Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

That which can change must exist

  1. Apr 10, 2004 #1
    The following is from the first page of Einstein's 1905 SR paper:

    "Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts
    to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the 'light
    medium,' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well
    as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest...."

    Einstein was wrong, even re the _mechanical_ case, for the
    following two very simple, physical reasons:

    [1] Absolute velocity changes cannot occur unless absolute
    velocities exist.

    [2] Absolute velocity comparisons cannot be made unless absolute
    velocities exist.

    Re [1]:
    Since an observer in a closed lab frame can easily detect any
    change in his velocity without reference to any other frame,
    this proves that such a change is not relative, so we can call
    it an absolute change, given that "absolute" means "not
    relative"; however, in order for something to be capable of
    changing, it must first exist, so the detected absolute velocity
    change proves the existence of that which changed, i.e., an
    absolute velocity.

    Re [2]:
    Two types of absolute velocity comparisons are possible, viz.,
    (a) a direct comparison showing absolutely equal velocities, and
    (b) a direct comparison which shows absolutely unequal
    Note that (a) occurs whenever any two objects remain side-by-
    side forever without ever separating, and (b) occurs during the
    opposite case. As we just said, in both cases, it is proved that
    either the given objects' velocities are absolutely equal or
    that they are absolutely unequal. And the existence of such
    absolute velocity comparisons necessitates the existence of
    those things which are thereby being compared, i.e.,
    absolute velocities.

    It is clear that either [1] or [2] "shoots down" Einstein's two
    claims that "the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of
    mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of
    absolute rest."

    [1] and [2] make it clear that there is much more to motion than
    Einstein's merely relative motion.

    [1] and [2] tell us that there is a sort of motion that is definitely not merely relative.

    [1] and [2] tell us that there is a motion that we can call absolute.

    [1] and [2] tell us that there is a unique frame, namely, the one whose absolute velocity is zero.

    But which frame is this; i.e., how can we experimentally detect or identify this special frame?

    Nothing could be simpler; it is the frame that is created every
    time a light ray is emitted from any source. This is due to the
    following two simple facts: Light's propagational speed
    through space is unaffected by the motion of its source, and
    [ii] light's propagational speed through space does not change.

    For example, even though a light source may be moving at near
    light speed (in direct comparison with a light ray, and not
    merely wrt the Earth, etc.), the point in space at which the
    ight begins its journey is at absolute rest, and the light
    propagates from this point at a fixed speed of c.

    To what use could we put a steady-known-speed phenomenon which
    starts at a point that is firmly fixed in space? Well, if we
    could correctly measure the passing speed of this phenomenon,
    then we could calculate our own absolute speed. (This would be
    our speed in relation to light's speed through space).

    But how can we correctly measure light's passing speed?

    This can be done _only_ via absolutely (or truly) synchronous
    clocks, but, so far, no one has shown the physics community how
    to obtain such clocks.

    However, there is hope because just as he failed to prove his
    above claims, Einstein failed to prove that truly synchronous
    clocks cannot exist. He also failed to prove that his own clocks
    are correctly related; however, it is easy to prove that they
    are _not_. (For ex., here is one such proof: Even the relativist
    knows that events are observer-independent, but Einstein's
    clocks in various frames will find different occurrence times
    and different time spans for the same two events; since it is
    not the events times which vary, it must be Einstein's clocks,
    so they are incorrectly related.)

    SR is irrelevant; all that matters is that we find some way of
    producing truly synchronous clocks. Given such clocks, we can
    easily have Newton's universal absolute time by simply correctly
    measuring the speed of any passing light ray, and then using the
    result to calculate our own speed through space, after which we
    can correct for the intrinsic slowing of our clocks and the
    intrinsic contractions of our rulers.

    Here is my 'parting shot' at the Physics Forum 'controllers':
    It is clear that my above expands one's understanding of special
    relativity, so it is clear that it belongs in the "Special and
    General Relativity" forum, but I am certain that no one has the
    courage to let it stay there for more than a nanosecond, even
    with slowed time!
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2004
  2. jcsd
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?
Draft saved Draft deleted