EXPERIMENTAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST SPECIAL RELATIVITY?
Danny Milano
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
Baird said:
"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
We're told that the experimental evidence for special
relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
reckoned to support the special theory include:
* E=mc^2
* transverse redshifts
* longitudinal Doppler relationships
* the lightspeed limit in particle accelerators
* the searchlight effect (shared with dragged-light
models and NM)
* "velocity addition" behaviour (shared with dragged-light models and
NM)
* particle tracklengths
* muon detection
* particle lifetimes in accelerator storage rings /
centrifuge time dilation / orbiting clocks
* the failure of competing theories
... we'll be looking at all of these, along with a
couple of important background issues.
16.2: ... E=mc^2
For a long time it seemed to be received wisdom that
the E=mc^2 result was unique to special relativity, We
were told that if special relativity wasn't true then
nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons wouldn't work, and
without SR's prediction of E=mc^2, nuclear fusion
wouldn't operate as it does. Without special
relativity, the Sun wouldn't shine.
And while this was a good story to tell credulous
schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The
idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to
basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit
he went on to argue for the wider validity of the
result by publishing further papers that derived the
relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more
general arguments outside special relativity. We also
found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the
Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact
result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go
directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the
NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably
straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart,
and it's also part of every hypothetical model in
section 13.
Whiile it's historically understandable that the
equation wasn't widely recognised and embraced until
Einstein came along, its less clear why so many
brilliant physicists with outstanding math skills
continued to insist for so long that the equation
somehow provides cornpelling evidence for the special
theory. Since the math is so straightforward, how were
so many clever physics people caught out? We might have
expected that enough time had passed since 1905 for us
to have checked the math dependencies, not iced the
parallel compatibility with NK and (in a respectable
field of scientific study), made a high-profile
retraction so that we didn't continue to pass
misinformation onto students. But perhaps "E=mc^2
proves special relativity" was just too convenient a
tale for people to want to give it up, regardless of
what the Mathematics really said.
16.3: *Classical Theory" vs. Special Relativity
When we read about experiments that compared the
predictions of SR against those of "Classical Theory",
we can come away thinking that we've been told how SR's
Predictions stack up against most earlier theories (for
instance, Newtonian theory).
This isn't usually the case. When we look at what's
meant by "Classical Theory', in this context, we find
that it's a sort of hybrid. It's a pairing of two sets
of incompatible assumptions and math that have the
advantage for experimenters of (a) being well known and
standardised, and (b) making optical predictions that
are so exceptionally bad that by comparison special
relativity (and almost any other theory) looks very
good indeed.
Did "Classical Theory" ever really exist?
In the context of SR-testing, "Classical Theory" refers
to a mixture of two sets of conflicting assumptions
that didn't work together before SR/LET: "Classical
Theory" uses Newtonian mechanics for the equations of
motion for solid bodies, but for light, CT is
equivalent to assuming an absolute, fixed, "flat"
aether stationary in the laboratory frame. The energy
and momentum relationships of these two different parts
are, of course, irreconcilable ... NM requires the
Doppler relationship to be (c-v)/c, but " Classical
Theory" gives cl(c+v). These aren't compatible. They
never were. If they were, we wouldn't have needed
special relativity.
There doesn't seem to be any single theory that
attempted to combine these two predictions before
LET/SR, or at least, there doesn't seem to have been
anyone prepared to lend their name to one, and in a
subject where people love having things named after
themselves, this should make us suspicious. If
"Classical Theory" doesn't mean "pre-SR theory", then
where did it come from? The phrase appears in
Einstein's explanations of the basis of special
relativity, as a convenient form of words to refer to
two appa rently diverging predictions that special
relativity then reconciled by applying Lorentz effects:
to Einstein, "Classical Theory" represented
incompatible aspects of earlier theories that didn't
work together, but that could be reconciled using
special relativity.
When we're look for a historical counterpart to
Classical Theory there doesn't seem to be anything that
would have made these optical predictions unless we go
all the way back to preGalileo, pre-Newton times, and
posit an absolute aether that permeates space and is
locked to the state of a stationary Earth. That would
give us the "Classical Theory" prediction of "no
transverse redshift" for a laboratory stationary with
respect to the Earth. But every other decrepit old
theory that we can dig up seems to pre dict at least
some sort of transverse redshift effect, sometimes
weaker than SR, sometimes stronger than SR, and
sometimes swinging wildly between the two depending on
the Earth's motion. The one idea that didn't seem to be
considered to be credible during the Eighteenth Century
was the idea that lightspeed was fixed with respect to
the observer, which is presumably why Michelson had so
much grief with his colleagues over his "failed"
aether-drift experiment.
SO, why do we persist in carrying out these "SR vs.
Classical Theory" comparisons if they don't demonstrate
very much? Well, to a cynic, Classical Theory is an
excellent reference to test against, because its
predictions are about as bad as we can get. If we set
aside the theories that predicted time-variant effects,
no other old predictions seem to be quite as bad at to
CT when it comes to predicting real Doppler shifts, and
this makes "CT vs. Theory X" experiments very much
easier to carry out and analyse . Test theory authors
love CT because it meshes well with the chain of
arguments that Einstein used when explaining the
special theory, and experimenters design tests around
the test theories that are available legitimate process
- as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that
that the results represent a realistic comparison of
how special relativitys predictions really compared to
those of its predecessors.
16.4:- "Transverse" redshifts
Special relativity tells us that if an object moves
through our laboratory, and we carefully point a
highly-directional detector at right angles to its path
(measured with a "laboratory" set,square), the signal
that manages to register on the detector should be
redshifted (section 6.7).
But the popular "educational" notion that this sort of
redshift outcome is something unique to special
relativity is as best misleading, and at worst ... it's
simply wrong. The equations of newtonian mechanics (or
even the basic equations for audio, properly applied to
the case of a stationary source) don't just predict
redshifts in this situation, they'll often predict
"aberration redshifts" that are stronger than their SR
counterparts (section 6.4), so in a physical sense, the
appearance of redshifts in t his situation isn't just
not unique, it's not even particularly unusual. In
fact, the thing that would be unusual with this sort of
experimental setup would be a theory that didn't
predict some sort of redshift.
Although we tend to regard special relativity's
transverse predictions as conceptually unique,
experimenters have to know when supposed differences
between theories generate physically unambiguous
differences in the readings taken by actual hardware,
and when the differences are more a matter of
interpretation. This distinction isn't always obvious
from the relativity literature.
Einstein's special theory requires these sorts of
"pre-SR" redshifts to exist for its own internal
consistency. The theory must predict the same physical
outcome regardless of which inertia] reference frame we
choose to use for our calculations, so the emitter is
entitled to claim that c is globally fixed for them
(Einstein 1905, 7), and this means that they're
entitled to claim that our relative motion makes us
time-dilated, giving our view of the emitter's signal a
Lorentz blueshift ... so in order for u s to be able to
instead see a Lorentz redshift, propagation-based
effects in this situation - light moving at a constant
speed in the emitter's frame, and arriving at us at an
apparent 90 degrees - must, by default, generate a
Lorentz-squared redshift to allow the same final SR
outcome. This is the right answer (see Calculations 3).
So to fully understand the logical consistency of SR in
this situation requires us to know that similar or
stronger redshifts would appear in the same apparatus
under other light-propagation models. Since different
SR "views" can explain the same redshift component as
the result of (a) conventional aberration effects, (b)
time dilation, or (c) a combination of the two (we're
allowed to try an infinite number of alternative views
from intermediate reference frames), SR requires these
two explanations to be q ualitatively
indistinguishable. Although expert sources may tell us
that "transverse redshifts" are unique to SR, the
theory itse~f tells us otherwise. We can distinguish
SR's "transverse" predictions from those of other
theories by their strength, but a redshift outcome in
this situation doesn't automatically need SR.
The Hasselkamp test
We only seem to have one experiment that set out to
measure the amount of redshift actually seen at 90
degrees to moving material (Hasselkamp et. al., 1979),
and it reported about twice the redshift predicted by
SR, as we'd expect if the older NM equations were
right. This result was nevertheless presented as
supporting SR: the experimenters used a test theory
that compared SR with "Classical Theory" (which
predicted no redshift), and reasoned that the
inexplicable excess redshift must have been due to an a
ccidental detector misalignment. They were then able to
use statistics to argue that, taking into account
possible alignment efforts, the "SR" prediction still
made a significantly better match to the data than "CT"
did.
But subsequent papers verifying that the presumed
misalignment was real, or repeating the experiment
(Perhaps with the help of clever cancellation methods
to eliminate the effects of these sorts of detector
misalignments from further results), don't seem to have
appeared. This Makes it difficult to tell whether the
result really supported the special theory, or
invalidated it.
16.5: ... "Longitudinal" Doppler shifts
The Hasselkamp experiment was unusual - in practice, we
don't normally . try to measure SR's transverse
redshift effect by really aiming a detector at the side
of a moving particle bearn - we find it easier to
measure the forward and rearward Doppler-shifts, and
then calculate the strength of the transverse effect by
comparing them against each other.
This is a nice method ... because it compares two
shifts, the technique makes it easier to cancel out
various types of systemic error, known and unknown, and
these "end-on" readings are less sensitive to the
effect of small angular errors. By comparing the
resulting three sign.("recession-redshifted",
"approach-blueshifted", and an "unshifted" reference
signal), we can derive a characteristic "signature"
that lets us rule out certain relationships without
having to commit to a theory-specific value for the
exact velocity of the particle beam. We can select ,
theory, use one of the shift ratios to calculate what
the velocity would have to have bee. according to that
theory, use this hypothetical velocity value to
"predict" the second shift ratio, and then compare this
against the second set of figures to see how close we
got to the real data.
Ives-stilwell
The best-known of these "non-transverse" transverse
tests is the early 1938 test by Herbert Ives and G. R.
Stilwell, which set out to compare tile predictions of
Lorentz Ether Theory (and SR) against those of
"Classical Theory". Ives and Stilwell's approach was
simple: "Classical Theory" says that the two shifted
signals (red and blue) should change in wavelength by
precisely the same amount, so with all three wavelength
values marked on a linear scale, we'd find perfectly
even spacing between them. If the shift relationships
obeyed the "redder" relationships of SR (or NM) there'd
be an asymmetry.
Ives and Stilwell found a definite offset in the
wavelength values. The simplicity of this experiment
makes it tempting to reanalyse the data for a possible
agreement or disagreement with NM, and when we do this
we find that the stronger offset predicted by N1M
appears to lie outside the data range, by more than the
experimenter's quoted experimental error. This seems to
indicate that the SR predictions are significantly more
accurate than NM.
Further experiments
There've been several more experiments of this type
published since Ives-Stilwell, using more advanced
equipment, more complex optics and higher relative
velocities, and these have supported the predictions of
SR over "Classical Theory" with increasing confidence.
However, when we try to use them to cheek how well they
support SR over NM, we run into difficulties: with
several of these tests, the more complex setup and
calibration techniques make it dangerous to attempt a
safe reanalysis for possibilities t hat weren't
considered in the experimenters' setup procedures ...
in others the quoted error margins seem rather similar
to the margins that wed need to be able to interpret an
'NM" result as a "SR" result ... or extreme accuracy
when making the comparison between SR and CT is
achieved by 1 technique that makes it difficult to
differentiate between SR and NM ... or "excess"
redshifts are explained away as the result of mirror
recoil .
It seems that even with this additional technological
sophistication, our primary evidence for SR's
superiority over NM is still that early Ives-Stilwell
experiment. And since ]at . er experimenters have had
trouble understanding how the test's accuracy could
have been quite as good as the paper said (estimating
accuracy can be difficult when using an experimental
configuration for the first time), we don't yet seem to
have a solid core of experimental results claiming that
that the newer SR Doppler relatio nships really are
more accurate than the NNI set. Perhaps if our
experiments had been devised with this comparison in
mind from the beginning, we might by now have
significant amounts of evidence to point us one way or
the other ... but they weren't, and we don't.
16.6: ... The lightspeed upper limit in particle
accelerators
Another of the results often trotted out as unambiguous
evidence for the validity of special relativity is the
fact that even our best particle accelerators can't
persuade electrically charged particies to move faster
than the background speed of light. As the speed of the
particles approaches background lightspeed, it becomes
progressively more difficult for the fixed accelerator
coils to force them to move any faster. As the speed of
a particle approaches accelerator lightspeed, the
energy that we have to pump through our coils to get an
additional background increase in speed seems to tend
towards infinity. some commentators attach great
significance to this result and argue that the
outlandish scale ,,d sheer brute force required by
modem particle accelerators is an obvious indication
that tile special theory is correct. If we believed in
the equations for light used by "Classical Theory"
(section 16.3), we'd expect these machines to be able
to accelerate particles to far higher speeds, but, in
real life ... this quite clearly isn't the way that
things work. Special relativity wins!
And certainly, special relativity wins when compared to
CT. It just doesn't necessarily win when compared to
other models. From the point of view of the coils, we
can argue that the particle's resistance to
acceleration (and its apparent inertial mass), goes to
infinity as its speed through the accelerator
approaches lightspeed, and we might blame this on the
particle's additional relativistic mass at higher
speeds. But the idea of relativistic mass isn't always
fashionable amongst physicists, so it's handy to have
another way of describing the situation, and we can do
this y describing the experi ment from the point of
view of the particle.
Coupling efficiency
Suppose that our "SR particle" is coasting through a
straight section of accelerator tube at close to
background lightspeed, and we throw more EM energy at
it ... the particle sees the receding accelerator coils
to be redshifted, reducing the frequency, energy, and
radiation pressure of their signals. With the coils
moving away at lightspeed, SR's Doppler relationships
describe this energy and momentum of their fields
disappearing altogether. So the coupling efficiency
between the accelerator coils and the particle drops
toward zero as their relative recession velocity
approaches lightspeed, and with SR we therefore expect
to be able to accelerate the particle towards the speed
of light, but not to it or beyond it. This is what we
see happening in our accelerators. SR wins!
.. Except that, when we try a similar exercise with
the Doppler relationships for other theories, similar
things have a habit of happening. If we try the
"Newtonian" Doppler relationships we find that with fIf
= (c-v)lc, setting the recession velocity to lightspeed
once again gives a frequency (and energy, and coupling
efficiency) of zero. When we directly accelerate a
particle, the lightspeed limit that we usually think of
as a validation of SR also shows up under Nemonian
mechanics, and presumably also under a range of other
theories.
Indirect acceleration
This "direct acceleration" lightspeed barrier can have
different characteristics under different Models: in
the NM version of the story, an unstable particle
travelling at close to background lightspeed can
fragment and throw off daughter particles, some of
which might travel at more than background c. This
effect is related to NM's support for classical
indirect radiation effects ("semi classical Hawking
radiation), and wouldn't seem to be possible under
SR-based Models. Unfortunately, when we start to deal
with the more "particle-y" aspects of particle physics,
quantum effects become relevant, allowing the
appearance of particles in "impossible" situations to
be explained away by ideas such as quantum tunnelling:
even if we found something that looked like evidence of
superluminal daughter particles, by classifying this as
a quantum effect we could probably still get away with
arguing that the result didn't threaten SR.
16.7: The "searchlight" effect
We met the searchlight effect in section 8.2: it's the
tendency of moving bodies to throw more of their signal
forwards rather than trailing it behind them. Special
relativity and NM both apply the same "relativistic
aberration" formula, and the effect also exists (to
various degrees) in different dragged-light models.
This behaviour doesn't happen in the "Classical Theory"
of section 16.3.
16.8: Velocity-addition
Special characteristics for "velocity addition" appear
in a variety of models, including NM (section 14.8),
and usually suggest that the propagation of signals is
being affected by the motion of intermediate objects in
the signal path. Although we usually choose to
interpret th
Fizeau and Zeeman results as supporting SR's
velocity-addition formula, the special theorye match to
the data isn't supposed to be any better than Fresnel's
ancient dragged-light theory. Again, this behaviour
doesn't appear in the "Classical Theory" of section
16.3.
16.9: Particle tracklengths
Since we've brought up the subject of daughter
particles, how do we test how fast they really go?
Let's suppose that we have a particle that's only
supposed to survive for a nanosecond, and we measure
the length of straight-line distance that it covers
between being created and blowing itself to bits. If we
know the particle's "official" decay time, then surely
We can measure the length of its track, and divide that
by the time to get the speed? If this track length was
longer than the distance that particl e would travel at
the background speed of light, wouldn't this mean that
we'd shown that its velocity was superiuminal,
disproving SR? And if the particle tracks were always
shorter than this, wouldn't this support special
relativity?
But things aren't that easy. We're used to thinking of
velocity as an unambiguous property, but since we can't
be in two places at once, the properly often has to be
interpreted. Since special relativity redefines all of
the properties associated with velocity - energy,
momentum, distance and time - fair comparisons between
SR and other theories can become quite convoluted, and
this can make it difficult to tell, when we're using
these agreed, uninterpreted quantities, whether there's
really a physical diff erence between the SR and NM
tracklength predictions.
Special relativity assigns greater energies and momenta
to particles and signals than NM does, by a Lorentz
factor:
NM SR
Momentum p= mv p=mv x gamma
Doppler effect E'/E=(c-v)/c E'/E=(c-v)/c x gamma
, so ... for a high-energy particle moving along a
straight line with constant speed, with a known energy
and/or momentum, Newtonian theory and special
relativity will be assigning consistently different
velocity values to the same particle. The nominal "SR
velocity" value ("vSR") will always be less than
lightspeed, while the nominal 'NM velocity" value
("vNM") will be larger than its SR counterpart by a
Lorentz factor (calculated from vSR)'
When we migrate from NM to special relativity, a
particle's nominal velocity gets reduced by a Lorentz
factor, shortening the distance that the particle would
be expected to travel before decaying. But SR's "time
dilation" effect then predicts an extension of the
particle's lifetime by the same Lorentz factor thanks
to time dilation, lengthening the particle's track by
that same ratio. Because these two corrections exactly
cancel, the particle's decay Position as 3 function of
its energy and momentum is precisely the same for both
theories. The results of both sets of calculations are
necessarily identical.
16:10 Muon Showers
Similar arguments apply when we try to assess evidence
from "cosmic ray" detectors. High energy cosmic rays
hitting the upper parts of the Earth's atmosphere
create showers of short-lived "daughter particles" that
survive for an incredibly short amount of time before
decaying - their lifetimes are so short that even if
they were travelling at the speed of light, we might
think that they still shouldn't be able to reach the
Earth's surface before decaying.
But ground-based detectors do report the detection of
muon showers, and there are two main ways that we can
interpret this result:
SR-based interpretation
According to special relativity, we should explain the
detectors' result by saying that since we "know" that
nothing can travel faster than background lightspeed,
the rations' ability to reach the ground shows that
their decay-times must have been extended, and we
interpret this as demonstrating that the special
theory's time-dilation effects are physically real. We
say that the muons move at a very high proportion of
the speed of light and are time-dilated, and if it
wasn't It for this time-dilation effect , they wouldn't
be able to reach the detectors.
Or ... we could adopt the muon's point of view, and
suggest that the muon is stationary and the Earth is
moving towards it at nearly the speed of light. In this
second SR description, all of the approaching Earth's
atmosphere is able to pass by the muon in time even
though its speed is less than c, because the moving
atmosphere's depth is Lorentz-contracted. These two
different SR explanations (length-contraction and time
dilation) are interchangeable.
NM-based interpretation
But is the success of the SR mtion calculations
significant? Is it significantly different to the
calculations weld have made using earlier theory? When
we compare the tracklengths predicted by SR and NM,
starting from theory-neutral properties, the final
results seem to be identical (section 16.9): for a
given agreed momentum, the mtion's decay point
according to SR would seem to be precisely the same as
the NM prediction - the two models don't disagree on
where the muon decays, they disagree as to whether it
achieves that penetration by travelling at more or less
than background lightspeed, which is more difficult to
establish.
Fast or ultrafast?
Muon bursts seem to be associated with Cerenkov
radiation - the optical equivalent of a supersonic
shockwave - but since lightspeed is slower in air than
in a vacuum, using the Cerenkov effect to show that the
innuons are moving faster than lightspeed in air
doesn't show that they're also moving faster than the
official background speed of light, in a vacuum.
So how do we find the real speed of the muons, given
that we don't have advance warning of when a cosmic ray
is going to strike? With additional airborne muion
detectors we can try to cornpare the detection times in
the air and on the ground, but interpreting this data
neutrally could be difficult: one such experiment
seemed to indicate that the muons were travelling at
more than than Cvacuum (Clay/Crouch 1974), but
subsequent experiments seem to have supported the
opposite position.
Frorn here on, things get muddy. Given that we know
that the record of SR-trained theorists trying to
interpret non-SR theory isn't exactly faultless, it's
difficult to know exactly how to treat this situation
... but there's one thing here that we can be sure of.
When SR textbooks tell us that ground-level muon
detection gives us unambiguous evidence for special
relativity, and tell us that these muons couldn't reach
the ground unless SR was correct, and couldn't bay,
been predicted by earlier theories ... those statements
are wrong.
<snip rest>
16.14: Conclusions Although we're told that the
evidence for special relativity is beyond dispute, much
of the supporting evidence and argument is individually
so patchy that it wouldn't be taken seriously in other
branches of physical science. Or at least, we should
hope that this lack of sceptical scrutiny is unusual,
because otherwise science in general would seem to be
in a great deal of trouble. Almost every general
argument for SR seems to have been missold in some way.
The E=mc^2 relationship wasn't unique to SR after all,
neither were transverse redshifts, and the centrifuge
redshifts that we'd been told had no other explanation
had been predicted from more general gravitational
arguments independently of SR. Although the
experimenters may well have been scrupulously honest,
some of the special theory's more active proponents
seemed to be badly misrepresenting the available
evidence and the mathematics, and their colleagues
seemed to be allowing them to get away with it.
Since most of these mistakes can be found with a little
basic critical analysis, this leaves us wondering
whether the theory's proponents genuinely didn't
realise that what they were saying was wrong or
misleading (in which case the standard of cross-theory
expertise 'S low), or whether they knew that evidence
was being misrepresented, but chose not to raise the
issue. Perhaps people thought that it wasn't so
important if a few of these experiments were over-sold,
because of the sheer breadth of other suppo rting
evidence ... and that even if the SR. dependency of a
few results had been hyped, that the exaggeration was
harmless because mathematics told us that the theory
was right ... but once a "casual" approach to
scientific evidence is allowed to become widespread in
a research subject, and once everybody starts to rely
on the idea that the standards of evidence in
individual cases don't matter so much, it allows the
awful possibility that perhaps every piece of e vidence
used to support the theory might be similarly flawed.
Mistakes will tend to cancel each other out in a
diverse population, but in a monoculture they'll tend
to reinforce one another. If evervone believes that the
number of experiments provides a solid safety margin
for their own work, and if everyone depends on the
existence of that assumed safety margin, then it might
be that the margin doesn't exist.
The experimental record may make a decent case for the
principle of relativity being correct and also gives us
strong evidence against a number of nonrelativistic
models and against simple emission theory ... but when
it comes to establishing whether SR is the correct
implementation of the principle of relativity, things
are less straightforward. If we believe that any
relativistic model must reduce to SR by definition,
we'll tend not to bother testing SR against other
potential relativistic solutions, beca use we won't
believe that they can exist.
The misrepresentation of the evidence for SR means that
we're entitled to be suspicious, but it doesn't mean
that special relativity's relationships are necessarily
wrong. Definitive tests of "SR vs. NM" would seem to
require direct tests of the Doppler relationships
themselves, and in this case we seem to have two basic
experiments, both slightly problematic - One apparently
favouring SR against NM (Ives-Stilwell) and one
apparently favouring NM against SR (Hasselkamp etal.).
If the "NM" Doppler relationsh ips are correct, it
seems incredible that we wouldn't have already noticed
it, but if the SR set are really better, it also seems
incredible that after a century of testing, we wouldn't
yet have a body of results claiming to demonstrate it.
It's hard to find an ' v SR tests where experimenters
claim to have compared the NM Doppler relationships
against the SR set, and found the SR version better -
it's just not something that people tend to do. If the
SR set really is better, then the community really
ought to have been able to find people able to verify
it by now. A century should have been sufficient time.
Which of these relationships is better than the other
at describing the universe we live in?
The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know.
Flip a coin.
Sue...
[...]
>
> The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know.
>
> Flip a coin.
Which of the experiments test:
<<,,,Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
All inertial frames are totally equivalent
for the performance of all physical experiments.
In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
experiment which differentiates in any fundamental
sense between different inertial frames. By definition,
Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all
inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in
his special theory of relativity by asserting that all
laws of physics take the same form in all inertial
frames. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
Androcles
"Danny Milano" <milan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:677cb064-f698-4e45...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
is really wrong.
=========================================
Welcome to the real world.
Q. Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
A. Because he was a ranting lunatic.
See http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
There is possibility SR is really totally idiotic, senseless nonsense.
Androcles.
=========================================
--- -. dotat
<milan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
>Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
>is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
>following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
>someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
>wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
>is really wrong.
>
>Baird said:
>
>"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
>
>We're told that the experimental evidence for special
>relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
>doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
>this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
>reckoned to support the special theory include:
>............
snip crap.
The main point in that collection is, that relativity may be wrong,
and may be replaced by other, better thories, but the author fails
to present one ( 1 ) single successful example.
He is an idiot.
w.
--
An Empirical Question for the antirelativistic Trolls:
What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
[x ] (example for Pentcho Valev)
Danny Milano
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 03:41:52 -0700 (PDT), Danny Milano
>
>
>
>
>
> <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> >Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> >is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> >following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> >someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> >wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> >is really wrong.
>
> >Baird said:
>
> >"16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
>
> >We're told that the experimental evidence for special
> >relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
> >doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
> >this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
> >reckoned to support the special theory include:
> >............
>
> snip crap.
>
> The main point in that collection is, that relativity may be wrong,
> and may be replaced by other, better thories, but the author fails
> to present one ( 1 ) single successful example.
>
> He is an idiot.
>
> w.
If Eric Baird arguments are valid. It means something. That
special relativity is not right and other newtonian theories may
indeed replace it. At least it settles the fact that SR is wrong
and a unique newtonian model (maybe Thomsonian physics)
await discovery.
Danny
> --
> An Empirical Question for the antirelativistic Trolls:
> What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
> [ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
> [ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
> [x ] (example for Pentcho Valev)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ian Parker
> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> is really wrong.
>
This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
fact Relativity got rid of the aether.
You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
talking in a prely philosopical way.
I would ask you
WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?
What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
theories?
You know what. I think you have got a rather large file somewhere. You
have an editor along the lines of the Honeywell Buzzword Generator.
You write under a large number of aliases. I do not believe that, or
any other contribution advances our understanding one iota.
What is antirelativity? It is largely a cover for Roswell and the fact
that a large amount of money was squandered. This on top of putting a
large number of red herrings into aerodynamic research.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=area+51+antigravity&meta=
Hence my introduction. Reputable physicists were NEVER consulted, just
as no repuable arabist was consulted over Iraq. Antirelativity can
thus be summed up.
No Physics, no Arabic.
- Ian Parker
Danny Milano
What? No. I'm not Eric Baird. It's just that there is a whole universe
of difference if Special Relativity is true or a newtonian ad hoc
model
is true. If SR minkowski block spacetime is right. We could be
living in an imaginary universe where any rule is possible dictated
by math. If newtonian model triumps then there is physical
mechanism and physical cause for everything with thermodynamics
statistical fashion possibly explaining even quantum "probabilities".
SR or not. That is the question. Eric Baird has thought of it for
decades. He is the Czar of the antirelativists. I wonder if anyone
has discussed with him previously and knew where he got it
wrong because I can't analyze it right now.
Danny
Pentcho Valev
sci.physics.relativity:
> On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> > is really wrong.
>
> Salaam alekum!
>
> This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
> substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
> fact Relativity got rid of the aether.
>
> You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
> talking in a prely philosopical way.
>
> I would ask you
>
> WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?
>
> What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
> theories?
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.
Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
but you can still save relativity by introducing, ad hoc, miracles -
time dilation, length contraction etc. So in Einstein zombie world a
single experiment can confirm two incompatible theories and
Einsteinians subtract the number of such experiments from the
"enormous" number of experiments that gloriously confirm Divine
Albert's Divine Theory and refute the emission theory. Up until
recently the Pound-Rebka experiment belonged to the latter group but
now Einsteinians suspect that this experiment, like the Michelson-
Morley experiment, confirms the emission theory as well. A
dispassionate and disinterested analysis would show that Pound-Rebka
unambiguously confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes
Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
A couple of comments:
1. It is a misconception that SR is nothing but mathematical
constructs and does not carry the same "physical" basis as Newtonian
physics does. Newtonian physics is no less a mathematical construct
than SR. For example, Newton explicitly offered no mechanism for
gravity, despite being able to write down a general rule for the
strength of that mechanism, and in fact he was quite flummoxed by the
notion of reaching across empty space to influence something without a
tangible mediator. Conversely, SR does offer a physical meaning for
its findings -- just not the little-things-banging-on-little-things
picture you might have imagined it should be.
2. The author suggests that a better developed Newtonian model would
account for all of the experimental findings that presently agree with
relativity. That may be so, and the best avenue for demonstrating that
is to actually develop a coherent theory with all the direct causal
factors you think are needed to actually account for all of the things
observed. Included in this should be why successive increments of
kinetic energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
higher than c, just as an example. Note that the author has failed to
provide that. But just to key on something, the presumption is that
Newtonian physics can have enough arbitrary forces and mechanisms
added to it to reproduce ANY arbitrary behavior observed; and that all
one has to do is add enough mechanisms to fit the data. This turns out
to be a bad presumption. Newtonian mechanics has a certain structure
which limits which behaviors could even *conceivably* be fit, no
matter what mechanisms are added to it. And the odd thing is that, in
observation, some phenomena we see are clearly outside those limits.
3. The author claims that certain combinations of models were dropped
and not sufficiently investigated once relativity landed on the scene.
I would question that. It is a habitual behavior among authors like
this to consider seminal experiments and seminal models, but fail to
read the follow-up research. Physicists actively look for any and all
holes in prevailing theories, because finding the chink in the armor
of a popular model is a good way to make significant progress. The
implication that physicists prefer the status quo is to fail to
recognize that most of the significant developments in physics --
relativity, quantum mechanics, path-integral quantum field theory,
superconductivity theory included -- were significant precisely
because they bucked the prevailing concepts.
PD
PD
PD
> On Jul 10, 2:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
> > On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> > > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> > > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> > > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> > > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> > > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> > > is really wrong.
>
> > Salaam alekum!
>
> > This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
> > substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
> > fact Relativity got rid of the aether.
>
> > You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
> > talking in a prely philosopical way.
>
> > I would ask you
>
> > WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?
>
> > What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
> > theories?
>
> Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka contradict special relativity.
Michelson-Morley in no way contradicts special relativity. You might
say it contradicts special relativity if you take out time dilation
and length contraction, but then again, that ain't special relativity,
is it?
> Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.
Danny Milano
Well. When different observers in different inertial frames have
different length and time with respect to a reference frame. It goes
over anything Newtonian. The effect is like inside a mind or machine
or a psychedelic drug trip where perspective can have different
effects on observers. There is nothing newtonian about it.
Something like that.
>
> 2. The author suggests that a better developed Newtonian model would
> account for all of the experimental findings that presently agree with
> relativity. That may be so, and the best avenue for demonstrating that
> is to actually develop a coherent theory with all the direct causal
> factors you think are needed to actually account for all of the things
> observed. Included in this should be why successive increments of
> kinetic energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
> higher than c, just as an example. Note that the author has failed to
> provide that. But just to key on something, the presumption is that
> Newtonian physics can have enough arbitrary forces and mechanisms
> added to it to reproduce ANY arbitrary behavior observed; and that all
> one has to do is add enough mechanisms to fit the data. This turns out
> to be a bad presumption. Newtonian mechanics has a certain structure
> which limits which behaviors could even *conceivably* be fit, no
> matter what mechanisms are added to it. And the odd thing is that, in
> observation, some phenomena we see are clearly outside those limits.
Modified Newtonian Physics with more than 3 dimensions may
give extra tricks that plain old Newtonian mechanics could't pull off
(?).
About your query why adding successive increments of kinetic
energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
higher than c. Eric Baird answered it thus when he mentioned
in the above that:
Coupling efficiency
Indirect acceleration
>
> 3. The author claims that certain combinations of models were dropped
> and not sufficiently investigated once relativity landed on the scene.
> I would question that. It is a habitual behavior among authors like
> this to consider seminal experiments and seminal models, but fail to
> read the follow-up research. Physicists actively look for any and all
> holes in prevailing theories, because finding the chink in the armor
> of a popular model is a good way to make significant progress. The
> implication that physicists prefer the status quo is to fail to
> recognize that most of the significant developments in physics --
> relativity, quantum mechanics, path-integral quantum field theory,
> superconductivity theory included -- were significant precisely
> because they bucked the prevailing concepts.
>
> PD
>
> PD- Hide quoted text -
Pentcho Valev
What else? Should the "better developed Newtonian model" include
breathtaking paradoxes such as the bug-simultaneously-squashed-and-not-
squashed paradox or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
paradox? I think only Einsteiniana can produce such wisdom:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html
http://www.math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an
instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you
close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open
them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the
contracted pole shut up in your barn."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
term memory seems to be loose somewhere.
> or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
> paradox?
We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long-
barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical. Why you would want to take
the length from one frame and juxtapose it against the length in
another frame is beyond me.
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or
whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without
directly altering time and length is a major points for
scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one
doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist
publishing a book. The full title of his book is
"Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special
Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or
curved spacetime could be true yet in a small
point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because
it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon.
Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But
then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired
by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..."
that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in
different height and he thoght what if the different
time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads
to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be
cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book
is dense, have to read it if I have more time. See:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Curved-Spacetime-without-relativity/dp/0955706807/ref=ed_oe_p
Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself.
Danny
Danny Milano
>
> Better yet. Why don't you write a book yourself.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Duh. I wonder if it is possible for General Relativity to exist
without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity)
inherent in the theory, anyone?
Danny
Eric Gisse
> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> is really wrong.
There is zero chance that he knows why relativity is wrong. Baird does
not understand relativity yet published a textbook on it anyway, and
explicitly did not seek out corrections from those who are learned in
the field.
>
> Baird said:
>
> "16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
>
> We're told that the experimental evidence for special
> relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
> doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
> this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
> reckoned to support the special theory include:
>
> * E=mc^2
He simplifies, probably because he doesn't know better.
>
> * transverse redshifts
Incorrect terminology - again, doesn't know better. Its' transverse
Doppler shift.
[bla bla bla]
>
> And while this was a good story to tell credulous
> schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The
> idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to
> basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit
> he went on to argue for the wider validity of the
> result by publishing further papers that derived the
> relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more
> general arguments outside special relativity. We also
> found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the
> Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact
> result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go
> directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the
> NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably
> straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart,
> and it's also part of every hypothetical model in
> section 13.
This argument is so worthless that not only is it so stupid that it
doesn't need anything past rolled eyes, but it manages to invalidate
the rest of the post based on sheer stupidity. Anyone who can write
this - I don't know or care if its you or just you quoting the idiot -
isn't worth listening to.
[snip]
Pentcho Valev
If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?
> > Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
>
> The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
> the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
> results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
> evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.
In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single
equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
speed of the light source. It can be shown (but the discussion cannot
be held on this forum) that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by
some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with
the experiments.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Spaceman
<snipped for brevity>
> Which of these relationships is better than the other
> at describing the universe we live in?
>
> The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know.
Well, it depends, do you wish to use rubber rulers and
clocks that malfunction that also can create time travel,
wormholes, point particle energy, 0 and particle vacuum
curvature. or would you rather use that good old single
standards of time and distances and find out what is
really occuring and find real physical causes for effects
instead of math models that have no actual "physical"
causes at all?
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
Spaceman
Yes, this is true, and don't let the rubber ruler kingdom
stop you from looking for a true physical cause for effects since
that is what "physics" is still about even though they don't
want it to be.
PD
Exactly.
> The effect is like inside a mind or machine
> or a psychedelic drug trip where perspective can have different
> effects on observers. There is nothing newtonian about it.
> Something like that.
Well, sorta. It's really not as complicated as that. There are frame-
dependent quantities in physics and frame independent quantities.
Always have been. It's just that they aren't quite the ones we once
thought.
>
> > 2. The author suggests that a better developed Newtonian model would
> > account for all of the experimental findings that presently agree with
> > relativity. That may be so, and the best avenue for demonstrating that
> > is to actually develop a coherent theory with all the direct causal
> > factors you think are needed to actually account for all of the things
> > observed. Included in this should be why successive increments of
> > kinetic energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
> > higher than c, just as an example. Note that the author has failed to
> > provide that. But just to key on something, the presumption is that
> > Newtonian physics can have enough arbitrary forces and mechanisms
> > added to it to reproduce ANY arbitrary behavior observed; and that all
> > one has to do is add enough mechanisms to fit the data. This turns out
> > to be a bad presumption. Newtonian mechanics has a certain structure
> > which limits which behaviors could even *conceivably* be fit, no
> > matter what mechanisms are added to it. And the odd thing is that, in
> > observation, some phenomena we see are clearly outside those limits.
>
> Modified Newtonian Physics with more than 3 dimensions may
> give extra tricks that plain old Newtonian mechanics could't pull off
> (?).
OK, I'm willing to provisionally entertain the speculation -- but is
there more?
>
> About your query why adding successive increments of kinetic
> energy added to a particle in flight never raises the velocity
> higher than c. Eric Baird answered it thus when he mentioned
> in the above that:
>
> "From the point of view of the coils, we
> can argue that the particle's resistance to
> acceleration (and its apparent inertial mass), goes to
> infinity as its speed through the accelerator
> approaches lightspeed, and we might blame this on the
> particle's additional relativistic mass at higher
> speeds. But the idea of relativistic mass isn't always
> fashionable amongst physicists, so it's handy to have
> another way of describing the situation, and we can do
> this y describing the experi ment from the point of
> view of the particle.
>
> Coupling efficiency
>
> Suppose that our "SR particle" is coasting through a
> straight section of accelerator tube at close to
> background lightspeed, and we throw more EM energy at
> it ... the particle sees the receding accelerator coils
> to be redshifted, reducing the frequency, energy, and
> radiation pressure of their signals.
Whoops, what happened to the blueshifted, approaching coils?
(And BTW here is where the author starts to leak his rather shallow
understanding of how accelerators work. The accelerating component is
typically RF cavities, not magnets, which is where the coils are.)
Which would be detectable, and doesn't happen.
> This
> effect is related to NM's support for classical
> indirect radiation effects ("semi classical Hawking
> radiation), and wouldn't seem to be possible under
> SR-based Models. Unfortunately, when we start to deal
> with the more "particle-y" aspects of particle physics,
> quantum effects become relevant, allowing the
> appearance of particles in "impossible" situations to
> be explained away by ideas such as quantum tunnelling:
> even if we found something that looked like evidence of
> superluminal daughter particles, by classifying this as
> a quantum effect we could probably still get away with
> arguing that the result didn't threaten SR."
That's a lot of handwaving. There is no event horizon here, so the
reference to Hawking radiation is a bit off the mark -- the event
horizon is needed to turn virtual particles into a flux of real
particles. As for the rest of the quantum mechanical "boojums" and the
implications that it's all very mysterious and we really don't know
what's going on there, that is also a bit off the mark. The radiation
of virtual and real particles is extremely well understood for
electrons (say, in an electron-positron accelerator), and measurements
agree with theoretical calculations to TWELVE significant figures. For
him to imply that this could all happen under our noses without our
knowing about it, well, it seems a little off.
PD
wrote:
Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he has
faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian mechanics,
everything will work fine. See my comments about the structure of
Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman is much more
willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make Newtonian
physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because he can. And
no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his mind, he
"wins".)
PD
Spaceman
PD,
You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself
instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such.
PD
No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
postulates mentioned.
>
> > > Michelson-Morley directly confirms Newton's emission theory of light
>
> > The emission theory of light is consistent with Michelson-Morley, but
> > the emission theory of light is inconsistent with OTHER experimental
> > results. It is not proper to consider experiments in isolation when
> > evaluating the evidence in support of or against a theory.
>
> In all those cases "the emission theory" can be reduced to a single
> equation, c'=c+v, showing how the speed of light varies with v, the
> speed of the light source.
Yes, and the implications of such a theory have been thoroughly
explored in the literature.
> It can be shown (but the discussion cannot
> be held on this forum)
Why not?
> that an exact equation cannot be confirmed by
> some experiments and refuted by others, unless something is wrong with
> the experiments.
If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead. It is the crank
who insists that because the theory is right, there must be something
wrong with the experiments. Now, on occasion, a single experimental
result is shown to be faulty. But that's why experiments are
reproduced and complementary experiments performed. If two or three
*independent* experiments corroborate each others' findings, then
there is a high confidence value in the result of those experiments.
And if those findings are contrary to a model's predictions, then the
model is dead as burnt toast. This is *precisely* what happened to
emission theory over the last several decades.
PD
Danny Milano
I searched for "transverse redshift" in the net. I came across it in
the "redshift" entry in wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift
"Transverse redshift" is mentioned halfway. Wordsearch for
it in the page and you shall find it. I guess you are into
semantic nitpicking.
Danny
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > And while this was a good story to tell credulous
> > schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The
> > idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to
> > basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit
> > he went on to argue for the wider validity of the
> > result by publishing further papers that derived the
> > relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more
> > general arguments outside special relativity. We also
> > found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the
> > Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact
> > result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go
> > directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the
> > NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably
> > straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart,
> > and it's also part of every hypothetical model in
> > section 13.
>
> This argument is so worthless that not only is it so stupid that it
> doesn't need anything past rolled eyes, but it manages to invalidate
> the rest of the post based on sheer stupidity. Anyone who can write
> this - I don't know or care if its you or just you quoting the idiot -
> isn't worth listening to.
>
I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I
just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not
much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off.
The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his
treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here.
Danny
> [snip]- Hide quoted text -
PD
wrote:
Nonsense. There is a perfectly valid physical cause. It's just that
you imagine that the ONLY physical causes you will choose to believe
in are material things bonking up against material things, and
anything else you consider to be not "physical" enough for you.
rot...@gmail.com
> Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all
> inertial frames.
Thats true and...
> Einstein generalized this result in
> his special theory of relativity by asserting that all
> laws of physics take the same form in all inertial
> frames.
By *definition* too.
"Laws" are those eqs. or relations that take the same form in all i-
frames. We search for such relations and when found it is declared a
"Law". Hence, the principle of relativity is simply a re-statement of
the definition of Law.
Dono
>
> I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I
> just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not
> much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off.
> The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his
> treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here.
>
> Danny
>
Yes, he comes periodically on this forum to peddle his "book".
It is obvious that you wasted your 15$ buying it.
Pentcho Valev
> Whether time indeed dilate or length indeed contract or
> whether hidden newtonian principle is at work without
> directly altering time and length is a major points for
> scrutiny. I just found Eric Baird unique in that one
> doesn't commonly encounter an anti-relativist
> publishing a book. The full title of his book is
> "Relativity in Curved Spacetime: Life without Special
> Relatity". Baird believes General Relativity or
> curved spacetime could be true yet in a small
> point of it, flat spacetime doesn't work because
> it's curved spacetime all the way to the planck horizon.
> Well. At least Baird believes in general relativity. But
> then isn't it that General Relativity had been inspired
> by Special Relativity. I read in Wheeler "Black hole..."
> that Einstein imagined time dilation occured in
> different height and he thoght what if the different
> time dilation could cause gravity itself. So SR leads
> to GR although Eric Baird believes GR could be
> cooked up entirely without SR. Hmm... the book
> is dense, have to read it if I have more time.
General relativity is an INCONSISTENCY, that is, a theory where
assertions are accompanied by their negations. It keeps Einstein's
1905 false light postulate (c'=c) but at the same time has implicitly
introduced its antithesis, the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light. An instructive, although somewhat
misleading, description of this malignant theoretical construction (an
inconsistency is much more dangerous than a false theory) is given by
Newton-Smith (W. H. Newton-Smith, The rationality of science,
Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229):
"A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including
this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories,
our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it
will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple
argument shows. Let ‘q’ be an arbitrary sentence of the language and
suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive
the sentence ‘p and not-p’. From this ‘p’ follows. And from ‘p’ it
follows that ‘p or q’ (if ‘p’ is true then ‘p or q’ will be true no
matter whether ‘q’ is true or not). Equally, it follows from ‘p and
not-p’ that ‘not-p’. But ‘not-p’ together with ‘p or q’ entails ‘q’.
Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit
everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that
did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which
contained each sentence of the theory’s language and its negation."
The deduction performed by Newton-Smith is unacceptable to a physicist
since « from ‘p’ it follows that ‘p or q’ » is not a relevant physical
argument (see http://www.wbabin.net/philos/valev9.pdf ). Still the
central idea – that the lowest degree of verisimilitude should be
given to an inconsistency – is correct.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
>
> I wonder if you have discussed with Baird before in the past. I
> just found his book at amazon and got it since there is not
> much anti-SRists who publish books. I guess if he is cut off.
> The rest of the anti-relativists here fall like domino since his
> treatise encompassed all the anti-relativists here.
I wish that were true, but it turns out there's a million ways to be
wrong, and Baird is just wrong a couple hundred of those ways.
It isn't all that unusual for antirelativists to publish their own
books. Self-publishing is easy (though not all that cheap) with the
help of print-on-demand micropublishers like Chocolate Tree Books,
which is the one that produced Eric's book. (So far, CTB has produced
exactly two books.) There are actually some quite lavishly produced
books by all manner of cranks, including one I saw recently that must
have cost a million dollars to make that was an anti-evolution
diatribe funded by a religious order.
Other examples of antirelativistic books:
Ken Seto's Model Mechanics -- he can no longer afford the web page
where he used to sell his book.
David Thompson's Secrets of the Aether -- http://www.16pi2.com/
Einsteinhoax -- http://users.isp.com/retic/physics/index.htm
PD
PD
Eric Gisse
[snip]
Its' unfortunate you bought his book. I'd ask for a refund.
Spaceman
You say "physical cause" but you never prove the "physical" parts.
Your brainwashing was done very well.
:)
PD
You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things bonking
up against material things -- that is not the only thing that counts
as a "physical cause".
If you think that it is, then please explain to me what material thing
bonking up against a material thing is responsible for the moon
staying in orbit around the sun. If you say "gravity", I'd say "Lovely
word. What does it mean? What's the *mechanism* for gravity,
Spaceman?" If you have no answer to that, then I'd say your Newtonian
brainwashing was complete.
PD
Greg Neill
news:1p6dnbbJbez5huvV...@comcast.com
> PD wrote:
>> Spaceman has no idea what these "true physical causes" are, but he
>> has faith that if we find them and plug them into Newtonian
>> mechanics, everything will work fine. See my comments about the
>> structure of Newtonian mechanics and your response as well. Spaceman
>> is much more willing to believe in little pink fairies if they make
>> Newtonian physics work, than to believe in relativity. Just because
>> he can. And no one can make him believe otherwise. (And so, in his
>> mind, he "wins".)
>
> PD,
> You have math as a cause only, if you actually thought for yourself
> instead of as a read only memory text file , you would see such.
James still doesn't know the difference between a
mathematical model and what it models. James doesn't
(won't?) understand that the observations come before
the math. James doesn't like the idea of a world that
might behave differently from his kindergarten
understanding of it and fervent wishes of how things
should be, so he denies all empirical evidence to the
contrary.
PD
> "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
What he says is that a physical model must satisfy certain criteria,
otherwise they just cannot be right. He has a favorite physical model
that he probably knows is inconsistent with observation, but it meets
the criteria he has in his head, and so this means it must be right.
And if the observations don't agree with the model, then the problem
is just that we're missing some piece of the model, some Newtonian
force or something, that will make it all work out. He doesn't believe
in chucking a model if it conflicts with experimental evidence,
especially a model he likes. He'd rather doubt the evidence. As far as
he's concerned, any model other than his doesn't meet those certain
criteria, and so they're automatically removed from consideration,
even if they agree with the data.
PD
Pentcho Valev
> On Jul 10, 9:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
> > refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
> > antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
> > Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?
>
> No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
> of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
> SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
> Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
> postulates mentioned.
It is still OK. First try to realize that the deduction of time
dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact
REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM, then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate and you obtain what I say above.
> If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
> theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead.
Consider the frequency shift
f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)
confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
Einstein's 1911 equation:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
and therefore with the equivalent equation:
c' = c + v
given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
> On Jul 10, 4:25 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 10, 9:06 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > If you take out time dilation and length contraction, Michelson-Morley
> > > refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and confirms the
> > > antithesis of the light postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by
> > > Newton's emission theory of light. That's OK?
>
> > No, it's not ok. First of all, the light postulate plus the principle
> > of relativity DEMAND time dilation and length contraction. Secondly,
> > SR without both postulates operating is not SR. Third, Michelson-
> > Morley is completely consistent with a theory built on the TWO
> > postulates mentioned.
>
> It is still OK.
Sorry, no.
> First try to realize that the deduction of time
> dilation, length contraction and all idiotic "paradoxes" is in fact
> REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM,
There is absolutely nothing illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical
about time dilation or length contraction. I haven't got the foggiest
idea what you think is illogical or inconsistent or paradoxical.
> then reject accodingly Einstein's 1905 false
> light postulate and you obtain what I say above.
>
> > If a theory is in disagreement with experiments, in an arena where the
> > theory claims to apply well, then the theory is dead.
>
> Consider the frequency shift
>
> f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)
>
> confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
> Einstein's 1911 equation:
>
> c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
>
> and therefore with the equivalent equation:
>
> c' = c + v
>
> given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
> disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?
No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special
relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL
CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to
gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains
that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special*
theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a
*special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and
absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent
contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years
under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not
know what "special" in "special relativity" means?
PD
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
> We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
> term memory seems to be loose somewhere.
Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever.
>
> > or the 80m-long-pole-trapped-inside-40m-long-barn
> > paradox?
>
> We've talked about this, too. It's a 36m-long-pole-inside-a-40m-long-
> barn and that doesn't sound so paradoxical.
Zombie know: 80m in 40m difficult. Master say possible but zombie know
difficult. Zombie clever very clever. Zobbie know: 36m in 40m
possible. Easy. Good. Zombie clever very clever.
Spaceman
> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things bonking
> up against material things -- that is not the only thing that counts
> as a "physical cause".
LOL
poor PD.
You just proved you don't have physical causes.
you need physical material to produce physical causes.
and yet.. you have none.
so.
Case closed,
You have whoppin' 0 physical cause for effects.
:)
> If you think that it is, then please explain to me what material thing
> bonking up against a material thing is responsible for the moon
> staying in orbit around the sun.
The differences in "pressure" of the particles you refuse to look
for and instead chalk it up to "math alone" as the cause.
Spaceman
<snipped
I love it when they resort to the insults only
and have nothing that "proves my thoughts wrong"
At least I always give an example that prove them wrong
and then I call them morons.
:)
Ian Parker
> On Jul 10, 8:18 pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 10 Jul, 11:41, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> > > Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> > > is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> > > following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> > > someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> > > wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> > > is really wrong.
>
>
> > This seems to read very like a buzzword generator. The only
> > substantive thing that you have said is the SR is an aether theory. In
> > fact Relativity got rid of the aether.
>
> > You say "Experimental tests" yet on the basis of aether you seem to be
> > talking in a prely philosopical way.
>
> > I would ask you
>
> > WHAT EXPERIMENTS CONTRADICT SR?
>
> > What experiments would tell you the difference between the different
> > theories?
>
> > have an editor along the lines of the Honeywell Buzzword Generator.
> > You write under a large number of aliases. I do not believe that, or
> > any other contribution advances our understanding one iota.
>
> > What is antirelativity? It is largely a cover for Roswell and the fact
> > that a large amount of money was squandered. This on top of putting a
> > large number of red herrings into aerodynamic research.
>
> >http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=area+51+antigravity&meta=
>
> > Hence my introduction. Reputable physicists were NEVER consulted, just
> > as no repuable arabist was consulted over Iraq. Antirelativity can
> > thus be summed up.
>
> > No Physics, no Arabic.
>
> > - Ian Parker
>
> What? No. I'm not Eric Baird. It's just that there is a whole universe
> of difference if Special Relativity is true or a newtonian ad hoc
> model
> is true. If SR minkowski block spacetime is right. We could be
> living in an imaginary universe where any rule is possible dictated
> by math. If newtonian model triumps then there is physical
> mechanism and physical cause for everything with thermodynamics
> statistical fashion possibly explaining even quantum "probabilities".
>
originators of the simulation have programmed in all the laws of
Physics. It has been discussed philosophically whether a tree is there
when we are not looking at it.
I saw a coffee shop in B & Q. It was called "Java Corner". I am
convinced that that is not there when people are not there! They
understood it to mean though an island in the E Indies that produces
coffee rather than the programming language.
How can one tell? It is just speculation that gets us nowhere. You
understand there is absolutely no experiment by which we could tell
the difference.
> SR or not. That is the question. Eric Baird has thought of it for
> decades. He is the Czar of the antirelativists. I wonder if anyone
> has discussed with him previously and knew where he got it
> wrong because I can't analyze it right now.
>
But all scientific theories are generalisations of empirical
experience.
- Ian Parker
Sam Wormley
> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> is really wrong.
>
It's interesting that special relativity has been around
for more than a hundred years--as much of a "law" of
physics an any other law. It has been confirmed literally
thousands of experiments and observations, is essential
in the designs of advance technology, such as particle
accelerators.
What's to question about it?
Granted, the person in the street doesn't understand it,
but many of the less scientifically educated can't tell you
the difference between an atom and a molecule either.
So authors like Eric Baird, take advantage of the situation
and make some money! As far as I can tell Baird does NOT
understand relativity at all.
Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Einsteins original 1905 papers are accessible... give'm a read.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
Greg Neill
Strange how all those particles don't slow down the
planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet
they can hold a planet in that same orbit.
Strange how the pressure of all those particles
holding the Earth in orbit remains when the Moon
is eclipsed.
Strange how light isn't refracted by all those particles.
Strange how James thinks he can just chant "magic
particles" without considering the implications
first.
Strange how James keeps harping on his "math as cause"
routine, when no one has ever claimed this. He'd
like to think that it is so, so it must be so.
Uncle Al
>
> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> is really wrong.
1) Experimental constraints on Special Relativity,
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
2) If GR works then subset SR works,
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
3) Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Spaceman
> Strange how all those particles don't slow down the
> planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet
> they can hold a planet in that same orbit.
Strange how the pressure is expanding the universe
as more of those strange particles are being created.
:)
> Strange how the pressure of all those particles
> holding the Earth in orbit remains when the Moon
> is eclipsed.
Not strange at all,
You think particles can not surround things huh?
Poor Greg.
totally off on that one.
LOL
> Strange how light isn't refracted by all those particles.
Strange how light curves because of those particles.
Strange how Greg loves to be strange and yet not know it.
He would rather have "abstract numbers alone" do all that strange
stuff.
:)
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
:)
Pentcho Valev
This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching:
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/2d2a006c7d508022
Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to
the light source) measures the speed of light to be:
c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
will measure:
c' = c + v
where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment
of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that
OK?
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Greg Neill
>> Strange how all those particles don't slow down the
>> planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet
>> they can hold a planet in that same orbit.
>
> Strange how the pressure is expanding the universe
> as more of those strange particles are being created.
Citation? I think James just made that up (Lying again).
Note how he doesn't address the glaring energy conservation
issues.
>> Strange how the pressure of all those particles
>> holding the Earth in orbit remains when the Moon
>> is eclipsed.
>
> Not strange at all,
> You think particles can not surround things huh?
James does not understand force vectors or conservation
laws.
> Poor Greg.
> totally off on that one.
> LOL
>
>
>> Strange how light isn't refracted by all those particles.
>
> Strange how light curves because of those particles.
Strange how James can blithely state something without
comprehending the implications. Like the required mass
density of particles necessary to perform the momentum
transfers that would be required to move the planets the
way they do, and the implications that would have for the
extent of light refraction, frictional losses, dynamical
friction, and so on. Could it be that James just doesn't
know what the heck he's talking about?
>
> Strange how Greg loves to be strange and yet not know it.
> He would rather have "abstract numbers alone" do all that strange
> stuff.
And once again James runs back to his cherished "math as
cause" stance. He still can't figure out the difference
between a model of a thing and the thing itself.
Spaceman
> "Spaceman" <spac...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote in message
> news:pYidnTXz2v_CqevV...@comcast.com
>> Greg Neill wrote:
>>> Strange how all those particles don't slow down the
>>> planets in their orbits like so much treacle, yet
>>> they can hold a planet in that same orbit.
>>
>> Strange how the pressure is expanding the universe
>> as more of those strange particles are being created.
>
> Citation? I think James just made that up (Lying again).
> Note how he doesn't address the glaring energy conservation
> issues.
Greg can't understand that a billion flywheels
will spin longer than 1 will, once they are all up to speed.
And he says I can not "get" the conseration of energy.
LOL
Greg Neill
James doesn't have a mass/energy problem with a
billion flywheels clusttering up space. I would have
thought he'd at least put in a word about how everything
flying about out there (from spacecraft to asteroids, to
comets, to cosmic rays) manages to get anywhere without
being obstructed pulverized by the clockwork.
James would like to roll back science 2000 or so years
and reintroduce the crystal spheres holding the planets
in place. James is an epicycle man for a New Age.
Spaceman
Complete twist and diversion noted since you
can't understand the conservation of energy
involved in a multi flywheel system.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things bonking
> > up against material things -- that is not the only thing that counts
> > as a "physical cause".
>
> LOL
> poor PD.
> You just proved you don't have physical causes.
> you need physical material to produce physical causes.
That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity.
Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
that delivers the energy from the sun.
> and yet.. you have none.
> so.
> Case closed,
> You have whoppin' 0 physical cause for effects.
> :)
>
> > If you think that it is, then please explain to me what material thing
> > bonking up against a material thing is responsible for the moon
> > staying in orbit around the sun.
>
> The differences in "pressure" of the particles you refuse to look
> for and instead chalk it up to "math alone" as the cause.
Oh, actually, it has been looked for. It was proposed (and developed
much better than you could) by a fella named LeSage. And it was looked
for seriously. However, there are certain unavoidable consequences of
such a model (they are called testable predictions, and testable
predictions are the bread and butter of science) and those did not
match up against experimental observations. There appears to be no way
to save the LeSage model with modifications so that your "particles"
idea works. I'm sure you can look up LeSage and the models that were
entertained in that spirit, and what befell them.
Got any other ideas, smart guy? :)
PD
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
>
> <snipped
>
> I love it when they resort to the insults only
> and have nothing that "proves my thoughts wrong"
I was talking about your thoughts.
PD
> On Jul 10, 5:43 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 10, 10:35 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Consider the frequency shift
>
> > > f' = f(1 + gh/c^2)
>
> > > confirmed experimentally by Pound and Rebka. Is it in agreement with
> > > Einstein's 1911 equation:
>
> > > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
>
> > > and therefore with the equivalent equation:
>
> > > c' = c + v
>
> > > given by Newton's emission theory of light? If it is, is it then in
> > > disagreement with Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)?
>
> > No, it's not. You have this goofball notion that the special
> > relativity postulate (c'=c) is claimed to apply EVERYWHERE and in ALL
> > CIRCUMSTANCES. It applies over distances where tidal forces due to
> > gravity are small compared to measurement precision; i.e. in domains
> > that are locally inertial. This is why it is called the *special*
> > theory of relativity, because it (and its postulates) apply in a
> > *special domain*. Attempts to extrapolate them out to general and
> > absolute statements leads you mistakenly to the apparent
> > contradictions you cite above. Have you been laboring all these years
> > under the impression that there is a contradiction when you do not
> > know what "special" in "special relativity" means?
>
> This is irrelevant. Consider Master Tom Roberts' teaching:
>
> Pentcho Valev: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A
> GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Tom Roberts: "Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the
> measurement. It can also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume
> you really mean the standard value for c). And this can happen even
> for an accelerated observer in a region without any significant
> gravitation (e.g. in Minkowski spacetime)."
>
> That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to
> the light source) measures the speed of light to be:
>
> c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
>
> then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
> will measure:
>
> c' = c + v
>
> where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment
> of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that
> OK?
Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you.
Now, you are apparently still flummoxed with putting this next to
c'=c, thinking there is a contradiction.
There isn't.
c'=c applies in *SPECIAL* relativity, where tidal effects of gravity
are negligible over the distances concerned.
That's why it's called *SPECIAL* relativity, because it applies in
special cases.
PD
John Kennaugh
>On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[...]
>>
>> The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know.
>>
>> Flip a coin.
>
>Which of the experiments test:
>
><<,,,Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
>
> All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
>In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
>experiment which differentiates in any fundamental
>sense between different inertial frames. By definition,
>Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all
>inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in
>his special theory of relativity by asserting that all
>laws of physics take the same form in all inertial
>frames. >>
Which is exactly the same as Galileo's principle of relativity. It had
been thought not to be true because of belief in the aether. If the
aether exists then it should be possible to devise experiments which are
frame dependent because each FoR has a different speed relative to the
aether. The MMX was just such an experiment which was expected to give a
frame dependent result. It didn't and neither did any others so the PoR
could be reinstated. It was first by Lorentz and then by Einstein. The
two theories are mathematically identical. Lorentz's has a theoretical
structure which Einstein objected to but Einstein came up with no
alternative.
>http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
>
>Sue...
>
--
John Kennaugh
PD
> On Jul 10, 3:40 pm, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We've talked about this. The bug is definitely squashed. Your short-
> > term memory seems to be loose somewhere.
>
> Zombie know: no bug no problem. Zombie clever very clever.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I realize that the moment you get confused, you think that a magician
has just pulled a trick to confuse you. But there isn't really any
trick, and here the magician is showing you exactly how the trick is
done, and you STILL think it's magic.
Sue...
wrote:
> Sue... wrote:
> >On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >[...]
>
> >> The honest answer seems to be: we still don't know.
>
> >> Flip a coin.
>
> >Which of the experiments test:
>
> ><<,,,Einstein's relativity principle, which states that:
>
> > All inertial frames are totally equivalent
> > for the performance of all physical experiments.
>
> >In other words, it is impossible to perform a physical
> >experiment which differentiates in any fundamental
> >sense between different inertial frames. By definition,
> >Newton's laws of motion take the same form in all
> >inertial frames. Einstein generalized this result in
> >his special theory of relativity by asserting that all
> >laws of physics take the same form in all inertial
> >frames. >>
>
> Which is exactly the same as Galileo's principle of relativity. It had
> been thought not to be true because of belief in the aether. If the
> aether exists then it should be possible to devise experiments which are
> frame dependent because each FoR has a different speed relative to the
> aether.
Whether ether exist is irrelevant. Hydrogen and helium
is widely thought to exist (still a few doubters, no doubt)
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
> The MMX was just such an experiment which was expected to give a
> frame dependent result.
> It didn't and neither did any others
There are many reasons it wouldn't but the most significant
is that light does not move as a massive paritcle.
Einstein seems to have considered the need for a
dielectric only much later in his career.
> so the PoR
> could be reinstated. It was first by Lorentz and then by Einstein. The
> two theories are mathematically identical. Lorentz's has a theoretical
> structure which Einstein objected to but Einstein came up with no
> alternative.
The massive light particle inherited from Newton
has yet to be detected. So restatment seems
unnecessary.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational [inertial] field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
http://scitation.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_58/iss_11/31_1.shtml
"The relativity principle"
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node108.html
Sue...
>
> >Sue...
>
> --
> John Kennaugh
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi PD,
Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist
without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity)
inherent in the theory?
About the muon reaching the ground due to newtonian
mechanism in contrast to SR explanation about time
dilation or the atmospheric length contraction from the
point of view of the muon. What do you think of Baird
newtonian interpretation explanation in the initial post
which I'll quote again (what's his fatal flaw with regards
to the muon shower reaching ground NM interpretation?):
Baird said:
"
16:10 Muon Showers
Similar arguments apply when we try to assess evidence
from "cosmic ray" detectors. High energy cosmic rays
hitting the upper parts of the Earth's atmosphere
create showers of short-lived "daughter particles" that
survive for an incredibly short amount of time before
decaying - their lifetimes are so short that even if
they were travelling at the speed of light, we might
think that they still shouldn't be able to reach the
Earth's surface before decaying.
But ground-based detectors do report the detection of
muon showers, and there are two main ways that we can
interpret this result:
SR-based interpretation
According to special relativity, we should explain the
detectors' result by saying that since we "know" that
nothing can travel faster than background lightspeed,
the rations' ability to reach the ground shows that
their decay-times must have been extended, and we
interpret this as demonstrating that the special
theory's time-dilation effects are physically real. We
say that the muons move at a very high proportion of
the speed of light and are time-dilated, and if it
wasn't It for this time-dilation effect , they wouldn't
be able to reach the detectors.
Or ... we could adopt the muon's point of view, and
suggest that the muon is stationary and the Earth is
moving towards it at nearly the speed of light. In this
second SR description, all of the approaching Earth's
atmosphere is able to pass by the muon in time even
though its speed is less than c, because the moving
atmosphere's depth is Lorentz-contracted. These two
different SR explanations (length-contraction and time
dilation) are interchangeable.
NM-based interpretation
But is the success of the SR mtion calculations
significant? Is it significantly different to the
calculations weld have made using earlier theory? When
we compare the tracklengths predicted by SR and NM,
starting from theory-neutral properties, the final
results seem to be identical (section 16.9): for a
given agreed momentum, the mtion's decay point
according to SR would seem to be precisely the same as
the NM prediction - the two models don't disagree on
where the muon decays, they disagree as to whether it
achieves that penetration by travelling at more or less
than background lightspeed, which is more difficult to
establish.
Fast or ultrafast?
Muon bursts seem to be associated with Cerenkov
radiation - the optical equivalent of a supersonic
shockwave - but since lightspeed is slower in air than
in a vacuum, using the Cerenkov effect to show that the
innuons are moving faster than lightspeed in air
doesn't show that they're also moving faster than the
official background speed of light, in a vacuum.
So how do we find the real speed of the muons, given
that we don't have advance warning of when a cosmic ray
is going to strike? With additional airborne muion
detectors we can try to cornpare the detection times in
the air and on the ground, but interpreting this data
neutrally could be difficult: one such experiment
seemed to indicate that the muons were travelling at
more than than Cvacuum (Clay/Crouch 1974), but
subsequent experiments seem to have supported the
opposite position.
Frorn here on, things get muddy. Given that we know
that the record of SR-trained theorists trying to
interpret non-SR theory isn't exactly faultless, it's
difficult to know exactly how to treat this situation
... but there's one thing here that we can be sure of.
When SR textbooks tell us that ground-level muon
detection gives us unambiguous evidence for special
relativity, and tell us that these muons couldn't reach
the ground unless SR was correct, and couldn't bay,
been predicted by earlier theories ... those statements
are wrong"
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Got any other ideas, smart guy? :)
>
> PD
I wonder how people like James think - if they think at all - our
technology is built. You don't build a billion dollar fab and "wing
it".
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh PD. His explanation of how muons can reach the
ground not being due to time dilation is in the following
section before it.. something called "tracklengths" (what
do you think of it, thanks):
"16.9: Particle tracklengths
Since we've brought up the subject of daughter
particles, how do we test how fast they really go?
Let's suppose that we have a particle that's only
supposed to survive for a nanosecond, and we measure
the length of straight-line distance that it covers
between being created and blowing itself to bits. If we
know the particle's "official" decay time, then surely
We can measure the length of its track, and divide that
by the time to get the speed? If this track length was
longer than the distance that particl e would travel at
the background speed of light, wouldn't this mean that
we'd shown that its velocity was superiuminal,
disproving SR? And if the particle tracks were always
shorter than this, wouldn't this support special
relativity?
But things aren't that easy. We're used to thinking of
velocity as an unambiguous property, but since we can't
be in two places at once, the properly often has to be
interpreted. Since special relativity redefines all of
the properties associated with velocity - energy,
momentum, distance and time - fair comparisons between
SR and other theories can become quite convoluted, and
this can make it difficult to tell, when we're using
these agreed, uninterpreted quantities, whether there's
really a physical diff erence between the SR and NM
tracklength predictions.
Special relativity assigns greater energies and momenta
to particles and signals than NM does, by a Lorentz
factor:
NM SR
Momentum p= mv p=mv x gamma
Doppler effect E'/E=(c-v)/c E'/E=(c-v)/c x gamma
, so ... for a high-energy particle moving along a
straight line with constant speed, with a known energy
and/or momentum, Newtonian theory and special
relativity will be assigning consistently different
velocity values to the same particle. The nominal "SR
velocity" value ("vSR") will always be less than
lightspeed, while the nominal 'NM velocity" value
("vNM") will be larger than its SR counterpart by a
Lorentz factor (calculated from vSR)'
When we migrate from NM to special relativity, a
particle's nominal velocity gets reduced by a Lorentz
factor, shortening the distance that the particle would
be expected to travel before decaying. But SR's "time
dilation" effect then predicts an extension of the
particle's lifetime by the same Lorentz factor thanks
to time dilation, lengthening the particle's track by
that same ratio. Because these two corrections exactly
cancel, the particle's decay Position as 3 function of
its energy and momentum is precisely the same for both
theories. The results of both sets of calculations are
necessarily identical. "
Eric Gisse
Do you think you are capable of having a meaningful discussion of
general relativity when you are unable to differentiate between
special and general relativity?
[...]
Danny Milano
>
> - Show quoted text -
General Relativity is about curved spacetime causing as one
side effect, gravity. Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime
which we assume flat. Eric Baird book theorized that it is
possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if
it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time
dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent
in the theory? When we deal with macro object like solar
system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation
and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in
the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric
and not in the GR manifold, right.
Danny
Sue...
[...]
>
> Do you think it is possible for General Relativity to exist
> without time dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity)
> inherent in the theory?
Unlikely.
From "Proper Time" --R.Fitzpartick
<< general Lorentz transformation preserves
the volume of space-time. Since time is dilated
by a factor $\gamma$ in a moving frame, the volume
of space-time can only be preserved if the volume
of ordinary 3-space is reduced by the same factor.
As is well-known, this is achieved by length
contraction along the direction of motion by a
factor $\gamma$. >>
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node114.html
<< The time-time component is the density of
relativistic mass, i.e. the energy density divided
by the speed of light squared,>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress-energy_tensor
Sue...
[...]
Pentcho Valev
> On Jul 10, 11:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > That is, if in a gravitational field an observer at rest (relative to
> > the light source) measures the speed of light to be:
>
> > c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)
>
> > then, in the absence of a gravitational field, an accelerated observer
> > will measure:
>
> > c' = c + v
>
> > where v=gh/c is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment
> > of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception). Is that
> > OK?
>
> Yes, that's perfectly consistent with what I just told you.
I am afraid your brothers are mad at you now. Brother zombie Paul
Andersen says Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is wrong:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/507ab189dc1bb91b
Brother Master Tom Roberts is more careful but essentially agrees with
brother zombie Paul Andersen:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/44abc7dbb30db6c2
You should not discuss Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2). There
is nothing more dangerous for Einsteiniana than this simple formula
advanced by Divine Albert himself. There are countries (France for
instance) where Einstein's 1911 equation has never been mentioned, let
alone discussed.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Danny Milano
The following excerpt I omitted (just before the Conclusion section
in my initial post) mentioned why moving clock in airplane runs
slower (due not to relativistic but newtonian explanation). It also
mentions about newton emitter theory which Pentcho kept saying.
Note Baird is more intelligent than Pentcho or Spacetime so he
deserves
full scrutiny esp. before we spend the rest of the year fully
immersed
in the LHC when it goes online next month..
(FOR SCRUTINY)
"
16.11. .. Particle storage rings and centrifugal time dilation
If we apply strict SR protocols, we can't in
principle isolate the SR time dilation effect particle
moving at constant speed along a straight track,
because if we could prove how M` time dilation it
realIv had, we'd have a measure of its true velocity
compared to the speed Of light - if other observers
then had to accept our results, we'd have uniquely
locked the Oeed of light to a specific inertia] frame,
which goes against SR's basic principl es. So a
constant velocity "SR-compatible" result can be
interpreted as including time dilation effects or not,
depending on our chosen reference system. Part of
special relativity's internal consistency is maintained
by the theory's structure preventing us from being able
to verify certain things.
Particle storage rings
But as physicists, we really do want to be able to know
how fast a particle 'Is moving, and there's an
unambiguous way of doing this: send the particle around
a circular path, measure the length of that path in
laboratory units, and then stand alongside the ring and
use a local clock to measure how long it takes the
particle to make a complete circuit. If we say that the
circular track is one kilometre long, and the speed of
light is just under -300,000 krn/s, then if the
particle takes more than about - 1 /300,000 of a second
to make a lap, it has to be circling at less than
background lightspeed. If the particle's usual decay
time "at rest" is one millionth of a second, and we
manage to send it all the way around the ring before it
decays, then surely its ability to make a complete
circuit is unambiguous proof that the particle is
ageing more slowly, and surely this then proves the
existence of SR's speed-based time dilation effect?
Unfortunately it doesn't. Although the particle now
shows a verifiable time-dilation effect, changing to a
circular track alters the physical parameters of the
experiment. Our circling particle is now feeling a
physical acceleration, and the reduction in its ageing
rate can now be blamed on acceleration effects (section
12.8). By taking the geeforces as evidence of an
apparent gravitational field, and calculating the
amount of gravitational time dilation that should be
associated with that field, we seem to get the right
answers for the particle's timedilation - so we can
still predict the right result even if we've never
heard of the special theory.
These simple particle accelerator-ring experiments
don't prove that special relativity's time dilation
effect is real - they present us with a straight choice
between interpreting the result as an acceleration
effect or as a speed effect. We usually choose to
accept SR's clock hypothesis, that acceleration has no
effect at all ... but this choice isn't imposed by more
general arguments, or by experimental data - we choose
this interpretation in order to be able to continue
using SR. Although the two types o f calculation both
work well in our circular particle-accelerator ring
example, they don't necessarily agree in more complex
situations.
Hafele-Keating, etc;
In 1971, Joseph Hafele and Richard Keating performed a
famous experiment in which they flew two sets of atomic
clocks around the world, one set Eastward, and one set
Westward. Seen from the frame of the background
starfield, the "Eastward" set were circling with the
Earth's rotation and had the greater speed (and
acceleration), while the "Westward" set ` moving
against the Earth's rotation and circling more slowly.
When both sets of clock, brought back to their base,
the set that had circled fastest seemed to have aged
less.
But again, although this experiment (and more reliable
repetitions of it) are touted as SR, it's another
example of centrifuge time dilation, and the outcome
should be calculable from more general gravitational
and equivalence principles (as a consequence of the
different accelerations) without using special
relativity.
It seems to be that when the only explanation for time
dilation is SR, then the effect'- Jani isolated: when
it can be isolated, there's another, deeper explanation
that makes SR redandant.
16,12: deSitter / Brecher disproof of simple emission
theory
As we've already mentioned (sections 13.12 and section
13.6), the Newtonian equations of motion seem to become
increasingly incompatible with flat spacetime at higher
velocities. Ballistic emission theory had assumed that
light was effectively "thrown,' particle - the model
was relativistic and used the NM relationships, but it
didn't support the concept of local c-constancy and
broke wave-theory rules. If light was emitted at
C(emitter) , and then continued at that speed without
any sort of gravitomagnetic regulation, different
signals could end up travelling along the same path at
the same time with different speeds depending on the
characteristics of their respective sources. As we] I
as destroying the idea of an orderly light-metric, this
gave some odd-looking side-effects:
1) The Doppler-blueshifted light generated in a star's
atmosphere by atoms moving ,,Wards us would travel more
quickly and reach us before redshifted light from other
adjacent atoms moving away from us. If the star was
also moving sideways across our field of view, we'd
then expect to see it having a spread of positions and
colours, as a rainbowed "streak" (which doesn't seem to
happen).
2) If an object was "stationary" but being eclipsed, we
might expect to see different colours disappear and
reappear in sequence as the eclipse progressed (Newton
seems to have made enquiries as to whether this effect
had been seen - it hadn't).
3) For a double-star system, light emitted when a star
was approaching would reach us more quickly than that
given off earlier when the star was receding, and at
sufficient distances, the star could seem to be
occupying two drastically diffrerent parts of its orbit
at the same moment.
The astronomer Willern deSitter realised that in this
third case, the difference in signal flighttimes
between a star's "approaching" and "receding" images
would increase linearly with distance, until , at a
sufficiently-great distance, the "fast" signals from
the approaching star should be able to catch up with
and overtake earlier signals thrown off by the same
star when it was receding, as well as with other "slow"
light emitted during earlier orbits. The signals would
be "all mixed up" when we received them (Einstein:
Shankland 1963), and our view of these distant circling
stars would be hopelessly scrambled.
DeSitter's 1913 survey of known double-star systems
didn't reveal these severe scrambling effects in any of
the stars surveyed, and given the extreme distances of
some of the stars and the extreme statistical
unlikeness that all these stars might have their
orbital planes facing us, deSitter concluded that
either there was no (global) dependency between the
speed of a signal and the speed of its source, or that
any (fixed, proportional) dependency would have to be
so absurdly small that the possibility really wasn't
worth mentioning.
DISitter's result is often said to prove that the speed
of light is independent of the source, but we have to
treat this statement carefully: showing that the speed
of light isn't wholly defined by its original source
isn't the same as saying that there are no local
dependencies double stars should throw off
gravitational waves (Figure 4-10), so to prove the
absence of Short-range effects on signal flight times
might be to disprove general relativity. The deSitter
result indicates that lightspeeds aren't se nsibly
affected by the motion of their sources over 101`19
distances, but we should still expect short-range
gravitomagnetic dependencies between the speed of the
emitter, the speed of the detector, and the speeds of
any other nearby objects that happened to be wandering
through the region at the time.
We, typically test the SR shift equations against the
predictions of "Classical Theory" (section 16.3) rather
than against NM. We justify this by quoting deSitter's
result (replicated by Kenneth Brecher in 1977) and
saying that since this rules out emission theory (the
"historical" implementation of the NM relationships),
and since we "know" that spacetime is flat (?), the
shift relationships are therefore "known" to be
unworkable and don't require testing.
16.13: Domain of Applicability issues
We're told that special relativity produces good
results, as long as it's used within its domain of
applicability. It isn't compelled to produce good
predictions when used outside this range. This sounds
entirely reasonable. Pro C,
But what is this proper range? How do we calculate it?
It turns out that the correct range , determined
pragmatically - it's the range of situations in which
SR is already known (or thought) to produce good
results. It's essentially an "engineering" definition,
reducing our earlier grand statement to something more
like: "Special relativity is known to work very well in
situations where it is known to work very well. It does
not have to work very well in situations where it is
known not to work very well".
Knowing where these limits are tells where SR is a
useful theory for engineering purposes, but their
flexibility makes it more difficult for us to judge
whether the theory has deeper validity. Flexible,
retrospectively-defined domains encourage selectivity
in how we evaluate evidence - cases of a good agreement
between SR and the available data are taken as
vindicating the theory, while disagreements are
treated, not as evidence against the theory, but as
showing that it's been applied inappropriately. This
approach is great for engineering but rotten for
experimental testing, because makes it more difficult
to class a theory as falsiflable. We can end up
insisting that the theory is doing a damn fine job"
within its (moveable) domain, and forgetting that the
domain has been preselected as the range that produces
that result. We can find ourselves saying that when an
experiment disagrees with SR it's not the fault of the
theorv, but the fault of the experim ent (or the
experimenter).
SR vs. particulate matter: can a particle be an
SR-style observer ?
The special theory tells us that if we have an array of
observers in the same inertia] frame
all stationary with respect to each other) they should
be able to claim that the speed of signals passing
between them is fixed in their frame, and if we were to
watch this array passing by, we should be able to
explain the same results by declaring that the speed of
the same signals is fixed in our frame. Reconciling
these two views then gives us special relativity.
But this doesn't seem to be how things happen in real
life. Suppose that our array of observers is real, and
that the "observers" are water molecules. When we see
these particles passing us, Fizeau's result (section
9.9) tells us that we should see light in the region to
have a speed that's locally offset by the array's
motion - so special relativity's reworking of inertia]
physics was derived to "explain" a counterintuitive
result that doesn't quite agree with what we actually
see - it explains how "the sa me signal has the same
speed for all observers", even though what we actualIy
detect is the signal being partially dragged along by
the motion of the water.
A specialist can respond, well, of course SR's
assumptions don't apply to light passed between water
molecules, because light moving through water isn't the
same as light moving through a vacuum, and SR doesn't
claim to be valid for particulate media. But the water
molecule could argue that its companion molecules are
perfectly legitimate observers, and that the region
between these molecule-observers is a perfect vacuum.
Where do we draw the line bet"el Einstein's arrays of
rods and clocks exchanging synch ronisation signals,
which are supposed t' obey the rules of special
relativity, and arrays of real particles exchanging
signals that are not supposed to obey the laws of
special relativity? When does a group of particles
count as a group of legitimate SR observers, and when
does it count as a particulate medium. If our
individual water molecules (in what is otherwise a
vacuum) do count as legitimate SR observers then we
have trouble explaining Fizeau's lightspeed offsets,
and if they don't, then we have to ask, if a simple
moving water molecule is too complex an "observer" to
be correctly described by SR, whether it's valid to
take the theory's predictions seriously for more
compound objects such as spaceships and astronauts.
Textbooks sometimes explain the lightspeed offset in a
moving particulate medium by invoking the extinction
theorem - we're told that over an extinction distance,
an incoming wavefront is absorbed (or "extinguished")
by particles and is replaced with a new wavefront
moving through the medium at a fixed speed with respect
to that moving medium. This description presumably
works (at least reasonably well, or it wouldn't be in
the books) but it seems to be at odds with the story
told in by SR that we "know" that lightspeed isn't
affected by the rnovement of bodies. We might be told
that this non-SR behaviour happens "because the
particles act as transponders" but Einstein's
hypothetical arrays of observers exchanging synch ron
isation signals also function as transponders. We seem
to "know" different, mutually incornpatible things
depending on the branch of physics that we happen to be
studying.
Dragging and kinetic energy - when is curvature
"negligible"?
Concentrated energy warps spacetime, and a particle
travelling at a "significant" firaction of the speed of
light represents a "significant" concentration of
kinetic energy, so we might expect high-energy
particles to affect the geometry of their environment,
and to warp a region's lightbeam geometry more strongly
the faster they move through it. This would seem to be
the logical extrapolation of Fizeau's experimental
result (section 9.9). But if we accept this idea,
special relativity's assumption of flat spacetime (and
its resulting mathematical predictions) become
progressively less reliable as the relative speed
between particles approaches the background speed of
light. To relegate SR to the status of a theory that
holds for less extreme velocities would be unfortunate,
since at lower velocities the theory isn't so easily
distinguishable fro Newtonian theory, and if we accept
these dragging effects as important, then as the
special theory's theoretical significance increases,
its theoretical validity red uces.
How seriously should we treat these curvature effects
for particles with ultra-relativistic speeds? Some
particle physicists will tell us that SR is entirely
capable of dealing with high
energy particles, that "curvature" corrections are
unnecessary, and that the operation of our larger
particle accelerators gives us ample proof of this ...
but we're also told that in the next generation of
particle accelerator tests at LM Geneva,
energy-densities are expected to be so high that
they'll be creating microscopic black holes (which
should then evaporate almost immediately thanks to the
Hawking radiation process). Since black holes are the
most extreme examples of spacctime curvature in our phy
sics vocabulary, it would be odd to say that we know
that experiments of this sort don't involve significant
spacetime curvature.
Pressed further, particle-accelerator people may
backtrack slightly and say that it's not so much SR
that has the perfect track record in particle
accelerator physics as Quantum Electrodynamics, or
"QED"), which is a combination of SR and quantum
mechanics. But since we know that "quantum" corrections
can sometimes be used to mimic the effects of accoustic
metric"-style curvature, we might interpret the success
of QED in different ways: it might suggest to us that
since QED uses SR, this counts as a success for special
relativity ... or it rnight suggest to us that some of
QED's corrections may be inadvertently recreating the
statistical results of the sort of velocity-dependent
curvature effects that are missing from the SR
description, and which we've been insisting don't
happen.
We could also argue that if general relativity says
that on principle energy densities are associated with
curvature, and that on principle inertial mass is
equivalent to gravitational mass, that a "general"
theory shouldn't cleanly reduce to a theory that allows
inertial mass to exist in the absense of gravitational
effects, or allows arbitrarily high energy densities in
the the absence of any form of associated curvature.
While special relativity is sometimes described as the
limit to general relativity a t which gravity is
"switched off', perhaps a "complete" general theory of
relativity wouldn't have such a limit, or would only
have a null limit - in a general theory of relativity,
the natural "medium" for gravitational effects is
spacetime itself, so if we were to "switch gravity
off', and remove all gravitational field-effects, a
full theory arguably shouldn't turn into the physics of
special relativity, but should disappear entirely."
Danny Milano
> http://books.google.com/books?id=bU4xUMuJlukC&pg=PA156&dq=0955706807&...
>
> The following excerpt I omitted (just before the Conclusion section
> in my initial post) mentioned why moving clock in airplane runs
> slower (due not to relativistic but newtonian explanation). It also
> mentions about newton emitter theory which Pentcho kept saying.
> Note Baird is more intelligent than Pentcho or Spacetime so he
> deserves
> full scrutiny esp. before we spend the rest of the year fully
> immersed
> in the LHC when it goes online next month..
>
I mean Baird is more intelligent than Pentcho or Spaceman (not
"Spacetime" which is of course is more intelligent than anyone).
All the excerpt I mentioned in the initial post and the message
before this made up the free chapter on goggle called "Chapter
16: Experimental Evidence for Special Relativity". See:
Danny
N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)
"Danny Milano" <milan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:677cb064-f698-4e45...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting
> book by Eric Baird called "Life Without Special
> Relativity".
He has a long past here, and Google Groups will show you it all.
> It is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations.
Can start a lot of fires with that. Really too big to swat flys
with.
> The following is sample excerpt from his web
> site. Can someone pls. read and share where
> he may have gotten it wrong?
He didn't get it wrong. Like so many before him, and so many
after him, he makes a living off of suckers. He trumps up some
"common sense" based tripe, flavors it like any good fiction, and
he has income.
His case has no merit.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" <dl...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pazdk.7676$UM1....@newsfe12.phx...
|
Eric Gisse
You miss the point. Gravity _IS_ curvature in general relativity.
> Special Relativity is a tiny region of spacetime
> which we assume flat.
No more than a surface is assumed flat if you look really close at
it.
> Eric Baird book theorized that it is
> possible GR is possible without SR. That's why I asked if
> it is possible for General Relativity to exist without time
> dilation or length contraction (Special Relativity) inherent
> in the theory?
Baird is an idiot, so "no". And you still don't get it - things like
time dilation and length contraction are fundamental predictions of
the theory of _SPECIAL RELATIVITY_ that are not true in general
relativity.
> When we deal with macro object like solar
> system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation
> and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in
> the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric
> and not in the GR manifold, right.
No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less. Re:
Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc.
>
> Danny
NoEinstein
>
Dear Danny: I have disproved both SR and GR. If interested, read the
following links. — NoEinstein —
Where Angels Fear to Fall
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/1e3e426fff6a5894/898737b3de57d9e6?hl=en&lnk=st&q=Where+Angels+Fear+to+Fall#898737b3de57d9e6
Cleaning Away Einstein’s Mishmash
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/5d847a9cb50de7f0/739aef0aee462d26?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#739aef0aee462d26
Dropping Einstein Like a Stone
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_thread/thread/989e16c59967db2b?hl=en#
>
> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> is really wrong.
>
> Baird said:
>
> "16.1: Commonly-cited evidence for special relativity
>
> We're told that the experimental evidence for special
> relativity is so strong as to be beyond reasonable
> doubt: are we really, seriously suggesting that all
> this evidence could be wrong? Experimental results
> reckoned to support the special theory include:
>
> * E=mc^2
>
> * transverse redshifts
>
> * longitudinal Doppler relationships
>
> * the lightspeed limit in particle accelerators
>
> * the searchlight effect (shared with dragged-light
> models and NM)
>
> * "velocity addition" behaviour (shared with dragged-light models and
> NM)
>
> * particle tracklengths
>
> * muon detection
>
> * particle lifetimes in accelerator storage rings /
> centrifuge time dilation / orbiting clocks
>
> * the failure of competing theories
>
> ... we'll be looking at all of these, along with a
> couple of important background issues.
>
> 16.2: ... E=mc^2
>
> For a long time it seemed to be received wisdom that
> the E=mc^2 result was unique to special relativity, We
> were told that if special relativity wasn't true then
> nuclear bombs and nuclear weapons wouldn't work, and
> without SR's prediction of E=mc^2, nuclear fusion
> wouldn't operate as it does. Without special
> relativity, the Sun wouldn't shine.
>
> And while this was a good story to tell credulous
> schoolchildren, it was essentially pseudoscience. The
> idea that E=mc^2 "belongs" to SR doesn't hold up to
> basic mathematical analysis, and to Einstein's credit
> he went on to argue for the wider validity of the
> result by publishing further papers that derived the
> relationship (or a good approximation of it) from more
> general arguments outside special relativity. We also
> found in section 2.5 (with working supplied in the
> Appendices, Calculations 2), that E=mc^ 2 is an exact
> result of NM, if we ignore standard teaching and go
> directly to the core mathematics. Not only is the
> NM-based derivation of E=mc2 reasonably
> straightforward, it's shorter than its SR counterpart,
> and it's also part of every hypothetical model in
> section 13.
>
> Whiile it's historically understandable that the
> equation wasn't widely recognised and embraced until
> Einstein came along, its less clear why so many
> brilliant physicists with outstanding math skills
> continued to insist for so long that the equation
> somehow provides cornpelling evidence for the special
> theory. Since the math is so straightforward, how were
> so many clever physics people caught out? We might have
> expected that enough time had passed since 1905 for us
> to have checked the math dependencies, not iced the
> parallel compatibility with NK and (in a respectable
> field of scientific study), made a high-profile
> retraction so that we didn't continue to pass
> misinformation onto students. But perhaps "E=mc^2
> proves special relativity" was just too convenient a
> tale for people to want to give it up, regardless of
> what the Mathematics really said.
>
> 16.3: *Classical Theory" vs. Special Relativity
>
> When we read about experiments that compared the
> predictions of SR against those of "Classical Theory",
> we can come away thinking that we've been told how SR's
> Predictions stack up against most earlier theories (for
> instance, Newtonian theory).
>
> This isn't usually the case. When we look at what's
> meant by "Classical Theory', in this context, we find
> that it's a sort of hybrid. It's a pairing of two sets
> of incompatible assumptions and math that have the
> advantage for experimenters of (a) being well known and
> standardised, and (b) making optical predictions that
> are so exceptionally bad that by comparison special
> relativity (and almost any other theory) looks very
> good indeed.
>
> Did "Classical Theory" ever really exist?
>
> In the context of SR-testing, "Classical Theory" refers
> to a mixture of two sets of conflicting assumptions
> that didn't work together before SR/LET: "Classical
> Theory" uses Newtonian mechanics for the equations of
> motion for solid bodies, but for light, CT is
> equivalent to assuming an absolute, fixed, "flat"
> aether stationary in the laboratory frame. The energy
> and momentum relationships of these two different parts
> are, of course, irreconcilable ... NM requires the
> Doppler relationship to be (c-v)/c, but " Classical
> Theory" gives cl(c+v). These aren't compatible. They
> never were. If they were, we wouldn't have needed
> special relativity.
>
> There doesn't seem to be any single theory that
> attempted to combine these two predictions before
> LET/SR, or at least, there doesn't seem to have been
> anyone prepared to lend their name to one, and in a
> subject where people love having things named after
> themselves, this should make us suspicious. If
> "Classical Theory" doesn't mean "pre-SR theory", then
> where did it come from? The phrase appears in
> Einstein's explanations of the basis of special
> relativity, as a convenient form of words to refer to
> two appa rently diverging predictions that special
> relativity then reconciled by applying Lorentz effects:
> to Einstein, "Classical Theory" represented
> incompatible aspects of earlier theories that didn't
> work together, but that could be reconciled using
> special relativity.
>
> When we're look for a historical counterpart to
> Classical Theory there doesn't seem to be anything that
> would have made these optical predictions unless we go
> all the way back to preGalileo, pre-Newton times, and
> posit an absolute aether that permeates space and is
> locked to the state of a stationary Earth. That would
> give us the "Classical Theory" prediction of "no
> transverse redshift" for a laboratory stationary with
> respect to the Earth. But every other decrepit old
> theory that we can dig up seems to pre dict at least
> some sort of transverse redshift effect, sometimes
> weaker than SR, sometimes stronger than SR, and
> sometimes swinging wildly between the two depending on
> the Earth's motion. The one idea that didn't seem to be
> considered to be credible during the Eighteenth Century
> was the idea that lightspeed was fixed with respect to
> the observer, which is presumably why Michelson had so
> much grief with his colleagues over his "failed"
> aether-drift experiment.
>
> SO, why do we persist in carrying out these "SR vs.
> Classical Theory" comparisons if they don't demonstrate
> very much? Well, to a cynic, Classical Theory is an
> excellent reference to test against, because its
> predictions are about as bad as we can get. If we set
> aside the theories that predicted time-variant effects,
> no other old predictions seem to be quite as bad at to
> CT when it comes to predicting real Doppler shifts, and
> this makes "CT vs. Theory X" experiments very much
> easier to carry out and analyse . Test theory authors
> love CT because it meshes well with the chain of
> arguments that Einstein used when explaining the
> special theory, and experimenters design tests around
> the test theories that are available legitimate process
> - as long as we don't fool ourselves into thinking that
> that the results represent a realistic comparison of
> how special relativitys predictions really compared to
> those of its predecessors.
>
> 16.4:- "Transverse" redshifts
>
> Special relativity tells us that if an object moves
> through our laboratory, and we carefully point a
> highly-directional detector at right angles to its path
> (measured with a "laboratory" set,square), the signal
> that manages to register on the detector should be
> redshifted (section 6.7).
>
> But the popular "educational" notion that this sort of
> redshift outcome is something unique to special
> relativity is as best misleading, and at worst ... it's
> simply wrong. The equations of newtonian mechanics (or
> even the basic equations for audio, properly applied to
> the case of a stationary source) don't just predict
> redshifts in this situation, they'll often predict
> "aberration redshifts" that are stronger than their SR
> counterparts (section 6.4), so in a physical sense, the
> appearance of redshifts in t his situation isn't just
> not unique, it's not even particularly unusual. In
> fact, the thing that would be unusual with this sort of
> experimental setup would be a theory that didn't
> predict some sort of redshift.
>
> Although we tend to regard special relativity's
> transverse predictions as conceptually unique,
> experimenters have to know when supposed differences
> between theories generate physically unambiguous
> differences in the readings taken by actual hardware,
> and when the differences are more a matter of
> interpretation. This distinction isn't always obvious
> from the relativity literature.
>
> Einstein's special theory requires these sorts of
> "pre-SR" redshifts to exist for its own internal
> consistency. The theory must predict the same physical
> outcome regardless of which inertia] reference frame we
> choose to use for our calculations, so the emitter is
> entitled to claim that c is globally fixed for them
> (Einstein 1905, 7), and this means that they're
> entitled to claim that our relative motion makes us
> time-dilated, giving our view of the emitter's signal a
> Lorentz blueshift ... so in order for u s to be able to
> instead see a Lorentz redshift, propagation-based
> effects in this situation - light moving at a constant
> speed in the emitter's frame, and arriving at us at an
> apparent 90 degrees - must, by default, generate a
> Lorentz-squared redshift to allow the same final SR
> outcome. This is the right answer (see Calculations 3).
>
> So to fully understand the logical consistency of SR in
> this situation requires us to know that similar or
> stronger redshifts would appear in the same apparatus
> under other light-propagation models. Since different
> SR "views" can explain the same redshift component as
> the result of (a) conventional aberration effects, (b)
> time dilation, or (c) a combination of the two (we're
> allowed to try ...
>
> read more »
Spaceman
> On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>> PD wrote:
>>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things
>>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing
>>> that counts as a "physical cause".
>>
>> LOL
>> poor PD.
>> You just proved you don't have physical causes.
>> you need physical material to produce physical causes.
>
> That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity.
> Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
> that delivers the energy from the sun.
Newton never said he had the cause of gravity.
So plasma is not a physical material?
You truly know nothing about space!
LOL
Sue...
[...]
> Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
> that delivers the energy from the sun.
Have you ever noticed that a cable television company
delivers more light energy to its subscribers not
by evacuating the intervening space but rather by
filling it with copper or glass?
Just a little something to ponder while you
review the virtues of emptyness.
Propagation in a dielectric medium
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/em/lectures/node98.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_impedance
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_space
http://www-ssg.sr.unh.edu/ism/what.html
Sue...
>
> PD
Danny Milano
Time dilation, length contraction may be fundamental predictions
of Special Relativity but in General Relativity, spacetime is
automatically curved. It is inherent in the metric. And a curved
metric automatically implies that time dilates, length distorts
which caused gravity. In other words, when you curve the
metric, time and length is distorted and this can cause dilation
and distortion as in the time dilation near the singularity in
the black hole as well as spagettization in it which is extreme
behavior of the metric.
About Baird. I don't know why he suggests General Relativity
could be true yet Special Relativity could not be true. I mean.
Since General Relativity has inherent time dilation and length
distortion (I didn't say contraction) due to the curved metric.
It won't take much effort for nature to endow the universe
with time dilation, length contraction to occur in flat
spacetime. I know SR implies observer dependent time,
length distortion and GR implies actual distortions
as seen from different reference frames (as in gravitational
time dilation near a planet where all ships would notice it as
similiar in contrast to SR observer dependent fashion).
Agree?
Danny
>
> > When we deal with macro object like solar
> > system and galaxies. GR rule, this means time dilation
> > and length contraction doesn't apply and only valid in
> > the tiny region of spacetime or the minkowski metric
> > and not in the GR manifold, right.
>
> No, it means the situation gets _more_ complicated, not less. Re:
> Shapiro delay, gravitational time dilation, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> > Danny- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > wrote:
> >> PD wrote:
> >>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things
> >>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing
> >>> that counts as a "physical cause".
>
> >> LOL
> >> poor PD.
> >> You just proved you don't have physical causes.
> >> you need physical material to produce physical causes.
>
> > That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity.
> > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
> > that delivers the energy from the sun.
>
> Newton never said he had the cause of gravity.
> So plasma is not a physical material?
Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a
physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible
for gravity?
Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of
plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of
plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is
responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun?
PD
> On Jul 10, 6:41 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Danny: I have disproved both SR and GR. If interested, read the
> following links. — NoEinstein —
>
You seem to have convinced only yourself. But, as you said yourself,
the only thing that matters is what you think of yourself, NoEinstein.
Sue...
> On Jul 10, 10:21 pm, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > PD wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 10:52 am, "Spaceman" <space...@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh>
> > > wrote:
> > >> PD wrote:
> > >>> You haven't asked. And as I said, don't expect material things
> > >>> bonking up against material things -- that is not the only thing
> > >>> that counts as a "physical cause".
>
> > >> LOL
> > >> poor PD.
> > >> You just proved you don't have physical causes.
> > >> you need physical material to produce physical causes.
>
> > > That's what YOU say. Note that Newton did not offer that for gravity.
> > > Note also that there is no physical material between here and the sun
> > > that delivers the energy from the sun.
>
> > Newton never said he had the cause of gravity.
> > So plasma is not a physical material?
>
> Why yes it is. Newton knew nothing about it, but yes, plasma is a
> physical material. Are you saying that plasma is what's responsible
> for gravity?
"Spacenut" is not smart enough to say that.
Einstein said it.
<< I shall turn to those problems which are
related to the development which I have
<< Already Newton recognized that the
law of inertia is unsatisfactory
in a context so far unmentioned in this
exposition, namely that it gives no
real cause for the special physical
position of the states of motion of the
inertial frames relative to all other
states of motion. It makes the observable
material bodies responsible for the
gravitational behaviour of a material
point, yet indicates no material cause
for the inertial behaviour of the material
point but devises the cause for it
(absolute space or inertial ether). This
is not logically inadmissible although
it is unsatisfactory. >>
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1921/einstein-lecture.html
How big is 10^32 ?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/elefor.html
http://jerz.setonhill.edu/images/boom.jpg
> Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of
> plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of
> plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is
> responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun?
If he knew how to read he might offer.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
...but that would be the blind photon
leading the blind photon. :o)
>
> > You truly know nothing about space!
Sigh... Do we have to see mindreading act again?
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
Sue...
PD
No. GR is still based on the signature of the metric (+++- or ---+,
depending on your convention) and time dilation and length contraction
are a necessary result of that. It's interesting in fact that Baird
attempts to come up with an alternate explanation for these effects
while still allowing for GR. This is a little like treating a patient
with lung cancer who has symptoms of shortness of breath and abdominal
pain by prescribing an asthma inhaler and an antacid -- it is treating
the symptoms without any understanding whatsoever of the root cause.
Baird and Androcles both say that it is possible the muons are
superluminal and we would have no way of knowing. This is an
unfortunate example of experimental ignorance.
Muon counters are not in fact just arrival indicators. In fact, most
such experiments involve a tower of scintillator hodoscopes, with
layers displaced vertically by several feet, if not tens of feet.
Thus, when a muon passes through, it creates a signal in the topmost
layer, then in the next layer down, then in the next layer down, and
so on. Because the speed of light is roughly a ns per foot, we can
then simply watch the timing of the signals from the layers as the
muon passes through them, just like a double-gate speed trap on the
highway.
[In desperation, Androcles has suggested that the hodoscopes are gated
so that ONLY signals that are around c are accepted. This is not the
case. He then suggested in even further desperation that the first
layer slows the muon from well above c to just under c, and the muon
then proceeds with the same speed through the other layers. However,
the energy deposited in the top layer is identical with the energy
deposited in subsequent layers, which would be a neat trick if the
layers did to the muon what he suggests. In final desperation,
Androcles says that mysterious things happen and that it's much easier
to believe in that weirdness than in the weirdness of time dilation.]
Moreover, Baird again focuses on one seminal experiment and completely
fails to look at follow-up experiments that confirm the effect in a
completely different context. Physicists *create* beams of muons and
send them either down straight beamlines (the muon beamline at
Fermilab, for example) or around storage rings (the g-2 experiment,
for example). In this case, we know clearly both the creation point
and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time the duration
between creation and decay. Time dilation is spectacularly confirmed.
[Androcles in desperation says that cosmic muons are wild, feral muons
and that beamline muons are domesticated muons, and it's obvious that
they would behave completely differently from each other.]
PD
Spaceman
So that is one thing space is full of.
But of course you said there is no physical material between
here and the sun that delivers energy from the sun.
So apparently you were wrong but of course you are now
twisting it a bit to say that I said Newton knew about plasma,
but of course I did not say Newton knew about it
and I never said Newton found the cause for gravity.
Why don't you ever admit you are wrong PD, instead
of just looking more like an ass every day?
Spaceman
Actually I am not dumb enough to say that,
The plasma alone could not be the cause.
:)
>> Now, please note that, at the location of the Earth, the flow of
>> plasma AWAY from the sun is 10,000,000 times greater than the flow of
>> plasma TOWARD the sun. So explain again, Spaceman, how that plasma is
>> responsible for the gravitational pull TOWARD the sun?
>
> If he knew how to read he might offer.
> http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0107015v6
>
> ...but that would be the blind photon
> leading the blind photon. :o)
Sue,
You really need to be an ass all the time huh?
That is pretty sad.
>>> You truly know nothing about space!
>
> Sigh... Do we have to see mindreading act again?
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
And yet again,
Sue proves she has links and insultation physics that do not
link.
Sue thinks you have to look at every single link on the internet
to be able to say something about even one piece of knowledge
you have learned.
Poor Sue.
Insultation and link posting..
She is turning into an Uncle Al or Sam.
At least she has "some" stuff right and she is not turning
into a parrot yet.
PD
Not so full. Do you know what how many atoms per cubic inch are in
that plasma?
> But of course you said there is no physical material between
> here and the sun that delivers energy from the sun.
Ah, so you think that the kilowatt per square meter of energy that is
delivered to the earth is delivered by plasma?
Care to run through the simple calculation to find out how much mass
of plasma would be required to do that? Care to compare that with how
much mass of plasma is *really* out there, as *measured*?
Here's the thing, Spaceman. You sit there, your ass in the chair, with
barely any contact with science at all. You've heard a little about
high profile physicists, and you have it in your head that these guys
did all the work and the rest of the physicists did nothing but lap it
up and repeat it. You of course don't get any contact with the hard
work that has been done to investigate alternatives, because that work
doesn't make Popular Mechanics, and so you just assume that work
remains to be done and no one wants to do it, because it might mess up
the work of the fellas that DO make it into Popular Science articles.
But science doesn't work that way. For every one idea that does work
out, there are ten ideas that do not work out, after careful
investigation. But the ones that don't work out don't make the papers,
even though the scientific community keeps a log and has a deep
understanding of all the ones that don't work and why they don't work.
For some of the best scientists, the ratio of good ideas might be 3
out of every 10, and for some of the mediocre scientists, the ratio
might be 1 out of 30. But all of the ideas that don't work out are
investigated, and we know *why* they don't work out. Your half-inch-
deep exposure to science prevents you from seeing any of that.
Sue...
wrote:
Actually I am a masochist and that is why I encourage you
to take up hocky so I can see BOTH teams kick your teeth in.
http://www.1pstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/internet-dominatrix.jpg
If you ever get serious:
http://web.mit.edu/8.02t/www/802TEAL3D/visualizations/light/index.htm
http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/D.Jefferies/antennas.html
http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching.html
Sue...
Spaceman
> Actually I am a masochist and that is why I encourage you
> to take up hocky so I can see BOTH teams kick your teeth in.
Oh so you have to feel like you are better than anyone else
all the time.
Poor girl.
that is sad.
> If you ever get serious:
If you were serious people might learn something
instead of just learning that you have a lot of links to post.
Discussion is nto about links.
Links merely back up discussion,
but it seems you are missing the discussion parts all the time.
that is also sad.
:)
Spaceman
> Not so full. Do you know what how many atoms per cubic inch are in
> that plasma?
Do you know how stupid it is to talk about atoms only
in the plasma when I said nothing about atoms at all?
Do you even know what I said anymore at all?
You sure prove to all that you don't.
Danny Milano
> and the decay point, and in fact we can directly time the ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The geometric aspect of spacetime gives an intuitive explanation
of time dilation, length contruction in a minkowski sense. This
means that should newtonian interpretation were one day
proven to be true. It's like nature works like epicycles where
newtonian mechanics would have a unique personalized
plan for reality yet it can be described easily by minkowski
math. It's as if someone is playing trick on us by altering
newtonian mechanics to make the 4D math tallies with reality.
This may seem odd. But when we design robots, we make
it conform to human reality. This means that it is possible
that newtonian mechanics were modified to conform to
SR math. Meaning it may appear that time dilation, length
contraction is real yet it is a purely a newtonian trick.
But what you seem to be saying above is that experimental
setup can now be done to distinguish between pure time
dilation, length contraction where time and length can
indeed distort in different inertial frames versus it being
just an equipment output in an ad hoc newtonian mechanics?
But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time,
length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional
newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is
really the case?
Danny
Spaceman
Hint: Most relativists will only use relativity when it
supports relativity, if relativity is showing relativity as wrong,
it is simply ignored and that is how relativity works
--
James M Driscoll Jr
Spaceman
.
:)
Pentcho Valev
Red herrings, Draper. You know perfectly that Einsteiniana's muon hoax
is based on measuring the lifetime of "muons at rest". When cosmic-ray
muons bump into an obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from
about 300000km/s to zero, their forced disintegration makes
Einsteinians sing "Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Simply
because in Einstein zombie world, when a muon undergoes a terrible
crash, this muon is "at rest" during the crash and, in perfect
accordance with Divine Albert's Divine Theory, disintegrates more
quickly than another muon that has not undergone a crash:
http://websci.smith.edu/~pdecowsk/muons.html
" The purpose of this experiment is to measure life time of muons
decaying at rest. Muons, produced in the atmoshere bombarded by high
energy cosmic radiation, are passing through the system of two
detectors located one above the other one. A coincidence of signals
from these two detectors (signals occuring in both detectors within
100ns) marks a particle entering the muon telescope from above and
serves as a filter rejecting many noninteresting signals from
background radiation. Some particles, with appropriate energies, will
end their flight in the lower detector (proper amount of lead between
both detectors ensures that many of them will be muons). If a stopped
particle is muon, it will decay after some time producing electron.
The time interval between signals from the muon entering the lower
detector and the electron emerging after its decay is converted by a
time-to-amplitude converter into amplitude of signal fed to the CAMAC
analog-to-digital converter (ADC) controlled by the computer. The
spectrum of time intervals is displayed in the figure below. The
expected distribution should be exponential with the exponential time
constant being the average life time of muon. The full range of the
spectrum (about channel 2000) corresponds to the time interval of
about 25 microsecond. There are not many muons with such energies that
they will end their path exactly in the lower detector (usually they
will pass both detectors and will be stopped in somewhere in the
ground), so counting rate is rather low. To collect a reasonable
number of events, the experiment has to be run a number of days."
Don't start repeating that more recent experiments do not involve the
cosmic-ray muons fraud, or at least give a new title to your song:
Paul Draper's song: "Time dilation demonstrated by cosmic-ray muons
was a fraud but time dilation demonstrated by other muons is not".
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
John Kennaugh
>
>Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
>Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
>is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
>following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
>someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
>wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
>is really wrong.
Of course its is.
1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that
light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves
of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based
upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable,
and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed
w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an
observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes
in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second
postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the
problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not
physically exist.
2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that
physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.
Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c having separated from the
source at a speed of separation c.
If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away
from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be
lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels
at c w.r.t you.
If c hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength
must have changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what
the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)-
the wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the
source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous.
The problem with this is that your change of speed has
apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source 1 light
year away with no possible causal mechanism. What is even more absurd is
that the change has to be backdated by 1 year to avoid a 1 year delay in
the frequency changing.
When I point this out to a relativist I am told I am being silly
and that one has changed from a FoR where the light separates from the
source at c and always did - to one where it separates from the source
at c+v and always did but that is simply a description of the
mathematics not of what is physically happening. A FoR is a mathematical
abstraction and cannot affect the progress of light. Physically one has
to assume that when you change speed you change from a universe where
you were stationary w.r.t the aether and light separates from the source
at c because the source too is stationary w.r.t the aether to a parallel
universe where you are again stationary w.r.t the aether but because the
source is moving w.r.t the aether the light separates from the source at
c+v and always has done. As you see the whole thing is physically
absurd. Physics accepted relativity without looking at it carefully
enough.
It is a myth that 'getting rid of the aether' was anything to do with
Einstein. He argued for retaining it. What he described as "an aether
without the immobility of Lorentz's". He was deliberately vague but he
was after an aether which every observer would naturally find himself
stationary w.r.t. as per the second postulate.
So to recap. Today in physics the mathematical model is described as a
'physics theory'. Physical interpretation is not required so it matters
not that it is physically absurd. All that now matters is that the
theory/mathematical model gives accurate predictions in its domain of
applicability. i.e. it works some of the time and you can define when
that is.
Note that The geocentric theory of the solar system gives accurate
predictions in its domain of applicability so cannot be considered as a
'wrong theory'. There is evidence that what the Lorentz transforms do is
transform a wrongly based theory so as to get the right answer just as
bending a sheet of paper with a curve drawn on it can make it look
straight or by complicating the mathematics the geocentric theory could
be made to give the same answer as the sun centred model. That would
explain why SR gives the right answer.
Examples:
_________________________
train [____________X____________] -->v
|
|
|
|
T T'
Imagine you have a train with a laser mounted at right angles at X.
Suppose it fires a very short burst of light, triggered by a switch on
the track when X is exactly opposite distant target T.
Now the train does a high speed run and the laser is triggered at time
zero. What will an observer at the target T see?
Ballistic theory says that the light will have a horizontal component v
which means that although the laser is exactly opposite T when it is
fired the effective source of the light will continue to move with the
train and the flash will, at time t hit T' not T where T' is a distance
vt from T.
SR says that light emitted at point X in the observers FoR (that of T)
will move from X at c. The source of the light remaining at X. At first
sight it seems that this experiment would distinguish between the two
theories but that is not the case as there is one more distortion which
SR requires. We do not need to perform this experiment - It would hit T'
not T just as predicted by Ballistic theory. We know this because if we
look at it from the PoV of an observer on the train *both* theories
predict the same thing. He will see the light travel away from the train
at c at right angles to the train. In the trains FoR it is aiming at a
moving target. If you want to hit a moving target you do not aim AT it,
you aim in front of it, you aim at the point where it is going to be
when whatever travels (be it bullet or flash of light) gets there. If
you want to hit T' you aim at T.
What SR says is that what is a right angle in the FoR of the train is
transformed in the FoR of the target to an angle such that SR says that
it hits T' because in the FoR of the target the laser was pointing at T'
and not at right angles to the train. This change of angle is not the
result of any identified physical process, there is no physical
explanation. It simply *has* to be so in order to get the right
answer - in order to get the same answer ballistic theory gives.
Ballistic theory also has a full physical explanation of what is going
on SR does not.
An important point here is that ANY experiment viewed from the FoR of
the source must have the same outcome for both theories as both theories
state that in the FoR of the source light travels at c w.r.t the source.
---------------------------------------------------------
OK let us change the experiment a little. Instead of a laser let there
be an omni-directional flash of light from X when the train hits the
switch. Light will hit both T and T'
Ballistic Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v
Flash occurs
T T'
_________________________
train [__________X'_____________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'
If the frequency of the light as measured on the train is Fo then
according to Ballistic theory the light arriving at T' will have a
frequency Fo because the effective source X' is orthogonal to T' i.e.
the source has no component of velocity either towards or away from the
observer at T' to cause Doppler shift. If the frequency could be
measured [it would actually be very difficult] I can with confidence
predict that it would indeed be Fo exactly as predicted by Ballistic
theory.
Ballistic theory says that the light arriving at T is a lower frequency
than Fo due to Doppler shift because X' is not orthogonal to T but is
moving away from T. Again I have confidence that this would be found to
be the case. My confidence is based upon the fact that SR predicts the
same result:
SR Description
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_________________________
train [__________X______________] -->v
Flash occurs
T T'
_________________________
train [________X'_______________] -->v
|
|
Flash arrives |
|
T T'
What SR says is as illustrated. In the FoR of T light is emitted from
point X and when it arrives at T the source is still at the same point.
i.e. X' is the same place as X relative to T. Light reaching T is
therefore orthogonal. The source is neither moving away from T or
towards T so true Doppler is zero. However SR says that because the
light source is moving at v the 'clock' generating the light will be
'dilated' and the frequency will be lower than Fo. As I will show later
it predicts the same lower frequency as ballistic theory.
SR agrees with ballistic theory that the frequency measured at T' will
be Fo but it says it is because X' is moving towards T' which increases
the frequency due to Doppler shift and at T' this increase is equal and
opposite to the effect of time dilation - resulting in a frequency of Fo
at T'.
I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same
frequency as SR at point T.
_______________________
train [__________X____________] -->v
Y T
Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light leaving
X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT = vt. The
photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY and a
component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so
the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.
Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which causes
time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is necessary to
distort time to get the right answer - i.e. the answer given by the
credible physical explanation of ballistic theory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
GPS "Time Dilation"
As seen above the frequency measured when orthogonal to the source is
predictably the same for both theories. The centre of the earth is
always orthogonal to the motion of a GPS satellite (assuming a circular
orbit) therefore the frequency will always be Fo x Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
whichever theory is used. The ballistic theory explains it without
exotic time dilation. It is simply the result of a velocity triangle.
Both theories will say that the antenna must point away from the centre
of the earth (equiv of XY) to get the best signal. Ballistic theory says
it is to account for the horizontal component of the light speed. SR
because that is 'transformed' to be a right angle in the FoR of the
earth.
Note therefore that although both theories give identical results the
explanation is completely different and that of Ballistic theory is by
far the simpler. These examples are far from a special case.
You might try and get hold of a copy of Waldron's "The wave and
ballistic theories of light" Muller 1977.
Einstein preferred to assume that EM theory is correct and that the laws
of mechanics had to change. The alternative, followed by Ritz/Waldron is
that the laws of mechanics are correct and that it is the EM theory
which needs modifying. While the Einstein route requires the ditching of
3 apparently sensible axioms of physics the alternative route requires
only two changes to electric theory.
Firstly that light speed is source dependent If one accepts what
experiment showed, that light is not a propagated wave but particles
shot out by the source then what is more natural than that their speed
be a property of the physical process which sends them on their way, the
physical process taking place at the source. What other possible
physical process is there? Take away the aether and the source is
surrounded by nothing which can take part in a physical process - so
there can be no other physical process.
Secondly Coulomb's law must be modified such that the force between
moving charges varies with the speed between them. This is also
reasonable if one assumes that the force has a maximum speed c at which
it can act. Think of a child's play area with a roundabout. If you stand
by the roundabout and try and give the bar a push every time it goes
around to make it go faster eventually the bar will travel as fast as
your arm can move and you cannot make it go any faster. In a particle
accelerator there is no way of telling whether the effective mass
increases by gamma as per SR or whether the effect on the charge
decreases by gamma as per Waldron.
All the evidence is that photons do have mass. A photon has momentum and
is affected by gravity the same way as any other particle with mass.
Waldron produces a formula for the mass of a photon. Based on
experimental evidence he concludes that the energy of a photon has two
components its kinetic energy (1/2)mv^2 and internal energy (1/2)mc^2 .
From a stationary source v = c so total energy = mc^2.
So hf = mc^2 or
m = hf/c^2.
The force caused by light hitting a reflective surface is as predicted
as is the different force on an absorbent surface.
If you calculate the increase in energy for such a mass falling under
gravity it works out right for photons as per Pound Rebka.
If you use the same maths on a photon escaping from a planets gravity as
you would use for any other projectile the energy lost works out as per
'gravitational red shift'.
If you work out the total mass of the two photons which result from a
positron, electron collision each photon has the same mass as an
electron. i.e. the pair of photons has the same mass as the electron and
positron combined.
If you have a photon with more than twice the mass of an electron
encountering a massive nucleus it can split into an electron positron
pair and any excess mass is carried away as a low energy photon. The
mass equation balances. It is said that the rest mass of a photon is
zero yet this experiment approximates to bringing a photon (very nearly)
to rest and having as a result something of known mass - an electron and
a positron.
He calculates the deviation of light caused by gravity - it agrees.
He derives exactly the same equation for the Compton effect as does
orthodox quantum physics. His maths in accord with Newton.
Physicists say that photons cannot have mass because if they did that
would mean SR is wrong. I would suggest that they do and it is.
I doubt that Waldron had all the right answers but his theory is an
impressive attempt for someone working part time. There may be
experimental evidence which appears to contradict ballistic theory but
ballistic theory cannot be ruled out without a serious attempt to make
it work Ritz(1908)was ignored (unfortunately he died in 1909). Waldron
was ignored and will continue to be ignored. Physics has too much to
lose.
--
John Kennaugh
"If the Lord Almighty had consulted me before embarking on creation I
should have recommended something simpler." Alfonso 'the wise' of
Castile (1221-1284) having studied the Ptolemaic system.
Androcles
Danny
=======================================
In desperation Phuckwit Duck invents data as all Einstein
dingleberries do. He's lying through his dentures.
The math is really easy, in a fair race between a photon
and a muon, same racetrack, same clock, the muon wins.
All that bullshit about a stack of hodometers is mixed well
with road apples so that Phuckwit Duck can say they are
different. It's still shit. After all, if a bullet hits a target it slows
down, even a kid can figure that out. Let Phuckwit Duck try
a photon through his muon detector. I plonked the lying
bastard, he's a cretin.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?
as shown in this inequality with the mistyped equal sign:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Rocket/eq22.A.GIF
The lying prat doesn't even know what a half is, that's how stupid
he can be.
Spaceman
> I will now show that Ballistic theory predicts exactly the same
> frequency as SR at point T.
>
> _______________________
> train [__________X____________] -->v
>
>
>
>
>
> Y T
>
> Again it is back to hitting a moving target. In order for light
> leaving X to hit T it has to set out in the direction XY where YT =
> vt. The photons have a component of velocity c in the direction XY
> and a component v in the X direction such that the resultant is in the
> direction XT. What you have is a velocity triangle XY = c YT = v so
>
> the velocity XT = Sqr( c^2 - v^2) by pythag
> So Sqr( c^2 - v^2) = F' x L
> But c = Fo x L (L = wavelength)
> So F'/Fo = Sqr( c^2 - v^2)/c = Sqr(1 - v^2/c^2)
>
> So Ballistic theory predicts the same result using a velocity triangle
> as SR predicts as being due to 'time dilation'.
>
> Note again that there is no identifiable physical mechanism which
> causes time dilation it is simply assumed to take place as it is
> necessary to distort time to get the right answer - i.e. the answer
> given by the credible physical explanation of ballistic theory.
The physical effect for the clock "malfunction" is known.
The clock has malfunctioned for the same reason clocks
have been malfunctioning since they were invented.
The clock is being affected by the g-force changes
causing the "ticker" to not keep the same "rate".
:)
It is a sad repeat of malfunctioning clock history and to
"shadow" this repeat in history, they introduce length contraction.
So the "rubber rulers", mathematically fix the "malfunctioning clocks".
Yet the clocks still have the wrong times on thier faces
when brought back together.
so.....
SR debunking 101:
1:) The clock malfunctioned.
The end.
SR is dead, it has ignored a standard of time and to hide this
ignorance, it has accepted a multiple standard for distance
and time to make it all mathematically sound in it's own domain.
Greg Neill
news:JJjEYKGp...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
>>
>> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
>> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
>> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
>> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
>> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
>> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
>> is really wrong.
>
> Of course its is.
>
> 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt
> that light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that
> the waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist,
The aether is dead. Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an
aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. Or
are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference
(such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen?
> SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory
> is impeccable, and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer
> has nil speed w.r.t the aether.
SR does not employ an aether. Maxwell and SR stand without aether.
> Einstein's second postulate simply
> describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe.
> Now no one believes in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is
> absurd so the second postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes
> no attempt to address the problem that the waves which are the basis
> of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist.
Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always
measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames.
That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope
for. The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact. That
said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern
formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument.
>
> 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that
> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.
Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument.
[rest of maunder mercy snipped]
Spaceman
> Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always
> measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames.
Greg always ignores "relative motion" to support
the relative motion theory.
:)
PD
> "Danny Milano" <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
I'd be delighted if you could cite a reference of a measurement (not
one of your animated GIFs explaining how you think it works) wherein
photons and muons are created at a common starting point at the same
time, and muons arrive at a finishing point before the photons do.
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
That is REALLY a nice argument. Some day it may even become a decisive
step towards the restoration of human rationality. For the moment
however the crisis in Einstein criminal cult has different causes -
physics departments disappear, students do not want to learn idiocies
anymore, money is not flowing towards idiotic projects designed to
gloriously confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory for 30891st time etc.
Nobody cares about aguments, no matter how convincing they are.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
PD
wrote:
> Danny Milano wrote:
>
> >Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
> >Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
> >is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
> >following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
> >someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
> >wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
> >is really wrong.
>
> Of course its is.
>
> 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt that
> light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that the waves
> of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist, SR is based
> upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory is impeccable,
Whoa, hold on. The ONLY presumption made is that Maxwell's equations
still work for a quantitative description of light. It makes
*absolutely no difference* whether the conceptual model underlying the
development of those equations involved waves in an aether, or self-
supporting fields without a material substrate, or whether light also
exhibits particle properties on occasion. (And the fact that it does
exhibit particle properties on occasion in NO way asserts that light
is in fact "really" particles and not waves, as things that are
*really* particles do not exhibit interference phenomena, which we
*clearly* see in light. This is the whole point of particle-wave
duality -- NOT to insist that things are EITHER particles OR waves and
force a decision. Quantum objects are *neither* particles nor waves
but exhibit properties of both.) You'll note that Maxwell himself
developed his equations with a mental conceptual model of waves in
aether and was able later to adjust his mental model to self-
supporting, substrateless waves, *without any change whatsoever* to
his equations. This is in fact the beauty of the distilled
mathematical representation of physical laws, in that it distills the
essence of what is really known about things, without the baggage of a
mental conceptual model cluttering things up. Note also that the
validity of Maxwell's equations is determined by its direct,
mathematically produced development into quantitative predictions of
measurable phenomena. Since those measurements confirm the
predictions, Maxwell's *equations* are confirmed scientifically,
without comment one way or the other on any conceptual baggage that
someone might attach to the mathematically written laws.
> and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer has nil speed
> w.r.t the aether. Einstein's second postulate simply describes what an
> observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe. Now no one believes
> in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is absurd so the second
> postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes no attempt to address the
> problem that the waves which are the basis of Maxwell's theory do not
> physically exist.
>
> 2/ SR is physically absurd
Why, no it isn't. There isn't a thing absurd about it. But we'll see
what you think is absurd....
> which is why physics now insists that
> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.
> Suppose you are stationary w.r.t a source 1 light year away. According
> to SR light is travelling w.r.t. you at c having separated from the
> source at a speed of separation c.
> If you now change your speed so that you are travelling away
> from the source at v the frequency of the light you observe will be
> lower due to Doppler shift but according to SR the light still travels
> at c w.r.t you.
> If c hasn't changed and the frequency has, then the wavelength
> must have changed. The wavelength is generated at the source and what
> the maths says is that in your new situation - frame of reference (FoR)-
> the wavelength has changed because the light is now separating from the
> source at c+v generating longer wavelengths than previous.
> The problem with this is that your change of speed has
> apparently caused a change in what is happening at the source 1 light
> year away with no possible causal mechanism.
It implies absolutely no such thing. There is a false dichotomy here
that says that if there is a change in length (either wavelength
change in Doppler effect, or length contraction, take your pick) then
one and only one of only two possibilities must be in effect: Either
a) there is something physical that is happening to the object that is
altering the object
b) it is an observational illusion.
This is a frequent stumbling block for many novices and also one of
the greatest learning opportunities, for the truth is that it is
*neither* of these. Physical length can vary from frame to frame and
be a very real effect, while NEITHER requiring that something physical
happened to the object NOR relegating it to an optical illusion.
Understanding what the *definition* of physical length is, is key to
this essential point. I'm embarking on this with M Luttgens, who has
stumbled over this for years, in another topic.
PD
wrote:
> PD wrote:
> > Not so full. Do you know what how many atoms per cubic inch are in
> > that plasma?
>
> Do you know how stupid it is to talk about atoms only
> in the plasma when I said nothing about atoms at all?
OK, Do you know how many plasma particles per cubic inch are in that
plasma?
> Do you even know what I said anymore at all?
PD
>
> But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time,
> length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional
> newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is
> really the case?
No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian
physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in
Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive
presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right
parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case,
which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There
are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible*
to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out.
PD
John Kennaugh
>"John Kennaugh" <JK...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:JJjEYKGp...@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk
>> Danny Milano wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi, I recently came across a very interesting book by
>>> Eric Baird called "Life Without Special Relativity". It
>>> is 400 pages and has over 250 illustrations. The
>>> following is sample excerpt from his web site. Can
>>> someone pls. read and share where he may have gotten it
>>> wrong? Because if he is right. There is possibility SR
>>> is really wrong.
>>
>> Of course its is.
>>
>> 1/ Despite the fact that it had been shown beyond reasonable doubt
>> that light is made up of particles (photo electric effect) and that
>> the waves of Maxwell's wave in aether theory do not physically exist,
>
>The aether is dead. Maxwell's equations haven't relied on an
>aether for over a hundred years, yet the waves persist. Or
>are you saying that diffraction, refraction, and interference
>(such as in the slit experiments) don't really happen?
I'm not saying they don't happen only that light does not physically
consist of waves. If it does what are they waves IN. Perhaps you do not
understand the nature of modern physics. It is no longer a science
merely a branch of mathematics dealing with mathematical modelling. A
mathematical model which works "some of the time" is referred to as a
'theory' which works in its "Domain of Applicability". Thus if a wave
mathematical model works some of the time it is described as a theory.
"Experiments with beams of light or of electrons have been made such
that both aspects - waves and particles - are observed. For interference
to occur it is among other things also necessary for the beam to have
available more than one path from source to detector (e.g. a screen).
Interference is explained by the wave picture. When the beam intensity
is sufficiently low and the detector suitable the impact of particles
one by one can be observed. The energy quanta are then localised as if
particles in space and time."
By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase
have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the
sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a
point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent
photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays. The minimum in the
low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever
reason, photons have a very low probability of taking. The maximum has
the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically
conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and
cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with
the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some
physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the
normal intensity pattern.
>
>> SR is based upon the assumption that Maxwell's wave in aether theory
>> is impeccable, and therefore that the MMX showed that every observer
>> has nil speed w.r.t the aether.
>
>SR does not employ an aether. Maxwell and SR stand without aether.
I am talking about the provenance of relativity - the history - where it
came from - the mental processes which underpin it. 20 years or so after
SR was adopted physicists decided that the only thing which matters is
the maths and the maths does not have to concern itself with anything
physical. Your statement is the equivalent of saying that a weather map
does not need to concern itself with physical processes. All that is
required is something to display it on and whether it tells you whether
or not you will get wet.
>
>> Einstein's second postulate simply
>> describes what an observer stationary w.r.t the aether would observe.
>> Now no one believes in the aether that interpretation of the MMX is
>> absurd so the second postulate has no valid foundation and SR makes
>> no attempt to address the problem that the waves which are the basis
>> of Maxwell's theory do not physically exist.
>
>Silly. Yes, silly. Empirically the speed of light is always
>measured to have the same value for inertially moving frames.
>That's as solid a foundation for a postulate as you can hope
>for.
There is no experiment prior to 1964 which anyone who has studied the
subject would seriously claim shows that the speed of light is always
measured as c from a moving source. There certainly was none when
Einstein formulated his SR theory. The second postulate was not the
result of experiment nor of Einstein's genius, nor divine inspiration it
was simply a statement reflecting the general view at the time among
those brought up on physics dominated by Maxwell. The clue is in his
1905 paper where he goes to some length to justify his first postulate
(because he saw that as potentially controversial) but adds the second
without comment as he was expressing the accepted view.
Don't take my word for it. In the second volume of Sir Edmund
Whittaker's "The History of Theories of Aether and Electricity",
published in 1953:
"(1905) Einstein published a paper which set forth the relativity
theory of Poincare and Lorentz with some amplification, and which
attracted much attention. He asserted as a fundamental principle the
constancy of the velocity of light, i.e., that the velocity of light in
a vacuum is the same in all systems of reference which are moving
relatively to each other, an assertion which at the time was widely
accepted."
If you assume as Einstein did that Maxwell's theory is impeccable and if
you cannot theoretically fault the MMX then the MMX showed that an
observers speed relative to the aether is always zero i.e. that an
observer always appears to be stationary w.r.t. the aether. The second
postulate is simply describing what an observer stationary w.r.t. the
aether would experience.
> The wave nature of light is also an empirical fact.
The wavelike behaviour of light is certainly well documented but a wave
cannot explain the photoelectric effect and as I show in the case of the
double slit it does not really explain that either.
> That
>said waves require no aether, and neither does the modern
>formulation of Maxwell, vanishes your argument.
>
>>
>> 2/ SR is physically absurd which is why physics now insists that
>> physical interpretation is not a requirement in a modern theory.
>
>Another "I don't like it so it's wrong" argument.
>
>[rest of maunder mercy snipped]
Note to Danny Milano - You may note how tetchy relativists get when you
attack their religion and how little their faith is built upon. They
believe all sorts of things which are not true. They believe that
Einstein came up with a theory which doesn't need the aether. He didn't
he argued in favour of the aether. Physics made an arbitrary decision
that a physics theory does not require a physical explanation and the
aether is a physical explanation so in the new order is not needed. SR
is a 'principle theory' which is another word for a mathematical model
and as such has nothing to say as to whether there is or there isn't an
aether
--
John Kennaugh
'Many people would sooner die than think - in fact they do' Bertrand Russell.
Pentcho Valev
wrote:
> Greg Neill wrote:
> >"John Kennaugh" <J...@notworking.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
Some Einsteinians are making their money by trying to convert Divine
Albert's Divine Special Relativity from "principle theory" into a
"constructive theory" and introducing even more idiocies - e.g. the
breathtaking idea that "the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together" are somehow responsible for length contraction:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/
Brown, Harvey R. and Pooley, Oliver (2004) "Minkowski space-time: a
glorious non-entity"
http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=6603
"Harvey Brown thinks that most philosophers are confused about
relativity. Most centrally, he thinks they're confused about the
relativistic effects of length contraction and time
dilation.....According to (what Brown alleges is) the dominant view
among substantivalists, the geometrical structure of Minkowski
spacetime plays some role in explaining why moving rods shrink and why
moving clocks run slow. Brown rejects this view. He asserts, instead,
that in order to explain why moving rods shrink we must appeal to the
dynamical laws governing the forces that hold the parts of the rod
together. The geometry of Minkowski spacetime plays no role in this
explanation.....He thinks that good answers to these questions say
something about the way in which the forces holding the parts of the
rod together depend on velocity of the rod. Only that is a story of
what causes the particles to get closer together, and so what causes
the rod to shrink."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Sue...
wrote:
>
>
> By definition "interference" implies that two things of different phase
> have a net amplitude which will vary from virtually cancelling to the
> sum of the two. What is not happening is that photons are arriving at a
> point of minimum intensity and then being 'cancelled' by subsequent
> photons. Once a photon arrives at a point it stays.
Photons don't "arrive". They are undefined
until absorbed. They are not a model of light
propagation and don't even know how to move in
a straight line.
(you have nearly clarified that later in your
posting. Call me overly critial but don't take
it personally )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation
http://www.rp-photonics.com/gaussian_beams.html
The assumption that photons move on any particular
path usually accompanies a faulty assumption they have some
coupling to the gravito-inertial field. They do not.
<<A Lorentz transformation or any other coordinate
transformation will convert electric or magnetic
fields into mixtures of electric and magnetic fields,
but no transformation mixes them with the
gravitational field. >>
http://www.aip.org/pt/vol-58/iss-11/p31.html
Exploring all classical paths with a clock is
how photons get their claim to fame. Feynman's QED
> The minimum in the
> low light experiment represents the end of a path which, for whatever
> reason, photons have a very low probability of taking.
"Probabily amplitude" is the term you seek. It is a
mathmatical abstraction, not a physical process.
> The maximum has
> the highest probability of being taken. The result may mathematically
> conform to the wave mathematical model but *physically* it is not and
> cannot be interference for the reasons stated. Photons do not check with
> the equations to see which direction to travel in. There is some
> physical mechanism involved and whatever it is, it will also explain the
> normal intensity pattern.
<<Now, does not the prize to Einstein imply
that the Academy recognised the particle
nature of light? The Nobel Committee says
that Einstein had found that the energy exchange
between matter and ether occurs by atoms emitting
or absorbing a quantum of energy,hv .
As a consequence of the new concept of light quanta
(in modern terminology photons) Einstein proposed the
law that an electron emitted from a substance by
monochromatic light with the frequency has to have
a maximum energy of E=hv-p, where p is the energy needed to
remove the electron from the substance. Robert Andrews
Millikan carried out a series of measurements over a
period of 10 years, finally confirming the validity of this
law in 1916 with great accuracy. Millikan had, however,
found the idea of light quanta to be unfamiliar and strange.
The Nobel Committee avoids committing itself to the
particle concept. Light-quanta or with modern terminology,
photons, were explicitly mentioned in the reports on
which the prize decision rested only in connection with
emission and absorption processes. The Committee says
that the most important application of Einstein's photoelectric
law and also its most convincing confirmation has come from
the use Bohr made of it in his theory of atoms, which explains
a vast amount of spectroscopic data. >>
http://nobelprize.org/physics/articles/ekspong/index.html
Sue...
Danny Milano
It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to
debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of
even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience
with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian?
Or do anti-relativists still believe in quantum mechanics "now you
see it, now you don't" foundations? Because if anti-relativists
are quantum followers. They could propose creatures
that can control quantum probability (call it fairies)
that can create the same predictions and observations as
time dilation, length contraction in physical stuff. This
is the only way I think they can explain the same relativistic
experiments. But if anti-relativists don't believe in fairies
and they don't think time and length can distort and just
believe in absolute space and absolute time, there seems
no way to pull off those SR, GR experimental stunts, isn't it...
unless anti-relativists are aetherists. Are they? In essence,
how many percentage approximately of anti-relativists
believe in quantum mechanics and how many percentage
approx. believe in the aether and how many percentage
believe in neither of them. I'd like to have rough idea of
how their brains work.
Danny
Eric Gisse
> On Jul 12, 2:42 am, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 11, 8:58 am, Danny Milano <milanoda...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > But you said earlier that there is no way to know whether time,
> > > length distort or it is just some misunderstood additional
> > > newtonian parameters which made it that way. What is
> > > really the case?
>
> > No, what I said is that some *cranks* think that way, that Newtonian
> > physics is fine if we would only find the right forces to include in
> > Newton's equations of motion. This is based on a rather naive
> > presumption that Newton's laws can fit *any* phenomenon, if the right
> > parameters are put in. This turns out to be decidedly NOT the case,
> > which a little bit of concentrated investigation will prove out. There
> > are a number of things that are seen in nature which are *impossible*
> > to generate in Newtonian mechanics, even if tricked-out.
>
> > PD
>
> It seems that anti-relativists would go to any length to
> debunk time dilation, length contraction at the cost of
> even weirder mechanisms. In your years of experience
> with them. Do yo think anti-relativists are purely newtonian?
The only consistent trait is stupidity, with a larger-than-fair share
of mental illness.
Its' fun playing "guess the mental illness". For example, certain
people focus on the same trivial subject for literally years on end.
Case in point - Steve Bell.
[...]
> I'd like to have rough idea of how their brains work.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Or take an abnormal psychology course.
>
> Danny
Pentcho Valev
First YOUR brain should start working. If order to be able to
understand what "anti-relativist" could mean, you should just remember
that Einstein's relativity is initially based on two postulates which,
if true, make Einsteiniana a great science even if later developments
are all wrong (because miracles like time dilation and length
contraction can be deduced from the two postulates only). This implies
that any serious "anti-relativist" should question, among other
things, at least one of the two postulates. In accordance with this
tentative definition of "anti-relativist", all Einsteinians that are
making money by fiercely introducing some sort of "Lorentz
violations" (most hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult are moving in
that direction) are in fact anti-relativists:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0705/0705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com