View Full Version : Isn't this a weak basis for time paradoxes ?
Your wide spaceship has inside a light and a receiver, widely separated, sideways to direction of travel. As pilot, you notice the blinking light always takes the same time to hit the receiver, whether you are approaching speed of light or not. But an outside observer notices that the path the light travelled was much, much longer when you are in motion, and therefore perceives it as slower (at near C it creeps along the sidewalls) - so the conclusion is: time is slowing for you as the pilot.
I agree that light travels a much longer distance, but to insist that because of the constancy of C, time must be slowing down, is a jump. How well is the constancy of C established ?
This must not be confused with the simultaneity experiment: If you were seeing a synchronized huge digital clock on Mars, it would be lagging. Here there is no time compression, the report of time is merely delayed. The absence of an ability to verify simultaneity over huge distances to me does not threaten it as a concept ? We are just finding out late about what time it is, but can still have full confidence in the clock..
Your wide spaceship has inside a light and a receiver, widely separated, sideways to direction of travel. As pilot, you notice the blinking light always takes the same time to hit the receiver, whether you are approaching speed of light or not. But an outside observer notices that the path the light travelled was much, much longer when you are in motion, and therefore perceives it as slower (at near C it creeps along the sidewalls) - so the conclusion is: time is slowing for you as the pilot.
I agree that light travels a much longer distance, but to insist that because of the constancy of C, time must be slowing down, is a jump. How well is the constancy of C established ?
Very well. For one, it can be shown that it the speed of light were not consistant for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source. (I.E. a radio in a moving car would not be able to pick up any radio stations)
For another, the effects predicted by the constancy of light (such as the time dilation you mentioned) have already been detected and measured.
Very well. For one, it can be shown that it the speed of light were not consistant for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source. (I.E. a radio in a moving car would not be able to pick up any radio stations)
Janus - I don't understand what you are saying - can you elucidate
ndvcx - your apprehension re the light clock experiments is justified. Although this hyperbole is to be found in almost every beginning text on SR, it poses some vexing questions. For example, if the beam is aimed so that it bounces back and forth when the two frames are not moving relative to one another, and then the frame that contains the source takes off in a relativistic way - the beam will no longer strike the opposite mirror at the same point unless the motion affects the source in such a way that it modifies the direction in which the photons are launched (note-there is no ether substance within the spaceship to drag the beam forward in the direction of motion) so the launch angle of the photon source must be altered in order for the photon beam to strike the opposite mirror perpendicularly as viewed within the moving
spaceship. If the launch angle is not modified when the spaceship takes off, the beam will appear to the outside observer to simply go back and forth retracing the same trajectory - whereas inside the space ship it will appear to propagate backward (opposite to the direction of the spaceship's motion). In this case the observer in the spaceship will be able to make a true measurement of the time taken for the beam to traverse the saw-tooth because he can place on board clocks that are comoving with the spaceship - and the actual time recorded thereby will be t = h/c where h is the hypotenuse of the saw tooth - whereas the outside observer will be able to measure the time in his frame with a single clock as t = L/c where L is the width of the spaceship - the two times will be different - but the difference is not an observational one - it represents two actual (proper) times rather than relative observational conclusions.
More on the above - if (instead of a local source within the spaceship) the photon arrives from an external source (the E frame of the earth) , e.g., traveling at a right angle to the bottom mirror in the spaceship - and it enters through a small aperature - it will sawtooth bounce back and forth (up and down) within the moving space ship and the time between cycles can be determined with two clocks separated by a proper distance as measured in the spaceship (S frame). In the E frame, the photon will be seen to bounce up and down covering the same path and so the proper time for a cycle in the E frame can be measured with one clock - this is configuration is analogous to aberration - so it should not be surprising that there is a difference between the passage of time in the two frames. Now if a photon source is attached to the bottom mirror to launch photons vertically upward when the two frames are not in relative motion, it should not be possible to detect a change in the point where the photon strikes the upper mirror when the spaceship is moving at a constant velocity with respect to the E frame (if this were not the case we could detect absolute uniform motion by simply observing how the spot on the upper mirror moved when the S frame moved). So by what means does the photon adjust its internal trajectory so that the upper spot is unchanged when the source is moving - is the photon somehow given a tangential boost that modifies its direction of departure - if so, does this mean as the author of this thread questions, whether the total velocity might be other than c (a vertical component c and horizon component v)? Or is there a relationship between the source velocity (the old emission theory) that takes into account the velocity of the tangent component without affecting the constancy of c? The photon entering from the exterior frame E is obviously unaffected by the motion of S but the interior launched photon is.
ndvcx - your apprehension re the light clock experiments is justified. Although this hyperbole is to be found in almost every beginning text on SR, it poses some vexing questions. For example, if the beam is aimed so that it bounces back and forth when the two frames are not moving relative to one another, and then the frame that contains the source takes off in a relativistic way - the beam will no longer strike the opposite mirror at the same point unless the motion affects the source in such a way that it modifies the direction in which the photons are launched (note-there is no ether substance within the spaceship to drag the beam forward in the direction of motion) so the launch angle of the photon source must be altered in order for the photon beam to strike the opposite mirror perpendicularly as viewed within the moving
spaceship.
It may be best to consider a whole family of light beams or, better, a circular/spherical wavefront emitted at the source. In this case, there's nothing to aim. Light will be reflected by each distant mirror that faced the source.
russ_watters
May10-04, 12:01 AM
Janus - I don't understand what you are saying - can you elucidate Typo fixed: Very well. For one, it can be shown that if the speed of light were not consistant for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source. (I.E. a radio in a moving car would not be able to pick up any radio stations)
ndvcx - your apprehension re the light clock experiments is justified. Although this hyperbole is to be found in almost every beginning text on SR, it poses some vexing questions. For example, if the beam is aimed so that it bounces back and forth when the two frames are not moving relative to one another, and then the frame that contains the source takes off in a relativistic way - the beam will no longer strike the opposite mirror at the same point unless the motion affects the source in such a way that it modifies the direction in which the photons are launched (note-there is no ether substance within the spaceship to drag the beam forward in the direction of motion) so the launch angle of the photon source must be altered in order for the photon beam to strike the opposite mirror perpendicularly as viewed within the moving
spaceship. If the launch angle is not modified when the spaceship takes off, the beam will appear to the outside observer to simply go back and forth retracing the same trajectory - whereas inside the space ship it will appear to propagate backward (opposite to the direction of the spaceship's motion).
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but you seem to be saying that the moving ship must somehow change the launch angle of the light beam else things won't work out right from the point of view of an outside observer. Not so. The properties of a light beam in that moving ship are independent of its speed with respect to another frame. The moving ship doesn't know or care about its speed with respect to an outside observer. It may be zero for all they know.
Of course, the outside observer will observe the light to move at an angle. But this is simply due to the relative motion, not any action on the part of people in the moving ship. Imagine a person in a train car bouncing a ball against the floor of the car. In the car, the ball just goes up and down. But from the point of view of someone watching on the platform, the ball moves at an angle. But obviously the ball-bouncer doesn't change the direction of his bounce to suit the observer on the platform. Light beams are no different.
Very well. For one, it can be shown that it the speed of light were not consistant for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source. (I.E. a radio in a moving car would not be able to pick up any radio stations) .
That’s nonsense. By that same false reasoning, a moving sound observer would not be able to hear any sound.
Moving cars receive redshifted and blueshifted radio signals all the time, but the effect is not noticed because it is extremely slight at low car speeds speeds, so nobody in the car notices it.
NASA receives redshifted and blueshifted signals from space craft all the time. They also have to de-tune or re-tune their receivers to receive these redshifted and blueshifted signals.
There are two causes of the Doppler effects. One is the cause of “stretched out” or “compressed” waves causing a redshift or a blueshift, and the other cause is due to the c - v and c + v effect of the relative speed of the signal and the observer, which also causes a redshift and a blueshift. Droppler explained this in the 1840s and he even predicted the redshifts and blueshifts of starlight, decades before they were ever observed.
For one, it can be shown that it the speed of light were not consistant for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source.
Radio, TV, light, and other EM signals operate as a continuous spectrum. Having a car radio move down a highway while receiving a radio signal is the same as having a planet move through space while receiving light from a star or galaxy. Of course we see redshifted and blueshifted star and galaxy light all the time.
The observed frequency shifts because of those two Doppler causes I just mentioned. Everybody knows about the “stretched out” and “compressed” signals, but not many people today know about the c – v and c + v phenomenon.
It’s the same way with sound waves. This is why an observer riding on an open car at the end of a train observes the NORMAL tone of the train whistle, even though the sound waves are “stretched out” in the air behind the whistle. The second Doppler cause cancels out the first Doppler cause, so no “Doppler effect” is “observed” by the rear train observer, even though there are two separate and distinct Doppler effects at work in this example.
If what you are saying were true, no one would be able to observe light waves coming from any star that the earth is moving relative to, which means that because the earth is moving around the sun, earth people, by your “hypothesis”, would not be able to observe any starlight at all, since the earth is moving relative to all stars, and it is moving relative to the light photons emitted years ago by those stars. This produces a c - v and c + v effect relative to the moving earth, at some distance from the surface of the earth, probably several thousand miles.
Doc al - yes - I agree with what you have said - with the ball analogy we have no issue - and if we were emitting electrons rather than waves - the notion of comoving particles of any sort is without question - no coorections are required inside the moving spaceship --- and if photons act like electrons in the their emission(s) then the changed velocity of the S frame after acceleration is accounted for because all elements of the capsule are comoving - but can particle physics be applied to the direction of photon trajectory - thre photon travels with respect to space via wave phenomena - the S frame has gone through an acceleration - how does the photon source get updated as to the fact that the emission source has undergone acceleration - unless there is a component of the velocity that is emission velocity dependent - for example, emission by an equivalent source outside the S frame of the moving spaceship that enters through an aperature will not strike the upper mirror directly above the aperature (because of aberration) but the photon emitted from the same perpendicular laser source (for example) inside the moving frame S will -- so my iintrigue here boils down to the issue of how the two emissions are mechanically correlated. SR of course solves the issue be definition.
Doc al - yes - I agree with what you have said - with the ball analogy we have no issue - and if we were emitting electrons rather than waves - the notion of comoving particles of any sort is without question - no coorections are required inside the moving spaceship --- and if photons act like electrons in the their emission(s) then the changed velocity of the S frame after acceleration is accounted for because all elements of the capsule are comoving - but can particle physics be applied to the direction of photon trajectory - thre photon travels with respect to space via wave phenomena
Particle or wave model, take your pick. Either way you need to specify the direction of the light with respect to some frame. Then you can use the Lorentz transformations to find the angle that the light will make in any other frame.
- the S frame has gone through an acceleration - how does the photon source get updated as to the fact that the emission source has undergone acceleration - unless there is a component of the velocity that is emission velocity dependent
The S frame is moving along at a uniform (high) velocity. No need to "update" the photon source--since nothing is happening to it. But the velocity of the light (the direction, at least) is frame dependent. So from the "stationary" frame's viewpoint the light in the ship does move at an angle.
- for example, emission by an equivalent source outside the S frame of the moving spaceship that enters through an aperature will not strike the upper mirror directly above the aperature (because of aberration) but the photon emitted from the same perpendicular laser source (for example) inside the moving frame S will
That outside light is emitted perpendicular to the direction of the ship's velocity as seen in the stationary frame. But observers in the ship will see it as moving at an angle: Lorentz transformation (aberration) again.
-- so my iintrigue here boils down to the issue of how the two emissions are mechanically correlated. SR of course solves the issue be definition.
Well, I wouldn't say that SR solves the problem by definition. (I'm not really seeing a problem. :smile: ) But SR certainly explains how the angle of a light "ray" transforms between frames, and how what is perpendicular in one frame moves at an angle in another.
Imagine a person in a train car bouncing a ball against the floor of the car. In the car, the ball just goes up and down. But from the point of view of someone watching on the platform, the ball moves at an angle. But obviously the ball-bouncer doesn't change the direction of his bounce to suit the observer on the platform.
But it doesn’t take any longer for the ball to go up and down for the guy on the train and the guy on the ground, so there is no “time dilation” involved in this phenomenon. The ball is still traveling up and down about 4 feet. The added motion of the train gives the ball an additional sideways motion. But it still covers the 4 feet in the same amount of time. No time dilation.
What you need to do is bounce the ball on an open flatcar while the train is moving and see what happens and you will see how this bouncing ball analogy is not a good one. The guy throws the ball toward the floor of the flat car and the wind blows it toward the back of the flat car. The reason the ball goes up and down with him inside the sealed train car is because the air is traveling with the guy and the ball. But the guy is moving through the air when he is on the open flatcar.
So there are two things to consider with light: 1) the inertia frame, and 2) the propagating medium. This is just like the guy with the ball inside the car and outside on the flatcar.
If a guy is bouncing a light beam off a mirror, and we say he is “stationary” with another guy in space (floating in space), when the guy and the laser and mirror start to accelerate and move, there is no reason to believe that the light beam will start accelerating sideways and move along with the guy and the mirror. Once the light beam has left his laser, the guy and his laser have no more influence over it. It is not going to start moving sideways with the guy and his laser and his mirror.
Yogi is right, when the guy starts to move, the beam is going to miss the mirror.
Well - yes - during acceleration there is a curvature of the beam as seen in the moving S frame because the photon's path is unaffected by the motion of the S frame once it has left the source (this is just a version of Einstein's elevator thought experiment). But the same does not hold for uniform velocity, this is where ether theories can be deceptive - the photon's trajectory is not modified by any ether wind if such exists just as a particle in an ideal fluid is not affected by motion relative thereto (D Alambert's proof). What is curious is that a photon source such as a laser aimed for example, at a distant planet, will not emit photons in the direction of the planet when it is moving perpendicular to the direction of its aim - in other words, the direction of the photon is determined by the sideways motion of the source but not its velocity (if the conventions of SR are correct) --- as opposed to a bullet fired from a rifle that is mounted to a platform moving perpendicular to the direction of aim (e.g., shooting buffalo from a moving train) where the velocities add pythagorean wise
But the same does not hold for uniform velocity, this is where ether theories can be deceptive - the photon's trajectory is not modified by any ether wind if such exists
You can’t have a Doppler effect caused by “stretched out” or “compressed” light waves without a medium. It is the medium that stretches out or compresses the light waves of the emitter that is moving through the medium.
If your moving source always acts like the center of expanding light “spheres”, and the center of the spheres move through space with the source, there is no “stretched out” light waves toward the rear of the source and no compressed waves to the front of it. This is an “inertial” situation and a “no medium” situation, and thus the waves can never be “stretched out” or “compressed”. And the light will be moving sideways with the emitter. A diagram of this will show light being emitted as concentric circles around the emitter, no matter how fast the emitter’s speed is.
However, if you use this model, that means an observer to the rear of the moving emitter will receive the light at the speed of c – v. And that is what would cause the redshift, since the source is not emitting stretched out waves.
You can’t have it both ways with “no medium” AND “stretched out” light waves in space trailing behind a moving emitter.
the photon's trajectory is not modified by any ether wind
Here is an example of stretched out and compressed light waves in a University Doppler diagram, but you would need a medium for this to occur. The light is traveling at “c” relative to the medium but not “c” relative to the emitter.
LINK (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Light/doppler.html)
Here is another example and you can see what would happen with your light clock. Click on the gray area (which represents the medium), then drag the mouse to the right. A yellow vector arrow represents v < c.
LINK (http://lectureonline.cl.msu.edu/~mmp/applist/doppler/d.htm)
Notice that each light beam moving "up" will miss a mirror that is moving with the emitter, and the waves behind the emitter are stretched out. It is the motion of the emitter through the medium that is doing this.
If there were no medium, then the circles of light around the moving emitter would be concentric, not offset.
But it doesn’t take any longer for the ball to go up and down for the guy on the train and the guy on the ground, so there is no “time dilation” involved in this phenomenon. The ball is still traveling up and down about 4 feet. The added motion of the train gives the ball an additional sideways motion. But it still covers the 4 feet in the same amount of time. No time dilation.
Sure there is time dilation. It's just not significant at "normal" speeds. Get that train moving at some good fraction of the speed of light and time dilation will be evident.
If a guy is bouncing a light beam off a mirror, and we say he is “stationary” with another guy in space (floating in space), when the guy and the laser and mirror start to accelerate and move, there is no reason to believe that the light beam will start accelerating sideways and move along with the guy and the mirror. Once the light beam has left his laser, the guy and his laser have no more influence over it. It is not going to start moving sideways with the guy and his laser and his mirror.
Don't confuse things by thinking of acceleration. Keep it simple. The two frames are in uniform motion with respect to each other. Think of them as being in two different space ships. Do you really think that the person in ship A must do something to aim his light differently just because ship B is moving past him?
What is curious is that a photon source such as a laser aimed for example, at a distant planet, will not emit photons in the direction of the planet when it is moving perpendicular to the direction of its aim - in other words, the direction of the photon is determined by the sideways motion of the source but not its velocity (if the conventions of SR are correct) --- as opposed to a bullet fired from a rifle that is mounted to a platform moving perpendicular to the direction of aim (e.g., shooting buffalo from a moving train) where the velocities add pythagorean wise
Actually the velocities add in exactly the same manner for bullets and light beams: relativistically. Of course for low, bullet-like speeds, this reduces to the classical galilean addition of velocities formula.
As I mentioned in a previous post, the angle that the laser beam moves depends on the frame in which it is observed. So a laser beam aimed perpendicular to the motion of the planet, will be detected as hitting the planet at an angle (per the Lorentz transformations for velocity). This is our old friend aberration again.
Sure there is time dilation. It's just not significant at "normal" speeds. Get that train moving at some good fraction of the speed of light and time dilation will be evident.
Do you have some documentation that proves a bounced ball in a train will bounce at a slower rate if the train is moving? I’ve never heard of such a thing in physics. I think you are getting your imagined light signals mixed up in your thought experiments.
Don't confuse things by thinking of acceleration. Keep it simple. The two frames are in uniform motion with respect to each other. Think of them as being in two different space ships. Do you really think that the person in ship A must do something to aim his light differently just because ship B is moving past him?
In real life, something can’t start to move or change position without accelerating. The light from the accelerating laser will miss the mirror.
If we have two guys next to each other in space, and if they have two “light clocks” with the laser light bouncing up and down, then if one of them starts to move, the light from the laser that starts to move isn’t going to start moving sideways for no reason. You are thinking of projectiles, such as machine gun bullets that have mass. A machine gun bullet will move sideways, but light has been proven to not act like projectiles.
Do you have some documentation that proves a bounced ball in a train will bounce at a slower rate if the train is moving? I’ve never heard of such a thing in physics. I think you are getting your imagined light signals mixed up in your thought experiments.
Documentation? It's called relativity! Or do you think relativity only applies to light? The bouncing ball is as much a "clock" as anything else: it will be seen to bounce at a slower rate if viewed from a moving frame. (Obviously in its own frame the bounce rate doesn't change.)
The reason why light is used in thought experiments is because it's easy to describe how light behaves in various frames. But the relativistic effects don't depend on light.
Documentation?
I didn’t think you had any real documentation.
The reason why light is used in thought experiments is because it's easy to describe how light behaves in various frames. But the relativistic effects don't depend on light.
LINK TO ILLUSTRATIONS (http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4db33b3127ccebe323715517a0000001610)
The standard model today in both physics and astronomy for a moving light source is shown in the bottom drawing, with the source moving toward the right and the centers of each expanding circle of light waves remaining behind the moving source, and each wavelength being stretched out behind the source.
This requires a “medium”, since the light is being regulated to “c” relative to the medium, not relative to the moving source.
Your “inertial” model of emission is shown in the top diagram, with the source moving to the right and the centers of the expanding circles of light moving to the right with the moving source. I don’t know of any major physics theories today that support this point of view. The BB model supports the “stretched out wavelength” point of view. The standard model of redshifted starlight from stars moving away from the sun and earth supports the “stretched out wavelength” point of view.
If you say the moving source emits “stretched out” waves, then you can’t use the “inertial model” of the emission of light, and you must acknowledge that it is motion through the medium that “stretches out” the light waves.
If you use your “inertial model” of the emission of light, in which the centers of the expanding light circles follow the motion of the moving emitter, you don’t need a medium, but then you must use the c – v observer-relative velocity of light as being the reason for the observed Doppler redshift.
There are two separate and distinct causes of Doppler redshift effects:
1) “stretched out” light waves behind a moving emitter, with the observer receiving the stretched out light waves over a longer period of time than normal, thus he perceives a redshift in the frequency of the light,
or:
2) an observer-relative wave velocity of c – v, with the waves not being “stretched out,” but they are received by the observer at a slower rate normal, over a longer period of time, thus he perceives a redshift in the frequency of the light.
russ_watters
May12-04, 02:12 PM
Note to Doc Al: David does not accept Einstien's Relativity (or for that matter, a lot of what is known about light). That's what this is all about: You can’t have a Doppler effect caused by “stretched out” or “compressed” light waves without a medium. It is the medium that stretches out or compresses the light waves of the emitter that is moving through the medium. David, you are operating on the assumption that doppler shift requires a medium because it doesn't make sense to your version of logic that a wave can exist without a medium in/on which to propagate. As you well know, your view is not the accepted view in modern physics. Please refrain from discussing it in this forum: if you want to argue against accepted physics, use the Theory Development forum.
Hijacking a thread posted by a user who honestly wants to learn physics in order to promote your own pet theory is not acceptable.Do you have some documentation that proves a bounced ball in a train will bounce at a slower rate if the train is moving? I’ve never heard of such a thing in physics. I think you are getting your imagined light signals mixed up in your thought experiments. Certainly such an experiment would never be conducted by a real physicist: it can't be done with anywhere near the precision required to measure time dilation. Much better experimental evidence in favor of the modern version of Relativity exists by the truckload. The point of a thought experiment, as you well know, is to use a simple example in order to explain the concepts.
I’m having a discussion with Doc, and I think he is capable of handing his side of the discussion by himself.
David - that is the interesting point - if the photon has left the source, it will not be influenced by the sidewise acceleration of the source - or its ultimate velocity - but before it leaves the source, the sideways uniform velocity of the source does affect the direction in which the photon departs just as if it were a bullet rather than a wave.
Yogi,
Let’s say we’ve got a star that is fixed relative to the sun. So we both might agree that the light from the star travels toward the sun at “c”, and the waves are normal, not being stretched out or compressed in space.
Ok, so, how would you use “relativity” theory to explain the redshift of starlight observed at the earth as the earth revolves around the sun, when the earth is moving away from a star that is fixed relative to the sun?
Doppler Law explains this phenomenon, but SR and GR theory do not.
Ok, so, how would you use “relativity” theory to explain the redshift of starlight observed at the earth as the earth revolves around the sun, when the earth is moving away from a star that is fixed relative to the sun?
Doppler Law explains this phenomenon, but SR and GR theory do not.
Stop making things up! See my other post, in which I give the relativistic Doppler formula. This redshift is a direct consequence of relativity.
Stop making things up! See my other post, in which I give the relativistic Doppler formula. This redshift is a direct consequence of relativity.
You stop making things up, and stop being rude. Anyway, I was asking Yogi on this thread, not you.
Doppler discovered and explained the “Doppler shifts”, back in the 1840s. He described the causes and reasons for it, and the equations. Einstein didn’t discover it. That's why they are called "the Doppler shifts", and not "the Einstein shifts".
David - are saying that there can be no Doppler shift without a propagation medium - It is of course easier to explain the physics if a medium is assumed, and while the formulas derived for light are different than those derived for sound - the former are nonetheless mathematically correct based upon the differences between sound and light.
David - are saying that there can be no Doppler shift without a propagation medium - It is of course easier to explain the physics if a medium is assumed, and while the formulas derived for light are different than those derived for sound - the former are nonetheless mathematically correct based upon the differences between sound and light.
The single “relativistic” formula is actually designed to cover up the issue of the “medium”. The relativistic formula reveals the amount of shift, but without revealing which object (the observer or emitter) is moving through the medium.
So far, no one has ever been able to identify what the “medium” is, and so quite a lot of scientists would rather just try not to think about it. This is where the relativistic formula comes in handy.
However, if you think about it for a while, you should begin to understand that if a star and the sun are fixed relative to each other, this means the star is not emitting either redshifted or blueshifted light in the direction of the sun, and so the starlight waves are neither contracted nor stretched out. So, when the earth sees a blueshift and then later a redshift of the starlight, as the earth revolves around the sun, and when the amount of shift seen perfectly matches the 18.6 mps speed of the earth, this proves that the earth is moving through “something”, some kind of light-speed-regulating medium, that regulates the speed of the oncoming light as the light passes through our solar system.
This is why Michelson and Morley expected a non-null result during their experiment. But surprise surprise, they got a null result.
So how does one reconcile the redshifts and blueshifts as seen on earth during its annual motion around the sun, with the null result of the Michelson Morley experiment? The most logical explanation is that the elusive “medium” is some kind of “local” phenomenon, meaning the earth’s local medium travels through space with the earth, out to several thousand miles away from the earth. This tends to suggest that the “medium” and local “media” are somehow related to the local fields that are generated by astronomical bodies.
Einstein noticed this implication after he developed his 1911 gravitational redshift theory, and in 1918 he wrote:
“There, empty space in the previous sense has physical qualities, mathematically characterized by the components of the potential of gravitation that determine the metrical behavior of that portion of space as well as its gravitational field. This situation can very well be interpreted by speaking of an ether whose state varies from point to point.”
In 1920 he wrote:
”Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.”
But trying to pin down this “ether” and identify it for sure and describe exactly how it works, has been one of the most frustrating things in all of physics.
A lot of people agree that light might be “self propagating”, and that light emitted from a moving star might participate in the star’s “inertial frame” motion, at first, but when the light gets away from the direct gravity-field-influence of the star, the “inertial frame” motion theory no longer holds up, and the “ether” theory comes into play, because at some distance from the star (maybe a few thousand or a few million miles) the speed of the light is no longer regulated to the “inertial frame” of the star but to some kind of “medium” in deep space. And when that light enters our solar system, its speed seems to be regulated to “c” relative to the sun, and when it reaches the earth it seems to be regulated to “c” relative to the earth.
But before the photons actually reach the surface of the earth, the earth and the photons must be traveling at c – v and c + v relative speeds, because that is what produces the red and blue shifts as the earth revolves around the sun.
For example, if the star is moving away from the earth, that would produce a redshift because the waves are “stretched out” relative to the earth. That is due to the motion of the star through some kind of “medium” so that the medium begins to control the speed of the starlight, after it leaves the local “inertial frame” influence of the star. But in addition to this redshift, caused by “lengthened” light waves which are caused by the star moving through a “medium”, there is the additional red and blue shift effect caused by the earth’s motion, and Doppler Law says this is due to the relative c – v and c + v light speed effect.
So, exactly what regulates the speed of light as it travels from place to place through space is not yet known or understood. Someday maybe it will be, but not now. The single “relativistic” equation is basically used to get around this problem and to avoid having to think about it.
selfAdjoint
May16-04, 12:50 PM
After quoting Einstein on his "new aether" (he spelled it that way), by which he ment his gravity field, you say:
But trying to pin down this “ether” and identify it for sure and describe exactly how it works, has been one of the most frustrating things in all of physics.
This is not true. I repeat, Einstein's aether is his gravity field, and for him there IS NO spacetime, only the gravity field. This is because the physical effects of spacetime curvature can be locally "rotated way", as in the zero-g of a falling body, which the gravity field itself cannot; even though the falling body experiences zero-g locally, it is still accelerating globally.
ahrkron
May16-04, 01:34 PM
I’m having a discussion with Doc, and I think he is capable of handing his side of the discussion by himself.
He surely can, but you probably should realize that this are public forums. If you want to have a private conversation, you should use PM's. Otherwise, everybody has every right to reply.
David - yes - I am familiar with the local ether theory - and it does work to explain the MMx null and at the same time it permits us to detect the Doppler shifts related to the earths orbit around the sun relative to a distant star (we also observe a diurnal variation in the CBR - also presumably due to our motion relative to something) - but would you not get the same result without a medium - in other words, why can't the em waves be self sustaining - moreover, what part does the medium play? I don't see how the medium is necessary to regulate the speed (I am not saying that it isn't - I don't see where the connection is - it is true that once the light leaves the star or whatever, it will be independent thereof - and its attributes (velocity etc) are thereafter determined by the properties of space - but can't we get to the same result by simply accepting the notion of a self-sustaining em wave?
David - what if it turns out that we conduct an MMx type experiment in free space and we get the same result (null). The problem I have with the local ether theory is that it is a johnny come lately ad hoc. It could be correct - if it isn't you and Tom Van Flanderen will be dining exclusively on Crow.
David - what if it turns out that we conduct an MMx type experiment in free space and we get the same result (null). The problem I have with the local ether theory is that it is a johnny come lately ad hoc. It could be correct - if it isn't you and Tom Van Flanderen will be dining exclusively on Crow.
A lot of guys believe in the “local ether” theory. Dr. Ching-Chuan Su of Taiwan has written many papers about it in major mainstream journals around the world:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:flaoWtHDgq8J:www.ee.nthu.edu.tw/ccsu/+%22local+ether%22+Su&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Davis and Lineweaver have explained it in terms of local “comoving space”.
The problem with SR today is that guy invest a total of $9.95 for “The Principle of Relativity” and they think those old Einstein theories still apply, but many of them don’t. Science has progressed since 1905. A modern relativity cult has grown up around just those papers in that book. In the meantime, the cultists totally ignore Einstein’s changes that he made to his theories in his later papers. For example, he re-introduced the “ether” concept in 1918 and 1920 papers. You need to read them.
Anyway, Einstein got most of his ideas for SR from Lorentz’s “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”, published in 1895. Get a copy of the Lorentz book and you’ll see what I mean.
I would take issue with your comment that Einstein got his ideas from Lorentz - it was Lorentz that made adaptations to his ether theory after Einstein successfully embellished upon SR to derive the equivalence of mass and energy, time dilation, the relationship between inertia and velocity, etc. I know the transforms are identical - but the meaning of the temporal term is different - I would agree that Einstein was vague on the issue of actual vs apparent time slipage - still a subject of debate on these forums since both interpretations are advanced depending upon the post person -
I would also take partial issue with the idea that Einstein reintroduced the ether principle - first of all he never abolished it - he only said you can get the correct relationships without making any assumptions that an ether exists - and he seemed to be firmly committed even after 1920 that it was impossible to detect motion with respect to space - while at the same time he regarded space as having properties. I wonder what he would have said had he known of the anisotrophy of the CBR? Not only did it embrace gravitational and electrical fields - but his most significant statement about the reality of the ether was in connection with the inertial force that instantly arises whenever matter is accelerated.
David - in connection with the above - here is a quote you will probably enjoy:
As its founder recognized, Special Relativity was, however, compatible with the notion an ethereal medium? In his 1929 tribute to Faraday and Newton:
“..every attempt to deny the physical reality of space collapses in the face of the law of inertia. For if acceleration is to be taken as real, then space must also be real within which bodies are conceived as accelerated. Newton saw this with perfect clarity and consequently he called space ‘absolute” ..the forces between particles were regarded as unconditionally associated with the particles themselves. ...Mere empty space was not admitted as a carrier for physical changes and processes. It was only ..the stage on which the drama of material happenings was played.”
“...The ether was invented, penetrating everything, filling the whole of space, and admitted as a new kind of matter. ... it was overlooked that by this procedure, space itself had been brought to life...It (the ether) was thus to some degree identical with space itself.... In this way the field theory was born as a illegitimate child of Newtonian physics.”
“To become fully conscious of this change in outlook was a task for a highly original mind whose insight could go straight to essentials, a mind that never got stuck in formulas. Faraday was this favored spirit. His instinct revolted at the idea of forces acting directly at a distance which seemed contrary to every elementary observation.” If one electrified body attracts or repels a second body, this was for him brought about not by a direct action from the first body to the second, but through an intermediary action. The first body brings the space immediately around it into a certain condition which spreads itself into more distant parts of space according to a certain spatiotemporal law of propagation. This condition of space was called ‘the electric field.’ The second body experiences a force because it lies in the field of the first, and vice versa. The ‘field’ thus provided a conceptual apparatus which rendered unnecessary the idea of action at a distance. Faraday also had the bold idea that under appropriate circumstances fields might detach themselves from the bodies producing them and speed away through space as free fields; this was his interpretation of light.”
David - in connection with the above - here is a quote you will probably enjoy:
As its founder recognized, Special Relativity was, however, compatible with the notion an ethereal medium? In his 1929 tribute to Faraday and Newton.
Yes, that’s an excellent Einstein quote from the paper in which Einstein discussed his “Unitary Field Theory”. This was supposed to be his “Third” great “Stage” of relativity theory. Unfortunately, it never worked out.
See the part where he says the fields can “detach” themselves and “speed away through space”? This is basically Maxwell’s oscillating fields theory of light propagation. With this concept, it would seem that light does not need a propagating medium. And if this is true, then light does not need an “ether” in which to propagate.
However, there is plenty of evidence that shows light speed is somehow “regulated” inside the various areas of space through which it travels. One of the best evidences of this is in the light from revolving binaries. You’ve probably heard about this one, the “fast” light never overtakes the “slow” light, and this is a solid indication that some kind of “speed regulating medium” regulates the light speed to “c” in the space between the binaries and the earth.
Einstein never could quite figure out how this “regulating” worked, i.e. the exact quantum-level physical mechanism of how it worked. Other guys have been working on this for years, and such a “medium” is absolutely necessary, based on what we see of light coming into the earth from deep space.
Think of it this way: We’ve got billions of galaxies moving rapidly relative to one another. We assume that light travels through each galaxy at an average of “c”. But when light leaves a moving galaxy and enters our galaxy and eventually arrives at the earth, it is traveling locally at “c”. So, what causes it to change rates from the relative speed of “c” in the distant moving galaxy to the relative speed of “c” when it arrives in our galaxy? The basic “local ether” theory says this has something to do with the fields in each galaxy, with the local fields traveling with each galaxy, and the fields acting as the speed regulating “medium” for light inside each galaxy.
The Davis-Lineweaver paper takes this approach, but they just call the local medium the “comoving space” of an individual galaxy, and they avoid talking about the quantum physical mechanism of that “space” that actually does the light-speed regulating in each galaxy.
I would take issue with your comment that Einstein got his ideas from Lorentz -
Well, before you say that, you need to get a copy of the 1895 Lorentz book. It was Lorentz who invented “time dilation” in oscillating atomic clocks (fundamental oscillating atoms). He also invented “length contraction”, the “speed limit of c”, increased mass due to motion, and the “relativistic” Doppler effect. This stuff is in the 1895 book, which was published when Einstein was 16 years old. Lorentz started writing papers about relativistic electrodynamics in 1892, when Einstein was just 13 years old.
In a 1907 paper Einstein credits this 1895 book as being the origin and inspiration of his own “time dilation” ideas.
In Lorentz’s 1920 book, he quoted Einstein as telling a New York Times reporter:
“This led the Dutch professor, Lorentz, and myself to develop the theory of special relativity.”
In a 1907 paper Einstein quoted Paul Ehrenfest as saying:
”In the formulation in which Mr. Einstein published it, Lorentzian relativistic electrodynamics is rather generally viewed as a complete system.”
So, it was well known in the 1905-1920 era that Lorentz, not Einstein, developed the basic modern “relativity” theory, and that in SR Einstein merely modified the original Lorentz theory, specifically leaving out the “ether”, which Einstein re-introduced back into “relativity” in 1918.
selfAdjoint
May17-04, 10:19 AM
No, from your own quotes, what Lorentz developed and Einstein recast was "relativistic electrodynamics". In the course of doing that recasting Einstein invented Relativity properly so called.
russ_watters
May17-04, 03:31 PM
After quoting Einstein on his "new aether" (he spelled it that way), by which he meant his gravity field... And yes - David already knows this as well. We've had this discussion (complete with those and other Einstein quotes) several times. There is even a great quote where Einstein says something like 'I can't imagine a universe without an aether...' [David stops there] and then goes on to explain exactly what he means: that his "aether" is not the classical "ether." A lot of guys believe in the “local ether” theory. Dr. Ching-Chuan Su of Taiwan has written many papers about it in major mainstream journals around the world: And as we have also already discussed, Su admirably and honestly admitted flat out that at the moment his theories do not match observations very well.
I repeat, Einstein's aether is his gravity field,
This is true, but neither he nor anyone else has been able to come up with the exact quantum-level mechanics of exactly how gravity acts as a light-speed-regulating medium.
And there is another problem... we all know that the strongest parts of the gravity field “travel through space” with the astronomical bodies that generate them, but what happens in deep space when the fields of many bodies are “blended”? How do the fields “blend”? If gravity fields propagate, then how do they blend and propagate at the same time? How can the gravity field affect the speed of free and self-propagating oscillating electric and magnetic fields?
These are difficult questions to answer.
There is even a great quote where Einstein says something like 'I can't imagine a universe without an aether...' [David stops there] and then goes on to explain exactly what he means: that his "aether" is not the classical "ether." And as we have also already discussed, Su admirably and honestly admitted flat out that at the moment his theories do not match observations very well.
I know it is not a “classical ether”. In fact, a better term for it would be a “light speed regulating medium”, especially if light is “self propagating”. The classical universal ether was sort of like a thin “gas”, but the real “local ether” is more like a “field”.
What Einstein said about “ether” at the end of his 1918 and 1920 papers is that while gravity fields act as a kind of ether, they don’t move through space. However, he amended that idea somewhat in his 1952 appendix to his 1916 book, when he acknowledged that at least an electric field moves through space with the body that generates it.
I gave you a long list of several experiments that Dr. Su said his theory matches perfectly. You just ignore it every time I post it.
In one of his papers he specifically said:
“In spite of such a restriction on reference frame, the consequences of this new classical
theory account for a wide variety of experiments with the propagation or
interference of electromagnetic wave, and are in accord with another variety of experiments
commonly ascribed to the special relativity, the general relativity, the Lorentz
mass-variation law, or to the de Broglie matter wave. These experiments include
the Sagnac effect in GPS, the intercontinental microwave link, and in the rotating loop
interferometry; the round-trip Sagnac effect in the interplanetary radar; the
apparently null effect in the Michelson-Morley experiment; the constancy of speed of
light radiated from a moving source; the spatial isotropy with phase stability in the
Kennedy-Thorndike experiment and the one-way fiber-link experiment; the Doppler
shift in Roemer’s observations and CMBR; the effects of a moving medium in Fizeau’s
experiment and the Sagnac loop interferometry; the light deflection by the Sun; the
gravitational effect on the interplanetary radar echo time; the gravitational redshift
in the Pound-Rebka experiment; the speed- and gravitation-dependent atomic clock
rate in GPS, the Hafele-Keating experiment, and in spacecraft microwave links; the
spatial isotropy with frequency stability in the Hughes-Drever experiment; the resonant
absorption in the Ives-Stilwell experiment, in the output frequency from ammonia
masers, and in the Mossbauer rotor experiment; the matter wavelength in the
Davisson-Germer experiment and the double-slit diffraction; the matter-wave Sagnac
effect; and the effects of earth’s rotation and gravity in the neutron interferometry.
Meanwhile, this theory leads to some predictions, particularly the effects of earth’s
motions, which then provide different approaches to test the validity of the local-ether
wave equation.”
No, from your own quotes, what Lorentz developed and Einstein recast was "relativistic electrodynamics". In the course of doing that recasting Einstein invented Relativity properly so called.
Relativistic electrodynamics is the major part of relativity theory. In fact the concept of “time dilation” depends on it.
Keep in mind that after 1911 Einstein began using atomic clocks in his papers. That was because he finally realized that “balance wheel” clocks and other kinds of clocks don’t react to gravity fields and acceleration the same way atomic clocks do.
In 1905 he thought that just “kinematical” and “relative motion” effects would slow down any kind of clock, but he finally realized in 1911 why Lorentz had specifically used atomic clocks in his original relativity theory. This is why Einstein removed balance wheel clocks from his 1918 “clock paradox” paper, and he added atomic clocks, gravity fields, and acceleration effects.
The changes in atomic clock rates that are observed today ARE “electrodynamical” effects.
russ_watters
May17-04, 11:38 PM
I gave you a long list of several experiments that Dr. Su said his theory matches perfectly. You just ignore it every time I post it. I'm quite aware that aether theories can explain a lot and I have never denied it. This is, however irrelevant: aether theories cannot, by Su's own admission, explain as much as Relativity. They are therefore inferior to Relativity (just as Newton's theory is inferior to GR).
David - yes - I am familiar with the local ether theory - and it does work to explain the MMx null and at the same time it permits us to detect the Doppler shifts related to the earths orbit around the sun relative to a distant star (we also observe a diurnal variation in the CBR - also presumably due to our motion relative to something) - but would you not get the same result without a medium - in other words, why can't the em waves be self sustaining - moreover, what part does the medium play?
Sorry I missed this question earlier.
Here’s the problem... If EM waves leave a star based on the star being “an inertial frame”, then let’s say the waves leave the star in all directions at “c”. Ok, now let’s say the star is moving rapidly away from us. That means the star’s light waves are moving toward us at c – v. I think it has been determined by observation of revolving binaries that this can’t happen. Therefore, when we receive the waves, they are traveling at “c” relative to the earth (but c + v relative to the star that emitted them). This means that some kind of light speed regulating “medium” adjusted the speed of the light to “c”, first at and near the surface of the star, and then later at and near the surface of the earth.
Also, without a “local ether,” light emitted by a superluminal galaxy would never reach us, if the light always traveled at “c” relative to that galaxy, since the light could never move toward us, since the galaxy would always be moving away from us at faster than “c”.
What D&L say in their paper is that the light leaves a superluminal galaxy at “c” and is actually moving away from us, but later begins to move toward us and we receive it at “c” here at the earth. This is a “local ether” theory, but they don’t say what the “local ether” is. They just call it local “comoving space” and they avoid the controversy about the “ether”.
In fact, a “local ether” theory is widely accepted in astrophysics today, but it is almost always called local “comoving space” and never a “medium” or an “ether”.
I'm quite aware that aether theories can explain a lot and I have never denied it. This is, however irrelevant: aether theories cannot, by Su's own admission, explain as much as Relativity. They are therefore inferior to Relativity (just as Newton's theory is inferior to GR).
He never said that. And SR never predicted the Westbound clocks would speed up. LOL.
So what do you think about Einstein's 1918 paper about the "clock paradox"?
Don’t you think it is funny that he said, “U2 bleibt in Ruhe” instead of “U1 bleibt in Ruhe” in Teilprozesse 4a? LOL!
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 09:36 PM
Janus: Very well. For one, it can be shown that it the speed of light were not consistant for all observers, electrormagnetic radiation emitted by one source would not be detected as a wave by an observer moving with respect to the source. (I.E. a radio in a moving car would not be able to pick up any radio stations) .
David: That’s nonsense. By that same false reasoning, a moving sound observer would not be able to hear any sound.
Well, duh, that only strengthens the case for relativity! :uhh:
Both EM waves and sound waves satisfy the same wave equation. Janus is correct when he says that the Galilean transformed wave equation is not a wave equation in a frame that is moving with respect to the source. You can see what the EM wave equation looks like under the Galilean transformation either by doing it yourself (if you can), or by looking at Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics Section 11.1. I posted the mathematical details at Sciforums (I'm "Tom2" there). I'll try to find them, but if I can't, then you have a reference to track down.
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 09:53 PM
I posted the mathematical details at Sciforums (I'm "Tom2" there). I'll try to find them, but if I can't....
Found them.
From the thread RCM an Alternative to Relativity (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31035) at Sciforums (http://www.sciforums.com), I made the following post. It was originally in response to another member, so to put everything in context I'll break it up with commentary.
From Maxwell's Equations to the EM Wave Equation:
Using the boldface ∂ for the "del" operator, Maxwell's equations in vacuo are:
∂xE+(1/c)∂E/∂t.....(1)
∂xB-(1/c)∂E/∂t.....(2)
∂.E=0.....(3)
∂.B=0.....(4)
Making use of the vector identity:
∂x∂xA=∂(∂.A)-∂2A,
We can take the curl of equation (1) to obtain:
∂x∂xE+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0
∂(∂.E)-∂2E+(1/c)(∂/∂t)∂xB=0
The part in blue vanishes by virtue of equation (3), and the part in red can be rewritten as -(1/c)∂E/∂t, by virtue of equation (2).
This gives us:
∂2E-(1/c2)∂2E/∂t2=0,
which is a wave equation. Taking the curl of equation (2) and following a similar path will show you that B satisfies the exact same wave equation.
Solutions of the EM Wave Equation:
The components of the plane wave solutions of the wave equation are of the form:
Ai(x,t)=Ai0sin(k.x-wt+f)
where w/|k|=c. Since the solutions have constant phase, we can derive the speed of the waves to be c.
Why Galileo and Maxwell Can't Both Be Right:
If electrodynamics is to be reformulated so that it is Galilean invariant, then the resulting equations will not be Maxwell's equations.
Here's what the reference from Jackson has to say about it. First, assume Galilean relativity. For a moving frame S' and a stationary frame S, we have:
x'=x-vt
t'=t
Let the wave equation hold in frame S. What does it look like in S'? We can derive that as follows:
∂/∂x=(∂x'/∂x)∂/∂x'=∂/∂x'
∂/∂y=(∂y'/∂y)∂/∂y'=∂/∂y'
∂/∂z=(∂z'/∂z)∂/∂z'=∂/∂z'
∂/∂t=(∂x'/∂/t)(∂/∂x')+(∂y'/∂t)(∂/∂y')+(∂z'/∂t)(∂/∂z')+(∂t'/∂t)(∂/∂t')
∂/∂t=v.∂'-(1/c)∂/∂t'
Squaring each operator and writing the equation in the coordinates of S' yields:
(∂'2-(1/c2)(∂2/∂t'2-(2/c2)v.∂'(∂/∂t')-(1/c2)(v.∂)2)Ai=0
where Ai is any component of either the E or B field.
Notice that the above equation is not a wave equation. That means that, if Galilean relativity is correct, then radio waves emitted from towers should become non-waves when you are driving in your car. If Galilean relativity is correct, then you should not be able to listen to the radio in your car.
Why the Correctness of Maxwell Implies the Correctness of Einstein:
The Lorentz transformation, on the other hand, does preserve the form of the EM wave equation.
And to Wrap Up:
This is what none of the preachers of the Anti Relativity Religion understand. Einstein did not pull length contraction and time dilation out of thin air. They are logically derived consequences of the requirement that the EM wave equation and the speed of light be the same in every frame. The original paper was not even called, "Intro to Special Relativity", it was called, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies".
Like it or not folks, relativity is correct. If any of you wants to convince thinking persons otherwise, then you will have to argue on these terms, because these are the terms in which relativity was formulated.
edit: converted subscript and superscript brackets from sciforums format to PF format
Well, duh, that only strengthens the case for relativity! :uhh:
Both EM waves and sound waves satisfy the same wave equation. Janus is correct when he says that the Galilean transformed wave equation is not a wave equation in a frame that is moving with respect to the source
Do you know why a radio antenna is supposed to be the same length as a radio wavelength (or a certain fraction of it, like a quarter-wave or half-wave antenna)?
Because it is the bump, bump, bump of the wave that makes the antenna resonate, and an antenna resonates the most when the antenna length matches the wavelength. Now, you can slow that “bump” rate (frequency) down by either stretching out the wave by moving the emitter or by slowing down the antenna-relative speed of the wave by moving the antenna. Either one will change the frequency.
The motion of the distant galaxies is what causes their redshifts. This lengthens their wavelengths and slows down their EM frequency that we receive. On the other hand, when the earth moves away from a star that is fixed relative to the sun, it is the c – v effect that slows down the frequency and causes the redshift at the earth.
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 10:02 PM
David, this has not one thing to do with Doppler shifts. Read my second post.
Einstein did not pull length contraction and time dilation out of thin air.
No, he got them right out of Lorentz’s 1895 book, “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”.
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 10:11 PM
No, he got them right out of Lorentz’s 1895 book, “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”.
:uhh:
This isn't about the history of science, it's about the veracity of special relativity.
Notice that the above equation is not a wave equation. That means that, if Galilean relativity is correct, then radio waves emitted from towers should become non-waves when you are driving in your car. If Galilean relativity is correct, then you should not be able to listen to the radio in your car.
You are joking, right?
When the earth revolves around the sun the earth-relative speed of the light coming through our solar system is c – v and c + v relative to the earth, at some distance from the surface of the earth, and we still receive radio waves from stars, galaxies, etc. They don’t become “non-waves” just because the earth is moving at 18.6 mps around the sun.
:uhh:
This isn't about the history of science, it's about the veracity of special relativity.
Tom, are both the relatively moving K and K’ systems in the 1905 SR theory Galilean systems, with the relative motion between them being non-accelerated?
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 10:41 PM
You are joking, right?
You hear me laffin?
When the earth revolves around the sun the earth-relative speed of the light coming through our solar system is c – v and c + v relative to the earth, at some distance from the surface of the earth, and we still receive radio waves from stars, galaxies, etc. They don’t become “non-waves” just because the earth is moving at 18.6 mps around the sun.
This is so frustrating.
Yes, David, I know that. The WHOLE POINT of the argument I presented is that the fact you just cited is a confirmation of special relativity, and a falsification of Galilean relativity.
If you don't understand why, just say so.
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 10:43 PM
Tom, are both the relatively moving K and K’ systems in the 1905 SR theory Galilean systems, with the relative motion between them being non-accelerated?
Are both the relatively moving systems what?
And what is a "SR theory Galilean system"?
I don't understand the question.
Are both the relatively moving systems what?
And what is a "SR theory Galilean system"?
I don't understand the question.
Non-accelerated inertial systems, “inertial frames”. Relative motion in a straight line at a steady speed with no acceleration.
Tom Mattson
May20-04, 11:57 PM
Non-accelerated inertial systems, “inertial frames”. Relative motion in a straight line at a steady speed with no acceleration.
Yes, the systems are nonaccelerated and moving in a straight line.
Yes, the systems are nonaccelerated and moving in a straight line.
Hi Tom,
I tried to send you a PM but the board wouldn’t let me. I can’t read my previous PMs or see your or my profile. Would you happen to know why?
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 11:44 AM
I tried to send you a PM but the board wouldn’t let me. I can’t read my previous PMs or see your or my profile. Would you happen to know why?
Yes, it's because one of the Administrators (either Greg or chroot) has made it so that the only function you can use on the board is Theory Development. It seems that this was done with expediency in mind, since Janus and Phobos have to move your threads from the Relativity Forum to Theory Development anyway.
Do you have any kind of answer to the argument I presented?
Yes, it's because one of the Administrators (either Greg or chroot) has made it so that the only function you can use on the board is Theory Development. It seems that this was done with expediency in mind, since Janus and Phobos have to move your threads from the Relativity Forum to Theory Development anyway.
Do you have any kind of answer to the argument I presented?
Sure, but I’m not going to post it now. Not now that I’m a censored second-class citizen here on this forum.
Is that the way you guys run American science today? Censor your debate opponents? Do you realize Einstein had to leave Germany in 1933 for that very reason?
What’s next for me, a concentration camp?
Never again.
Tom Mattson
May21-04, 01:25 PM
Sure, but I’m not going to post it now. Not now that I’m a censored second-class citizen here on this forum.
Go ahead and post it, if you like. You aren't being censored, and no one is going to alter or delete any of your posts.
Is that the way you guys run American science today? Censor your debate opponents? Do you realize Einstein had to leave Germany in 1933 for that very reason?
LOL, David "we" don't "run" anything other than this message board (which is privately owned, and not a democracy, by the way). The issue at hand is that we cannot keep up with every crackpot who thinks he's refuted relativity. We're all volunteers with jobs and lives outside of Physics Forums, and sometimes we have to restrict a member's freedom on the board in the interest of getting on with the business of providing a scientific discussion forum at which people can learn.
What’s next for me, a concentration camp?
Never again.
Oh, the drama.
David, it's a free Web. There are other message boards out there (such as Sciforums, which I linked to in an earlier post), and you can even start your own, if you want.
"we" don't "run" anything
Tom,
Tell me something. In order for you to continue to claim that SR contains no errors, why do you feel you have to ban people who point out its errors?
I mean, if the theory works, then it works, and you shouldn’t be afraid of people who point out that it doesn't work.
The banning of people who point out how it doesn’t work gives the impression that you are trying to cover up the fact that it doesn’t work.
russ_watters
May25-04, 11:29 AM
...why... You haven't been banned and your access hasn't been restricted due to your ideas. Your access has been restricted due to your failure to follow the rules of the board. If you hadn't hijacked threads to promote your own pet "theory," your access would not have been restricted.
You are quite free to argue against Relativity in the TD forum. The drawback of course, is that here everyone is clear on the purpose of the TD forum and you won't be able to masquerade your idea as accepted physics for unsuspecting neophytes.
Tom Mattson
May25-04, 11:43 AM
Tell me something. In order for you to continue to claim that SR contains no errors, why do you feel you have to ban people who point out its errors?
There is not a single member who has ever pointed out an error in relativity. Every anti-relativity post ever made here stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject, as well as an ignorance of how it fits into physics as a whole. But that's not the point. The point is that there exists a tension between our responsibilities to correct errors, and the time we can spend doing it. In the case of some members, it is determined that the only way to achieve both goals is to confine them to Theory Development, where it is not as crucial for us to get to every post as it is in, say, the Special and General Relativity Forum. I say that it's not as crucial because people who read the Theory Development Forum do so with an understanding that what they read is outside the realm of accepted science.
I mean, if the theory works, then it works, and you shouldn’t be afraid of people who point out that it doesn't work.
We don't ban people who think they've pointed out an error in special relativity (Indeed, you weren't banned). The problem is just what I said it is: We only have a finite amount of time and we can't track every would-be overthrower of relativity over the entire website. Anti-relativity posts belong in Theory Development, not in the Forums dedicated to physics and astronomy. If a poster can't or won't respect that, then we can and will make it so that said poster can only post in Theory Development.
The banning of people who point out how it doesn’t work gives the impression that you are trying to cover up the fact that it doesn’t work.
Of course, from your point of view it would seem that way. But the truth is that we restrict people such as yourself to Theory Development because tracking down your posts in the physics and astronomy Forums is simply not worth the time it takes to do it.
There is not a single member who has ever pointed out an error in relativity
This is obviously not true.
I’ve pointed out that Einstein himself could not resolve the clock paradox of the 1905 SR theory by using the terms of the SR theory itself.
In 1918 he finally had to add atomic clocks, acceleration effects, and gravity fields to the SR thought experiments in a phony attempt to resolve the paradox.
That’s why I asked you the question earlier, are all the relative motions non-accelerated in the 1905 SR theory. In 1905, 1907, and 1916 Einstein said they were, but in his 1918 paper he said they weren’t.
The guy obviously made a big mistake in 1905, and he lied in his paper in 1918.
I don’t disagree with “relativity” in general, I just point out that the 1905 SR theory contains major errors, and I proved this by posting quotes from Einstein’s 1918 paper and his deceptive attempt to try to pretend to resolve the clock paradox.
What you moderators do is either ban or restrict posters who point out Einstein’s errors.
Not only that, but Russ Watters has followed me around to other message boards and he has tried to get me and other people banned on them. Anyone who points out Einstein’s errors, Russ wants to have them banned from science message boards. He is obsessed with trying to teach young people today the myth that Einstein never made any mistakes.
Tom Mattson
May25-04, 02:06 PM
Tom: There is not a single member who has ever pointed out an error in relativity.
David: This is obviously not true.
No, it isn't.
I’ve pointed out that Einstein himself could not resolve the clock paradox of the 1905 SR theory by using the terms of the SR theory itself.
In 1918 he finally had to add atomic clocks, acceleration effects, and gravity fields to the SR thought experiments in a phony attempt to resolve the paradox.
OK, so Einstein didn't develop all of the logical consequences of special relativity in his papers. Guess what? That's why special relativity continued to be an active area of research after he published his first paper on the subject!
That’s why I asked you the question earlier, are all the relative motions non-accelerated in the 1905 SR theory. In 1905, 1907, and 1916 Einstein said they were, but in his 1918 paper he said they weren’t.
The guy obviously made a big mistake in 1905, and he lied in his paper in 1918.
I don’t disagree with “relativity” in general, I just point out that the 1905 SR theory contains major errors, and I proved this by posting quotes from Einstein’s 1918 paper and his deceptive attempt to try to pretend to resolve the clock paradox.
This is of no concern to the present discussion. I did not refer you to any of Einstein's papers. I referred you to Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, and I presented the relevant details here. Deal with what I did write, not with what I didn't write.
What you moderators do is either ban or restrict posters who point out Einstein’s errors.
That's not true, one of the moderators (SelfAdjoint) has even pointed out a mistake in the 1905 paper! The actions we take are for the purpose of maintaining the educational value of the site.
Not only that, but Russ Watters has followed me around to other message boards and he has tried to get me and other people banned on them. Anyone who points out Einstein’s errors, Russ wants to have them banned from science message boards. He is obsessed with trying to teach young people today the myth that Einstein never made any mistakes.
Take it up with Russ.
russ_watters
May25-04, 04:16 PM
Not only that, but Russ Watters has followed me around to other message boards and he has tried to get me and other people banned on them. Anyone who points out Einstein’s errors, Russ wants to have them banned from science message boards. He is obsessed with trying to teach young people today the myth that Einstein never made any mistakes. David/Sam5, I was here before you and at BA.com before you (unless of course, you change your name more often than I noticed). You've been banned from neither site. Quite frankly, you're just being childish.
On this site I have a little bit of power (this is the only BB I'm a moderator of), but not much outside of the engineering section and the decision to restrict your access was made without my input (it happened pretty fast).
That said, if you have a problem with me or anyone else on any BB, perhaps you'd be better off starting your own. Then you could control who is on it and what is said.
This is of no concern to the present discussion.
Lol, I’ve heard that before.
I point out that Einstein said in 1905 that the two relatively moving systems are non-accelerating, and I point out that he lied in 1918 when he said that one of them was accelerating. And you or someone else says, “This is of no concern to the present discussion.”
You are blind to his errors and his lies. You don’t want to hear about them.
The title of this thread is, “Isn't this a weak basis for time paradoxes?” And I was talking specifically about his twin paradox error of his 1905 paper.
You said, “There is not a single member who has ever pointed out an error in relativity.” And I pointed out an error in relativity, the error of his clock paradox in his 1905 paper, which he had to lie about to try to pretend to “resolve” in his 1918 paper. And your response is, “This is of no concern to the present discussion.”
That makes you the “crackpot,” not me.
I’m not giving you my theory, I’m showing you Einstein’s 1905 error and his 1918 lie in an attempt to try to cover up that error.
This is what you don’t want to learn about, Einstein’s own theory changes, his own lies, the changing terms of his own theories, his own hoaxes.
You said, “The actions we take are for the purpose of maintaining the educational value of the site.”
No, the actions you take is to ban or restrict everyone who points out any serious errors in any of the Einstein relativity papers. It is not the “educational value” you are worried about, it is the “propaganda value” you are worried about. You want to present the image of Einstein as being “infallible” and “omnipotent”, as a kind of “god of science”, and that is why you feel you must crush anyone who points out any of Einstein’s many errors. Your Einstein threads are not science or physics threads, they are propaganda threads.
That said, if you have a problem with me or anyone else on any BB, perhaps you'd be better off starting your own. Then you could control who is on it and what is said.
You advertise these science boards to be open to the public, and I am the public.
But whenever someone points out the errors of your idol, Einstein, then you ban them or threaten to ban them. You often demanded that BA ban me, and you have threatened me with banning on this board, and finally you have restricted my access to the main threads and you’ve cut off my PM abilities.
What you want to do on the relativity threads is propagandize to the youth and students of the world. You want to suppress the truth and propagandize only, to proselytize your Einstein cult. This is not “science”, it’s politics, cultism, and crackpottery, and you are one of the chief Einstein crackpotters on the internet.
If you don’t want members of the public to come on the board and tell the truth about Einstein’s errors and lies, then don’t pretend this is a “public” board. Call it a “club” or a “Einstein cult” or something of the sort. Advertise up front that you ban all comments that point out Einstein’s errors and lies. Point out on your home page that you will delete and ban all truthful comments about Einstein and his relativity hoaxes.
Tom Mattson
May30-04, 04:13 PM
I point out that Einstein said in 1905 that the two relatively moving systems are non-accelerating, and I point out that he lied in 1918 when he said that one of them was accelerating. And you or someone else says, “This is of no concern to the present discussion.”
You are blind to his errors and his lies. You don’t want to hear about them.
What I meant was that Einstein's character isn't of any concern to the present discussion. I really don't care if you think he was a liar.
The title of this thread is, “Isn't this a weak basis for time paradoxes?” And I was talking specifically about his twin paradox error of his 1905 paper.
You need to review the discussion thread. I responded to your post to Janus, wherein you denied what he had to say about the transformation properties of the EM wave equation. That's what we were talking about, not Einsten's papers.
You said, “There is not a single member who has ever pointed out an error in relativity.” And I pointed out an error in relativity, the error of his clock paradox in his 1905 paper, which he had to lie about to try to pretend to “resolve” in his 1918 paper. And your response is, “This is of no concern to the present discussion.”
That makes you the “crackpot,” not me.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?
I’m not giving you my theory, I’m showing you Einstein’s 1905 error and his 1918 lie in an attempt to try to cover up that error.
This is what you don’t want to learn about, Einstein’s own theory changes, his own lies, the changing terms of his own theories, his own hoaxes.
It's not that I don't want to discuss Einstein's papers, it's that those papers aren't what I'm talking about.
You said, “The actions we take are for the purpose of maintaining the educational value of the site.”
No, the actions you take is to ban or restrict everyone who points out any serious errors in any of the Einstein relativity papers. It is not the “educational value” you are worried about, it is the “propaganda value” you are worried about. You want to present the image of Einstein as being “infallible” and “omnipotent”, as a kind of “god of science”, and that is why you feel you must crush anyone who points out any of Einstein’s many errors. Your Einstein threads are not science or physics threads, they are propaganda threads.
This is just about the dumbest thing I have read at Physics Forums. I am not trying to present Einstein as any kind of scientific deity. In fact, I am not trying to discuss him at all! You are the one who wants to talk about Einstein. I just want to talk about relativity.
Great thinkers talk about ideas.
Good thinkers talk about events.
Poor thinkers talk about people.
Tom Mattson
May30-04, 04:51 PM
You advertise these science boards to be open to the public, and I am the public.
But whenever someone points out the errors of your idol, Einstein, then you ban them or threaten to ban them. You often demanded that BA ban me, and you have threatened me with banning on this board, and finally you have restricted my access to the main threads and you’ve cut off my PM abilities.
What you want to do on the relativity threads is propagandize to the youth and students of the world. You want to suppress the truth and propagandize only, to proselytize your Einstein cult. This is not “science”, it’s politics, cultism, and crackpottery, and you are one of the chief Einstein crackpotters on the internet.
I don't know too much about your history with Russ, and I don't really care about it either. What I do know is that this has no place here, and the next time you make a post that is nothing other than a b*tch session, I am going to delete it.
If you don’t want members of the public to come on the board and tell the truth about Einstein’s errors and lies, then don’t pretend this is a “public” board. Call it a “club” or a “Einstein cult” or something of the sort. Advertise up front that you ban all comments that point out Einstein’s errors and lies. Point out on your home page that you will delete and ban all truthful comments about Einstein and his relativity hoaxes.
I was wrong in my previous post. This is the dumbest thing that I have read at Physics Forums. David, you weren't banned, and none of your posts in this thread have been deleted. If I have to remind you of that again, I am going to start to think that you are brain damaged.
Can we please get away from your conspiracy theories and just talk about relativity? I made a post in this thread in which I argued that the covariance of electrodynamics implies relativity. You have yet to answer that post. Indeed, all you have done in your last several replies to this thread is the very politicking you hold against us. Let's stop it and get back to the issue at hand.
Doctordick
May31-04, 09:31 PM
Why Galileo and Maxwell Can't Both Be Right:You are assuming that "clocks measure time". That is, you are assuming that Newton's and Galileo's idea of time is a valid concept:i.e., that acceptance of Euclid is acceptence of Newton's and Galileo's concept of time. Life is not that simple.
Have fun -- Dick
Tom Mattson
Jun1-04, 11:07 AM
You are assuming that "clocks measure time". That is, you are assuming that Newton's and Galileo's idea of time is a valid concept:i.e., that acceptance of Euclid is acceptence of Newton's and Galileo's concept of time.
Yes, I am assuming it is valid, but only for the purpose of a reductio ad absurdum proof. I assume that Maxwell and Galileo are both right, and show a contradiction. Since Maxwell is indeed right, then Galileo cannot be. It is not my actual position that Galileo's concept of time is valid. In fact, it is the opposite.
Life is not that simple.
You'll have to elaborate.
Doctordick
Jun1-04, 09:46 PM
Hi Tom,
You have submitted a very rational response to every comment I have ever made. That implies to me that you are a rational person. I have had a difficulty communicating a problem I have with Einstein's theory of relativity. Personally, I believe this problem is central to the difficulty between quantum mechanics and relativity (which by the way I have seen many comments supporting the existence of such a problem). However, I have won no supporters to that position.
Einstein's revelation made much of the fact that the simultaneity of clocks presumed by the Newtonian picture was impossible. And yet it was presumed that clocks were the central issue of physical explanation.
It is the position of every professional physicist I have ever talked to that "clocks define time". At the same time each and every one of them will accede that clocks measure exactly "proper time". From a fundamental perspective, this position constitutes a contradiction. It implies that "proper time" and time are exactly the same thing which is an accepted falsehood. If I point this out, I am certified as a crackpot. This has been so for over forty years.
Now, I am sure you have followed my conversation with Russell. Please, would you either point out a flaw in my argument or join in the discussion?
Yours, Doctordick!
I would strongly assert the impropriety of attacking Einstein on the basis that relativity may be flawed in some respect. On the other hand, there are other postulates that lead to the same transforms - and i see no reason why these should not be pointed out to persons who pose intelligent questions about those aspects of SR that are counterintuitive. Einstein may have arrived at the correct result for the wrong reasons - moreover, there appears to be two different views of SR advanced on these forums (as well as different texts) re the reality of time dilation (is it apparent or is it real?). Specifically, I have never seen anyone resolve the triplet problem - no matter how many times I have raised it on these boards. Of course, if time dilation is a physical reality (a la Russ Waters) - there is no twin or triplet paradox - but we are then left with the question of how it occurs. On the other hand, if it is only observational (a la Janus) you need to introduce the notion of acceleration during turn around to justify the time discrepency upon reunion (but there is no acceleration in the triplet scenario). That time dilation appears to be proven fact only confounds the mystery ---the interpretational question remains. Posters should not be chastised because because they call attention to other ways of arriving at results that are
consistent with the experimental findings. On the other hand, these posters have an obligation to point out the many successes of SR. Perhaps a good way to handle this reoccuring issue is to have a page or two stored as a reference on these boards which could be accessed by those posting new questions - specifically, there could be dissertation by one of the Mentors on the subject - covering the standard view, and a similar page or so explaining various alternative theories that have arisen over the years. Richard Feynman frequently started his lectures by proposing theories which he then proceeded to pick apart to show how they couldn't not work. Hopefully these methods lead to reason rather than confusion.
russ_watters
Jun2-04, 07:17 AM
...there appears to be two different views of SR advanced on these forums (as well as different texts) re the reality of time dilation (is it apparent or is it real?). Specifically, I have never seen anyone resolve the triplet problem - no matter how many times I have raised it on these boards. Of course, if time dilation is a physical reality (a la Russ Waters) - there is no twin or triplet paradox - but we are then left with the question of how it occurs. On the other hand, if it is only observational (a la Janus) you need to introduce the notion of acceleration during turn around to justify the time discrepency upon reunion (but there is no acceleration in the triplet scenario). Janus and I were quite clear and we are in agreement on the matter: you observe it because it is physically real. That time dilation appears to be proven fact only confounds the mystery... Only to someone who refuses to accept reality at face value. To the average scientist/engineer, there is no issue.
What I meant was that Einstein's character isn't of any concern to the present discussion. I really don't care if you think he was a liar.
You need to review the discussion thread. I responded to your post to Janus, wherein you denied what he had to say about the transformation properties of the EM wave equation. That's what we were talking about, not Einsten's papers.
Are you even reading what I'm writing?
It's not that I don't want to discuss Einstein's papers, it's that those papers aren't what I'm talking about.
This is just about the dumbest thing I have read at Physics Forums. I am not trying to present Einstein as any kind of scientific deity. In fact, I am not trying to discuss him at all! You are the one who wants to talk about Einstein. I just want to talk about relativity.
You want to discuss “relativity”, but you don’t want me to discuss Einstein or his papers??
Well, then, what you want to do is present your relativity theory.
This thread is about Einstein’s relativity theory, and that’s what I’m talking about.
He backed down on his “constancy” postulate in 1911, and he wrote more papers about backing down about it in 1912 – 1914. I've got his 1912-1914 papers right here in front of me. He finally realized that light speed in space is NOT "constant", and he discussed that in some of those papers, yet you want to keep that information off this board's relativity threads. Why?
In 1905 he said that the two systems in SR theory were both “non-accelerating”, but in 1918, in an attempt to try to get around the clock paradox problem, he claimed that one was “accelerating”.
You and you gang don’t want this information to get out, so you take away my ability to post on the “relativity” threads. You are only interested in putting out your own relativity propaganda on those threads, and I’ve seen you ban other people from them when they try to point out errors in the SR theory.
Don’t you know that word is getting around the internet and the world that you guys are the relativity “crackpots” who are trying desperately to cover up Einstein’s errors?
Specifically, I have never seen anyone resolve the triplet problem - no matter how many times I have raised it on these boards. Of course, if time dilation is a physical reality (a la Russ Waters) - there is no twin or triplet paradox - but we are then left with the question of how it occurs. On the other hand, if it is only observational (a la Janus) you need to introduce the notion of acceleration during turn around to justify the time discrepency upon reunion (but there is no acceleration in the triplet scenario).
What I figure is this....
Some of these guys have spent a lot of time trying to “understand” the 1905 SR paper, which they first read in the $9.95 book, “The Principle of Relativity”.
They have heard that the theory is correct, flawless, and brilliant, and that originally only 12 guys in all the world understood it.
Well, they don’t want to admit that they don’t understand it, so they study it over and over again and finally convince themselves that they understand it. So now they are among that elite group of “12”.
But in reality, the 1905 SR theory contains mistakes and errors, some of which Einstein admitted in later papers. For example, he finally admitted in 1918 that he could not solve the clock paradox problem of the SR theory without adding atomic clocks, acceleration effects, and gravity fields. In 1911 he finally admitted that his “constancy” postulate was wrong. In fact, in 1912-1914 he wrote several papers explaining how his constancy postulate was wrong and about how light speed slows down in gravity fields.
However, to learn this information, these “elite 12” guys would have to spend $35 to $45 for several books that contain Einstein’s later papers, and I suppose they just don’t want to do that. So they stick by the original 1905 SR theory as if Einstein never wrote any other SR papers and they pretend that he never made any corrections to the SR theory.
I started posting Einstein quotes from those $35 books, and I got banned from the relativity threads.
So, what we have here is a “1905 SR cult”, and these guys don’t want to hear about any paradoxes or errors in the 1905 paper, and they don’t want to hear about any of Einstein’s changes and corrections to the SR theory. They’ve invested so much time and their limited brain power into trying to force themselves to “understand” the flawed 1905 theory, they don’t have any left and they don’t want to face the fact that they were wrong in the first place.
It’s like the way Russ always maintains that the original “constancy” postulate is absolutely correct, even though Einstein later admitted that was not. I’ve got several papers here (from the $35 books) in which he says that it was not correct. But I can’t post his own quotes on the relativity threads because the self-appointed “elite 12” just can’t face this information. To face it would mean that they never really understood the physics of the SR theory and of nature in the first place. So they go along pretending that Einstein never made any corrections or changes in the original SR theory.
You have it all contorted in your head, David.
Einstein's papers are nice pieces, but their interest currently is mainly historical. The fact is, the two basic postulates are good enough to deduce observable consequences, and experiment agrees extremely well with those consequences.
Also, there are plenty of books you can buy (or even download freely) that have much more recent accounts of SR and GR, in terms of a more refined math machinery, which also shows the logic structure of the theory in a clearer way.
As for your speculation on the unwillingness of physics students to spend $35 or $45 on a book, it is just plain laughable. Graduate books are about $100 usually, and there are plenty of grad physics students that do buy them (at least some of them, one being Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics"). And for those that don't want to spend any money, physics departments definitely have them, plus all the original articles... but those are of more interest to historians, not physicists.
Let's stop it and get back to the issue at hand.
The “issue at hand” is that in the 1905 paper Einstein claimed the motion of the two systems was “non-accelerated”, but in 1918, in an attempt to try to resolve the clock paradox, he wrote that one of the systems was “accelerated”. This was basically a change in the terms of the 1905 SR theory, and most students today are not aware of this change, because they've never read his 1918 paper. And now you are keeping me from quoting it by banning me from the "relativity" threads of this forum.
Another issue is that he retracted his “constancy” postulate in 1911, and he wrote several papers about it being wrong. For example, he said in “Reply to a Comment by M. Abraham” (1912):
“But what about the limits of validity of the two principles? As I have already
emphasized, we have not the slightest reason to doubt the general validity of the
principle of relativity. On the other hand, I am of the view that the principle of the
constancy of the velocity of light can be maintained only insofar as one restricts
oneself to spatio-temporal regions of constant gravitational potential. This is where,
in my opinion, the limit of validity of the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light - though not that of the principle of relativity and therewith the limit of
validity of our current theory of relativity lies.”
He also said in other papers that the “constancy” postulate does not apply in any area of space where there are gravity fields.
He also said this in a 1915 paper:
“Finally, one more important question: Does the theory of relativity possess unlimited
validity? Even the supporters of the theory of relativity have different views on this
question. The majority are of the opinion that the propositions of the theory of
relativity – especially its conception of time and space – can claim unlimited validity.
However, the writer of these lines is of the opinion that the theory of relativity
is still in need of a generalization, in the sense that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light is to be abandoned. According to this opinion, this principle is
to be retained only for regions of practically constant gravitational potential.”
Then he goes on to say that the “constancy” postulate is not valid when light travels through a gravity field.
You can’t get this information out of the $9.95 book, “The Principle of Relativity”. You’ve got to spend a few more bucks so you can read other Einstein papers in which he corrected and altered the original SR theory.
I’ve spend the money for these books, but when I posted quotes from them, the so-called “Mentors” of this board claimed I was giving my own “theory” rather than Einstein’s, but I was clearly giving quotes directly from Einstein in which he later changed his mind about the original 1905 paper.
He didn’t seem to mind backing down about the original “constancy” postulate, so why would you mind if I post quotes of his back-down on the relativity threads?
The “conspiracy” you talk about is among you alleged “Mentors”, and it is a conspiracy to try to maintain the myth that the original 1905 paper is flawless. Why do you maintain such a conspiratorial position, when Einstien himself did not?
Don’t you think it is wrong to teach students that he never made any changes to the 1905 SR theory, when they can buy a few Volumes of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein” (Princeton University Press) and find out that he actually did make changes in it? What is it about this forum that insists on trying to spread the urban legend that Einstein never corrected some of the errors in the 1905 SR theory?
russ_watters
Jun4-04, 10:46 AM
Don’t you think it is wrong to teach students that he never made any changes to the 1905 SR theory, when they can buy a few Volumes of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein” (Princeton University Press) and find out that he actually did make changes in it? What is it about this forum that insists on trying to spread the urban legend that Einstein never corrected some of the errors in the 1905 SR theory? As ahkron said above, David, no one cares about the historical development of the theory. What we are interested in is its current form. Of course Einstein made changes/corrections - every theory has a developmental period where it is refined. Once the theory matures, you only need to read the development for some interesting history - today, you can learn Relativity with barely even a reference to Einstein and no references to any of his papers/books. The theory has quite simply outgrown him.
Of course Einstein made changes/corrections - every theory has a developmental period where it is refined.
Right on the money, russ.
GR was developed precisely in the period from roughly 1907 to the his November 25, 1915 paper. It is only natural that David's quotes, one from 1912 and one from 1915, show the development and changes in Einstein's understanding of the subject.
David, your idea of a "pro-Einstein conspiracy" is just plain childish. Also, one can't stop noticing that three out of three mentors that have posted in here (Tom, russ and myself) are saying "I don't care for Einstein's papers", and still you keep imagining that we are all about defending him.
It is common knowledge that Einstein often retracted earlier conclusions while developing GR. But that is actually not important to discussions of GR's adequacy as a description of the gravitational field. For that, the only things you need are the equations, a good detector, and a substraction.
If you want to discuss history or the development of Einstein's thinking, that's fine, but don't get confused. the theory is learned today in grad schools not from Einstein's papers, but from more modern sources, and it is in excellent agreement with experimental data, regardless of what Einstein or you did or did not understand about nature.
Tom Mattson
Jun4-04, 11:54 AM
You want to discuss “relativity”, but you don’t want me to discuss Einstein or his papers??
This is a two-part question, so I'll give you a two-part answer.
a. Of course I do not want you to discuss Einstein the man. Anyone with at least two brain cells to rub together could figure out that personalities are irrelevant to the point I am making.
b. I have already made the point that I want to make, and no reference to Einstein's papers is necessary. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Deal with what I wrote, not with what I didn't write.
Well, then, what you want to do is present your relativity theory.
I don't have a relativity theory. I have presented an argument that I made based on the education I recieved from Classical Mechanics by Goldstein and Classical Electrodyamics by Jackson. I already referred you to the second book.
This thread is about Einstein’s relativity theory, and that’s what I’m talking about.
And I was talking about your response to Janus. I countered your assertion that his statement was "nonsense", and you have yet to defend against that counter. The rest of your post does nothing to answer me, so I'll skip it.
Tom Mattson
Jun4-04, 11:57 AM
The “issue at hand” is that in the 1905 paper Einstein claimed the motion of the two systems was “non-accelerated”, but in 1918, in an attempt to try to resolve the clock paradox, he wrote that one of the systems was “accelerated”.
No, the "issue at hand" is that if the Lorentz transformation is wrong, then you should not be able to detect radio waves in a moving car. Try to pull yourself out of this mental cul-de-sac that you are trapped in and deal with that.
I really don't care about the history lesson that follows. If you can show that it is relevant to what I posted some 2 pages ago, then by all means do it.
Tom Mattson
Jun4-04, 12:00 PM
The “conspiracy” you talk about is among you alleged “Mentors”, and it is a conspiracy to try to maintain the myth that the original 1905 paper is flawless. Why do you maintain such a conspiratorial position, when Einstien himself did not?
Don’t you think it is wrong to teach students that he never made any changes to the 1905 SR theory, when they can buy a few Volumes of “The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein” (Princeton University Press) and find out that he actually did make changes in it? What is it about this forum that insists on trying to spread the urban legend that Einstein never corrected some of the errors in the 1905 SR theory?
Since you are so good at cutting and pasting quotes, I would like you to cut and paste a quote by me in which I say that the 1905 paper is flawless. And if you can't do it, then I will thank you to finally shut up about it. You're boring me.
Tom Mattson
Jun4-04, 03:02 PM
As for your speculation on the unwillingness of physics students to spend $35 or $45 on a book, it is just plain laughable. Graduate books are about $100 usually, and there are plenty of grad physics students that do buy them (at least some of them, one being Jackson's "Classical Electrodynamics").
And let's not forget the 20 grand a year price tag of my grad school.
David, your idea of a "pro-Einstein conspiracy" is just plain childish.
It’s more of mythical urban-legend “relativity” cult that is based on two $9.95 paperback relativity books. I’ve been studying it for years. It reminds me of the “geocentric” obsession of centuries past. But this one seems to be based on an obsession not necessarily with the relativity theories themselves, or with Einstein, but with the obsessive belief that the “Mentors” completely understand the Einstein “relativity theories,” which makes them super-geniuses in their own minds, and if anyone disagrees with them then out the door they go. These guys actually don’t want to debate the subject, because they can’t. They don’t know how to defend the erroneous parts of SR and GR theory. And that is why they find it easier just to ban people from the relativity threads, rather than debate them.
This keeps the Mentors thinking that they are the ultimate “intellects” for the entire world-wide internet, regarding all aspects of “relativity theory”. I’ve seen this on other science-oriented message boards too. It appears to be a male ego thing. I’ve never seen any girls participate in it. I think it is all based on pseudo-intellectual male egoism and mental “machoism”.
These Mentor guys have spent years trying to understand “relativity”, and if several people come along and point out how they are wrong and how certain parts of relativity theory were wrong, then this endangers their male egos, so the best thing they can do, since they really don’t have the ability to debate or defend the theories and the science issues involved, is ban the guys who come along and point out the errors of the various relativity theories.
What I did was post a lot of Einstein’s own papers and statements in which he backed down from his original “Principle of Relativity” predictions and opinions, and the Mentors couldn’t stand that. I’ve noticed that most of these Mentor types don’t have any other Einstein books other than the $9.95 “Principle of Relativity” and the equally cheap paperback “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. The entire “relativity” cult seems to be based on these two books.
I’ve often tried to talk to these guys about when Einstein changed his opinions, or when he contradicted himself in later books and papers, but these guys don’t have those other books and papers, and they’ve never read them, so they don’t know what I’m talking about. When I post information from the other books and papers, this is when the Mentors start to fuss at me for posting Einstein quotes. I mean, they actually don’t want me to post information from Einstein’s other papers, and this is a common phenomenon that I see among the Mentors and Moderators of other science boards. They actually don’t want to know what Einstein said outside of the two paperback books “Principle of Relativity” and “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”, because their entire cult is based on the information published in those two paperback books.
And then there is the case of people like Russ who don’t understand how and why Einstein and Lorentz talked about “atomic clocks” way back in the 1890s and early 1900s, since Russ thought that atomic clocks were invented only in the 1950s. So the “Mentors” here don’t have any real knowledge or understanding of how the relativity theories came about or what atomic clocks had to do with it.
What you talk about being learned today in grad school is not all Einstein’s relativity theory. Much of it, such as the Doppler redshifts of the galaxies, is Doppler theory, not Einstein theory, and quite a lot of it is Lorentz electrodynamics theory, not Einstein relativity theory. What has happened during the last 40-50 years is that many theories developed by other people, such as by Doppler, Lorentz, Maxwell, Hertz, Faraday, Newton, and Galileo, are now being attributed solely to Einstein. The reason I know this is because I’ve conducted a lot of research and read books by the other theorists. But names like Newton, Hertz, and Faraday don’t have the mysticism and pseudo-intellectual machoism associated with them. There is no Newton mystique, for example. And Lorentz relativity theory is almost unknown.
I’ve debated PhD graduates in physics, and also professors, who tell me that the Lorentz transformation appeared in print first in 1904, because that’s where they first saw it in his 1904 paper published in the “Principle of Relativity” book. These guys know nothing of Lorentz’s original presentation in “Versuch Einer Theorie Der Elektrischen Und Optischen Erscheinungen In Bewegten Körpern”, which was published in 1895.
I find this cult phenomenon extremely interesting and intriguing, especially the part where the Mentors and Moderators have to ban people from the relativity threads, because they don’t have enough knowledge about physics or relativity theory to defend their own relativity theory ideas based on science. And when they learn that Einstein actually changed his mind about a lot of his earlier ideas, and about when he used fudge factors to try to get around his earlier errors, then they freak out and that’s when they want to ban researchers like me, because they don’t want me and others posting any information from Einstein’s later books and papers in which he disagrees with what he published in the papers reproduced in “Principle of Relativity” and “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”.
Tom Mattson
Jun7-04, 11:38 AM
It’s more of mythical urban-legend “relativity” cult that is based on two $9.95 paperback relativity books. I’ve been studying it for years. It reminds me of the “geocentric” obsession of centuries past.
The only one "obsessed" is you. You sound like a stark raving lunatic, in fact.
But this one seems to be based on an obsession not necessarily with the relativity theories themselves, or with Einstein, but with the obsessive belief that the “Mentors” completely understand the Einstein “relativity theories,” which makes them super-geniuses in their own minds,
You're the only one here who wants to discuss personalities. I couldn't care less if you think Einstein was a liar, or if you think that I'm a pretend super-genius. I said it before, and I'll say it again:
Great thinkers talk about ideas.
Good thinkers talk about events.
Poor thinkers talk about people.
and if anyone disagrees with them then out the door they go.
And as I keep reminding you, you are still here, so this holds no water.
These guys actually don’t want to debate the subject, because they can’t. They don’t know how to defend the erroneous parts of SR and GR theory.
I see. Is that why you haven't responded to my argument yet?
I've tried to debate you on the point on which you challenged Janus, but you will not engage! You just want to keep talking about Einstein's lies and the mistakes in old papers. You've been running around in hundred-year-old circles for so long, that you don't even know how to get out, or how to discuss relativity without referring to those papers.
What I posted is a very concise argument. Why won't you answer in equal terms? Or should I be asking, why can't you answer in equal terms?
And that is why they find it easier just to ban people from the relativity threads, rather than debate them.
:uhh: You ain't been banned.
I'm skipping over the next two paragraphs on the basis that they are the misguided ramblings of a paranoid mind.
What I did was post a lot of Einstein’s own papers and statements in which he backed down from his original “Principle of Relativity” predictions and opinions, and the Mentors couldn’t stand that. I’ve noticed that most of these Mentor types don’t have any other Einstein books other than the $9.95 “Principle of Relativity” and the equally cheap paperback “Relativity: The Special and General Theory”. The entire “relativity” cult seems to be based on these two books.
:uhh: I've already referred you to the two books that have contributed the most to my understanding of relativity: Goldstein and Jackson.
This bit of your post just proves yet again that you ignore each and every thing I say.
I’ve often tried to talk to these guys about when Einstein changed his opinions, or when he contradicted himself in later books and papers, but these guys don’t have those other books and papers, and they’ve never read them, so they don’t know what I’m talking about.
It's more like: We don't care!
I, for one, am not here to talk about Einstein. I'm here to talk about relativity. It follows from two basic postulates, and it has been tested. My position is, let's talk about that.
The rest of your post isn't worth responding to, so I won't bother.
swansont
Jun25-04, 03:23 PM
The changes in atomic clock rates that are observed today ARE “electrodynamical” effects.
Surely you are aware that atomic clocks are shielded to prevent or limit any frequency changes due to the presence of or fluctuations in external electric or magnetic fields.
Perhaps someone can explain to me the following issue: I taught SR, among other subjects, some 40 years ago from Goldstein's Classical Mechanics, Jackson's Classical Electrodynamics, and Landau and Lefschitz's Theory of Classical Fields. If they are so mistaken, why are they still used? And why is it that the theories they explain all seem to work so well -- in their areas of application?
From what I can see, the various mentors have got it right.
Just curious,
Reilly Atkinson
tavi_boada
Jun26-04, 04:45 AM
Your wide spaceship has inside a light and a receiver, widely separated, sideways to direction of travel. As pilot, you notice the blinking light always takes the same time to hit the receiver, whether you are approaching speed of light or not. But an outside observer notices that the path the light travelled was much, much longer when you are in motion, and therefore perceives it as slower (at near C it creeps along the sidewalls) - so the conclusion is: time is slowing for you as the pilot.
I agree that light travels a much longer distance, but to insist that because of the constancy of C, time must be slowing down, is a jump. How well is the constancy of C established ?
This must not be confused with the simultaneity experiment: If you were seeing a synchronized huge digital clock on Mars, it would be lagging. Here there is no time compression, the report of time is merely delayed. The absence of an ability to verify simultaneity over huge distances to me does not threaten it as a concept ? We are just finding out late about what time it is, but can still have full confidence in the clock..
True, but then nothing can be said to be what it seems, And physics is useless. Of course physical laws only model what we see, which isn't necessairly what IS. These debates must be brought up periodicaly to remind us that what we do is not dogma. You can say that the parameter t changes in scale from one reference frame to another, as well as each observers platinum rods from Sèvres, or you can say that the fabric of spacetime is dialated/contracted. The wording might seem important, but it acually is not because experiment cant distinguish them. I dont think anyone can convince me of this, but try me. Ciao!
tavi_boada
Jun26-04, 04:51 AM
I wrote my earlier post without reading all the previous ones. It is incredible David can say what he says with all the information on paper and electronic there is available. What would he say 2 hundred years ago when there was nothing for the lay-man and all the knowledge was in universities and in the power of rich amateurs?? What a waste of neurons, no offense meant.
tavi_boada
Jun26-04, 04:56 AM
Please David, a part from the teaching classics classics, Jackson and Goldstein (SR), there is Landau, as pointed out by Reilly. Also on GR, Schutz, Wald, Misner/Thorne/Wheeler, d'Inverno (not a classic but very nice),Weinberg and many, many others. Just do a Google search.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.