Dude, go back and READ my post. Then return and tell us all what you have found.

I read it already. You said, “SR doesn't say that the speed of light is constant in space”.

But Einstein said in the paper, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”.

We’ve discussed this already.

Ok, I can see where this is a bit confusing. My point is that SR deals with locally flat planes, and that gravity is not involved. You were saying that Einstein changed SR, whereas I'm saying he extended it. I know what he said about light propagating into empty space, but the keyword is empty. This it can be considered locally flat, gravity ignored, and SR correct.

Well, that was a nice fairy tale. Now lets get to some facts.

Show us the equations that were wrong in SR and the GR equations that corrected those wrong equations.

Explain why, if SR is wrong and GR corrected it, SR and GR give the same answers when considering non-accelerated relative motion.

If you still believe that Lorentz is correct and SR is wrong, explain why magnetic field line are cut when in motion using Lorentz's theory, but not cut using SR. And SR matches our observations.

We keep asking and you don't provide us with these answers. Is it becasue you don't understand enough to answer or do you know that if you answer these questions your whole house of cards will collapse?

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

If you take into account other relativistic effects (like the increase of mass), you'll see that the freezing point of water will have decreased by the same amount. When they are at a comfy 8% above freezing from their own viewpoint, they'll be 8% above freezing in 50% slower time. It's just the absolute temperatures that are different, not the relative ones.

Otherwise the people in the space ship would be quite comfortable while the observers on earth would see them freezing to death, which is clearly wrong.

You are trying to change it too, because he DID say in the SR theory, “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c”. And he DID NOT say in the theory, “all observers will see light as c regardless of motion in a locally flat reference frame.”

He didn’t get the idea of “flat and curved space” until several years later. Once he got that idea, and some others, he began to realize that the SR theory as written in “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” was NOT correct, and that’s why he began to change it.

The first thing he changed was removing geometric “length contraction” due only to “relative motion”, which he changed in his 1907 paper. He changed more of the SR theory in 1911 and 1916, and more of it in 1918 and 1920, and even more of it in 1952. In 1952 is when he finally admitted that as far as light and light speed is concerned, space is NOT “empty”.

When he made all the changes that he made in the SR theory, the original SR theory no longer existed. What he wound up with was a “special case” of the GR theory, which he tried to retroactively call the “SR” theory, and he pretended in some of his book chapters and some of his other papers that the original SR theory was not flawed. But I tracked down some of his papers in which he made the changes. These papers have been translated into English only recently, so not many people know about them.

He didn’t “extend” the 1905 SR theory, he changed it and eradicated it, and he extended part of the GR theory backwards, retroactively, and he called this backwards extension the “SR” theory.

When he said “empty” in 1905, he meant void of all objects, because he kept discussing light traveling in a vacuum. In 1905, “empty” space meant space with no physical objects in it, i.e. a vacuum. He did not know at that time that gravity fields had anything to do with light speed. Only later did he realize that gravity fields affect light speed, and this is why he added the comments in 1952 (to the 5th Appendix to his 1916 book) about space NOT being “empty”. He said in 1952, “There is no such thing as an empty space, i.e. a space without field.”

Don’t you get it? He was politicking all those years. He changed his opinion about the 1905 theory, his point of view, because his knowledge changed and he realized that the 1905 SR theory was wrong, because he finally figured out a lot more stuff during the next several years. But he didn’t want to admit that the 1905 version of the theory was flat out wrong, because he didn’t want to admit that his most vocal critics were right about it being wrong. So he modified it during the next several years, and he gradually corrected some of its errors, but without ever coming right out and saying “I was wrong in 1905”.

Politicians do this all the time. I’ve seen this type of stuff all my life. It is somewhat rare in physics, but this is a “worst case scenario” of it in physics.

You need to understand that he did not know his entire “relativity” theory right from the beginning. He worked different parts of it out as he went along. He worked on the ideas in that first paper for nearly 10 years, and he based many of those ideas on the 1895 Lorentz book. But he changed some of Lorentz's stuff, and he wound up publishing a basically silly theory, which attracted a lot of criticism then and now, and he finally realized he had to change and modify a lot of stuff he had said in the 1905 theory, to make it match his newer and more accurate GR theory.

When he started getting feedback right after that first relativity paper was published, he began to consider his errors, and he began to think of ways to correct them. He also began to develop his own ideas about gravity, thermodynamics, and quantum mechanics. Of these three topics, only his gravity theory became famous. He also tried to develop what he called his “Unitary Field Theory”. This was supposed to be the next great new “third stage” of his overall “relativity” theory, but it never worked out. Neither did his refrigerator.

What I object to the most, is guys today reading the 1905 paper and thinking that all of it still applies. I especially object to physics professors telling students that all of it still applies and that it is flawless. I especially object to these professors brow-beating the students who notice the errors in the 1905 theory and trying to intimidate them into thinking they are “weird” or outcasts or “crackpots”, when, in reality, the professors are flat out wrong about the 1905 theory being flawless.

I don't think anyone's been bold enough to claim this. However, you should be brow-beaten for claiming the 1905 paper is outright wrong (or just the kinematical part - whatever)... It has been demonstrated that the math of this theory conforms to observations. Complete? Possibly not - probably not. Incorrect? Certainly not as far as its predictions go.

Did you notice that TheAtomium has found a flaw in the 1905 theory? The flaw that led to the clock paradox. Einstein worked the theory out and published it with the clock paradox error in it, and he apparently didn’t notice the error until after the paper was published. In the 1905 theory, both of two relatively moving observers would see each other’s clocks slow down during the relative motion. TheAtomium said, “Now, in light of this (NPI), can you please explain how they could possibly see my clock ticking slowly, when they will see my clock go from 2000 to 2010 in only five years?”

So he sees this flaw in the 1905 theory, just as I saw it nearly 14 years ago.

I didn’t stop my investigation until I tracked down the 1918 paper in which Einstein corrected that flaw by adding acceleration effects and gravity fields to the thought experiments of the 1905 theory.

Look all over the internet for the all the “twins paradox” resolution pages. Many other people see exactly the same flaw, and they try to make excuses for it, with every “resolution” being completely different and just as invalid as the original “peculiar consequence” thought experiments of the 1905 paper.

How can you still claim that he "took out the 'relative motion'" when you've already quoted Einstein's 1918 paper as using relative motion?!

At least try to be consistent, Sam!

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

Lesson:

Don't quote Einstein when trying to claim he didn't say something. Sooner or later you're going to quote the bit where he said what you said he didn't say.

LOL, you need to read the whole paper. He removed relative motion as being the cause of the “time dilation” and the “slow down” in the clock. There is no "time dilation" due to "relative motion" in the 1918 paper. He uses acceleration and gravity fields to slow down an atomic clock, like in his 1911 paper, but he does it in a very peculiar and bizarre way that is even more ridiculous than the original 1905 paper. He turns the gravity fields on and off when he needs to, as if he had a gravity switch in his hand. He has his clocks fall and get accelerated, then he has the gravity come on and then suddenly it "vanishes" when he needs to get rid of it.

[twang!]

Where the heck did that watermelon seed go?!?!?

And it's not as terminal a problem as you seem to think it is. Like we've pointed out (repeatedly) the resolution to the paradox is built into special relativity.

Based on this argument alone, I see no reason whatsoever to congratulate you on your investigative skills. Your version of events is demonstrably wrong. The three papers Einstein published in 1905 - including relativity - established his reputation as one of the top theoretical physicists in Europe. No less a physicist than Max Planck himself was seeking out Einstein to talk physics. Relativity wasn't immediately universally accepted, but it certainly wasn't ridiculed. Heck, why would it have been when it solved some burning theoretical problems - the very problems that Michaelson, Morely, and Lorentz tried and failed to adequately explain.

As others have pointed out, general relativity is an extension of special relativity, and not the other way around. What you fail to understand is that under general relativity, gravity, acceleration, *AND* relative motion can all cause time dilation. It's trivial to show that the GR equations reduce to the Lorentz equations when gravity is not present and no object is accelerating. Heck, you yourself have quoted a passage from the 1918 paper that USES relative motion to explain some effects.

Bull. The 1905 paper has been experimentally shown to be correct. From a scientific point of view, that's all that matters. Similarly, the 1918 paper has been experimentally shown to be correct AND to be in agreement with the 1905 paper. Consequentially, anything Einstein published between those two papers that disagrees with those two papers is wrong. It has historical value, but the physics is meaningless junk and is rightly ignored.

Considering that you're challenging them based on really poor evidence, I can't say I blame them. So far, you've done nothing but dodge questions, ignore evidence, quote papers out of context, disregard the math and contradict yourself and if that's any indication of how you approach them they have every right to disregard your arguments.

Heck, you STILL haven't answered the questions I asked back on page seven. You still haven't answered Andreas's question on page 13 about taking the increased mass into account when computing a relativistic temperature. You still haven't answered Swansot's question on page 11 on whether or not the Earth rotates relative to its local ether field. If you're going to push a theory, you need to come prepared to answer any and all objections that are raised. You need to either account for everything we've raised by answering ALL our questions OR explain why the objections we raise are unimportant. If you don't - either through refusal or ignorance - there's no reason why anyone should believe you.

Page Seven

Page Eleven[/url]

That's a serious misinterpretation on your part. Just as we would observe their clock to slow, whereas they would have a normal experience of time, the same is true of temperature.
Do you also try to insist on relativity freezing objects? I could see why they might get mad.

Ignoring Sam5 for the moment, is it just me or is the change of the temperature scale blindingly obvious? Thermodynamically, it can be defined as the inverse of the rate of change of entropy with internal energy. Since the entropy remains constant when you switch reference frame while the energy changes, of course the temperature changes. It has to!

Secondly, I think relativistic Doppler shift is best studied using an object travelling in a straight line offset from the observer's position, as the object passes the point closest to the observer. That way, all the direction-dependant effects ("normal" Doppler shift) vanish, while the relativistic time dilation remains and can be seen directly.

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Are you thinking that there are others saying that the temperature does not change?

I thought even Sam5 was saying that relativity has the temperature change--it's just that he then interprets that, and insists that that would mean that objects would actually have to freeze, water turn into ice.

Baloney. Your own provided quote:

Where's the "acceleration" or "gravity field" that causes U1 to tick at a slower rate than U2 (with respect to the coordinate system K') during procedural steps 2 and 4? There isn't one. Nothing but relative motion. And with respect to the other coordinate system, it's U2 that is ticking slow during those procedural steps, isn't it?

Wow! You've always argued that it was the 1905 paper that was "magic" and that he fixed everything in the later papers. You've claimed to accept GR. Now you're arguing that even GR is magical?

(And he doesn't turn gravity on and off. He turns acceleration on and off during the experiment, and there's nothing wrong with that. But since the Theory of General Relativity posits the equivalence of an accelerating frame and a gravitational field, it's the same thing)

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

No it’s not built into SR. If it was built into SR he wouldn’t have changed the conditions and the thought experiments in 1918. He finally saw the paradox himself and had to add acceleration and gravity to the thought experiments in order to give the clocks a real reason to slow down.

SR is a fable that you believe in, and you have been trained to think that it contains no flaws or paradoxes, so that’s what you believe.

Read Einstein’s 1907 paper about it. He said the “absolute temperature” of the moving object goes down.

Even if you just use common sense and say that all actual motion rates, vibration rates, oscillation rates inside the spacecraft really slow down, then you must say that the molecular vibration rate actually and really slows down too, and if this happens, then water and the astronauts on the spacecraft would freeze.

But if the slowdown is not real and actual, but only some kind of illusion as “seen” from your vantage point, such as with the classical Doppler effect illusions, then the water and the astronauts would not freeze, but, also, none of the motion rates, vibration rates, or oscillation rates would really slow down on the spaceship either, thus, there would be no real time dilation on the spaceship.

It would really help you to study the classical Doppler effects. When objects separate, the light signals going between the two are stretched out, and both of two relatively moving observers see an illusion in each others “clocks” that looks like a “time dilation”. However, when they turn around and move toward each other, they see an illusion that looks like a “time speedup”. And when they unite, there is no lost time.

In SR time dilation, both of two moving observers would see the other’s clock slow down both when they separate and when they approach one another, but, magically, at the end of the trip, one of the clocks is supposed to “lag behind” the other. Which one? Well, which ever one you are not traveling with.

So, if you travel with clock A, then clock B is supposed to “lag behind” when you unite with it. But if you travel with clock B, then clock A is supposed to lag behind when you unite with it. So this is an impossibility. You can’t really slow down a clock by not traveling with it or by traveling with the other clock. This is why the SR theory was laughed at by physicists all over Europe when it was first published. Einstein said so many goofy things in it, it seemed as if it was written as a joke or by a confused high school student.

He could have passed it off as high-tech science, if he had not united the two clocks in Section 4, but when he united the two clocks and only one lagged behind, while both sets of observers had seen each other’s clocks run slow, that’s what made the theory so obviously ridiculous.

Many physics students see this paradox today, when they read the 1905 paper, but their professors just imply to them that they are wrong and too stupid to understand the theory. But it is the professors who are wrong and stupid about this particular theory.

That’s on page 69 of the English translation. I’ll quote a little from that page:

“There arises a homogeneous gravitational field in the direction of the positive x-axis, in which the clock U1 gets accelerated in this direction of the positive x-axis until it has attained the velocity v, whereupon the gravitational field again vanishes. An external force along the negative x-axis prevents the clock U2 from making any movement in this gravitational field.”

Yes, this is Einstein’s own “resolution” of the “twins paradox”. He had to add acceleration and gravity fields to try to “resolve” the paradox, since he knew that the original version of SR theory was wrong.

Correct - that's exactly what I'm saying.

Incorrect! Sam5, the water, the astronauts, thermometers and whatnot on the spacecraft are also slowed down - they'll be measuring and interacting with the temperature of other objects on the spacecraft as it appears to them, i.e, perfectly normal.

Now, Sam5, have you actually studied theoretical thermodynamics? Unless you have a fairly thorough understanding of this topic, I regret to say that you're very ill equipped to discuss this situation - you need a fairly extensive toolbox of mathematics and theory to get a grip on this subject, and this forum is not the best place to acquire this.

That accounts for the direction-dependant part of relativistic Doppler shift. Yet there remains an additional part which is independant on the direction the ship is travelling, and which always slows it down.

This is an incorrect formulation of the so-called paradox - one of the clocks has turned around, and the other has not. The one that has turned around will be lagged behind the other. The situation is not symmetrical!

__________________
"We do not require reality to conform to the expectations of the ignorant"

Sam, Einstien's "turning gravity on and off" is part of an approach to physics called though experiments. In these you can have inertialess pulleys, frictionless surfaces, control over gravity.

You basically address only the issues you want to incoporate.

Say you want to model a star, and figure out what increasing fusion is going to do to it. You'll probably ignore convection, magnetic fields, solar rotation, gravity gradients and such and just say: If fusion increases, we lose heavier elements, and the sun will heat up.

Then you need to ask: Will it head up enough to matter? So then you look down that line of inquiry.

When Einstien talks about empty space he's basically saying: Okay, I know matter can complicate things, so lets just look at the situation without matter, for now, and see where we can go with it. So, if we have no matter, it's "empty space" and that's what I'll call it (you know, its called being brief and concise).

The problem you're having is you are taking each phrase and word Einstien uses as a fundamental statement of his position, instead of just a phrase he picked to describe a situation in the vague language of english (math is much more precise).

I.e. if he had written in a letter, "Its raining cats and dogs" you take that as an absolute statement of his, instead of just an idiom.

I.e. lighten up, don't take things quite so literally!

Sam-

If the ether moves with the earth, then it must be rotating about the sun at our orbital velocity. Why would it do that? Does that mean that other planets are moving through it, as they don't have the same angular velocity that we do? Or is there some transition point where it changes speed?

__________________
"I have a cunning plan that cannot fail."
S. Baldrick

Again, this is outright bull. You're overlooking the simple fact that he was talking about different thought experiments.

Bull. I was trained from day one to believe that relativity contains paradoxes. They're one of my favorite parts of the theory. However, I also understand the theory well enough to know why they arise and how to resolve them. As for flaws, I was also trained from day one to recognize the limitations of the theory - its determinism and that it deals with neither acceleration nor gravity. I also know that the theory has been experimentally verified and therefore IS a perfectly valid theory and not a fable. [-X

And you STILL haven't answered everybody's questions. Please do so!

This latest quote says, "the clock U1 gets accelerated . . . until it has attained the velocity v". I asked about procedural steps 2 and 4, during which, "clock U1 [is] moving at velocity v." Your first quote says that U1 is running slower while it's moving, not while it's accelerating. This latest quote, talking about acceleration and homogenous gravitational fields, does not deal with procedural steps 2 and 4.

BTW, I've noticed that you are now subtly moving away from your acceptance of GR. You're saying things like "to try to 'resolve' the paradox" when before you said that GR did resolve the paradox. I warned you a long time ago that that was going to happen if you ever really started to look at GR, didn't I?

__________________
SeanF

"Ask to understand, but don't challenge unless you have the knowledge."--NEOWatcher

The contents of this post are ©2009 by SeanF and may not be copied or retransmitted in any form without the express written consent of SeanF

No, I’m not having that problem. I see others having that problem, such as insisting that “c is constant”, “c is invariable”, all based on what he erroneously said in the 1905 theory. He clearly altered the “constancy” postulate in 1911 and incorporated the alteration into his 1916 theory, and he clearly said that light speed slows down in a gravity field, but others still swear that he made no mistakes in the 1905 theory and that “c” is always “constant”.

This Einstein cultism is a religion, a “belief system”, not a science.

I don’t really have the time to point out all your errors.

Anybody here recognize David

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Neptune- The original Dark Matter.

The author feels that this technique of deliberately lying will actually make it easier for you to learn the ideas. - Donald Knuth

If everything is “perfectly normal”, then there is no “time dilation” on the spacecraft. If there is “time dilation” on the space craft, the molecular vibration rates will slow down and the water will freeze.

There is no “turn around” in the “peculiar consequence” thought experiment of Section 4 that started the whole “twins paradox” debate.

Actually yeah. He's not only there, but seems to be on a number of science boards. Interesting...

I think you've lost it Sam. Not only do you fail to support any of your points with credible scientific evidence, you now accuse all of us who adhere to the scientific methods as being part of a "cult" or a "religion." We can (and do) provide evidence that counters every point you make, and despite all of this, you cannot seem to provide legitimate answers, but rather try to turn the tables and call the majority of the scientific community part of a cult. I urge no one else to respond to this charge, as it without basis and a terribly low debating tactic.