Circular Relativity
Michael Weiss
Here are two posts of mine about it.
======================================================================
The Rigid Rotating Disk in Relativity, part I
This old chestnut predates GR. The trail starts with Max Born's notion of
an "SR rigid body", a relativistic replacement for the classical notion.
It leads past Einstein's discussion in his great 1916 paper on GR, where he
uses the rotating disk to introduce non-Euclidean geometry. It then twists
and turns as Eddington, Lorentz, and lesser lights attempt to compute the
fate of the rigid disk.
In this and the next post, I summarize what I know of the literature, and
invite others to fill in the gaps. Surely such a celebrated problem should
have found a definitive resolution by now. But the tale I have to tell
ends on an incomplete note. In this post, I stick to SR, where the story
is pretty clear. The next post tackles the GR controversies.
Born rigidity: in 1909, Born proposed a Lorentz-invariant definition of
"rigid body". Pauli's monograph on relativity [1] gives a nice summary of
Born's notion, and the responses it drew from Ehrenfest, Herglotz, Noether,
and von Laue. (Pais's Einstein bio suggests that Born's 1909 paper may
have helped set Einstein on the road to Riemannian geometry [2].)
We know already from the FAQ that rigidity and SR don't mix--- just think
of the Barn and the Pole! How could a physicist like Born, mathematically
sophisticated, have made such an elementary error? A simple remark by
Pauli clarifies things considerably:
If thus the concept of a RIGID BODY has no place in relativistic
mechanics, it is nevertheless useful and natural to introduce the
concept of a RIGID MOTION of a body. We shall denote those motions as
rigid for which Born's condition (*) [see below] is satisfied.
Born *thought* he was defining a rigid body, but Pauli's rephrasing saves
the mathematics while improving the physics. We have no rigid rods in SR,
but if you accelerate every atom of an ordinary rod in just the right way,
you can move the rod rigidly. And Born's definition is Lorentz-invariant.
I won't plunge right into Born's definition (as Pauli does). Instead I'll
approach it by thinking atomistically. Imagine our solid as made up of a
large number of atoms A_1,...,A_n; between any two nearby atoms A_i and A_j
there is a "natural distance" d_ij, natural in the sense that if A_i and
A_j are pushed together or pulled apart, stresses result, trying to restore
the distance d_ij. Of course there are propagation delays, but if we start
with the solid at rest in some inertial frame, and accelerate it *gently*,
the resulting elastic waves in the solid should die out pretty quickly. Or
we can pretend that exactly the right force is applied to each atom at all
times, so that natural distances are preserved. Let the number of atoms
tend to infinity (continuum approximation), let the stress/strain ratio
tend to infinity, and apply forces gently enough so that the elastic waves
can be ignored--- this leads to Born's definition. Born used coordinates,
but I'll try for a coordinate-free rephrasing.
First, what is a solid? Is it just a swathe in spacetime? This is not
enough: the atomistic viewpoint suggests we should be able to "mark" a
point inside the solid (call it a particle) and follow its worldline. An
"event", as usual, is a point in spacetime. The events along a particle's
worldline are parametrized by tau, the time-like interval.
(*) Pick a particle (call it A) in the solid. Pick an event p at time tau
on the worldline of A. Draw the spatial plane orthogonal to the
worldline at p (i.e., the plane of simultaneity).
Now pick another particle B. The plane of simultaneity intersects the
worldlines of these two particles in two events; let s(tau,A,B) be
the interval between these two events.
Suppose that for any A and B infinitesimally close to one another,
d s(tau)/d tau = 0 for all tau. Then we say the body MOVES RIGIDLY.
If you don't like the notion of "infinitesimally close", there are ways to
get around it, but I won't go into that. (The basic idea is that we are
using particle worldlines to transport the metric from one tangent plane to
another.)
OK, now what? First, it should be pretty clear that Born's definition
captures the idea that the body moves without internal stresses. Or if you
prefer, you can say that we have nearly rigid motion when Young's modulus
is so large, and the accelerations so gentle, so that infinitesimal
pieces of the body are barely deformed, when viewed in the comoving frame
of reference. Born-rigidity is then the limiting case.
If we accelerate a rod rigidly in the longitudinal direction, then the rod
suffers the usual Lorentz contraction. More generally, rigid motion
without any twisting corresponds to so-called Fermi-Walker transport (see
MTW [3]). The acceleration of the front of the rod is less than the
acceleration of the rear; this is a variation on "Bell's Spaceship Puzzle"
[4], discussed often in this forum.
Ehrenfest noted that a disk cannot be brought from rest into a state of
rotation without violating Born's condition. Integrating tau out of Born's
condition, we see that infinitesimally close particles must keep the same
proper distance. So in the original rest frame, they suffer Lorentz
contraction in the transverse direction but none in the radial direction.
The circumference contracts but the radius doesn't. But in the original
rest frame, the circumference is a circle, sitting in a spatial slice
(t=constant) of ordinary flat Minkowski spacetime. In other words, we
would have a "non_Euclidean circle" sitting in ordinary Euclidean space.
This is a contradiction.
The issue of spatial slices deserves a few words. The particles in a
rotating disk (not assumed rigid) cannot agree on a global notion of
simultaneity. For if you make a circuit around the edge, joining up the
infinitesimal planes of simultaneity, when you return to your starting
point, the planes no longer match up. This makes it problematical to talk
about geometry "as seen by the particles" (or by observers standing on the
disk).
I've talked about making complete circuits about the center, but both
Ehrenfest's argument and the simultaneity problem have local versions. Say
we have a ball-bearing a light-year from the Sun. We cannot put the
ball-bearing in orbit around the Sun, keeping one face to the Sun, without
violating Born's condition. Nor can the particles of the ball-bearing
agree on a notion of simultaneity.
The proofs are not hard. I'll sketch the local version of Ehrenfest's
argument. Take a spatial slice *in the rest frame* and look at the metric.
The simplest way to express it is to use polar coordinates inherited from
when the ball-bearing was at rest. Each particle was then labelled with
coordinates (r,theta), and we can use these to label its whole worldline,
and thus also the points in the spatial slice. The same "transverse vs.
radial" argument that Ehrenfest used shows that:
ds^2 = dr^2 + (1 - r^2 w^2)r^2 (d theta)^2
where w is angular velocity. A routine computation shows that the
curvature is non-zero. This contradicts the fact that the spatial slice is
Euclidean space.
Pauli states: "It was further proved, independently, by Herglotz and
Noether that a rigid body in the Born sense has only three degrees of
freedom... Apart from exceptional cases, the motion of the body is
completely determined when the motion of a single of its points is
prescribed." I haven't looked up the papers by Herglotz and Noether, but I
dare say it's similar to the argument above.
Max von Laue pointed out that a body made up of n point-particles must have
at least 3n degrees of freedom. Say we give an impulse to each particle at
t=0. Because of the finite speed of light, there can be no constraints
relating the velocities of different particles. Rigid motion can occur
in SR only through a conspiracy of forces.
So much for the rotating rigid disk in SR.
[1] Wolfgang Pauli, "Theory of Relativity", pp. 130--134, Pergamon Press,
1958.
[2] Abraham Pais, "Subtle is the Lord: the Science and Life of Albert
Einstein", p.???.
[3] Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, "Gravitation", pp.???.
[4] J.S.Bell, "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics", p.67,
Cambridge University Press, 1987.
======================================================================
The Rigid Rotating Disk in Relativity, part II
In my previous post, I gave Born's Lorentz-invariant definition of what it
means to move a body rigidly. (Born actually thought he was defining a rigid
body, but as Pauli pointed out, it makes more sense to talk about rigid
motions than about rigid bodies.) I gave Ehrenfest's argument that you
cannot take a disk at rest and rigidly turn it, since the circumference
will Lorentz-contract and the radius won't, and this violates Born's
definition.
Einstein's 1916 paper on GR [5] makes no mention of elevators; instead, the
Equivalence Principle is introduced via the rotating disk. Einstein
reproduces Ehrenfest's argument, but with a different conclusion: since we
are no longer assuming flat Minkowski space, Einstein asserts that geometry
for the rigid rotating disk is non-Euclidean. The Equivalence Principle
now implies that geometry in a gravitational field will also be
non-Euclidean. (By "geometry", I mean spatial geometry, i.e., we're not
concerned with the temporal components of the spacetime metric.)
Can we make any sense of Einstein's argument? The simplest interpretation
makes a couple of assumptions:
(a) The stresses in the rigid disk warp spacetime. This is plausible, even
assuming the mass of the disk is negligible. Recall that we had to
allow the stress/strain ratio to approach infinity to obtain
Born-rigidity.
(b) The time-coordinate of the original rest frame survives undistorted.
In other words, let t be the time as measured by observers in the
original rest frame, and let z,r,theta be "inherited coordinates" from
when the disk was at rest (see my previous post). Then we assume that
the metric looks like this once the disk has been "spun up" to a steady
speed:
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 - f(r)dz^2 - g(r)dr^2 - h(r)(d theta)^2 (1)
Assumption (b) seems a lot more dubious than (a), but it does allow us to
talk about spatial slices (t=constant), and hence the geometry of the
spinning disk. We appeal to axial-symmetry and steady-state conditions in
making f,g, and h independent of theta and t. We have no such
justification for leaving out z.
Einstein doesn't give an explicit formula for the spacetime metric of the
rigid spinning disk, but here's one obvious candidate (assuming the angular
speed is w):
(d tau)^2 = dt^2 - dz^2 - dr^2 - r^2(1-w^2 r^2)(d theta)^2 (2)
Turn to GR. Now all sorts of complications appear.
(a) The mass of the body distorts spacetime, according to the usual
formula. But we can let the mass of the disk tend to zero (it's an
ideal rigid disk), and ignore this.
(b) I presume we can ignore the Lense-Thirring effect for the same reason.
(c) The stresses in the disk we *cannot* ignore, since we had to let the
stresses tend to infinity to arrive at the Born condition. Presumably
these could warp spacetime. (Does this conclusion threaten (b)?)
[5] "The Principle of Relativity", Dover.
[6] G. Cavalleri, Nuovo Cimento 53B pg. 415.
[7] O. Gron, AJP Vol. 43 No. 10 pg 869 (1975)
[8] C. Berenda Phys. Rev. 62 pg. 280 (1942)
Gerhard Feist
>The spinning disk is actually a famous old problem in relativity.
>Here are two posts of mine about it.
>
As far as I can remember from my lessons in relativity, SR is only valid in inertial
systems. So you cannot consider any accelerated movements in SR.
A rotation is by definition an accelerated movement even if the angular velocity
and the direction of the rotation axis stays constant. Because for every particle of
the rotating body the *direction* of movement always changes. So you *have to*
use GR for calculating the rotating disc problem.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerhard Feist
E-Mail: fei...@vm.akh-wien.ac.at
"A computer saves you some of the work you wouldn't have without it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Weiss
As far as I can remember from my lessons in relativity, SR is only
valid in inertial systems. So you cannot consider any accelerated
movements in SR. [...] A rotation is by definition an accelerated
movement [...] So you *have to* use GR for calculating the
rotating disc problem.
You may have been taught this; professors are sometimes careless in
what they say.
However, 'taint so. As has been pointed out more than once on this
newsgroup, SR would be a pretty puny theory indeed if it had to throw
up its hands in dismay every time someone wanted to talk about
accelerated motion. If this were the case, no one would ever have
taken it seriously as a replacement for Newtonian mechanics!
Fortunately, it isn't.
I'll give a *brief* description of the true state of affairs; check
out some decent textbooks for the gory details. (MTW devotes a
chapter or two to this topic.)
SR is just physics performed against a backdrop of flat spacetime (set
designer, Hermann Minkowski). Einstein didn't originally discover it
that way, but almost anyone who has learned Minkowski's elegant
reformulation prefers to think of it in these terms.
An accelerating particle in SR is simply something whose worldline is
curved. You study the behavior of accelerating particles using a
trick as old as calculus (or actually older): you look at tangent
lines to the worldline. The tangent lines also go under the nom de
plume "instantaneously co-moving inertial observers", since an
observer following a tangent line (a) is at rest in an inertial frame
of reference (since the tangent line is straight), and (b) is, for just
one instant, at rest with respect to the accelerating particle, namely
the instant determined by the point of tangency.
No sweat. No need for GR.
Inertial frames of reference in SR correspond to Cartesian coordinate
systems (or pseudo-Cartesian, as some people say, to emphasize the
indefiniteness of the (pseudo-)metric). Now, sometimes it's useful to
do Euclidean geometry in curved coordinates (for example, polar
coordinates). In pretty much the same way, you can lay down curved
coordinates on flat spacetime. (There are a couple of pitfalls to
avoid, but MTW explains these clearly.) A system of curved
coordinates on flat spacetime correspond to a network of accelerating
(i.e., non-inertial) observers.
Now, the crucial distinction between GR and SR is whether your
spacetime is curved or flat. NOT your coordinate system. (Of course,
if your spacetime is curved, then you *have* to use curved
coordinates.) At least, that's the terminology most physicists use.
The historical development of GR was rather complex; see Pais'
Einstein bio for details. If you could double back along Einstein's
worldline to, say, 1909, he might well tell you that in SR you have to
use inertial observers, only GR permits accelerated observers. Ignore
him. Scoot along to 1916, and ask him again--- then you'll get the
right answer.
john baez
>As far as I can remember from my lessons in relativity, SR is only
>valid in inertial systems. So you cannot consider any accelerated
>movements in SR.
The first sentence has a certain vague truth to it, but is misleading
enough to have led you to the second sentence, which is quite false.
People designing particle accelerators (note!) use special relativity
all the time to describe what's going on, and it works great. Special
relativity would be an utterly useless theory if it couldn't handle
acclerations... even Newton's theory does that.
The right way to say the first sentence is that the laws of special
relativity take on their simple textbook form only in coordinates
corresponding to inertial frames. You can use any coordinate system you
want if you are good at making coordinate transformations. More
importantly, you can describe the motion of accelerating particles using
a coordinate system corresponding to an inertial frame, and that's what
people usually do when studying accelerated particles in special
relativity.
gl...@gnn.com
In article <46jfuj$t...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>People designing particle accelerators (note!) use special
>relativity all the time to describe what's going on, and it works
>great. Special relativity would be an utterly useless theory if
>it couldn't handle acclerations... even Newton's theory does that.
Special relativity does not describe what happens to things in
the accelerators. The relativistic equations do. There is a huge
difference between what the equations say and what the theory
asserts they say.
The term "special relativity" is used because it is restricted to
inertially moving systems. The entire purpose of Einstein's deneral
theory was to generalize the treatment to include all kinds of
motion, including accelerated systems. Even so, the huge difference
remains. Equations stipulate what will happen when you do so much
of this to so much of that. A theory tries to explain why.
Relativity totally fails to explain the why (or how) of anything at
all. (How does a curved space-time continuum cause an acorn to fall
down from a tree? Please don't obfuscate your answer by using
words that are themselves no explanation of the underlying
question.)
G. Lebau
gl...@gnn.com
In article <COLUMBUS.95...@mogul.osf.org> Michael Weiss
wrote:
>An accelerating particle in SR is simply something whose worldline
is
>curved. You study the behavior of accelerating particles using a
>trick as old as calculus (or actually older): you look at tangent
>lines to the worldline. The tangent lines also go under the nom
de
>plume "instantaneously co-moving inertial observers", since an
>observer following a tangent line (a) is at rest in an inertial
frame
>of reference (since the tangent line is straight), and (b) is, for
just
>one instant, at rest with respect to the accelerating particle,
namely
>the instant determined by the point of tangency.
No one said you can't have an accelerated body, as plotted on an
inertially moving SR system. The point of GR is to allow
transformations of coordinates for identical events, as plotted by
an inertial versus an accelerating system. The transformation
equations of the restricted theory of relativity can't handle that.
G. Lebau
William S. Lawson
May I humbly request, on behalf of all scientists on this group, that you
learn something about a theory before you begin spouting about it as if you
were an expert? The above is pure gobbledy-gook. (Hint: a theory cannot
be separated from its equations. ... 'nuff said.)
-- Bill Lawson
--
William S. Lawson
Plasma Physicist
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
William Owen
>As far as I can remember from my lessons in relativity, SR is only
>valid in inertial systems. So you cannot consider any accelerated
>movements in SR.
In the fourth chapter of special relativity, Einstein introduced
a clock that is moving in any orthogonal path relative to another
clock. This path could be a circle around the stationary clock.
This was the basis of his clocks-at-the-equator-and-at-one-of-
the-poles gedanken which was extended into the Hafele-Keating
experiment.
Clifford Wills, in his book Was Einstein Right?, wrote that SRs
time dilation concept is supported by the HKX.
Bill
john baez
>
>In article <46jfuj$t...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>>People designing particle accelerators (note!) use special
>>relativity all the time to describe what's going on, and it works
>>great. Special relativity would be an utterly useless theory if
>>it couldn't handle acclerations... even Newton's theory does that.
> Special relativity does not describe what happens to things in
>the accelerators. The relativistic equations do. There is a huge
>difference between what the equations say and what the theory
>asserts they say.
Too vague to comment on.
> The term "special relativity" is used because it is restricted to
>inertially moving systems. The entire purpose of Einstein's general
>theory was to generalize the treatment to include all kinds of
>motion, including accelerated systems.
Piffle. Special relativity must of course *taken together* with
the particular special-relativistic laws of physics (Maxwell's
equations, quantum electrodynamics, whatever) for one to predict how
particles move or how fields wiggle. This is just like Newton's F = ma;
it's completely useless until you have some equations that say what F
is. But given these extra laws, we can compute everything we want about
accelerating particles, without ever getting general relativity into the
act. That's why people who design particle accelerators don't need to
use general relativity! General relativity is only necessary if you are
interested in very strong or rapidly changing gravitational fields.
Anil Trivedi
>In response to one subject (Did Einstein Retract Special
>Relativity?) a message was posted by one of the engineers
>who actually *construct* particle accelerators pointing
>out that *they* (the mechanics in the field of physics)
>*construct* the devices having *allowed for the inherent
>errors OF* special relativity.
I certainly would like to know what these corrections are.
-----
gl...@gnn.com
>from case 1 to case 2, and not from case 2 to case 3, then you're
>simply missing the point.
Which is that the "Restricted Theory of Relativity" (Special
Theory) is *restricted* to systems inertially moving relative to
each other; while the General Theory generalizes that to include
systems in any and all states of motion (including accelerations
and rotations) with respect to each other.
G. L.
Anthony Potts
Me too. Although I work on the detectors, not the accelerators, I would
like to know to what extent the ridiculously small effect of gravitation
has on 8TeV protons.
Anthony Potts
Emory F. Bunn
William Owen <wo...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au> wrote:
>ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
>>Boy! I guess everyone like me had already put that thread
>>in their killfile.
>
>That just goes to show that bigoted censorship has
>questionable value.
I should probably keep my mouth (or rather my fingers) shut, as this
has nothing to do with physics, but this kind of comment really
annoys me.
How could choosing not to read a particular article possibly be
considered "censorship"? Do I censor People Magazine or USA Today by
not reading them?
Abusing words like "censorship" and "bigoted" in this way is not only
sloppy; it's downright harmful. Censorship and bigotry are real and
pernicious phenomena, and our society needs to talk about them
rationally and carefully. If people starts to use those words to
describe completely different and much less pernicious phenomena, then
we no longer have appropriate words to describe actual censorship and
bigotry, and it's much more difficult to have the sorts of discussions
we should be having.
Read George Orwell's essay on "Politics and the English Language"
sometime. This is precisely the sort of thing he's talking about.
It's remarkable how timely that essay is even today.
-Ted
john baez
>ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez) wrote:
>>Boy! I guess everyone like me had already put that thread
>>in their killfile.
>That just goes to show that bigoted censorship has
>questionable value.
Bigoted censorship, eh? You'll probably *really* hate me
when I tell you I also don't watch those TV shows about alien
abductions.
>+Everyone like you+ remained ignorant of any argument,
>valid or not but, I suppose, if you do not *look* at
>arguments then you can claim, in the future, that you
>never *saw* same. Makes sense.
I happened not to see this argument, sorry. If we don't get that
engineer back to repeat his story, we may never know what he thought.
However, I crossposted to sci.physics.particle to see if any people who
work on particle accelerators "correct for inherent errors of special
relativity". There are lots of folks out there; surely there is not
just one lone engineer out there who knows this dirty little secret
about special relativity being wrong?
(Secretly, of course, we members of the conspiracy have silenced the
bastard. Heh-heh-heh.)
Anthony Potts
On 1 Nov 1995, William Owen wrote:
> tri...@yukawa.uchicago.edu (Anil Trivedi) wrote:
>
> >I certainly would like to know what these corrections are.
>
> The posting only referred to +a large number of unwritten
> rules+ that +must be applied+.
>
Why are these rules unwritten? Do you think that when a new accelerator
is going through approval, that the referees will be happy to go with
verbal agreements. I would have thought that it is far more likely that
they would want to know everything that there is about the detector, and
that they would like to see it in a hard copy form. This would most
likely take the form of a letter of intent, followed by a technical
proposal, both of which would be published.
Setting aside the accelerator, and coming to the detectors instead, which
is more my field, I can tell you that GR is not of the slightest interest
to me. The calculations which I am performing for CMS have absolutely NO
GR in them. This is straight from the horses mouth, GR IS NOT USED BY ME
IN MY WORK AS A PARTICLE PHYSICIST.
I hope that this may help in the discussion.
Anthony Potts
William Owen
>>That just goes to show that bigoted censorship has
>questionable value.
>Bigoted censorship, eh? You'll probably *really* hate me
>when I tell you I also don't watch those TV shows about alien
>abductions.
Yes, bigotry; you are obviously of the opinion that you know
everything there is to know about that subject ergo you are
not interested in looking at the points of view expressed by
others regardless of the content.
Your paranoia is showing; I do not +hate+ *anyone* for their
expressed bigotry and intolerance.
The fact that you don+t watch TV shows about alien abductions
indicates that you have a closed mind on that subject.
I have never watched those programs, not due to bigotry or
intolerance, but because I have better things to do with
my time. I don+t watch +Seinfeld+ or +Roseanne+ nor a lot of
other stuff that emanates from the US and the UK and the TV.
>>+Everyone like you+ remained ignorant of any argument,
>>valid or not but, I suppose, if you do not *look* at
>>arguments then you can claim, in the future, that you
>>never *saw* same. Makes sense.
>I happened not to see this argument, sorry. If we don't get that
>engineer back to repeat his story, we may never know what he thought.
>However, I crossposted to sci.physics.particle to see if any people who
>work on particle accelerators "correct for inherent errors of special
>relativity". There are lots of folks out there; surely there is not
>just one lone engineer out there who knows this dirty little secret
>about special relativity being wrong?
It may well be that the engineer who made that comment is one of the
few who have the courage to publicise this fact.
In his book +Science at the Crossroads+ Herbert Dingle pointed out
that when the results of particle acceleration experiments are
evaluated "a special relativity factor" is incorporated into those
calculations in order that the *required* answer is arrived at.
Dingle was, as you may be aware, a *staunch* relativist *until* he
discovered what *he* considered to be a major *flaw* in SR - the
twin paradox.
One posting in sci.physics which I think was also on the subject
of +Did Einstein retract special relativity' was also from a
staunch relativist who, after three pages of rubbishing the
arguments, stated that *Einstein* admitted that SR was *wrong*
and the *author* of that posting *agreed* that this was so but
pointed out, as had Einstein, that SR is the closest extant
+explanation+ although Einstein *did*, in his address to the
Prussian Academy of Science in 1925, insist that the mathematical
propositions *of* special relativity do *not* refer to *reality*.
Perhaps it is that +closest+ (i.e. not *totally* correct) aspect
to which the engineer referred.
The fact that you pre-trashed those postings resulted in your
inability to respond to the comment that Einstein, apparently,
argued that SR is wrong, or to Dingle's comment.
It seems that there *are* ||lots of folks out there who know
this dirty little secret about special relativity being wrong?
not just one lone engineer||. Those folks would be *agreeing*
with *Einstein*.
Emory F. Bunn
William Owen <wo...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au> wrote:
>Websters:- Censor: Person who eliminates material in writings.
>Placing a subject matter in a killfile is not ||choosing not to
>read an article|| but is the deliberate elimination of all
>materiel with respect to that subject.
>
So John has a kill-file that lets him completely eliminate
articles? Cool! Where do I get one? Mine just facilitates
my choosing which articles to read.
>If you choose not to read specific publications simply because
>you have disagreed with some previous articles in that publication
>then you are imposing self-censorship.
Oh, for Pete's sake. Do you read everything that's published
everywhere in the world? Of course not. You, like everyone else,
choose what to read and what not to read. If every such choice is
deemed an act of censorship, then that word is construed so broadly as
to completely lose meaning. This is a shame, since *genuine*
censorship (in which someone tries to prevent *others* from reading
something) is something that we should have a word to describe.
I've had "Madame Bovary" sitting on my shelf for about five years now,
and I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. I manage to avoid
being wracked with guilt about my censorship of poor Flaubert.
>Although in your opinion those actions are different and less
>pernicious than the value that you place on those words I fail to
>see what right you have to insist that I should conform with *your* standards.
It's my god-given right as a bigoted censor, of course.
-Ted
William Owen
>>Boy! I guess everyone like me had already put that thread
>>in their killfile.
>
>That just goes to show that bigoted censorship has
>questionable value.
>How could choosing not to read a particular article possibly be
>considered "censorship"? Do I censor People Magazine or USA Today by
>not reading them?
Websters:- Censor: Person who eliminates material in writings.
Placing a subject matter in a killfile is not ||choosing not to
read an article|| but is the deliberate elimination of all
materiel with respect to that subject.
If you choose not to read specific publications simply because
you have disagreed with some previous articles in that publication
then you are imposing self-censorship.
>Abusing words like "censorship" and "bigoted" in this way is not only >sloppy; it's downright harmful. Censorship and bigotry are real and
>pernicious phenomena, and our society needs to talk about them
>rationally and carefully. If people starts to use those words to
>describe completely different and much less pernicious phenomena, then
>we no longer have appropriate words to describe actual censorship and
>bigotry, and it's much more difficult to have the sorts of discussions
>we should be having.
Although in your opinion those actions are different and less
pernicious than the value that you place on those words I fail to
see what right you have to insist that I should conform with *your* standards.
If I want to learn proper grammatics I will join a debating
society thank you.
gl...@gnn.com
In article <479jdh$q...@polo.iquest.com> awi...@iquest.com wrote:
>In <46jhqs$b...@news-e1a.megaweb.com>, gl...@gnn.com () writes:
>>
>>In article <46jfuj$t...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>>>People designing particle accelerators (note!) use special
>>>relativity all the time to describe what's going on, and it
>>>works great. Special relativity would be an utterly useless
>>>theory if it couldn't handle acclerations... even Newton's
>>>theory does that.
>>
>> Special relativity does not describe what happens to things in
>>the accelerators. The relativistic equations do. There is a huge
>
>that Special Relativity was defined in terms of its axioms, and
>that the relativistic equations followed from those axioms as
>theorems.
>
>>difference between what the equations say and what the theory
>>asserts they say.
>
Special Relativity is a physical theory. It is thought that
Einstein derived the relativistic equations (Lorentz Transformation
Equations) by mathematically applying his 2 axioms (postulates).
The trouble is that his derivation is mathematically defective!
If done correctly, it leads to a set of transformations that were
first published by W. Voigt in 1887. Those equations *do not* fit
or accurately predict experimental results; therefore neither does
Einstein's theory.
G. Lebau
Jan Bielawski
<In <46jhqs$b...@news-e1a.megaweb.com>, gl...@gnn.com () writes:
<
<>all. (How does a curved space-time continuum cause an acorn to fall
<
<vity explains a lot of things other theories don't.
In all fairness, I think this is not really what G. Lebau meant.
His objection is a much more general one and I think he should have
clearly labelled it as such. What he is saying -- I think -- is
that *ultimately* physics does not explain anything; in particular,
it doesn't explain the "real" WHY.
I agree with him, we don't really know why things are the way they are.
What I'm having a problem with is that he presents his objection as
a *fault* or *arrogance* of relativity, instead of simply realising that
the fundamental existential questions are not by definition in the domain
of physics but philosophy. No physicist (unless he is writing a popular book
in order to make some dough, that is :-( ) will honestly claim physics
is supposed to deal with *fundamental* questions of existence and
human condition. These are *not* scientific questions (and I *don't*
mean this to be a pejorative label!).
--
Jan Bielawski
Biosym/MSI )\._.,--....,'``.
San Diego, CA /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619) 458-9990
j...@biosym.com fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619) 458-0136
--
William Owen
>This is very interesting. You consider it reasonable not to watch
>some things since "you've better things to do with your time" (so do
>I, by the way) but anybody who isn't reading what you write is guilty
>of being a bigot who thinks he knows everything.
I said *nothing* about people who aren+t reading what *I* write.
I was referring to those people who aren+t reading what *anybody*
writes by placing a *SUBJECT* in their killfile.
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Same thing. There is no difference between placing a subject in a
killfile and deciding not to watch a specific TV show. In both cases
I do exercise my right to decide that some things aren't worth my
time.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Hauke Reddmann
:
: If you choose not to read specific publications simply because
: you have disagreed with some previous articles in that publication
: then you are imposing self-censorship.
So big deal. The next thing probably is that I sue myself for violating
the "Freedom of Information Act"?
There is a moral difference between censorship and self-censorship,
something like between murder and self-murder (sorry, this joke works
better in German).
--
Hauke Reddmann fc3...@math.uni-hamburg.de
<:-EX8
David Rowland
>work on particle accelerators "correct for inherent errors of special
>relativity". There are lots of folks out there; surely there is not
>just one lone engineer out there who knows this dirty little secret
>about special relativity being wrong?
>
Years ago I had a summer job as a crew member at the Bevatron in Berkeley.
I realized one day that I was able to see something that most people never
see -- special relativity.
The Bevatron (now out of service) accelerates protons to about 6 billion
electron volts of energy. That puts their velocity quite near the speed of
light. They circulate in a vacuum tank about 100 feet across. They are held
in a circular orbit by a magnetic field, and that field is made to grow
from small to great in about 2 seconds. If the protons did not gain energy,
their orbit would shrink and they would hit the inside wall of the vacuum
tank. Therefore, an electrostatic tube gives them a little boost each time
around, just enough to stay in orbit at a fixed radius as the field
increases.
In the control room were a number of oscilloscopes. One showed the
strength of the magnetic field, another the frequency (number of orbits per
second) of the protons. The velocity of the protons can be inferred
immediately from the frequency. The magnetic field went from min to max
almost in a straight line. The frequency rose at first and then flattened
out. The protons were gaining energy to stay in a fixed orbit while the
magnetic field rose, but they were approaching the speed of light and
according to special relativity that speed could not be exceeded. Where did
the extra energy go, if not into the velocity? Into an increase in mass,
according to SR.
Anyway, there it was - special relativity almost in the palm of my hand,
so to speak, and I felt moved that I could see in and recognize it. Nobody
at the Bevatron was making corrections because they knew SR was wrong. On
the contrary, believing that SR was correct, they designed the Bevatron
accordingly, built it and watched it succeed.
The twin paradox and many others are great brain teasers and have been
much discussed. However, to an engineer or physicist concerned with
velocities near c, special relativity is like Ohm's law. They use it, they
get results that pass the test of reality, and that's an end to it.
gl...@gnn.com
In article <47oov3$l...@usenet1.interramp.com> David Rowland wrote:
> However, to an engineer or physicist concerned with
>velocities near c, special relativity is like Ohm's law. They use
>it, they get results that pass the test of reality, and that's an
>end to it.
You don't use the THEORY; you use the predictions of the Lorentz
transformation equations. Einstein neither accurately derived them,
on the basis of his physical theory, nor do they fit his physical
theory of relativity.
Indeed, the very fact that your experiments confirm the accuracy
of the results predicted by the Lorentz equations PROVES that
Einstein's Theory (which does not fit those equations) is false.
Thank you, Dr. G. Lebau
Erik Max Francis
> Special Relativity is a physical theory. It is thought that
> Einstein derived the relativistic equations (Lorentz Transformation
> Equations) by mathematically applying his 2 axioms (postulates).
> The trouble is that his derivation is mathematically defective!
Please demonstrate how his derivations were defective.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE || uuwest!alcyone!max, m...@alcyone.darkside.com
San Jose, California, U.S.A. || 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W || the 4th R is respect
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- || 1love || folasade
_Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt._ || GIGO Omega Psi || http://www.spies.com/max/
"Hands that once picked cotton can now pick Presidents." -- Jesse Jackson
john baez
>Perhaps there *are* very few engineers || out there who know this
>dirty little secret about special relativity being wrong?||
>simply because if they *admit* to this knowledge they then
>become classified as a whistle-blower and are no longer
>*employed* as engineers.
Exactly. I'm on the international committee of physicists who is in
charge of dealing with engineers who find out that special relativity is
wrong. When this occurs, the UN sends over a team in a black helicopter
and apprehends the culprit. They are then sent to a secret prison camp
in China where they are forced to manufacture T-shirts with Maxwell's
equations written on them. You can buy these at MIT and many other
colleges.
David Tyler
>Perhaps there *are* very few engineers || out there who know this
>dirty little secret about special relativity being wrong?||
>simply because if they *admit* to this knowledge they then
>become classified as a whistle-blower and are no longer
>*employed* as engineers.
surely you jest (i know, i know... don't call you "shirley.").
i can't fathom why, when for decades scientists of all stripes
have been trying to out-muscle einstein, this gang of engineers
(some of whom must surely have published in peer-reviewed
journals) havn't *documented* this "dirty little secret" and
published their findings. is it because they have decided en
masse to avoid fame, glory, and nobel money just to keep albert's
name clean?
right. it's just hard for me to understand how these things
(UFOs, irrefutable evidence of gr/sr being grieviously flawed,
etc.) are kept secret for so long when so many stand to benefit
financially. it always seems to be those who would benefit the
most who are accused of covering things up.
dave
______________________________________________________________________
-David W. Tyler
-USAF Phillips Laboratory "Gravity is a harsh mistress."
-Albuquerque, New Mexico --The Tick
-ty...@plk.af.mil
----------------------------------------------------------------------
john baez
>In article <482cc5$a...@metro.ucc.su.OZ.AU>, William Owen <wo...@extro.ucc.su.oz.au> writes:
>>Did you *really* think that your arrogant and bigoted conclusion
>>*would* end the matter? ^^^^^^^
>What is the crackpot score for using the word "bigoted" in science
>discussion?
Nothing, but Owen's suggestion of a conspiracy of physicists to fire
uppity engineers who find the errors of special relativity surely
nets him 30 points, thanks to clause 17:
THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially
revolutionary contributions to physics.
1) A -5 point starting credit.
2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
with defective keyboards).
8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
11) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
12) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
13) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if
they were fact.
14) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to ones past theories.
15) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
16) 30 points for claiming that when ones theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen as the sham it truly is.
17) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its
well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
giving no concrete testable predictions.
John Baez
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
... snip ...
>Did you *really* think that your arrogant and bigoted conclusion
>*would* end the matter? ^^^^^^^
What is the crackpot score for using the word "bigoted" in science
discussion?
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars3.uchicago.edu
>In article <DHwLq...@midway.uchicago.edu> me...@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
>
>>>Did you *really* think that your arrogant and bigoted conclusion
>>>*would* end the matter? ^^^^^^^
>
>>What is the crackpot score for using the word "bigoted" in science
>>discussion?
>
Well, OK. So Owen is not wasting his time on trifles but goes
straight for the high scoring items. Aiming for the title, I guess.
Still, I think the we should throw in an extra clause, something like
5 points for "abuse of language". Ain't much, but given the level of
his competition he can use any help he can get.
gl...@gnn.com
In article <483m95$b...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
>giving no concrete testable predictions.
>
>John Baez
To that add:
19) 80 points for refusing to look at a revolutionary theory that
answers the "vast ocean of mystery" that present Physics sees in
every direction.
20) 4000 points for physicists who can't understand that the
"mysteries of nature" are a product of their own false theories;
but refuse to look at revolutionary concepts.
G. Lebau
Wayne Throop
::: dirty little secret about special relativity being wrong?|| simply
::: because if they *admit* to this knowledge they then become classified
: From: ba...@guitar.ucr.edu (john baez)
: Exactly. I'm on the international committee of physicists who is in
: charge of dealing with engineers who find out that special relativity
: is wrong. When this occurs, the UN sends over a team in a black
: helicopter and apprehends the culprit. They are then sent to a secret
: prison camp in China where they are forced to manufacture T-shirts
: with Maxwell's equations written on them. You can buy these at MIT
: and many other colleges.
Ah. I've heard of the CERT from SEI (based near CMU).
Stands for "Covert Engineering Relativity Task-force", an arm
of the "Supression of Engineering Inquiry". Right?
--
Wayne Throop throopw%sheol...@dg-rtp.dg.com
thr...@aur.alcatel.com
john baez
>Ah. I've heard of the CERT from SEI (based near CMU).
>Stands for "Covert Engineering Relativity Task-force", an arm
>of the "Supression of Engineering Inquiry". Right?
How do you know about this, anyway? Expect a black helicopter on your
lawn any minute now.
Hitech
>
> THE CRACKPOT INDEX
>
>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
>giving no concrete testable predictions.
Yea, like all those string theory crackpots?
john baez
>> THE CRACKPOT INDEX
Only the people who claim string theory is a revolutionary theory get
40 crackpot points. It's certainly good to work on theories even before
they give concrete testable predictions; one should not, however, get
too carried away in ones claims.
gl...@gnn.com
In article <93yBeD...@alcyone.darkside.com> Erik Max Francis
wrote:
>Please demonstrate how his derivations were defective.
Reply: Can you read files downloaded to you, via email, written in
WordPerfect? (The equations are simpler to read, written that
way.)
john baez
>In article <483m95$b...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
>>giving no concrete testable predictions.
>>John Baez
>To that add:
>19) 80 points for refusing to look at a revolutionary theory that
>answers the "vast ocean of mystery" that present Physics sees in
>every direction.
>20) 4000 points for physicists who can't understand that the
>"mysteries of nature" are a product of their own false theories;
>but refuse to look at revolutionary concepts.
Sorry, but you must admit that while the tendency of scientists such as
myself to commit the sins you listed is most lamentable, it doesn't make us
"crackpots"; rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries". Feel free
to develop a Hidebound Reactionary Index. It would serve as an apt
counterpart to the crackpot index.
Anil Trivedi
>rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries".
>Feel free to develop a Hidebound Reactionary Index.
Interesting thought, except that "hidebound reactionary" doesn't
quite match the charm and immediacy of "crackpot". Any other
suggestions for naming the crackpot-counterparts residing at the
other extreme?
-----
Eric Baird
>da...@svcdudes.com (David Rowland) responded to:
> >>However, I crossposted to sci.physics.particle to see if any people
>who
> >>work on particle accelerators "correct for inherent errors of special
> >>relativity". There are lots of folks out there; surely there is not
> >>just one lone engineer out there who knows this dirty little secret
> >>about special relativity being wrong?
-
Heck, engineers are _paid_ to make equipment operate to spec - it's
called calibration. Good engineers solve problems in private and only
deliver solutions. It's a matter of professional pride.
-
A nice example of this cropped up recently, with a particle
accelerator that was showing regular periodic fluctuations (due to the
effect of the moon, as it later turned out)
Anyway, the key point with this case was that the guys running the
accelerator couldn't work out what the heck this cyclical drift was,
so they measured it, plotted it, tracked it over time, satisfied
themselves that it was _extremely_ regular - and then simply
compensated for it as a known (unexplained) system error.
-
This went on for a year before anybody found out.
Legend has it that the matter only came to light when a
more-friendly-than-usual physicist popped into the maintenance guys'
tearoom, noticed an interesting wavy graph on the wall and asked what
it was.
-
=Erk=
Vertner Vergon
: In article <4846u8$h...@news-e1a.megaweb.com> gl...@gnn.com () writes:
:
: >In article <483m95$b...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
: >>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
: >>giving no concrete testable predictions.
:
: >>John Baez
:
: >To that add:
: >19) 80 points for refusing to look at a revolutionary theory that
: >answers the "vast ocean of mystery" that present Physics sees in
: >every direction.
: >20) 4000 points for physicists who can't understand that the
: >"mysteries of nature" are a product of their own false theories;
: >but refuse to look at revolutionary concepts.
:
: Sorry, but you must admit that while the tendency of scientists such as
: "crackpots"; rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries". Feel free
: counterpart to the crackpot index.
If you look at the *right times* in history you will find some addititonal
"crackpots":
Copernicus, Galileo, Tesla and Velokovsky
V.V.
Van
>In article <4846u8$h...@news-e1a.megaweb.com> gl...@gnn.com () writes:
>
>>In article <483m95$b...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>>>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
>>>giving no concrete testable predictions.
>
>>>John Baez
>
>>To that add:
>>19) 80 points for refusing to look at a revolutionary theory that
>>answers the "vast ocean of mystery" that present Physics sees in
>>every direction.
>>20) 4000 points for physicists who can't understand that the
>>"mysteries of nature" are a product of their own false theories;
>>but refuse to look at revolutionary concepts.
>
>Sorry, but you must admit that while the tendency of scientists such as
>myself to commit the sins you listed is most lamentable, it doesn't make us
>"crackpots"; rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries". Feel free
>to develop a Hidebound Reactionary Index. It would serve as an apt
>counterpart to the crackpot index.
The large number of non-professional physicists making claims
like (19) and (20) above amazes me.
In contrast, math people, especially those doing pretty abstract
stuff with no physical applications (numbertheory say), don't seem
to get as much of this--though I guess they do get a bit.
There is a conceit about this--those who haven't devoted their lives
to studying physics think they understand things better than those
who have, and earn a living at it. They even imagine they understand
the physical world better than the greatest physicists like Einstein,
and in spite of their obvious misunderstanding of relativity or
whatever, rather than spend the time to really learn physics and
apply it, they develop grandiose
"revolutionary theory that answers the "vast ocean of mystery" that present
Physics sees in every direction", without understanding the body of physics
that is understood.
Professional physicists are then attacked as idiots who refuse to
recognise the genious of the great new theories being presented here.
--
Van -- Email: van...@netcom.com
Ray Tomes
>Sorry, but you must admit that while the tendency of scientists such as
>myself to commit the sins you listed is most lamentable, it doesn't make us
>"crackpots"; rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries". Feel free
>to develop a Hidebound Reactionary Index. It would serve as an apt
>counterpart to the crackpot index.
You are right. The thought has occurred to me several times.
So here it is, the first version of the "Reactionary Index"
or "Crackpots Revenge" or "Yapping Dogs Dementia Points".
Addition items and a better name for the list are also sought.
Feel free to send me email and I will collate a list.
1) The cardinal sin. Saying that a new idea or theory is wrong
because it disagrees with an existing theory. It can only be
wrong if it disagrees with observation (5 points).
2) Argument from Authority. Saying that someone is wrong
because Einstein (or whoever) said something different.
(It is not an offence to quote what the authority said if it
is a valid argument against the case as put) (5 points).
Mentioning famous people who are not connected with the
matter at all (15 points) (The Sarfatti special).
3) Namecalling. Mixed with logical arguments (or approximations
thereof) 3 points per name with additional adjectives worth 2.
(Note crackpot and such similar words are worth 5 as they are
really a short form for cracked pot). Without any attempt at an
argument, double these points.
4) Unsubstantiated "You are wrongs". Each "you are wrong" without
any evidence (2 points). Making susequent "you are wrong" posts
still without evidence (5 points per post plus 5 per "y.a.w").
5) "If that were so then surely it would have been noticed before?"
and other such impossible arguments (5 points each).
6) Stating that observations are wrong because they disagree
with theory (5 points). (Note being suspicious is OK).
For additional independant obsevations rejected, each scores
double the previous points.
7) Discussing "fashionable" establishment theories as though they were
facts when they have never made a verified prediction (5 points).
Further debating the finer points of them (10 points).
8) Application of theories (without stated reservations) well outside
the known domain of the theory (5 points).
9) Saying "Not even wrong" when specific verifiable predictions
are possible (7 points) or actually made (12 points).
10) Saying "Too speculative" when verified predictions are included
with the article (20 points). [This is aimed at certain moderators]
11) Saying "Read ...." rather than giving a reason for disagreeing
(1 point per reference). (Only applies to disagreements).
Bronis Vidugiris
)Exactly. I'm on the international committee of physicists who is in
)charge of dealing with engineers who find out that special relativity is
)wrong. When this occurs, the UN sends over a team in a black helicopter
)and apprehends the culprit. They are then sent to a secret prison camp
)in China where they are forced to manufacture T-shirts with Maxwell's
)equations written on them. You can buy these at MIT and many other
)colleges.
This is inhumane! Don't you make some effort to rehabilitate these
felons before locking them up? I mean, with the proper education
and electroshock treatments, these criminals could be turned into
useful, productive members of society ......
:-)
john baez
We tried that. Some of them even became noted proponents of special
relativity. Unfortunately, they tended to suffer relapses, and we were
forced to deal with them very harshly. We were then forced to
administer massive amounts of certain experimental psychotropic drugs,
and lock them up in special facilities at Dartmouth, Iowa State, and
other locations, where their only form of entertainment is reading
USENET news. (Don't worry, it is completely impossible for them to post
articles.) All in all, the current system is more humane.
Anil Trivedi
> to studying physics think they understand things better than those
> who have, and earn a living at it. They even imagine they understand
My take on "speculative" thoeries is a little different. While not
every new theory deserves a response, let alone acceptance, we work
in an exciting field and it should come as no surprise that others
too find these issues exciting. Let's relax; if people really stopped
caring about these issues, that wouldn't be fun either.
Some people do have good questions, even if their *answers* are no
better than ours, and this knee-jerk habit of appealing to authority
or professional expertize doesn't make us look good and is not good
for the science anyway.
> Professional physicists are then attacked as idiots who refuse to
> recognise the genius of the great new theories being presented here.
Of course, a genuine *attack* should be criticized, especially if it
gets personal, but let's also grant everybody the right to be excited
about their own ideas. Why fight human nature?
I realize that it is a hard advice to follow but ideally I'd even
like us to be grateful that people want our attention.
I must be in a really good mood tonight. :-)
-----
David Rowland
> >law. They use it, they get results that pass the test of reality,
> >and that's an end to it.
>
> Did you *really* think that your arrogant and bigoted conclusion
> *would* end the matter?
I was being a bit tart deliberately, although I know that e-mail is not
the place to try subletly. I'm not a bigot.
> In his book Fiction stranger Than Truth (p.162) N Rudakov wrote:
Thanks, I'll try to find it.
> So; we have one posting from a student as the result of a summer
> holiday job and a contradiction from an engineer presumably
> employed full-time (or at least he *was* - before he allowed his
> knowledge to be broadcast).
>
> I prefer the observations of the latter.
>
I was a student then, I am an EE and software engineer now. Unfortunately,
I am late into this thread, so I did not see the earlier postings. So far,
there has been some huffing and puffing, some derision and little fact.
My mention of Ohm's Law seems even more to the point now. E=IR. If you put
a current through a resistance you will see a predictable voltage. But,
what is that stuff you can see in a sensitive oscilloscope? Noise. Where
did that come from? Why didn't Ohm's Law account for it? You could say it
is incomplete or inaccurate, or you could say it expresses a deep and
important relation and the noise is due to other causes. Most people like
the simplicity of E=IR and deal with noise separately.
Even better, put a varying voltage across a wirewound resistor. Now the
divergence is spectacular! The current varies like the voltage but not in
phase with it. Ohm's Law is dead wrong! What to do? Edison, genius though
he was, did not understand alternating current for this reason. Tesla did.
Unfortunately, Tesla was an exotic character with some crackpot ideas, and
it took some real work to show that a.c. was understandable (with impedance
replacing simple resistance in Ohm's Law) and more useful and efficient
than d.c.
My point is, that if SR has a deep flaw, then someone should be able to
point it out, show errors, propose experiments. Science is imperfect and
much more political than most people want to believe, but it does work.
Dr. David Rosen
>when calculations regarding particle acceleration results are
>formulated a relativity factor is incorporated into the results
>in order that the required answers be arrived at.
>
To repeat: A self-consistent treatment of accelerated frames, using special
relativity, is given in Chapter 6 of "Gravitation," by Misner, Thorne, and
Wheeler. For the linear twin problem, no gravity, an a "time expansion factor"
of:
1+ax/c^2
exists, where a is the acceleration of the observer, x is the distance to the
observer, and c is the speed of light. This factor (or rather the generalized
formulas in chapter 6) resolve the apparent logical contradictions in the twin
paradox. Anti-relativists should read the chapter, and attack the physics in
this chapter if they still feel there is a problem.
David Tyler
>ty...@ug1.plk.af.mil (David Tyler) wrote:
>>i can't fathom why, when for decades scientists of all stripes
>>have been trying to out-muscle einstein, this gang of engineers
>>(some of whom must surely have published in peer-reviewed
>>journals) havn't *documented* this "dirty little secret" and
>>published their findings.
>The documentation of this information in the posting to which I
>referred effectively constitutes publication of those findings.
no, it doesn't... for order to prevail, there must be some
endorsement by the "scientific community." while (as you corr-
ectly point out) the anonymous referee is certainly not infallable
or invulnerable to sheer prejudice and stupidity, the alternative
is spreading info via rumor and apocrypha.
>Please note that the comment ||dirty little secret|| was not *my*
>phrase but was quoted from another posting.
ok.
>Herbert Dingle published similar information in his book
>+Science at the Crossroads+ wherein he mentioned that the
>inherent (quote) ||flaws|| (unquote) of special theory could lead
>to a major disaster in particle acceleration experiments and
>whilst it would appear that no accident of that type has as yet
>occurred this does not prove that it will never take place.
no, but using this reasoning is tantamount to asking me to
*prove* there are no aliens on the earth...
>Dingle, formerly a staunch relativist, also pointed out that
>when calculations regarding particle acceleration results are
>formulated a relativity factor is incorporated into the results
>in order that the required answers be arrived at.
>The details *have* been published but you are obviously not
>aware of same.
you are correct. do you have a citation (a journal, please)?
people can publish anything in the popular press.
>It is a gross ignorance to assume that prestigious, peer
>reviewed journals would publish *anything* that challenged, or
>attempted to negate, special relativity.
i do not assume that peer-reviewed journals would publish "anything."
i do assume the editors of same are not involved in a wholesale
coverup scheme.
>One of my submissions was rejected on the basis that the train
>passenger in Einsteinšs Relativity of Simultaneity gedanken
>*would* see the flashes as being simultaneous and that the
>stationary observer would *not*!
>My response, to the editor of that journal, which provided photo-
>copies from five physics textbooks showing that his referees
>were *wrong*, received no reply.
too bad (seriously). a colleague of mine recently had a paper
rejected by a journal because one of the referees was being an
intransigent horse's ass... it happens. he published elsewhere.
dave
************ The views of David Tyler are his own ****************
and in no way represent the views of Phillips Laboratory, the U.S. Air
Force, or the U.S. Government.
David Rowland
>>
>
> THE CRACKPOT INDEX
> A simple method for rating potentially
> revolutionary contributions to physics.
>
> 1) A -5 point starting credit.
You should add special sections for various other disciplines. In
mathematics, for example, high marks are given to any circle-squarers or
angle-trisectors. In physics, anyone who revives the Dean Drive (remember?
Astounding Science Fiction, ca. 1958?). In biology there will be a special
T.D. Lysenko medal struck for egregious misreading of Darwin.
Erik Max Francis
> If you look at the *right times* in history you will find some addititonal
> "crackpots":
>
> Copernicus, Galileo, Tesla and Velokovsky
Being a crank is not about having a popular or unpopular theory. It's
about having poor thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills.
William Owen
>i can't fathom why, when for decades scientists of all stripes
>have been trying to out-muscle einstein, this gang of engineers
>(some of whom must surely have published in peer-reviewed
>journals) havn't *documented* this "dirty little secret" and
>published their findings.
The documentation of this information in the posting to which I
referred effectively constitutes publication of those findings.
Please note that the comment ||dirty little secret|| was not *my*
phrase but was quoted from another posting.
Herbert Dingle published similar information in his book
+Science at the Crossroads+ wherein he mentioned that the
inherent (quote) ||flaws|| (unquote) of special theory could lead
to a major disaster in particle acceleration experiments and
whilst it would appear that no accident of that type has as yet
occurred this does not prove that it will never take place.
If, perhaps as the result of Dingle零 comment, engineers now
make that allowance this may be the reason why Dingle+s
forecast never eventuated.
Dingle, formerly a staunch relativist, also pointed out that
when calculations regarding particle acceleration results are
formulated a relativity factor is incorporated into the results
in order that the required answers be arrived at.
The details *have* been published but you are obviously not
aware of same.
It is a gross ignorance to assume that prestigious, peer
reviewed journals would publish *anything* that challenged, or
attempted to negate, special relativity.
One of my submissions was rejected on the basis that the train
passenger in Einstein零 Relativity of Simultaneity gedanken
Mountain Man
>In article <4846u8$h...@news-e1a.megaweb.com> gl...@gnn.com () writes:
>>In article <483m95$b...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
>>>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
>>>giving no concrete testable predictions.
>
>>>John Baez
>
>>To that add:
>>19) 80 points for refusing to look at a revolutionary theory that
>>answers the "vast ocean of mystery" that present Physics sees in
>>every direction.
>>20) 4000 points for physicists who can't understand that the
>>"mysteries of nature" are a product of their own false theories;
>>but refuse to look at revolutionary concepts.
>
>Sorry, but you must admit that while the tendency of scientists such as
>myself to commit the sins you listed is most lamentable, it doesn't make us
>"crackpots"; rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries". Feel free
>to develop a Hidebound Reactionary Index. It would serve as an apt
>counterpart to the crackpot index.
The terminology "hidebound reactionary" assumes there may be some measure
of casue and effect transmitted from an object (Revolutionary Theory) and
a naturally scientific mind.
This would not have the ability to measure traditional scientific inertia
which is an observable quality in this frame of reference.
I suggest instead the term "Intellectual Geocentricity Index".
This terms enables us to observe the process whereby scientists retreat
to their "A priori common ground" in the clouds ...
Moreover, it also explains their all consuming drive to provide very nice
theoretical explanations to all retrograde phenomena.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
SnailMail: P.O. Box 194, Newport Beach, NSW 2106, Australia
E-Mail: prfb...@magna.com.au
URL: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/tubelink.html
QuoteForTheDay: "All Things are Connected" Chief Seattle, 1854.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vertner Vergon
: I'm not sure why there is this notion that physicists are somehow
: protecting SR from the onslaught of engineer dogooders who would bring us
: the truth about the folly of SR. In every one of the cases discussed here,
: any physicist would tell you that you are in a non-inertial reference
: frame and thus SR is no longer valid. You MUST use general relativity,
: which it seems is too difficult for most of the engineers or posters to
: this newsgroup to understand.
:
: So the engineers go on solving things empirically while the others just
: ignore GR as if it weren't there. Are you listening Vertner?
:
Yeah, I'm listening. ;-)
I also understand that Einstein developed GR *not* to *replace* SR but
to *generalize* it. Maybe that's why he called it General relativity.
So if all us poor souls out there want to work in the specialized
case, why not? Einstein gave us permission to arbitrarily select inertial
reference frames. (So there) :-)
GR does not solve the time paradox. (V.V. does)
(Doesn't that modesty grab you (somewhere)?
: --
: Michael P. Snell, PhD
: Senior Research Scientist
: Physical Science Information Corporation
Vertner Vergon
: HIDEBOUND REACTIONARY INDEX
: A simple method for rating the degree with
: which a physicist's mind has stagnated
:
: 1) A -5 point starting credit.
: 2) 1 point for every statement you could find in a 100 level physics text
: 3) 2 points for every statement you could find in an advanced undergraduate
: textbook
: 4) 3 points for every statement you could find in Jackson or Sakurai
: 5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite having the
: flaws spelled out in the statement using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS.
: 6) 5 points for using real experiments to attempt to contradict the results
: of an obviously correct theory.
: 7) 5 points for correct spelling, capitalization and punctuation (3 points
: for only not realizing the benefits of using capitalization for emphasis).
: 8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics has never experimentally
: been disproven and has held up to remarkable accuracy (+2 for mentioning
: g-factors or other tests of QM).
: 9) 10 points for deriding a someone who has obviously surpassed the
: intellectual achievements of Einstien or who has claimed that special and
: general relativity are part of the stifling dominant paradigm which must be
: overthrown (+2 points for mentioning empirical tests of relativity).
: 10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school (where one is
: taught only to memorize and obey the dominant paradigm while ignoring
: true genius)
: 11) 20 points for denying that a radical proposal which invalidates either
: relativity or quantum mechanics should not receive a Nobel Prize.
: 12) 20 points for deriding someone who has obviously surpassed the
: intellectual achievements of Newton or who has claimed that classical
: mechanics is part of the stifling dominant paradigm which must be
: overthrown.
: 13) 20 points for ignoring the wide body of theory and facts in the science
: fiction literature.
: 14) 20 points for refusing to acknowledge the past suffering of those who
: would dare to speak heresies of the current status quo of the scientific
: priesthood.
: 15) 30 points for refusing to realize that the scientific priesthood is
: nothing more than an Inquisition which grinds brilliant people under it's
: heel and which has forgotten the lesson of Galileo.
: 16) 30 points for refusing to acknowlege present-day science for the sham it
: is and ignoring brilliant and revolutionary theories which refute the
: dominant paradigm.
: 17) 30 points for acting as an apologist for the "scientific community" and
: denying that it engages in conspiracies to prevent heretical ideas from
: overturning the dominant paradigms.
: 18) 40 points for demanding testable preditions from obviously correct
: theories.
:
: --
: Lamont Granquist (lam...@u.washington.edu)
: There comes a point, I'm afraid, where you begin to suspect that if there's
: any _real_ truth, it's that the entire multidimentional infinity of the
: Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs -- Douglas Adams
My friend -- my very clever friend, you misnamed your monumental work.
It should be THE LITTANY OF A PETRIFIED MENTALITY
Sure there are crackpots -- There are also anti-crackpot crackpots. ;-)
Beware, lest the Boogyman gets you.
"All I know is I know nothing at all -- and I'm not even sure of that."
-- Wise old philosopher
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
: >Dingle, formerly a staunch relativist, also pointed out that
: >formulated a relativity factor is incorporated into the results
: >in order that the required answers be arrived at.
: To repeat: A self-consistent treatment of accelerated frames, using special
: relativity, is given in Chapter 6 of "Gravitation," by Misner, Thorne, and
: Wheeler. For the linear twin problem, no gravity, an a "time expansion factor"
: of:
: 1+ax/c^2
: exists, where a is the acceleration of the observer, x is the distance to the
: observer, and c is the speed of light. This factor (or rather the generalized
: formulas in chapter 6) resolve the apparent logical contradictions in the twin
: paradox. Anti-relativists should read the chapter, and attack the physics in
: this chapter if they still feel there is a problem.
One does not have to be an "anti-relativist" to correct errors in the theory.
And there *is* a problem.
Why don't we look at Wheeler's solution to the paradox
(worked example 49, page 94)?
I have not seen a space-time diagram yet that ever resolved this problem --
including the one offered here.
Due to the lines of simultaneity the space traveler observes *two*
periods of slow time on earth, i.e. 1.96 years on earth to 7 years on
the ship. He observes this 'out' and 'back'. (3.92 earth to 14 years ship)
Now that puts him (Wheeler) in a dilemma. He -- and the space traveler --
are 46.08 years short!
Solution? "This supplement has to be added to Paul's aging ... ."
In short, we are off by 46.08 years from our desired result so ---
*we just toss it in* -- simply "added in".
Now *there's* some scientific process to a solution!
All this is supposed to happen (suddenly?) when the traveler turns back
toward earth.
(p.s. -- I knew a bookkeeper once who kept books like that -- when the
balance was short, he simply added in the shortage amount, and made the
books balance.
Oh yes, he *was* fired.) ;-)
* * * * * * * * *
I've seen other diagrams that didn't work also.
I've seen many convoluted other type explanations.
And they are still coming. And will continue to come until the basic error
is corrected. That error lies in the special theory as it stands.
This error is the assumption that time dilation occurs on both the
outbound and inbound directions.
Think for a moment.
Time dilation is a result of velocity. Velocity is a *vector*.
Therefore, time rate in *approach* should be the reciprocal of time rate
in *recession*.
If you follow that through, the paradox does not even occur -- to be
resolved.
Here's another way of looking at it. A constant known frequency *is* a
clock ( e.g., cesium clocks).
If you observe that clock in recession it runs slow (doppler).
If you observe it in approach it runs fast (doppler).
For the same *speed* the rates are the recirocal of each other.
Ah has spoke. :-) (Mammy Yokum, cir. 1950)
Regards
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
: >it doesn't make us "crackpots";
: >rather, it makes us "hidebound reactionaries".
: >Feel free to develop a Hidebound Reactionary Index.
: Interesting thought, except that "hidebound reactionary" doesn't
: quite match the charm and immediacy of "crackpot". Any other
: suggestions for naming the crackpot-counterparts residing at the
: other extreme?
:
: -----
Yes, CRACKPOT CRACKPOT.
V.V.
:
Anil Trivedi
How about "Inverse Crackpot Index" or "Reverse Crackpot Index",
or "Paranoid Index"?
-----
john baez
appears in the "From" line of his posts, so I have to write it in by
hand) writes:
>Maybe John Baez would be so kind to repost the original list, so they
>may be compared side by side?
Sure, but you didn't quote all of Tomes', so they won't really be "side
by side":
THE CRACKPOT INDEX
A simple method for rating potentially
revolutionary contributions to physics.
1) A -5 point starting credit.
2) 1 point for every statement that is widely agreed on to be false.
3) 2 points for every statement that is clearly vacuous.
4) 3 points for every statement that is logically inconsistent.
5) 5 points for each such statement that is adhered to despite careful
correction.
6) 5 points for using a thought experiment that contradicts the results
of a widely accepted real experiment.
7) 5 points for each word in all capital letters (except for those
with defective keyboards).
8) 10 points for each claim that quantum mechanics is fundamentally
misguided (without good evidence).
9) 10 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Einstein, or
claim that special or general relativity are fundamentally misguided
(without good evidence).
10) 10 points for pointing out that one has gone to school, as if this
were evidence of sanity.
11) 20 points for suggesting that you deserve a Nobel prize.
12) 20 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Newton or
claim that classical mechanics is fundamentally misguided (without
evidence).
13) 20 points for every use of science fiction works or myths as if
they were fact.
14) 20 points for defending yourself by bringing up (real or imagined)
ridicule accorded to ones past theories.
15) 30 points for each favorable comparison of oneself to Galileo,
claims that the Inquisition is hard at work on ones case, etc..
16) 30 points for claiming that when ones theory is finally appreciated,
present-day science will be seen as the sham it truly is.
17) 30 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is
engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent ones work from gaining its
well-deserved fame, or suchlike.
Vertner Vergon
: >However, I crossposted to sci.physics.particle to see if any people who
: >work on particle accelerators "correct for inherent errors of special
: >relativity". There are lots of folks out there; surely there is not
: >just one lone engineer out there who knows this dirty little secret
: >about special relativity being wrong?
:
: Years ago I had a summer job as a crew member at the Bevatron in Berkeley.
: I realized one day that I was able to see something that most people never
: see -- special relativity.
:
: The Bevatron (now out of service) accelerates protons to about 6 billion
: electron volts of energy. That puts their velocity quite near the speed of
: light. They circulate in a vacuum tank about 100 feet across. They are held
: in a circular orbit by a magnetic field, and that field is made to grow
: from small to great in about 2 seconds. If the protons did not gain energy,
: their orbit would shrink and they would hit the inside wall of the vacuum
: tank. Therefore, an electrostatic tube gives them a little boost each time
: around, just enough to stay in orbit at a fixed radius as the field
: increases.
:
: In the control room were a number of oscilloscopes. One showed the
: strength of the magnetic field, another the frequency (number of orbits per
: second) of the protons. The velocity of the protons can be inferred
: immediately from the frequency. The magnetic field went from min to max
: almost in a straight line. The frequency rose at first and then flattened
: out. The protons were gaining energy to stay in a fixed orbit while the
: magnetic field rose, but they were approaching the speed of light and
: according to special relativity that speed could not be exceeded. Where did
: the extra energy go, if not into the velocity? Into an increase in mass,
: according to SR.
:
: Anyway, there it was - special relativity almost in the palm of my hand,
: so to speak, and I felt moved that I could see in and recognize it. Nobody
: at the Bevatron was making corrections because they knew SR was wrong. On
: the contrary, believing that SR was correct, they designed the Bevatron
: accordingly, built it and watched it succeed.
:
: The twin paradox and many others are great brain teasers and have been
: much discussed. However, to an engineer or physicist concerned with
: velocities near c, special relativity is like Ohm's law. They use it, they
As you know, David, your confirmation of the validity of SR in an
accelerator has set off a minor furror.
The reason is that the majority believe that mass increase (gamma m)
is a mathematical fiction. It is held that rest mass is velocity invariant,
and you are therefore preaching heresy.
*Who* is right?
Both camps.
(I will now put forth what I have been saying for years during which I've
had *my* difficulties with the majority.)
There are two *separate* conditions to consider, one is the cosmological
case, the other is the accelerator case. THEY ARE OF TWO DIFFERENT GENRE.
The cosmological case is vintage Einstein wherein he is discussing the
observations of bodies from an inertial frame. In this context rest mass
is velocity invariant. Gamma m is a mathematical fiction.
HOWEVER, what is not (as yet) recognized -- and what I have been trying to
get across -- is that the conditions in an accelerator are different.
Here, the particles are accelerated by what amounts to the bombardment of
electromagnetic forces or electromagnetic radiation.
e.m.r. can be personified by the photon.
I have been advocating on the net for the past year that the photon has
mass -- and that that mass in transferred to the particle in an elastic
collision -- a typical elastic collision where the mass of the impelling
body is added to the mass of the impelled body, increasing its velocity.
Is not that what you experienced at the accelerator?
Note that when the particle is *negatively* accelerated it sheds this
acquired photonic mass as (guess what?) -- photons. This is known as
synchroton radiation or bremsstrahlung.
* * * * * * *
So, BOTH camps are correct.
But it won't end there because the die-hards would have to acknowledge
the photon has mass.
Pardon me while I duck!
V.V.
p.s.
The amazing thing about this whole situation is that the
cosmological (fictional) gamma m is *quantitatively* the same as the
real, actual, physical accrual of mass by bombardment.
Vertner Vergon
: who
: >>work on particle accelerators "correct for inherent errors of special
: >>relativity". There are lots of folks out there; surely there is not
: >>just one lone engineer out there who knows this dirty little secret
: >>about special relativity being wrong?
: >>
:
: > Years ago I had a summer job as a crew member at the Bevatron
:
:
: > Where did the extra energy go, if not into the velocity? Into an >increase in mass, according to SR.
:
: > Anyway, there it was - special relativity almost in the palm of my
: >hand, so to speak, and I felt moved that I could see in and recognize
: >it. Nobody at the Bevatron was making corrections because they
: >knew SR was wrong. On the contrary, believing that SR was
: >correct, they designed the Bevatron accordingly, built it and
: >watched it succeed.
:
: > The twin paradox and many others are great brain teasers and
: >have been much discussed. However, to an engineer or physicist
: >concerned with velocities near c, special relativity is like Ohm's
: >law. They use it, they get results that pass the test of reality,
: >and that's an end to it.
: Did you *really* think that your arrogant and bigoted conclusion
: *would* end the matter?
Whoah, Nellie! You're way out of line. *I* didn't see anything "arrogant"
or "bigoted" in *David's* remarks but yours certainly reflects them.
Cool it. This is just a science discussion.
I propose an answer to this "Al vs the accelerator" dilemma. It is
entered in David's post. Should be around here somewhere.
V.V.
:
: In his book ŒFiction stranger Than Truth¹ (p.162) N Rudakov wrote:
:
: What we should note is that Einstein provides specific
: values for these masses in motion namely m/L¹ and
: m(1-v2/c2), and that both values differ from the value m/L
: adopted later on the basis of empirical evidence.
:
: The gap was exacerbated by the incongruity between
: Einstein+s persistent references, in his 1905 paper, to the
: +viewing+ of things in the other system and the real
: situation in the laboratories where Kaufmann, Abraham,
: Bucherer, and others conducted their experiments
: measuring the ratio of the charge of the electron to its
: mass at different velocities.
:
: Rudakov also wrote:
:
: The fact that a moving electron experiences a mass
: increase when accelerated was empirically established
: before Einstein wrote his 1905 paper. Kaufmann conducted
: experiments with cathode rays from 1901 and demonstrated
: that the relationship between the charge and the mass of
: an electron is subject to change and that the change depends
: on velocity. Abraham arrived at the same conclusion in 1903.
: He attempted to provide a theoretical basis for the mass
: change. Lorentz, in 1904, modified Abraham+s theory and
: suggested that the total mass of an electron equals rest
: mass divided by the Lorentz factor. It is this Lorentz formula
: which was later confirmed by further tests and which is
: accepted by particle physicists today.
:
: Mr Rowland describes his experiences during || a summer job as a crew member at the Bevatron in Berkeley.||
:
: Fortunately I found the posting to which I referred:
:
: URW...@prodigy.com (Robert Cormack) wrote:
:
: >My interest in STR is as a tool to understand and predict the
: >world, and as an engineering tool. Engineering applications
: >that need relativistic analysis are becoming more and more
: >common (the Global Positioning System is a perfect example).
: >As geometry, I have no argument with STR; as an engineering
: >tool, it is deeply flawed. Regardless of academic arguments
: >about the merits of STR, any engineer that has to use it knows
: >that, to get the correct answers, a large number of unwritten rules
: >must be applied during the analysis. Academics may safely
: >ignore the presence of this || shadow theory || (what I have
: >referred to as the +Engineering Theory of Relativity+) -- they
: >don+t have to build anything. Engineers (if they want to remain
: >employed) cannot.
:
: > If you need proof of this, just look at the STR literature -- for
: >phenomenon that have not been experimentally measured,
: >contradictions abound. After the experimental +truth+ is known
: >the analyses tend to fall into line. You cannot do engineering
: >with this sort of theory.
:
: As I mentioned in a previous post, there were *NO* counter-
: arguments from *anybody*. There were *NO* snide remarks or
: personal abuse directed at that posting.
:
: So; we have one posting from a student as the result of a summer
: holiday job and a contradiction from an engineer presumably
: employed full-time (or at least he *was* - before he allowed his
: knowledge to be broadcast).
:
: I prefer the observations of the latter.
:
: One posting on a related topic (from a staunch relativist arguing
: against the idea that SR was not fully valid) wrote that *Einstein*
: admitted that special relativity is *wrong*; that special relativity
: is *not* an exact description of the world! There were *no* follow-
: ups from other relativists arguing against that comment.
:
: Perhaps there *are* very few engineers || out there who know this
: dirty little secret about special relativity being wrong?||
: simply because if they *admit* to this knowledge they then
: become classified as a whistle-blower and are no longer
: *employed* as engineers.
:
Matthew P Wiener
>In every one of the cases discussed here, any physicist would tell
>you that you are in a non-inertial reference frame and thus SR is no
>longer valid. You MUST use general relativity, which it seems is too
>difficult for most of the engineers or posters to this newsgroup to
>understand.
This is utter gibberish.
SR has absolutely no problem with non-inertial frames. It is complete
so long as one sticks to Minkowski spacetime, regardless of what frames
are singled out.
GR was invented to accommodate gravity and curved spacetime. It should
be pointed out that SR + calculus on manifolds suffices for the latter,
so it becomes a matter of semantics as to whether this is an instance
of SR or not. GR includes the field equations, enabling us to identify
the curvature of spacetime.
--
-Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Anthony Potts
Hey William
I design particle detectors, and I do not ever recall having to make
adjustments for any supposed "failures" of SR.
Perhaps the reason that we don't publish your articles is that we don't
like you, or it may just be that you are not telling us the whole truth
about your rejection letters...
I'll tell you what, I will pull strings, twiddle nobs and push buttons
for you if you can manage to post an article actually detailing the
changes which an "engineer" makes to the SR predictions.
Remember, I know that the calculations USE SR, I just see no evidence
that they go BEYOND SR to correct for its errors. If you do not publish
some form of reference of example of how the full lorentz transformations
fail to model reality then I think that you should give up.
Some of your earlier posts were trying to solve SR problems piecemeal by
inserting time dilation and length contractions seperately. This method
is very poor, as it only ever leads to confusion. You should present your
papers in a more standard form. For example, you will have t, t', t'',
t''' etc for your time variables, and they will be related to each other
by the Lorentz rotations, and you will have similar for x,y and z
coordinates. The procedure then is to calculate what the full equations
of motion are, and to NEVER use expressions which refer to one observer's
perception of the time that another observer has measured.
If you are to do this, you will not have any problems getting your paper
published, and I strongly suspect that you won't neet to, as you should
find that your new discovery is a remnant of your calculational method,in
tat you have most likely at some point used one person's time for another
person's position or the like.
You may not like the fact that you have not had widespread aceptance of
your ideas, but you should realise that you never will unless you conform
to the format and calculational methods of the majority of physicists.
Remember, a magazine editor will have many many crackpot ideas on his
desk, and the only way to remove the majority of the dross is to ignore
those sent in by people who have not even bothered to set out the
calculations in the proper way.
Anyway, good luck with the posting, I strongly suggest that you either
post a word or such document here, or type all the equations in full in
ascii instead of using a language based argument, as there is always
ambiguity introduced once you step back from the full maths.
Anthony Potts
Ray Tomes
>rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) wrote:
>>10) Saying "Too speculative" when verified predictions are included
>>with the article (20 points). [This is aimed at certain moderators]
>Big point value! Must have some personal resonance...
You got it right! I have had an article rejected by a
sci.physics.research moderator for being "too speculative"
when it included a set of predictions and a set of observations
which independantly confirmed them. This breaks new ground
for use of the word "speculative" I think. Some of the
moderators have a little game going concerning those words
and the famous Bohr(?) quote about "not even wrong" so that
is why they are both in here.
Edward Green
>rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz (Ray Tomes) wrote:
>>So here it is, the first version of the "Reactionary Index"
>>or "Crackpots Revenge" or "Yapping Dogs Dementia Points".
>>Addition items and a better name for the list are also sought.
>>Feel free to send me email and I will collate a list.
>A brilliant list...
>>1) The cardinal sin. Saying that a new idea or theory is wrong
>>because it disagrees with an existing theory. It can only be
>>wrong if it disagrees with observation (5 points).
>But perhaps this one could be refined. Maybe it's ok to say a new
>theory is wrong because it disagrees with existing theory *within a
>well verified realm of application*. For example: Saying a theory
>was wrong because it violated the 2nd law of thermodynamics on the
>Earth would be ok, but not because it violated the 2nd law for the
>universe as a whole. The latter is an extension. In the first case,
>it would be appropriate to insist on an experimental verification!
>(Which suggests this may be combined with cases 6) and 8), which are
>at least closely related.)
>>2) Argument from Authority. Saying that someone is wrong
>>because Einstein (or whoever) said something different.
>>(It is not an offence to quote what the authority said if it
>>is a valid argument against the case as put) (5 points).
>>Mentioning famous people who are not connected with the
>>matter at all (15 points) (The Sarfatti special).
>That's great. A friend of mine used to trump our economic discussions
>by saying "but Lester Thurow says so, and he's a Nobel Laureate..."!
>Sometimes I know I had not been arguing anything very coherent, so
>there could hardly have been a coherent contrapostion for Thurow to
>have advocated... hic
><snip>
>>6) Stating that observations are wrong because they disagree
>>with theory (5 points). (Note being suspicious is OK).
>>For additional independant obsevations rejected, each scores
>>double the previous points.
>>8: Application of theories (without stated reservations) well outside
>>the known domain of the theory (5 points).
>>10) Saying "Too speculative" when verified predictions are included
>>with the article (20 points). [This is aimed at certain moderators]
>Big point value! Must have some personal resonance...
>Maybe John Baez would be so kind to repost the original list, so they
>may be compared side by side?
>--
>Ed Green
Ed Green
erg...@cnct.com (formerly egr...@nyc.pipeline.com)
Jonathan Scott
on 16 Nov 1995 04:17:36 GMT,
Vertner Vergon <ver...@cinenet.net> writes:
>Jonathan Scott (jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
>: Suppose I'm out running and I see someone running in the same direction
>: on the other side of a stream. I can run along in parallel and keep
>: level with him. Suddenly, he turns off on a path away from the stream.
>: Now I'm suddenly way behind him.
>:
>: Time works just like that. When two things aren't at the same place,
>: the definition of "level" depends on which direction you are going in,
>: or in relativity your relative velocity.
>
>That's nice, John, but I don't see the relevance.
>
>Space traveler reverses his course and proceeds homeward. The earth clock
>still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward voyage.
>
>How does the act of (presumably immediate) negative acceleration
>toss in 46.08 years?
It doesn't. His own time is unchanged, and what he sees is unchanged
(he will see whatever was happening when the light left earth) but the
way we label times at distant points is like the way in which the runner
in my analogy determines whether he is ahead of or behind the other
runner.
And the acceleration doesn't have to be immediate. Even if the runner
curves on to a new course, the same effect occurs. (If the curve is
slow enough, there is a small extra effect due to the "short cut" effect
which allows the other runner to get even further ahead).
Of course, there are some mathematical differences in the space-time
case, consisting mainly of a couple of minus signs, but the similar
"paradoxes" which apply in this simple analogy which are almost too
obvious to see.
>I notice you have *nothing* to say about my "solution" , compressed time.
True, and I reckon that's more than it deserves, too.
Jonathan Scott
jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com or jsc...@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Vertner Vergon
:
: In article <479jdh$q...@polo.iquest.com> awi...@iquest.com wrote:
: >In <46jhqs$b...@news-e1a.megaweb.com>, gl...@gnn.com () writes:
: >>
: >>In article <46jfuj$t...@guitar.ucr.edu> john baez wrote:
: >>>People designing particle accelerators (note!) use special
: >>>relativity all the time to describe what's going on, and it
: >>>works great. Special relativity would be an utterly useless
: >>>theory if it couldn't handle acclerations... even Newton's
: >>>theory does that.
: >>
: >> Special relativity does not describe what happens to things in
: >>the accelerators. The relativistic equations do. There is a huge
: >
: >Mmmm, I'm not sure what the difference is. I've always thought
: >that Special Relativity was defined in terms of its axioms, and
: >that the relativistic equations followed from those axioms as
: >theorems.
: >
: >>difference between what the equations say and what the theory
: >>asserts they say.
: >
:
: Special Relativity is a physical theory. It is thought that
: Einstein derived the relativistic equations (Lorentz Transformation
: Equations) by mathematically applying his 2 axioms (postulates).
: The trouble is that his derivation is mathematically defective!
: If done correctly, it leads to a set of transformations that were
: first published by W. Voigt in 1887. Those equations *do not* fit
: or accurately predict experimental results; therefore neither does
: Einstein's theory.
:
: G. Lebau
:
This is interesting.
Could you be specific?
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
: In article <48ee10$9...@marina.cinenet.net>,
That's not nice, Jon.
I didn't make any slurrelous remarks about the gibberish you put forth.
Nor do I exhibit a stupid dogmatic arrogant attitude. I show no signs
that, like vermin, I scurry from the light, seeking darkness.
Don't bother to post to me. You are now entitled to the same treatment
you gave my solution (which is too intelligent for you to handle).
: Jonathan Scott
: jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com or jsc...@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
Jonathan Scott
on 16 Nov 1995 17:53:15 GMT,
Vertner Vergon <ver...@cinenet.net> writes:
>Try and imagine it in the real world. Acceleration (negative) suddenly
>causes time you are observing on earth to flash 46 years by. If this is
>the case, *any* time a ship accelerates all time in front of it should
>flash by, i.e., time should accelerate because the ship is.
>This gives acceleration more 'power' than just a change in velocity.
Not exactly, because it's the change in velocity times the distance
involved (over c^2) which gives the time shift to first order.
As an example, as I pace up and down at 1 m/s, time at Alpha Centauri
in my frame of reference changes by nearly a second when I change
direction:
2 * 1 m/s * (4 years * c)/c^2 = approx 0.84 seconds
This is nothing compared with what happens at the Andromeda Galaxy
around 2 million light years away, where my pacing up and down drives
time forward and back by nearly a week!
If you consider the rotation of the earth (at about 500 m/s) and the
orbital speed of the earth (30,000 m/s) then these give rise to even
larger time shifts in proportion.
However, this is just a matter of how I label times from my point of
view. If I change my motion, an event which I previously expected to
be happening around "now" in Andromeda may now not be due to happen
for a couple of days. This has no physical effect, because until
a couple of million years have elapsed, I can't even see the event
I'm talking about.
The moral is that if you change how you are moving, you just have to
throw away your previous space-time labels and set up a new set, just
in the same way as terms like "one mile ahead" become useless when
you change direction. If you define whose viewpoint you wish to use for
setting up the new labels, the mathematics will do the work for you,
but you don't have the freedom to impose any additional requirements,
such as keeping the same time labels when moving with a different
velocity. Simultaneity is totally velocity-dependent.
>On the inward leg -- during the whole trip, not just during acceleration --
>observed time on earth speeds up. Yes, is compressed.
You seem to be talking about the time you would observe if receiving a
signal from a clock on earth by means of light or radio. This value
cannot jump in any discontinuous way, but in order to determine the
"current" time on the earth, you must subtract the travel time of the
signal, which depends on your estimate of the distance to Earth. If you
change direction, the Lorentz contraction of space can suddenly change
the distance you reckon it is to Earth, and it is that which makes the
estimated time on Earth jump around.
Tom Potter
Subject: Reactionary Index (was Re: Circular Relativity)
<< snip... >>
What a beautiful idea!
This is a great way to focus attention upon the propaganda
tactics used by many posters.
As the basic issue is creative thinking vs doctrinairism,
I think that "The Doctrinairism Crackpot Index" would be a good name.
I think that the the word "crackpot" should be used, as those on
both ends of the spectrum can accurately be called crackpots,
and using the word in both indexes balances out the stigma for
those taking extreme positions either way.
Edward Green
>I have had an article rejected by a
>sci.physics.research moderator for being "too speculative"
>when it included a set of predictions and a set of observations
>which independantly confirmed them. This breaks new ground
>for use of the word "speculative" I think. Some of the
>moderators have a little game going concerning those words
>and the famous Bohr(?) quote about "not even wrong" so that
>is why they are both in here.
I think it was Pauli. I read this in a collection of unpleasant
personal anecdotes about the man. He was also the one reputed to have
said at a seminar "You know, what Professor Einstein says is not so
stupid".
Speaking of quotes, can someone tell me the author (and exact version)
of: "Unless a man can attach numbers to his understanding, it is of a
very paltry kind" or words to that effect (Kelvin?)
And who made the "physics and stamp-collecting" crack. Rutherford?
Vertner Vergon
: In article <48cvkg$4...@marina.cinenet.net>,
: on 15 Nov 1995 15:05:52 GMT,
: Vertner Vergon <ver...@cinenet.net> writes:
: >...
: >In short, we are off by 46.08 years from our desired result so ---
: >*we just toss it in* -- simply "added in".
: >
: >Now *there's* some scientific process to a solution!
: >
: >All this is supposed to happen (suddenly?) when the traveler turns back
: >toward earth.
: Suppose I'm out running and I see someone running in the same direction
: on the other side of a stream. I can run along in parallel and keep
: level with him. Suddenly, he turns off on a path away from the stream.
: Now I'm suddenly way behind him.
:
: Time works just like that. When two things aren't at the same place,
: the definition of "level" depends on which direction you are going in,
: or in relativity your relative velocity.
:
: jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com or jsc...@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com
That's nice, John, but I don't see the relevance.
Space traveler reverses his course and proceeds homeward. The earth clock
still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward voyage.
How does the act of (presumably immediate) negative acceleration
toss in 46.08 years?
Since when does acceleration (negative or positive) cause oodles of
years to go flying by before your eyes?
God help me if *I* were to propose some such outlandish unsupportable
gibberish.
I would be pronounced "King of the Kooks" -- but then I'm not from
Princeton.
No I'm not paranoid -- at least I wouldn't be if people would quit
spying on me, twisting what I say -- ans plotting against me.
:-)
I notice you have *nothing* to say about my "solution" , compressed time.
As ever,
V.V.
Wayne Throop
: Space traveler reverses his course and proceeds homeward. The earth
: clock still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward
: voyage. How does the act of (presumably immediate) negative
: acceleration toss in 46.08 years?
Exactly[1] the same way that turning through an angle changes what's
directly to your right. For example, if you are traveling down a road
at a 60 degree angle to a second road, then each mile traveled put
TWO more mile-marks of the other road behind you. If you make a 120
degree turn onto a road that connects the two (eg, you drive along two
legs of an equilateral triangle), on the second leg it is again true
that for each mile traveled, two of the other road's mile-markers pass
by directly to your right. Yet, the segment of the triangle along that
second road isn't twice the trip distance. What a paradox!
The point is, this is exactly the same sort of paradox as the twin paradox.
[1] By "exactly" above, I mean that both cases are cases of coordinate
rotations. The algebraic formulae for the coordinate rotations involved
in special relativity are the lorentz transforms. They include a term
of -xu/sqrt(1-u^2), and in this application, x is the distance home and
u is the delta-v of the acceleration done to turn around. Which is
specifically why "the act of (presumably immediate) negative
acceleration toss[es] in 46.08 years".
: God help me if *I* were to propose some such outlandish unsupportable
: gibberish.
Coordinate rotations are outlandish unsupportable gibberish?
Alert the press, a large fraction of standard techniques in analytic
geometry has just been ruled "gibberish" by VV.
BTW, some people claim that coordinate rotations have no physical
consequences, so if SR were a "mere" coordinate rotation, then the
traveling twin wouldn't "really" age less. I find this rather obviously
not the case. Coordinate transforms obviously DO have physical
effects. For example, if I rotate a long curtain rod to the diagonal,
it will fit in my trunk, but if it is held square to the trunk,
it will not fit. This is exactly the same sort of physical consequence
that occurs in the case of the ageing twins.
ftp://ftp.aud.alcatel.com/pub/throop/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
--
Wayne Throop throopw%sheol...@dg-rtp.dg.com
thr...@aur.alcatel.com
Vertner Vergon
: : From: ver...@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon)
: : Space traveler reverses his course and proceeds homeward. The earth
: : clock still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward
: : voyage. How does the act of (presumably immediate) negative
: : acceleration toss in 46.08 years?
:
: Exactly[1] the same way that turning through an angle changes what's
: directly to your right. For example, if you are traveling down a road
: at a 60 degree angle to a second road, then each mile traveled put
: TWO more mile-marks of the other road behind you. If you make a 120
: degree turn onto a road that connects the two (eg, you drive along two
: legs of an equilateral triangle), on the second leg it is again true
: that for each mile traveled, two of the other road's mile-markers pass
: by directly to your right. Yet, the segment of the triangle along that
: second road isn't twice the trip distance. What a paradox!
:
: The point is, this is exactly the same sort of paradox as the twin paradox.
:
: [1] By "exactly" above, I mean that both cases are cases of coordinate
: rotations. The algebraic formulae for the coordinate rotations involved
: in special relativity are the lorentz transforms. They include a term
: of -xu/sqrt(1-u^2), and in this application, x is the distance home and
: u is the delta-v of the acceleration done to turn around. Which is
: specifically why "the act of (presumably immediate) negative
: acceleration toss[es] in 46.08 years".
answer -- but let me say that I have developed my own and I know they
have limited applications. A line or an angle CAN represent some parameters
but that does not mean ALL parameters.
Your example of traveling down one leg of a sixty degree angle relating
to the distance on the other leg is applicable (on Wheeler's space-time
diagram) to the passage of time on earth vis a vis the passage on the
ship. *That* is acceptable (on the outward voyage only).
The mistake is that he applies that to the inward voyage and then finds he
has a tit in the wringer. And guess what? A geometrical gimmick will
get him out of the hole. The assumption that the missing line ( AB)
between the earth portions of simultaniety can just be tossed in in the
real world as they can be on paper is the downfall of this presentation.
Try and imagine it in the real world. Acceleration (negative) suddenly
causes time you are observing on earth to flash 46 years by. If this is
the case, *any* time a ship accelerates all time in front of it should
flash by, i.e., time should accelerate because the ship is.
This gives acceleration more 'power' than just a change in velocity.
I repeat:
: : God help me if *I* were to propose some such outlandish unsupportable
: : gibberish.
:
: Coordinate rotations are outlandish unsupportable gibberish?
: Alert the press, a large fraction of standard techniques in analytic
: geometry has just been ruled "gibberish" by VV.
Cute. :-)
There's an old saying, "figures don't lie, but liars figure." ;-)
(Not that you're a liar, just a misguided soul looking for redemption.)
:-)
What's that I see below?
: BTW, some people claim that coordinate rotations have no physical
: consequences, so if SR were a "mere" coordinate rotation, then the
: traveling twin wouldn't "really" age less.
I never did like coordinate rotations. That's why I let them get rusty.
Your conclusion above is in error. Just because the rotation fails
doesn't mean that what transpires DURING SIMULTANIETY is not so.
However, even there there is an error -- and that is as to what transpires
on the *inward* journey. And that is the same mistake *everyone* has made
(except yo papa V.V.).
On the inward leg -- during the whole trip, not just during acceleration --
observed time on earth speeds up. Yes, is compressed.
It is THIS that supplies the corrective action.
Let me elucidate:
TIME VARIATION
If one looks out into space, they look backward in time.
If we observe a star 100 light years away we observe it as it was 100
years ago.
If a space traveler were to travel from here to there, when he arrived
he would be 100 years in our past.
So, in essence, he has traveled backward in time.
*During* the trip this would manifest (observed from earth) as a dilation
or retardation of time. (Naturally, the trip would have to take longer
than 100 years -- earth time).
Now what about the return trip? He obviously comes from the past -- into
the present. Ergo, he must travel *forward* in time. This would manifest
(observed from earth) as a compression of time, i.e., time would
speed up.
In substantiation of this, a *constant* frequency is a clock (e.g., the
cesium clock). When one observes such a frequency, one observes a clock.
So, what does the doppler effect tell us?
When an emitting object recedes, the frequency slows -- and so the clock
slows.
When an emitting object approaches, the frequency increases -- and so the
clock speeds up (both observations from earth).
Upon contemplation consider the following: Time rate variation is based
on -- caused by -- *velocity*. Velocity is a *vector* which means the
result is dependent on *direction*. Negative direction: negative time
flow. Positive direction: positive time flow. "Negative" means 'away'
and 'slower'. "Positive" means 'approaching' and 'faster'.
* * * * * *
All this not only means Einstein erred in his calculations by the omission
of compressed time but in consequence his time dilation is quantitatively
off.
For example at .75^-1/2 c the time dilation according to SR is .5 when
in actuality it is .268 (by doppler).
Note, if one were to calculate a round trip based on the doppler rates
for this speed, they would find that the *net* time disparity is .5 --
but this is not what is observed during flight (which is .268 out and
3.73 back).
You may want to run your own example. If you have difficulties I'll
show you how by posting one I have already done for exposition.
When you are done you will see that the requirements of SR are met:
Each observer will observe of the other, the *same* time rate and
velocity -- and there will be no 'paradox' when they are rejoined.
There *will* be a net time differential though (that they both agree
on).
Hint: The time rate observations are .268 and 3.73 -- but -- they
are observed for unequal periods of time.
Have fun. If you give up, I'll post it for you.
As ever. Regards,
V.V.
Your post critiquing SR is a genuine tour de force. Bravo, well done.
I haven't seen anything approaching it. (I am secretly jealous)
: ftp://ftp.aud.alcatel.com/pub/throop/sr-ticks-n-bricks.html
Wayne Throop
:: you that you are in a non-inertial reference frame and thus SR is no
:: longer valid. You MUST use general relativity,
: From: wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
: SR has absolutely no problem with non-inertial frames. It is complete
: so long as one sticks to Minkowski spacetime, regardless of what
: frames are singled out.
The simplest, algebra-only formulas that capture the lorentz transform
can't be used from a non-inertial frame. Specifically, you can't simply
multiply by gamma to get a proper time on some other worldline, which the
naive do in the twin paradox.
So, while weemba is exactly correct that SR ultimately has no problem with
non-inertial frames, saying so in those words is too likely to provoke
misunderstanding (IMHO), which is why I'd prefer to say that SR has
no problem with accelerated objects, and can "even" be used (with a
bit of calculus) to model an accelerated observer's viewpoint.
But the basic lorentz transform transforms between coordinate systems
defined by inertial observers. Non-inertial observers can't simply
use the lorentz transforms willy-nilly, without some additional quicksteping.
Matthew P Wiener
>In article <485ntj$9...@viking.cris.com> Hit...@viking.cris.com (Hitech) writes:
>>In article <483m95$b...@guitar.ucr.edu>, john baez <ba...@guitar.ucr.edu> wrote:
>>> THE CRACKPOT INDEX
>>>18) 40 points for claiming one has a revolutionary theory but
>>>giving no concrete testable predictions.
>>Yea, like all those string theory crackpots?
>Only the people who claim string theory is a revolutionary theory get
>40 crackpot points.
String theory gives lots of known concrete testable predictions, and it
passes them with flying colors.
The problem is that these predictions are all covered by existing theory.
Anil Trivedi
Yes,
All science is either physics or stamp-collecting.
-E. Rutherford
is what I remember.
-----
Jan Bielawski
<Jonathan Scott (jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
<:
<: on the other side of a stream. I can run along in parallel and keep
<: level with him. Suddenly, he turns off on a path away from the stream.
<: Now I'm suddenly way behind him.
<:
<: Time works just like that. When two things aren't at the same place,
<: the definition of "level" depends on which direction you are going in,
<: or in relativity your relative velocity.
<
<
<still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward voyage.
What does "still reads" mean? That's the crux of the matter. There
is no such thing as simultaneity at a distance. The "simultaneity"
of SR is a coordinate-based notion and the changes to the "space of
simultaneity" do not directly reflect any corresponding physical process
"happening at the same time," like "sudden burst of aging."
<How does the act of (presumably immediate) negative acceleration
<toss in 46.08 years?
<
<Since when does acceleration (negative or positive) cause oodles of
<years to go flying by before your eyes?
They don't. The extra "oodles" do not come from coordinate spaces
rotating in spacetime (that's only a bookkeeping device). They
come from the fact that the stationary twin's path is simply *longer*
(length is a "real" measurable thing (proper time) and is coordinate-
-independent). Coordinates and simultaneity spaces can be used to
keep track of things but they are not the *cause*.
--
Jan Bielawski
Biosym/MSI )\._.,--....,'``.
San Diego, CA /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. | ph.: (619) 458-9990
j...@biosym.com fL `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' | fax: (619) 458-0136
--
William Owen
>I'm not sure why there is this notion that physicists are somehow
>protecting SR from the onslaught of engineer dogooders who would bring us
>the truth about the folly of SR.
Ever played that party game where one person at the start of a
line quietly makes a statement to the next person and this is
passed on resulting in a different statement at the end of the
line?
The above comment is analogous.
>In every one of the cases discussed here,
>any physicist would tell you that you are in a non-inertial reference
>frame and thus SR is no longer valid. You MUST use general relativity,
>which it seems is too difficult for most of the engineers or posters to
>this newsgroup to understand.
>So the engineers go on solving things empirically while the others just
>ignore GR as if it weren't there.
Next thing you will tell us is that all of the so-called
'confirmations' of special relativity attained via particle
acceleration experiments (including muons falling in the
Earth's gravitational field) are *not* confirmations of SR
after all due to the fact that all of those experiments have
been carried out in a non-inertial reference frame "..thus SR
is no longer valid."
(The fact is that we heretics have been making that statement
for years!)
The publishers and authors of every physics textbook or
journal that has made that claim have no doubt received
similar criticism from yourself as well as many other experts
in this field.
Future postings in these groups which insists that particle
acceleration experiments *have* 'ratified' SR will receive a
staunch rebuttal from you won't they? Their claims that they
are quasi-inertial reference frames will be publicly ridiculed
by your counter-arguments won't they?
And pigs will fly.
mikko....@vtt.fi
[...]
>In every one of the cases discussed here, any physicist would tell you >that you are in a non-inertial reference frame and thus SR is no longer
>for most of the engineers or posters to this newsgroup to understand.
The SR describes the space, not any particular observer or frame in
that space. Use of non-inertial frames in SR is like using curvilinear
co-ordinates in the Eucleidian geometry: it doesn't change anything
substantial but the same things must be expressed with different
formulas. Going from SR to GR is like going from Eucleidian to
Riemannian geometry: the space itself is changed, not just formulas.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mikko Levanto Tel. +358 81 551 2448
VTT Electronics Fax +358 81 551 2320
P.O.Box 1100 Internet: Mikko....@vtt.fi
FIN-90571 Oulu, Finland
--------------- VTT - Technical Research Centre of Finland ------
Ray Tomes
>Being a crank is not about having a popular or unpopular theory. It's
>about having poor thinking, problem-solving, and communication skills.
If that were true then 99% of humanity would be cranks.
No, it is about namecallers disagreeing with a theory and believing
he has lots of support in this. Of course some of the above elements
will often contribute to such a view.
Vertner Vergon
: In article <48ee10$9...@marina.cinenet.net> ver...@cinenet.net (Vertner Vergon) writes:
: <Jonathan Scott (jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
: <:
: <: Suppose I'm out running and I see someone running in the same direction
: <: on the other side of a stream. I can run along in parallel and keep
: <: level with him. Suddenly, he turns off on a path away from the stream.
: <: Now I'm suddenly way behind him.
: <:
: <: Time works just like that. When two things aren't at the same place,
: <: the definition of "level" depends on which direction you are going in,
: <: or in relativity your relative velocity.
: <
: <That's nice, John, but I don't see the relevance.
: <
: <Space traveler reverses his course and proceeds homeward. The earth clock
: <still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward voyage.
:
: What does "still reads" mean? That's the crux of the matter. There
: is no such thing as simultaneity at a distance. The "simultaneity"
: of SR is a coordinate-based notion and the changes to the "space of
: simultaneity" do not directly reflect any corresponding physical process
: "happening at the same time," like "sudden burst of aging."
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am referring to Wheeler's
so called solution and space-time diagram.
He invents a "line of simultaniety". According to the diagram there is a
time *period* space traveler observes a time *period* on earth.
The two *periods* are *simultaneous* but of different lengths: 1.96 years
to 7.
In other words this is the _sum_total of_traveler's_experience_during_
_the_entire_voyage.
Now, where does he come off just tossing in 46.08 years simply because
his method is defective -- and he needs it? His reason? It "... corrects
for the difference between the standards of simultaniety of his outgoing and
returning reference frames." !
What the hell does that mean? HOW does that translate to observations in
space? You reverse course and -- wham bam -- there goes 46 years spinning
before your eyes. It looks nice on a diagram -- but the diagram is defective.
It does *not* represent reality.
And the reason is simple -- *that's not the way reality works.*
(I will show that below.)
: <How does the act of (presumably immediate) negative acceleration
: <toss in 46.08 years?
: <
: <Since when does acceleration (negative or positive) cause oodles of
: <years to go flying by before your eyes?
:
: They don't. The extra "oodles" do not come from coordinate spaces
: rotating in spacetime (that's only a bookkeeping device). They
: come from the fact that the stationary twin's path is simply *longer*
: (length is a "real" measurable thing (proper time) and is coordinate-
: -independent). Coordinates and simultaneity spaces can be used to
: keep track of things but they are not the *cause*.
With all due respect, all I can say about the above is that it is
vague at best.
At the risk of redundancy, I offer the following as the true conditions
for the twin phenomena. By this method, there is no paradox to solve but
the end result is the same.
I would appreciate some comments.
TIME VARIATION
For the Wheeler example (.96c) it's .14 out and 7 back. The *net* disparity
(when the twins are re-joined) is .28. -- i.e., 50 years earth to 14
years ship.
Note:- The net disparity turns out to be the same as the Lorentz factor
of the velocity, which is deceptive as it makes it appear that this
is a straight influence all through the voyage. Not so.
V.V.
p.s.
If you have difficulty running it, I will gladly post an
example.
: --
Mountain Man
>Mind you, I can think of some posters who might get a high
>score on both the Academic Bigot Index AND the Crackpot
>Index in one posting!
>-------------------------------
>'Oz "When I knew little, all was certain. The more I learnt,
> the less sure I was. Is this the uncertainty principle?"
When one is little one has much essence and little personality.
Growing up if often spoken of as developing personality.
Acquisition of personality comes from intellectual learning, but a great
deal is gained via one's emotional relation to the world.
All this is at the expense of essence, which is slowly 'covered' by
sedimentary and sometimes volcanic activity of personality.
Thus 'the less sure' translates as less in touch with the essence of
nature (ie: for a natural scientist) ....
Whether the above may be successfully mapped to uncertainty is directly
dependent upon the nature to which you are scientifically drawn ...
A few hundred years ago, the natural world of earth, water, air and fire
fell through the looking glass (*LENS*) as it were, in two directions at
once ....
(1) Towards the ever smaller (lens, microscope, accelerator ...Quantum)
(2) Towards the ever remoter (lens, telescope, radio-telescope ...GR)
This generated an incredible spectrum of specialised disciplines.
Yet between these two *uncertain* worlds there still exists the plain old
natural world which was always refered to as the Mineral Kingdom.
Things are far more certain in this realm.
EG: The weather, the surf ...... :-)
OK, how many points so far?
Barney Rubble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BoomerangOutPost: Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
SnailMail: P.O. Box 194, Newport Beach, NSW 2106, Australia
E-Mail: prfb...@magna.com.au
URL: http://magna.com.au/~prfbrown/tubelink.html
QuoteForTheDay: "All Things are Connected" Chief Seattle, 1854.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Baird
>In article <93yBeD...@alcyone.darkside.com> Erik Max Francis
>wrote:
>>Please demonstrate how his derivations were defective.
<snip>
-
It's fairly easy to work out what the equations for SR _should_ be,
but some of the stuff in the 1905 paper is definitely out to lunch.
For an example, check out the first equation for frequency change on
page 56 of the Dover press paperback (or page 911 of the original).
-
It's upside down.
-
According to that equation, if you set phi to be 90 degrees
(=transverse motion), then the perceived frequency tends toward
infinity as the velocity tends to c. It ought (of course) to tend to
zero.
-
Note that in this particular case the mistake doesn't mess up the next
stage of the derivation, because the phi=0 colinear case (the next
equation on the page [/p912] ) _can_ be flipped over without altering
the results, as long as you define the velocity polarities
accordingly.
-
That doesn't explain what a "wrong" equation is doing in the middle of
a derivation, though.
-
=Erk=
William Owen
>>Dingle, formerly a staunch relativist, also pointed out that
>>when calculations regarding particle acceleration results are
>>formulated a relativity factor is incorporated into the results
>>in order that the required answers be arrived at.
>
> To repeat: A self-consistent treatment of accelerated frames,
>using special relativity, is given in Chapter 6 of "Gravitation," by
>Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler. For the linear twin problem, no gravity,
>an a "time expansion factor" of: 1+ax/c^2 exists, where a is the
>acceleration of the observer, x is the distance to the observer, and c >is the speed of light. This factor (or rather the generalized
>formulas in chapter 6) resolve the apparent logical contradictions in >the twin paradox. Anti-relativists should read the chapter, and attack
>the physics in this chapter if they still feel there is a problem.
No need to read that chapter and attack the physics in same. You
have provided the "relativity factor" to which Dingle was no doubt
referring - the "time expansion factor". x, "the distance to the
observer" is calculated using, according to Dingle, the *assumed*
length variation equation *of* SR and *that's*, apparently, what
Dingle criticised; the application of a mathematical proposition
that, according to *Einstein* "..does not refer to reality."
Eric Baird
Jonathan Butterworth
Hmmm.
Sorry to be so ignorant, but I'm not aware of any predictions (as opposed
to postdictions) made by string theory which have been verified by
experiment. As far as I understand it, which admittedly isn't far, string
theory can be made to include the standard model of particle physics
(and gravity and supersymmetry too), so in that sense any prediction
of the standard model is a prediction of string theory. My gripe
is this: Lots of experiments (for instance almost everything
at LEP) have had their results predicted by the standard
model. If the experimental results had been different we
would have had to junk the standard model (which would have been *really*
nice) and replace it with something radically different. However, I don't
expect string theorists would have been too worried, because from the
very small amount I know of string theory it seems to me that they could
accommodate almost anything with a few tweeks. Is this true?
In any case I would be very interested if you could you give me an example
of an experimental result which, had it turned out differently, would have
definitively ruled out string theory. Or, even more interesting, a
similar prediction for a future experiment we could think of building (I'm
in experimental high energy physics - which of course is why I know nothing
about string theory).
Cheers,
Jon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan M. Butterworth ZEUS, DESY, Notkestr.85, Hamburg 22603
Pennsylvania State University http://zow00.desy.de:8000/~butterwo/TOP.html
My own opinions, such as they are...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Cormack
>
<...snip...>
>
>Is the contribution of the earth's spin to the experiment result
>within 3 orders of magnitude of the contribution of simple SR effects
>in a hypothetical purely inertial frame, in the case of a particle
>accelerator?
>
>No.
>
>Is the contribution of the earth's spin to the experiment result
>within 3 orders of magnitude of the contribution of simple SR effects
>in a hypothetical purely inertial frame, in the case of airplane flights
>around the world?
>
>Yes.
>
>Are SR predictions confirmed in both of these cases?
>
>Yes.
>
>Is GR necessary to deal with accelerated objects?
>
>Not always.
Just where does this "3 orders of magnitude" cutoff level come from, Wayne?
Is this your "engineering rule of thumb", or is there some theoretical
analyses that I'm unaware of that single out this level?
As far as I know (and I'm pretty well read in the literature of SR), there
is no justification for any such dividing level. Many experiments analyzed
with SR achieve much more precision than 1 in 1000, and so would show
effects of accelerated frames if there were any. No experiment that I'm
aware of shows any such effect.
At any rate, the Sagnac effect is first order in velocity and shows no
sensitivity to acceleration over more than your 3 orders of magnitude,
(The Michelson-Gale experiment was accelerated by about 0.02 m/s^2 due to
the Earth's rotation while optical gyros are operated at 100's of m/s^2
-- 10's of G's -- in missles and aircraft)
and so violates your arbitrary cutoff rule.
The SR literature is full of applications of SR to all kinds
of accelerated frames -- the specialists see no problem with this
whatsoever. To quote Matthew Wiener in an earlier post on this thread;
"SR has absolutely no problem with non-inertial frames. It is complete
so long as one sticks to Minkowski spacetime, regardless of what frames
are singled out."
And reading any portion of the scientific literature on SR will bear this
out.
The statement that SR doesn't apply to accelerated frames (in Throop's case,
only certain accelerated frames) is a red herring usually used by people
who want to dodge the problems caused by the interpretative difficulties
generated by trying to apply SR to real-world situations. Whether you attribute
these difficulties to conceptual problems in the application of
the theory or (as I do) to logical problems in the foundations of the theory
-- you cannot make the problems go away just by waving your hands.
Bob Cormack
Oz
<Snip of metaphysical wanderings> :-)
>OK, how many points so far?
It depends on how much you smoked! :-)
Vertner Vergon
: "Dr. David Rosen" <drosen> responded to:
Wheeler's method is pitifully inept and faulty. This is very apparent
in his space-time diagram which purportedly resolves the paradox.
I have pointed this out elsewhere but will repeat it here if necessary.
The answer to the paradox is simple. At the risk of being redundant
I will repost it here (because it is short).
TIME VARIATION
but this is not what is observed during flight (which is .268 and 3.73).
V.V.
Vertner Vergon
Besides, anyone on the frontiere is bound to make mistakes.
He gave *transverse mass* of the moving electron as m/R ((where
R = Lorentz transform)) and *longitudinal* mass as m/R^3.
Everone today regards the "mass increase" along the line of mation
as m/R.
******
He made a more significant error when he did not recognize that upon
approach observers will find time rate to compress, or speed up.
This makes as nonexistent the twins paradox.
*******
The addition of velocities theorem is also in error. You can test it by
observing that momentum is not conserved when using the theorem.
********
In section 7 of his 1905 paper Al gives an equation for the observed
frequency (nu') of light. It is in error.
1 - cos phi * v/c
nu' = nu ---------------------
R
( phi is the direction ofthe observer)
TEST:
Assume the following conditions: 90> phi >0 and is constant.
Thus velocity is is in a *recessional* mode and *direction does not
change*.
As v -->c, the equation shows the progressive decrease in frequency to
*reverse* -- (when v/c = cos phi) -- eventually resulting in a frequency
GREATER than that emitted.
There is no known empirical verification of this contradictory phenomemon.
(I know what the response will be but will not address that until someone
proposes it.) -- And it is erroneous.
V.V.
Wayne Throop
: Just where does this "3 orders of magnitude" cutoff level come from,
: Wayne? Is this your "engineering rule of thumb", or is there some
: theoretical analyses that I'm unaware of that single out this level?
It's not even a rule of thumb. It's just something that distinguishes
the two cases. The HK experiment had to take account of gravitational
red shift, where (it is my largely unsupported belief) that analyses of
particle accelerators generally don't need to do so.
: As far as I know (and I'm pretty well read in the literature of SR),
: there is no justification for any such dividing level. Many
: experiments analyzed with SR achieve much more precision than 1 in
: 1000, and so would show effects of accelerated frames if there were any.
Agreed. I intended no claim that SR is of limited precision in general.
: "SR has absolutely no problem with non-inertial frames. It is
: complete so long as one sticks to Minkowski spacetime, regardless of
: what frames are singled out."
Again agreed. I believe chapter 6 of "Gravitation," by Misner, Thorne,
and Wheeler shows how to do analyses from an accelerating observer's
POV. I was merely claiming that you can't simply *ignore* the
acceleration of the frame and use vanilla lorentz transforms as if the
frame were unaccelerated.
: The statement that SR doesn't apply to accelerated frames (in Throop's
: case, only certain accelerated frames) is a red herring usually used
: by people who want to dodge the problems caused by the interpretative
: difficulties generated by trying to apply SR to real-world situations.
Agreed yet again. The most common form is in the twin paradox, as in
"the accelerated twin needs GR to get the right result, so there's no
paradox". Not so, the accelerated twin doesn't need GR. (There's still
no paradox, of course.) The AT needs merely to avoid the trap of using
the vanilla forms of the lorentz transform, because those presume
uniform motion.
At base, there is probably a misconception... that SR and GR are really
sharply distinct things. As weemba implicitly points out, any division
between them is quite arbitrary and fuzzy. SR and GR are both based on
the notion of all events on the lightcone having zero interval between
them (more or sloppily less; anyways, they are both (AFAIK) classical
points-and-zero-interval-interactions models of space, time, and
events). SR is normally "done" in flat, euclidean spacetime, while GR
is normally "done" to take account of the effects of spacetime
curvature. But this is no different than the difference between, say,
plane trigonometry and spherical trigonometry, at base.
Ray Tomes
>There is no point in distinguishing between PREdictions and postdictions
>when discussing the philosophical soundness of a theory. The single
>word prediction covers both phenomenon. It's of course more dramatic
>when a theory says "over here stupid" and wins.
It is not only more dramatic, it adds something to our knowledge.
A theory that adds nothing to our knowledge is pretty useless.
It is possible for it to be more elegant in which case it might
be easier to learn and that would be of benefit.
>Some retard was comparing his crackpot gibber with string theory, that
>we ought to treat both similarly since neither have any experimentally
>verifiable predictions.
You can now earn points on the reactionary index for this.
In your case you only get about 10 so keep trying 8^)
>I was pointing out that this comparison is retarded.
Oops missed a couple of points there.
>String theory has lots of experimentally verifiable predictions.
>Just none that will single string theory out.
But what would you say to a new theory that has made quite a few
predictions that have been verified and also postdictions of things
which were previously inexplicable? (I mean other than that the
author is a crackpot retard :-)
Ray Tomes rto...@kcbbs.gen.nz
http://www.vive.com/connect/universe/rt-home.htm
Hitech
Matthew P Wiener <wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu> wrote:
>
>Some retard was comparing his crackpot gibber with string theory, that
>we ought to treat both similarly since neither have any experimentally
>verifiable predictions.
Ironically cold fusion currently holds more promise than string theory.
Who is pulling the woolly string over the public's eye this time?
mar...@ix.netcom.com
engineered machines & displays some wonderful capabilities it will
wear miltary overalls sooner that you think ... OH ... what is that
helicopter doing ............................ whaaaaa !!! .........
On a lighter note anyone who can send me data on SR failing (not
due to changes in atmospheric density ,refraction, plasma layers in
mesosphere etc. in GPS & all that empirical constant crap)
PLEASE DO ...
Anthony Potts
On 17 Nov 1995, Matthew P Wiener wrote:
>
> String theory gives lots of known concrete testable predictions, and it
> passes them with flying colors.
>
> The problem is that these predictions are all covered by existing theory.
> --
> -Matthew P Wiener (wee...@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu)
Yep, and so on that point, the theory is no better than one that says "I
believe that pixies control the universe, and that they will cause
neutrons to decay, oh, look, they do decay, my theory must be right"
Of course, there are very good reasons to spend time and effort looking
at string theories, but the fact that they can be made to model nature is
not in itself remarkable. People ought to realise that ANY theory which
does not make predictions which would allow it to be falsified is in
reality not a theory at all, but is instead only a different way of
looking at things, and should be considered no more truthful than that
which has gone before it.
That is why the huge number of new theories of the universe which keep
springing up are ignored by those of us who have actually spent time
working with the current theories. It may be comforting to some to think
that we are moving through the aether, and that neutrons contain an
electron and a positron, but if the people who think this can come up
with a reason that I should down tools on my work on conventional physics
and spend hours pointing out the idiocy of their ideas, I would be glad
to hear it.
I say again to all those who have new theories, what will happen to the
excess of bs in the Z peak at LEP? This is the perfect opportunity for
you to show the world the predictive ability of your fireball/time is
mass/relativity is wrong/light has mass/QM is wrong theory.
Anthony Potts
(and if anyone ever uses the word gibberish about this, then I will
personally kick every last one of their teeth out)
Anthony Potts
On 16 Nov 1995, Vertner Vergon wrote:
>
>
> That's nice, John, but I don't see the relevance.
>
> Space traveler reverses his course and proceeds homeward. The earth clock
> still reads 1.96 to his seven -- as it did on the outward voyage.
>
According to whom?
Remember Vertner, you cannot make such statements in SR. You can only say
what each person sees, and it only confuses matters when you try and say
things like the above.
You would do better to move away from the horrible ambiguities of this
language, and move into doing the full Lorentz equations for problems.
You will find that many supposed problems disappear when you do this.
Anthony Potts
Vertner Vergon
Distribution:
Wayne Throop (throopw%sheol...@dg-rtp.dg.com) wrote:
: : From: b...@compopt.com (Bob Cormack)
<non sequitur deleted>
: : "SR has absolutely no problem with non-inertial frames. It is
: : complete so long as one sticks to Minkowski spacetime, regardless of
: : what frames are singled out."
:
: Again agreed. I believe chapter 6 of "Gravitation," by Misner, Thorne,
: and Wheeler shows how to do analyses from an accelerating observer's
: POV. I was merely claiming that you can't simply *ignore* the
: acceleration of the frame and use vanilla lorentz transforms as if the
: frame were unaccelerated.
As to this acceleration business, I am curious. What is the difference,
if any, between an accelerated system and an *instantaneously* accelerated
system?
It it the fact that there is a change in velocity with respect to time --
or is it the fact there is a difference in velocity?
In short, would there be any *essential* difference in the result if we
took a situation and endowed it with instantaneous acceleration -- and then
repeated it with gradual acceleration?
I have always held that instantaneous merely gave a "cleaner" picture
of the operation and that gradual acceleration gave the same result
but (let's say) drawn out or more complicated.
: : The statement that SR doesn't apply to accelerated frames (in Throop's
: : case, only certain accelerated frames) is a red herring usually used
: : by people who want to dodge the problems caused by the interpretative
: : difficulties generated by trying to apply SR to real-world situations.
:
: Agreed yet again. The most common form is in the twin paradox, as in
: "the accelerated twin needs GR to get the right result, so there's no
: paradox". Not so, the accelerated twin doesn't need GR. (There's still
: no paradox, of course.)
Of course? On what would you base that "of course"? If it has been solved
why is there a plethora of posts still tangling with it? Talk to 40
physicists and you'll get 38 'explanations.
I've seen several different types of space-time diagrams purporting
to lay the paradox to rest. *None of them work.* All are flawed --
including Wheeler's.
Frankly, I get a little perturbed when I see a sloppy piece of work
like that offered as a solution -- and it becomes accepted.
What we have is wishful thinking, a willingness to close ones eyes
and bend one's mind because they *want* the puzzle solved.
There is only *one* valid solution -- and I have offered it all over
these threads. *No one has challenged it* -- nor have they had the good
sense to recognize it.
The resolution requires a change in SR to one *small* extent (where
Einstein erred). It requires a recognition (easily proved) that upon
*approach* time variation is *compressed*, i.e., time speeds up.
The 'paradox' never even appears.
I will shortly be posting a sample twins trip that will settle the matter
once and for all. *Then* you can say, "of course".
: The AT needs merely to avoid the trap of using
: the vanilla forms of the lorentz transform, because those presume
: uniform motion.
Just for fun, suppose I defined acceleration as a progressive change in
uniform motion -- or a *series* of uniform motions?
Regards,
V.V.
: --
: Wayne Throop throopw%sheol...@dg-rtp.dg.com
: thr...@aur.alcatel.com
Wayne Throop
: As to this acceleration business, I am curious. What is the
: difference, if any, between an accelerated system and an
: *instantaneously* accelerated system? It it the fact that there is a
: change in velocity with respect to time -- or is it the fact there is
: a difference in velocity? In short, would there be any *essential*
: difference in the result if we took a situation and endowed it with
: instantaneous acceleration -- and then repeated it with gradual
: acceleration?
Depends on what constitutes an essential difference, but in general
I think the answer is no, the result is the same, at least in the
model of special relativity. For example, if the traveling twin
turns around with infinitely large accelerations lasting an instant,
or turns around with finite accelerations lasting some period of time,
the same time offsets would occur at the same distances when compared
before and after this process. There would be a slight difference
between the two cases, of course, since the details of the trajectory
are different, and the duration of the turnaround is different. But
the before and after spacetime axes would be the same, at least
in the special relativity model.
:: (There's still no paradox, of course.)
: Of course? On what would you base that "of course"? If it has been
: solved why is there a plethora of posts still tangling with it? Talk
: to 40 physicists and you'll get 38 'explanations.
In my experience those 38 explanations all amount to much the same
thing. Why so many people still think there is a paradox; I just don't
know. Certainly, the mathematics of the lorentz transform leads to no
contradiction, no more than the mathematics of coordinate rotations on a
plane lead to contradictions.
Relativity could, of course, fail to describe the world, but that's
another issue. It definitely doesn't lead to a self-contradiction.
: I've seen several different types of space-time diagrams purporting to
: lay the paradox to rest. *None of them work.* All are flawed --
: including Wheeler's.
Well, I'm unaware of these flaws, so I go on my way in blissful ignorance.
Are there also flaws in diagrams of multiple cartesian coordinate systems
set at different angles? Inquiring minds want to know!
( In all seriousness, I want to know. Because I'm aware of the fact
that the two cases are so closely analogous that if there is a "flaw"
in special relativistic space-time diagrams, then there must also be
corresponding flaws in analytic geometry done from cartesian coordinates. )
: I will shortly be posting a sample twins trip that will settle the
: matter once and for all. *Then* you can say, "of course".
What is "the matter" that it will "settle"?
Certainly, the fact that lorentz transforms are self-consistent is not
at all unsettled. Whether they correspond to the real world or not is
annother issue, but I'd think one would need a lot of money to fund a space
trip (or even another round-the-world plane trip with accurate enough clocks).
: Just for fun, suppose I defined acceleration as a progressive change
: in uniform motion -- or a *series* of uniform motions?
Ok. I'll suppose this. Let's all suppose together.
[... interval of time passes ...]
Um... was something supposed to happen when we supposed this?
Or, to be a bit more serious... acceleration is already defined as
the second derivative of position, which seems to be much the same thing
as a "progressive change in uniform motion". So the point of the
supposition completely escapes me, I must admit. The "series
of uniform motions" is presumably decomposing it into events of
essentially-zero duration of essentially-infinite acceleration.
Such a decomposition does not affect relativistic models, so again,
I don't catch the point.
Jonathan Scott
on 21 Nov 1995 14:53:43 GMT,
Vertner Vergon <ver...@cinenet.net> writes:
>I've seen several different types of space-time diagrams purporting
>to lay the paradox to rest. *None of them work.* All are flawed --
>including Wheeler's.
In SR, the elapsed time (or "proper time") experienced by an observer
moving along any world line is given by the space-time length of that
world line which is
integral sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) dt
between the start and end events as viewed from ANY inertial frame of
reference (as the result is invariant). This is closely analogous to
the length of a line in ordinary space.
This means that SR gives us a totally unambiguous answer to the question
of how much anyone has aged along a particular world line, provided that
it is possible to establish an inertial frame of reference from which to
describe the world lines.
The apparent "twin paradox" is about the problems of estimating someone
else's elapsed time from a non-inertial frame of reference.
Since there is no invariant definition of simultaneity at a distance,
this involves a convention about what we mean by "now" at a distance.
The standard method is equivalent to assigning times to events seen at a
remote location by assuming they occurred a time r/c before the time
they are seen, where r is the distance. However, distances vary between
frames of reference (because of the Lorentz contraction) so the time
correction varies in the same way. This means that a change of velocity
results in a change in the apparent distance, and hence requires a
change to the correction applied to estimated times, although of course
the events being seen at a given moment are unaffected by the velocity.
The lesson to be learned is that when you change from one inertial frame
to another, you have to relabel times as well as points in space, and as
for a rotation, the difference between the old and new values is roughly
proportional to the amount of change (the angle or velocity) and to the
distance.
Jonathan Scott
jonatha...@vnet.ibm.com or jsc...@winvmc.vnet.ibm.com