The Doppler Effect and the Velocity of Light in Einstein's Theory

[David]

Later, when it was shown the universe is expanding, Einstein said that dismissing GR's prediction of said fact was the greatest blunder of his life.

LOL, show me the original Einstein document that quote is in! Your version is new. That’s not what I’ve been reading in books and magazine articles for the past 20 years.

He was embarrassed for not in any way predicting the expansion, and he was embarrassed because Newton did predict it 235 years earlier.

Here’s what Einstein actually said in his 1917 paper, “Cosmological Considerations on the General Theory of Relativity”:

“From this it follows in the first place that the radiation emitted by the heavenly bodies will, in part, leave the Newtonian system of the universe, passing radially outwards, to become ineffective and lost in the infinite. May not entire heavenly bodies fare likewise? It is hardly possible to give a negative answer to this question. For it follows from the assumption of a finite limit for Φ at spatial infinity that a heavenly body with finite kinetic energy is able to reach spatial infinity by overcoming the Newtonian forces of attraction. By statistical mechanics this case must occur from time to time, as long as the total energy of the stellar system – transferred to one single star – is great enough to send that star on its journey to infinity, which it never can return.”

Here he is merely speculating that “from time to time” some stars might escape a spherical Newtonian universe, and he is certainly indicating here that he has no idea that a mass “expansion” of stars and galaxies was taking place.

He went on to say,

“These differences must really be of so low an order of magnitude that the stellar velocities generated by them do not exceed the velocities actually observed.”

He is talking here about the very low speeds of stars, which is all he knew about at that time. He didn’t even know then, in 1917, that galaxies were collections of stars outside our own galaxy, and he was not yet aware of Sliper’s work regarding the high-speed motion of the galaxies.

 

[Hurkyl]

It is attributed to Einstein by George Gamow in "My World Line". I find it difficult to believe that you have spent 20 years researching the topic without ever having encountered the phrase; it appears in just about every non-technical article about the cosmological constant.

 

[Hurkyl]

I find it curious that the only two references I could find to "projectile impulse" in reference to an expanding universe was http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=481 by, well, you.

 

[Hurkyl]

But in any case, I just don't see the point of your post, David. Democritus believed matter was made up of atoms, but we can hardly attribute to him the atomic theory of matter. Supposing Newton did consider the idea that all mass did originally have a "projectile impulse" that has not yet been overcome by gravitational attraction, such a theory bears no resemblence to big bang theory. (Though it is somewhat similar to the popular misconceptions of BBT)

 

[russ_watters]

It is attributed to Einstein by George Gamow in "My World Line". I find it difficult to believe that you have spent 20 years researching the topic without ever having encountered the phrase; it appears in just about every non-technical article about the cosmological constant.

Here are 3,570 references... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&q=cosmological+constant+einstein+blunder (here's one):

Einstein's original cosmological model was a static, homogeneous model with spherical geometry. The gravitational effect of matter caused an acceleration in this model which Einstein did not want, since at the time the Universe was not known to be expanding. Thus Einstein introduced a cosmological constant into his equations for General Relativity. This term acts to counteract the gravitational pull of matter, and so it has been described as an anti-gravity effect.

In addition to this flaw of instability, the static model's premise of a static Universe was shown by Hubble to be incorrect. This led Einstein to refer to the cosmological constant as his greatest blunder, and to drop it from his equations.

 

[David]

The gravitational effect of matter caused an acceleration in this model which Einstein did not want, since at the time the Universe was not known to be expanding.

Uhh, excuse me, but the “gravitational effect” doesn’t cause masses to fly apart. It causes them to collapse in on each other.

 

[David]

I find it curious that the only two references I could find to "projectile impulse" in reference to an expanding universe was http://www.metaresearch.org/msgboard/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=481 by, well, you.

Oh, you’ve searched all the books of the world?

You’ve searched through all my books?

Or did you just do a quick Google?

Quick Googles are bringing ignorance to the world of science.

Here, try this search engine and go find yourself some real books:

http://www.trussel.com/f_books.htm

 

[David]

It is attributed to Einstein by George Gamow in "My World Line". I find it difficult to believe that you have spent 20 years researching the topic without ever having encountered the phrase; it appears in just about every non-technical article about the cosmological constant.

The most published phrase has been, “the cosmological constant was my worst mistake”. It had absolutely nothing to do with Einstein’s equations claiming the universe was “expanding”. His equations did not show that, and he did not believe that.

Just like with any gravity theory, a spherical universe will collapse, not expand, unless someone adds something like the “cosmological constant” or hypothesizes a “projectile impulse” at the beginning. Neither Einstein nor his equations “predicted” the Big Bang.

 

[David]

Do you understand? Gravity attracts. He thought the universe would collapse if he didn’t add the “cosmological constant”. It didn’t occur to him that it might be “expanding”. The combined gravity fields of the universe would have had a natural “collapsing” effect, not an “expansion” effect. So he added the constant to keep it from collapsing and also to keep it from having a center.

What you said here was wrong:

One should recall that when Einstein was deriving his field equations, he was distressed to find that they predicted an expanding universe.



Later, when it was shown the universe is expanding, Einstein said that dismissing GR's prediction of said fact was the greatest blunder of his life.

His equations DID NOT predict an expanding universe, and that’s not why he added the “cosmological constant”.

 

[Hurkyl]

Quick Googles are bringing ignorance to the world of science.

You're right, I suppose I should've consulted the vast collection of books on the history of science that I have on my bookshelf. How silly of me.

(allow me to point out that there is a lot of good information available on the internet if one knows how to look and how to sort the good from the bad)

(And, for the record, "projectile impulse" did appear in a Google search, but aside from your post, the term is not in reference to an expanding universe)

(And, incidentally, I did a bit more than a quick search)

Anyways, it would tend to be customary in this situation for you to provide a specific reference, rather than deride others for not finding it.

I've since come across the text of four of Newton's letters to Bentley. Nowhere in them appears the word "projectile", let alone "projectile impulse", nor do they seem to contain any content resembling what you ascribe to Newton. (Though I will admit it's past midnight and I'm sleepy, so I may not have been 100% thorough in browsing them, so if you still stand by your assertion, maybe you could point out just where it appears)

Just like with any gravity theory, a spherical universe will collapse, not expand, unless someone adds something like the ?cosmological constant? or hypothesizes a ?projectile impulse? at the beginning.

I did some checking, and every reference I encountered confirms what I remember. Solutions with Λ = 0 all have decreasing rates of expansion (negative expansion = contraction). Among possibilities are (this list may be exhaustive, given reasonable constraints on matter): an ever contracting universe, an ever expanding universe, and a universe that starts off expanding but eventually contracts.

In any case, Λ = 0 cannot yield a static universe, thus Einstein introduced it (said it was nonzero) to enable a static universe.


For the record, references I did find to "projectile impulse" suggest the idea of some object physically imparting momentum to the other object to propel it (or parts of it) into an interesting trajectory. (e.g. Godwin's "Essay XXI of Astronomy") This is unsatisfactory for the concept of an expanding universe since there was no external object to impart said momentum. Furthermore, I even think it's nonsensical to suggest that the net expansion of space-time could be caused by any sort of collision. (But, alas, I don't know enough about GR to be sure of this last claim)

 

[David]

You're right, I suppose I should've consulted the vast collection of books on the history of science that I have on my bookshelf. How silly of me.

(allow me to point out that there is a lot of good information available on the internet if one knows how to look and how to sort the good from the bad)

I agree with that, Hurkyl, and I use Google all the time, but I’ve never told anyone that such and such is not true because I couldn’t find it on Google. That’s the danger of Google and the internet. There are things in books that are not on the internet and not indexed by Google.

I’m older than you. We didn’t have Google most of my life. We had “books”. Things made out of ink and paper, cardboard and leather.

Here is a quote from an 1803 book that I have in my library. This information comes from Newton’s letters to Bentley. I don’t have time to type up all my books and put all their text on the internet.

“Natural Theology”, by William Paley, 1803, page 276:

“But many of the heavenly bodies, as the sun and fixed stars are stationary. Their rest must be the effect of an absence or of an equilibrium of attractions. It proves also that a projectile impulse was originally given to some of the heavenly bodies, and not to others. But further; if attraction act at all distances, there can be only one quiescent center of gravity in the universe: and all bodies whatever must be approaching this center, or revolving around it. According to the first of these suppositions, if the duration of the world had been long enough to allow it, all its parts, all the great bodies of which it is composed, must have been gathered together in a heap round this point.”

Here are a few comments by Newton about the “big bang”, which he simply attributes to a “Deity”, since he couldn’t figure out how all the stars got distributed around space. As he points out, gravity should have been pulling all the stars inward, and there was no physics mechanism to account for the projectile motion of all the stars. In fact, today there is STILL no physics mechanism that can account for the projectile force that started the Big Bang.

“I would now add, that the Hypothesis of Matter’s being at first evenly spread through the Heavens, is, in my Opinion, inconsistent with the Hypothesis of innate Gravity, without a supernatural Power to reconcile them, and therefore infers a Deity. For if there be innate Gravity, it is impossible now for the Matter of the Earth and all the Planets and Stars to fly up from them, and become evenly spread throughout all the Heavens, without a supernatural Power; and certainly that which can never be hereafter without a supernatural power, could never be heretofore without the same Power.”

Here he is basically saying that God must have been responsible for the expansion of the universe and the even distribution of matter. This was written in one of his letters to Bentley, dated Feb. 11, 1693. His personal opinions about theological causes were generally restricted to his letters to Bentley, since Bentley was a preacher. Also keep in mind that in the old days the term “supernatural power” also meant a “natural power” that was “super” but “unknown.” In other words, not “magic”, but just an unknown natural power that was not understood yet. That was sort of like Einstein’s term, “God does not play dice with the universe.” In other words, God designed nature to work by “laws”, even if we don’t know yet what all those laws are. This excerpt is from the book “Isaac Newton Papers and Letters on Natural Philosophy,” edited by Bernard Cohen and published in 1958. You won’t find this stuff on Google. You have to get it from books. You can order a copy of this book from AbeBooks for as little as $15.

 

[David]

I did some checking, and every reference I encountered confirms what I remember. Solutions with Λ = 0 all have decreasing rates of expansion (negative expansion = contraction). Among possibilities are (this list may be exhaustive, given reasonable constraints on matter): an ever contracting universe, an ever expanding universe, and a universe that starts off expanding but eventually contracts.

In any case, Λ = 0 cannot yield a static universe, thus Einstein introduced it (said it was nonzero) to enable a static universe.

I know that. That’s what I said. You said he introduced it to keep the universe from expanding, but I told you that he introduced it to keep the universe from contracting.

With gravity, the universe should contract, not expand, and since he didn’t know of any evidence of the radial motion of the galaxies, he added the constant to explain why it was not contracting.

But a myth has grown up in recent years that says he added it to keep the universe from “expanding”. That is silly and it is just one of the many Einstein urban legends that have grown up in the past 30 years.

And as I said, Newton went over all of this very same stuff with Bentley and others 300 years ago.

 

[jcsd]

I know that. That’s what I said. You said he introduced it to keep the universe from expanding, but I told you that he introduced it to keep the universe from contracting.

With gravity, the universe should contract, not expand, and since he didn’t know of any evidence of the radial motion of the galaxies, he added the constant to explain why it was not contracting.

But a myth has grown up in recent years that says he added it to keep the universe from “expanding”. That is silly and it is just one of the many Einstein urban legends that have grown up in the past 30 years.

And as I said, Newton went over all of this very same stuff with Bentley and others 300 years ago.

David, it depends on the parameters whether or not the unieverse will exopand in general relativity, but an expansion phase is a feature of realistic models.

 

[David]

David, it depends on the parameters whether or not the unieverse will exopand in general relativity, but an expansion phase is a feature of realistic models.

This is nothing new. With all the gravity in the universe, the only thing the universe can naturally do is “contract”, unless we add some kind of “cosmological constant” to keep it steady, or imagine some kind of “projectile force” to cause it to expand fast enough so that the expansion counter-acts the gravity. This has been known for hundreds of years. Einstein studied Newton’s stuff. He knew this. His personal preference was for a “static” universe because all the astronomy books he had read at the time said the universe looked “static”, so he designed the GR theory around that concept.

If he had preferred a “collapse”, he would have left out the constant. If he had preferred an expansion, he would have added an initial “projectile force” to his theory.

 

[jcsd]

You need a 'projectile force' in GR as spacetime containing energy expands naturally (countered by gravity). Of cousre for ceratin densities to achieve certain rates of exapnsion some sort of force is needed (i.e. dark energy)

 

[DrChinese]

... This is explained by a moving medium in classical Doppler theory, 1842. There is no “relativity” involved with this phenomenon.

Einstein’s own incorrect relativity ideas kept him blind to this phenomenon and the expansion of the universe. He had to alter his theories after Hubble made his announcement.

It was Newton who first proposed the BB theory, and he turned out to be right.

David, your abuse of history is even worse than your abuse of physics. All physicists consider many ideas and concepts during their liketime. To say that Newton invented or was a strong proponent of the BB is ridiculuous. It is just as absurd to say that Einstein created GR to justify a static universe, or that he was opposed to the BB.

And if you know of somewhere an observer can measure the speed of light to be different than c, well, please enlighten us. If you know of a way to accelerate an object above c, please enlighten us on that as well. Your Nobel awaits.

P.S. How could I have overlooked Doppler's contributions to photon theory, seeing instead Einstein's undeserved contributions? I guess it is that scientific conspiracy thing. Einstein would be amused to find that he was the beneficiary of that conspiracy.

 

[russ_watters]

Uhh, excuse me, but the “gravitational effect” doesn’t cause masses to fly apart. It causes them to collapse in on each other.

?? It doesn't say anything in that quote about masses flying apart. What are you talking about?

Just like with any gravity theory, a spherical universe will collapse, not expand, unless someone adds something like the “cosmological constant” or hypothesizes a “projectile impulse” at the beginning. Neither Einstein nor his equations “predicted” the Big Bang.

So you're saying that its natural to assume that the universe is infinitely old and has been collapsing for an infinite amount of time, but has a finite amount of life left before collapsing completely? Doesn't that seem a little absurd to you (there are a large number of reasons why that is absurd)? Your intuition is pretty much opposite of what physicists have theorized, and for good reason: it leads to an absurd conclusion.

At one time, it was believed that the unvierse was eternal and static. But throwing gravity into that universe would indeed cause contraction: therefore the universe cannot be static. It must either be expanding or contracting. Gravity causes an acceleration that either slows expansion or causes contraction after an expansion phase (or both).

Since the universe cannot be infinitely old, contraction must have been preceded by expansion. And as it turns out, we're still in the expansion phase and we aren't yet sure if it will ever contract again (though its looking like no).

And, for the record, "projectile impulse" did appear in a Google search, but aside from your post, the term is not in reference to an expanding universe

My guess would be you didn't find it because "projectile impulse" implies to me an explosion, the usual misunderstanding/mischaracterization of the Big Bang

David, it appears I gave you too much credit before in assuming you were just arging points you knew to be wrong for fun: you appear now to have some major gaps in your knowledge/understanding and a simple unwillingness to learn. Though it may be more pathological: you abuse/distort/misrepresent/mischaracterize to cover your unwillingness to learn. Disappointing, actually.

 

[russ_watters]

And if you know of somewhere an observer can measure the speed of light to be different than c, well, please enlighten us. If you know of a way to accelerate an object above c, please enlighten us on that as well. Your Nobel awaits.

He has quite a lot actually - all based on the same type of abuses (or, to be fair, common misconceptions). A good one is the "acceleration" of light around a star through gravitational lensing and gravitational doppler shift being a variable C phenomenon.

The most common though I guess is his abuse of frames of reference such as in his statements about >C expansion of the universe.

 

[russ_watters]

Among possibilities are (this list may be exhaustive, given reasonable constraints on matter): an ever contracting universe, an ever expanding universe, and a universe that starts off expanding but eventually contracts.

For my own personal enlightenment, is that a reasonable possibility? I know it doesn't fit with what we observer our own universe to be doing, but hypothetically, could a universe be eternally contracting? It doesn't seem to me that it would be.

 

[DrChinese]

He has quite a lot actually - all based on the same type of abuses (or, to be fair, common misconceptions). A good one is the "acceleration" of light around a star through gravitational lensing and gravitational doppler shift being a variable C phenomenon.

The most common though I guess is his abuse of frames of reference such as in his statements about >C expansion of the universe.

What I meant was:

SR is a theory. All theories have a scope of applicability. So trying to apply it outside of that scope may provide non-sensical results.

SR does say that an observer cannot create an experiment in which the speed of light is measured as other than c. SR does say that you cannot accelerate a galaxy faster than c. However, SR does not say that galaxies cannot be measured to recede from each other faster than c. That is in fact an application of SR outside of its scope.

That is why I said "if you know of somewhere an observer can measure the speed of light to be different than c, well, please enlighten us." This is in response to David's comment against SR: "Its 'speed limit of c' is not correct, and its constancy postulate is not correct." Even if the value of c changed over time, SR would still be correct. Because it is not a postulate of SR that the value of c has always been the same throughout the history of the universe. Just as it is not a postulate of SR than space cannot expand.

 

[Hurkyl]

Here are a few comments by Newton about the ?big bang?, which he simply attributes to a ?Deity?,

http://vms.cc.wmich.edu/~mcgrew/Bent3.htm (Just so others have a reference; you want the other 3 letters, just change that '3' to a '1', '2', or '4')

Here he is basically saying that God must have been responsible for the expansion of the universe and the even distribution of matter.

I can see how the letter could be interpreted as expansion, though it seems a big stretch. In particular, because this phrase appears to be elucidating the statement "... the Hypothesis of Matter?s being at first evenly spread through the Heavens ..." (boldface mine)

But I cannot see how this could be reasonably described as projectile impulse because not only does the deity have to be responsible for the "flying up", but responsible for keeping them falling back down.

I don?t have time to type up all my books and put all their text on the internet.

I'm not asking you to do so; I do have access to a library that might have these things, should I know for what I'm looking. (though I admit it is awfully nice to quote passages; one reason why I strongly prefer internet resources in these debates is so that everyone has access to the references)

With gravity, the universe should contract, not expand

No; you're mixing up first and second derivatives. The rate of growth is what is required, by gravity (and Λ=0), to be decreasing.

Even Newtonian gravity has examples of eternal universal expansion.

But a myth has grown up in recent years that says he added it to keep the universe from ?expanding?. That is silly and it is just one of the many Einstein urban legends that have grown up in the past 30 years.

The focus is on the expansion because, of the cases with Λ=0, that is the one that turned out to be right.

I will note that you do need Λ>0 in order for expansion to be accelerating, a key ingredient of BBT.

but hypothetically, could a universe be eternally contracting?

Einstein's field equations are symmetric under time reversal, aren't they? If they admit an eternally expanding solution, they must also admit an eternally contracting solution. (Of course, this doesn't suggest that there aren't other reasons why an eternally contracting universe is unreasonable. Boy, lots of negatives in that statement )

 

[jcsd]

Yes they are time symmetric, but I don't think it necessarily follows from time symmetry that if in one model there has a certain state at t = 0 and and anothe rat t =infinity then there exists another model that has the same state that the first one had at t = infinity at t' = 0 and the same state as the first one had at t = 0 at t' = infinity because basically the first universe will never be in state t = infinity. In fact I think you find that at t' = 0 you have a universe that is in equilibrium, neither contracting nor expanding,

 

[pallidin]

For the record, references I did find to "projectile impulse" suggest the idea of some object physically imparting momentum to the other object to propel it (or parts of it) into an interesting trajectory. (e.g. Godwin's "Essay XXI of Astronomy")

(Emphasis mine) Hurkyl, perhaps this is not relevant to this discussion, but you statement prompted me to offer this info.
Impulse force propagation does not behave in the same way as non-impulse.
It is very curious that this is the case, and it is not well understood by those researching it(NYU, NASA and others)
Apparently, constant force applied on object contact effects a generally linear propagation(we all know that), whereas the same force, segmented as an impulse, does not do this, rather exhibiting a non-linear contact propagation characteristic.
In general, an object hit by an quick impulse will experience a non-linear, spherical wave propagation of the force imparted to it.
This can lead to somewhat bizarre effects, especially if other "objects" of differring dimensions are involved in the contact scenario.
How this might relate to cosmological influence is unknown(to my knowledge), but certainly worthy of further inquiry.

 

[russ_watters]

What I meant was...

We're on the same page.

 

[Michael F. Dmitriyev]

The velocity of light is unique, absolute and SINGLE speed existing in the nature.

 

[David]

So you're saying that its natural to assume that the universe is infinitely old and has been collapsing for an infinite amount of time, but has a finite amount of life left before collapsing completely?

No.

I never said that.

 

[David]

At one time, it was believed that the unvierse was eternal and static. But throwing gravity into that universe would indeed cause contraction: therefore the universe cannot be static. It must either be expanding or contracting. (or both).

Newton had two other suggestions:

Rotation or infinite.

We see that he was right about “rotation” on the local level, since the galaxies and solar systems rotate.

He was also apparently right about the expansion too.

David, it appears I gave you too much credit before in assuming you were just arging points you knew to be wrong for fun: you appear now to have some major gaps in your knowledge/understanding and a simple unwillingness to learn. Though it may be more pathological: you abuse/distort/misrepresent/mischaracterize to cover your unwillingness to learn.

LOL, you are the guy who told me that Lorentz and Einstein couldn’t have been talking about atomic clocks in their early papers, because you said atomic clock weren’t invented until the 1950s. Then I told you about Maxwell’s mention of natural atomic clocks in 1873.

 

[geistkiesel]

Einstein said in his 1916 book:

”If an observer sitting in the position M1 in the train did not possesses this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A.”

What Einstein means by “he is hastening towards the beam of light coming from B” is that the light beam from the flash at B is converging on the observer that is moving toward B at the relative velocity of c + v, with v being the velocity of the observer toward B. What he means by “he is riding on ahead of the beam of light coming from A” means the light from the A flash is converging on the observer at the velocity of c – v.

This is very simple. The observer-relative speed of the light, relative to the moving observer is NOT “c”, it is NOT constant. It is c + v in one direction and c – v in the other direction.

This is why the Earth sees a blueshift in the light of the star the Earth is moving toward in its revolution around the sun and this is why the Earth sees a redshift in the light of a star the Earth is moving away from during its revolution around the sun. This is caused by the Second Cause of the Doppler effects that I told you about earlier. This is a Doppler Law of Physics. It can not be revoked.

I agree David. Instead of using light use crawling ants for the photons. Einstein would still come up with a loss of simultaneity as he concluded the loss of simultaneity as perceived by the observer on the moving platiofrm was the detection of the ant coming toward him from the front and then the ants comin toward him from the rear, and this is it!.

Of course you will need to restrict your speed to a constant values less than that of the ants so as not to embarrass Professor Einstein, graduate advisor to a host of SR theorists.

 

[quantumdude]

Of course you will need to restrict your speed to a constant values less than that of the ants so as not to embarrass Professor Einstein, graduate advisor to a host of SR theorists.

There's no need for anyone to restrict the speed to something less than the Lorentz invariant speed. Nature will take care of that for you.

 

[geistkiesel]

I’m talking about “physics”, not “science fiction stories”.

Good for you.

The reason the guy on the moving train will see the B flash first is because he is moving toward B and thus he and the light beam from B are converging on each other at the additive light-speed velocity of c + v. That’s a basic law of physics and of nature, and it’s a basic Doppler Law.

Oops, you just slid into sci-fi. Your "basic law of physics" is only an approximation, valid at low speeds.

Oh so SR theory gets to corrupt the basic laws of physics? I thought that even in SR theory the laws of physics were equivalent in all inertial frames.

Prove that what is observed to be true, is false.

Prove that a postulate, a mental arrangement, is superior to a direct observation such as described by David.

Let me see , your proof will start out as "SR theory says . . . ", What was the comment? " ..ooops" , wasn't it?

 

[geistkiesel]

There's no need for anyone to restrict the speed to something less than the Lorentz invariant speed. Nature will take care of that for you.

Tom

I was referring to the substitution of moving ants for the photons, this is why I suggested the volunteered slowing to a speed lless than the ants.

 

[quantumdude]

Oh so SR theory gets to corrupt the basic laws of physics?

No, it does the opposite. It says that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere, everywhen, for everyone. That stands in stark contradiction to your crackpot idea that the laws of physics in our Earthbound frame are special and somehow Divine.

I thought that even in SR theory the laws of physics were equivalent in all inertial frames.

Now yer getting it.

Prove that what is observed to be true, is false.

That's your objective, not ours.

Prove that a postulate, a mental arrangement, is superior to a direct observation such as described by David.

If you think that David's thought experiment is a "direct observation", then you are just as stupid as he is.

Let me see , your proof will start out as "SR theory says . . . ", What was the comment? " ..ooops" , wasn't it?

No. The proof will start out as, "SR theory says...and let's see what real experiments say in support or denial of that"

That's what all scientists do. You would do well to follow that example, as you don't seem to care if an experiment is real or imagined. All you seem to care about is whether the experiment agrees with your preconceived notions.

edit: fixed a quote bracket

 

[geistkiesel]

No, it does the opposite. It says that the basic laws of physics are the same everywhere, everywhen, for everyone. That stands in stark contradiction to your crackpot idea that the laws of physics in our Earthbound frame are special and somehow Divine.

So if an observation that two photons are emitted simultaneously in a stationary frame and a moving frames say from A and B where M is the midpoint of A and B, just at the instant that identical points on the moving frame are such that A = A', B = B' and M = M' that this simultaeous event in both frames is not a simultaneous event?

I know I have crackpot ideas, WYSIWYG, but the Earth bound frame is an inertial frame is it not? And is not the Earth bound frame a part of the "everywhere" you refer to above?

I would never utter any statement that something is "somehow Divine". If I mentioned anything regarding 'divinity' I might say something "is Divine" and I might say that the laws of physics are Divine, wherever encountered, as in everywhere, but I fail to see any logical thread or relationship, relevance is what I am discussing, that justifies your use of words as you expressed them above.

Is it an old intuitive threat to professional security considerations that motivates your rather unscientific mode of response?

Special relativity is your mantra isn't it?

If you think that David's thought experiment is a "direct observation", then you are just as stupid as he is.

The experiments being discussed are as real as Einstein's when he presented his gedunkens. I would rather be as stupid as David than to be as stupid as you. his mind seems to work as a mind. It has the characteristics of being free, or working to that end. I don't recognize the characteristics of mind iassociated with your post. Brat robot is more what I observe.

quoting geistkiesel
No. The proof will start out as, "SR theory says...and let's see what real experiments say in support or denial of that"

That's what all scientists do. You would do well to follow that example, as you don't seem to care if an experiment is real or imagined. All you seem to care about is whether the experiment agrees with your preconceived notions.

edit: fixed a quote bracket

So one gedunken cannot be used to counter another gedunken? That is the scientific rule where you come from? I would do well to follow that example?

So David's and Geistkiesel's observations don't wash in a mind soaked in SR theory? That doesn't sound like a Divine situation to me. I am going to speak to someine in authority about that, as soon as I can get 'his' attention, if you know what I mean. I'll get back to later on this.

When you wake up Tom everything will seem like a bad dream, but the bogie man will be gone, the things that go bump in the night will be no more and you can begin to live again, free at last.

 

[russ_watters]

The experiments being discussed are as real as Einstein's when he presented his gedunkens.

Tom pointed this out, but didn't explain (it really should be self-evident). Einstein's thought experiments were conceived as hypothetical examples in order to explain his theory, just as yours and David's are. The difference is that since it was concieved, Relativity has been substantiated by mountains of real, scientific evidence. Your ideas, on the other hand, exist only in your mind.

So one gedunken cannot be used to counter another gedunken? That is the scientific rule where you come from? I would do well to follow that example?

That's correct. Since a thought experiment isn't real, it doesn't prove or disprove anything.

 

[quantumdude]

So if an observation that two photons are emitted simultaneously in a stationary frame and a moving frames say from A and B where M is the midpoint of A and B, just at the instant that identical points on the moving frame are such that A = A', B = B' and M = M' that this simultaeous event in both frames is not a simultaneous event?

You're asking me if a statement if the form, "If p, then p" is true. Of course it is, because it is an empty tautology.

I know I have crackpot ideas, WYSIWYG, but the Earth bound frame is an inertial frame is it not? And is not the Earth bound frame a part of the "everywhere" you refer to above?

The Earthbound frame is not inertial, but it is close enough. And yes, it is part of "everywhere".

I would never utter any statement that something is "somehow Divine". If I mentioned anything regarding 'divinity' I might say something "is Divine" and I might say that the laws of physics are Divine, wherever encountered, as in everywhere, but I fail to see any logical thread or relationship, relevance is what I am discussing, that justifies your use of words as you expressed them above.

You fail to see a lot of things.

Insisting that the laws of physics take their "textbook form" on Earth and insisting that the Lorentz transformation is wrong is logically equivalent to insisting that the laws of physics are the way we know them only on Earth.

Is it an old intuitive threat to professional security considerations that motivates your rather unscientific mode of response?

Just how would you even know what a scientific mode of response is? You don't even know the difference between a thought experiment and a real experiment.

Special relativity is your mantra isn't it?

No, physics is.

The experiments being discussed are as real as Einstein's when he presented his gedunkens.

Well, we agree on that much: Neither one is real at all.

I would rather be as stupid as David than to be as stupid as you.

Suit yourself. Suffice it to say that you got your wish.

his mind seems to work as a mind. It has the characteristics of being free, or working to that end.

Yes, his mind is "free" alright. It is so "free" that it is unconstrained by logic, science, mathematics, or evidence.

I don't recognize the characteristics of mind iassociated with your post. Brat robot is more what I observe.

Your vision is obviously clouded then. As I said, there is a difference between real experiments and thought experiments, which you don't see.

So one gedunken cannot be used to counter another gedunken? That is the scientific rule where you come from? I would do well to follow that example?

You say that to mock me, but the statement is correct. Thought experiments cannot disprove theories. Period.

Scientific theories are deductive arguments built up from statements which are the conclusions of inductive arguments. Those inductive arguments are based on experimental evidence. Given that, you can disprove a theory in one of two ways:

1. Show that the theory is not deductively valid.
2. Show that one or more of the premises is false.

#1 can be done with mathematics and #2 can be done with evidence. Neither can be done with a thought experiment.

So David's and Geistkiesel's observations don't wash in a mind soaked in SR theory?

What observation?

That doesn't sound like a Divine situation to me. I am going to speak to someine in authority about that, as soon as I can get 'his' attention, if you know what I mean. I'll get back to later on this.

Don't bother. It won't be worth reading anyway.

When you wake up Tom everything will seem like a bad dream, but the bogie man will be gone, the things that go bump in the night will be no more and you can begin to live again, free at last.

Get a clue. You haven't referred to a single real experiment. All you have referred to are thought experiments, which you falsely believe are just as good. They aren't.

You know, you and David would both do well to read posts from people such as Wisp and Yogi. They aren't convinced of SR either, but they refer to real, actual, factual experiments that have taken place in the physical world, not in warped minds. While I don't agree with them, it's not as though I dismiss anti-SR posts out of hand. I don't. I acknowledge that there are competent critics of SR out there.

You and David just aren't among them.