Did the Formalont-Kopeiken Experiment Prove Einstein's Prediction?

[fauyd]

Does anyone have any information on this experiment involving Einstein's prediction of the speed of gravity? Was it shown that it proved Einstein's prediction or if the experiment just measured the speed of light in a round-a-bout way?

 

[George Jones]

Does anyone have any information on this experiment involving Einstein's prediction of the speed of gravity? Was it shown that it proved Einstein's prediction or if the experiment just measured the speed of light in a round-a-bout way?

In a https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=681816&postcount=12", I gave a link to Steve Carlip's paper on this.

 

[Chris Hillman]

Kopeikin: right or wrong?

Hi, fauyd,

Does anyone have any information on this experiment involving Einstein's prediction of the speed of gravity? Was it shown that it proved Einstein's prediction or if the experiment just measured the speed of light in a round-a-bout way?

I wish to avoid "debunking" at PF, so I won't argue with supporters of some "dodgy" claims mentioned below, I just want to provide a few relevant links for you.

As you probably know, Clifford M. Will, an internationally recognized authority on testing theories of gravitation (he is the author of several books on this and some much cited review papers), and other experts contend that Kopeikin misanalyzed the data of Fomalont. Their arguments are summarized at http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/SpeedofGravity.html. Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to insist that they are correct, but AFAIK they are almost alone in that viewpoint.

I add a general comment about lessons which can be drawn by inexpert observers: Kopeikin chose the unorthodox route of announcing his results at a news conference (to be sure, his news confereence was held during a general astronomy conference in Seattle, although I believe it was not part of the official conference proceedings), rather than following the more sober and traditional route of writing and submitting a paper to a high quality journal in the usual way. Such a procedure seems to be something of a "warning flag".

To recall some other gtr-related incidents in the past two years:

1. one Franklin S. Felber, who apparently formerly worked in the U.S. Defense industry and who may have some kind of physics degree, formed a company called Starmark and widely disseminated press releases claiming discovery of a revolutionary spacecraft propulsion technique based on supposed "antigravity beams". But his eprints gr-qc/0505099, gr-qc/0505098, gr-qc/0604076 appear never to have been published (with good reason; Felber was terribly confused on several basic points, but his essential goof was mistaking coordinate phenomena for a phenomenon having physical significance, which led him to conclude, incorrectly, that moving objects emit an "antigravity beam" in their direction of motion).

2. one Alexander Franklin Mayer, who has apparently formed a company called Mirusoft, and who describes himself as a "cosmologist" (I was never able to verify that--- as far as I could tell, he apparently previously worked as a patent examiner, which might meant that he did earn some kind of graduate degree in some technical field) and who was very briefly a visiting scholar at Stanford, claimed that something was wrong with GPS, but he appears to have misanalyzed his data, and nothing seems to have come of his claims, which were widely discussed on the cranknet, but never published. Two mainstream surveys of relativistic physics in GPS are http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html and http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507121

3. one Ronald M. Hatch, an engineer (he did earn an undergraduate degree in physics) who says he worked on satellite navigation for Boeing and other companies, formed a company called NavCom Technology and proposed his "Ether Gauge Theory", which has been widely discussed on the cranknet. Hatch, who is allegedly a member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (a "fringe science" organization), also claims that NASA's model for satellite navigation resembles his own theory, not special relativity, and he has apparently claimed that the mainstream analysis of GPS above is wrong. These claims have apparently not been published except in such places as the "new energy" newsletter Infinite Energy Magazine, which was founded by cold fusion proponent Eugene Mallove (who has since died--- there seems to be a conspiracy theory regarding the manner of his death).

4. one Roger Shawyer, a microwave engineer, formed a company called SPR, Ltd. and inveigled New Scientist into publishing a cover story claiming that Shawyer had demonstrated what would amount to another alleged method of spacecraft propulsion which would have violated conservation of momentum. After an outcry from physicists, he released a crude "theoretical analysis" which was quickly and independently debunked by several physicists, including Greg Egan (best known as a science fiction author, but he is a physicist by training) http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Simple.html. Another feature of this affair was that someone in the British government apparently approved giving Shawyer a sizable sum without first consulting a physicist to review his grant application.

From this list, I think the point about the importance of refereed papers appearing in top quality journals is clear. The remarkable feature of the Kopeikin affair is that he does have a previous record of respectable publications; a common denominator of many wild claims discussed on the crankweb is that the protagonists often have an unimpressive record of prior scientific publications, and often possesses somewhat dubious scientific credentials. (In particular, engineers are not trained to perform basic scientific research.) Another common denominator of many of these claims is that the protagonist has formed a company, perhaps to seek private investment in his schemes.

 

[nakurusil]

Hi, fauyd,



I wish to avoid "debunking" at PF, so I won't argue with supporters of some "dodgy" claims mentioned below, I just want to provide a few relevant links for you.

As you probably know, Clifford M. Will, an internationally recognized authority on testing theories of gravitation (he is the author of several books on this and some much cited review papers), and other experts contend that Kopeikin misanalyzed the data of Fomalont. Their arguments are summarized at http://wugrav.wustl.edu/people/CMW/SpeedofGravity.html. Kopeikin and Fomalont continue to insist that they are correct, but AFAIK they are almost alone in that viewpoint.

I add a general comment about lessons which can be drawn by inexpert observers: Kopeikin chose the unorthodox route of announcing his results at a news conference (to be sure, his news confereence was held during a general astronomy conference in Seattle, although I believe it was not part of the official conference proceedings), rather than following the more sober and traditional route of writing and submitting a paper to a high quality journal in the usual way. Such a procedure seems to be something of a "warning flag".

To recall some other gtr-related incidents in the past two years:

1. one Franklin S. Felber, who apparently formerly worked in the U.S. Defense industry and who may have some kind of physics degree, formed a company called Starmark and widely disseminated press releases claiming discovery of a revolutionary spacecraft propulsion technique based on supposed "antigravity beams". But his eprints gr-qc/0505099, gr-qc/0505098, gr-qc/0604076 appear never to have been published (with good reason; Felber was terribly confused on several basic points, but his essential goof was mistaking coordinate phenomena for a phenomenon having physical significance, which led him to conclude, incorrectly, that moving objects emit an "antigravity beam" in their direction of motion).

2. one Alexander Franklin Mayer, who has apparently formed a company called Mirusoft, and who describes himself as a "cosmologist" (I was never able to verify that--- as far as I could tell, he apparently previously worked as a patent examiner, which might meant that he did earn some kind of graduate degree in some technical field) and who was very briefly a visiting scholar at Stanford, claimed that something was wrong with GPS, but he appears to have misanalyzed his data, and nothing seems to have come of his claims, which were widely discussed on the cranknet, but never published. Two mainstream surveys of relativistic physics in GPS are http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html and http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0507121

3. one Ronald M. Hatch, an engineer (he did earn an undergraduate degree in physics) who says he worked on satellite navigation for Boeing and other companies, formed a company called NavCom Technology and proposed (apparently by press release) his "Ether Gauge Theory", which has been widely discussed on the cranknet. Hatch, who is allegedly a member of the Natural Philosophy Alliance (a "fringe science" organization), also claims that NASA's model for satellite navigation resembles his own theory, not special relativity, and he has apparently claimed that the mainstream analysis of GPS above is wrong. These claims have apparently not been published except in such places as the "new energy" newsletter Infinite Energy Magazine, which was founded by cold fusion proponent Eugene Mallove (who has since died--- there seems to be a conspiracy theory regarding the manner of his death).

4. one Roger Shawyer, a microwave engineer, formed a company called SPR, Ltd. and inveigled New Scientist into publishing a cover story claiming that Shawyer had demonstrated what would amount to another alleged method of spacecraft propulsion which would have violated conservation of momentum. After an outcry from physicists, he released a crude "theoretical analysis" which was quickly and independently debunked by several physicists, including Greg Egan (best known as a science fiction author, but he is a physicist by training) http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/SCIENCE/Cavity/Simple.html. Another feature of this affair was that someone in the British government apparently approved giving Shawyer a sizable sum without first consulting a physicist to review his grant application.

From this list, I think the point about the importance of refereed papers appearing in top quality journals is clear. The remarkable feature of the Kopeikin affair is that he does have a previous record of respectable publications; a common denominator of many wild claims discussed on the crankweb is that the protagonists often have an unimpressive record of prior scientific publications, and often possesses somewhat dubious scientific credentials. (In particular, engineers are not trained to perform basic scientific research.) Another common denominator of many of these claims is that the protagonist has formed a company, perhaps to seek private investment in his schemes.

In all fairness Kopeikin did get published in mainstream journals (this should tell us siomething about the quality of the reviewers, eh?). The ones that you mentioned (and many more), are pure cranks, Kopeikin is not a crank.

I am surprised you did not add the all time favorites to the list:

Tom Van Flandern
Reg Cahill
etc,etc.

 

[Chris Hillman]

I am trying to avoid debunking, and suggest others follow suit

Tom Van Flandern
Reg Cahill

You quoted my remarks in their entirety (why?-- isn't that redundant?), but I am not sure how carefully you read them.

It would take a long post indeed to list even the most voluble of the hundreds of anti-relativity cranks on the web. PF is probably not the place to do any more debunking than is absolutely neccessary.

 

[quantum123]

Cranks on the web exist because the scientists allow them to!
In biology, these cranks are never given a chance.
Where is the Richard Dawkins of relativity?

 

[Garth]

Cranks on the web exist because the scientists allow them to!
In biology, these cranks are never given a chance.
Where is the Richard Dawkins of relativity?

In biology there are hundreds of anti-evolution cranks on the web, have you never heard of literal creationism?

Garth

 

[quantum123]

But Richard Dawkins never gave them any change. Evolutionary biologists even bring the cranks to court with a point by point rebuttal. I have yet to see relativists do that! The Internet community is totally - I say again, totally - anti-relativity - because you relativists are too proud and can't be bothered about educating the public.

 

[Garth]

There are lots of sound physics websites, PF for one.

You cannot delete other people's websites because you disagree with them, even if you wanted to.

Garth

 

[quantum123]

I am not asking you to burn their houses or their bodies. All I am asking is for you to prove them wrong. If you can't do that, it adds supports to their claim that relativity is simply a dogmatic religion. And they are really very very credible because they can explain concepts in a way that can be understood by the laypublic - unlike real scientists who are too proud and can't be bothered.

 

[nakurusil]

I am not asking you to burn their houses or their bodies. All I am asking is for you to prove them wrong.

You can never get a crank to admit that they are wrong.

If you can't do that, it adds supports to their claim that relativity is simply a dogmatic religion.

You can never get a crank to admit that they are wrong.

And they are really very very credible because they can explain concepts in a way that can be understood by the laypublic - unlike real scientists who are too proud and can't be bothered.

You can never get a crank to admit that they are wrong. Their "explanations" are only credible to themselves. Even other cranks don't accept them (because they have their own , competing "explanations")

 

[jtbell]

Evolutionary biologists even bring the cranks to court with a point by point rebuttal.

That happened because the creationists went so far as to try to change public-school curricula. Has anyone managed to get a school board to paste stickers on physics textbooks saying that "relativity is only a theory" and instruct teachers to give equal time to ether theories?

 

[paw]

Has anyone managed to get a school board to paste stickers on physics textbooks saying that "relativity is only a theory" and instruct teachers to give equal time to ether theories?

Please don't give them ideas.

 

[yogi]

One of the basic problems is that there are two major schools of thought on SR - in particular the twin paradox - and while adherents of SR claim loudly that GR is not needed - there are some well respected writers (Born, Lederman, Scima and in 1918 Einstein himself) that claim otherwise. So why is it so contemptable for a layman to adopt an ether approach and fall back upon Lorentz's original explanation that involves some physical change - it is easy to form a visual image of clocks running slow or rods shrinking because an object moves through some etheral substance. However, when laymen go astray in the area of relativity - nobody really gets hurt - frustrated maybe, but no real damage ...but when we have church idology dictating when and how life begins and evolves - forcing those ideas upon others by enacting anti abortion laws and anti right to die laws - then it does impact others, and should be a concern. That's my 0.02 cents

 

[quantum123]

That is what the internet communitiy is saying: relativists through their religious worship of Einstein, dogmatic and stubborn refusal to even consider ingenious alternate theories, block all funds from doing open-minded research, stopping the progress of science, fake all their relativity experiments, patched a broken big bang theory with dark this and dark that - it is a matter of time someone from the leadership get convinced and begin sacking one or a few relativity professors or closing a few departments.
It is really strange that quantum theory suffers no such attacks.

 

[nakurusil]

One of the basic problems is that there are two major schools of thought on SR - in particular the twin paradox - and while adherents of SR claim loudly that GR is not needed - there are some well respected writers (Born, Lederman, Scima and in 1918 Einstein himself) that claim otherwise.

Turns out that it has demonstrated that both SR and GR give the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0604/0604025.pdf , correct answer.

So why is it so contemptable for a layman to adopt an ether approach and fall back upon Lorentz's original explanation that involves some physical change - it is easy to form a visual image of clocks running slow or rods shrinking because an object moves through some etheral substance.

It is not contemptible, it is just plain wrong. You cannot get the correct solution by using Lorentz's "original explanation". Try it, you will not manage.

However, when laymen go astray in the area of relativity - nobody really gets hurt - frustrated maybe, but no real damage ...but when we have church idology dictating when and how life begins and evolves - forcing those ideas upon others by enacting anti abortion laws and anti right to die laws - then it does impact others, and should be a concern. That's my 0.02 cents

The only "church" is the small community of people clinging onto a theory refuted about 100 years ago.

 

[nakurusil]

That is what the internet communitiy is saying: relativists through their religious worship of Einstein, dogmatic and stubborn refusal to even consider ingenious alternate theories, block all funds from doing open-minded research, stopping the progress of science, fake all their relativity experiments,
<rest of the rant against mainstream physicists snipped>

You mean "the internet community" made up of a few crackpots? No one pays any attention to these deeply deluded people. Sorry to disappoint you, there is no "conspiracy" by any "relativists" and the "ingenious alternate theories" turn up to be pure crackpottery. By contrast, SR/GR are one of the most thorougly tested theories. See http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/index.html .

 

[yogi]

Turns out that it has demonstrated that both SR and GR give the http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0604/0604025.pdf , correct answer.




It is not contemptible, it is just plain wrong. You cannot get the correct solution by using Lorentz's "original explanation". Try it, you will not manage.




The only "church" is the small community of people clinging onto a theory refuted about 100 years ago.

You get the right answer if you include both time dilation and physical length contraction - which admittedly was not the first proposal - but a modification that was consistent with Kennedy - Thorndike



Both SR and GR give the same correct answers to the twin aging scenerio, but the answers are based upon different physics - and that needs to be addressed. Moreover,even if you adopt the view that only SR is needed to explain the aging difference - the various treatments of how the time loss occurs is bound to confuse almost anyone - even Einstein gave the impression in his 1905 paper that a clock in motion (at the equator) would run slower. Later he attempted to find a physical justification for the time difference and turned to rationale based upon a pseudo G field (I know it gives the right answer - that is not the point.



Unfortunately, it is not a small community -

There have been thousands of articles written to explain SR - most of the alternative theories recogonize the reality of time dilation Many of the so called crank theories are fueled by Einstein's own doubts - that he could not think of a single one of this contributions that would survive the test of time. Would you call Selleri a crank because he questioned Einstein's formalism re synchronization.

 

[George Jones]

It is really strange that quantum theory suffers no such attacks.

Mathematics is one of the reasons. There are probably at least a 100 times more people who possesses the mathematics skills necessary to do calculations in special relativity, than who possesses the mathematics skills necessary to do calculation in quantum theory.

In order to do basic spacetime calculations in special relativity, competency with first or second year high school mathematics is needed.

In order to do calculations in quantum theory at a similar level, first or second year university calculus is required.

There are probably other reasons as well, but I think that this is one factor that comes into play.

 

[nakurusil]

You get the right answer if you include both time dilation and physical length contraction - which admittedly was not the first proposal - but a modification that was consistent with Kennedy - Thorndike

Umm, no. Care to show your calculations?

 

[yogi]

I will just cite Taylor and Wheeler, first edition at page 80. To Summarize: "The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment ruled out ether theories based upon length contraction alone, but allowed ether theories based upon both length and time contraction"

 

[yogi]

The evidence in support of SR is good, but it is not conclusive. I would still like to see some experimental tests that verify the constancy of the velocity of light in free space - far removed from gravitational bodies. SR rests upon this isotrophy, but most tests are conducted in the lab - now I am not talking about entrainment - that notion pretty much gets squashed by aberration - but there is an alternative proposition that considers gravity as a modifier of local space that effects local em isotrophy. The theory actually has some interesting consequences since it relates time dilation in SR to time dilation in a gravitational potential. (Don't ask me to explain or defend it - it isn't my theory) My point is, SR has survived the tests to which it has been subjected - it has not survived tests to which it has not been subjected, and until certain experiments are carried out there will always be a window for alternative theories to foment - but as with most they usually only ferment. Speaking of that I think I will go have a beer.

 

[nakurusil]

I will just cite Taylor and Wheeler, first edition at page 80. To Summarize: "The Kennedy-Thorndike experiment ruled out ether theories based upon length contraction alone, but allowed ether theories based upon both length and time contraction"

What this means is that aether theories could not explain KTX based on length contraction alone (as they managed in the case of MMX). To explain KTX the aether theory of LOrentz needs the ad-hoc length contraction plus the additional ad-hoc time dilation hypothesis. This is the downfall of Lorentz's theory: the additional ad-hoc premises for each new experiment. In no way do T&W imply that aether theories are correct.

 

[nakurusil]

The evidence in support of SR is good, but it is not conclusive. I would still like to see some experimental tests that verify the constancy of the velocity of light in free space - far removed from gravitational bodies.

So what does have to do with my request that you write down your mathematical explanation of the TP using Lorentz's theory? I challenged you to do it and you reply with a non-sequitur. Can you put your money where your mouth is?

SR rests upon this isotrophy, but most tests are conducted in the lab - now I am not talking about entrainment - that notion pretty much gets squashed by aberration - but there is an alternative proposition that considers gravity as a modifier of local space that effects local em isotrophy.

You must mean "isotropy". The above is a "word salad", since it means absolutely nothing and has nothing to do with the challenge.

The theory actually has some interesting consequences since it relates time dilation in SR to time dilation in a gravitational potential. (Don't ask me to explain or defend it - it isn't my theory)

In other words, a red herring, nothing to do with my challenge that one can't explain TP using the Lorentz theory.

My point is, SR has survived the tests to which it has been subjected - it has not survived tests to which it has not been subjected,

Duh

and until certain experiments are carried out there will always be a window for alternative theories to foment - but as with most they usually only ferment. Speaking of that I think I will go have a beer.

Don't think so. These "theories" fall flat as soon as they are subjected to the tests already passed by SR. Crackpot stuff, really.

 

[yogi]

Modified Lorentz ether theory fully explains both MMx and KT. It is not as elegant, but the arithmetic is the same - that is why they call the transforms Lorentz - same formulas, different physics. But you are missing the point - I am not saying MLET is correct ..I am convinced it is not. SR fully explains MMX, KT, and TP ...and a host of thought experiments w/o resort to postulates that involve physical length contraction. What TW are saying - KT leaves both MLET as an explanation and the simplier theory of SR.

The tests that validate SR are claimed by persons such as yourself to be conclusive on the issue of the infalability of the premise upon which SR was founded (constancy of c in all fields) - You impliedly assert this as God given revelation yet crucial experiments are yet to be performed. The tests to which SR has not be subjected are the ones that its detractors claim are significant - Duh...you can repeat all the tests you like to validate time dilation and none prove the veracity of c isotropy - they do not rule out the possibility that c varies with time, they do not disclose the underlying physics, and there is no aspect of SR that precludes light propagation by an ether. The ether is superfluous to explaining MMx using SR, but Einstein later concluded it was necessary for the propagation of light.

My point, because many collateral attacks on SR are unfounded, it is foolish to disparage all alternative theories as Crackpot.

 

[nakurusil]

Modified Lorentz ether theory fully explains both MMx and KT. It is not as elegant, but the arithmetic is the same - that is why they call the transforms Lorentz - same formulas, different physics.

So where is your promised LET explanation of TP? Just talk and no math.

But you are missing the point - I am not saying MLET is correct ..I am convinced it is not. SR fully explains MMX, KT, and TP ...and a host of thought experiments w/o resort to postulates that involve physical length contraction.

So where is your promised LET explanation of TP?

What TW are saying - KT leaves both MLET as an explanation and the simplier theory of SR.

I know very well what they are saying, I tried to explain it to you.

The tests that validate SR are claimed by persons such as yourself to be conclusive on the issue of the infalability of the premise upon which SR was founded (constancy of c in all fields)

So where are the tests that falsify SR? Show just one.

The tests to which SR has not be subjected are the ones that its detractors claim are significant

Such as?

Duh...you can repeat all the tests you like to validate time dilation and none prove the veracity of c isotropy - they do not rule out the possibility that c varies with time,

And the relevance of this to the result of the experiment is?

The ether is superfluous to explaining MMx using SR, but Einstein later concluded it was necessary for the propagation of light.

Ummm, no. You got this one wrong. You must be referring to his 1920 Leyden address, the misunderstanding of his remark on the aether is a standard crackpot rallying cry.

My point, because many collateral attacks on SR are unfounded, it is foolish to disparage all alternative theories as Crackpot.

One more time, what "alternative theories"?

 

[yogi]

What this means is that aether theories could not explain KTX based on length contraction alone (as they managed in the case of MMX). To explain KTX the aether theory of LOrentz needs the ad-hoc length contraction plus the additional ad-hoc time dilation hypothesis. This is the downfall of Lorentz's theory: the additional ad-hoc premises for each new experiment. In no way do T&W imply that aether theories are correct.

FitzGerald first offered an explanation based upon length contraction alone - later Lorentz reinterpreted the fictitous time that appeared in the transforms as a reality.

But the greatest ad hoc of all was SR - Theorists were attempting to explain MMx using a constructive formalism - comes along Einstein - who simply turns the whole problem into a postulate. Talk about ad hoc. Under moderm practice of peer review, the 1905 paper on Electrodynamics would never have been published - much too radical. - As it turned out, Planck, the editor, was a friend of Einstein, and the article was submitted and hastily read by him and set to print. Even several years later, Planck's comments indicated he understood it as more like Lorentz theory (he did not appreciate the fundamental step taken by SR as opposed to Lorentz's early disregard of the significance of the time factor). So luckily, Einstein's crackpot idea got published. But it too has been interpreted by different authors in a way that suits their own bias as to what, if any, explanation exists for the peculiar results (as Einstein called them) and the underlying physics

 

[nakurusil]

FitzGerald first offered an explanation based upon length contraction alone - later Lorentz reinterpreted the fictitous time that appeared in the transforms as a reality.

Which question are you trying to answer?

But the greatest ad hoc of all was SR - Theorists were attempting to explain MMx using a constructive formalism - comes along Einstein - who simply turns the whole problem into a postulate. Talk about ad hoc.

Ahh, the mask of mainstream has fallen, here comes the all out crackpot attack.

Under moderm practice of peer review, the 1905 paper on Electrodynamics would never have been published - much too radical. - As it turned out, Planck, the editor, was a friend of Einstein, and the article was submitted and hastily read by him and set to print. Even several years later, Planck's comments indicated he understood it as more like Lorentz theory (he did not appreciate the fundamental step taken by SR as opposed to Lorentz's early disregard of the significance of the time factor). So luckily, Einstein's crackpot idea got published.

Yes, I see...

But it too has been interpreted by different authors in a way that suits their own bias as to what, if any, explanation exists for the peculiar results (as Einstein called them) and the underlying physics

So, when are you going to show the LET equations for TP?

 

[yogi]

From Post 26: "So where is your promised LET explanation of TP?"

So where in any of these posts did I promise --- I am only saying its a viable explanation - not the correct one in my opinion - but..

nonetheless you seem to be hunting for a flaw in the statement that Lorentz theory does properly explain the twins thought experiment.

MLET simply assumes a fixed preferred frame at rest wrt to an at rest ether -Joe and Jill are twins initially at rest on the preferred frame. Joe quickly accelerates to velocity v wrt the ether and arrives a Vega (a distance L measured in the preferred frame) - his clock will read less than clocks in the preferred fame (which include the clocks on Vega) by the gamma factor because according to MLET he has traveled at v wrt to the ether for the distance L. He then executes a 180 degree turn and returns to where he started and finds his time lost upon return is doubled that experienced on the outward journey. His sibling will experience no loss of time according to MLET. Ergo, Jill has aged more than Joe

Now let's see which SR analysis you prefer for the treatement of the same problem.

 

[nakurusil]

From Post 26: "So where is your promised LET explanation of TP?"

So where in any of these posts did I promise --- I am only saying its a viable explanation - not the correct one in my opinion - but..

nonetheless you seem to be hunting for a flaw in the statement that Lorentz theory does properly explain the twins thought experiment.

So prove it. Try using some math, the rhetoric doesn't count.

Phase 1: Rocket (with clock K') embarks with constant proper acceleration a during a time A as measured by clock K until it reaches some velocity v.
Phase 2: Rocket keeps coasting at velocity v during some time T according to clock K.
Phase 3: Rocket fires its engines in the opposite direction of K during a time A according to clock K until it is at rest w.r.t. clock K. The constant proper acceleration has the value -a, i.o.w. the rocket is decelerating.
Phase 4: Rocket keeps firing its engines in the opposite direction of K, during the same time A according to clock K, until K' regains the same speed v w.r.t. K, but now towards K (with velocity -v).
Phase 5: Rocket keeps coasting towards K at speed v during the same time T according to clock K.
Phase 6: Rocket again fires its engines in the direction of K, so it decelerates with a constant proper acceleration a during a time A, still according to clock K, until both clocks reunite.


What is the calculated delay as a function of :
-proper acceleration a
-acceleration time A
-coasting time T

It's an easy problem in SR, let's see how you solve it using LET.

 

[yogi]

When you include changing velocities, SR can be used to predict the behavior of the accelerated phase so long as, in the formulation, the analysis takes the view of the inertial (unaccelerated clock). So if you want to stick to a pure comparison between SR and LET (which is what i thought we were discussing), my challenge to you is to work the problem from the standpoint of the K' clock at rest.

When you include accelerations using LET, the K clock is considered at rest wrt the ether - and SR takes the position that the K clock remains in an inertial frame - both give the same result (In LET however, the presupposition is that both acceleration and uniform velocity are absolute wrt to the K frame (which is the ether frame) whereas in SR the uniform velocity increment is relative).

While I have a firm conviction in the sui generis properties of space as a medium, I am not going to take up the defense of a theory which is based upon physical changes in lengths and time brought about by absolute motion.

If you want the problem worked by an LET type - see http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO3PDF/V10N3KHO.pdf

Regards

 

[nakurusil]

When you include changing velocities, SR can be used to predict the behavior of the accelerated phase so long as, in the formulation, the analysis takes the view of the inertial (unaccelerated clock). So if you want to stick to a pure comparison between SR and LET (which is what i thought we were discussing), my challenge to you is to work the problem from the standpoint of the K' clock at rest.

So, you can't solve the problem and you ask for me to give you a solution? Interesting...But more about your "answer" later. For the time being, the solution is readily available in many course notes and papers (I may have even quoted a few in my other posts). Done from the point of view of calculating and comparing the proper times of BOTH twins, the right way to do it.

When you include accelerations using LET,

Stop right here, LET does not deal with accelerated motion, only SR does. Sooo, LET CANNOT be used to solve this problem Unless CHEATING is involved. But more about this later...

the K clock is considered at rest wrt the ether - and SR takes the position that the K clock remains in an inertial frame - both give the same result (In LET however, the presupposition is that both acceleration and uniform velocity are absolute wrt to the K frame (which is the ether frame) whereas in SR the uniform velocity increment is relative).

LET doesn't have a treatment for accelerated motion, ONLY SR does.

While I have a firm conviction in the sui generis properties of space as a medium, I am not going to take up the defense of a theory which is based upon physical changes in lengths and time brought about by absolute motion.

...but this is what LET IS all about. You were supposed to produce a solution based on LET, as you have been challenged. Instead, you "produced" ...nothing but a bunch of deflections and this :

If you want the problem worked by an LET type - see http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V10NO3PDF/V10N3KHO.pdf

Regards

Ahh, what do we have here? A "paper" from the very famous crank journal Apeiron, by the resident crank co-editor who quotes an even more famous crank, Tom van Flandern (Chris is going to have a ball with this, wait until he gets loose on the garbage in the paper) having "proven" the twin paradox in LET.
But ...what do both Kholmetskii and TvF use? Lo and behold, hyperbolic motion (reference [2]) from...Special Relativity. So, by plastering to the original LET the results of SR (80 years later notwithstanding), messrs K. and TvF "prove" that they can "solve" the twin paradox using LET. So, with a little bit of historical forgery , one can prove anything, right?
Now, let's not be so hard on you , mr. K and mr. TvF, let's admit that LET can copy from its younger sibling SR. Problem is , that the "solution" from the paper you quote is wrong, mr.K does not understanf hyperbolic motion well enough to solve the problem. How do I know this? Because the correct results computed using SR are readily available in many other places.
But again, let's give you one more chance, given a, A and T from my previous post , you try to find the correct solution to the problem and correct the stuff botched by the illustrious messrs K. and TvF. I'll give you a hint: it takes about 1 page to do it right using SR.
Phase 1: Rocket (with clock K') embarks with constant proper acceleration a during a time A as measured by clock K until it reaches some velocity v.
Phase 2: Rocket keeps coasting at velocity v during some time T according to clock K.
Phase 3: Rocket fires its engines in the opposite direction of K during a time A according to clock K until it is at rest w.r.t. clock K. The constant proper acceleration has the value -a, i.o.w. the rocket is decelerating.
Phase 4: Rocket keeps firing its engines in the opposite direction of K, during the same time A according to clock K, until K' regains the same speed v w.r.t. K, but now towards K (with velocity -v).
Phase 5: Rocket keeps coasting towards K at speed v during the same time T according to clock K.
Phase 6: Rocket again fires its engines in the direction of K, so it decelerates with a constant proper acceleration a during a time A, still according to clock K, until both clocks reunite.I know (and most everybody else does) that it CANNOT be done in LET. Unless...CHEATING is involved. Even with cheating, it should take you about 1 page, not the many pages of nonsense from Apeiron. Time for you to hit the equations, enough of the runaround.

 

[yogi]

Where did I say I was going to do arithmetic for you using LET - I only said they were empirically equivalent - as are Selleri's Inertial Transforms, as are Renshaw's energy derivations, as is inflow theory ...I have no intention of trying to prove or disprove alternatives (I think I have said this about 3 times now), What I claim is that some of them are not easy to disprove - particularly since they rely on the same transforms as SR. They can only be disproven by verified experiments that are unambiguous.

The problem with most advocates of SR (such as yourself) is that you condemn every other view even though most of the experiments that are needed to confirm or refute them have yet to be performed - MMx and KT never proved that light is isotropic - they showed a near null signal when you try to measure the Earth's velocity wrt to space using over and back reflections to detect phase shift - this leaves much to consider - and while there has been considerable argument on whether CBR defines a universal rest frame - It is something that was not known when Einstein assumed the isotropy of c in all inertial frames. It was essential that light be isotropic or order for theory to conform to conviction ... that absolute motion wrt space could not be detected. Relativity advocates uniformly assert that since we didn't get positive results with over and back phase shift experiments - the issue is disposed. As often quoted: Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

Einstein's statements show that he was not nearly as sure about his theories as his latter day followers. He continued during his life to question his own works. By your definition, he deserves to classed as a crackpot crank.

 

[quantum123]

What is LET?
There is ether?
Can give summary?

 

[nakurusil]

Where did I say I was going to do arithmetic for you using LET -

I challenged you to do it in order to prove your point. You obviously cannot and you are answering with heaps of rhetoric.

I only said they were empirically equivalent -

Umm, they aren't. You cannot solve the accelerated TP with LET (but you can with SR). For the simple reason that I showed you : LET has no treatment for accelerated motion.

as are Selleri's Inertial Transforms, as are Renshaw's energy derivations, as is inflow theory ...

What do all these crackpot theories have to do with the subject under discussion?

I have no intention of trying to prove or disprove alternatives (I think I have said this about 3 times now), What I claim is that some of them are not easy to disprove - particularly since they rely on the same transforms as SR. They can only be disproven by verified experiments that are unambiguous.

You claimed that LET can solve the TP problem as well as SR. I showed that this isn't the case. If you still think that you can solve the accelerated TP with LET, please show your calculations. This is the 5-th time I've asked you. Rhetoric doesn't count.

The problem with most advocates of SR (such as yourself) is that you condemn every other view even though most of the experiments that are needed to confirm or refute them have yet to be performed - MMx and KT never proved that light is isotropic -

This is a diversion, so I will have to snip your ranting right here. MMX and KTX are not intended as confirmation of light speed isotropy, other experiments do that. So, please demonstrate how LET gives the same anser as SR for the accelerated motion TP. You have the conditions of the problem. No more runaround.

 

[Satie]

From this list, I think the point about the importance of refereed papers appearing in top quality journals is clear. The remarkable feature of the Kopeikin affair is that he does have a previous record of respectable publications; a common denominator of many wild claims discussed on the crankweb is that the protagonists often have an unimpressive record of prior scientific publications, and often possesses somewhat dubious scientific credentials. (In particular, engineers are not trained to perform basic scientific research.) Another common denominator of many of these claims is that the protagonist has formed a company, perhaps to seek private investment in his schemes.

Hi!
From what I have read in this thread, it seems to me that there is a difference between Kopeikin and Fomalont claims analysed critically by C. Will and you, and Felber´s, Mayer´s and the others you cite. As others contributors on this thread agree with you, Kopeikin is recognized as a scientist because of previous contributions. But as for the other people, it seems they have serious flaws in their knowledge of the subject they try to cope with.
In the history of Science, there had been several "Pathological Science" events (Irving Langmuir dixit), among them, the Memory of Water, the Polywater affair, the N-Rays, and the Cold Fusion.
The scientists involved are recognized by the mainstream, they published their claims in the very best of the scientific journals, but, as you pointed up, normally they make their claims to the media before they published.
Somehow, this conduct is not as abnormal as one may think. The analysis of this probably is not a matter of discussion in a Physics Forum, but is very interesting.
As for the Cold Fusion, I came to know that there was some recent evaluation, meaning that things are not as clear as they should yet.
I have quoted this part of your answer because that is very similar to Langmuir´s conclusions about the Pathological Science business.