways of wording are on both sides of the dividing line: for me
a theory of physics is the mathematical ("predictive") part of a physical
theory.
SNIP
> >> Lorentz assumed source
> >> independence because he assumed an ether. Einstein gives no alternative
> >> justification for source independence. You do not solve the problem by
> >> saying "Light does not travel at c in the ether it travels at c in a
> >> FoR". That is fine if you are talking mathematics.
> >
>
> >Not even so. Self-contradictions can be shown mathematically..
>
> Possibly so but I leave that to others. There seems to be a third
> postulate which says "It does not have to make sense". You would be
> naive if you thought you could disprove relativity on the grounds that
> it doesn't make sense - of course it doesn't :o)
That's why I now prefer to show it with mathematics - not everything in
nature "makes sense", but when "not making sense" implies
self-contradiction, it may be more persuasive.
> >> If you are a
> >> scientist, light consists of real physical energy which can cause real
> >> physical effects. If it is made to travel at c in a FoR then it implies
> >> that a FoR (a mathematical abstraction mapping out an area of space)
> >> must correspond with something physical to produce the physical effect
> >> described in the maths.
> > > If the speed of light is not dependent upon the
> >> source as per Ritz then it must be dependent upon something else and
> >> that something else must take control the moment it leaves the source.
> >> Logically therefore space cannot be empty.
> >
> >Still other models are conceivable.
>
> Enlighten me?
For example the "rubber band" model of Curt Renshaw (you can find it on
internet).
I think that one is disproved as well, but it demonstrates that one can
still find things "out of the box".
Harald